{"id":387135,"date":"2026-06-15T15:00:34","date_gmt":"2026-06-15T09:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=387135"},"modified":"2026-06-15T15:22:32","modified_gmt":"2026-06-15T09:52:32","slug":"top-legal-developments-this-week-8-13-june","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/15\/top-legal-developments-this-week-8-13-june\/","title":{"rendered":"TOP LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS THIS WEEK [8-13 June, 2026] | Homemakers are Nation Builders; NEET-UG paper leak; Anjana Om Kashyap v. Khan Sir Defamation Suit; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Catch up on the top legal developments this week (8\u201413 June 2026), including Naga Chaitanya\u2019s Personality Rights, Doctrine of Proportionality, Pre-Marital Physical Relationship, Child Custody and Access Guidelines, Cryopreserved Embryos, Audit of Sabarimala Temple Accounts, Bareilly Violence Case, Ankita Bhandari case, Ocean Pearl, Balaramapuram Child Murder, and much more.<\/p>\n

STORIES OF THE WEEK<\/p>\n

MOTOR ACCIDENTS<\/span> | Homemakers Are \u201cNation Builders\u201d: New Compensation Head \u201cLoss of Domestic Care\u201d Created; Enhances MACT Award from \u20b98.43 Lakhs to \u20b962.77 Lakhs<\/p>\n

In an appeal titled Shishu Pal v. Surjeet<\/span>,1<\/sup><\/a> arising from a motor accident claim concerning the death of a homemaker in a road accident, the Supreme Court recognised Homemakers as \u201cNation Builders\u201d and enhanced the compensation from \u20b98,43,400 awarded by the High Court to \u20b962,77,900, together with the same interest regime prescribed by the High Court. The Court introduced a new compensatory head titled \u201closs of domestic care\u201d towards the \u201chomemaker\u2019s contribution towards smooth functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support for children and loss of spousal support\/the support and care of their child who is an adult, for the parents of the deceased\u201d, fixed at \u20b930,000 per month subject to periodic enhancement payable at her death. The Court also issued comprehensive directions to be followed while deciding motor accident claims.<\/p>\n

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

NEET-UG PAPER LEAK<\/span> |<\/span> Bail denied to Manisha Waghmare, an accused in NEET-UG paper leak case<\/span><\/p>\n

In a bail application titled CBI v. Manisha Sanjay Waghmare<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a>, filed by applicant, an accused in NEET-UG paper leak case, under Section 483<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS) (corresponding to Section 439<\/a> CrPC<\/a>), Ajay Gupta, the Rouse Avenue Court dismissed the bail application and refused to grant her bail.<\/p>\n

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

SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/p>\n

INVESTIGATION<\/span> | Constitutional Courts Can\u2019t Remain Mute Spectators to Endless Investigations; Conclusion of Two-Decade-Old Probe Ordered To Be Done Within Six Weeks<\/p>\n

In Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri v. Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1073<\/a>, an appeal presenting a disturbing instance of prolonged investigative delay where a criminal complaint lodged in 2007 remained unresolved even after nearly 2 decades and challenging High Court\u2019s order refusing to issue directions for filing of a charge-sheet despite repeated orders of the Magistrate and despite the complainant\u2019s persistent efforts to secure completion of investigation, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that \u201cthe right to speedy trial is intrinsically linked to Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>\u201d<\/span> and held that the High Court erred in not taking the note of the inordinate delay in filing of the chargesheet and intervening in the matter.<\/p>\n

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

LAND LAW<\/span> | Doctrine of Proportionality Bars Demolition 17-Year-Old Commercial Complex Affecting 8,000 Livelihoods; Regularisation of Illegal CIDCO Allotment on Payment of \u20b9318.31 Crores, directed<\/p>\n

In K. Raheja Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 945<\/a>, the Supreme Court granted regularisation of illegal CIDCO allotment subject to payment of approximately \u20b9 318.31 crores plus \u20b9 1 crore towards the unfulfilled garden obligation, with adjustment of amounts already paid, holding that demolition of \u201ca fully operational commercial complex after 17 years, \u20b9 450 crores of investment, 8000 livelihoods, and \u20b9 100 crores of annual tax revenue\u201d, impermissible where financial loss to public authority is fully remediable through monetary recovery.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Section 34 Limitation Commences Upon Disposal of Section 33 Proceedings by Arbitral Tribunal: Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>\n

