All news stories
Every court update, judgment report and announcement we have published, newest first.
Showing 251–300 of 353 news stories, newest first. Back to News
- Karnataka High Court Stays Greater Bengaluru Authority's New Animal Waste Management Rules
News · 21 Sep 2026
Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad of Karnataka High Court issued an interim order staying the operation of Bengaluru Solid Waste Management Ltd's public notice implementing new animal waste disposal charges of Rs 5 per kg for animal waste and Rs 3 per kg for bone waste. The Karnataka Poultry Traders Association challenged the rules, contending that animal waste has commercial value and that imposing disposal fees would increase business costs and consumer prices. The court's stay halts implementation pending full hearing on whether the rules comply with the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act.
- Supreme Court Holds Absence of Natural Person Identification Is Not Ground to Quash Criminal Proceedings Against Corporation at Threshold Stage
News · 21 Sep 2026
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that the absence of identification and arraignment of a natural person, by itself, is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings against a corporation at the threshold stage under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment clarifies procedural requirements for criminal cases involving corporate entities and prevents premature dismissal of prosecutions. This ruling affects corporate criminal liability determinations.
- Supreme Court Clarifies Defendant Not Required to Testify When Defence Based on Undisputed Documentary Evidence
News · 21 Sep 2026
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna held that a defendant is not required to step into the witness box when the defence is based on an undisputed document already placed on record. The judgment streamlines trial procedure by recognizing that cross-examination of a party is unnecessary when documentary evidence is not challenged. This ruling reduces unnecessary court proceedings and protects defendants' procedural rights.
- Supreme Court Grants Actor Rajpal Yadav Final Two-Week Extension to Deposit ₹5 Crore in Check Bounce Cases
News · 21 Sep 2026
A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joim Malia Bakchi, and Justice Vi Moana granted actor Rajpal Yadav a final two-week extension to deposit ₹5 crore in connection with check bounce cases while expressing concern over his earlier conduct and repeated assurances. The bench continued his exemption from surrendering until October 5, 2026, and directed him to submit his passport to the court. The matter arises from a financial dispute involving funds received by Yadav and his wife.
- Supreme Court Affirms SARFAESI Act Override; Earlier DRT Decree Does Not Bar Fresh Recovery Proceedings
News · 21 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court held that the SARFAESI Act will override inconsistent laws and rejected a plea that an earlier Debt Recovery Tribunal decree bars fresh recovery proceedings under the Act. The judgment strengthens the statutory framework for secured creditor recovery and clarifies the relationship between DRT decrees and SARFAESI remedies. This ruling has significant implications for financial institutions pursuing asset recovery.
- Supreme Court Holds Identical Job Duties Alone Do Not Establish Right to Equal Pay; Experience Matters
News · 21 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court ruled that identical duties alone do not establish a right to equal pay, emphasizing that experience and qualifications are material factors in determining compensation. The judgment clarifies the legal standard for equal pay claims under Indian labour law and rejects arguments based solely on identical job descriptions. This decision impacts wage parity disputes across public and private sector employment.
- Supreme Court Stays Gujarat High Court Deepfake PIL; Consolidates AI-Generated Content Regulation at Apex Level
News · 21 Sep 2026
On 12 September 2026, the Supreme Court stayed proceedings in a Gujarat High Court public-interest litigation concerning AI-generated deepfake content and transferred jurisdiction exclusively to the apex court. The bench noted that parallel petitions in other High Courts required consolidation to avoid inconsistent rulings on a technology of national importance. Intermediaries including Meta, Google, and X are barred from filing responses until the Supreme Court decides the transfer application.
- Supreme Court Prohibits Forcible Vehicle Repossession; Financiers Cannot Rely on Contractual Clauses to Justify Unauthorized Seizure
News · 21 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court set aside an Alahabad High Court order and held that a financier cannot repossess a vehicle by force or stealth and then justify the unauthorized seizure by relying on a repossession clause in the loan agreement. The judgment protects borrowers against unlawful repossession in violation of contractual and regulatory safeguards. This ruling strengthens consumer protections in secured lending transactions across India.
- Supreme Court Agrees to Prioritize Hearing on Delhi Electoral Roll Discrepancies
News · 18 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court on September 17, 2026, agreed to give precedence in its hearing schedule to a writ petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Delhi's electoral roll. The petition raises serious discrepancies in the conduct of the revision, including the removal of lakhs of voters from the draft roll for reasons characterized as nebulous. The court's decision to prioritize the hearing underscores the constitutional importance of electoral integrity and the right to vote.
