Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Key Supreme Court rulings on Section 36 in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, bail, sale of assets of corporate debtor, suit for injunction, etc.
Delhi HC holds that UAPA accused are not entitled to default bail after 90 days, ruling that Section 43-D(2) permits detention up to 180 days even after BNSS replaced CrPC
Calling Delhi the “nation’s laboratory for judicial innovation”, CJI Surya Kant marked the importance of specialised courts for timely and effective adjudication of complex criminal cases.
Holding that Athar Khan’s role was prima facie distinguishable from co-accused granted bail by the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court dismissed his second bail appeal in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case under the UAPA.
Emphasising judicial discipline, the Court expressed serious reservations about Division Bench decisions in Gulfisha Fatima, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10 and Gurwinder Singh, (2024) 5 SCC 403 for making a clear departure from ratio laid down by the three-Judge Bench in K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713.
In the present case, the Government of India directed the NIA to investigate a FIR filed by West Bengal Police under multiple laws. The State argued that, even without investigation or supporting material, the order itself claimed the FIR allegations fall under Section 15(1)(a) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
“They have been vociferously endorsing, supporting, and promoting the sentiments as well as provoking the people of Kashmir. So much so, in their posts, the accused have called for a boycott of elections and to reject the candidate who comes with the idea of development.”
Justice Sandeep Mehta, formerly the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, took oath of office as Judge of Supreme Court of India on 9-11-2023 and will be retiring on 10-01-2028.
“When bail is sought in prosecutions governed by a special statute, the Court is required to undertake a difficult and sensitive balancing exercise, conscious that neither liberty nor security admits of absolutism”.
The Court further declined to interfere in the bail granted to the persons accused for derailment of Jnaneswari Express on 28-5-2010 stating that the CBI could not bring to notice subsequent development which would justify this interference.
“Prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to infringement of right of an accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
In September 2025, a RTI query was filed before the designated CPIO of the Supreme Court, seeking the statistics on pendency and disposal of cases by the Supreme Court.
Karnataka High Court had granted bail to one accused after finding that he was associated with organisations not banned under UAPA; however, the 2nd accused person’s bail was rejected as he was involved with banned terror outfits.
The Court observed that even though weapons are recovered from one of the accused, it is not the prosecution’s case that those weapons were used for any terrorist activity and/or toppling the Government.
The Trial Court has categorically observed that the investigation progressed substantially during the extension of the accused persons’ detention and the investigation had not been stagnant.
“Where there are two views, one giving rise to mere suspicion and the other to grave suspicion, the Judge would be justified in refusing discharge if satisfied that strong suspicion exists. The existence of some essential material giving rise to strong suspicion necessary for drawing a charge and refusing discharge is required.”
“Creating a false appearance of having solved a case by presenting that the accused had been brought to justice gave a misleading sense of resolution. This deceptive closure undermined public trust and falsely reassured society, while in reality, the true threat remained at large.”
“It is for the trial Court to decide it on the basis of the evidence as to what is the material available to prove or otherwise the charges which have been framed.”
“A person cannot be a juvenile for one purpose and an adult for other purpose. The Courts lean strongly against any construction which tends to reduce a statute to a futility.”