{"id":380314,"date":"2026-04-07T14:00:56","date_gmt":"2026-04-07T08:30:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=380314"},"modified":"2026-04-07T14:42:05","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T09:12:05","slug":"high-courts-roundup-march-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"HIGH COURT MARCH 2026 ROUNDUP | Stories on Govt. Job Reservation for Body Builders; Tiger Corridor at Risk; No Absolute Right to Protest; Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Not \u201cState\u201d; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The High Courts Roundup March 2026 traverses various important legal issues dealt with by the High Courts, such as banking and commercial disputes, criminal law and constitutional questions, reservation in government employment, arbitration and mediation, family and personal law, intellectual property, and emerging challenges linked to digital platforms and artificial intelligence. From PMC Bank’s amalgamation and landmark criminal rulings to evolving jurisprudence on protest rights, custody disputes, trademark protection, and online content regulation, the judgments collectively reflect the breadth and dynamism of High Court adjudication in March 2026.<\/p>\n

STORY OF THE MONTH<\/p>\n

Order 7 Rule 11 application filed after expiry of statutory time doesn’t revive lapsed right to file Written Statement<\/p>\n

In IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd.<\/span> v. Manish Jain<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1241<\/a>, the Delhi High Court held that, while an application under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> CPC<\/a> is required to be decided prior to trial, its subsequent filing after expiry of the statutory period for filing the written statement does not revive or extend such period.<\/span> Read more on No Right Revival With O 7R11 Application case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Competent Authority can opt for other officers’ assistance for surprise checks; declined to quash corruption case against Excise Officer<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

In Unaize Ahammed<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 2637<\/a>, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no case for quashing the FIR was made out. The Court observed that the other officers can be opted by the competent authority for surprise checks, as assistance of a higher authority of the department concerned is not mandatory. Read more Excise Office Surprise Check case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

“Quasi-judicial powers to be exercised with care, not mechanically”; wrongful forfeiture quashed<\/span><\/p>\n

In Sarang Raguwanshi<\/span> v.<\/span> State of Madhya Pradesh<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine MP 3354<\/span><\/a>, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the action of the authorities was very mechanical and careless as the registered owner of the vehicle was not examined and the petitioner was wrongly proceeded against merely on the basis of the driver’s statement and thus set aside the impugned order with costs.<\/span> <\/span>Read more on Quasi-Judicial Powers Mechanical Use case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION<\/span><\/p>\n

Arbitration<\/p>\n

Exchange of correspondence can form valid arbitration agreement; Ex parte award upheld despite name and pin code errors<\/p>\n

In Exelixi Management Co. (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Nishi Retails (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1753<\/span>,<\/a> the Bombay High Court held that the dealings were governed by an arbitration agreement, service of proceedings was proper, and the petitioner’s non-participation did not invalidate the process, observing that physical signatures are not essential and correspondence can constitute a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>. Read more on valid arbitration agreement case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

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

In ITD-ITD CEM Joint Venture<\/span> v.<\/span> Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Limited<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Cal 1871<\/span><\/a>, filed<\/span><\/span><\/span> 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<\/span><\/span> of arbitrator, and the same was used to discard positive evidence adduced by KMRC.<\/span> <\/span>Read more on Arbitrator Replacing Evidence With Opinion case<\/span> <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Execution of discharge voucher acknowledging full and final settlement bars further claims unless obtained by fraud, coercion, or undue influence<\/span><\/p>\n

In Supermint Exports (P) Ltd.<\/span> v.<\/span> New India Assurance Co. Ltd.<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Del 1138<\/span><\/a>, the Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award and Single Judge’s order, holding that the claim stood discharged by accord and satisfaction upon execution of the discharge vouchers and acceptance of payment without protest. The Court held that “mere assertion of financial stringency cannot suffice to escape the effect of an unconditional no claim certificate or discharge voucher.”<\/span> <\/span> <\/span><\/span>Read more on Full Settlement Acknowledgement Bars Further Claim case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Mediation and amicable settlements preferred but must remain voluntary; Police directed to ensure no coercion and preserve video records for transparency<\/p>\n

In Abhijeet Acharya<\/span> v. State of Odisha<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ori 1084<\/a>, the Orissa High Court held that amicable settlement and mediation are laudable and preferred modes of resolving disputes as they preserve relationships and clear misunderstandings. The Court stressed that such settlements must be voluntary and free from pressure or threats. The Court further underscored that police officers should exercise restraint and ensure that parties do not feel coerced, while also directing that video recordings of settlements and statements of parties be preserved to safeguard both the individuals involved and the officers from later allegations of force or intimidation. Read more on Police Mediation Without Coercion case<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

In JioStar<\/span><\/span><\/span> <\/span>India (P) Ltd.<\/span> <\/span>v.<\/span> Absolute Legends Sports (P) Ltd.<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Del 1121<\/span><\/a>, Jio sought<\/span><\/span><\/span> ad interim protection against the respondents from creating any third-party rights, transferring, assigning<\/span><\/span> or otherwise dealing with the media and commercial rights relating to the Legends League Cricket Masters T20 Tournament (League). The Delhi High Court<\/span><\/span> refrained from granting ad interim relief and directed the parties to mediation.<\/span> <\/span>Read more on JioStar India Mediation Over Injunction case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

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

RBI’s revival plan of Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank — Unity Small Finance Bank amalgamation scheme, affirmed<\/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<\/span> v. RBI<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2089<\/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. Read more on PMC Bank Amalgamation case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW<\/span><\/p>\n

Right To Protest<\/p>\n

“No absolute right to protest at chosen venue”; ‘unusual prayer’ for daily protest “until World War ends” dismissed with Rs 50,000 costs<\/p>\n

In S. Prabhu<\/span> v. Collector<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 3002<\/a>, the Madras High Court held that although freedom of speech and peaceful assembly are cherished constitutional rights, they are not absolute. The Court noted that the petitioner’s request was open-ended and imposed an impossible burden on the authorities. The Court further observed that alternate venues had been offered, but the petitioner rejected them on untenable grounds, making disparaging remarks about respected public figures. Emphasising that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce personal obstinacy under the guise of constitutional liberty, the Court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay costs of Rs 50,000 to a government school. Read more on No Absolute Right to Protest Case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Right To Information<\/p>\n

Marks in Recruitment Exams disclosable under RTI, not Photocopies of other candidates’ answer sheets<\/p>\n

