{"id":392951,"date":"2026-08-11T10:30:32","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T05:00:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=392951"},"modified":"2026-08-11T10:38:33","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T05:08:33","slug":"weekly-legal-developments-india-3-9-august-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/11\/weekly-legal-developments-india-3-9-august-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Top Legal Developments [3-9 August]: Handbook on Judgments and Gender, Section 498-A IPC for live-in relationship, and 20+ More"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This week witnessed several significant developments across India’s legal landscape, with the Supreme Court releasing its Handbook on Judgments and Gender, urging greater gender sensitivity and compassion in judicial writing, while also addressing important questions ranging from the applicability of Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> to live-in relationships to the rights of married daughters to compassionate appointment. The Court further clarified the meaning of “criminal antecedents” in the NEET protest violence case and issued important directions concerning deaths caused by stray animals and unauthorised constructions. Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court passed significant orders on the personality rights of Yuvraj Singh and Salman Khan, as courts across the country continued to examine pressing issues involving maintenance, food safety, elevator safety, corruption, recruitment and defamation.<\/p>\n

TOP STORIES OF THE WEEK<\/p>\n

“Helpless Woman,” “Self-respecting woman,” and Other Words Judges Must No Longer Use in Judgments: Supreme Court Releases Handbook<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court has released a “Handbook on Judgements and Gender (Sensitivity and Compassion in writing judgements)” after having earlier directed all courts across the country to strictly follow the expressions and guidance set out in the approved report, alongside legal training, underscoring that emotional intelligence is an essential complement to judicial competence in the effective administration of justice. Read more about SC’s Handbook on Judgements and Gender HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Supreme Court clarifies “criminal antecedents” in NEET 2026 protest violence case means “grave and heinous offences”<\/p>\n

In Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India1<\/sup><\/a>, while considering petitions under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> concerning the violence occurred during the NEET Examination 2026 protests and the subsequent clarification sought in respect of its interim order dated 28 July 2026 in Shailendra Mani Tripathi<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1409<\/a>, a three-Judge Bench clarified that the expression “criminal antecedents” used in clauses (iv) and (v) of Para 8 of the earlier order shall mean “grave and heinous offences”. The Court further clarified that NCT of Delhi or any other State shall be at liberty to take an appropriate decision regarding the closure or withdrawal of the FIRs lodged in various cases, in accordance with law. The matter was directed to be listed on 18 August 2026, with the respondent-States directed to file their respective counter affidavits before the next date of hearing. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Read Previous Order:<\/span> What the Supreme Court Actually Directed on NEET Paper Leak Protest Violence<\/a><\/p>\n

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

Cruelty | Supreme Court Extends Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> to Live-In Relationships<\/p>\n

In Lokesh B.H.<\/span> v. State of Karnataka<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1470<\/a>, a landmark judgment raising an important question whether Section 498-A<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC) extends to a man in a live-in relationship, while harmonising the principles of strict interpretation of penal statutes with purposive construction of socially beneficial legislation. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Compassionate Appointment| Marriage Doesn’t Sever a Daughter’s Ties to Her Family; Restricting Compassionate Jobs to “Divorced or Deserted” Daughters Violates Article 14<\/p>\n

In Sayara Khatoon<\/span> v.<\/span> State of Bihar<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1466<\/a>, while hearing an appeal from an order of the Patna High Court, which upheld the rejection of the appellants’ request for compassionate appointment of her daughter following the death of her husband, the Division Bench held that a policy restricting compassionate appointment to only divorced or deserted daughters is violative of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. The Court observed that a married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration based on stereotypical assumptions that marriage severs her relationship with her parental family. It reiterated that any classification between sons and daughters based solely on gender or marital status is constitutionally impermissible and that a daughter’s entitlement to consideration for compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely because she is married. Read more about married daughter’s right to Compassionate jobs HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Evidence| When a Co-Accused’s Trial Evidence Can Be Used Against an Absconding Accused<\/p>\n