CRIMINAL TRIAL<\/span> |<\/span> Section 386(a)<\/a> CrPC<\/a> | Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal Must Itself Hear Convict on Sentence; Can\u2019t Remit Matter to Trial Court Solely for Sentencing<\/span><\/p>\n

In Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 938<\/a>, the Supreme Court set aside the part of para 108 of the impugned judgment by which the appellant was directed to surrender before the trial court and the trial court was directed to hear him on sentence and impose punishment, holding that where an appellate court reverses an acquittal and records a conviction for the first time, the appellate court is duty-bound to itself hear the convict on the question of sentence and impose punishment. The appellate court cannot remit the matter to the trial court solely for sentencing.<\/p>\n

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

TENANCY LAW<\/span> |<\/span> Landlord Cannot Be Held Accountable for Tenant\u2019s Environmental Violations: Interference with NGT Order, refused<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal preferred by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB), titled Gujarat Pollution Control Board v. Jagmohan Lachiram Jalan<\/span>,3<\/sup><\/a> assailing the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order holding the landlord not accountable for the tenant\u2019s environmental violations, the Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma and Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ., found no reason to entertain the appeal challenging the NGT order.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Marriage Dead for All Practical Purposes Must Be Nullified; Parties Cannot Be Compelled to Remain Married by Court Orders: SC Grants Divorce on Irretrievable Breakdown After 20 Years<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE<\/span> | Larger Bench Referred to: Whether Third Judge Under S. 392<\/a> CrPC<\/a> Can Go Beyond Points of Disagreement and Revisit Unanimous Findings of Division Bench<\/p>\n

In Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Dr) v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1102<\/a>, the Supreme Court examined whether the third Judge\u2019s jurisdiction extends beyond the points of disagreement and permits reconsideration of findings unanimously reached by the original Bench. Finding that the issue raises substantial questions regarding the interpretation of Section 392<\/a> CrPC<\/a> and the correctness of the decision in Sajjan Singh v. State of M.P., (1999) 1 SCC 315<\/a>, the Court referred the matter to a larger Bench for authoritative determination.<\/p>\n

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

SERVICE LAW<\/span> | Pre-Marital Physical Relationship Between Consenting Adults Not Ground to Draw Adverse Inference on Character: Police Constable\u2019s Appointment Restored<\/p>\n

In a case titled Gajula Thirupathi v. State of Telangana<\/span>4<\/sup><\/a>, wherein the appellant challenged the cancellation of his provisional selection for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC) by the respondent on grounds of moral turpitude, the Division Bench of Manoj Misra* and Manmohan, JJ., allowed the appeal and held the respondent\u2019s action to be arbitrary. The Court stated that merely because the appellant\u2019s pre-marital relationship with his neighbour did not culminate in marriage, the same is not a ground to believe that the appellant had cheated and draw an adverse inference. The Court stated that pre-marital relationships are common today and physical relationship between 2 consenting unmarried adults cannot and should not by itself be a ground to draw an adverse impression about the character of the person in that relationship.<\/p>\n

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

HIGH COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/p>\n

DELHI RIOTS<\/span> | Inspection of Unrelied Documents in Malkhana Permitted to Ensure Fair Trial<\/p>\n

In the writ petition titled Devangana Kalita v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>5<\/sup><\/a>, filed by one of the persons accused of being part of Delhi Riots in the backdrop of protest against Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019<\/a> and National Register of Citizens, challenging the order concerning inspection of unrelied documents in Malkhana and the supply of deficit documents under Section 207<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC), the Delhi High Court considering the importance and significance of the issues raised, allowed the petition seeking permission to inspect unrelied Malkhana documents and directed the prosecution to facilitate and ensure inspection of the Malkhana expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law.<\/p>\n

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

CENSUS<\/span> |<\/span> \u201cEstablishment\u201d Under Census Act Not to Be Narrowly Construed; Private Sector Employees Including LIC Staff Can Be Requisitioned as Enumerators<\/span><\/p>\n

