All news stories
Every court update, judgment report and announcement we have published, newest first.
Showing 451–465 of 465 news stories, newest first. Back to News
- Evidence Act | Section 27 Recoveries Alone Can't Sustain Conviction: SC Restores Acquittal In 1988 Murder Case
News · 29 Jul 2026
The Supreme Court restored an acquittal in a 1988 murder case, holding that recoveries made pursuant to a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot, by themselves, sustain a conviction without independent corroborating evidence linking the accused to the crime. The ruling reinforces long-settled but frequently contested limits on how far "discovery" evidence can carry a prosecution's case, particularly in matters resting heavily on circumstantial recoveries. For criminal defence counsel, the judgment is a fresh, citable reaffirmation to challenge convictions built primarily on Section 27 recoveries unsupported by other cogent evidence.
- Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-KPSC Chief's Daughter Over Reservation Claim
News · 28 Jul 2026
The Karnataka High Court declined to entertain a petition by the daughter of a suspended Karnataka Public Service Commission chairman seeking to quash an FIR accusing her of falsely declaring her family's annual income to claim reservation benefits meant for economically weaker sections in a recruitment process. The court found the allegations disclosed a prima facie case of fraud and voiced concern over recurring controversies in KPSC-run recruitments. Though fact-specific, the order signals judicial willingness to scrutinise reservation-benefit claims made by relatives of public officials, and may affect ongoing recruitment-integrity litigation and disciplinary proceedings connected to the Commission.
- Karnataka High Court: Seeking Police Aid To Enforce Injunction Not Barred By Res Judicata
News · 28 Jul 2026
The Karnataka High Court held that seeking police assistance to enforce an interim injunction is a continuing procedural remedy, and that such an application cannot be barred by the doctrine of res judicata merely because earlier applications for police protection were filed and disposed of. The ruling clarifies that repeated requests for police aid to implement the same injunction do not amount to relitigating a settled issue, since the need for enforcement can recur over time. The decision is a practical procedural tool for civil litigators and property-dispute lawyers seeking to keep injunctions effective on the ground.
- Karnataka High Court: Bank Can't Deny Education Loan Over Parent's Poor CIBIL Score Alone
News · 28 Jul 2026
The Karnataka High Court quashed a bank's rejection of a student's education-loan application, holding that a parent's poor CIBIL score alone cannot be used to deny a loan where doing so would impede the student's constitutional right to pursue education. The court found a CIBIL score to be only one factor among several relevant to creditworthiness, and not a blanket disqualifier when weighed against the student's aspirations. The order requires the bank to reconsider the loan and is likely to be cited by education and consumer-rights lawyers challenging similar loan denials by public-sector and cooperative banks across the state.
- Karnataka High Court Hears PIL Alleging 67 Lakh Voters Face SIR Deletion Without Notice
News · 28 Jul 2026
The Karnataka High Court heard a public interest litigation challenging the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in the state, on the allegation that nearly 67 lakh voters face exclusion from the rolls without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The division bench sought clarification on how the state's exercise aligns with the Supreme Court's own directions governing the SIR process. The case carries major consequences for election lawyers and litigants across Karnataka ahead of prospective elections, since a flawed roll-revision process could disenfranchise a large section of the electorate and invite further constitutional challenge.
- SC Issues Contempt Notices To 15 States Over Manual Scavenging Deaths
News · 28 Jul 2026
In a long-running public interest litigation on eradicating manual scavenging, the Supreme Court issued contempt notices to the Chief Secretaries of fifteen states, including Karnataka, over continued non-compliance with the Court's earlier directions, directing them to file affidavits within four weeks explaining why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. The Court had earlier banned manual scavenging and sewer cleaning in metropolitan cities and enhanced compensation for sewer deaths. The fresh notices put state governments' top bureaucrats on personal notice for continuing sewage-related worker deaths, a significant development for sanitation-worker rights and public-interest litigators tracking compliance across the country.
- IBC Moratorium On Company Doesn't Shield Its Promoters From Consumer Complaints
News · 28 Jul 2026
The Supreme Court held that a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, operating against a real-estate development company does not bar consumer complaints from proceeding against that company's promoters and directors in their individual capacity. The bench clarified that the moratorium's protection is confined to the corporate debtor undergoing insolvency resolution and does not extend to persons who are not themselves subject to the moratorium. The ruling gives homebuyers and other consumers a continuing route to pursue promoters and directors personally even while the underlying company remains in insolvency proceedings, a recurring issue for consumer-forum lawyers handling stalled projects nationwide.
- Confirmed Government Employees Can't Be Sacked Without Inquiry Over Past Appointment Flaws
News · 28 Jul 2026
The Supreme Court held that a public servant whose appointment has been confirmed cannot be terminated merely on the ground that the original recruitment process was allegedly illegal, without first holding a proper disciplinary inquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The ruling arose from a service dispute and reinforces that confirmed government employees retain the constitutional safeguard against removal without notice and a hearing, even where questions are later raised about the legality of their initial appointment. The decision stops government departments from using appointment irregularities as a shortcut to bypass due-process protections for millions of confirmed employees across central and state services.
- SC Clarifies Police Custody Timing And Advocate's Interrogation Rights Under BNSS
News · 28 Jul 2026
Ruling in a custodial-death investigation from Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that police custody under Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 need not be confined to the first fifteen days of remand and can be sought in parts, in aggregate not exceeding fifteen days, across the permissible detention period. The same bench also held that Section 38 BNSS, which entitles an arrested person to meet an advocate of choice, does not require the advocate's continuous physical presence throughout interrogation, and set aside a High Court condition requiring such presence. The dual ruling reshapes custodial-interrogation practice for defence lawyers and investigators under the new criminal codes.
