Indian High Courts Tackle Personality Rights, GST Jurisdiction, and Matrimonial Cruelty in Landmark Week

A comprehensive review of the final week of October reveals a dynamic judiciary grappling with modern legal challenges, from the burgeoning field of personality rights in the age of AI to the intricate jurisdictional boundaries of GST and customs authorities. The High Courts of Kerala, Delhi, and Madras delivered significant rulings on matrimonial law, court fees, and arbitration, while the Supreme Court addressed crucial issues including delays in criminal trials and the scope of advocates' privilege.

---

The last week of October 2025 has been exceptionally active for India's higher judiciary, with a series of noteworthy judgments and orders shaping the legal landscape. High Courts across the country pronounced on diverse subjects including the non-negotiable nature of natural justice in arbitration, the limits of state power in tax administration, and the evolving definitions of cruelty in matrimonial law. This weekly roundup distills the most critical developments for legal professionals, offering an analytical overview of the key pronouncements.

Kerala High Court: Matrimonial Law, Tax, and Procedural Norms Dominate The Kerala High Court delivered a spate of significant judgments, particularly in the realms of family and tax law, alongside key procedural directives.

Matrimonial Jurisprudence: Cruelty and Khula

In a poignant observation, the Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha granted a divorce to a woman, stating that an unfounded suspicion of infidelity by a husband can transform married life into a "living hell," constituting a severe form of mental cruelty ( XXX v YYY, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 683 ). This ruling reinforces the judiciary's expansive interpretation of cruelty under divorce statutes, recognizing psychological torment as a valid ground for marital dissolution.

The same bench, in Muhammed Ashar K. v. Muhsina P.K. (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 682) , clarified a crucial aspect of 'Khula,' the Islamic form of divorce initiated by the wife. The court held that the return of 'mahar' (dower) need not be explicitly stated in the 'Khula Nama' itself. It can be ascertained from the statements of the parties before the Family Court, providing procedural flexibility and emphasizing substance over form in validating the divorce.

Tax and Financial Law: Key Clarifications

The court issued important rulings on tax law. In Geofin Comtrade Limited v. Asst. CIT (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 686) , it was held that closing individual debtor accounts is not a mandatory prerequisite for claiming bad debt deductions under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This provides significant relief to businesses in their accounting and tax filing processes. Similarly, in Sterling Farm Research and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 690) , the court justified the invocation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act where an Assessing Officer fails to address a core issue, affirming the Commissioner's power to review erroneous orders prejudicial to revenue.

On the SARFAESI front, the court in M/S Thiruvonam Industries and Others v Hero Fincorp Ltd (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 688) cautioned against using writ petitions to bypass the statutory remedy available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, particularly to avoid the payment of requisite fees.

Procedural and Constitutional Matters

In a significant decision on access to justice, the High Court upheld the 2025 hike in court fees ( Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 697 ). The bench, led by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, ruled that the increase was within the legislative competence of the state and that only a "broad correlation" between court fees and the cost of administering justice is necessary. The Chief Justice remarked, " A broad correlation between collection of court fee and expenditure of administration of justice is all that is necessary. Mathematical exactitude not required…. "

The court also made a notable intervention in election administration, directing the State Election Commission to explore a mobile app for real-time queue management during local body polls to ensure voter comfort, especially for senior citizens and persons with disabilities ( N M Taha v Kerala State Election Commission, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 698 ).

Delhi High Court: A Strong Stance on Personality Rights The Delhi High Court has emerged as a vanguard in protecting personality rights, extending its protective umbrella to several celebrities this week against unauthorized commercial use, especially through Artificial Intelligence (AI).

In separate orders, the court granted interim injunctions protecting the personality rights of singer Kumar Sanu, spiritual leader Sadhguru, and actor Hrithik Roshan. The court restrained the unauthorized use of their names, images, voices, and likeness for commercial gain. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in the cases, observed that these attributes are protectable elements of an individual's persona and that the celebrities were entitled to protection from morphed, distorted, or demeaning content. These rulings are critical in an era of deepfakes and AI-generated content, setting a strong precedent for the protection of an individual's identity and reputation.

In another significant ruling, the court held that a financially self-sufficient spouse is not entitled to alimony, clarifying that maintenance is intended to prevent destitution, not to serve as " a tool for enrichment or parity between equals " ( X vs Y ). This decision underscores that the grant of alimony is contingent on genuine financial necessity and equitable considerations.

Madras High Court: Jurisdiction in Tax and IP Matters The Madras High Court delivered crucial judgments clarifying jurisdictional lines and procedural mandates. In National Association of Container Freight Stations v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs (2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 378) , the court ruled that Customs authorities lack the jurisdiction to issue directions under GST law, quashing a public notice that attempted to regulate the GST treatment of auctioned cargo. This decision firmly delineates the operational boundaries between different tax authorities.

On the intellectual property front, the Kerala High Court, in Pas Agro Foods v. KRBL Limited (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 693) , dismissed a plea to cancel the 'INDIA GATE' trademark, holding that only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction since the mark was registered at the Delhi registry. This case (originally from Kerala HC roundup but relevant here for its IP jurisdiction principle) highlights the importance of territorial jurisdiction in trademark rectification proceedings.

The Madras High Court also emphasized that natural justice principles are non-negotiable in arbitration, even when the tribunal consists of laypersons like family elders ( M. Maher Dadha v. S. Mohanchand Dadha, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 379 ). The court set aside an award where a party was denied a crucial opportunity to present its case, reinforcing the sacrosanct nature of procedural fairness.

Supreme Court: Focus on Criminal Justice and Procedural Delays The Supreme Court addressed several pressing issues concerning the criminal justice system. Voicing strong concern over trial delays, the apex court in Aman Kumar v. State of Bihar highlighted that the failure to frame charges within the mandated 60-day period under the BNSS has become a major cause for stagnation in criminal proceedings.

In a matter with wide-ranging implications for legal professionals, the court refrained from framing specific guidelines for summoning lawyers during investigations ( IN RE : SUMMONING ADVOCATES... ). It noted that existing provisions in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) provide sufficient safeguards to protect advocate-client privilege, cautioning police officers against expecting disclosure of privileged communication.

The court also took suo motu cognizance of the alarming rise of "digital arrest" scams, proposing a CBI probe after a senior citizen was duped of ₹1 crore using a forged Supreme Court order. This proactive measure signals the judiciary's commitment to tackling sophisticated cybercrimes that erode public faith in institutions.

Conclusion This week’s judicial activity underscores a legal system in dynamic conversation with contemporary societal and technological changes. The High Courts' decisive actions on personality rights, their clear demarcation of tax jurisdictions, and nuanced interpretations of matrimonial law reflect a judiciary that is both responsive and principled. At the same time, the Supreme Court's focus on systemic issues like trial delays and the protection of legal privileges demonstrates its continued role as the guardian of the constitutional order. For legal practitioners, these developments are not merely case updates but indicators of evolving jurisprudence that will undoubtedly influence litigation and legal advisory for years to come.