{"id":388793,"date":"2026-06-29T16:30:09","date_gmt":"2026-06-29T11:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=388793"},"modified":"2026-06-29T17:22:21","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T11:52:21","slug":"weekly-legal-developments-india-22-28-june-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/29\/weekly-legal-developments-india-22-28-june-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Top Legal Developments [22-28 June]: Concerns on Lack of proper Ladies\u2019 Bar Rooms, Rejection of Nomination Papers, POSH, Drugs Controller\u2019s Licensing Condition, MACT compensation Other Key Verdicts & Policy Updates"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Explore this week’s biggest legal developments, including Supreme Court concerns on Lack of proper Ladies’ Bar Rooms, High Court rulings on POSH, tenancy, employment, family law, MACT compensation, and important tribunal decisions. Here is the full week in review.<\/p>\n

TOP STORY OF THE WEEK <\/span> <\/p>\n

Lack of proper Ladies’ Bar Rooms a constitutional concern; Supreme Court suggests Young Lawyers’ Professional Assistance Fund to prevent brain drain from the Bar<\/p>\n

InSarika Tyagi v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1192<\/a>, while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a group of women advocates practising in different courts across India, seeking judicial intervention regarding lack of adequate facilities for women advocates in court complexes and the financial hardships faced by young advocates during the initial years of practice, the Division Bench considering the significance of the issues and their implications for the legal profession, issued notice to all respondents and made tentative and illustrative observations intended to facilitate discussion among stakeholders. Read more about SC guidelines HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WEEK<\/span> <\/p>\n

Injunction| High Court Cannot Substitute Mandatory Injunction with Compensation When No Such Relief Claimed<\/p>\n

In Rajat Kumar<\/span> v. S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalaya Sadhaura<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1161<\/a>, while hearing a batch of civil appeals arising from a long-standing property dispute involving alleged encroachment over a common open space and unauthorised construction on a residential wall, The Court held that the High Court committed a manifest error in setting aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court on considerations extraneous to the reliefs sought in the suits. Emphasising that a court cannot compel a successful litigant to accept compensation in lieu of an injunction when no such relief was claimed or consented to, the Court found the impugned exercise legally unsustainable and contrary to the scheme of the CPC. Read more about HC cannot substitute injunction with compensation HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal|<\/span> “Just Compensation” Even if Conventional Head Was Omitted<\/span><\/p>\n

In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalu Ram1<\/sup><\/a>, while hearing cross-appeals filed by the insurance company for the reduction of the award on account of contributory negligence and by the claimant for enhancing the award, the Division Bench held that claimants shall be entitled to an additional amount of ₹80,000 towards filial consortium. Accordingly, the total compensation payable to the claimants was enhanced from ₹81,21,900 to ₹82,01,900 along with interest at the rate awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). Read more about Supreme Court awarding filial consortium to parents of motor accident victim HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also read:<\/span> Amputation Resulting in Complete Loss of Masonry Work Warrants Assessment of 100% Functional Disability Despite 70% Physical Disability: Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>\n

Nomination Rejection| Rejection of Nomination Papers During the Pendency of Elections<\/p>\n

In Meenakshi Natarajan<\/span> v. Election Commission of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1133<\/a>, while hearing a writ petition arising out Returning Officer’s order dated 9 June 2026, which rejected the nomination of petitioner, a candidate of the Indian National Congress (INC), for a Rajya Sabha seat from the State of Madhya Pradesh in the biennial Rajya Sabha elections, ground that she had failed to disclose a pending criminal case in the affidavit filed along with her nomination papers in Form 26, the Division Bench refused to entertain the present petition under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>. Read more about Rejection of Nomination Papers During the Pendency of Elections HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MAJOR HIGH COURT RULINGS THIS WEEK<\/span> <\/p>\n

Advocate fees| Advocate Entitled to Agreed Professional Fees Adjustable Against Compensation Amount<\/p>\n

In Prem Singh<\/span> v. C.S. Rathore<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4612<\/a>, an appeal arising from a regular second appeal challenging the Additional District Judge (ADJ)’s judgment and decree dated 22 December 2023, wherein the decree granted in favour of appellant (client) for recovery of ₹60,000 but simultaneously allowed the counterclaim of respondent (appellant’s advocate) for recovery of professional fees amounting to ₹36,000, directing adjustment of that amount from the decretal sum, the Single Judge Bench affirmed the impugned judgment, holding that an advocate entitled to agreed professional fees adjustable against compensation amount. Read more about professional fees being adjustable against compensation amount HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Breach of Contract| Relieving letter is consequential upon acceptance of resignation; employer justified in withholding it where resignation is in breach of service bond<\/p>\n