- Karnataka High Court Issues Comprehensive Safety Guidelines for Illegal PG Accommodations in Bengaluru
News · 18 Sep 2026
Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the Karnataka High Court issued sweeping safety directives after the Greater Bengaluru Authority reported that approximately 2,500 out of 5,000 PG facilities inspected in Bengaluru East were operating without proper licences, sanctioned building plans, and fire safety clearances. The court mandated unified digital databases, mandatory police verification of staff, CCTV in common areas, and personal liability for officials failing to enforce compliance. Further hearing adjourned to September 28, 2026.
- Supreme Court Clarifies Electricity Dues Arise Only Upon Billing; Bars Stale Demands Under Limitation Act
News · 17 Sep 2026
Justices S V N Bhatti and N V Anjaria held that electricity charges become due only when a distribution licensee issues a bill quantifying the amount. A demand for minimum consumption guarantee charges raised in 2007 for arrears from 1998—never billed or shown as continuous arrears—was barred by the two-year limitation period under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
- Karnataka Tribunal: Suspension of teacher for attending RSS event stayed
News · 8 Sep 2026
The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal stayed the suspension of a government school teacher who was penalized for attending an event organized by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) on a Sunday. The tribunal noted that while the state's Conduct Rules bar government servants from associating with political parties, the RSS event was organized by a non-political association. Since the State Government had not issued any specific notification prohibiting officials from attending such events, the tribunal ruled that the teacher's conduct did not prima facie violate the rules. Practical takeaway for viewers: Government employees cannot be suspended for attending non-political association events unless their participation is explicitly prohibited by specific state orders.
- Trial courts cannot presume unemployed women lack funds to buy property
News · 8 Sep 2026
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a trial court cannot assume a property is joint family property merely because it was purchased in the name of an "unemployed woman" who supposedly lacked an independent source of income. The Division Bench stated that such an assumption is legally impermissible without concrete evidence. Once a registered sale deed names a woman as the purchaser and records her receipt of consideration, the burden of proof lies entirely on the opposing party to prove it was bought with joint family funds. The Court reiterated that under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, any property acquired by a female Hindu is held by her as a full and absolute owner.
- Notification granting externment powers to Superintendent of Police declared illegal
News · 8 Sep 2026
The Dharwad bench of the Karnataka High Court nullified a State Government notification that conferred externment powers on Superintendents of Police (SP). Quashing an externment order against a petitioner in Belagavi, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that executive instructions cannot override the express provisions of a parent statute. The Court emphasized that Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act explicitly vest such powers only in the Police Commissioner, District Magistrate, or Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Court observed that an SP cannot be equated with a District Magistrate, and this inherent lack of statutory competence cannot be cured by simply publishing a notification in the Official Gazette. Practical takeaway for viewers: Executive authorities cannot delegate statutory policing powers to officers who are not expressly authorized by the legislature.
- High Court mandates tech-driven overhaul for temple asset management
News · 8 Sep 2026
The Karnataka High Court ordered a comprehensive, technology-driven overhaul to secure the finances and properties of state-managed temples. Recognizing the risks of theft and mismanagement, the Court directed the implementation of CCTV surveillance, body-worn cameras for hundi counting staff, and scientific verification protocols like X-ray fluorescence for temple jewellery. Furthermore, the court mandated digitizing and geo-tagging all immovable temple properties to prevent encroachments. The court also required the establishment of a centralized digital dashboard for real-time financial monitoring and a whistleblower mechanism for devotees and employees. Practical takeaway for viewers: Strict technological surveillance and real-time digital monitoring are now mandatory for the management of state-run temple assets.
- U.P. Police asked to justify demanding journalist's digital footprints
News · 8 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court sharply questioned the Uttar Pradesh Police regarding why they required the digital footprints of an independent journalist in order to investigate a road-rage case registered against him. The journalist had recently flagged the alleged misappropriation of donations to the Ayodhya Ram temple. A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to file an affidavit clarifying exactly what information they sought from the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). The Court strictly ordered that no such digital information obtained by the police should be brought into the public domain until further orders. Practical takeaway for viewers: The Supreme Court is strictly monitoring police overreach and protecting privacy regarding digital data collection in unrelated criminal probes.