In Union of India<\/span> v. Central Information Commission, New Delhi<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine<\/span> All 549<\/span><\/a>, the Allahabad High Court held that while marks obtained in a public examination are subject to disclosure in the interest of transparency, answer sheets of other candidates involve confidentiality concerns and are not liable to be disclosed. Read more on Other Candidates’ Answer Sheets Not Disclosable case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Vaishno Devi Shrine Board not “State” under Art. 12 Despite Statutory Status; Lacks Governmental Control: J&K and Ladakh HC<\/p>\n

In Subash Raina v. State (UT of J&K), 2026 SCC OnLine J&K 186<\/a>, the J&K and Ladakh High Court held that the action lacked any public law element and the petitioner’s claim arose purely from a private contractual engagement. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and observed that the Shrine Board was not “State” under Article 12<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, despite having a statutory status, as it lacked government control. Read more on Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Article 12 case<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CONTEMPT OF COURT<\/span><\/p>\n

Enquiry directed against Trial Court Judge for Non-Compliance with High Court Orders<\/p>\n

In Ashok Kumar<\/span> v. Meera Devi<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 1598<\/a>, the Madhya Pradesh High Court opined that the Trial Court Judge’s conduct of delaying the inquiry report and then submitting the spot inspection report without answering the Court’s query required an inquiry. Accordingly, the Court sent the case details to the Registrar General to be forwarded to the Chief Justice. The Court further directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind (the Principal Judge), to assign the land dispute case to some other Civil Judge so that the enquiry could be conducted as per the directions given by the coordinate Bench. Read more on Enquiry Against Trial Court Judge case <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Contempt petitions maintainable despite doctrine of merger; Orders directing Karthigai Deepam lighting upheld<\/p>\n

In Rama. Ravikumar<\/span> v. Collector<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 2286<\/a>, the Madras High Court held that contempt jurisdiction operates independently of the doctrine of merger, and that the contempt petitions regarding the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon were maintainable, noting that the Court’s order directing the temple management was confirmed by the Division Bench and subsequent prohibitory orders were resisted by the police. Read more on Karthigai Deepam Lighting-Contempt case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

In<\/span> Super Cassettes Industries (P) Ltd.<\/span> v.<\/span> Reliance Entertainment Studios (P) Ltd.<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Del 918<\/span><\/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> Read more on Reliance — T-Series Loan Dispute case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Man alleging ₹200-Crore Maruti Scam Placed Miscarried Foetus Before Judge; Claims of Threat to Family Found ‘Vague’<\/p>\n

In Dayashankar Pandey<\/span> v. His Excellency the President of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine<\/span> MP 3191<\/span><\/a>, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner’s allegations were misconceived, vague, and not supported by material particulars. The Court also rebuked the petitioner for attempting to evoke the Court’s sympathy by placing his wife’s miscarried foetus in front of the Court dais, stating that such conduct was highly objectionable, improper, and amounted to lowering the dignity and decorum of the Court. Read more on Miscarried Foetus Placed Before Judge case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

COURTS, TRIBUNALS AND JUDICIARY<\/span><\/p>\n

Principal Seat continues to retain Jurisdiction despite Establishment of a Circuit Bench<\/p>\n

In Shekhar Champalal Pagaria<\/span> v. CFM Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine<\/span> Bom 1837<\/span><\/a>, the Bombay High Court rejected the petition to hold that the writ petition will continue at the Principal Seat after observing that, “even if a choice of forum becomes subsequently available to a litigant due to the establishment of a Circuit Bench, it cannot be said that the Principal Seat of the High Court loses jurisdiction to further hear and entertain a writ petition that was originally and validly filed before it”. Read more on Principal Bench Jurisdiction Against Circuit Bench case<\/span><\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

Expunging of remarks made by trial court doesn’t reflect on Judge’s competence, integrity, or past judicial work<\/p>\n

In Sanjay Kumar Sain<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1141<\/a>, the Delhi High Court held that merely expunging the observations made against a police officer by a judicial officer, cannot be treated as a reflection on the competence and integrity of the judicial officer in question or on the work done by him, as a judge. The Court clarified that the observations in the earlier judgment should not be treated as adverse remarks against the judicial officer for any service-related purpose. Read more on Expunging Trial Court Remarks case<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

COMMERCIAL LAW<\/span><\/p>\n

Pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act not mandatory when suit contemplates urgent interim relief<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> Aarthi Scans (P) Ltd.<\/span> v.<\/span> Konica Minolta Business Solutions India (P) Ltd.<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Mad 2440<\/span><\/a>, the Madras High Court set aside the impugned order of the Commercial Court and directed the Commercial Court to number the plaint if it is otherwise in order and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The Court held that pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act not mandatory when the suit contemplates passing of urgent interim relief.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>Read more on No Pre-institution Mediation Mandate case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CRIMINAL LAW<\/span><\/p>\n

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

In<\/span> Baba Gurmeet Singh<\/span> v.<\/span> CBI<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine P&H 3217<\/span><\/a>, the Punjab & Haryana HC<\/span> 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 on Ram Rahim Baba Murder Acquittal case<\/a><\/p>\n

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

Examining whether allegations of false promise to marriage in long-term relationships could vitiate consent under the provisions governing sexual offences<\/span><\/span> in<\/span> X<\/span> v.<\/span> State of Madhya Pradesh<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine MP 3188<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> 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.<\/span> Read more on Unlikely False Marriage Promise In Long-Term Relationship case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

“Sad commentary on our criminal justice delivery system”: Man acquitted after 23 years in jail for wife, children’s murder<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> Raees<\/span> v.<\/span> State of U.P.<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine All 568<\/span><\/a>, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution’s evidence did not conclusively implicate and prove that the offence was committed by the convict.<\/span><\/span> Read more on Acquittal After 23 Years case<\/span> <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

In<\/span> Hemant Vasant Devrukhkar<\/span> v.<\/span> State of Maharashtra<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2011<\/span><\/a>, the Bombay High Court<\/span><\/span> 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<\/span><\/span> to Section 304(I)<\/a> IPC<\/a> with a reduced sentence of ten years<\/span><\/span> rigorous imprisonment.<\/span> Read more on Homicide-Murder Conviction Conversion case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> <\/span>Why Kerala HC refused to restrain release of web series “Anali” based on ongoing criminal proceedings | SCC Times<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court issues notice on CBI revision challenging discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others<\/p>\n

In CBI<\/span> v. Kuldeep Singh<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 887<\/span>,<\/a> the Delhi High Court issued notice on the criminal revision filed by the CBI challenging the trial court’s order discharging former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 others in the Delhi Excise Policy case. Read more on Kejriwal-Sisodia Delhi Excise Policy case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

PMLA case must be transferred to Special Court; Trial court’s refusal held perverse<\/p>\n

