{"id":383209,"date":"2026-05-04T17:00:35","date_gmt":"2026-05-04T11:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=383209"},"modified":"2026-05-04T18:05:47","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T12:35:47","slug":"top-legal-developments-this-week-27-april-3-may-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/04\/top-legal-developments-this-week-27-april-3-may-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Top Legal Developments This Week [27 April\u20143 May 2026] | Rats Eat Bribe Cash, Ranveer Singh Sent to Temple, FIR Against Rahul Gandhi Blocked; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Catch up on the top legal developments this week (27th April-3rd May, 2026), such as rats eating bribe cash, Cryopreservation, Rights of Transgender Persons, unauthorized school fee, Rahul Gandhi’s“fight against Indian State” remark, hanging glaciers in Himalayas, etc.<\/p>\n

STORY OF THE WEEK<\/p>\n

HATE SPEECH<\/span> |<\/span> “Judiciary Cannot Create New Criminal Offences, Existing Laws Adequate”: Petition seeking scrutiny of Hate Speech Laws, dismissed<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering writ petition titled Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 741<\/a>, seeking appropriate directions to the Union of India to examine the existing legal framework governing “hate speech” and “rumour mongering”, and to take necessary steps to effectively address and regulate the same by way of a legislation, the Supreme Court held that the creation of criminal offences and prescription of punishments lie within the legislative domain. The constitutional scheme founded upon the doctrine of separation of powers, does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand the contours of criminal liability through judicial directions.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/span><\/p>\n

ARBITRATION<\/span> |<\/span> Can Unsuccessful Party Invoke Section 9 A&C Act at Post-Award Stage?<\/span><\/p>\n

In Home Care Retail Marts (P) Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 670<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party in arbitration, may invoke Section 9<\/a>, Arbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a> at the post-award stage. However, the Court cautioned the courts to exercise care, caution and circumspection while dealing with a Section 9 application filed by an unsuccessful party in arbitration.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

CIVIL LAW<\/span> | Can Civil Court Adjudicate Disputes Challenging Determination or Alteration of Municipal Limits?<\/span><\/p>\n

In Unchgaon Village Panchayat v. Kolhapur Municipal Corpn.<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 657<\/a>, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment, holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes challenging the determination or alteration of municipal limits made in exercise of statutory power under Section 3<\/a>, Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (59 of 1949)<\/a> (MMC Act) as such exercise of power had legislative character, not administrative.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Relief to Taxpayer as SC quashes Tax Demand under SVLDRS revised without following Principles of Natural Justice; Directs issuance of fresh order<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

CORRUPTION<\/span> |<\/span> Bribe Cash Vanishes, Blame Falls on Rats: Explanation Does Not Inspire Any Confidence<\/span><\/p>\n

While granting bail to an officer accused of bribery and suspending the High Court’s conviction order in Aruna Kumari v. Economic Offences Unit<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 719<\/a>, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce the currency notes that were seized from the possession of the accused-petitioner on the ground that the envelope containing the seized money was destroyed by rats and rodents.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

BAIL<\/span> |<\/span> Grant of Anticipatory Bail to Accused with 22 FIRs “Very Unfortunate”; Criminal Antecedents Alone Sufficient to Deny Relief<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal Sharad Sehgal v. State of U.P<\/span>.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 740<\/a>, arising from the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 28 January 2026, granting anticipatory bail to Respondent 2, against whom 22 FIRs were registered for different offences, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order holding that “criminal antecedents of Respondent 2 by itself were sufficient for the High Court to deny anticipatory bail”.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

SENTENCE<\/span> |<\/span> Systemic Gaps Flagged in Death Penalty Sentencing; Mandated Structured Framework for Mitigation Analysis and Legal Aid<\/p>\n

In Aman Singh v. State of Bihar<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 720<\/a>, the Supreme Court, while staying the execution of the death sentence, issued comprehensive directions to streamline the process of sentencing in capital punishment cases. The Court expressed serious concern over the failure to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances at appropriate stages and the lack of effective legal representation, which undermines a balanced and constitutionally compliant sentencing exercise.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Cheque dishonour| Director’s S. 138 NI Act liability subsists despite liquidation of the company: Supreme Court<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

WILL<\/span> |<\/span> Can Bona Fide Purchaser for Value be Held Criminally Liable for Forged Will-Linked Property?<\/span><\/p>\n

