{"id":379119,"date":"2026-03-23T17:00:52","date_gmt":"2026-03-23T11:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=379119"},"modified":"2026-03-23T17:30:56","modified_gmt":"2026-03-23T12:00:56","slug":"top-legal-developments-this-week-16-22-march-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/23\/top-legal-developments-this-week-16-22-march-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"TOP LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS THIS WEEK [16-22 March, 2026] | Adoptive Mother\u2019s Maternity Benefits; Baba Gurmeet Singh\u2019s Acquittal; and more High-Impact Rulings"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Catch up on the top legal developments this week (16—22nd March 2026), including Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mother, Toll Plaza Advocate Assault Case, International Divorce, Baba Gurmeet Singh’s Acquittal, Namaz at private property, and more.<\/p>\n

STORY OF THE WEEK<\/h2>\n

Maternity Benefits<\/span> |<\/span> S. 60(4) of Social Security Code limiting Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mother struck down; Batted for legal recognition of Paternity Leave<\/span><\/p>\n

In Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 402<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that Section 60(4), Social Security Code, 2020<\/a> (2020 Code) insofar it puts 3 months age limit on the age of the adoptive child, for adoptive mothers to avail maternity benefit under the 2020 Code is violative of Articles 14<\/a>, and 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/h2>\n

Debt Recovery<\/span> |<\/span> Confirmed auction sale open to Judicial Scrutiny; Revaluation permissible to ensure fair price fetched in recovery proceedings<\/span><\/p>\n

In Om Sakthi Sekar v. V. Sukumar<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 368<\/a>, the Supreme Court affirmed the impugned order of the High Court and held that finality of confirmed auction sale does not bar judicial examination of adequacy of valuation or fixation of reserve price, particularly, where it was necessary to ensure that secured asset had fetched best possible price.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Advocate Assault<\/span> |<\/span> ‘Tarnishing the Profession’: Barabanki Bar Members condemned for Attacking Advocate Representing Accused in Toll Plaza Advocate Assault Case<\/span><\/p>\n

In Vishvjeet v. State of U.P.<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 431<\/a>, wherein several employees (petitioners) working at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza on the Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway, Barabanki, were arrested for allegedly assaulting an advocate (complainant) over refusal to pay toll; the Supreme Court grimly noted that members of the bar at Barabanki had indulged into hooliganism against the advocate who had filed the bail application on behalf of the petitioners.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

International Divorce<\/span> | US Divorce Decree on Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Invalid in India: A Way Found to End 18-Year Marital Deadlock<\/span><\/p>\n

While deliberating over<\/span> KM v. KK<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, wherein the Supreme Court had to decide whether decree of divorce passed by the Oakland Circuit Court, USA is conclusive and binding on the parties. Upon perusal of the case’s trajectory and facts, the Court held such decree to be inconclusive and unsustainable as valid decree of divorce between the parties herein.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Who is a consumer<\/span>| Interest earned on deposit by itself doesn’t establish a ‘commercial purpose’ under Consumer Protection Act<\/span><\/p>\n

In Sant Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Vijaya Bank<\/span><\/span>2<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court upheld the impugned order, holding that although the reasoning adopted by the NCDRC regarding the commercial purpose of the deposit was not entirely correct, the dismissal of the complaint was nevertheless justified because the dispute involved serious allegations of fraud and disputed facts unsuitable for summary consumer proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

HIGH COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/h2>\n

T-Series Loan Dispute<\/span> | Reliance Entertainment and its officers found guilty of Contempt in T-Series Loan Dispute<\/span><\/p>\n

In Super Cassettes Industries (P) Ltd. v. Reliance Entertainment Studios (P) Ltd.<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 918<\/a>, the Delhi High Court held that the defendant and its responsible officers (Respondents 1, 2 and 3) were guilty of wilful disobedience of the order dated 19 December 2023 for failure to deposit ₹7.42 crores and ₹2.32 crores within the stipulated period and therefore, they are guilty of contempt of court.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Baba Gurmeet Singh’s Acquittal<\/span> |<\/span> Explained | Why Baba Gurmeet Singh was Acquitted in the Ram Chander Chhatrapati Murder Case<\/span><\/p>\n