In Enforcement Directorate<\/span> v. CBI<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 2125<\/a>, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, once the authorised authority applies, the trial court has no discretion to refuse transfer, and directed that the scheduled offence be transferred to the Special Court already trying the predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a>. Read more on PMLA Special Court Transfer case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Trial vitiates on non-examination of scientific experts whose reports were relied upon | SCC Times<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act Didn’t Shield Lalu Prasad Yadav in Land-for-Jobs Case<\/p>\n

In Lalu Prasad Yadav<\/span> v. CBI<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1178<\/a>, the Delhi High Court refused to quash the FIR, holding that, Section 17-A<\/a>, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a>, is prospective in operation and has no application to offences alleged to have been committed between 2004 and 2009. Absence of prior approval under Section 17-A did not vitiate the preliminary enquiry, registration of the FIR, investigation, or the cognizance orders passed by the Special Judge. Bar under Section 17-A would not apply in the present case as the alleged act was not relatable to any recommendations or decisions taken by the petitioner in discharge of his official functions or duties. No ground was made out for quashing FIR, charge-sheets or cognizance orders. Read more on Lalu Yadav Land-for-Jobs case<\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Why anticipatory bail quashed in brand counterfeiting case | SCC Times<\/a> and Search and Arrest Powers under NDPS Act<\/a> Strictly “Ring-Fenced” to Prevent Misuse; Bail Granted Over Illegal After-Sunset Search | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

EDUCATION LAW<\/span><\/p>\n

Student permitted to appear for Mathematics as additional subject despite earlier subject change<\/p>\n

In B. Shajimon<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 2429<\/a>, the Madras High Court held that a student who had initially studied Mathematics but later replaced it with Physical Education could still appear for the Mathematics examination, setting aside CBSE’s rejection and directing the Regional Director to verify records and allow participation in the supplementary exam. Read more on CBSE Additional Subject case<\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> CBSE’s affiliation withdrawal order was stayed; Jaipur’s Neerja Modi School gets 1 month to cure deficiencies | SCC Times<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

EVIDENCE LAW<\/span><\/p>\n

Chance witness’ testimony must be relied upon only after exercising due care and caution; acquittal upheld<\/p>\n

In State of H.P.<\/span> v. Rakesh Kumar<\/span>, Crl. Appeal No. 290 of 2014, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the acquittal did not suffer from any perversity. The Court found that the view taken by the trial court was reasonable and therefore declined to interfere with the judgment, also observing that the testimony of a chance witness must be relied upon only after exercising due care and caution. Read more on Chance Witness Testimony case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Wife freed in husband’s murder case, rejects ‘last seen together’ assumption based solely on marriage<\/p>\n

In Selvi<\/span> v. State of T.N.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 2719<\/a>, the Madras High Court held that merely because the parties happened to be husband and wife, the Court cannot assume that they will always be seen together. The Court noted that the prosecution had failed to prove the last seen theory and that the alleged recovery of the weapon was unreliable. Referring to the settled position of law on Section 106<\/a>, Evidence Act, 1872<\/a> (Evidence Act), the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the wife. Read more on No ‘Last Seen Together’ Presumption For Couples case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Strained marriage and alcohol addiction not enough to presume husband’s guilt in wife’s murder | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

“Preservation of fairness and justice necessitates re-examination”; Independent Medical Board directed to re-examine Victim’s Injuries<\/p>\n

In Ajeet Singh<\/span> v. State of Rajasthan<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 2113<\/a>, the Rajasthan High Court held that the preservation of fairness and justice necessitated that the injuries of the victims should be re-examined by an independent Medical Board. Thus, the Court allowed the petition and stated that the entire process, from the constitution of the Medical Board to the final report, should be completed expeditiously within 7 days. Read more on Independent Re-examination Victim Injuries case<\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> High speed not ‘sine qua non’ to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC; leave to appeal granted against acquittal | SCC Times<\/a>;<\/p>\n

Consistent records outweigh technicalities; payment of ₹4 lakh ex gratia ordered for snake-bite death | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW<\/span><\/p>\n

Tiger Corridor at risk? Assistance sought from National Tiger Conservation Authority, Wildlife Board on NH-46 Widening<\/p>\n

In Advait Keole<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 3353<\/a>, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) to assist the Court and explain the integrated landscape management plan proposed for managing the said area while ensuring that the wild life passage was not disturbed in a way that impeded on the free movement of wild life. Read more on Tiger Corridor case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAW<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Matrimonial Transfer Petition<\/span><\/p>\n

Wife’s convenience no longer paramount in matrimonial transfer petitions<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> Ekta Vaish<\/span> v.<\/span> Deepak Kuchbandiya<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine MP 1352<\/span><\/a>, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the convenience of wife\/lady was no longer the paramount consideration for deciding the transfer applications and alternatives to transfer proceedings have been provided, like through video conferencing.<\/span><\/span><\/span> <\/span>Read more on Wife’s Convenience Not Important For Transfer Petition case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Transfer of matrimonial case at advanced stage set aside; Transfer found unjustified and improper<\/p>\n

In X<\/span> v. Y<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 3226<\/span>,<\/a> the Kerala High Court set aside the order transferring a matrimonial petition to another Family Court at the wife’s instance, holding that such transfer at an advanced stage of trial was unsustainable and improper, particularly given the mediated settlement requiring both parties to cooperate for expeditious disposal before the original court. Read more on No Matrimonial Transfer Petition At Advanced Stage case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Reliance on WhatsApp chats alone insufficient to grant divorce on grounds of cruelty<\/span><\/p>\n

In deciding<\/span> XYZ<\/span> v.<\/span> ABC<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1757<\/span><\/a>, the Bombay High Court observed that the Family Court had relied solely on WhatsApp chats and SMS exchanges to conclude cruelty. The Court held that such reliance, without affording the wife an opportunity to rebut the evidence, was inadequate and procedurally unfair. Accordingly, the ex parte decree of divorce was set aside and the matter remanded to the Family Court for fresh adjudication, with liberty to the parties to explore settlement through mediation.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>Read more on WhatsApp Chat Relied For Divorce case<\/span> <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Child Custody<\/p>\n

Rigid custody & visitation directions quashed; Reiterates need for humane and child-centric approach<\/p>\n

In Mansiben<\/span> v. Keshavjibhai Damjibhai Ghetiya<\/span>, C (SCA) No. 15369 of 20252, the Gujarat High Court took note of the impractical and rigid conditions and held that such orders amounted to an overreach of jurisdiction and reflected a failure to adopt a child-centric approach. Emphasising that custody matters require a “sensitive, humane and child-centric approach”, the Court held the directions to be unjustified and contrary to the welfare of the minor child, and accordingly quashed and set aside the impugned orders. Read more on Rigid Custody and Visitation Directions Quashing case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Registrar General directed to consider formulation of Child Access and Custody Guidelines with Parenting Plan<\/p>\n

