This Criminal Law June 2026 Roundup provides an overview of important cases and key legislative updates of criminal law that made headlines this month, such as the Supreme Court’s take on human trafficking and the protection of victims of commercial sexual exploitation, Allahabad HC’s answer to whether witness statements recorded before summoning be used against an accused, Madhya Pradesh HC’s ruling denying bail in MP Cough Syrup Deaths Case, and more. These decisions, among others, offer valuable insights into the evolving legal landscape concerning aspects such as acquittal, bail, investigation, SHe-Box 2.0, POCSO, POSH, NDPS offences, crimes against women and children, abetment of suicide etc.
HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH
TRAFFICKING VICTIM PROTECTION PLAN
SUPREME COURT | Rescued Is Not Enough; State Must Rehabilitate Every Human Trafficking Survivor: SC Comprehensive “Victim Protection Plan” Tells Exactly How
In a comprehensive pronouncement on human trafficking and the protection of victims of commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) in India, originating from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by petitioner, an anti-trafficking organisation, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ., while recognising trafficking as a grave assault on human dignity, bodily autonomy and personal liberty, adopted a victim-centric approach and affirmed that rehabilitation is not merely a matter of governmental policy but an integral component of the constitutional guarantee of a life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court issued a comprehensive “Victim Protection Plan” governing the pre-rescue, rescue, post-rescue, rehabilitation, reintegration and prosecution stages, while simultaneously recommending several legislative and policy reforms aimed at strengthening India’s anti-trafficking framework. [Prajwala v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1053] Read More HERE
Also Read: Jharkhand HC seeks SOP on Aadhaar disclosure for missing children
ABETMENT OF SUICIDE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Can Loan Recovery Action by Bank Officials or Creditors Amount to Abetment of Suicide? Bombay HC Answers
In the application seeking quashing of the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Single Judge Bench of Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, J., stated that normal or even harsh reaction, made in anger or momentarily, does not amount to abetment. Section 306 IPC requires a clear, deliberate, and intentional act to drive a person to suicide. Lawful actions such as loan recovery by bank officials, reminders for repayment, or strict conduct by authorities or parents do not constitute abetment of suicide. The Court stated that prima facie, the allegations, apart from being unsustainable and untenable, were also clearly contrary to the medical reports. Even if the allegations are accepted at face value, the same were general and vague in nature. Accordingly, the application was allowed. [Amit Padmakar More v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 3740] Read More HERE
Also Watch: Anger or Abetment of Suicide? Understanding Section 306 IPC
ACQUITTAL AND CONVICTION
SUPREME COURT | Section 386(a) CrPC | Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal Must Itself Hear Convict on Sentence; Can’t Remit Matter to Trial Court Solely for Sentencing: SC
In the appeals arising from a Calcutta High Court’s judgment dated 23 April 2026, reversing Sessions Court’s judgment of acquittal dated 24 April 2024, convicting the appellant, for offences under Sections 376 and 312, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and directing the trial court to hear the accused on sentence and impose punishment, the Division Bench of K.V. Viswanathan* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., set aside the part of para 108 of the impugned judgment by which the appellant was directed to surrender before the trial court and the trial court was directed to hear him on sentence and impose punishment, holding that where an appellate court reverses an acquittal and records a conviction for the first time, the appellate court is duty-bound to itself hear the convict on the question of sentence and impose punishment. The appellate court cannot remit the matter to the trial court solely for sentencing. Such a course is inconsistent with Section 386(a), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and established judicial precedents. [Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 938] Read More HERE
Also Read: SC culls out basic factors for imposition of sentence
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Can Witness Statements Recorded Before Summoning Be Used Against an Accused? Allahabad HC Answers
In a criminal appeal filed by the accused, challenging his conviction under 302, 307, 506(2), and 148, Penal Code, 1860, the Division Bench of Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Subhash Vidyarthi JJ., allowed the appeal, after observing that the trial court had relied on witness statements recorded before the accused was summoned to face trial. The Court held that such evidence could not be read against the accused, particularly when the witness, after his summoning, did not support the prosecution. Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment and acquitted the accused of all the charges. [Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 10411] Read More HERE