In North Central Zone Insurance Employees v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 11163<\/a>, filed against the entrustment of census duties upon Life Insurance Company (LIC) employees as enumerators\/supervisors, the Allahabad High Court held that the authorised authority had not committed any error in issuing orders to the LIC employees in exercise of delegated powers under Section 4(4)<\/a>, Census Act, 1948<\/a> (Census Act) read with Rule 3, Census Rules, 1990 (Census Rules). Thus, the Court upheld the appointment of LIC employees as enumerators for census operations, and accordingly dismissed the petition as misconceived and devoid of merits.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Rajasthan HC Upholds GST Demand Against Concessionaire; Holds Sub-Contracting Does Not Extinguish Tax Liability<\/a><\/p>\n

CUSTODY<\/span> |<\/span> \u2018Child Cannot Be Treated as a Pawn\u2019: Family Courts directed to Follow Calcutta HC\u2019s Child Custody and Access Guidelines; Restores minor\u2019s custody to mother<\/span><\/p>\n

In Hayarunisa Abdul Hakkim v. State<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 5409<\/a>, wherein a minor was taken away by the father in violation of a Family Court\u2019s decree granting permanent custody to the mother, the Kerala High Court held that the illegal removal of a child, despite a subsisting Family Court\u2019s decree granting custody was unlawful and restored the child\u2019s custody to the mother. The Court directed that the Calcutta High Court\u2019s child custody guidelines must be followed by the Family Courts in Kerala till the committee constituted to consider the said plan had finally placed its recommendations.<\/p>\n

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

PREVENTIVE DETENTION<\/span> | Can Preventive Detention be Invoked Immediately After Bail is Granted? Explained Why it Cannot be Used to Bypass Judicial Decisions<\/p>\n

While considering an illegal detention petition titled Dishant Goel v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 10289<\/a>, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the preventive detention order was legally unsustainable, as the unexplained delay in its passing and execution snapped the \u201clive and proximate link\u201d between the alleged prejudicial activities and the need for detention.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Loss of Amenities Cannot be Ignored: Karnataka HC Enhances Motor Accident Compensation<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PERSONALITY RIGHTS<\/span>| Naga Chaitanya\u2019s Personality Rights Protected; Use of Name and Likeness in Deepfakes, Pornographic Content and Unauthorised Merchandise, Restricted<\/p>\n

In a suit seeking protection of personality and publicity rights, titled Akkineni Naga Chaitanya v. www.sexvid.xxx<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a>, filed by Telugu film actor and entrepreneur Akkineni Naga Chaitanya against the unauthorised commercial exploitation of his name, image, likeness and persona, including their use in pornographic content, artificial intelligence (AI)-generated and deepfake material, and unauthorised merchandise, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using or exploiting the plaintiff\u2019s personality attributes for commercial or personal gain.<\/p>\n

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

ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY ACT<\/span> | Age limit under ART Act Applies to Initiation of Treatment, Not Continuation Through Cryopreserved Embryos: 50-Year-Old Woman Permitted to Undergo Frozen Embryo Transfer<\/p>\n

In Shewta Tuteja v. Union of India<\/span>7<\/sup><\/a>, filed seeking directions permitting the petitioners to undergo frozen embryo transfer (FET Procedure) of their remaining 5 cryopreserved embryos at Cloudnine Hospital, Dwarka, under the provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Act, 2021 (ART Act), the Delhi High Court held that the denial of permission solely on the ground that the petitioners had marginally crossed the statutory age threshold after the commencement of the ART process would not advance the object and purpose of the ART Act.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Order XIII Rule 9 CPC| Read why Karnataka High Court rejected plea seeking return of document<\/a><\/p>\n

SERVICE LAW<\/span> |<\/span> Recruitment Transparency Prevails: Disclosure of Merit List and Marks Sought Under RTI Ordered, Subject to No Social Media Publication<\/span><\/p>\n

In Sikkim PCS v. Sikkim Information Commission<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a>, a writ petition filed by the Sikkim Public Service Commission (SPSC) assailing the orders of the Sikkim Information Commission directing disclosure of recruitment-related information under the Right to Information Act, 2005<\/a>, the Sikkim High Court directed the State Public Information Officer to furnish the relevant information to the RTI applicant and recorded the applicant\u2019s undertaking not to place the information on any social media platform.<\/p>\n

