{"id":386539,"date":"2026-06-08T17:00:34","date_gmt":"2026-06-08T11:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=386539"},"modified":"2026-06-08T16:49:58","modified_gmt":"2026-06-08T11:19:58","slug":"weekly-legal-developments-india-1-7-june-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/08\/weekly-legal-developments-india-1-7-june-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Top Legal Developments [1-7 June]: Victim Protection Plan, Chambal Sand Mining, Right to Be Forgotten, PoSH & Other Key Verdicts & Policy Updates"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The first week of June 2026 brought a landmark SC ruling on victim protection in human trafficking cases, sweeping environmental directions for the Chambal Sanctuary, and the Delhi High Court’s recognition of the right to be forgotten under Article 21 — alongside tribunal updates, legislative developments and a new legal series. Here is the full week in review.<\/p>\n

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

Environmental law | Supreme Court Issues Sweeping Directions to Three States as Illegal Sand Mining Continues to Destroy the Chambal Sanctuary<\/p>\n

In Illegal Sand Mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary and Threat to Endangered Aquatic Wildlife, In re<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 947<\/a>, while hearing a suo motu writ petition concerning the illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary and threat to endangered aquatic wildlife, the Division Bench said that the protection of ecologically sensitive regions and wildlife habitats constitutes a continuing constitutional obligation of the State under Articles 21<\/a>, 48-A<\/a> and 51-A(g)<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>, requiring proactive governance, effective enforcement, and timely implementation of environmental safeguards. Accordingly, in exercise of its powers under Article 142<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>, the Court issued necessary directions to ensure complete justice and effective implementation of environmental and statutory safeguards in and around the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary spanning Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Read more about SC’s Directions HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Bail| Criminal antecedents not merely matter of record, bear directly on whether an accused will abide by bail conditions<\/p>\n

In Rajni<\/span> v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1050<\/a>, while hearing a batch of criminal appeals arising from a common order granting regular bail to accused persons in a murder case involving an alleged armed mob attack, a Division Bench set aside the grant of bail to 3 accused, holding that the High Court had erred in enlarging all the respondent-accused on bail without individually adverting to their distinct roles and criminal antecedents. Observing that the offence was of an exceptionally grave nature, involving an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons which culminated in the death of the deceased and injuries to the complainant, the Court held that period of incarceration and delay in trial, though relevant considerations, could not constitute the sole or determinative basis for grant of bail in such circumstances. The Court emphasised that criminal antecedents are a material factor bearing directly on the likelihood of an accused abiding by bail conditions, refraining from repeating offences, or desisting from intimidating witnesses, and therefore must weigh heavily while considering bail. Read more about Criminal antecedents bearing on bail HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Human Trafficking| Supreme Court Comprehensive “Victim Protection Plan”<\/p>\n

In Prajwala<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1053<\/a>, the Division Bench while recognising trafficking as a grave assault on human dignity, bodily autonomy and personal liberty, adopted a victim-centric approach and affirmed that rehabilitation is not merely a matter of governmental policy but an integral component of the constitutional guarantee of a life with dignity under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. The Court issued a comprehensive “Victim Protection Plan” governing the pre-rescue, rescue, post-rescue, rehabilitation, reintegration and prosecution stages, while simultaneously recommending several legislative and policy reforms aimed at strengthening India’s anti-trafficking framework. Read more about SC Victim Protection Plan HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act| Development of Minor’s Undivided Share in Property<\/p>\n

In Shephali Chakraborty<\/span> v. State of W.B.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1064<\/a>, an appeal challenging the concurrent decisions of the District Judge, Darjeeling and the Calcutta High Court, which had refused permission to the appellant-mother to dispose of minor’s inherited immovable property pursuant to a development agreement under Section 8<\/a>, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956<\/a> (the Act), the Division Bench allowed the appeal and granted the appellant the necessary permission to give effect to and realise the development agreement, holding that where a development agreement converts an undivided and comparatively unproductive interest in land into tangible residential accommodation and secure monetary benefits that are demonstrably beneficial to the child, permission ought to be granted subject to adequate safeguards. Read more about Minor’s Undivided Share in Property HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Welfare Benefit |Dependency, Not Marital Status, Governs Eligibility for Welfare Benefits; Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded from Fair Price Shop Dependent Quota<\/p>\n