In Bharat Aviation (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Rahul Sudhindra Soni<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a>, a writ petition challenging the interim order of the Industrial Court directing issuance of a relieving letter and service certificate to an employee who resigned in breach of a service bond, a Single Judge Bench held that the order dated 13 January 2025 was unsustainable. The Court emphasised that issuance of a relieving letter is only a consequential act following valid acceptance of resignation and highlighted that when non-acceptance of resignation is justified due to violation of contractual stipulations, the employer cannot be compelled to issue such documents. The Court further observed that the apprehension of unhealthy competition and poaching of trained engineers was not without substance and accordingly set aside the Industrial Court’s order, directing expeditious adjudication of the complaint. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Drugs Controller’s Licensing Condition| Pharmacies Can Sell Below MRP But Cannot Display Vague Discount Boards<\/p>\n

In Pharmadude Pharmacy Vannappuram<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 5906<\/a><\/span>, a batch of three writ petitions concerning the validity of a Circular dated 4 September 2024 issued by the Office of the Drugs Controller, one petition sought implementation of the circular while the other two challenged its legality. The impugned circular required applicants seeking grant or renewal of drug licences to incorporate an undertaking in the affidavit accompanying their applications that they would not display discount boards in their pharmacies. It also mandated modification of the affidavit by replacing the expression “misleading claims” with words relating specifically to discount-board claims. A Single Judge Bench upheld the validity of the circular and held that the licensing authority possesses incidental regulatory powers to prescribe reasonable conditions while granting or renewing drug licences. Read more about Drugs Controller’s Licensing Condition HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Family Law| Immigration Uncertainty During H-1B Visa Transition a Genuine Child Welfare Concern<\/p>\n

In Sanam Talwar<\/span> v. Shabeer Gerewal<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4736<\/a>, while hearing an appeal filed under Section 19<\/a>, Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a> challenging the Family Court’s order dated 5 June 2026, allowing an application moved by the respondent-father under Section 26<\/a>, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> and permitted the minor child to be brought to India from the United States of America (USA) during the summer vacation. The Division Bench held that child welfare and immigration stability prevail over overseas visitation claims. While balancing the respondent’s visitation rights with the child’s welfare, educational continuity, and immigration-related uncertainties, the Court modified the Family Court’s visitation order, and directed that the child should remain with the respondent in USA during the vacation period without being brought to India. Read about Delhi HC judgement on Child welfare over overseas visitation rights HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Fundamental Right to Worship| Preliminary Objections Raised on Maintainability of Petition; Directions Issued<\/p>\n

In Hindu Front for Justice<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 11410<\/a>, while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, a Division Bench evaluated several preliminary objections raised by the respondents with respect to the maintainability of the petition, before moving on to the primary issue of “religious character” of the “disputed area”. The Court issued various directions emanating from the ruling of the Court, holding the “disputed area” of Bhojshala complex to be Bhojshala Temple of Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati) and centre of Sanskrit learning, not a Jain Temple, and disposed of multiple writ petitions and an appeal through a common order as the issues raised and reliefs sought by the parties were same and upon the same subject-matter. Read more about Bhojshala Case HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> MP High Court: Validity of ASI survey report, ailan and waqf claim in the light of ayodhya precedent in Bhojshala judgment <\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> MP HC Holds Bhojshala Complex Is Temple of Goddess Vagdevi, a Protected Monument <\/a><\/p>\n

Medical malpractice | Electro-Homeopathy Regulated Under Medical Practitioners’ Statutes; Registration Mandatory<\/p>\n

In Travancore Cochin Medical Council<\/span> v. Rajesh K.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 5699<\/a><\/span>, the Court held that the practice of Electro-Homeopathy is regulated under the statutory framework governing Homeopathic medical practitioners and that no person can lawfully practice Electro-Homeopathy in Kerala without complying with the registration and qualification requirements prescribed under the applicable medical practitioners’ statutes. Read more about how Electro-Homeopathy is regulated HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Medical Termination of Pregnancy| Termination of Pregnancy Beyond 26 Weeks Allowed<\/p>\n