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

TEMPLES<\/span> |<\/span> 10-year Audit of Sabarimala Temple Accounts Over Alleged Financial Irregularities in Procurement and Management, Ordered<\/span><\/p>\n

In Suo Motu v. State of Kerala<\/span>9<\/sup><\/a>, a suo motu matter initiated on the basis of a report submitted by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner, which highlighted alleged misuse of temple funds, failure to maintain mandatory records, acceptance of pooja materials without proper accounting, and the absence of adequate safeguards to prevent financial impropriety within the Travancore Devaswom Board, the Kerala High Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to produce records relating to various temple rituals and offerings (Vazhipadu) conducted at the Sabarimala Temple over the past 10 years and ordered an independent audit of its financial practices.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Teachers of Recognised Private Unaided Schools Teachers Entitled to Child Care Leave on Par with Government School Teachers in Delhi: Delhi High Court<\/a><\/p>\n

TRADE MARK<\/span> |<\/span> MakeMyTrip trade mark protected; Use of deceptively similar \u201cMakeMyIndiaTrip\u201d marks, restrained<\/span><\/p>\n

In MakeMyTrip (India) (P) Ltd. v. MakeMyIndiaTrip<\/span>10<\/sup><\/a>, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks, trade name, logo and domain name \u201cwww.makemyindiatrip.com\u201d, or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff\u2019s well-known \u201cMakeMyTrip\u201d\/ trade marks.<\/p>\n

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

MEDIATION<\/span> |<\/span> Default Clause in Mediated Settlement MOU Enforceable Despite Delayed Payment; Judgment Debtor Cannot Escape Consequences of Contractual Default<\/span><\/p>\n

In Venkatesh v. Mahadeva<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 3004<\/a>, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, considering the delayed deposition of payment and non-compliance of the terms of the mediated settlement agreed by the parties.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Second Application Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Maintainable If Filed on Ground Different from First; Can Be Filed Even at Appellate Stage: Rajasthan HC<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

BAREILLY VIOLENCE<\/span>|<\/span> \u201cCommunal Harmony Forms the Bedrock of a Democratic Nation\u201d: Bail Denied to Main Conspirator in Bareilly Violence Case<\/span><\/p>\n

In a bail application tiled Tauqeer Raja Khan v. State of U.P.<\/span>11<\/sup><\/a>, filed by the President of Ittefaq Minnat Council who allegedly gave the call for the crowd to assemble and cause violence in the Bareilly Violence case, the Allahabad High Court rejected the application, holding that there was a significant risk that, if released, he may once again incite a particular community and disturb peace and harmony.<\/p>\n

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

ABETMENT TO SUICIDE<\/span> |<\/span> Can Loan Recovery Action by Bank Officials or Creditors Amount to Abetment of Suicide?<\/span><\/p>\n

In Amit Padmakar More v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>12<\/sup><\/a>, the Bombay High Court stated that normal or even harsh reaction, made in anger or momentarily, does not amount to abetment. Section 306<\/a> IPC<\/a> requires a clear, deliberate, and intentional act to drive a person to suicide. Lawful actions such as loan recovery by bank officials, reminders for repayment, or strict conduct by authorities or parents do not constitute abetment of suicide. The Court stated that prima facie, the allegations, apart from being unsustainable and untenable, were also clearly contrary to the medical reports. Even if the allegations are accepted at face value, the same were general and vague in nature. Accordingly, the application was allowed.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Prior Possession Cannot Be Taxed Under Article 5(e)(i) Karnataka Stamp Act; Statute Has No Residual Clause for Pre-Existing Possession: Karnataka HC<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

DEFAMATION<\/span> |<\/span> Anjana Om Kashyap & TV Today Network Files Defamation Suit Against Khan Sir and Others; Summons Issued<\/span><\/p>\n

In a \u20b92 crores defamation suit titled Anjana Om Kashyap v. Faisal Khan<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a>, filed under Order 39 Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a>, Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC), by Journalist Anjana Om Kashyap and the TV Today Network against popular educator Faisal Khan (popularly known as Khan Sir) and several other individuals over their allegedly defamatory, insulting and derogatory comments following her criticism of the growing influence of \u201cstar teachers\u201d, the Delhi High Court issued summons to the defendants.<\/p>\n