- SC Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Anti-Defection Law's 'Merger' Loophole
News · 28 Jul 2026
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing as a party-in-person, challenging the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution that lets legislators escape disqualification under the anti-defection law by routing a defection through a political-party merger. The petition argues this interpretation can turn an electoral majority into a minority verdict through post-election mergers, citing an ongoing Goa dispute. The bench sought the Centre's response without granting interim relief. The case could reshape how election and constitutional lawyers argue future anti-defection disputes nationwide.
- Supreme Court hears pleas alleging police excesses against NEET protesters
News · 27 Jul 2026
The Supreme Court is hearing two pleas alleging police excesses against students protesting over the NEET paper leak and exam irregularities, before a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The lead petition (Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, Diary no. 44078/2026) arises from the march towards Parliament, alleging tear gas, baton charges, mass detentions, gender-based misconduct, plainclothes personnel, and roughly 60 injured protesters. It also challenges repeated prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS and seeks implementation of police reforms. Highest mass-impact story of the window.
- Supreme Court bans uploading and sharing court hearing recordings without prior permission
News · 27 Jul 2026
The Supreme Court has barred the uploading and sharing of audio-video recordings of court hearings without prior permission. This is the single most operationally significant item for advocates in the window. It directly affects social-media clipping of proceedings, legal-content creators, litigation PR, and any legal-tech product ingesting or redistributing hearing media. Advocates who routinely circulate courtroom clips on WhatsApp or X now face a compliance question. Expect Bar Council and High Court follow-on circulars. Article angle: what "prior permission" means procedurally, who grants it, and what the exposure is for advocates and platforms already hosting such recordings.
- Supreme Court rethinks livestreaming, seeks impact reports from High Courts
News · 27 Jul 2026
Observing that courts cannot function as a round-the-clock entertainment channel, the Supreme Court has revisited its livestreaming policy and sought reports from High Courts on the impact of livestreaming. This pairs directly with item 2 and signals a broader retrenchment on open-court digital access. It matters to advocates because livestreamed conduct has become a reputational variable, and to legal-tech because livestream archives are a data source. A strong companion piece to the recordings ban — together they suggest a coordinated policy shift on courtroom transparency.
- Supreme Court signals women's reservation must rise proportionately if Bar Council seats increase
News · 27 Jul 2026
The Supreme Court has indicated that if Bar Council seats are increased, women's reservation should also be increased proportionately. Direct institutional impact on every enrolled advocate in India, including the Karnataka State Bar Council. It touches Bar Council election composition, eligibility, and the internal politics of state bars ahead of forthcoming elections. Given that Bar Council governance affects enrolment, discipline, and welfare schemes for lakhs of advocates, this is high-priority for an advocate-facing publication despite being an indication rather than a final ruling.
- Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLT Order Over AI-Hallucinated Case Citations, Directs Bar Council to Frame Guidelines
News · 24 Jul 2026
New Delhi, July 2, 2026 The Supreme Court has set aside a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) judgment after finding that the tribunal had relied on case law that did not exist — precedents generated by an artificial intelligence tool and cited before it without verification. The ruling, delivered by a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, is the Court's strongest statement yet on the use of AI in judicial proceedings and sets out a zero-tolerance standard that lawyers across the country will now have to reckon with. The case The appeal, Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 11950/2025), arose out of an insolvency dispute. NCLT Mumbai had, in August 2024, admitted Essel Infraprojects Ltd. into corporate insolvency resolution on a Section 7 application filed by Jammu and Kashmir Bank over a claimed default of roughly ₹87.43 crore, tied to a ₹200 crore facility extended to Pan India Utilities Distribution Company Ltd. and secured by an Essel corporate guarantee and a mortgage in Borivali, Mumbai. The NCLAT upheld that order in September 2025. On further appeal, the appellant's counsel discovered that several of the "precedents" the NCLT had leaned on to justify its order simply did not exist — they had been produced by an AI tool and never verified before being placed on record. What the Court held The Bench held that a judgment built on fabricated authorities cannot stand, since reliance on hallucinated material strikes at the integrity of the adjudicatory process itself. It set aside both the NCLT and NCLAT orders and sent the insolvency application back for fresh adjudication. Going further, the Court declared that courts and tribunals must adopt a zero-tolerance approach toward unverified AI-generated precedents, and that an advocate who cites such fabricated judgments without checking them commits professional misconduct. It directed the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee to examine the issue and prescribe guiding principles — including disciplinary consequences — for members of the bar who file AI-hallucinated material as though it were genuine case law. At the same time, the Bench was careful to frame this as a call for verification rather than a rejection of the technology itself, describing AI as a tool meant to assist adjudication while human judgment remains firmly in control at every stage. Why it matters This is not an isolated flashpoint. The ruling follows a string of similar incidents before Indian tribunals and comes shortly after the Supreme Court circulated a draft framework, the "Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026," inviting feedback from legal experts and the public on how AI should be governed inside the justice system. For practising advocates, the takeaway is immediate: any citation sourced through an AI assistant — whether a general-purpose chatbot or a legal-research platform — must be cross-checked against an authoritative database (SCC Online, Indian Kanoon, or the official court website) before it is filed. Citing a case that turns out not to exist is no longer a harmless drafting slip; the Court has now classified it as misconduct, with the BCI expected to lay down the disciplinary framework in the months ahead. [Source: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 11950/2025, decided 2 July 2026]