In Ayushman Initiative for Child Rights<\/span> v. High Court of Delhi<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1229<\/a>, the Delhi High Court directed the Registrar General of Delhi High Court to consider formulation of Child Access and Custody Guidelines with Parenting Plan. After examining the averments made in the writ petition along with the documents placed on record, the Court opined that the matter involved issues relating to policy formulation and administrative decision-making within the High Court, and therefore an appropriate course would be to first place the matter before the competent authority on the administrative side. The Court permitted the petitioner to approach Registrar General of Delhi High Court with an exhaustive representation enclosing all the documents which were relied upon in this writ petition. The Court directed that on receipt of such representation the Registrar General should place the matter before the appropriate Committee\/authority and take decision regarding formulation of policy \/ guidelines relating to child access, custody, and parenting plans in consultation with stakeholders, in terms of the prayers made in the petition. Read more on Child Access and Custody Guidelines case<\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Where should child custody matters be filed? Rajasthan HC’s answer pauses a father’s plea | SCC Times<\/span><\/a><\/span> and<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> <\/span>Production of Children Ordered; But No Habeas Corpus if Wife voluntarily leaves home | SCC Times<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND TENDERS<\/span><\/p>\n

Supplementary agreements can extend public tenders; Non-participants cannot challenge concluded contract<\/span><\/p>\n

In Telangana Small Scale Industries Steel & Wooden Furniture Manufacturers Assn. v. State of Telangana<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine TS 2346<\/span><\/a>, the Telangana High Court held that supplementary agreements can extend public tenders, particularly when the delay arises from the authority’s own approval process. The Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit and observed that the petitioners lacked locus standi and being non-participants in the tender, they could not challenge a concluded contract.<\/span> <\/span>Read more on Supplementary Agreements Extend Tenders case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS<\/span><\/p>\n

‘Happily Ever After’ No Excuse to Validate Child Marriage; Childhood Cannot be Surrendered<\/p>\n

In Manjunatha N.<\/span> v. State of Karnataka<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 1197<\/a>, the Karnataka High Court held that the submission that the couple was living in harmony, does not efface the illegality committed at the time of solemnisation; Court cannot extend a protective arm towards those involved in child marriage, whether they are contracting parties or someone indirectly involved like the priest of temple or management of the venue where the child marriage took place. Read more on No Protection For Child Marriage case<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Constitutional freedoms cannot be exercised at the cost of human lives; preventive detention order under NSA upheld<\/p>\n

In Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine All 402<\/a>, the Allahabad High Court upheld detention order as the impugned order was passed in accordance with the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) and the incident affected public order and not merely law and order. Read more on Preventive Detention For Unauthorised Construction case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Are State-operated Old-Age Homes Adequately Equipped? Report sought from SLSA<\/p>\n

In Lok Utthan Sansthan<\/span> v. State of Rajasthan<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 1638<\/a>, the Rajasthan High Court directed the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (Rajasthan SLSA) to file a report to have a comprehensive understanding of the facilities and welfare measures available in State-operated old-age homes in Rajasthan, to further strengthen the implementation of the legislative intent. Read more on Rajasthan Old Age Homes case<\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

“Mechanical” rejection of plea for premature release of Bangladeshi convict set aside<\/p>\n

In Asif v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 899<\/a>, the Delhi High Court held that a rejection of a plea for premature leave primarily on the gravity of the offence without considering the petitioner’s custodial records or rehabilitative indicators was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.<\/span><\/span> Read more on Bangladeshi Convict Premature Release case<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> “Ensure No Damage to Jal Jeevan Mission Infrastructure”: directed protection of pipelines during optical fibre cable work<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY<\/span><\/p>\n

Banks must issue notice before making fraud declaration and entering Directors’ names in Central Fraud Registry<\/p>\n

In Nayan Thakarshi Shah<\/span> v. RBI<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine<\/span> Bom 2086<\/span><\/a>, the Bombay High Court held that, in view of SBI<\/span> v. Rajesh Agarwal<\/span>, (2023) 6 SCC 1<\/a>, the principles of audi alteram partem must necessarily be complied with before making a fraud declaration and entering Directors’ names in the Central Fraud Registry. Consequently, the Court interdicted the impugned classification and granted liberty to Respondent 2 (Bank) to proceed afresh after issuing proper show-cause notices. Read more on Notice Before Making Fraud Declaration case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Imitation of Manforce advertisements, restrained; Removal of deceptively similar promotional content, directed<\/p>\n

In Mankind Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.<\/span> v. Anondita Medicare Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 810<\/a>, the Delhi High Court held that the promotional content created by Defendants 1 and 2 (infringing content) was deceptively similar to the original artistic work of the plaintiff, Mankind Pvt. Ltd. in promotion of their MANFORCE contraceptive barriers. Read more on Deceptively Similar Promos case <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Ticketed event not a religious ceremony; Injunction continues against unauthorised public performance<\/p>\n

In Phonographic Performance Ltd.<\/span> v. Yashraj Satwara<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1599<\/span>,<\/a> the Bombay High Court held that the defendant could not claim exemption under Section 52(1)(za)<\/a> of the Copyright Act, 1957<\/a>, as ticketed events are not religious ceremonies, and continued the ad interim injunction restraining unauthorised public performance of copyrighted sound recordings. Read more on Ticketed Event Not Religious Ceremony case<\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

Legends League Cricket barred from unauthorised use of PPL’s sound recordings in upcoming cricket matches<\/p>\n

In Phonographic Performance Ltd.<\/span> v. Absolute Legends Sports (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1938<\/a>, the Bombay High Court held that Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) had established a prima facie case of apprehension that its copyrighted sound recordings would be publicly performed without authorisation during scheduled matches. The Court noted that past procurement of licences and an undertaking dated 23 December 2023 acknowledged PPL’s exclusive rights and therefore granted ad interim relief restraining unauthorised use until the next hearing date. Read more on Copyrighted Sound Unauthorised Use Apprehension case<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also read:<\/span><\/span> Delhi HC allows Dr. Reddy’s to make and import Semaglutide | SCC Times<\/span><\/a> and<\/span> Why Delhi High Court injuncted Smotect’s misleading surrogate ads targeting “Vimal Elaichi” | SCC Times<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Design<\/p>\n

Registration of Graphics on Display Screens allowed under the Designs Act; Lack of Clarity in Designs Office on GUI Registrability flagged<\/p>\n