In X<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 4020<\/a>, while considering a writ petition seeking permission for termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks, the Division Bench placed reliance on the Medical Board’s report and allowed termination of pregnancy beyond 26 weeks in view of serious foetal abnormalities, anticipated medical complications, and the petitioner’s financial condition. Read more about Medical Termination of Pregnancy HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Hysterectomy Permitted in Best Interests of Woman with Intellectual Disability: Karnataka HC | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Motor accident claim| In Absence of Income Proof, Minimum Wages Act Governs Notional Income in Motor Accident Claims<\/p>\n

In S. Seshamma<\/span> v. Boya Bazari<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine AP 1888<\/a>, while hearing a motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal, filed against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding compensation of ₹1240000 to the appellants, a Single Judge Bench of V. Sujatha, J., enhanced the compensation to ₹1692060 with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation, after holding the respondent insurer liable for paying the compensation to the claimants. The Court considered the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (MWA) to calculate the annual income, applied multiplier of 15, deducted one fourth towards personal and living expenses and awarded additional 40 per cent towards future prospects and ₹40000 to each claimant under the head of loss of consortium. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PoSH| Whether a Shared Autorickshaw Used for Office Commute Constitutes a “Workplace” Under POSH Act<\/p>\n

In Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute<\/span> v. SBI<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 3824<\/a> while hearing a case concerning the scope of the expression “workplace” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013<\/a> (POSH Act), the Division Bench stated that in the present case, although the petitioner was going to his office, the said transportation had not been provided either by his employer or Respondent 3’s employer. In these circumstances, such transportation would not fall within the definition of a “workplace” as defined by Section 2(o)(v)<\/a>, POSH Act<\/a>. Thus, the Court held that the alleged incident had not taken place at a “workplace”. Read more about “Workplace” Under POSH Act HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Tenancy| Acceptance of Pagri Does Not Render Tenancy Perpetual or Confer Ownership Rights on Tenant<\/p>\n

In Shyam Lal & Sons<\/span> v. Mithlesh Devi<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4748<\/a>, while hearing a regular second appeal arising out of a landlord-tenant dispute concerning eviction from a commercial shop, a Single Judge Bench held that acceptance of a pagri\/advance amount by the landlord did not alter the nature of the relationship between the parties or render the tenancy perpetual and non-terminable. The Court observed that neither the rent agreement nor the memorandum of understanding (MoU) executed between the parties conferred any ownership rights upon the tenant or extinguished the landlord-tenant relationship. Read more about acceptance of pagri HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span><\/span> No surrender of tenancy without agreement or decree: Bom HC <\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Better Possessory Title Prevails Over Mere Occupation: Delhi HC <\/a><\/p>\n

TRIBUNAL UPDATES OF THE WEEK<\/span> <\/p>\n

Companies Act| MCA Holds No Trade Mark Needed to Seek Company Name Rectification under Section 16(1)(a) of Companies Act<\/p>\n

In ONA Forensics Laboratory (P) Ltd<\/span> v. DNA Forensic Test Solutions (P) Ltd.<\/span>, while giving a significant ruling on corporate name disputes, the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Delhi, allowed an application filed by ONA Forensics Laboratory under Section 16(1)(a)<\/a>, Companies Act, 2013<\/a> (the Act) and directed DNA Forensic Test Solutions Private Limited to change its name within 3 months. Rejecting the respondent’s objection that an applicant without a registered trade mark cannot invoke Section 16, the authority clarified that Section 16(1)(a) of the Act provides an independent remedy where a subsequently incorporated company’s name is identical with or deceptively resembles the name of an existing company. Read more about Company Name Rectification under Companies Act HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Unfair Trade Practice |Sale of Non-BIS Certified Toys on Snapdeal an Unfair Trade Practice<\/p>\n

Taking suo moto cognizance of sale of non BIS certified toys on an E-commerce platform by Stallion Trading Company (Opposite Party), the Bench held that the sale of uncertified toys contravened the Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020<\/a>, posed a serious risk to consumer safety, and constituted an unfair trade practice — thereby warranting regulatory action against the seller. Read more about<\/span> Sale of Non-BIS Certified Toys on Snapdeal<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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