BAIL
SUPREME COURT | Criminal Antecedents Are Not Merely a Matter of Record, They Bear Directly on Whether an Accused Will Abide by Bail Conditions: SC Cancels Bail of 3 in Hospital Murder Case
In a batch of criminal appeals arising from a common order granting regular bail to accused persons in a murder case involving an alleged armed mob attack, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., set aside the grant of bail to 3 accused, holding that the High Court had erred in enlarging all the respondent-accused on bail without individually adverting to their distinct roles and criminal antecedents. Observing that the offence was of an exceptionally grave nature, involving an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons which culminated in the death of the deceased and injuries to the complainant, the Court held that period of incarceration and delay in trial, though relevant considerations, could not constitute the sole or determinative basis for grant of bail in such circumstances. [Rajni v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1050] Read More HERE
Also Read: SC UAPA Verdict Decoded: Bail is Rule & Gulfisha Fatima Concerns
Also Watch: Supreme Court on Dowry Death Cases: FIR Delay Not Enough for Bail
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Communal Harmony Forms the Bedrock of a Democratic Nation”: Allahabad HC Rejects Bail to Main Conspirator in Bareilly Violence Case
In a bail application filed by the President of Ittefaq Minnat Council who allegedly gave the call for the crowd to assemble and cause violence in the Bareilly Violence case, the Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., rejected the application, holding that there was a significant risk that, if released, he may once again incite a particular community and disturb peace and harmony. [Tauqeer Raja Khan v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 13919] Read More HERE
Also Read: Allahabad HC denies relief to Bareilly Violence Case accused
Bareilly Violence Case| All HC grants bail to man for ‘I love Mohammed’ post
KERALA HIGH COURT | Balaramapuram Child Murder: Kerala HC Grants Bail to Mother Accused Finding No Direct Evidence Linking Her with Crime
While dealing with a bail application in Balaramapuram child murder case raising the issue of whether the continued detention of an accused, based on a co-accused’s confession to have facilitated a brutal killing of her own daughter, was justified in the absence of direct material evidence, the Single Judge Bench of Dr Kauser Edappagath, J., held that, despite the grave nature of the allegations, the absence of direct evidence connecting the applicant to the crime and the overall circumstances warranted her release on bail subject to strict conditions. [Sreethu v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 5466] Read More HERE
Also Read: Allahabad HC acquits man convicted of his wife & children’s murder after 23 years
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | MP Cough Syrup Deaths Case | MP HC Denies Bail to Paediatric Doctor Who Prescribed Banned Fixed Dose Compound to Children Below 4 Despite Government Circular
In a bail application filed by another paediatric doctor who was arrested in the Madhya Pradesh Cough Syrup Deaths Case, the Single Judge Bench of Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J., dismissed the application, holding that the accused prescribed the fixed dose compound to the children below the age of 4 years, which was banned by the Circular issued by the Government on 18 December 2023 (the Circular), due to which many innocent children died. [S.S. Thakur (Dr) v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine MP 14540] Read More HERE
Also Read: HC denies bail in MP Cough Syrup Deaths Case
DELHI DISTRICT COURT | Rouse Avenue Court denies bail to Manisha Waghmare, an accused in NEET-UG paper leak case
In a bail application for regular bail filed by applicant, an accused in NEET-UG paper leak case, under Section 483, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC), Ajay Gupta, Special Judge (PC Act), dismissed the bail application and refused to grant her bail. [CBI v. Manisha Sanjay Waghmare, 2026 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 23] Read More HERE
Also Read: Del HC Upholds Government’s Temporary Telegram Ban
Also Watch: NEET 2026 Paper Leak Controversy Explained
GUJARAT DISTRICT COURT | ‘Bail is Rule and Jail is Exception’: Surat Court Grants Bail to Seven Accused Eight Days After Arrest for Knife and Iron Rod Attack
The District and Sessions Judge, Vinod V. Parmar allowed the bail applications filed under Section 483, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) highlighting the principle of “Bail is Rule and Jail is an Exception” as an important facet of our criminal jurisprudence. The Court also applied the terms and conditions to be followed by the applicant-accused to be released on regular bail. The Court observed that “there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail is an exception.” [Chirag Satishbhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat, 2026 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Guj) 2] Read More HERE
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS
GAUHATI HIGH COURT | Can a Murder Conviction Be Based on Confessional Statements Under S. 164 CrPC Recorded in Presence of Police Officer? Know What Gauhati HC Said
In the criminal appeal filed by the appellants convicted under Sections 302/34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) based on their confessional statements recorded under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the Division Bench of Michael Zothankhuma* and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma JJ., observed that the alleged confessions of the appellants had been made in the presence of a police officer. Thus, the Court held that that the said confessions cannot be said to be voluntary and as such, cannot be relied as substantive admissible evidence. Thus, the Court set aside the appellants’ conviction directed the appellants to be released from judicial custody. [Jiten Engti v. State of Assam, 2026 SCC OnLine Gau 3880] Read More HERE
Also Read: Confession to police non-existent in eye of law; Acquittal ordered: Kerala HC
CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN
KERALA HIGH COURT | POCSO | Kerala HC Upholds Madrassa Teacher’s Conviction for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault on a Nine-Year-Old Boy
In a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the judgment passed by Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, a Single Judge Bench of A. Badharudeen, J. upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for offences punishable under Section 377, Penal Code, Section 5(f) and (m) read with Section 6, Section 9(m) and (o) read with Section 10, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Section 75, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). [Rasheed v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 5660] Read More HERE
Also Read: Del HC: Making minor touch private parts = Aggravated Sexual Assault
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT | Sexually Assaulted at 15, Delivered a Child at 16, Dropped Out of School: Meghalaya HC Upholds POCSO Conviction; Directs Benefits for Survivor and Her Child
The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere, CJ. and W. Diengdoh, J. while dismissing the appeal upheld the conviction under Sections 6 and 8, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The Court directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and District Child Protection Officers (DCPO) to ensure the benefits under the POCSO are made available to the survivor and her child at the earliest. [Dresster Kurbah v. State of Meghalaya, 2026 SCC OnLine Megh 405] Read More HERE
Also Watch: Romeo & Juliet Clause Explained: Decoding SC’s POCSO Judgment
DIVERGENT OPINION IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
SUPREME COURT | SC Refers to Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Under S. 392 CrPC Can Go Beyond Points of Disagreement and Revisit Unanimous Findings of Division Bench
In a matter concerning the scope of judicial power exercisable by a third Judge under Section 392, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC, 1973), where a Division Bench hearing a criminal appeal delivers divergent opinions, the Division Bench comprising Dipankar Datta* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. examined whether the third Judge’s jurisdiction extends beyond the points of disagreement and permits reconsideration of findings unanimously reached by the original Bench. Finding that the issue raises substantial questions regarding the interpretation of Section 392 CrPC and the correctness of the decision in Sajjan Singh v. State of M.P., (1999) 1 SCC 315, the Court referred the matter to a larger Bench for authoritative determination. [Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Dr) v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1102] Read More HERE
FINANCIAL CRIMES
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bombay HC Grants Interim Relief to Anil Ambani in Black Money Case; CIT(A) Appeal to Continue but No Prosecution or Penalty till Writ Petition Disposal
In a petition challenging certain provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (Black Money Act) as being ultra vires the Constitution of India, the Division Bench of B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ., directed that since the petitioner, Anil Ambani, had already appealed the assessment order, the said appeal can proceed and orders can be passed thereon, but no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner, including that of prosecution and penalty, till the hearing and final disposal of the present petition. [Anil Dhirajlal Ambani v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 3732] Read More HERE
INTERPRETING POSH
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Whether a Shared Autorickshaw Used for Office Commute Constitutes a “Workplace” Under POSH Act? Bombay HC Answers
In a case concerning the scope of the expression “workplace” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the Division Bench of Firdosh P. Pooniwalla* and Suman Shyam, JJ., stated that in the present case, although the petitioner was going to his office, the said transportation had not been provided either by his employer or Respondent 3’s employer. In these circumstances, such transportation would not fall within the definition of a “workplace” as defined by Section 2(o)(v), POSH Act. Thus, the Court held that the alleged incident had not taken place at a “workplace”. [Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. SBI, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 3824] Read More HERE