- Individuals who assault doctors do not deserve to roam free
News · 8 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court took a stern view against violence targeting healthcare workers, stating that individuals who assault doctors and hospital staff "do not deserve to roam on the streets even for a minute." These strong oral observations were made while hearing a plea by a corporator accused of attacking three municipal doctors in Thane. Sensing the Bench's intention to closely examine the severity of the case rather than grant immediate relief, the accused withdrew the plea. The Court's strict stance aligns with ongoing national campaigns demanding stronger legal protections to ensure the safety of medical professionals. Practical takeaway for viewers: The Supreme Court is adopting a zero-tolerance approach toward violence against healthcare workers, indicating that bail or judicial relief will be extremely difficult to secure in such cases.
- Supreme Court seeks Union's stance on constitutional validity of marital rape exception
News · 8 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court directed the Union government to clarify its position on a batch of petitions challenging the legal exception that shields husbands from rape prosecution for non-consensual sexual acts against their wives. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant stated it would consider the Centre's response before scheduling a substantive hearing. The litigation challenges Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which has historically excluded marital relationships from the definition of rape. The Union government had previously opposed the judicial removal of this exception, arguing the issue demands a holistic approach rather than a strictly legal assessment, citing potential consequences for the institution of marriage. Practical takeaway for viewers: The constitutional survival of the marital rape exception remains in the balance while the Court waits for a decisive stance from the Central government.
- Property purchased in a woman's name is not presumed to be joint family property
News · 7 Sep 2026
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the mere existence of a joint family does not establish that property purchased in the name of a female member is joint family property. Unless it is explicitly proven that the purchase utilized joint family funds, the property vests absolutely in the woman under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.
- Consumer Commissions can take direct cognizance of non-compliance
News · 7 Sep 2026
The Karnataka High Court held that a District Consumer Commission is fully competent to take cognizance of an offence under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainants do not need to be directed to a separate criminal court to enforce compliance. The Court added that applications combining execution reliefs with allegations of non-compliance are entirely maintainable.
- Contempt Proceedings Recalled; Advocate Ordered to Plant 1,000 Saplings
News · 7 Sep 2026
The Karnataka High Court recalled its earlier order initiating criminal contempt against an advocate who virtually threatened a Sessions Court, after accepting his unconditional apology. Instead of criminal prosecution and a disciplinary reference to the Bar Council, Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar imposed a nominal fine of ₹1,000 and directed the advocate to plant and maintain 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings on government or school premises as a symbolic corrective measure.
- Health Insurance Claims Valid Even Without 24-Hour Hospitalisation
News · 7 Sep 2026
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by the National Insurance Company, ruling that an insurer cannot restrict health insurance policy interpretations simply because a treatment does not require hospitalisation. The case involved a 72-year-old retired bank officer whose claims for life-sustaining post-chemotherapy injections were repeatedly rejected by the insurer on the grounds that they were "outpatient" treatments. Justice Suraj Govindaraju upheld the Permanent Lok Adalat's order directing reimbursement and dismissed the insurer's petition with a ₹50,000 cost.
- Execution courts cannot modify arbitral awards or recalculate interest
News · 7 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court reiterated that an Executing Court enforcing an Arbitral Award under Section 36 cannot go beyond its mandate. The Court ruled that modifying the Award at the execution stage—specifically by attempting to recalculate the interest payable—is impermissible and outside the execution court's jurisdiction.
- Delays in tax remittances do not attract automatic penalties
News · 7 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court set aside hefty penalties imposed on an airline for delayed Foreign Travel Tax remittances. The Court ruled that a mere delay does not amount to a complete "failure to pay," and statutory authorities possess the discretion to condone delays for bona fide or technical reasons rather than imposing automatic penalties the moment a timeline is breached.
- Quashing of criminal proceedings requires the victim's consent, not just the informant's
News · 7 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court clarified that a "victim" is legally distinct from an "informant" in a criminal case. The bench ruled that quashing criminal proceedings based on a mutual settlement can only be authorized at the behest of the actual victim, and cannot be done merely at the behest of the police informant.