In S. Anand v. State of T.N.<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 702<\/a>, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, holding that a bona fide purchaser for value cannot be held criminally liable for forged Will-linked property in absence of any proof of participation, knowledge, or fraudulent intent and the continuation of prosecution against such purchaser would be wholly unjustified and would amount to “gross abuse of the process of the Court”.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

BAIL<\/span> |<\/span> Anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera in FIR Lodged by Assam CM’s Wife<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering this appeal, titled Pawan Khera v. State of Assam<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera (appellant), challenging Gauhati High Court’s order dated 24 April 2026 whereby the Court had refused to grant him anticipatory bail in connection with alleged defamatory allegations against Riniki Bhuyan Sarma (complainant), the wife of the Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma; the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant albeit with conditions.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Rejection of Jurisdictional Plea Not an Interim Award; Challenge Lies Only After Final Arbitral Award: Supreme Court<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

EDUCATION LAW<\/span>|<\/span> RTE Admission | Once State Allots Student to Neighbourhood School, School Cannot Refuse<\/span><\/p>\n

In Lucknow Public School v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 723<\/a>, a Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ., dismissed the petition and upheld the judgment of the High Court directing grant of admission. The Court held that once a student is allotted to a school by the State authorities under the prescribed procedure, the school is bound to admit the student and cannot sit in appeal over such decision.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Brutal Assault on Woman Advocate by Husband: Suo motu cognizance taken; Directions Issued for Fair Investigation<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

HIGH COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/span><\/p>\n

BAIL<\/span> | Right to default bail accrues on accused if charge-sheet not filed within stipulated time<\/span><\/p>\n

In Armaan Hussain v. Union of India<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 6299<\/a>, the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petition was maintainable and deserved to be allowed. The Court held that if the Court is closed on the last day of filing a charge-sheet, and the charge-sheet is filed on the 61st day or any other later\/subsequent day, then default bail can be granted.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

MEDICAL AND HEALTH LAW<\/span> |<\/span> Written Consent Not Indispensable for IVF under ART Act, 2021: Cryopreservation of Soldier’s Genetic Material Permitted<\/span><\/p>\n

In X7 v. Union of India<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1606<\/a>, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition with directions to the respondents to undertake the necessary procedure required to take the IVF treatment to its logical conclusion after holding that written consent is not indispensable for IVF under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021<\/a> (ART Act). The Court held that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the consent of the petitioner’s husband in opting for IVF treatment would constitute sufficient compliance with Section 22, ART Act and the petitioner cannot be disentitled on the sole ground of absence of explicit written consent.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Patna HC Sets Aside POCSO Conviction, Rules Expression “Bad Work” is Insufficient to Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN<\/span> |<\/span> ICC Cannot Record Instigator of False POSH Complaint as “Unknown Source” When Identity is Clearly Disclosed<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering an appeal titled Shrinivas Shinde v. Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2653<\/a><\/span><\/a>, the Bombay High Court held that the petitioner was clearly a person aggrieved by the Internal Complaints Committee’s (ICC) recommendations and had a statutory right to appeal. The Court further held that the ICC erred in recording the instigation of the complaint as having come from an “unknown source” under the POSH Act, despite the retraction statement clearly naming the instigator. Accordingly, the Court quashed the Tribunal’s order and directed modification of the ICC’s conclusion to reflect that the instigation came from the identified individual. The Court accordingly disposed of the petition.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

PERSONALITY RIGHTS<\/span> |<\/span> Does a Single Top Rank Give Rise to Personality Rights?<\/span><\/p>\n

While examining the grievance of Plaintiff 3, CLAT 2026 AIR 1 candidate, regarding misuse of her personality rights over single academic achievement, in the application filed by the plaintiffs, Toprankers Edtech Solutions (P) Ltd., titled Toprankers Edtech Solutions (P) Ltd. v. LPT Edtech (P) Ltd.<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1772<\/a>, seeking ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants for launching blatant and malicious campaign thereby tarnishing their goodwill and reputation, the Delhi High Court declined to protect plaintiff’s personality rights, holding that a single achievement, such as securing a top rank, does not automatically confer enforceable personality rights.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also read: General Land Register entries cannot supersede revenue records and are not conclusive proof of title: J&K and Ladakh HC<\/a><\/p>\n