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

CHILD RIGHTS<\/span> |<\/span> Procedural Limitations Cannot Defeat a Child\u2019s Right to Identity: Inclusion of Biological Father\u2019s Name in IVF Child\u2019s Birth Certificate Ordered<\/span><\/p>\n

In X v. State of Kerala<\/span>,14<\/sup><\/a> concerning the right of a child born through IVF to have her biological father\u2019s name recorded in her birth certificate, the Kerala High Court held that statutory procedures should not become instruments of injustice when they prevent the recognition of undisputed facts. The Court observed that although the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969<\/a> (1969 Act) does not expressly provide for the subsequent insertion of a father\u2019s name in the birth register of a child originally registered as born to a single mother, Constitutional Courts possess wide powers under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> to remedy injustice and safeguard fundamental rights.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Here\u2019s why Karnataka High Court declined interference in plea to amend final decree<\/a><\/p>\n

CRIMINAL LAW<\/span> |<\/span> Ankita Bhandari case: \u2018To Malign a Person\u2019s Image to Implicate Them in a Concluded Murder Case Is a Serious Issue\u2019: Two FIRs Against Former MLA quashed; Probe Ordered<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering a batch of 4 petitions filed by former MLA Suresh Rathore, titled Suresh Rathore v. State of Uttarakhand<\/span>15<\/sup><\/a>, for quashing of FIRs on the ground that all 4 FIRs did not disclose any cognizable offence and that he was himself a victim and had not uploaded any conversation with his wife in any social media platform pertaining to the Ankita Bhandari\u2019s murder case, the Uttaranchal High Court held that while 2 FIRs were liable to be quashed, the remaining 2 prima facie disclosed cognizable offences and therefore required thorough investigation.<\/p>\n

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

BLACK MONEY<\/span> | Interim Relief Granted to Anil Ambani in Black Money Case; CIT(A) Appeal to Continue but No Prosecution or Penalty Till Writ Petition Disposal<\/p>\n

In a petition titled Anil Dhirajlal Ambani v. Union of India<\/span>16<\/sup><\/a>, challenging certain provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015<\/a> (Black Money Act), the Bombay High Court directed that since the petitioner, Anil Ambani, had already appealed the assessment order, the said appeal can proceed and orders can be passed thereon, but no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner, including that of prosecution and penalty, till the hearing and final disposal of the present petition.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Appointment to Newly Created Post Upon Abolition of Earlier Post Not a Promotion for ACP\/MACP Upgradation in Absence of Feeder Cadre Relationship : Meghalaya HC<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

CONTEMPT OF COURT<\/span> | Immediate Takedown of \u201cScandalous\u201d Social Media Posts Against Sitting Judge, Directed; Further Dissemination in Criminal Contempt Case Restrained<\/p>\n

In a criminal contempt petition titled Delhi High Court Bar Assn. v. Kapil Kakar<\/span>17<\/sup><\/a>, alleging publication and circulation of scandalous social media content targeting a sitting Judge of the Court and the institution of the judiciary, the Delhi High Court held that freedom of speech does not extend to publications which prima facie scandalise the Court, undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, or interfere with the independent discharge of judicial functions. Finding the impugned videos and posts to be \u201cabsolutely scandalous, contumacious\u201d and a direct interference with the justice delivery system, the Court directed their immediate takedown and restrained further dissemination of the content.<\/p>\n

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

TRADE MARK<\/span> | Use Of \u2018Prestige Ocean Pearl\u2019 Restrained, \u2018Ocean Pearl\u2019 Found to be Dominant Feature of Impugned Mark; Parties Referred to Mediation<\/p>\n

In a trade mark infringement and passing off suit titled Ocean Pearl Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Prestige Estates Projects Ltd.<\/span>18<\/sup><\/a>, the Delhi High Court held that the impugned mark \u201cPRESTIGE OCEAN PEARL\u201d prima facie subsumed the plaintiff\u2019s registered trade mark \u201cOcean Pearl\u201d, with the expression \u201cOcean Pearl\u201d being used as the dominant and distinctive element of the defendant\u2019s branding and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks and directed removal of all websites, domain names and promotional material bearing the said marks.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Delay of 8 Years Defeats Plea for Correction of DOB in CBSE Records; Article 226 Cannot Be Invoked to Bypass CBSE Bye-Laws: Delhi High Court<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

