All news stories
Every court update, judgment report and announcement we have published, newest first.
Showing 651–659 of 659 news stories, newest first. Back to News
- 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]