{"id":376580,"date":"2026-02-24T12:30:18","date_gmt":"2026-02-24T07:00:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=376580"},"modified":"2026-03-03T10:20:27","modified_gmt":"2026-03-03T04:50:27","slug":"top-legal-developments-this-week-16-to-22-feb-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/24\/top-legal-developments-this-week-16-to-22-feb-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"TOP LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS THIS WEEK [16-22nd Feb, 2026] | MP Cough Syrup Deaths Case; Gig Workers’ Welfare Fees; Live-In Relationships; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This roundup captures the top legal developments this week like key rulings by the Supreme Court, High Courts, and other courts on topics such as, Beldanga violence, Retrospective Honorarium to Law Researchers, MP Cough Syrup Deaths Case, NLU Odisha Assault case, etc. It also includes legislative and other developments such as Gig Workers’ Welfare Fees, Drone & GPS Jammers, and much more.<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WEEK<\/h2>\n

BAIL<\/span> |<\/span> Successive FIRs to Defeat Bail amount to Abuse of Process: Article 32 invoked to grant Bail<\/span><\/p>\n

In Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 208<\/a>, on allegations of repeated invoking and deploying the criminal process against the petitioners by way of successive registration of FIRs and custodial remands, the Supreme Court concluded that the successive registration of FIRs was solely to keep the petitioner 1 in custody. The Court granted bail to the petitioner 1 and directed that no coercive steps be taken against petitioner 2, subject to cooperation with investigation. Read Repeated FIRs case here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TERRORISM<\/span> | NIA directed to submit report on applicability of UAPA in Beldanga violence; Calcutta High Court to assess report<\/span><\/p>\n

In State of W.B. v. Suvendu Adhikari<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 196<\/a>, the Supreme Court directed the National Investigating Agency (‘NIA’) to submit a report to the High Court stating whether a prima facie case exists for applying Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967<\/a> (‘UAPA’). Since the High Court’s order only made brief remarks without a clear view, the Court asked it to independently assess the NIA’s report after hearing the parties. Read<\/span><\/span> Beldanga violence case here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

MUSLIM LAW<\/span> | Almost 9 Decades on, Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act still without Rules; Answers sought<\/span><\/p>\n

During the course of the hearing in a pending civil appeal in Gohar Sultan v. Sheikh Anis Ahmad<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 246<\/a>, the Court’s attention was drawn to the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937<\/a>, particularly Section 4 and the absence of compliance with the said provision. The Supreme Court<\/span> impleaded the Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Legislation, and the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Chief Secretary as party respondents and issued notice, so that the appropriate governmental authorities before it could clarify the position regarding compliance.<\/span> Read<\/span> Muslim Law case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BAIL<\/span> |<\/span> Anticipatory bail ordinarily continues without fixed expiry unless special reasons recorded<\/p>\n

In Sumit v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 186<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily continues without fixed expiry. The filing of a charge-sheet, taking of cognizance, or issuance of summons does not terminate protection unless special reasons are recorded. Read<\/span> Bail Expiry case here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

GOVERNMENT WELFARE SCHEMES<\/span> |<\/span> Nepotism in Government Welfare Societies: Arbitrary allotment of Super Deluxe Flats and imposes costs, quashed<\/p>\n

In Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court while condemning nepotism in Government Welfare Societies flat allotment, set aside the High Court’s judgment, quashed the impugned allotments and imposed costs on the respondents<\/span>.<\/span> Read<\/span> Government welfare societies case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

LAW RESEARCHERS<\/span> | Centre’s plea on Retrospective Honorarium to Law Researchers dismissed<\/span><\/p>\n

In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Rushant Malhotra<\/span><\/span>2<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of the High Court granting retrospective honorarium to Law Researchers, and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Read<\/span><\/span> Law Researchers case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CONDONATION OF DELAY<\/span> | Bureaucratic Delay no Ground for Condonation; SLP dismissed as time-barred for State being ‘utterly lethargic, tardy and indolent’<\/span><\/p>\n

