{"id":381675,"date":"2026-04-20T17:00:08","date_gmt":"2026-04-20T11:30:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=381675"},"modified":"2026-04-20T18:35:10","modified_gmt":"2026-04-20T13:05:10","slug":"weekly-legal-developments-india-13-19-april-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/20\/weekly-legal-developments-india-13-19-april-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Top Legal Developments [13 – 19 April 2026] | Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 Withdrawal; Legal Aid Reform; West Bengal SIR Case; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This roundup of weekly legal developments in India covers the most significant Supreme Court and High Court rulings, including Transgender Persons Rights, Anosh Ekka Bail case, Media Reporting not Media Trial, Persons Aggrieved shielded from prosecution for Giving Dowry, etc.<\/p>\n

It also highlights major legislative developments such as the Delimitation Bill, Women’s Reservation in Legislature, Minimum Wages Revised Following Industrial Unrest in Noida, National Highway Fees Increased, Special Task Force for Wetlands along with other updates from across India.<\/p>\n

HIGHLIGHT OF THE WEEK<\/h2>\n

No Special-Majority in Special Session: Why the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 Failed?<\/p>\n

During the special session of the Lok Sabha held from 16 to 18 April 2026, the House considered a set of three interlinked legislative proposals introduced by the Government as part of a broader effort to operationalise women’s reservation in legislatures. Both the Delimitation Bill, 2026 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were designed to operate only upon the successful passage of the constitutional amendment. Once the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill failed to be adopted, the statutory and constitutional foundation necessary to proceed with the remaining Bills no longer existed. Accordingly, the government informed the House that it would not move forward with them. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Legal Aid Reforms | Directions issued for Systemic Legal Aid Reform, Delay in Appeals and Timely Access to Justice<\/p>\n

In Shankar Mahto<\/span> v. State of Bihar<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court issued directions institutionalising reforms in the legal aid system, making timelines binding and directing structural changes to ensure timely filing of appeals and effective access to justice. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Illegal Sand Mining | Strong Monitoring Framework to Curb Illegal Sand Mining in Chambal Gharial Sanctuary; Comprehensive Directions Issued<\/p>\n

In Illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary and threat to endangered aquatic wildlife, In re, Suo Moto Writ Petition<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court issued important directions for the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh for immediate compliance. The directions also covered several key aspects, which were highlighted before the Court, thereby bringing out the gravity of the unabated course of illegal activities, which not only undermined the Rule of Law but also posed serious and escalating threats to human life, public safety, and ecological integrity. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

WB SIR | Voter Name Missing and Appeal Pending? Read Supreme Court’s Big Order on Voter Appeals cleared by Appellate Tribunals<\/p>\n

In Mostari Banu<\/span> v. Election Commission of India<\/span>3<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) that wherever the Appellate Tribunals are able to decide the appeals by 21 April 2026 or 27 April 2026, as the case may be, such appellate orders shall be given effect to by issuing supplementary revised electoral roll, and all necessary consequences with respect to the right to vote shall follow. The Court also clarified that mere pendency of appeals preferred by excluded persons before the Appellate Tribunals shall not entitle them to exercise their right to vote. Elections in West Bengal will be conducted in 2 phases. Phase 1 election will be held on 23 April 2026 and Phase 2 election will be held on 29 April 2026<\/span>. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Transgender Person Rights | Transgender Person Allowed to Apply for Teaching Post; Ignoring Gender in Recruitment Notification<\/p>\n

In Jane Kaushik<\/span> v. Lieutenant Governor<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 595<\/a>, the Supreme Court prima facie held that the Advisory Committee had no powers to adjudicate; allowed the transgender person to apply for the government vacancy irrespective of the gender it was notified for.<\/span> <\/span>Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Anosh Ekka Case | Bail Granted to Anosh Ekka in Disproportionate Assets Case; Overlapping of Allegations Cited<\/p>\n

In Anosh Ekka<\/span> v. CBI<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 589<\/a>, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order refusing bail. The Court held that where two split charge-sheets arising from the same FIR led to overlapping allegations, and the sentence in a connected case had already been suspended, the appellant was entitled to similar relief. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Family Law | Party Cannot Back Out from Mediated Settlement Without Valid Grounds; Marriage Dissolved under Art. 142<\/p>\n

In Dhananjay Rathi<\/span> v. Ruchika Rathi<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 587<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that while withdrawal of consent in mutual divorce is permissible, a party cannot resile from a duly executed settlement agreement except on limited grounds such as force, fraud, undue influence, or non-fulfilment of obligations. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Family Law | Can Complainant Wife and Her Family Be Prosecuted for ‘Giving Dowry’? Clarified<\/p>\n