In Baba Gurmeet Singh v. CBI<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 3217<\/a>, the Punjab & Haryana HC reiterated that where two possibilities, one of commission of crime and the other of innocence, are reasonably possible, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Considering the lack of credibility of eyewitnesses and investigative lapses, the Court acquitted Baba Gurmeet Singh.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Namaz at private property<\/span> | 24\/7 protection ordered for man threatened with bulldozer action at his home<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering<\/span> Tarik Khan v. State of U.P.<\/span>3<\/sup><\/a><\/span>,<\/span> a man alleged that was stopped from carrying out Namaz in his private property, the Allahabad High Court ordered for his 24\/7 protection.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Expert Witnesses<\/span> |<\/span> Trial vitiates on non-examination of scientific experts whose reports were relied upon<\/span><\/p>\n

In State of Maharashtra v. Tejas<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1870<\/a><\/span><\/a>, the Bombay High Court quashed the conviction holding that a trial vitiates on failure to examine scientific experts whose reports are relied upon as it causes a failure of justice.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Right to offer Namaz<\/span> |<\/span> “Resign or seek transfer if not competent to enforce rule of law”; Police pulled up over preventing man from offering Namaz<\/span><\/p>\n

In Munazir Khan v. State of U.P.<\/span>4<\/sup><\/a>, the Allahabad High Court rejected the contention that the petitioner was restrained due to law-and-order concerns, holding that it is the duty of the State to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails under every circumstance. Accordingly, the Court sought response from the State.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Trade mark<\/span> |<\/span> ‘Minor alterations do not affect trade mark’s identity’; Rectification plea against “Ayyappan Brand” trade mark, rejected<\/span><\/p>\n

In Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries v. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries<\/span><\/span>5<\/sup><\/a>, the Madras High Court held that the discrepancy in user date could not conclusively establish fraud and emphasised that invoices from 1993 onwards evidenced bona fide use. The Court further observed that minor alterations do not affect trade mark’s identity’ and, under Section 55<\/a>, Trade Marks Act<\/a> such use qualified as valid use.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

T20 Tournament<\/span> | Legends League Cricket Media Rights dispute referred to mediation; Refrained from granting interim relief<\/span><\/p>\n

In JioStar India (P) Ltd. v. Absolute Legends Sports (P) Ltd.<\/span><\/span>6<\/sup><\/a>, Jio sought ad interim protection against the respondents from creating any third-party rights, transferring, assigning or otherwise dealing with the media and commercial rights relating to the Legends League Cricket Masters T20 Tournament (League). The Delhi High Court refrained from granting ad interim relief and directed the parties to mediation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Barabanki Mosque Demolition<\/span> |<\/span> Criminal proceedings against The Wire MD Siddharth Varadarajan in Barabanki Mosque Demolition Case, stayed<\/span><\/p>\n

In Siddharth Varadarajan v. State of U.P.<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 620<\/a>, the Allahabad High Court stayed the proceedings and granted the State the last opportunity to file a counter-affidavit.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Culpable Homicide<\/span> | Conviction converted from murder to culpable homicide, recognises “continuous provocation” from tobacco-addicted brother<\/span><\/p>\n

In Hemant Vasant Devrukhkar v. State of Maharashtra<\/span><\/span>7<\/sup><\/a>, the Bombay High Court held that the case was covered by Exception 1 of Section 300<\/a> IPC<\/a>. The Court noted that the deceased’s continuous addiction to tobacco, his abusive behaviour, and his assault on the appellant on the night of the incident amounted to provocation sufficient to deprive the appellant of self-control. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302<\/a> IPC<\/a> was set aside and modified to Section 304(I)<\/a> IPC<\/a> with a reduced sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Promotion<\/span> |<\/span> Employee’s Right to be Considered for Promotion Cannot be Defeated by Transfer on Marriage<\/span><\/p>\n