Also Watch: Is Shared Autorickshaw a “Workplace” Under POSH Act: Bombay HC
KERALA HIGH COURT | Is a Director an ‘Employer’ or ‘Employee’ Under the PoSH Act? Kerala HC Settles the Question for Institutions Governed by a General Body
In a writ appeal filed under Section 5(i), Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 6 January 2026 passed by the Single Judge in that writ petition, the Division Bench of Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S.*, JJ. upheld the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to inquire into a sexual harassment complaint filed against the Director of the Integrated Rural Technology Centre (IRTC), holding that the Director would fall within the definition of an “employee” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act), and not that of an “employer”. [J. Sundaresan Pillai (Dr) v. Dr K.K. Seethalakshmi, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 4743] Read More HERE
Also Watch: SHe-Box 2.0 Launched to Strengthen PoSH Act Implementation
INVESTIGATION
SUPREME COURT | Constitutional Courts Can’t Remain Mute Spectators to Endless Investigations; SC Orders Conclusion of Two-Decade-Old Probe Within Six Weeks
In an appeal presenting a disturbing instance of prolonged investigative delay where a criminal complaint lodged in 2007 remained unresolved even after nearly 2 decades and challenging High Court’s order refusing to issue directions for filing of a charge-sheet despite repeated orders of the Magistrate and despite the complainant’s persistent efforts to secure completion of investigation, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Augustine George Masih, JJ., reaffirmed that “the right to speedy trial is intrinsically linked to Article 21 of the Constitution” and held that the High Court erred in not taking the note of the inordinate delay in filing of the chargesheet and intervening in the matter. [Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri v. Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1073] Read More HERE
Also Read: Right to Speedy Trial Violation Justifies Bail Even in Murder Cases
DELHI HIGH COURT | “FIR to wrong Magistrate won’t save the day”: Delhi HC clarifies Section 471 DMC Act limitation and Municipal Magistrate jurisdiction in landmark reference
In a criminal reference made by the Metropolitan Magistrate, under Section 395(2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), regarding recurring questions concerning prosecutions under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act), particularly regarding the interpretation of Sections 466-A, 467 and 471, primarily related to limitation, the filing of complaints, transmission of information to the Magistrate, and the relationship between investigation under the CrPC and prosecution under the DMC Act, the Division Bench of Navin Chawla* and Ravinder Dudeja, JJ., disposed of the criminal reference, holding that:
-
Section 471, DMC Act does not prescribe any statutory time-limit for completion of investigation or filing of the charge-sheet. Limitation under the provision applies only to the filing or transmission of the complaint before the Municipal Magistrate.
-
Period of limitation under Section 471 is satisfied if the complaint is either filed directly by the competent municipal officer or transmitted to the Municipal Magistrate by the police under Section 157 CrPC within 6 months.
[Court on its Own Motion v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4768] Read More HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Criminal Court Does Not Become Functus Officio After Ordering Investigation; Must Supervise, Monitor and Call for Progress Reports: Rajasthan HC
While considering a writ petition filed seeking directions for the police authorities to complete the investigation in a criminal case within a reasonable period and submit a report, a Single Judge Bench of Rekha Borana, J., held that after issuing a direction for investigation in terms of Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. [Section 175(3), Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], a criminal court does not become functus officio. Further, the Court directed the trial court to ensure the filing of the conclusive investigation report within 6 weeks. [Sumann Mundhara v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 3545] Read More HERE
Also Read: SC’s comprehensive directions for procedural timelines for judgment pronouncement
NDPS OFFENCES
DELHI HIGH COURT | Licensed Pharmaceutical Stock Recovered, Section 42 Under Scrutiny, 44 Witnesses Cited, Trial Yet to Begin After 2 Years: Delhi HC Grants Bail in NDPS Case
In a petition filed under Section 483, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking regular bail in FIR for offences under Sections 22 and 29, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Single Judge Bench of Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., granted bail, holding that where the accused demonstrated an arguable challenge to compliance with mandatory safeguards under Section 42, NDPS Act, the recovered stock forms part of licensed pharmaceutical inventory, trial is yet to commence despite prolonged incarceration of more than 2 years and 1 month, and co-accused stand enlarged on bail, the rigours of Section 37, NDPS Act do not preclude grant of regular bail. [Yusuf Aajam v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4329] Read More HERE