In Kulsum Nisha<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1059<\/a>, while hearing an appeal arising from the Allahabad High Court’s judgment which had denied the appellant’s claim for allotment of fair price shop under the dependent quota solely because she was a married daughter of the deceased fair price shop dealer, the Division Bench quashed the impugned orders of the High Court, the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, holding that “once dependency is accepted as the governing criterion, exclusion of a married daughter solely on account of her marital status becomes wholly irrational and self-defeating”. The Court held that exclusion of married daughters based upon gender stereotypes violates Articles 14<\/a> and 15(1)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. Read more about Eligibility for Welfare Benefits HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Constitutional Law | Right to Be Forgotten Is a Facet of Article 21<\/p>\n

In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4491<\/a><\/span>, while hearing a batch of writ petitions seeking enforcement of the “right to be forgotten”, including de-indexing of judicial records from search engines, removal of links, restriction of searchability, and masking of names and personal identifiers from judicial records available in the digital public domain, the Single Judge Bench of Sachin Datta, J., recognised that the right to be forgotten is a constitutional facet of informational privacy protected under Article 21. Read more about Right to be forgotten HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Criminal investigation |Criminal Court Does Not Become Functus Officio After Ordering Investigation<\/p>\n

In Sumann Mundhara<\/span> v. State of Rajasthan<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 3545<\/a>, while considering a writ petition filed seeking directions for the police authorities to complete the investigation in a criminal case within a reasonable period and submit a report, a Single Judge Bench held that after issuing a direction for investigation in terms of Section 156(3)<\/a>, Cr. P.C.<\/a> [Section 175(3)<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS)], a criminal court does not become functus officio. Further, the Court directed the trial court to ensure the filing of the conclusive investigation report within 6 weeks. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Disability Pension| Disability Pension to Army Personnel Cannot be Denied on Medical Opinion Unsupported by Adequate Reasons<\/p>\n

In Balamurali Krishna<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 5229<\/a>, while haring a writ petition filed by a former Army personnel challenging the order dated 6-3-2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, rejecting his claim for disability pension, the Division Bench said that for disability pension claims raised within 15 years of discharge, the primary burden of proof rests on the Department, and disability pension cannot be denied solely based on inadequately reasoned medical opinions or merely because the disease manifested during peace postings. Read more about disability pension HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Divorce| Lok Adalats Cannot Grant Divorce<\/p>\n

In Sushma Devi<\/span> v. State of U.P<\/span>., 2026 SCC OnLine All 11150<\/a>, while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>, challenging a settlement and orders passed by the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Unnao in a pre-litigation matrimonial dispute, a Division Bench held that neither the Lok Adalat nor the DLSA had the authority to grant a decree of divorce and categorically declared that no formal divorce decree existed between the parties and observed that Lok Adalats are meant to facilitate settlements and cannot assume the jurisdiction vested exclusively in Family Courts. The Bench strongly criticised the DLSA for acting in a mechanical manner, failing to scrutinise illegal terms that permitted the parties to remarry, and improperly usurping the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. Read more about Allahabad HC judgement on Lok Adalat and DLSA’s authority to grant a decree of divorce HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Intellectual Property |<\/span> Is ChatGPT an Intermediary or an Originator Under India’s IT Act?<\/span><\/p>\n

The Single Judge in Indiamart Inter Mesh Ltd<\/span>. v. Open AI Inc.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738<\/a> dismissed the interim application filed alleging selective discrimination, disparagement, dilution of its mark and unfair trade practice by the respondents. The Court held that the right to carry on trade or business is an inviolable right which cannot be dictated by a third party. Read more about Calcutta HC’s IndiaMart v OpenAI Ruling HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Labour Law| Kerala HC Upholds Section 104(1-A)<\/a> of Industrial Relations Code<\/a><\/p>\n

In M.K. Suresh Kumar<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 5137<\/a><\/span>, a writ appeal challenging the constitutionality of the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026<\/a> (Amending Act), that provided for the continuation of the existing Labour Tribunals till the Tribunals and authorities under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020<\/a> (IR Code) become functional, the Division Bench while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge and upheld the validity of Section 104(1-A)<\/a> IR Code, 2020<\/a> allowing existing Labour Tribunals to continue, observing that it constitutes a necessary mechanism to ensure continuity of adjudication until new tribunals are constituted. Read more about Section 104(1-A)<\/a> of Industrial Relations Code<\/a> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Maintenance| MP HC enhances maintenance granted to government servant’s wife and daughter<\/p>\n