In Mahendra Singh<\/span> v. State of Chhattisgarh<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1463<\/a>, an appeal challenging the conviction which was based on testimony of deceased witness recorded during a separate trial of co-accused while he was evading prosecution, the Division Bench held that only an order passed, finding proof of both the jurisdictional facts, i.e., one that the accused is absconding and the other that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, would enable testimony of the witness recorded at that stage to be relied on at a later stage. Accordingly, the Court acquitted the accused for lack of an order under Section 299<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC). The appeal was allowed. Read more about interpretation of S. 299<\/a> CrPC<\/a> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Land Acquisition| Appeal under Section 54<\/a>, Land Acquisition Act<\/a> challenging statutory benefits attracts ad valorem court fee<\/p>\n

In Tehri Hydro Development Corpn. Ltd.<\/span> v. S.P. Singh<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1459<\/a>,while considering whether an appeal under Section 54<\/a>, Land Acquisition Act, 1894<\/a>, challenging only the statutory benefits awarded under Sections 23(1-A), (2) and 28, attracts ad valorem court fee under Section 8<\/a>, Court Fees Act, 1870<\/a>, a Division Bench held that the additional amount, solatium and statutory interest are integral and inseparable components of compensation and cannot be treated as independent statutory claims for the purpose of court fees. Read more about appeal under Section 54<\/a>, Land Acquisition Act<\/a> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Maintenance| Husband Must Prove Wife’s Adultery “Ex-Facie” to Deny Interim Maintenance<\/p>\n

In Himanshu Chordia<\/span> v. State of Rajasthan<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1461<\/a>, while deciding a case wherein the Court had to consider the husband’s obligation to pay maintenance on account of wife’s adultery, the Division Bench clarified that since the stipulation in Section 125(4)<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC) is that if adultery is proved, then the wife would neither be entitled to interim nor final maintenance; therefore, Court opined that if a husband files an application under Section 125(4)<\/a> CrPC<\/a> and is, at the first instance, able to establish the charge of adultery through evidence ex facie, then only, there can be said to be a bar to interim maintenance. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> SC flags Evidence Procurement by Private Investigators | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Motor Vehicle Act| Supreme Court Awards Compensation, Issues Recommendations and Calls for a National Fix for deaths caused by stray animals<\/p>\n

In Nisha<\/span> v. Municipal Council Sangrur<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1464<\/a>, while considering an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision relegating the claimants to a civil suit in a compensation claim arising from a fatal stray bull attack, a Division Bench held that after the efflux of nearly 2 decades, directing the claimants to pursue a civil remedy would leave them “remediless”, rendering such a course unjust, unfair and inequitable. Observing that bovine-related accidents are “not few and far between”, the Court awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹15 lakhs to the appellant, while issuing a series of recommendations to the Union and State Governments for the implementation of cattle laws, development of a compensation mechanism for bovine-related accidents, mandatory tagging of animals, and strengthening of animal shelter management to safeguard both human lives and animal welfare. Citing government data, the Court noted that animal attacks killed 1,130 persons across India in 2018, 1,425 in 2019, and 1,305 in 2020. Read more<\/span> about SC’s Directions on Bovine related accidents HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Prevention of Corruption| “Political Dictate” Can’t Influence Sanction<\/p>\n

In State of Rajasthan<\/span> v. Dev Kant Meena<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1401<\/a>, the Court observed that the decision-making process under Section 19<\/a>, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a> (the Act), cannot resemble the dilemma in Hamlet’s Soliloquy, i.e., “to be or not to be” and reiterated that sanction is intended to protect honest public servants from false, frivolous and vexatious prosecution, not to shield the guilty. Reaffirming the statutory safeguard embodied in Section 19 and holding that a decision refusing sanction for prosecution cannot be reviewed on the same material merely because a different view is subsequently preferred under political influence and the sanctioning authority must exercise an independent application of mind free from external pressure, the Division Bench upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s decision quashing the sanction granted against a government doctor after it had earlier been declined. Read more about decision-making process under Section 19<\/a>, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Standard of Care| SC Sets New Heightened Standard of Care for Maintenance Contractors<\/p>\n

