Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that the marriage was dead for all practical purposes, warranting to be nullified under Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce.
Explore the key family law developments of May 2026, featuring significant decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts on maintenance, matrimonial rights, residence disputes, child marriage, guardianship, divorce, succession and child custody.
By judgment day, the mall had been running for seventeen years, supporting 8,000 livelihoods and generating ₹100 crores in annual tax revenue. The Supreme Court held that demolition would not vindicate the public interest, it would destroy it.
The Court clarified that limitation under Section 34, Arbitration Act, begins only upon disposal of proceedings formally instituted and entertained under Section 33 by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The present case is an unfortunate occasion where despite repeatedly knocking the doors of the Courts below, there had been an inordinate delay of nearly two decades in the investigation of a criminal complaint.
The Supreme Court set aside bail granted to 3 accused in a hospital murder case, holding that the High Court failed to consider their specific roles and serious criminal antecedents. The Court reiterated that custody period and delay in trial cannot alone justify bail in heinous offences involving armed mob violence.
The Court held that guardian’s consent does not replace Court’s independent duty to assess whether transaction serves minor’s best interests.
The Court attached significance to the fact that a married son remained part of the family irrespective of his marital status, whereas a married daughter was excluded merely because she was married.
May 2026 was a landmark month for Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court upheld electoral integrity, extended protection to trafficking survivors, reformed bail jurisprudence, advanced gender equality in matrimonial law, and settled long-contested questions in arbitration, IBC, and property law
Justice Manoj Misra was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2023 and has periviously served as a Judge in the Allahabad High Court.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment on Government’s discretion in granting extension of service in Air Force dating back to the year 1955.
“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 RTE Act is a child centric legislation and must be read so. Service of teachers cannot come at the cost of educational future of the children.”
In August 2021, Justice J.K. Maheshwari was elevated to the Supreme Court and priorly served as Chief Justice of two High Courts- Andhra Pradesh and Sikkim.
The Court observed that witnesses, particularly victims of heinous offences and sensitive crimes, cannot be expected to repeatedly appear before courts to face cross-examination.
Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against an anaesthetist in a post-surgery death case, reiterating that criminal medical negligence under Section 304-A IPC requires gross negligence and proximate causation.
The P&H High Court had refused to become a party to the blame game between Punjab Election Commission and Election Commission of India (ECI) over EVM model compatibility. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, leaving open the remedy of an election petition.
With the incumbent DGP’s tenure due to end on 31 May 2026, the State of Manipur sought the Supreme Court’s permission to appoint a replacement from outside the Manipur cadre, citing the unprecedented ethnic and civil unrest continuing in the State.
“It is trite to state that when the validity of a Will is to be determined, the overall terms of a Will, the intention of the testator and the surrounding circumstances have also to be seen.”
The Court did not grant any relief to the third consortium member, Abir Infrastructure Private Limited, as it had not filed an appeal challenging the High Court judgment.