- India Hosts BRICS Chief Justices' Forum 2026
News · 7 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court of India hosted the BRICS Chief Justices' Forum in New Delhi from 4 to 6 September 2026. The Chief Justice of India led bilateral meetings with judicial delegations from Russia, China, Egypt, the UAE, South Africa, and other partner nations. The forum focused on international dispute resolution, technology, sustainable development, and justice delivery, aiming to strengthen judicial dialogue across member states.
- $45 Million Customs Fine Quashed Over AI-Hallucinated Judgments
News · 7 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court of India cancelled a $45 million fine imposed on a diamond trader after a customs officer cited non-existent, AI-generated court rulings. The adjudicating authority had penalized the trader over a tariff dispute on lab-grown versus natural diamonds. The Supreme Court annulled both the customs authority’s decision and the High Court’s ruling, reaffirming a "zero tolerance" policy for fabricated legal material. The Court noted that while artificial intelligence can assist in legal research, decisions containing even a small amount of "hallucinated" material must be annulled.
- Karnataka HC: Amazon claims intermediary safe harbour in book piracy case
News · 5 Sep 2026
Amazon told the Karnataka High Court that it is entitled to the safe-harbour protection available to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in a case concerning the alleged sale of pirated copies of the late journalist Ravi Belagere's novel Heli Hogu Kaarana on its platform. Senior Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta, appearing for Amazon, argued that the company merely provides a platform connecting sellers and buyers and cannot be held liable for the alleged listings. The legal question is one of the most consequential in Indian internet law. Section 79 shields intermediaries from liability for third-party content, but the protection is conditional — it falls away if the platform initiates the transmission, selects the receiver, modifies the content, or fails to act after receiving actual knowledge of unlawful material. The case pits an author's estate and copyright enforcement against the marketplace model itself. Whatever the Court decides will shape how aggressively Indian e-commerce platforms must police counterfeit and pirated goods listed by third-party sellers.
- Supreme Court: Teacher-training institutes must file annual appraisal reports
News · 5 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court upheld the power of the National Council for Teacher Education and its executive committee to call for annual Performance Appraisal Reports from teacher education institutions. A bench presided over by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha held that both the Council and its Executive Committee are amply empowered under the statute to demand these reports from institutions imparting teacher education. The ruling matters because teacher-training colleges have repeatedly challenged NCTE's oversight as going beyond what the parent Act permits, arguing that once recognition is granted, the regulator's role effectively ends. The Court's answer is that recognition is not a one-time certificate but a continuing obligation, and that ongoing monitoring is built into the regulatory scheme. For the thousands of B.Ed and D.El.Ed institutions across India, the practical effect is immediate: annual appraisal filings are a compulsory compliance, not an optional formality, and non-filing can expose an institution to regulatory action. For students choosing a teacher-training college, it also means NCTE now has judicially confirmed authority to keep quality under review year after year rather than only at the point of approval.
- Karnataka HC: ₹3 lakh costs on police for illegal arrest of a witness
News · 5 Sep 2026
The Karnataka High Court came down heavily on the police for what it described as "police raj", declaring the arrest of a witness in a disputed Will matter to be illegal. The Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹3,00,000 on the Investigating Officer and on his superior officers for dereliction of supervisory duty. The petitioner was a witness who had been named as accused no. 2 in the FIR This is one of the strongest recent statements from the Court on arrest discipline. The Supreme Court's Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 41A CrPC already require police to justify why an arrest is necessary rather than merely permissible. What makes this order stand out is that the cost was fastened not only on the officer who made the arrest but on the supervisory chain above him, for failing to check the file. For anyone who has been summoned as a witness, the message is direct: being named in an FIR does not authorise casual detention, and personal financial consequences for officers are now a live possibility.
- Karnataka HC: Two minutes past 10 PM is not an offence
News · 5 Sep 2026
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR registered against Bidar Congress MLA Rahim Khan for allegedly using a loudspeaker during election campaigning two minutes beyond the permitted cut-off of 10 PM. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, sitting singly, allowed the MLA's petition and held that a difference of merely two minutes cannot be treated as an offence, especially when no standard clock is prescribed for fixing the exact time The reasoning is worth spelling out for viewers. Noise pollution rules do impose a genuine 10 PM restriction on loudspeakers, and that limit protects residents, hospitals and students. But criminal liability requires a degree of certainty. If the enforcement authority's watch, the complainant's phone and the accused's clock can all differ by a minute or two, a two-minute overrun cannot safely be called a violation. The judgment is a useful illustration of de minimis thinking — the principle that the law does not concern itself with trifles — applied to everyday policing. It does not dilute the 10 PM rule; it simply says the margin of error cannot become the basis of an FIR.