In OTIS Elevator Co. (India) Ltd.<\/span> v. Rashmi Handa<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1407<\/a>, a significant judgment addressing the standard of care owed by manufacturers and maintenance contractors of passenger elevators in the context of consumer protection and tort liability, the Division Bench held that passenger elevators constitute a mode of vertical transportation and must be treated as common carriers, thereby attracting a heightened duty of care towards their users. Read more about Passenger Elevators being “Common Carriers” HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Unauthorised Construction| SC Flags Illegal Coaching Centres Operating in Jaipur’s Residential Areas; Launches Pan-India Crackdown<\/p>\n

In Loganathan<\/span> v. State of T.N.<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a>, what began as a challenge to demolition proceedings against an unauthorised construction in Chennai evolved into a pan-India drive against illegal constructions and blatant violation of the sanctioned land use prescribed under the Master Plan. The Court uncovered a pattern of administrative inaction, official connivance, rampant unauthorised constructions, and illegal conversion of residential areas for commercial use. Treating the issue as one of national importance, the Division Bench expanded the proceedings to include all States, Union Territories, municipal corporations and planning authorities and issued comprehensive directions for strict enforcement of building bye-laws and Master Plans. Read more about what SC said on Illegal Coaching Centres HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Anticipatory Bail|<\/span> Delhi High Court refuses anticipatory bail to man allegedly impersonating civil servant and Patna High Court Judge; Expresses concern over Police inaction<\/span><\/p>\n

In Manoj Kumar Jha<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>3<\/sup><\/a>, while hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused allegedly impersonating as a civil servant and attempting to obtain sensitive and confidential information from senior authorities, a Single Judge Bench refused to grant anticipatory bail, taking note of the serious nature of the allegations, the accused’s extensive criminal antecedents and the absence of any change in circumstances after the Supreme Court had earlier declined to grant him anticipatory bail. The Court further expressed serious concern over the police’s failure to arrest the accused despite repeated rejection of his bail applications and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for information and necessary action. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Defamation| Delhi High Court directs Google and Tamil Weekly “Nakkheeran” to remove 44 additional videos in Isha Foundation Defamation Suit<\/p>\n

In Isha Foundation<\/span> v. Google LLC<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5463<\/a>, while hearing an application filed by Isha Foundation (plaintiff) under Section 151<\/a>, Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, seeking modification\/clarification of its earlier interim order dated 19 March 2026, wherein the Court had restrained Google LLC (Defendant 1), Nakkheeran Publications (Defendant 2), and Publisher and Editor of Defendant 2 (Defendant 3) from publishing or disseminating allegedly defamatory content concerning the Foundation and directed intermediaries to remove the impugned videos and articles identified in the injunction application, a Single Judge Bench held that where the omitted material already forms part of the original pleadings and the relief initially sought, its express inclusion in the operative directions amounts to a permissible modification to give effect to the Court’s original intent, and not a review or expansion of the earlier order. Accordingly, the Court modified its interim order to expressly direct the removal of an additional 39 short videos and 5 English-language videos referred to in the plaint, holding that no separate adjudication was required as the impugned content had already been brought within the scope of the original proceedings. Read more about Isha Foundation defamation suit HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Food Safety| Bombay HC questions Mantralaya Canteens Inspection Report, Calls for Equal Standards for All<\/p>\n

