{"id":380244,"date":"2026-04-06T15:00:21","date_gmt":"2026-04-06T09:30:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=380244"},"modified":"2026-04-07T09:25:55","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T03:55:55","slug":"weekly-legal-developments-india-30th-march-5th-april-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/06\/weekly-legal-developments-india-30th-march-5th-april-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Top Legal Developments [30th March \u2014 5th April 2026]: BCI\u2019s withdrawal of Three-Year Moratorium; Mother\u2019s Power to Sell Minor\u2019s HUF Share & Other Key Verdicts & Policy Updates"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This roundup of weekly legal developments India covers the most significant Supreme Court and High Court rulings, including State Liability for Requisitioned Vehicles, Witness Testimony in Rape Case, Satinder Singh Bhasin’s bail in Grand Venice scam case<\/span> and other important legal and policy updates from across India.<\/p>\n

TOP STORY OF THE WEEK<\/h2>\n

BCI Withdraws Three-Year Moratorium: Revives Inspection-Based Approval of Law Colleges<\/a><\/p>\n

On 5 March 2026, the Bar Council of India (‘BCI’) announced the withdrawal of three-year moratorium on law colleges and a resolution-based processing mechanism for approving and regulating Centres of Legal Education (CLEs).<\/p>\n

Read more about BCI’s withdrawal of Three-Year Moratorium HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

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

Bail Cancelled| Businessman Satinder Singh Bhasin’s bail in Grand Venice scam case cancelled<\/p>\n

In Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State (NCT of Delhi<\/span>)1<\/sup><\/a>, the Court held that the petitioner failed to comply with the bail conditions “both in letter and spirit.” The petitioner’s conduct was deemed evasive and at times obstructive, reflecting a lack of bona fide intent, and a continuing pattern of non-compliance. Considering the cumulative effect of these factors, the Court concluded that the petitioner had misused the liberty of bail and failed to honour its conditions, and accordingly cancelled the bail.<\/p>\n

Read about Satinder Singh Bhasin’s bail case<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Exceeding Jurisdiction |Statutory Bodies Cannot Undermine Finality of Judicial Orders; Rent Authority’s Restoration Order Void for Exceeding Jurisdiction<\/p>\n

In Rajesh Goyal v. Laxmi Constructions<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 475<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that the Rent Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by attempting to overturn a Supreme Court eviction order, emphasizing that questions of title fall within Civil Court jurisdiction, not tenancy authorities. It reinforced that subordinate bodies must adhere to binding judicial decisions, and any order exceeding statutory limits, is null and void. Read about Rent Authority’s Restoration Order HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Requisition<\/span>| State Liable for Accidents Involving Requisitioned Vehicles, Not Insurer<\/span><\/p>\n

In DM and District Election Officer and Collector, Gwalior v. National Insurance Company Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 455<\/a><\/span>, the Supreme Court held that liability attaches to the authority exercising effective control rather than the registered owner or its insurer. The Court further distinguished cases involving contractual use of vehicles, emphasizing that requisition is a statutory, non-consensual act. Accordingly, it held that upon requisition, complete control and possession of the vehicle vest in the State, and therefore, the State, having assumed control for public purposes, must bear liability for the accident. Read about State liability for requisitioned vehicles HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Witness Testimony in Rape Case| Minor contradictions in testimony do not vitiate evidence; material omissions may raise doubt; non-disclosure of rape victim’s identity under Section 228-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> must be strictly followed.<\/p>\n

In State of H.P. v. Hukum Chand<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 462<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that Minor inconsistencies in witness testimony not fatal; only contradictions on material facts raise doubt. Strict compliance with Section 228-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> on non-disclosure of rape victims’ identity is mandatory. Read about evidentiary value of witness testimony HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Supreme Court restores criminal proceeding over unauthorised sale of CSI Church land<\/a><\/p>\n

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

Deduction of Pension| Mere allegation of irregularity cannot justify reduction of pension; grave misconduct must be proved in a properly instituted departmental or judicial proceeding<\/p>\n

In State of Jharkhand v. Brajeshwar Singh<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 412<\/a>, the Court while considering the challenge to the quashing of a punishment order deducting 15 per cent pension for five years, the held that the deduction was unsustainable since the mandatory requirements under Rules 43(b) and 139(c), Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 (Pension Rules) were not satisfied. The Court emphasised that mere allegation of irregularity cannot justify reduction of pension, and that grave misconduct must be proved in a properly instituted departmental or judicial proceeding. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Domain Name Fraud| Directions to non-compliant DNRs and Registry Operators<\/p>\n