In Rahul Gupta<\/span> v. Station House Officer<\/span>4<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, holding that a wife cannot be prosecuted for giving dowry solely based on such statements. The Court explained that where the only material relied upon to allege the offence of “giving dowry” under Section 3<\/a>, Dowry Prohibition Act<\/a> is the complaint or statements made by the wife and her family members, they, being the “persons aggrieved”, would be fully covered by the shield of immunity raised under Section 7(3) and would not be liable to be prosecuted on the strength thereof. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

NI Act<\/a> | Delayed Cheque Presentation in Absence of Any Reasonable Explanation Amounts to Deficiency in Service<\/p>\n

In Canara Bank<\/span> v. Kavita Chowdhary<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 591<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that a bank receiving cheques for collection acts as an agent of the customer and is under an obligation to exercise due diligence in presenting the instruments within the prescribed validity period. Failure to do so results in the instrument becoming stale and, in the absence of any reasonable explanation, would result in negligence in the discharge of banking duties, which would constitute a deficiency in rendering service within the meaning of the consumer protection law. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

HIGH COURT HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS WEEK<\/h2>\n

Media Reporting | Right to Privacy Does Not Bar Fair Reporting of FIR Based on Public Records Permissible; Not a ‘Media Trial’<\/p>\n

In Rabden Sherpa<\/span> v. State of Sikkim<\/span>5<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the Sikkim High Court held that simply reporting the factum of registration of an FIR and the contents thereof does not amount to a media trial; right to privacy no longer subsists, when the case becomes a legitimate subject to comment on by the press and media; reportages become unobjectionable when based on public records. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

AI Deepfakes | AI Deepfakes and Digital Platforms: Notice Issued to Intermediaries for Strict Compliance with IT Rules, 2026<\/p>\n

In Vikas Vijay Nair<\/span> v. State of Gujarat<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the Gujarat High Court issued notice to the intermediary platforms and directed them to respond to the practical implementation of the existing legislative framework governing unlawful online content. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Trademark | “MARQ” v. “MARC”: Interim injunction affirmed in Trade mark dispute involving Flipkart<\/p>\n

In Flipkart India (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Marc Enterprises (P) Ltd.<\/span>7<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the Delhi High Court held that the respondent was the prior user of the inherently distinctive mark “MARC” and that Flipkart’s mark “MARQ” was deceptively similar, giving rise to a likelihood of confusion and that the addition of Flipkart’s house mark was insufficient to distinguish the competing marks. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Abetment of Suicide | Test laid down for culpability in ‘Abetment of Suicide’ cases<\/p>\n

In Vijay Sitaram Zoting<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2388<\/a>, the Bombay High Court held that the investigation papers nowhere reveal that there was any positive act on the part of the applicants, due to which the deceased had committed suicide; and that the test to be applied is whether the material on record, even prima facie, indicates that the accused intended the consequence of the act, namely suicide. It was further held that there has to be a clear intention to commit the offence for being held liable under Section 306<\/a> IPC<\/a>. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> “Certain People Thrust Their Religion on Others”: Allahabad HC Refuses Relief to Young Women Accused of Compelling Friend to Convert to Islam | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Menstrual Leave Policy | Menstrual leave is assertion of dignity, not plea for privilege: ordered faithful implementation of Menstrual Leave Policy across sectors<\/p>\n

In Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi<\/span> v. State of Karnataka<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the Karnataka High Court held that equality, as envisioned by the Constitution, demands a more compassionate and nuanced approach, one that acknowledges difference not as a ground for discrimination, but as a basis for accommodation, thus, the call for menstrual leave, is not a plea for privilege, but an assertion of dignity, fairness and humane understanding within the spaces women inhabit. The Court orders strict and faithful implementation of the existing menstrual leave policy across sectors and stated that it becomes obligatory upon the State to undertake comprehensive measures aimed at sensitising all sectors, both organised and unorganised. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

PIL | “Advocate cannot plead as petitioner in PIL to advance cause of clients”: PIL seeking natural gas supply connection for Firozabad Industries dismissed<\/p>\n

In Surendra Kumar Sharma<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>9<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the PIL, holding that an advocate cannot plead as a petitioner in a PIL to advance the cause of his clients. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Cricket | Tenure Limits and Electoral Disqualification in Cricket Bodies<\/p>\n

In Pradeepsinh Chandrasinh Solanki<\/span> v. BCCI<\/span>10<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the Gujarat High Court held that the electoral officer failed to discharge his statutory duties by not deciding on the petitioners’ objections and that Respondents 4 to 7, incurred disqualification based on tenure-based norms established by the Supreme Court. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Gujarat SIR | Every Resident Has a Right to Participate: Inclusion of Voter Deleted During SIR Ordered<\/p>\n

