High Courts on Judicial Discipline, AI Deepfakes, and Temple Funds: A Weekly Legal Review

New Delhi, India – In a week marked by significant judicial pronouncements, High Courts across India have delivered pivotal rulings touching upon the core tenets of judicial discipline, the burgeoning challenge of AI deepfakes, and the sanctity of religious endowments. The Himachal Pradesh High Court issued a sharp rebuke to a lower court for procedural lapses, while the Bombay High Court took a firm stand on protecting celebrity personality rights in the digital age. These, along with other key decisions, underscore a dynamic judiciary grappling with both age-old legal principles and modern-day challenges.

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Judicial Discipline and Non-Application of Mind

In a scathing indictment of procedural negligence, the Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside an order from an Executing Court, condemning its reliance on evidence from a separate, distinct legal proceeding. In Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited & another v/s Smt. Basanti Devi , Justice Ajay Mohan Goel described the lower court's actions as a "complete non-application of judicial mind," particularly as the High Court had already corrected the same error in a 2017 order involving the same parties.

The case involved two applications filed by the respondent: one under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and another under Order 21 Rule 31. The Executing Court, while deciding the Rule 31 application, impermissibly relied on evidence led in the Rule 32 proceeding. Justice Goel remarked, “there was a complete non-application of judicial mind by the learned Judge concerned, who did not care to go through the order passed by this Court in the earlier CMPMO.” The High Court emphasized that once a superior court clarifies a legal position, a lower court cannot ignore that direction. The order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision, serving as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to judicial precedent and maintaining procedural integrity.

Other Key Rulings from Himachal Pradesh:

• Sanctity of Temple Donations: In Kashmir Chand Shadyal v/s State of H.P. , the court held that temple funds, donated by devotees in faith, must be used exclusively for religious purposes or dharmic charity. It unequivocally stated, “It cannot be treated like general revenue for the State or general public exchequer… nor diverted to any welfare schemes of the Government,” reinforcing the trust-based relationship between devotees and religious institutions.
  
  
• Vehicle Owner's Liability: Reiterating a crucial principle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the court in Kamli and others v/s Boby Chauhan & others affirmed that a registered vehicle owner remains liable for accidents until the ownership is formally transferred under Section 50 of the Act, regardless of any pre-existing sale agreement.
  
  
• Right to Worship: Balancing faith and public order, the court in Padam Sharma & Ors. v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors held that prohibiting an entire community from worshiping at a temple due to the actions of a few individuals is a violation of Articles 25 and 26. "Illegal acts of a handful of people cannot be ground to take away the right of freedom, profess, practice and propagate religion of public at large," the court asserted.

Bombay High Court: Protecting Personality Rights in the Age of AI

In a landmark order with far-reaching implications for intellectual property and privacy law, the Bombay High Court granted ex-parte interim relief to actor Akshay Kumar, ordering the immediate takedown of a realistic AI deepfake video. In Akshay Hari Om Bhatia v. John Doe , Justice Arif S. Doctor recognized that such unauthorized use of a celebrity’s likeness constitutes a violation of their inherent personality and publicity rights, as well as their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court held that Akshay Kumar “possessed an inherent and enforceable right to control, protect, and commercially exploit his personality.” The urgent takedown order was justified not only to protect the actor's rights but also in the "larger public interest" to curb the spread of misinformation and malicious content generated by AI. This decision marks a critical judicial intervention in the legal vacuum surrounding AI-generated content and sets a strong precedent for protecting individual identity against digital manipulation.

Delhi High Court: Clarifying Scope of Commercial Activity and Bank's Mortgage Rights

The Delhi High Court delivered several significant judgments, including a notable clarification on the nature of a lawyer's professional activities. In B. K. Sood v. North Delhi Municipal Corp. , the court quashed a 22-year-old complaint against an advocate for using residential premises as an office. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that classifying a lawyer's activities as "commercial" is "not only arbitrary but irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." The ruling provides much-needed relief to legal professionals operating from residential properties, affirming that such use, within permissible limits, does not constitute misuse.

In another crucial financial law matter, Axis Bank Ltd. v. National Commission for Scheduled Tribes , the court stayed proceedings initiated by the Commission under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a bank seeking to enforce its mortgage rights. Justice Sachin Datta held that the SC/ST Act “cannot be invoked to preclude exercise of bank’s rights pertaining to mortgage” under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. This judgment prevents the misuse of welfare legislation to stall legitimate debt recovery processes, clarifying the distinct operational spheres of these statutes.

A Pan-India Judicial Snapshot

This week’s roundup also highlights diverse and impactful decisions from other High Courts:

• Odisha High Court on Procedural Defects: In Santosh Patra v. State of Orissa , the court ruled that technical defects in an execution application cannot be grounds for dismissal without giving the decree-holder an opportunity to rectify them. The court observed that the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable to execution proceedings, thereby prioritizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities.
  
  
• Jharkhand High Court on Professional Conduct: In a display of judicial magnanimity, the court in Rakesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand accepted a lawyer's sincere apology and expunged contempt remarks made against him for "hooliganism" in open court, stating, “Apology is accepted; he deserves a chance.”
  
  
• Madras High Court on Adoption Law: The court held in K. Heerajohn v. District Registrar that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, prevails over Muslim Personal Law regarding adoption. It clarified that an adopted child is entitled to the same status as a biological child, and the adoption process must be completed through an order from the District Magistrate, not merely by a deed.

These rulings from across the country reflect a judiciary that is both a steadfast guardian of established legal principles and a responsive arbiter of new-age legal dilemmas. From reinforcing the procedural sanctity in execution courts to drawing new boundaries for personality rights in the face of artificial intelligence, the High Courts continue to shape a robust and evolving legal landscape for India.