In Dabur India Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9651<\/a>, while addressing the widespread misuse of well-known trademarks through the registration of fraudulent domain names by unknown entities for impersonation, phishing, sale of counterfeit goods, and other deceptive practices aimed at defrauding consumers, the Court passed directions to the Domain Name Registrars (DNRs), Registry Operators, government entities as well as banks to curb such fraudulent activities. Read more about these directions HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Dowry Death| Presumption in dowry death cases require proof of demand related cruelty soon before death<\/p>\n

In Das v. State of T.N.<\/span>,2<\/sup><\/a><\/span>the Court emphasised that unless it is established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand soon before death, the presumption under Section 113-B<\/a>, Evidence Act<\/a> cannot be raised, and the offence under Section 304-B<\/a> IPC<\/a> will not get attracted. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

HUF Property| Mother can sell share of Minor girl in HUF property for her welfare<\/p>\n

In Doli v. Shakuntla Devi<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 1156<\/span><\/a>, the Court held that the mother being the natural guardian under Section 6<\/a>, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956<\/a> (HMGA) can act as a manager of the joint family property and sell the share of the minor girl for her welfare. Read more about mother’s right to sell HUF property for welfare HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Maintenance| No liability of maintenance upon daughter-in-law towards parents-in-law<\/span><\/p>\n

In Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P.<\/span>3<\/sup><\/a>, while considering a criminal revision challenging the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court whereby the application filed by the parents-in-law seeking maintenance from daughter-in-law was rejected, The Court held that the concept of moral obligation seems compelling, however, cannot be enforced as a legal obligation in the absence of a statutory mandate. The Court dismissed the revision at hand and stated that it was not the scheme of the legislature to fasten liability of maintenance upon a daughter-in-law towards her parents-in-law under the said provision. Read about daughter-in-law’s liability to maintain parents-in-laws HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Maintenance| S. 300<\/a> CrPC<\/a> inapplicable to DV Act proceedings; maintenance arrears recoverable despite civil imprisonment<\/p>\n

In Hasina Khatoon v. State of U.P.<\/span>,4<\/sup><\/a><\/span> the Court held that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a> (DV Act) are civil in nature and do not culminate in conviction or acquittal; consequently, the bar under Section 300<\/a> CrPC<\/a> was held to be inapplicable. The Court observed that imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance is only a mode of enforcement and does not absolve the defaulter of his subsisting liability. Read more maintenance arrears recoverable despite civil imprisonment HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Maintenance| Earning capacity of both parents to be considered while determining maintenance<\/p>\n

In Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P.5<\/sup><\/a><\/span>,<\/span> the Court held that<\/span> while deciding the main application under Section 144<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a>, the Family Court should take into consideration the income and financial capacity of both parents and determine the amount of maintenance in a just and reasonable manner keeping in view the principle of shared parental responsibility and the welfare of the minor child. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Parole| No provision for parole to arrange the marriage of children or farm work if alternative exists<\/p>\n

In Angad Yadav v. State of U.P.<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a>, the Court declined to grant parole to a life convict, holding that the urged grounds of medical condition, agricultural work, and arranging the marriage of his children did not justify temporary release under the U.P. (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007 (2007 Rules). Read more about denial of parole for child’s marriage HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Reservation in Government Jobs| Body Building restored to List of Eligible Sports for Government Job Reservation<\/p>\n

In Deepak Asaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra7<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the Court held that the Maharashtra government’s decision to exclude ‘Body Building’ from the list of eligible sports for the purpose of granting 5% reservation in appointment of Group (A) & (B) posts in government\/semi-government institutions, under 2016 Government Resolution, even though the sport was eligible under the 2005 and 2013 Resolutions, was violative of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> as it was done arbitrarily and not based on intelligible differentia. Read about government job reservation<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Trade mark| Interim Protection granted to CROMPTON<\/p>\n

In Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. v. S.D. Electronics8<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the Court while hearing a petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a>, Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, filed by the plaintiff, seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction alleging unauthorised use of its well-known trade mark “CROMPTON” by the defendants in respect of identical electrical goods held that the impugned mark used by the defendants was identical and likely to cause confusion among consumers. Read about CROMPTON trade mark protection HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TRIBUNAL UPDATES OF THE WEEK<\/h2>\n

In Dinesh v. DSSSB<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine CAT 341<\/a>, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi held that representations should be considered and decided by the competent authority on a case-to-case basis, in accordance with law. The Tribunal clarified that the provisional participation did not grant the applicants any indefeasible right to claim appointment, even if they were deemed meritorious. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

THIS WEEK’S KEY LEGISLATIVE UPDATE<\/h2>\n