{"id":381117,"date":"2026-04-15T18:00:36","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T12:30:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=381117"},"modified":"2026-04-15T18:15:43","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T12:45:43","slug":"top-legal-developments-this-week-6-12th-april-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/15\/top-legal-developments-this-week-6-12th-april-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Top Legal Developments This Week [6-12th April, 2026] | Justice Yashwant Varma\u2019s Resignation; Revised VDA Rates; Sathankulam Custodial Deaths; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Catch up on the top legal developments this week (6—12 April 2026), including Justice Yashwant Varma’s resignation, Suo motu action on Mental Healthcare in Patna, Peaceful Protest in University, Second marriage by Muslim man, Guideline for Rejection of Election Petitions, and more.<\/p>\n

STORIES OF THE WEEK<\/h2>\n

CORRUPTION<\/span> | Justice Yashwant Varma resigns as Allahabad High Court Judge<\/p>\n

Justice Varma tendered his resignation from the office of Judge of the Allahabad High Court with immediate effect to the President of India. He said that “It is with deep anguish that I tender my resignation from the office of Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with immediate effect.”<\/span> Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read: “No Choice but to Withdraw”: Justice Yashwant Varma Quits Judges Inquiry Proceedings — His Letter Explains Why<\/a><\/p>\n

EMPLOYMENT LAW<\/span> | Govt. Revises Variable Dearness Allowance Rates, Effective 1 April 2026<\/span><\/p>\n

On 30 March 2026, the Ministry of Labour & Employment issued a series of orders revising the Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) for multiple scheduled employments. The revised VDA rates came into force with effect from 1 April 2026.<\/p>\n

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

CUSTODIAL DEATHS<\/span> | “Rarest of the Rare”: Death penalty to 9 Police Officials in Sathankulam Custodial Deaths Case<\/p>\n

In a custodial death case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Madurai District Court held that it was a clear case of abuse of authority and fell in the rarest of the rare cases; all the accused persons were convicted of the charges of murder and destruction of evidence.<\/p>\n

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

BAIL<\/span> | Bail Denied to Judicial Officer Accused of Stealing from a Judge’s Residence<\/p>\n

While considering a bail application titled Bikramdeep Singh v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (punjab_haryana) 1<\/a> of a serving Civil Judge (Junior Division), accused of theft of ancestral gold, jewellery, and cash from the residence of his deceased colleague Kanwaljit Singh, the Patiala District Court dismissed the anticipatory bail and held the allegations to be serious and the CCTV footage prima facie supported the prosecution case making the custodial interrogation necessary for recovery of the property and for effective investigation.<\/p>\n

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

SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/h2>\n

SUCCESSION<\/span> | Succession to office of Sajjadanashin governed by custom and valid nomination, not mere lineal inheritance<\/span><\/p>\n

In a long-standing dispute related to the succession to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah titled Syed Mohd. Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohd. Adil Pasha Khadri<\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine SC 518<\/a> the Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below and held that the respondent was validly nominated through Khilafatnama dated 26 February 1981 and the nomination was supported by credible oral and documentary evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

OBSCENITY<\/span> | Mere use of abusive words not “obscenity” under S. 294(b)<\/a> IPC<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

In Sivakumar v. State<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 529<\/a>, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals and examined the scope of offences under Sections 294(b), 304 Part II, and the applicability of Section 34<\/a> IPC<\/a>. The Court held that mere use of abusive language during a heated altercation does not constitute “obscenity” under Section 294(b)<\/a> IPC<\/a>, and set aside the conviction on that count.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

ARTICLE 142<\/span> | 80+ Litigations filed by lawyer-husband by invoking Art. 142; Divorce granted with ₹5 crore settlement<\/span><\/p>\n

In X3 v. Y1<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 544<\/a>, the Supreme Court quashed the 80+ vexatious and vindictive litigation including proceedings against wife, her relatives and even her advocates filed by the lawyer husband. The Court dissolved the marriage between the parties, granted custody of both children to the wife, with structured visitation rights to the father and awarded a consolidated sum of ₹5 crores to the wife towards permanent alimony, maintenance, child support, and litigation expenses, payable within one year.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE<\/span>| Medically Justified Alternative Procedure with Consent Not an Offence: Criminal Case Against Surgeon in Pediatric Orchidectomy Case, Quashed<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> a criminal appeal titled S. Balagopal (Dr) v. State of T.N<\/span>.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 528<\/a>, concerning alleged unauthorised surgical intervention on a minor, the Supreme Court, allowed the appeal, holding that the surgeon had obtained valid consent for surgery, and that Orchidectomy was medically justified. The Court emphasised that mere interpolation of the alternative procedure in the consent form, without evidence of malice, does not constitute a criminal offence, and that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of process of law.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

EMPLOYMENT LAW<\/span> | Grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance in matters of public employment: Second Chance to Absent Candidate, refused<\/span><\/p>\n

In Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 523<\/a>, the Supreme Court observed that grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance in matters of public employment, if a fair level playing field is to be secured.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span><\/span> Favouritism Allegations Against Arunachal CM: Supreme Court directs CBI to investigate<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

SERVICE LAW<\/span> | Denial of appointment despite availability of vacancies discriminatory; Appointment with notional benefits, directed<\/span><\/p>\n