In NEC Corporation<\/span> v. Controller of Patents and Designs<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 1652<\/a>, the Calcutta high Court flagged the need for clarificatory guidance either by Legislature or by the Controller issuing appropriate directions expanding the scope of protectable designs. However, till issuance of such clarification, the Court held that GUIs are registrable if the essential ingredients laid under Section 2(a) and 2(d) of the Act are satisfied when properly identified with an article and keeping in mind that the design elements are not purely function driven. A GUI is a form of user interface which allows users to interact with electronic devices through graphical icons and visuals on a display screen. Read more on Registration Digital Screen Graphics case<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Dynamic Injunction<\/p>\n

What Registrar Should Be Doing to Stop Domain Name Fraud<\/p>\n

In Dabur India Ltd.<\/span> v. Ashok Kumar<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine<\/span> Del 9651<\/span><\/a>, the Delhi High Court examined the obligations and liabilities of DNRs in relation to infringing domain names, the adequacy of existing safeguards for protection of trade mark rights, the enforcement of court orders against non-compliant DNRs, and the formulation of appropriate directions, including grant of dynamic+ injunction, to curb such systemic abuse. The Court observed that, “By registering domain names using a well-known mark or a registered trade mark, a whole network is built only to deceive innocent and gullible consumers and members of the public. The bank account is operated for a temporary period and after the money is collected the same is withdrawn and even before the trade mark owner is able to take action, the bank account is almost empty. Thereafter, even after the Court grants an interim injunction against the infringing domain names, there are further domain names\/websites registered and opened which follow the same pattern as described above.” Read more on DNR Responsibility in Domain Name Fraud case<\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Delhi HC ordered to Curb Domain Name Fraud and Protect Trade Marks | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Protection Overlapping<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

In Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.<\/span> v.<\/span> Vijay Keshav Wagh<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Del 1154<\/span><\/a>, where the Court was called upon to examine the overlap between copyright and trademark in a dispute over the TIGER artwork, the<\/span><\/span><\/span> 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<\/span><\/span> well-known TIGER artistic work. The Court, hence, directed the removal of the deceptively similar artistic work from the Register of Copyrights.<\/span> <\/span>Read more on TIGER Copyright Trademark Overlapping case<\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

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

Copyright strike notices on digital platforms, without follow-up legal action, attract groundless threats remedy<\/p>\n

In Associated Broadcasting Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Google LLC<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine<\/span> Del 815<\/span><\/a>, the Delhi High Court held that the extent of use of the copyrighted material fell within “fair use” and did not amount to infringement. The Court explained that Section 60<\/a>, Copyright Act, 1957<\/a>, allows any person aggrieved by groundless threats of legal action by the copyright owner to institute a declaratory suit; however, the remedy is only available if the alleged copyright owner did not take proper legal action to settle the dispute between the parties. Read more on YouTube Copyright Strikes Groundless Threat case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Personality Rights<\/span><\/p>\n

Sonakshi Sinha’s Personality Rights Protected; AI-generated deep fakes directed to be taken down<\/p>\n

In Sonakshi Sinha<\/span> v. Character Technologies Inc.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine<\/span> Del 1177<\/span><\/a>, the Delhi High Court held that the voice, name, likeness, etc. of Sonakshi Sinha were exclusively attributable to her. Thus, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Sonakshi Sinha, restraining the defendants from creating or disseminating any AI-generated pictures, videos or merchandise that misuses and infringes upon the personality rights of Sonakshi Sinha.Read more on Sonakshi Sinha Deep Fakes case<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Trade Mark<\/span><\/p>\n

CAPITAL being English translation of registered mark RAJDHANI constitutes trade mark infringement<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> Victoria Foods (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Ashad Trading Co.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 862<\/a><\/span>, the Delhi High Court held that the mark CAPITAL was the English translation of the registered mark RAJDHANI and constituted passing off and trade mark infringement. Thus, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from using the marks CAPITAL and TAJDHANI.<\/span> Read more on CAPTIAL-RAJDHANI Trademark case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

“Kataria” surname protected under S. 35, Trade Marks Act; Injunction restraining Kataria Insurance Brokers set aside<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> Kataria Insurance Brokers (P) Ltd.<\/span> v.<\/span> Bhavesh Suresh Kataria<\/span><\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1771<\/a><\/span>, the Bombay High Court held that the appellant’s use of the surname “Kataria” was bona fide, continuous, and rooted in family identity. It was, hence, held that “Kataria” surname was protected under Section 35<\/a>, Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (Trade Marks Act). The Court clarified that Section 35, Trade Marks Act, applies to companies as well, since “person” under the General Clauses Act, 1897<\/a> (General Clauses Act), includes corporate entities.<\/span> Read more on Surname Trademark Protection case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

In<\/span><\/span> <\/span>Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries<\/span> <\/span>v.<\/span> Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Mad 2713<\/span><\/a>, the Madras High Court held that the discrepancy in user date could not conclusively establish<\/span><\/span> fraud and emphasised<\/span><\/span> that invoices from 1993 onwards evidenced<\/span><\/span> bona fide use. The Court further observed<\/span><\/span> that minor alterations do not affect trade mark’s<\/span><\/span> identity’ and, under Section 55, Trade Marks<\/span><\/span> Act such use qualified as valid use.<\/span> Read more on Trademark Minor Alterations case <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Delhi High Court grants interim protection to well-known trade mark “CROMPTON” | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW<\/span><\/p>\n

Non-compete clauses against doctors void ab initio; Hospitals cannot prevent them from joining other institutions<\/p>\n

In MIOT Hospitals (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Balaraman Palaniappan<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 1756<\/a>, the Madras High Court observed that the professional agreement executed between a hospital and a doctor contained clauses relating to confidentiality, non-solicitation, and noncompete which were void ab initio. The Court held that such clauses, being in restraint of lawful profession, were unenforceable and opposed to public policy. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs 1,00,000 payable by the hospital to the doctor. Read more on Doctors Non-Compete Clause Void Ab Initio case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Restrictions under S. 22, ID Act applicable to bank employees; Strike call by trade union can trigger conciliation proceedings<\/p>\n

In Federal Bank Ltd.<\/span> v. Federal Bank Officers Assn.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 3276<\/a>, the Kerala High Court held that Section 22(1), ID Act operates independently of the definition of “industrial dispute” and restrictions under Section 22, ID Act are applicable to bank employees, if the bank is a notified public utility service (PUS). The Court further held that a strike call by a trade union can trigger conciliation of proceedings, and during its pendency, the strike cannot be acted upon.<\/span> Read more on Bank Employees S. 22 ID Act Restriction case<\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