TRANSGENDER PERSONS<\/span>|<\/span> “Transgenders are Also Children of God”: Welfare Directions Issued Following Self-Immolation Incident<\/span><\/p>\n

In V. Sarathkumar v. State of T.N.<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a>, the Madras High Court held that the allegations in the FIR were confined to retransmission of news already in circulation and custodial interrogation was not warranted. The Court accordingly granted bail subject to conditions. At the same time, the Court observed that the tragic self-immolation of a transgender individual demanded a broader judicial response. Emphasising compassion and constitutional obligations, directions were issued to the State Government to frame a comprehensive rehabilitation scheme for transgender persons, ensuring livelihood, education, healthcare, and meaningful inclusion in society.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

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

CUSTODY<\/span> |<\/span> Habeas Corpus Plea Fails Where Lawful Custody Flows from Child Welfare Committee Order<\/span><\/p>\n

In Deeksha v. State of U.P.<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 3146<\/a> a habeas corpus writ petition filed by the husband seeking custody of his wife (corpus) alleging illegal detention in Rajkiya Bal Grah (Balika), Vrindavan, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition holding that habeas corpus not maintainable against lawful custody of State where the corpus is in custody pursuant to a judicial order passed by the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015<\/a> (JJ Act).<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> “Not be Taken Up for the Next 20 Years”: Bombay High Court Declines to Hear 90-Year-Old’s Ego-Driven Case Before 2046<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

POCSO<\/span> |<\/span> Inside Guidelines for Quashing of POCSO FIR in Consensual Adolescent Relationship<\/span><\/p>\n

In Harmeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1707<\/a>, the Delhi High Court in view of the absence of a de facto victim, the settled matrimonial life of the parties, the birth of a child, prevent re-victimisation of the de-juré victim and the clear stand of the prosecutrix, held that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process and result in manifest injustice. The Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings and issued guidelines for quashing of POCSO FIR in a consensual adolescent relationship.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

LABOUR LAW<\/span> |<\/span> 2026 Industrial Relations Code Amendment Upheld Allowing Existing Labour Tribunals to Continue<\/span><\/p>\n

In M.K. Suresh Kumar v. Union of India<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 4432<\/a>, wherein the constitutionality of the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026<\/a> (Amending Act) was challenged, the Kerala High Court, while dismissing the petition, upheld the Amending Act observing that the amended Section 104(1-A), IR Code does not violate Article 14<\/a> or Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> and is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

EDUCATION LAW<\/span> |<\/span> Deliberate monopoly for unlawful excessive profits: Relief denied to private schools, booksellers & publishers in unauthorized fee hike and book selling case<\/span><\/p>\n

In Atul Anupam Abraham v. State of M.P<\/span>3<\/sup><\/a>., wherein several petitioners sought quashing of FIRs filed against private schools, book sellers, and book publishers regarding unauthorised fee hike and sale of books with fake\/duplicate International Standard Book Number (ISBN), the Madhya Pradesh High Court, dismissed the petitions, holding that the material collected during investigation, prima facie, indicated that there was criminal collusion and conspiracy between the accused persons, whereby a monopolistic arrangement was deliberately created with the object of generating unlawful and excessive profits.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief Allowing Debarred Candidate to Register for JEE Advanced Exam 2026<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> F<\/span>alse Declaration of Own Educational Qualification Not a “Corrupt Practice” under Section 123(4) RP Act: Delhi HC<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TRANSGENDER PERSONS|<\/span> No Legitimate or Legal Basis for Collection of Badhai Money\/Gifts by Transgender Persons<\/span><\/p>\n

In Rekha Devi v. State of U.P.<\/span>4<\/sup><\/a>, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no legitimate or legal basis permitting any person or individual to collect\/extract any money, tax, fee, or cess from another, except in accordance with law. Thus, the rights sought by the petitioner were not recognised by the law and could not be legitimised.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

