Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court calls for a stronger accountability for social media intermediaries and proportionate safeguards to protect children’s online safety while recognising the fundamental right to internet access.
The two-day National Annual Stakeholders Consultation on Ten Years of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, concluded at the Supreme Court of India, with calls for measurable accountability, prevention, de-institutionalisation, and stronger child protection systems.
The Supreme Court of India will host a two-day national consultation on ten years of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, on 10 – 11 October 2026 to review implementation challenges and identify priorities for strengthening child protection and juvenile justice.
Supreme Court takes suo motu cognizance of crimes against women and children in Delhi-NCR and directs vulnerability mapping, CCTV audits and enhanced patrolling.
“The BNS by incorporating Section 69 brought in a separate offence carving out the fraudulent and deceitful conduct as spoken of therein from the grave offence of rape, while at the same time providing a penalty for the deceptive conduct alleged therein.”
Supreme Court held that Section 74, CGST Act could not be invoked mechanically without foundational facts establishing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, and set aside the impugned SCN and consequential order.
The Court clarified that no particular form of attestation is prescribed under Section 81(3), Representation of the People Act, 1951, and different endorsements may suffice where they convey the same meaning
The Court observed that a standard labelling format could reduce confusion and make it easier for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.
Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man who spent 22 years in prison, holding that the prosecution case rested on an unreliable solitary eyewitness account. The Court also emphasised that Constitutional Courts must adopt a proactive approach in condoning delays in criminal appeals filed by convicts.
The Court examined the scope of Section 299 CrPC in a case involving an absconding accused, evidence recorded during a co-accused’s trial, and its subsequent use after the accused’s arrest.
The Court noted that the respondent was dragged unnecessarily to the High Court by a review prompted by the office of the Chief Minister. The State ought to have accepted the High Court’s interference with a “patently illegal and blatantly tainted” sanction order.
The Court dismissed a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s order appointing a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court upheld the view that an exclusive jurisdiction clause, in the context of arbitration proceedings, can be construed as indicative of the seat of arbitration.
The Court held that while conducting preliminary assessment, Juvenile Justice Board was not bound by any opinion or recommendation and must independently apply its mind to all the material available to it, including Social Background Report, Social Investigation Report, witness statements, interaction with the child and every other relevant circumstance.
Supreme Court held that once money is staked on an uncertain outcome, the nature of the underlying game becomes irrelevant and the activity constitutes betting and gambling.
“Tackling human trafficking for CSE, with its hidden nature and multifarious forms, is indeed a very daunting task. However, there is recognition from all corners that it is an evil which needs urgent and consistent attention.”
The Court directed the confiscation of the property where a claim, which was presented to be based on a will, but was in substance an attempt to obtain judicial recognition of a benami transaction.
The Court directed the confiscation of the property where a claim, which was presented to be based on a will, but was in substance an attempt to obtain judicial recognition of a benami transaction.
The Court emphasised that dowry death cases carry statutory presumptions under Section 118, Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 which cannot be ignored.
In the instant case, the petitioner was in jail for almost 4 years, but not a single witness was examined.
“Supreme Court set aside the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the accused.”