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

In<\/span> Tara Devi<\/span> v.<\/span> State of H.P<\/span>.<\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine HP 1840<\/a>,<\/span> wherein the basic legal issue was the interplay between a rule which granted first opportunity of promotion to the Anganwari<\/span><\/span> 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<\/span> observed<\/span><\/span> 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<\/span><\/span> Helper.<\/span> Read more on Right To Promotion case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> “Employer’s record lapses cannot deny pension”; EPFO’s rejection of higher pension claim | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Central Railway’s 2018 Shoe-Shine Licence Policy upheld; Rejected monopoly claim, mandated minimum wages<\/p>\n

In Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-Op. Society Ltd.<\/span> v. Railways<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2148<\/a>, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of Central Railway’s 2018 Policy. The Court found no arbitrariness in the impugned policy and directed that no monopoly can be created in tenders for shoe-shine services and that mandatory payment of minimum wages to the workers must be ensured. Read more on Railway’s Shoe-Shine Licence Policy case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Employee’s compensation claim cannot be denied solely because disability certificate was issued by non-treating doctor<\/p>\n

In Mahendra Sabharu Majhi<\/span> v. Mahlaxmi Enterprises<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1561<\/a>, the Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner was not justified in discarding the disability certificate merely on this ground as under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) read with Explanation II, Compensation Act, any qualified medical practitioner is competent to issue such certificate. Holding that the order was unsustainable, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the evidence on loss of earning capacity. Read more on Employee Compensation Even On Non-treating Doctor Certificate case<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Cut-off date cannot bar COVID-19 ex-gratia relief; Rs 50 lakh relief granted to Junior Clerk’s family | SCC Times<\/a> and “Employer’s record lapses cannot deny pension”; EPFO’s rejection of higher pension claim rejected | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

MEDICAL AND HEALTH LAW<\/span><\/p>\n

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

In<\/span> X<\/span> v.<\/span> Union of India<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Ker 3731<\/span><\/a>, the Kerala High Court while considering the risk of irreparable hardship, permitted<\/span><\/span><\/span> 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> <\/span>Read more on Brain-Dead Husband’s Gametes Extraction case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

MOTOR VEHICLES<\/span><\/p>\n

Siblings cannot claim “loss of love and affection”; Only mother entitled to consortium<\/p>\n

In Mariyakutty<\/span> v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 3039<\/span>,<\/a> the Kerala High Court held that siblings are not entitled to compensation under “loss of love and affection” in a motor accident claim, allowed the mother’s claim for consortium at Rs 40,000, and enhanced the overall compensation by Rs 2.66 lakhs. Read more on No Accident Compensation To Siblings case<\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> MACT cannot accept Disability Certificates mechanically; Must assess Functional Disability | SCC Times<\/span><\/a><\/span> and<\/span> “Academic marks not measure of earning potential”; Motor Accident Compensation for deceased BHMS student’s family enhanced | SCC Times<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS<\/span><\/p>\n

Summoning order under Section 138 NI Act need not be elaborate, but must reflect application of mind<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> Aeiforia Constructions (P) Ltd.<\/span> v.<\/span> Continental Carbon India (P) Ltd.<\/span>,<\/span> <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Del 778<\/span><\/a>, wherein the petitioner sought quashment of the summoning order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint under Section 138<\/a> Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a> (NI Act) on the ground that the summoning order was in the nature of a “template order” and did not reflect any application of mind to the facts constituting the alleged offence, the Delhi High Court declined to interfere with the impugned summoning order under Section 138 NI Act.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>Read more on S. 138 NI Act Summoning Order case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

OFFICIAL SECRETS<\/span><\/a>, SPYING AND<\/span> ESPIONAGE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

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

In a bail petition titled<\/span> Jyoti Rani<\/span> v.<\/span> State of<\/span> Haryana<\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine P&H 3596<\/span><\/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><\/span> Read more on Espionage Accused Youtuber case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Life Imprisonment for Father after Minor Reports Abuse following ‘Police Didi’ Programme at School<\/p>\n

In Mohammad Shahjad Amir Hasan Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1846<\/a>, the Bombay High Court observed that the victim was proved to be a minor and her sole testimony was sterling and sufficient to convict the accused, and that medical evidence did not demolish the ocular account. The Court, while dismissing the appeal, held that if the accused is found guilty of an offence under Section 376(2)(f)<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC), deserving a life sentence, there is no discretion left in the Court, but to sentence him for imprisonment for the remainder of his life. Read more on Father Sentenced After Police Didi Programme case<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Repeated summoning of minor victims in POCSO trials discouraged; Reiterates safeguards for “vulnerable witnesses”<\/p>\n

In Minor Child K<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1137<\/a>, the Delhi High Court reiterated the safeguards for “vulnerable witnesses”, as “requiring the victim to remain present on multiple dates of hearing of a bail application may result in unnecessary distress and may defeat the very purpose of the safeguards intended to minimise repeated exposure of the victim to the court process during such proceedings<\/span>”. The Court directed that the judgment be circulated to all trial courts and Special Courts in Delhi for guidance and compliance. Read more on POCSO Repeated Summoning case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Conviction under POCSO Act set aside as age of victim unproved; Appeal allowed and accused acquitted<\/p>\n

In Mahesh<\/span> v. State of T.N.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 2258<\/span>,<\/a> the Madras High Court held that the trial court erred in relying on inadmissible xerox copies to determine the victim’s age, set aside the conviction under Section 366<\/a> IPC<\/a> and Sections 5(l)<\/a>\/6<\/a> POCSO Act, and acquitted the appellant, highlighting the misuse of POCSO in adolescent consensual relationships. Read more on POCSO Misuse In Teenage Relationships case<\/span> <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage; Delay in raising claim not a valid ground for rejection<\/p>\n

In<\/span> Sheraz Ahmed<\/span> v.<\/span> State of Maharashtra<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1754<\/span><\/a>, the Bombay High Court held that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and that delay in raising such a claim cannot justify rejection. The Court noted that the petitioner had sought an inquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board), but the Special Judge had dismissed the application, restricting the JJ Board powers to Section 19, JJ Act. Referring to<\/span> Umesh Singh<\/span> v.<\/span> State of Bihar<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>(2013) 4 SCC 360<\/span><\/a> and<\/span> Abuzar Hossain<\/span> v.<\/span> State of W.B.<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>(2012) 10 SCC 489<\/span><\/a>, the Court found the rejection contrary to settled law, set aside the order dated 6 February 2026, and directed transmission of records to the JJ Board for inquiry by 7 March 2026, thereby disposing of the writ petition.<\/span> Read more on POCSO Provision Attraction Stage case<\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