CRIMINAL FORCE<\/span> |<\/span> Acquittal Upheld Despite Holding Stranger Grabbing Minor’s Hand at Night Constitute Criminal Force Under Section 354<\/a> IPC<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The instant appeal<\/span>, titled State v. Nitu Singh<\/span><\/span>5<\/sup><\/a>, preferred by the State challenging trial court’s judgment whereby the respondent\/accused had been acquitted, the Delhi High Court held that though a stranger grabbing minor’s hand at night held to constitute criminal force under Section 354<\/a> IPC<\/a> but upheld the trial court’s order of acquittal.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Dishonest Adoption and Suppression of Prior Rights Vitiate Trademark Registration; Delhi HC Orders Rectification of ‘S.S. WHITE’ Mark Registration<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MINES AND MINERALS<\/span> |<\/span> Prima facie illegal mining and transport of minerals: Suo motu cognizance taken and interim safeguards issued<\/span><\/p>\n

In a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) titled Registrar General v. State of Meghalaya<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Megh 317<\/a>, highlighting illegal mineral transportation and extraction and the damage caused by the movement of heavy vehicles towards the Bangladesh border without due compliance of law, the Meghalaya High Court observed the apprehensions raised to be prima facie “visible and real”, reflecting a disturbing pattern of administrative inaction, and consequently issued interim directions to the authorities concerned.<\/p>\n

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

RESERVATION<\/span> | Congress Leader Challenges BJP MLA Pratima Bagri’s Scheduled Caste Certificate: Scrutiny Ordered<\/span><\/p>\n

In , a writ petition filed by Congress Leader Pradeep Ahirwar, titled Pradeep Ahirwar v. State of M.P.<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a> , seeking scrutiny of Raigaon’s BJP Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Pratima Bagri’s caste certificate, the Madhya Pradesh High Court disposed of the petition, directing that the High-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee (Scrutiny Committee) shall pass an appropriate order within 60 days.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span><\/span> Andhra Pradesh High Court invokes “Ardhangini” concept to appoint wife as guardian of comatose husband<\/a><\/p>\n

LAND LAW<\/span> | Affected persons not rehabilitated even after 20+ years of Narmada Dam: Additional Chief Secretary directed to address Medha Patkar’s suggestions, concerns<\/span><\/p>\n

In a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Medha Patkar<\/span>, titled Medha Patkar v. State of M.P<\/span><\/span>.7<\/sup><\/a>, seeking registration of plots allotted to affected persons in the Narmada Dam Project, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, to address the issues and suggestions raised by Medha Patkar before him, and to meet her again if necessary.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS<\/span> | Ranveer Singh sent to Temple Over Kantara Mimicry Row<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition filed by Ranveer Singh, titled<\/span> Ranveer Singh v. State of Karnataka8<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/span>, under Section 528<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS) seeking to set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in case pertaining to mimicry of actor Rishab Shetty from his film “Kantara” depicting the Daiva possession scene, the Karnataka High Court closed the proceedings against him considering that he tendered apology and directed him to visit Shri Chamundeshwari Temple within 4 weeks.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

FREEDOM OF SPEECH<\/span> | Speech does not explicitly call for any offences: Registration of FIR against Rahul Gandhi for “fight against Indian State” remark, denied<\/span><\/p>\n

In Simran Gupta v. State of U.P.<\/span>,9<\/sup><\/a> a petition filed against the rejection of the applicant’s plea for registration of an FIR against Rahul Gandhi for the “fight against Indian State” remark, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition and held that the applicant presented no circumstances and material particulars to indicate that the speech had resulted in the aforesaid excitement, encouragement, or endangerment as provided under Section 152<\/a>, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNS).<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Deliberate non-employment by qualified wife to burden husband: Ground to deny maintenance: Allahabad HC<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read: Jail Visitor’s Room Not Conducive Environment for Effective Lawyer—Client Communication; Delhi HC grants Parole to POCSO Convict to File SLP<\/a><\/p>\n

TRIBUNALS AND COMMISSIONS<\/p>\n

ENVIRONMENT LAW<\/span> |<\/span> Hanging glaciers or the sword of Damocles hanging over Uttarakhand? Suo motu cognizance taken over danger posed by hanging glaciers in Himalayas<\/span><\/p>\n

In a suo motu application10<\/sup><\/a> registered by the Principal Bench, based on a newspaper report on “Danger Posed by Hanging Glaciers on Mountain Slopes in Central Himalaya”, the Bench of Prakash Shrivastava, J., (Chairperson) and Dr Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member) impleaded the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board, National Mission for Clean Ganga, Department of Urban Development, Uttarakhand and National Institute of Hydrology, and directed them to file a reply in the present matter.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

OTHER UPDATES<\/h2>\n

NEWS<\/p>\n