Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court ruled that a caste-based insult under Section 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act must occur in a place within public view. Finding this essential ingredient absent, it set aside the charge and remanded the case for consideration under the IPC.
The GITAM Moot & Advocacy Committee is proud to announce the 7th edition of the Dr. MVVS Murthi Moot Court Competition which will be held from 7th to 10th of October,
The Court observed that although bail is the rule and jail the exception, and every accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the present case stood on a different footing as the earlier orders rejecting the respondent’s bail on merits had attained finality and the trial had already commenced.
The newly constituted court at Rouse Avenue Courts will exclusively hear offences under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and connected offences.
Supreme Court granted bail the appellant, who was alleged to be an attesting witness to a forged Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deeds, after over 11 months of incarceration.
Delhi High Court observes that NSE is a recognised stock exchange performing vital public functions, not an ordinary commercial venture. But whether its MD & CEO, by virtue of that office, qualifies as a “public servant” under Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a mixed question of fact and law that must be determined on evidence at trial.
Umar Khalid has been in judicial custody since 2020 and was allowed two e-mulakats a week for six years without violating any prison rule, before the jail reduced it to one in May 2026.
Delhi High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to inquire into the circumstances in which the investigating officer sought permission to search and arrest an accused despite the subsistence of interim protection from arrest in an anticipatory bail matter.
After the High Court upheld the grant of bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi on 29 June 2026, the State of Meghalaya approached the Supreme Court on 1 July 2026 challenging the order. The matter was first heard on 3 July 2026 and has been listed for further hearing on 9 July 2026.
The Court held that while prosecuting offences arising out of the alleged sale or use of Chinese manjha, a Magistrate must record reasons demonstrating application of mind before taking cognizance and issuing summons.
The Court held that absence of external injuries or pending forensic reports cannot, by themselves, justify grant of bail if the trial court had overlooked material circumstances bearing upon the gravity of the offence and the vulnerability of the victim.
The Court was called upon to decide the recurring questions concerning the interpretation of Sections 466-A, 467 and 471, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, particularly regarding the limitation applicable to prosecutions for unauthorised construction under Section 332 of the Act.
The Court, however, noted that considering the seminal importance and significance of the issues raised in it, it required a little more research and appreciation of law to decide these issues, which are relevant not only for these proceedings, but also in any other criminal proceedings.
The present case is an unfortunate occasion where despite repeatedly knocking the doors of the Courts below, there had been an inordinate delay of nearly two decades in the investigation of a criminal complaint.
The Supreme Court set aside bail granted to 3 accused in a hospital murder case, holding that the High Court failed to consider their specific roles and serious criminal antecedents. The Court reiterated that custody period and delay in trial cannot alone justify bail in heinous offences involving armed mob violence.
May 2026 was a landmark month for Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court upheld electoral integrity, extended protection to trafficking survivors, reformed bail jurisprudence, advanced gender equality in matrimonial law, and settled long-contested questions in arbitration, IBC, and property law
The Court warned that permitting reopening of quashing orders on the basis of subsequent matrimonial disputes would fundamentally defeat the object underlying exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.
“The requirement that the place must be one “within public view” can be said to be substantiating the other elements of the offence under the SC/ST Act. It is therefore a sine qua non for making out the offence under the SC/ST Act.”
The Court emphasised that dowry death cases carry statutory presumptions under Section 118, Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 which cannot be ignored.
In the instant case, the petitioner was in jail for almost 4 years, but not a single witness was examined.