In Madhu<\/span> v. Hemendra Kumar<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 13441<\/a>, a criminal revision filed by a wife and daughter seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded by the trial court, the Single Judge Bench partly allowed the petition, holding that the wife and daughter of a government servant could not be compelled to survive merely on the mercy of the husband, and the husband could not be permitted to discriminate between the educational expenses of the son and daughter. Accordingly, the Court enhanced the wife’s maintenance from Rs 5000 to Rs 7500 per month and the daughter’s maintenance from Rs 2000 to Rs 10,000 per month, holding that the minor daughter deserved priority consideration over the major son. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Motor Accident Compensation| Karnataka High Court’s assessment in fatal accident cases<\/p>\n

In Boopalan J.<\/span> v. Orien Precast (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 2988<\/a>, while hearing appeals regarding computation of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case where one of the appellant succumbed to the injuries, Tara Vitasta Ganju, J., after considering the appellants’ age, salary slips, and motor accident report, enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellants. Read more about Motor Accident Compensation in fatal accident cases HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PoSH Act | Director an employee or employer under PoSH Act<\/p>\n

In Prof. J. Sundaresan Pillai<\/span> v. KK. Seethalakshmi<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 4743<\/a>, while hearing a writ appeal filed under Section 5(i)<\/a>, Kerala High Court Act, 1958<\/a>, challenging the judgment dated 6 January 2026 passed by the Single Judge in that writ petition, the Division Bench upheld the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to inquire into a sexual harassment complaint filed against the Director of the Integrated Rural Technology Centre (IRTC), holding that the Director would fall within the definition of an “employee” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013<\/a> (PoSH Act), and not that of an “employer”. Read more about definitions under PoSH HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Hydro Power| UPERC Approves 511 Mw Procurement<\/p>\n

In UPPCL v. TPTCL1<\/sup><\/a>, a petition filed by Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (UPPCL) under Section 86(1)(b)<\/a>, Electricity Act, 2003<\/a>, seeking approval for long-term procurement of 511 MW hydro power from the 600 MW Khorlochhu Hydro Power Project, Bhutan, through Tata Power Trading Company Ltd. (TPTCL), the Division Bench of Arvind Kumar, Chairman and Sanjay Kumar Singh, Member, approved the proposed procurement and permitted execution of the power sale agreement (PSA). The Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC) held that the proposed arrangement, including procurement of 511 MW power with 10 per cent overload capability, would help meet Uttar Pradesh’s peak summer demand, strengthen energy security, and provide long-term tariff certainty through a fixed tariff structure, while directing compliance with the applicable cross-border electricity regulations and statutory approvals. Read more about Long-Term Import of Bhutan Hydro Power HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

NGT | Discoloured, Foul-Smelling Water from Municipal Taps in Noida, Indore, Gandhinagar, Pune and Bengaluru<\/p>\n

In Suyash Kumar Mishra<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a>, while hearing an application raising issues related to municipal supply of contaminated drinking water in multiple cities, the Bench directed the States of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat to duly consider the worsening condition of water supply, take appropriate remedial action, and submit an action taken report. Read more about NGT’s Directions HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PMLA Adjudication |PMLA Adjudication Not Rendered Redundant by Prior Confiscation Order<\/p>\n

In Raghuman A.<\/span> v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine ATSAFEMA 90<\/a>, an appeal challenging the confirmation of a provisional attachment order (PAO) by the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002<\/a> (PMLA), arising out of an alleged online gaming fraud involving the “FIEWIN” application, V. Anandarajan (Member) dismissed the appeal and held that proceedings before the adjudicating authority do not become redundant merely because the Special Court passed an order of confiscation after issuance of the PAO but before filing of the original complaint. The Tribunal observed that the adjudication process under Section 8<\/a> PMLA<\/a> is a statutory requirement following provisional attachment and that confiscation under Section 8(5) can arise only upon conclusion of trial and a finding that the offence of money laundering has been committed. Read more about ATFP Delhi Upholds PAO in FIEWIN Case HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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