- Supreme Court: High Court can recall its own judgment to undo injustice
News · 5 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court set aside a 21-year-old conviction after finding that the accused was a juvenile on the date of the offence. The Court held that Section 362 of the CrPC — which generally bars a criminal court from altering or reviewing a judgment once signed — does not wipe out the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to recall its own order where letting it stand would cause a miscarriage of justice.Crucially, the Court held that this inherent power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) survives even where a Special Leave Petition against the same judgment has already been disposed of, and can be used where the court's own mistake has caused grave prejudice to a party. This is a significant procedural ruling. The usual understanding is that once a criminal judgment is signed, the court becomes functus officio and only the Supreme Court can intervene. Here the Court carved out a clear path: where the error is the court's own and the consequence is a wrongful conviction, finality must yield. It also flagged concern over how slowly the trial had moved.
- Section 164 Statements Must Reach the Accused — Six Directions for Police and Trial Courts
News · 1 Sep 2026
Upholding the right to a fair trial, the Karnataka High Court has acquitted a POCSO accused while issuing suo motu guidelines for Investigating Officers and trial courts on the recording of Section 164 CrPC (Section 183 BNSS) statements and the mandatory furnishing of those statements to the accused. The Division Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice G. Basavaraja was hearing the appeal of a Home Guard convicted for kidnapping and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, whose victim's Section 164(5) statement contained no allegation of sexual assault and materially contradicted her later testimony — yet was never furnished to him.The Court held that an Investigating Officer, before filing a final report, is under a solemn legal obligation to satisfy himself that sufficient material exists to proceed, functioning in essence as a "pre-trial judge," and laid down six directions covering the perusal, preservation and supply of Section 164(5) statements in every POCSO and SC/ST Act case. The Bench acted on recurring infirmities it had noticed across a considerable number of appeals — chargesheets filed without reading the victim's statement, and trial courts failing to supply copies as Section 207(iv) CrPC requires — and directed circulation to the Judicial Academy and, through the DGP, to every Investigating Officer in the State. Verdictum Citation: V. Amaresh @ Ambarish v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
- "Stop Staying Trials Routinely" — SC Reins In High Courts' Revision Powers
News · 1 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court has disapproved the routine practice of High Courts staying trials while entertaining challenges to interlocutory orders, holding that a stay should follow only where the court, on an examination deeper than prima facie, finds that continuing the trial would seriously and irreparably prejudice the revision proceedings or the parties. The bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, also flagged the mechanical use of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, holding that a High Court cannot exercise revision as if it were sitting in appeal.The Court set aside a 117-page judgment of the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench, which had allowed revision applications under Section 115 CPC and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. It found that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction and had "donned the hat of the trial court."
- Supreme Court records CBI finding advocate's degree prima facie fake
News · 1 Sep 2026
The Supreme Court has recorded a CBI finding that an advocate's B.Com degree is prima facie fake, with the Hindi report framing it as manipulation of government records in a degree case. This is headline-level information only at the moment, so treat the details as unconfirmed until you read the order. Even so, it is squarely a professional-standards story: enrolment under the Advocates Act rests on verified academic qualifications, and State Bar Councils have been running credential-verification drives for several years now. For a legal platform's audience it connects to a live anxiety at the Bar — that a small number of fraudulent enrolments taint the standing of everyone properly enrolled. If you use this for content, keep the individual unnamed and pitch it at the systemic level: what verification obligations sit on the State Bar Council, what happens to matters conducted by a person whose enrolment is later cancelled, and where the client is left. That framing is safer and more useful than the personality angle.
- Karnataka High Court orders statewide audit of police station CCTV systems
News · 18 Aug 2026
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday 13 August 2026 pulled up police authorities over an explanation that the uninterruptible power supply at a police station had remained non-functional for nearly eighteen months, affecting CCTV camera operation during power outages. Justice Suraj Govindaraj described the explanation as untenable and ordered a statewide audit of CCTV systems. The order carries direct evidentiary consequences for criminal practice. Mandatory CCTV coverage in police stations exists to guard against custodial excess and to provide an objective record of arrest, interrogation and detention. Where footage is unavailable, the accused is deprived of the primary means of establishing what occurred in custody, and allegations of coercion become impossible to test. Defence counsel should routinely apply for preservation and production of station footage at the earliest stage, and should place the absence of footage on record where the application is met with a claim of malfunction. A statewide audit also creates a documentary trail that can be summoned in individual cases.