BAIL<\/span> | Balaramapuram Child Murder: Bail Granted to Mother Accused Finding No Direct Evidence Linking Her with Crime<\/p>\n

While dealing with a bail application in Balaramapuram child murder case titled Sreethu v. State of Kerala19<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the Kerala High Court held that, despite the grave nature of the allegations, the absence of direct evidence connecting the applicant to the crime and the overall circumstances warranted her release on bail subject to strict conditions.<\/p>\n

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

TRADE MARK<\/span> | \u201cGLASS SKIN\u201d Held to be Descriptive; Directed Removal of Trade Mark Registration in Class 3<\/p>\n

In Renee Cosmetics (P) Ltd. v. Rupali Sharma<\/span>,20<\/sup><\/a> the Delhi High Court held that the impugned mark was \u201cdescriptive\u201d of the goods in question and fell within the prohibition under Section 9(1)(b)<\/a>, Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a>. The Court held that the expression \u201cGLASS SKIN\u201d, used in relation to skincare and cosmetic products, directly conveyed the intended purpose and end result of the goods, and therefore lacked inherent distinctiveness. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed cancellation and removal of the registration of the mark \u201cGLASS SKIN\u201d from the Register of Trade Marks.<\/p>\n

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

FOREIGN COURTS<\/p>\n

RIGHT TO PRIVACY<\/span> |<\/span> Scanning Thousands of Faces Without Consent Is Lawful If Policy Is Structured and Proportionate: Metropolitan Police Live Facial Recognition Policy Upheld<\/span><\/p>\n

The case tiled The King (On the Application of Shaun Thompson and Silkie Carlo) v. Commissioner of Police<\/span>21<\/sup><\/a> concerned a challenge to the legality of Metropolitan Police Service\u2019s policy, entitled \u201cMPS Overt LFR Policy Document\u201d (the Policy), in relation to the deployment in London of live facial recognition technology (LFR). The UK High Court stated that the purpose of LFR deployment is to locate persons on police watchlists, and any deployment not aimed at locating such persons would fail under the Policy. Further, the inclusion of additional persons on watchlists, even without a direct connection to the deployment location, did not create any greater intrusion on innocent individuals\u2019 rights, and therefore did not undermine the foreseeability or legality of the Policy. Thus, the Court held that the Policy was both \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d and \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and therefore did not violate the claimants\u2019 rights under Articles 8, 10, or 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).<\/p>\n

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

DEATH SENTENCE<\/span> | When Motive Remains Unclear, Can Death Sentence Be Imposed? Double Murder Case Examined<\/p>\n

In a petition titled Faisal Mehmood v. State<\/span>22<\/sup><\/a>, challenging a Lahore High Court judgment whereby the petitioner was sentenced to death in a double murder case, the Pakistan Supreme Court stated that is a well settled principle that where the motive for the offence is shrouded in mystery, then the extreme penalty of death is not warranted. Since, in the present case, the alleged motive remained doubtful and was not conclusively established by the prosecution, the Court held that the imposition of the death sentence was unjustified. Accordingly, while upholding the petitioner\u2019s conviction, the death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life.<\/p>\n

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

TRIBUNALS & COMMISSIONS<\/p>\n

ELECTRICITY<\/span> |<\/span> Material change in bid conditions after tariff discovery vitiates competitive bidding process; MERC approval set aside<\/span><\/p>\n

In a batch of appeals titled Diwakar Renewable & Infra (P) Ltd. v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, App No. 220 of 2026, filed against the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission\u2019s (MERC) order approving Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) procurement of 2000 MW\/4000 MWh Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) capacity through competitive bidding, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity held that the bidding process stood vitiated when the Ministry of Power (MoP), after completion of the bidding process, imposed a condition requiring MSEDCL to retain a contractual right to utilise the BESS for at least 6300 cycles during the contract period. The Tribunal observed a post-bid condition materially altered the basis on which bidders had submitted their financial bids, and set aside MERC\u2019s tariff adoption order and quashed the entire bidding process.<\/p>\n

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

OTHER UPDATES<\/h3>\n

NEWS<\/p>\n