In Sanjay Baburao Nirbhavne<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra (Deptt. Of Food and Drug Administration)<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 8067<\/a>, while considering a batch of petitions concerning inspections conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and the suspension of licences of food establishments, the Division Bench observed that food safety authorities must apply same standards to government canteens and private establishments. The Court expressed serious reservations regarding reports showing 98 per cent compliance in 3 canteens operating in the Mantralaya complex and directed scrutiny of those reports in light of independent inspection findings and photographic evidence. Read more about Food Safety checks HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Previous Order:<\/span><\/span> Bombay HC restores food licence despite two insects in hotel kitchen | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Personality Rights| Delhi High Court Protects Yuvraj Singh’s Persona Against AI Misuse<\/p>\n

In Yuvraj Singh<\/span> v. Ashok Kumar<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5464<\/a>, while considering a commercial suit seeking protection of personality, publicity and privacy rights against the unauthorised use and commercial exploitation of a celebrity’s persona, a Single Judge Bench granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of former Indian cricketer Yuvraj Singh. Holding that the plaintiff-Yuvraj Singh had established a prima facie case, with the balance of convenience lying in his favour and a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of interim protection, the Court observed that Yuvraj Singh has an exclusive right to commercially exploit and protect his name, image, voice, likeness and other personality attributes, and that no third party can use the same without his consent or authorisation. Read more about Yuvraj Singh’s Personality Rights case HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Publicity Rights| Delhi High Court orders takedown of “Kala Hiran” teaser over alleged unauthorised use of Salman Khan’s persona<\/p>\n

In Salman Khan<\/span> v. Ashok Kumar<\/span>4<\/sup><\/a>, while hearing an interim application filed by actor Salman Khan seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights, a Single Judge Bench restrained the dissemination of the teaser and related promotional material of the proposed film “Kala Hiran — The Battle For Legacy”, holding that, prima facie, the defendants were commercially exploiting the plaintiff’s persona without his consent. Observing that the right to personality is an intrinsic facet of Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> encompassing the rights to privacy, dignity and reputation, the Court held that the impugned teaser and accompanying social media posts, which unmistakably alluded to the plaintiff and the pending blackbuck case against him, were prima facie gravely damaging to his goodwill and reputation and deserved to be taken down pending adjudication. Read more about Kala Hiran movie case HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ITAT| Bombay HC Directs Every ITAT to Follow the 90-Day Rule for Delivering Judgments<\/p>\n

In Rajesh R. Hemrajani<\/span> v. ITAT<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 8066<\/a>, while considering a writ petition complaining of repeated release of an appeal by different Benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) after reserving it for judgment, the Division Bench held that strict compliance with Rule 34, Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (ITAT Rules) is mandatory and directed all ITATs to ensure pronouncement of judgments within the statutory period contemplated under the Rule. Read more about ITAT’s 90 Day Rule HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Recruitment Rules| No Woman Should Choose Between Childbirth and Career; Allahabad HC Allows PET Deferment for Pregnant Candidate<\/p>\n

In Komal Jaiswal<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 23859<\/a>, while hearing a special appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition seeking postponement of the physical efficiency test (PET) for recruitment to the posts of Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard on account of her being nine months pregnant at the time, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding that pregnancy is neither a disqualification for participation in the selection process nor a bar to appointment under the U.P. Forest Department Lower Subordinate (Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard) Service Rules, 2015 (Rules). The Court held that where the Rules are silent and do not expressly prohibit postponement of the PET, the Commission possesses the power to grant such relief in extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the Court directed the Commission to conduct the appellant’s PET within 4 weeks and, if she qualified and secured merit, consider her for appointment while keeping 1 OBC (woman) post vacant till declaration of her result. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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

30 Days for filing Written Statement extendable by 15 days if sufficient cause provided: NCDRC confirms 45 days being absolute limit<\/p>\n

In HDFC Bank Ltd<\/span>. v. Thomas Alexander<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine NCDRC 130<\/a>, while considering a revision petition filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission), wherein application for condonation of delay for delayed filing of written statement was dismissed, the Single Member Bench allowed the petition and held that written statement was filed within the maximum permissible period of 45 days. Read more about timeline to filing written statement HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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