In State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 191<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that “condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay.” The Court emphasised that despite the latitude shown to the State, no case for exercise of discretion had been made out. Read<\/span> Bureaucratic Delay case here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

MJAOR HIGH COURT RULINGS THIS WEEK<\/h2>\n

ADVOCATES<\/span> | Initiation of contempt proceedings called for against advocate who challenged Court’s authority in open Court alleging Government pressure<\/span><\/p>\n

In Kunal v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 357<\/a>, the applicant’s advocate raised his voice in open Court questioning the Court’s authority in a highly objectionable tone and body language and alleged pressure of the Government. Thus, the Allahabad High Court initiated contempt proceeding against him. Read<\/span> Contempt against advocate case here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

CHILDREN IN CRIME<\/span> | Growing use of children in crime & as “weapons” to escape penal action, stressed; Anticipatory bail denied<\/span><\/p>\n

In Savitri v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 590<\/a>, the Delhi High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail in light of the allegations disclosing trafficking and exploitation of a child for criminal activities, coupled with accused’s active involvement in organized illegal trade and criminal antecedents.<\/span><\/span> Read<\/span> Child trafficking case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CHILD RIGHTS<\/span> |<\/span> ‘Parents’ bounden duty to care for child’: Life sentence of parents who poisoned their child suffering from mental disorder, upheld<\/p>\n

In S. Muneeswaran v. State<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 1491<\/a><\/span>, the Madras High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused parents for administering poison to their daughter, despite the viscera report not detecting any poison. Read<\/span> Child murder case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MISSING CHILDREN<\/span> |<\/span> Concern raised over rampant trafficking, seeks National SOP on Aadhaar disclosure for missing children<\/p>\n

While considering the case of Chandramuni Urain v. State of Jharkhand<\/span><\/span>3<\/sup><\/a>, concerning the trafficking of a minor girl child who has remained missing since 2018, the Jharkhand High Court held that Aadhaar details can be disclosed under Section 33(1)<\/a> of the Aadhaar Act, 2016<\/a> (‘Aadhaar Act’) to aid the Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) in tracing victims of trafficking. The Court also called upon the Ministry of Home Affairs to suggest a Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) for such cases.<\/span><\/span> Read<\/span> Missing children case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CORRUPTION<\/span> |<\/span> Bail denied to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar in Rs. 8 Lakhs bribery case<\/p>\n

In Harcharan Singh Bhullar v. CBI<\/span><\/span>4<\/sup><\/a>, the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar in alleged corruption case involving Rs. 8 lakhs, stating that he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Read<\/span> DIG Harcharan case here<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

DEFAMATION<\/span> |<\/span> No apparent nexus with alleged defamatory advertisement against BJP: Proceedings against Rahul Gandhi<\/span>, quashed<\/span><\/p>\n

In a quashing application titled<\/span> Rahul Gandhi v. Bharatiya Janata Party<\/span><\/span>5<\/sup><\/a> filed by Rahul Gandhi regarding a defamation case filed against him, the Karnataka High Court stated that except for the photograph, he had no other apparent nexus with the defamatory advertisement against the complainant-Bharatiya Janata Party (‘BJP’). Accordingly, the Court quashed the proceedings against Rahul Gandhi. Read<\/span><\/span> Rahul Gandhi case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE<\/span> |<\/span> MP Cough Syrup Deaths Case| Bail denied to doctor, medical store owners, and pharmacists, notes forgery of bills and destruction of evidence<\/p>\n

In Dr. Praveen Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh<\/span><\/span>6<\/sup><\/a> along with a batch of bail applications filed in the MP Cough Syrup Deaths Case, Madhya Pradesh High Court denied bail to the accused doctor, medical store owners, and pharmacists, holding that the cases were not suitable for bail. Read<\/span> MP Cough Syrup Deaths Case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RELIGION<\/span> | Temple built on encroached Government land not covered under Places of Worship Act<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering a writ petition titled N. Kumar v. Collector<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 1163<\/a>, the Madras High Court<\/span><\/span> observed that the petitioner, who had constructed a temple on the bund of a water body was not entitled to protection under the Government Order or the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991<\/a> (‘Places of Worship Act’). The Court held that the Places of Worship Act only prohibits conversion of places of worship as they stood on 15-08-1947, thereby rejecting the writ petition. Read<\/span> Government land encroachment case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

