Top Legal Developments This Week [10-16 August 2026] | Tarun Tejpal’s Conviction; Bar Council Co-option; UPI Charges Clarified; and 20+ more stories
A quick roundup to cover all the important legal developments and cases this week.
A quick roundup to cover all the important legal developments and cases this week.
The Court remarked that the daughters, despite being major, educated and legally competent women, were deprived of their liberty for a prolonged period, solely because they exercised their constitutionally protected freedom of conscience and chose to profess a religion different from that professed by their family.
“We must be alive to the situation that UPPUCRA was enacted to curtail an emergent situation in society, where, certain persons go about not professing or propagating their religion, but thrusting it upon others in the belief that the religion they believe in must be followed by others.”
“Rule 13 of the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008 restricts major changes in the marriage register, permitting only corrections of errors in form or substance or fraudulent or improper entries, subject to conditions in sub-rule (2).”
While quashing multiple FIRs under UP Conversion Act, 2021, the Court observed that statutory requirement of making public the personal details of each person who has converted to a different religion, may require a deeper examination.
The Court observed that the complainant lacked locus standi to lodge an FIR, which could only be lodged by the converted person, their parents, and siblings, or relatives by blood, marriage, adoption, or association.
In the instant case, the Court rejected the appellant’s contention that caste would be under eclipse upon conversion and will resume upon reconversion.
The Court further pointed out that while considering the bail applications, the factors which are required to be considered are nature of offence, gravity thereof and societal impact etc.
Allahabad High Court said that the informant in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC had categorically submitted that she was forced to accept ‘Islam’ and Nikaah was performed. Thus, the applicant being “Religion Convertor” is equally liable under the Act, 2021.
The statement of object and reason for enforcing the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, was to provide for prohibition of unlawful conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto
“It is against the Constitutional mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution which does not provide for religious conversion, it only provides freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.“
by Ravi Shankar* and Akanksha Natesan**
Allahabad High Court remarked that Maulana Syed claims himself to be an Islamic religious scholar and he has claimed that he had made the statements “In light of the provisions of Holy Quran and Islamic jurisprudence” and “In the light of Shia school of thought, philosophy & jurisprudence” but he has not referred to a single verse of the Holy Quran.
Allahabad High Court: Prakash Padia, J., reserved a judgment in a plea which was filed challenging the maintainability of a civil suit
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Pankaj Naqvi and Vivek Agarwal, JJ., observed that, Right to live with a person of his/her