In Guruprosad Banerjee v. State of W.B<\/span><\/span>.<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, wherein the petitioners contested denial of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Stamp and Revenue Department of the State of West Bengal despite being within the merit range, the Supreme Court requested the State Government to take action to meet out such discrimination by appointing the petitioners and extending notional benefits.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Executing Court Bound to Execute Decree as Passed; Can’t Modify Its Terms: Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>\n

HIGH COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/h2>\n

MENTAL HEALTH<\/span> | Mental Healthcare as a Right: Suo Motu Action Taken in Bihar<\/span><\/p>\n

In a PIL titled Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report v. State of Bihar<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Pat 1910<\/a><\/span>, the Patna High Court issued notice against respondent authorities and directed to submit detailed reports on constitution and functioning of Mental Health Review Boards, conditions and facilities at BIMHAS, availability of free food, medicines, hygiene, and infrastructure, role of police and prison authorities concerning mentally ill persons, legal aid services provided, rehabilitation measures post-treatment and steps taken to address deficiencies identified in the inspection report.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

STRIDHAN<\/span> | Anticipatory Bail for Breach of Undertaking to Compensate Wife for Stridhan Tirth, denied<\/span><\/p>\n

In Jagdishchandra Rawal v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2147<\/a>, the Bombay High Court declined to grant relief, holding that the conduct of the applicant, coupled with the nature of the allegations levelled against him, did not warrant release on anticipatory bail. Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Merely lodging cases does not amount to mens rea for abetment to suicide: Allahabad HC grants relief to wife & family in husband’s suicide<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY<\/span> | Even Property Owner Can Be Guilty of Trespass<\/span><\/p>\n

In Damodaran K. v. State of Kerala<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 3966<\/a>, the Kerala High Court affirmed the conviction holding that trespass is an offence against possession and not against ownership, meaning thereby that even the true owner cannot unlawfully enter the rented premises. Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SERVICE LAW<\/span> | Right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right: Quarterly Departmental Promotion Committee meetings mandated<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14<\/a> and 16(1)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. The Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to hold Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) meetings every three months during every calendar year so that employees could get promotions against vacant posts in time.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

RIGHT TO PROTEST<\/span> | “Peaceful Protest and Non-Violent Dissent Are Natural to Academic Environment”: Student Expulsion Quashed<\/span><\/p>\n

In Nadia v. B.R. Ambedkar University<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1249<\/a><\/span><\/a>, wherein a student was expelled for allegedly participating in a sit-down protest, the Delhi High Court held that penalising a student for a sit-down protest is wholly untenable in law, as it strikes at the very heart of the spirit of democracy and the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (b)<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

CRIMINAL LAW<\/span> | Key Question Raised on BNSS Cognizance, Seeks Larger Bench Clarity<\/span><\/p>\n

In Pooja Chaudhri v. Priya S. Kapur<\/span><\/span>3<\/sup><\/a>, an issue was raised by the petitioner involved the interpretation of Section 223<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS), and in particular, the scope and effect of the newly introduced first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, which mandates that no cognizance of an offence on a complaint shall be taken by the Magistrate without affording the accused an opportunity of being heard. The Delhi High Court referred the matter to a larger bench.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span><\/span> <\/span>Delhi HC Cracks Down on Unauthorised “The Pioneer” Publication, grants ad interim injunction for Trade mark and Copyright Infringement<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

CORRUPTION<\/span> | “Shows a very low state of moral fibre in society”: Relief denied to accused in Rs 22 lakh cash-for-job and fake PhD degree scam<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition titled Priyanka Sengar v. State of U.P.<\/span><\/span>4<\/sup><\/a>, filed by an accused in a Rs 22 lakhs cash-for-job and fake PhD degree scam seeking quashing of the FIR, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the case was not fit for interference under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> since the allegations were of a serious nature and needed thorough investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW<\/span> | Second marriage by Muslim man not bigamy under Section 494<\/a> IPC<\/a>, as Muslim Personal Law permits polygamy<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition titled Mohd. Arif Ahmad Jahagir Khan v. State of M.P<\/span>.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 3553<\/a><\/span>, filed by a Muslim man seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him by his first wife, the Madhya Pradesh High Court partly allowed the petition, holding that a second marriage contracted by a Muslim male would not be void under Section 494<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC) merely on the ground that the first marriage is still subsisting as Muslim personal law permits plurality of marriages.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> <\/span>Mother placing child in hostel meant for orphans not in his best interests; Kerala HC grants custody to father<\/a><\/p>\n

ELECTION LAW |<\/span> Test for Rejection of Election Petitions Laid Down<\/span><\/p>\n

In Pramod Ratan Patil v. Rajesh Govardhan More<\/span><\/span>5<\/sup><\/a>, the Bombay High Court held that for seeking a declaration under Section 101<\/a>, Representation of the People Act, 1951<\/a> (RP Act), the petitioner must plead that he had secured a majority of votes, which was not done in the present case.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read: MP HC Appoints Shourya Didis for 19-Year-Old Woman Who Left Matrimonial Home After Marriage to 40-Year-Old Man, Allows Her to Live With Lover<\/a><\/p>\n

LEGISLATIONS<\/h2>\n