In Jayesh Batukbhai Patel<\/span> v. State of Gujarat<\/span>11<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the Gujarat High Court held that once the petitioner’s inclusion in the assembly electoral roll had been duly ordered prior to the preparation of the municipal list, such right could not be defeated on technical grounds or delayed publication, and accordingly directed that his name be incorporated, permitting him to participate in the election. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Digital Asset Misappropriation | Shareholding does not confer ownership over company data: Refused to quash FIR in digital asset misappropriation case<\/p>\n

In Aashay Harlalka<\/span> v. State of Karnataka<\/span>12<\/sup><\/a>, the Karnataka High Court held that the assets of a company are not confined to physical or movable property, they extend to data, code and intellectual propriety and such digital assets, no less than physical ones, are owned exclusively by the Company. The Court stated that the petitioner, by virtue of his shareholding, does not possess ownership over the entirety of the Company’s data. Thus, the Court dismissed the said petition. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Pro-Iran | Posted a Pro-Iran Reel, Ended Up in Jail — Here’s Why Bail Was Granted<\/p>\n

In Wasim Khan<\/span> v. State of M.P.<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the application, holding that the offence had been registered solely based on the video, which could not be said to promote enmity and without sufficient material. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> “Attempt to Extract Pound of Flesh From Husband”: Madhya Pradesh HC Denies Maintenance to Wife Earning Over Rs 1 Lakh a Month | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Employment | Truthful Disclosure of Pending Matrimonial Case Involving Trivial Allegations Cannot Bar Public Employment<\/p>\n

In Rakesh Kumar Verma<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 1238<\/a>, the Allahabad High Court held that the rejection of candidature solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, which had been truthfully disclosed by the petitioner and arose out of a matrimonial dispute with general allegations, was unsustainable. Quashing the impugned order, the Court directed the authorities to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Live-in Relationship | Consenting Adults in Live-in Relationship Entitled to Protection Under Articles 19 & 21; Marital Status Irrelevant<\/p>\n

In Meena Akhilesh Yadav<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1566<\/a>, the Delhi High Court held that the status of a relationship whether marital or a live-in arrangement is not a germane consideration while adjudicating a plea for protection under Articles 19<\/a> and 21<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Presidential Order | Presidential Order prevails over Battalion-wise seniority rules in Special Police Battalions<\/p>\n

In S.P. Kasim Peera<\/span> v. State of Telangana<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine TS 583<\/a>, the Telangana High Court held that the Presidential Order, issued under Article 371-D, has overriding statutory force and that the impugned rules, insofar as they prescribe battalion-wise seniority and promotions, are inconsistent with the constitutional scheme and hence unenforceable to that extent, and directed the State to frame fresh rules in conformity therewith and to reconsider the petitioner’s claim accordingly. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Bombay High Court: NCLT Exclusive Forum for Rectification, Director Removal; Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Barred under S. 430 Companies Act | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Maternity Benefit | Maternity Benefit Act Applies to Guest Faculty: Held Eighty Working Days Bar Inapplicable to State Government Establishments<\/p>\n

In Priti Saket<\/span> v. State of M.P<\/span>., 2026 SCC OnLine MP 5246<\/a>, the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the impugned order and held that the bar of eighty working days in the preceding twelve months, in an establishment, as per Section 5<\/a>, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961<\/a>, does not apply to establishments under State Government. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Government Servant Transfer | Judicial interference in transfer of government servant unjustified: Single Judge’s order to transfer DFO quashed<\/p>\n

In State of Bihar<\/span> v. Deepak Kumar<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Pat 2033<\/a>, the Patna High Court held that the Single Judge erred in directing transfer of a Divisional Forest Officer (DFO). The Court observed that transfer and posting of government servants is an incident of service lying within the exclusive domain of the Government, and judicial interference in such matters is unwarranted. Accordingly, the Court quashed the transfer direction and allowed the appeal to that extent. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Actual possession cannot be disturbed through dispossession proceedings under Sections 164\/165 BNSS: Allahabad HC | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Family Law | Neither an unproven local custom nor brief cohabitation can confer status of valid marriage; Declaration to man that woman is not his wife granted<\/p>\n

In Kailash Chand<\/span> v. Deepa Devi<\/span>14<\/sup><\/a>, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that neither an unproven local custom nor brief cohabitation could confer the status of a valid marriage. The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below which had presumed a lawful marriage between the parties and observed that in the absence of proof of an ancient and binding custom and long cohabitation, Defendant 1 had no legal right to project herself as the plaintiff’s wife. The Court consequently granted a declaration negating the alleged marriage and restrained the defendants from making false claims of marital status or entering in the plaintiff’s house. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Interim Compensation | When Can Courts Grant Interim Compensation? Clarified<\/p>\n