- Courts must observe the strict timeline for disposal of seized property
News · 18 Aug 2026
The Karnataka High Court has held that courts dealing with seized property must strictly adhere to the timelines prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — preparation of a statement of the property within fourteen days of its production before the court, and an order on disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery within the following thirty days. Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the ruling. The direction addresses a chronic grievance. Vehicles, cash, gold, electronics and business stock seized during investigation have historically remained in police custody for years, deteriorating in value while the owner has no effective remedy. The new statutory scheme fixes an outer limit of forty-five days, and the Court has confirmed those periods are mandatory rather than directory. Advocates seeking interim custody or release of seized property should now cite the timeline expressly, annex the date of production before the court, and seek a direction where the period has lapsed. Where property has already been held beyond the limit, the delay itself becomes a ground for relief independent of the merits of the seizure.
- Karnataka High Court permits Independence Day torchlight march, quashes police refusal
News · 18 Aug 2026
The Karnataka High Court on Friday 14 August 2026 quashed a police refusal to permit a torchlight march in Mysuru, observing that citizens cannot be prevented from celebrating Independence Day on apprehensions of communal tension. Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the authorities to permit the event. In the same proceedings the Court had earlier criticised the organisers for putting up banners advertising the march before permission had been granted. The order is useful precedent on the standard applicable to refusals of permission for assemblies and processions. A generalised apprehension of law and order trouble is not sufficient; the authority must identify specific material and must consider whether conditions can address the risk rather than refusing outright. Equally, the Court's rebuke of the organisers signals that petitioners who pre-empt the outcome by acting before permission is granted will find the discretion exercised less generously. Counsel drafting such petitions should annex the application made to the police, the refusal with its stated reasons, and a set of proposed conditions the petitioner is willing to accept.
- Execution notice under the Code does not apply to a Debt Recovery Tribunal auction
News · 18 Aug 2026
The Supreme Court has held that the requirement to serve notice on a judgment debtor's legal representatives before execution of a decree does not apply to an auction sale conducted by a Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe decided the matter, which arose where execution proceedings begun in a civil court were subsequently transferred. The decision draws a clean line between two procedural regimes that litigants routinely conflate. Recovery proceedings before a Tribunal operate under a self-contained code with its own machinery for notice, sale and confirmation, and the general execution provisions of the civil procedure code do not travel across in the absence of express incorporation. Borrowers and their legal representatives challenging an auction sale should therefore frame objections under the recovery legislation and the rules made under it, rather than relying on defects in civil-court execution procedure. Auction purchasers gain corresponding protection, since a sale confirmed by a Tribunal will not be unsettled years later on a notice defect borrowed from a different statute.
- Legal representatives can claim motor accident compensation without proving financial dependency
News · 18 Aug 2026
The Supreme Court has held that legal representatives may claim compensation under heads such as loss of consortium even though they were not financially dependent on the victim. The ruling widens the class of claimants in fatal accident matters materially. Tribunals have often confined awards to dependants, treating financial dependency as the gateway to any claim, with the result that adult earning children, financially independent parents and siblings recovered nothing. The Court has distinguished pecuniary loss from the conventional heads, which compensate the loss of the relationship itself rather than the loss of income. Parental and filial consortium are recognised heads, and their availability does not turn on the claimant's own means. For practitioners, the immediate consequence is that claim petitions should array all legal representatives, not merely dependants, and should plead the conventional heads separately with a distinct computation. Pending appeals for enhancement should be examined for whether these heads were pleaded and awarded below.