RELIGIOUS PRACTICES<\/span> |<\/span> Criminal case against students for offering Namaz at restricted place, quashed<\/p>\n

In Azeem Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P<\/span><\/span>.7<\/sup><\/a>, the Allahabad High Court allowed the quashment application, considering that the students had no criminal history and were only implicated in this case, which was hampering their future. Read<\/span> Namaz at restricted place case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

INSOLVENCY AND BANKCRUPTCY<\/span> | IBC is a complete code with inbuilt remedies; Relief denied to personal guarantors of Extol Industries in ₹24.83 Crore Bank of Baroda dispute<\/span><\/p>\n

In Aditya Bhatnagar v. Bank of Baroda<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 10639<\/a><\/span>, the Madhya Pradesh High Court denied relief to personal guarantors of Extol Industries against the Bank of Baroda, holding that they could file appropriate application against the demand notice before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) or the Supreme Court in the pending matters.<\/span><\/span> Read<\/span> Extol Industries case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

STUDENTS<\/span> |<\/span> “Lawlessness around campus cannot be tolerated”: Enhanced security, 24×7 police presence directed at NLU Odisha<\/span><\/p>\n

In Roshan Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ori 613<\/a>, an NLU Odisha student had alleged intimidation, abuse, and an attempt to abduct him while returning from Naraj Dam to the campus. The Orissa High Court held that since the complainant had unequivocally expressed unwillingness to prosecute further, the proceedings deserved to be quashed, and also issued directions to ensure safety, discipline, and maintenance of a secure academic atmosphere in and around the NLU Odisha campus. Read<\/span><\/span> NLU Odisha case here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TRADE MARK<\/span> | Procedural irregularity in affidavit filing doesn’t justify abandonment of Modern Kitchens’ trade mark application by Registrar<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> ACE Foods (P) Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks Office<\/span><\/span>8<\/sup><\/a>, the Madras High Court observed that Rule 46(2) of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017<\/a> (‘Trade Mark Rules’), to the extent it provides for deemed abandonment, is ultra vires the Act. Accordingly, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to consider the application on merits.<\/span><\/span><\/span> Read<\/span> Modern Kitchens’ case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MATERNITY LEAVES<\/span> | Maternity leave is a right<\/span>, cannot be clubbed with regular discretionary leaves<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In Susan K. John v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 1333<\/a>, the Kerala High Court noted that the present case was unique in circumstances, as the petitioner’s maternity leave and her medical leave both had to be availed in the same year. The general principle of availing leave beyond one year would result in termination of the candidature, which cannot be applied to such rare instances. Thus, the Court held that maternity leave being a right and other leaves being a discretion, the maternity leave availed by the petitioner cannot be clubbed with the other regular leaves that can be availed by such a trainee. Read<\/span> Maternity leaves case here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

BONDED LABOUR<\/span> | Refusal to accept resignation and forcing continued service amounts to bonded labour under Article 23<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> Greevas Job Panakkal v. Traco Cable Co. Ltd<\/span><\/span>.9<\/sup><\/a>, the Kerala High Court held that in absence of violation of any notice or contractual conditions or contemplated disciplinary proceedings, an employer cannot desist from accepting a resignation. The Court observed that not accepting resignation and forcing continued service amounts to bonded labour prohibited under Article 23<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. Read<\/span><\/span> Bonded Labour case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS<\/span> |<\/span> Beedi rollers engaged through intermediary are employees under EPF Act, are entitled to provident fund<\/p>\n