In IRCON, International Ltd.<\/span> v. State of Sikkim<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Sikk 19<\/a>, the Sikkim High Court held that the circumstances under which an interim order may be issued must be exceptional, where there is an immediate threat to life. The Court further held that in the absence of any interim relief sought, the impugned order was unsustainable. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Delay under Section 33-C(1) ID Act Can Be Condoned Without Separate Application: Karnataka HC | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Independent probe ordered into illegal panchayat ostracism depriving woman’s family of basic civic rights<\/p>\n

In P. Revathi<\/span> v. Collector<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 3386<\/a>, the Madras High Court noted allegations that local village panchayat leaders had passed illegal orders ostracising the petitioner’s family after she refused to allow a pathway through her land. The Court observed that such orders deprived the petitioner of access to water, groceries, worship, and social functions, thereby violating her fundamental rights under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. The Court held that judicial intervention was necessary and directed the official respondents to conduct an independent enquiry within 12 weeks and, if illegality is found, to take legal action including filing an FIR. Click to Read in Detail<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Guardianship and Wards Act | Section 6 Guardianship and Wards Act applies to Muslims: Applicability of personal law and general law in custody matters clarified<\/p>\n

In Rizwana<\/span> v. State of UP<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 1318<\/a>, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it would be appropriate for her to avail the remedy before the Family Court concerned, which is duly empowered to examine all aspects relating to guardianship and custody and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Court also held that Section 6<\/a>, Guardians and Wards Act (GWA), 1890<\/a>, or rather the entire Act, does apply to Muslims as it does not contain any provision excluding such applicability. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Digital Arrest | “Cybercrime in our nation operates akin to a silent virus”: Punjab & Haryana High Court denies bail in digital arrest case | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

NDPS Act<\/a> | Mixed Substance Not to Be Fully Counted as “Ganja” under NDPS Act, 1985<\/a>; Bail Granted<\/p>\n

In Mujabil<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1551<\/a>, the Delhi High Court granted bail to the applicants, holding that where the seized substance is a mixture of flowering tops along with leaves and branches, the entire bulk cannot be considered for determining “ganja” quantity. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Forensic Evidence | Conviction rests on evidence not suspicion: Accused acquitted on Sexual Assault charges due to anomalies in Chain of Custody of Forensic Evidence<\/p>\n

In Mool Chandra@Moola<\/span> v. The State of Uttarakhand<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Utt 726<\/a>, the Uttaranchal High Court set aside Appellant 2’s convictions under Sections 376(2)(l)<\/a> and 376-D<\/a> IPC<\/a>, set aside Appellant 1’s convictions under Sections 376(2)(l), 376-D, and 366-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> and affirmed the conviction under Section 363<\/a> IPC<\/a>. The Court held that the evidentiary value of the forensic evidence does not rest solely upon the scientific conclusions but equally upon the sanctity, continuity, and transparency of the chain through which such forensic exhibits pass and any unexplained break or infirmity in this chain would have the potential to erode the reliability of the scientific opinion. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Wetland Fortification | Constitution of Special Task Force directed for monitoring and effective protection of Wetlands<\/p>\n

In Sobran Yadav<\/span> v. State of M.P.<\/span>15<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the National Green Tribunal, Central Zonal Bench — Bhopal, directed the constitution of a Special Task Force for the protection of the wetlands; further directed to remove encroachment, diversion of untreated water to protect the wetlands and directed the State Wetland Authority of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh to complete boundary demarcation of the wetlands as early as possible. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Order Non-Compliance | Ansal Hi-Tech Township Directors Held Liable for Wilful Non-Compliance of Consumer Court Order<\/p>\n

In Prem Prakash Rajpurohit<\/span> v. Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd<\/span>.16<\/sup><\/a>, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission discussed the issue related to penalty for non-compliance of order of the Consumer Commission by Directors and Key Managerial Personnel (“KMP”) under Section 71<\/a> and 72<\/a>, Consumer Protection Act, 2019<\/a>, and held that Directors\/KMPs of Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited (“APIL”\/parent company) cannot be personally liable for satisfying the decree under Section 71, however the bench lifted the corporate veil between AHTTL and APIL and exposes APIL’s current directors\/KMPs to penal action under Section 72, subject to their individual liability being established. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

IT Assessment | Assessment quashed over invalid and time-barred Section 143(2) notice and jurisdictional defect<\/p>\n

In Naveen Goel<\/span> v. CIT<\/span>17<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, held that the notice issued under Section 143(2)<\/a>, Income Tax Act, 1961<\/a> (1961 Act) was both time-barred and issued without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was quashed. Click to Read in Detail<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS WEEK<\/h2>\n

LEGISLATION UPDATES<\/p>\n