In Tara Devi v. State of H.P<\/span>.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine HP 1840<\/a><\/span><\/a>, wherein the basic legal issue was the interplay between a rule which granted first opportunity of promotion to the Anganwari Helper when a vacancy arose, and a rule which allowed transfer of a Worker or Helper upon marriage at her husband’s place of residence. The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that marriage-based transfer order of an employee cannot take away another employee’s right to be considered for promotion which is a legitimate expectation, and consequently, upheld the Single Judge’s order granting promotion to the Anganwari Helper.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

False Promise to Marry<\/span> |<\/span> ‘Unlikely that 12-year relationship was based on False Promise of Marriage’: Rape Case<\/span> quashed<\/span><\/p>\n

Examining whether allegations of false promise to marriage in long-term relationships could vitiate consent under the provisions governing sexual offences in X v. State of Madhya Pradesh<\/span>,<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a> the Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that for such a claim to succeed, the promise must be false from inception, made in bad faith, and shown to have directly influenced the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act. Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Tiger Logo Dispute<\/span> | How does Section 45 proviso of Copyright Act protect original artistic work when marks overlap<\/span><\/p>\n

In Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Vijay Keshav Wagh<\/span><\/span>9<\/sup><\/a>, where the Court was called upon to examine the overlap between copyright and trademark in a dispute over the TIGER artwork, the Delhi High Court found the artistic work used in the SHREE SAKSHAT label to be copied in its totality from Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd’s well-known TIGER artistic work. The Court, hence, directed the removal of the deceptively similar artistic work from the Register of Copyrights.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Arbitrator’s Expertise<\/span> |<\/span> Can Arbitral Tribunal reject expert evidence and rely on its own expertise?<\/span><\/p>\n

In <\/span>ITD-ITD CEM Joint Venture v. Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Limited<\/span>10<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, filed against the Single Judge’s order whereby the arbitral award granted in the 2019 Tunnel Boring Incident was set aside, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Arbitral Tribunal not only overlooked the terms of the contract, but also ignored the evidence led by one party without assigning any reason. The Court also held that the Arbitral Tribunal’s findings were not based on any concrete evidence; it was a mere assumption based on personal expertise of arbitrator, and the same was used to discard positive evidence adduced by KMRC.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Assisted Reproductive Technology<\/span> | Wife Allowed to Extract Brain-Dead Husband’s Gametes for Assisted Reproduction Amid Consent Dilemma<\/span><\/p>\n

In X v. Union of India<\/span><\/span>11<\/sup><\/a>, the Kerala High Court while considering the risk of irreparable hardship, permitted the wife to extract brain-dead husband’s gametes for assisted reproduction, subject to the condition that no further Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) procedures would be undertaken without the Court’s permission.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Banks Amalgamation<\/span> | RBI’s revival plan of Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank —Unity Small Finance Bank amalgamation scheme, affirmed<\/span><\/p>\n

While hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Amalgamation with Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd.) Scheme, 2022 (Scheme) in Bhalchandra Dinkar Gondekar v. RBI<\/span><\/span>12<\/sup><\/a>, the Bombay High Court upheld the Scheme framed by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Section 45<\/a>, Banking Regulation Act, 1949<\/a> (BR Act). Finding that the PMC Bank—Unity Bank amalgamation Scheme was prepared in public interest and in the interest of depositors and noting the precarious financial condition in which the bank stood at the time of inspection, the Court held that no illegality or infirmity had been demonstrated and rejected the challenge.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Official Secrets<\/span> | Inside order denying bail to YouTuber accused of sharing sensitive information with Pakistan<\/span><\/p>\n

In a bail petition titled Jyoti Rani alias Jyoti Malhotra v. State of Haryana<\/span><\/span>13<\/sup><\/a> filed by a YouTuber having a channel by the name of “Travel-with-Jo” under Section 483<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS) alleged to have contacts with the operatives of Pakistan Intelligence Agency through social media platform, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the offences involved were of very serious nature of offence, thus, refused to grant bail to the Youtuber.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

OTHER UPDATES<\/h2>\n

NEWS<\/h3>\n