In Seyadu Beedi Company v. EPFO<\/span><\/span>10<\/sup><\/a>, the Madras High Court held that beedi rollers engaged through an intermediary were employees of the petitioner company under the Employees’ Provident Funds (‘EPF’) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952<\/a> (‘EPF Act’). Observing that the workers’ sustenance was wholly dependent on the company, the Court upheld the orders passed under the EPF Scheme read with Section 7A<\/a> of the EPF Act<\/a>, and dismissed the writ petitions as devoid of merits.<\/span><\/span> Read<\/span> Beedi rollers case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

WELFARE SCHEMES<\/span> | PIL challenging stoppage of fresh registrations in Ladli Behna Yojana, dismissed<\/span><\/p>\n

In a public interest litigation titled<\/span> Paras Saklecha v. State of Madhya Pradesh<\/span><\/span>11<\/sup><\/a>, challenging the implementation of the Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana, 2023, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the case did not fall within the scope of judicial review and the issues raised fell within the executive domain. Read<\/span><\/span> MLBY Challenge case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PATENT<\/span> | Patentee not liable for agent’s negligence; Restoration of expired patent allowed<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> Green Energy Resources v. Union of India<\/span>12<\/sup><\/a>, the Orissa High Court held that a patentee cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of its authorized agent. The Court underscored that the expiry of the patent during the Covid-19 pandemic period and the agent’s failure to pay renewal fees justified restoration beyond the statutory eighteen-month window under Section 60<\/a>, Patents Act, 1970<\/a> (‘Patents Act’). Observing that the Patents Act is a beneficial legislation, the Court directed the Controller to accept the restoration application and allowed the writ petition<\/span>. Read<\/span><\/span><\/span> Patentee Liability case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

HIGHLIGHTS FROM OTHER COURTS AND TRIBUNALS THIS WEEK<\/h2>\n

ABUSE OF DOMINANCE<\/span> |<\/span> Rs 27 Crores penalty imposed on Intel Corp. for abuse of dominance through India-specific warranty policy on boxed microprocessors<\/p>\n

In Matrix Info System (P) Ltd v. Intel Corpn<\/span>., 2026 SCC OnLine CCI 6<\/a>, the Competition Commission of India stated that Intel abused its dominant position by enforcing an unfair and discriminatory India-specific warranty policy for boxed microprocessors imported from authorized overseas distributors. Read<\/span> Intel CCI case here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLTE TRIBUNAL<\/span> | Section 7<\/a> IBC<\/a> application must confine to the defaults committed after Section 10A period<\/span><\/p>\n

In SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. v. R.S. Kamthe Infrestrucuture Developers (P) Ltd<\/span><\/span>.13<\/sup><\/a>, the NCLAT clarified that application under Section 7 had to confine to the default committed subsequent to the period of Section 10-A<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that application under Section 7<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> was not barred by Section 10-A<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> and directed the matter to be placed before adjudicating authority for afresh consideration. Read<\/span> S. 7 IBC case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RIGHT TO PRIVACY<\/span> |<\/span> USD 25 Million damages awarded against Meta for privacy breach over False Medical Claim in Facebook Post<\/span><\/p>\n

A suit titled Femi Falana v. Meta Platforms<\/span><\/span>14<\/sup><\/a> was filed by the applicant against Meta Platforms seeking declaratory and consequential reliefs for alleged invasion of privacy and breach of data protection rights arising from the continued publication of his name, image and purported voice in a video captioned “Africare Health Centre” on the respondent’s platform (www.facebook.com). The High Court of Lagos State awarded general damages in the sum of USD 25,000,000 in favour of the applicant for breach of privacy and data protection rights. Read<\/span> Meta Privacy case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PATENTS<\/span> |<\/span> Artificial Neural Networks can qualify for Patent Protection<\/p>\n

In Emotional Perception AI Ltd. v. Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks<\/span>15<\/sup><\/a>, the UK Supreme Court held that an artificial neural network (‘ANN’) does constitute a program for a computer, but that the claimed invention was not excluded from patentability as a computer program ‘as such.’ Read<\/span> Neural networks case here<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

OTHER UPDATES<\/h2>\n

NEWS<\/h3>\n