Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Bar Council of Delhi stated that uncorroborated and sensational allegations made without concrete evidence can create unjustified prejudice, hinder the regular functioning of the justice delivery system and lower the dignity of courts in the eyes of the public.
The Supreme Court directed DMRC, Railway authorities and Delhi Police (Traffic) to file a compliance report within four days.
The Court, by 5:4 ratio, established that the “Triple Test” in Bangalore Water Supply remains the governing legal framework for Section 2(j), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Court approved Amicus’s 11 condition framework for disposal of minerals from expired leases, holding the conditions mandatory, and permitted amalgamation of mining blocks with virgin forest land for auction, subject to strict statutory and environmental safeguards..
The Court considered “preservation of experienced judicial officers, while removing the clog of deadwood, blocking the entrance of young blood invigorating the system”, a balance approach to the problem in hand.
At the BRICS Chief Justices’ Forum 2026, the Chief Justice welcomed judicial leaders from BRICS Member and Partner Countries, highlighting the importance of mediation, AI, arbitration, and judicial cooperation in addressing contemporary challenges and strengthening the shared values of justice.
Chief Justice Surya Kant holds bilateral meetings with BRICS judicial leaders to strengthen judicial cooperation and discuss mediation, arbitration, commercial courts, AI integration and mutual recognition of judicial awards
Supreme Court will host the BRICS Chief Justices’ Forum 2026 in New Delhi from 4—6 September, focusing on judicial cooperation, dispute resolution, AI and the judiciary, arbitration, and sustainable development
Supreme Court Quashes FIRs, Invokes Article 142 and Directs Pan-India Compensation for Students’ Families in NEET-UG 2026 Protests
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, J., held that 3 years’ practice at the Bar is essential before entry into the judicial service, as practical courtroom experience cannot be adequately substituted by a structured training programme, and therefore found no ground to review the earlier judgment.
Supreme Court modified the 3-year Bar practice requirement for recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division), introducing a transitional regime for fresh law graduates and prescribing 1 year of actual practice, followed by structured judicial training and Law Clerkship, for subsequent recruitments.
While noting that the reported amounts defrauded had decreased substantially, the Court regarded this trend as certainly encouraging but expressly cautioned that “continued monitoring remains indispensable”.
Supreme Court clarified that “criminal antecedents” in its NEET 2026 protest order refers only to “grave and heinous offences” and held that NCT of Delhi and other States are at liberty to decide closure or withdrawal of FIRs in accordance with law.
The Court observed that environmental adjudication requires reconciling 2 competing constitutional aspirations, the fundamental right of present and future generations to live in a pollution-free environment and the developmental aspirations of a nation comprising nearly one-sixth of humanity.
Supreme Court held that the existing judicial framework, including e-filing, virtual hearings and urgent listing mechanisms, adequately ensures round-the-clock access to constitutional remedies in cases involving imminent threats to life, liberty and other fundamental rights.
The Court directed that directions issued in Rohit Anand Das v. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4535, regarding modification of the APAAR consent form should operate on a pan-India basis.
Supreme Court imposed ₹3 lakh costs each on Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal and others for alleged brazen violation of undertakings and directed them to file compliance affidavits within 15 days.
“Once the parties with their eyes open without any protest whatsoever and with free will accept certain terms of a contract they cannot afterwards be permitted to go back on the same merely because at a later point of time the stipulation proves to be onerous.”
The Court clarified that the Madras High Court’s view in R. v. B., (2024) 1 HCC (Mad) 531, requiring Part B to be signed exclusively by Section 79-A-notified Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall not operate as a binding precedent.
The PIL highlighted the widespread absence of properly equipped Ladies’ Bar Rooms and essential amenities in High Courts, District Courts, Taluka Courts, Tribunals, Revenue Courts, and Commissions across the country.