- Fleeing after a friend's drowning is not by itself evidence of murder
News · 18 Aug 2026
The Supreme Court has held that fleeing from the spot after witnessing a friend drown, and failing to inform the deceased's family, though reprehensible conduct, cannot by itself be treated as an incriminating circumstance sufficient to establish murder. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran acquitted two persons convicted over a death by accidental drowning in a river, noting that apart from the appellants there was no eyewitness to the incident. The ruling is a significant addition to the law on circumstantial evidence. Prosecutions built on conduct after the event — absconding, delayed reporting, failure to summon help — frequently treat that conduct as though it closes the evidentiary gap. The Court has confirmed it does not. Post-occurrence conduct may be a relevant circumstance, but it cannot substitute for proof of the offence itself, and panic or fear of implication supplies an equally plausible explanation. Defence counsel in circumstantial cases should press the distinction between conduct that is morally poor and conduct that is legally incriminating, and require the prosecution to establish each link in the chain independently rather than relying on the accused's behaviour to complete it.
- Winding up proceedings do not extend limitation for a recovery suit
News · 14 Aug 2026
The Supreme Court held on 12 August 2026 that time spent pursuing winding up proceedings cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act when computing limitation for a suit to recover money. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran reasoned that the relief sought in the two proceedings is fundamentally different, and that initiating a winding up petition — which may or may not result in recovery — does not affect limitation for the separate remedy of a recovery suit. The ruling closes a route that creditors have used with some regularity. Section 14 permits exclusion of time spent prosecuting a proceeding in a court unable to entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, but it requires that both proceedings be for the same relief. A winding up petition is a collective remedy directed at the company's dissolution and the distribution of its assets; a recovery suit is an individual money claim. Because the reliefs differ in kind, the exclusion does not apply. Creditors should therefore file recovery suits within the ordinary three-year period rather than assume that a pending winding up petition or insolvency application preserves their position. Where limitation has already run, the alternative grounds — acknowledgment of debt in writing or part payment — must be pleaded and proved independently.
- Karnataka High Court: an advocate's professional conduct cannot be criminalised because it displeases the opposing party
News · 14 Aug 2026
The Karnataka High Court has held that a lawyer's professional conduct cannot be made the subject of criminal proceedings merely because it displeases the adversary, observing that fearless advocacy cannot be punished. The judgment matters to the profession directly. FIRs against advocates arising from the conduct of litigation — for issuing a legal notice, for pressing a particular contention, for advising a client to initiate proceedings — have become a recognised pressure tactic in contested civil and matrimonial disputes. The Court's reasoning separates acts done in the discharge of professional duty from independent criminal conduct such as fabrication of documents or personal participation in a fraud. Where the complaint discloses only the former, the FIR is liable to be quashed at the threshold. Advocates facing such proceedings should place the relevant vakalat, pleadings and correspondence on record to establish that the impugned acts were performed in a professional capacity, and should press for costs where the complaint appears designed to intimidate.
- Karnataka High Court: an accused has no right to be heard on a co-accused's application to turn approver
News · 14 Aug 2026
The Karnataka High Court on 13 August 2026 rejected a plea by actor Darshan seeking a right of audience in a co-accused's application to be granted pardon and turn approver in the Renukaswamy murder case. The Court held that the right of audience for a co-accused arises only after pardon has been granted. The ruling settles a question that arises whenever the prosecution seeks to convert an accomplice into a witness. The tender of pardon is a matter between the court and the person seeking it, assessed on whether that person is willing to make a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within their knowledge. A co-accused has no stake in that determination at the stage it is made. What the co-accused does acquire, once pardon is granted and the approver is examined, is the full apparatus of challenge — cross-examination on the terms of the pardon, on prior inconsistent statements, and on motive to implicate falsely, together with the requirement that approver testimony be corroborated in material particulars. Defence counsel should therefore direct effort to that stage rather than contesting the tender itself.
- Separate appeals not required against a common judgment on suit and counterclaim
News · 14 Aug 2026
The Supreme Court has held that separate appeals are not required to challenge a common judgment deciding both a suit and a counterclaim. A composite appeal is maintainable, but it must be valued as two separate appeals and court fee paid accordingly. The clarification removes a procedural trap that has cost litigants substantive rights. Where a trial court decides a suit and a counterclaim by a single judgment, an appellant who filed only one appeal has sometimes found the unchallenged limb treated as final, with the appeal rendered infructuous. The Court has now confirmed that a single composite appeal suffices in form. The condition is fiscal rather than formal: the memorandum must be valued as though two appeals had been filed, and court fee paid on that basis. Practitioners should ensure the valuation paragraph separately states the value of the suit claim and the counterclaim, and that the court fee calculation reflects both, since a deficit will attract registry objection and, if uncured, may still expose the appeal to challenge on limitation once the deficit is made good.