POSH ACT<\/span><\/p>\n

ICC report set aside due to non-service of complaint copy on delinquent<\/p>\n

In the X<\/span> v. Kerala Social Security Mission, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 3915<\/a>, Kerala High Court set aside the ICC’s report, holding that the non-service of the complaint constituted a breach of natural justice and of POSH Act and Rules. The Court also directed that a fresh enquiry be conducted within two months. Read more on Non-service of POSH Complaint case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

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

“Form of oppression against girls”: Lack of girls’ toilets in government schools flagged, response sought from School Education Secretary<\/p>\n

In Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation<\/span> v. State of Chhattisgarh<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 3846<\/a>, the Chhattisgarh High Court noted that more than 1,000 government schools and a total of 4,070 schools in Chhattisgarh lacked girls’ toilets. Accordingly, the Court directed the regarding the issue before the next date of hearing. Read more on Govt. Schools Without Girls Toilets case<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

“Administrative laxity and systemic failures threaten public health and breach Article 21”; Strict enforcement of Bio-Medical Waste Rules directed<\/p>\n

While hearing a PIL titled Jharkhand Human Rights Conference<\/span> v. State of Jharkhand<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 261<\/a>, the Jharkhand High Court observed that improper handling and disposal of biomedical waste directly endangers public health and ecological safety. The Court held that judicial intervention was necessitated by administrative inaction and systemic deficiencies, but having regard to the progress achieved and the institutional mechanisms now in place, the Court considered it appropriate to dispose of the matter with broad directions to ensure effective implementation of the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016<\/a> (2016 Rules). Read more on Improper Bio-Waste Disposal case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Inclusion directed of all parks and open spaces under UP Parks Act; LDA to reconsider Janeshwar Mishra Park’s commercial use<\/p>\n

In Dharampal Yadav<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 570<\/span>,<\/a> the Allahabad High Court directed that all parks, playgrounds, and open spaces in Uttar Pradesh, including Janeshwar Mishra Park, be included in the list under Section 3<\/a> of the UP Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975<\/a>, and asked the Lucknow Development Authority to reconsider any commercial activities at the park. Read more on UP Parks Commercial Use case<\/span> <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RELIGIOUS RIGHTS<\/span><\/p>\n

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

While considering<\/span> Tarik Khan<\/span> v.<\/span> State of U.P.<\/span><\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine All 621<\/a><\/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>Read more on Namaz In Private Property case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

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

In Munazir<\/span> Khan<\/span> <\/span>v.<\/span> State of U.P<\/span>.<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine All 623<\/a><\/span>, the Allahabad High Court<\/span><\/span><\/span> rejected the contention that the petitioner was restrained due to law-and-order<\/span><\/span> 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<\/span><\/span> from the State.<\/span> <\/span>Read more on Police Preventing Namaz case<\/span> <\/a><\/p>\n

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

‘Body Building’ Restored to List of Eligible Sports for Government Job Reservation<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> Deepak Asaram Pawar<\/span> v.<\/span> State of Maharashtra<\/span>, WP No. 332 of 2020, the Bombay High 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. The Court held that the basis of legitimate expectation, the action violated the right of the petitioner to claim reservation and the action had no nexus to the aim and object of the policy.<\/span> <\/span>Read more on Body Building Reservation In Govt. Job case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

SCs, STs, OBCs AND MINORITIES<\/span><\/p>\n

Not every insult or intimidation amounts to an offence under SC\/ST Act<\/p>\n

In State of Gujarat<\/span> v. Thakor Talaji Kunwarji<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Guj 770<\/a>, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and held that not every insult would amount to an offence under the SC\/ST Act. Read more on SC\/ST Insults Intimidation case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

16-year-old case against lawyer set aside; ruled allegations fail to meet IPC<\/a> and SC\/ST Atrocities Act requirements<\/p>\n

In Virendranath B. Tiwari<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2007<\/a>, the Bombay High Court held that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The Court noted that no caste-based humiliation in public view was alleged, the injury described was simple in nature and not caused by a dangerous weapon, and that repeated FIRs suggested mala fide intent. Accordingly, applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana<\/span> v. Bhajan Lal<\/span>, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335<\/a>, the Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet to prevent abuse of process of law. Read more on Setting Aside 16-Year-Old SC\/ST Atrocities Act case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Bail set aside for Non-Compliance with Mandatory S. 15A(3) SC\/ST Act Notice in Mob Lynching Case; Directed surrender in 3 days<\/p>\n

In State of Kerala<\/span> v. Anu<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine<\/span> Ker 3693<\/span><\/a>, the Kerala High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the bail granted in mob lynching case as it did not comply with the mandatory notice required under Section 15-A(3), SC\/ST Act to the victim’s dependent which rendered it non est in the eye of the law. The Court cancelled the bail bonds and directed the accused persons to surrender within three days, giving them the liberty to file fresh bail applications in strict compliance with Section 15-A(3), SC\/ST Act. Read more on No Bail for SC\/ST Act Non-Compliance case<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Why criminal proceedings against The Wire MD Siddharth Varadarajan were stayed in Barabanki Mosque Demolition Case | SCC Times<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

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

Missed GST deadlines not fatal where intent to comply exists; 160-day delay condoned<\/p>\n