Also Watch: Rats Ate Bribe Money? Supreme Court Grants Bail
GAUHATI HIGH COURT | Gauhati HC Reduces NDPS Conviction from Commercial to Intermediate Quantity Due to Lack of Proof of Joint Possession
In connected appeals against rigorous imprisonment for 15 years for allegedly possessing 21.1 kg of contraband, the Division Bench of Michael Zothankhuma* and Kaushik Goswami, JJ., held that, although the prosecution had proved that the appellants were in conscious possession of the Ganja recovered from their respective bag/sack, it had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had jointly possessed or transported the total quantity of 21.1 kg recovered under the 2 seizure lists. The Court held that, if the seized articles were considered separately as per the 2 seizure lists, they could not be said to be of commercial quantity. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) was altered to Section 20(b)(ii)(B), and the sentence was modified accordingly. [Bipin Kumar v. State of Assam, 2026 SCC OnLine Gau 3774] Read More HERE
Also Read: Cal HC: Driver Not in Constructive Possession of Passenger’s Contraband
PREVENTIVE DETENTION
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT | Can Preventive Detention be Invoked Immediately After Bail is Granted? Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Why it Cannot be Used to Bypass Judicial Decisions
While considering a petition seeking direction to release the petitioner on the assertion that he was being illegally detained, a Single Judge Bench of Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., held that the preventive detention order was legally unsustainable, as the unexplained delay in its passing and execution snapped the “live and proximate link” between the alleged prejudicial activities and the need for detention. Emphasising strict adherence to constitutional safeguards in preventive detention, the Court quashed the order as violative of personal liberty and procedural fairness. [Dishant Goel v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 10289] Read More HERE
Also Read: All HC: Preventive detention order valid for public order disturbance under NSA
QUASHMENT PROCEEDINGS
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Prosecution case collapses on its own evidence; Gujarat HC quashes FIR against advocate implicated in assault case
In an application filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 506(2) and 120-B, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Single Judge Bench of P.M. Raval, J., quashed the proceedings against the applicant, holding that the prosecution’s own investigation had unearthed CCTV footage which completely belied the complainant’s allegation that the applicant had threatened him at the District Court premises prior to the assault. The Court held that apart from inadmissible statements of co-accused, a telephonic conversation with a client, and tower-location evidence, there was no independent material linking the applicant to the alleged conspiracy and thus in such circumstances, continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. [Mohammad Bilal Gulam Rasul Kagazi v. State of Gujarat, R/CR.MA/211/2020] Read More HERE
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT | Ankita Bhandari case: ‘To Malign a Person’s Image to Implicate Them in a Concluded Murder Case Is a Serious Issue’: Uttaranchal HC Quashes Two FIRs Against Former MLA; Orders Probe
While considering a batch of 4 petitions filed by Suresh Rathore, former MLA, for quashing of FIRs on the ground that all 4 FIRs did not disclose any cognizable offence and that he was himself a victim and had not uploaded any conversation with his wife in any social media platform pertaining to the Ankita Bhandari’s murder case, a Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Thapliyal, J., held that while 2 FIRs were liable to be quashed, the remaining 2 prima facie disclosed cognizable offences and therefore required thorough investigation. The Court observed that, “To malign the image of a person in order to implicate in a case of heinous crime which has already been concluded is really a serious issue and why such conversations and the video clips have been uploaded in the social media platform certainly requires thorough investigation.” [Suresh Rathore v. State of Uttarakhand, 2026 SCC OnLine Utt 1332] Read More HERE
Also Read: Ankita Bhandari Murder Case | Uttaranchal HC rejects bail plea of main accused Pulkit Arya
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
SHE-BOX 2.0
Towards Safer Workplaces: SHe-Box 2.0 Enhances PoSH Act Implementation
On 17 June 2026, the Ministry of Women and Child Development announced the launch of SHe-Box 2.0, marking a significant step towards creating a safe, inclusive, and empowered environment for women across the country. Read More HERE
COUGH SYRUP SALE ONLY ON PRESCRIPTION
Health Ministry Ends Over-the-Counter Sale of Cough Syrups; Prescription Now Mandatory
On 15 June 2026, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare notified the Drugs (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2026, removing cough syrups from the list of exemptions that earlier allowed their sale without a prescription. Read More HERE
Also Read