- Unadjudicated damages are not operational debt under the insolvency code
News · 14 Aug 2026
The Supreme Court held on 12 August 2026 that claims for damages arising from breach of contract cannot be treated as operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, unless previously adjudicated and crystallised by a competent court. The Court reiterated that damages, whether liquidated or unliquidated, do not qualify as operational debt until assessed and crystallised through adjudication. The decision has direct consequences for Section 9 applications. Operational creditors frequently include damages claims — for delay, defective performance or wrongful termination — in the demand notice and in the computation of default. Those components are now clearly outside the definition of operational debt unless a decree or award has already fixed them. Where the claim comprises both an admitted invoice amount and a damages component, the applicant should confine the default computation to the former, since inflating the figure invites a pre-existing dispute defence and risks dismissal. Corporate debtors resisting admission should scrutinise the demand notice for unadjudicated damages and take the point at the threshold. The ruling also reinforces that the insolvency process is not a substitute for a suit or arbitration on contested contractual claims.
- Karnataka High Court orders disabled-friendly quarters to be built within two years regardless of funding
News · 14 Aug 2026
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Indian Statistical Institute in Bengaluru to complete construction of proposed disabled-friendly accommodation within two years, notwithstanding the availability of funds. The order was passed on a petition by a specially abled Associate Professor at the institute. The direction is notable for expressly declining to accept budgetary constraint as an answer. Accessibility obligations under disability rights legislation are framed as duties rather than aspirations, and institutions have routinely deferred compliance by pointing to unallocated funds. By fixing an outer limit and removing the funding qualification, the Court has treated the obligation as enforceable on its own terms. For advocates advising educational institutions, public sector undertakings and establishments covered by the accessibility mandate, the practical lesson is that a documented plan without a funded timeline will not withstand scrutiny. For petitioners, the order supports pleading a specific completion deadline in the prayer rather than a general direction to comply.
- ED Search, Freezing Action Not Purely Civil, Can Be Challenged Under Article 226 Read With S.482 CrPC: Karnataka HC In Gameskraft's Case
News · 13 Aug 2026
The Karnataka High Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 CrPC challenging the Enforcement Directorate's search and freezing action under Section 17(1A) PMLA is maintainable, rejecting ED's objection that such action is purely civil and cannot be challenged this way. The ruling comes in Gameskraft Technologies' long-running dispute with authorities over its online gaming business. This is a significant procedural precedent for PMLA practitioners on how ED search-and-seizure actions can be challenged before adjudication.
- Supreme Court strength increased to 38 judges as President grants assent
News · 13 Aug 2026
The President has granted assent to the law increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court to 38 judges, as reported on 12 August 2026. livelaw The expansion takes the Court from its previous sanctioned strength of 34, set in 2019, to 38. The increase responds to the mounting pendency before the Court, which has climbed steadily despite successive attempts at case-management reform, and to the practical difficulty of constituting Constitution Benches of five, seven and nine judges without disrupting the regular roster. Additional judges permit more benches to sit simultaneously and reduce the frequency with which reference matters are deferred for want of available judges. For practitioners, the immediate consequences are procedural rather than substantive: more courts sitting means altered listing patterns, potentially faster movement of admission matters, and a period of adjustment as new benches are constituted and rosters redistributed. Appointments to the newly created posts will follow the ordinary Collegium process, and the timeline for filling them will determine when the practical benefit is felt.
- Owning land where a transformer stands is not enough to prosecute for an electrocution death
News · 13 Aug 2026
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor charge-sheeted over the death of a labourer by electrocution on her agricultural land. Justice Anant Ramanth Hegde held that mere ownership of property on which a transformer is installed cannot by itself found criminal liability. The decision is reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289. The judgment is a useful addition to the law on negligence-based prosecutions. Charge sheets in electrocution and accidental death cases are routinely filed against landowners on a theory of vicarious or occupier liability, without pleading any act or omission by the accused that caused the death. The Court's insistence on a demonstrable causal link between the accused's conduct and the fatality restores the correct standard for culpable negligence. Practitioners defending such prosecutions should press for quashing where the charge sheet discloses only ownership, and should identify the statutory body actually responsible for installation and maintenance of the electrical infrastructure — ordinarily the distribution licensee — as the proper subject of enquiry.