In M.R. Traders<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 2115<\/a>, the Rajasthan High Court held that due to lack of proper advisory by the counsel\/consultant accountant, the petitioner was deprived of filing the appeal within the limitation, and mere absence of a supporting affidavit of the consultant accountant\/counsel, which was beyond the petitioner’s control, could not be a ground to reject the petitioner’s stand. Thus, the Court allowed the petition by condoning the delay of 160 days in filing the appeal and remanded back to the appellate authority. Read more on GST Delay Condonation case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts from March 2026.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":380326,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[46069,45673],"tags":[101919,101921,101904,101894,101905,101908,101913,101914,101889,101920,101893,101533,101911,101898,101906,101531,101923],"class_list":["post-380314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-high-court-round-up","category-columns-for-roundup","tag-child-access-and-custody-guidelines","tag-deceptively-similar-promos","tag-enquiry-against-trial-court-judge","tag-espionage-accused-youtuber","tag-govt-schools-without-girls-toilets","tag-gst-delay-condonation","tag-kejriwal-sisodia-delhi-excise-policy","tag-lalu-yadav-land-for-jobs-case","tag-no-absolute-right-to-protest","tag-no-excuse-for-child-marriage","tag-pmc-bank-amalgamation","tag-railways-shoe-shine-licence-policy","tag-ram-rahim-baba-murder-acquittal","tag-registration-digital-screen-graphics","tag-reliance-t-series-loan-dispute","tag-tiger-corridor-at-risk","tag-up-parks-commercial-use"],"yoast_head":"\nHigh Courts Roundup March 2026| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"High Courts Roundup March 2026 summarises key rulings across India on reservation, protest rights, arbitration, criminal law, IP, family law, and more.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"HIGH COURT MARCH 2026 ROUNDUP | Stories on Govt. Job Reservation for Body Builders; Tiger Corridor at Risk; No Absolute Right to Protest; Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Not \u201cState\u201d; and more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"High Courts Roundup March 2026 summarises key rulings across India on reservation, protest rights, arbitration, criminal law, IP, family law, and more.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-04-07T08:30:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-07T09:12:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/BLOG-51-16.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"HIGH COURT MARCH 2026 ROUNDUP | Stories on Govt. Job Reservation for Body Builders; Tiger Corridor at Risk; No Absolute Right to Protest; Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Not \u201cState\u201d; and more\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"WebPage\",\"FAQPage\"],\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/\",\"name\":\"High Courts Roundup March 2026| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/BLOG-51-16.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-07T08:30:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-07T09:12:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"High Courts Roundup March 2026 summarises key rulings across India on reservation, protest rights, arbitration, criminal law, IP, family law, and more.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/BLOG-51-16.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/BLOG-51-16.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"High Courts Roundup March 2026\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"HIGH COURT MARCH 2026 ROUNDUP | Stories on Govt. Job Reservation for Body Builders; Tiger Corridor at Risk; No Absolute Right to Protest; Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Not \u201cState\u201d; and more\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"High Courts Roundup March 2026| SCC Times","description":"High Courts Roundup March 2026 summarises key rulings across India on reservation, protest rights, arbitration, criminal law, IP, family law, and more.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"HIGH COURT MARCH 2026 ROUNDUP | Stories on Govt. Job Reservation for Body Builders; Tiger Corridor at Risk; No Absolute Right to Protest; Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Not \u201cState\u201d; and more","og_description":"High Courts Roundup March 2026 summarises key rulings across India on reservation, protest rights, arbitration, criminal law, IP, family law, and more.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-04-07T08:30:56+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-07T09:12:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/BLOG-51-16.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"HIGH COURT MARCH 2026 ROUNDUP | Stories on Govt. Job Reservation for Body Builders; Tiger Corridor at Risk; No Absolute Right to Protest; Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Not \u201cState\u201d; and more","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["WebPage","FAQPage"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/","name":"High Courts Roundup March 2026| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/BLOG-51-16.webp","datePublished":"2026-04-07T08:30:56+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-07T09:12:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"High Courts Roundup March 2026 summarises key rulings across India on reservation, protest rights, arbitration, criminal law, IP, family law, and more.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/BLOG-51-16.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/BLOG-51-16.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"High Courts Roundup March 2026"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/07\/high-courts-roundup-march-2026\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"HIGH COURT MARCH 2026 ROUNDUP | Stories on Govt. Job Reservation for Body Builders; Tiger Corridor at Risk; No Absolute Right to Protest; Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Not \u201cState\u201d; and more"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/BLOG-51-16.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":381117,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/15\/top-legal-developments-this-week-6-12th-april-2026\/","url_meta":{"origin":380314,"position":0},"title":"Top Legal Developments This Week [6-12th April, 2026] | Justice Yashwant Varma\u2019s Resignation; Revised VDA Rates; Sathankulam Custodial Deaths; and more","author":"Sonali Ahuja","date":"April 15, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"A quick roundup to cover all the important legal developments and cases this week.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Legal Developments This Week","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-2026-04-15T181051.723.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-2026-04-15T181051.723.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-2026-04-15T181051.723.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/blog-2026-04-15T181051.723.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":379862,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/31\/top-legal-developments-this-week-23-29-march-2026\/","url_meta":{"origin":380314,"position":1},"title":"TOP LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS THIS WEEK [23-29 March, 2026] | No Absolute Right to Protest; SC\/ST Status After Conversion; and many more High-Impact Rulings","author":"Editor","date":"March 31, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"A quick roundup to cover all the important legal developments and cases this week.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Legal Developments This Week","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/BLOG-2026-03-31T182753.305.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/BLOG-2026-03-31T182753.305.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/BLOG-2026-03-31T182753.305.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/BLOG-2026-03-31T182753.305.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":228943,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/05\/01\/covid-19-and-supreme-court-april-roundup\/","url_meta":{"origin":380314,"position":2},"title":"COVID-19 and Supreme Court – April roundup","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"May 1, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Functioning of courts Supreme Court issues guidelines on functioning of courts through video conferencing Release of prisoners Ensure that prisoners released on parole are not left stranded due to lockdown: SC to Centre No prisoner shall be released without taking appropriate steps if he\/she has suffered from coronavirus disease SC\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":259084,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/27\/supreme-court-2021-12-months-12-stories\/","url_meta":{"origin":380314,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court 2021: 12 Months, 12 Stories","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"JANUARY Manish Kumar v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 1 The 3-Judge Bench of Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ., in a 465-pages long judgment, upheld the validity of several provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020, albeit with directions given in exercise\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":265333,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/11\/weekly-legal-roundup-high-courts-legal-news-legalstories\/","url_meta":{"origin":380314,"position":4},"title":"Political clearance for Judges to visit abroad, Duty of Law Officers, Extra-marital affair of mother and more | Read 7 interesting legal stories of the week","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"7 Interesting Picks of the Week Gone by. Under Muslim Personal law, can Family Court dissolve the marriage of a couple? Bom HC elaborates The Division Bench of V.K. Jadhav and Sandipkumar C. More, JJ., addressed whether Family Court under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 read with Section\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "High Court Round Up"","block_context":{"text":"High Court Round Up","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/high-court-round-up\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Roundup_Weekly.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Roundup_Weekly.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Roundup_Weekly.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Roundup_Weekly.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Roundup_Weekly.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":241629,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/05\/supreme-court-yearly-roundup-2020-in-review\/","url_meta":{"origin":380314,"position":5},"title":"Supreme Court Yearly Roundup – 2020 in review","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 5, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"JANUARY 2020 Story of the month 5-judge bench holds no time limit could be fixed while granting anticipatory bail https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-january-2020\/ FEBRUARY 2020 Story of the month Grant permanent commission to all women officers in Army who opt for it within 3 months: SC to Centre https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/03\/06\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-february-2020\/ MARCH 2020 Story of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2020-wrap-up.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2020-wrap-up.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2020-wrap-up.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2020-wrap-up.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2020-wrap-up.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/380314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=380314"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/380314\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":380317,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/380314\/revisions\/380317"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/380326"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=380314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=380314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=380314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}