{"id":395917,"date":"2026-09-11T11:30:28","date_gmt":"2026-09-11T06:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=395917"},"modified":"2026-09-11T11:18:53","modified_gmt":"2026-09-11T05:48:53","slug":"high-courts-roundup-august-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Saurav Das’s Injunction Plea, Gen Z Welfare and a ₹25 Lakh Compensation Order: High Court Roundup August 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

August 2026 saw several significant rulings across India’s High Courts. Courts dealt with issues including Gen Z welfare, personality rights, constitutional freedoms, bail, POCSO, maternity benefits, arbitration, service law, RTI, and regulatory accountability. From the Rajasthan High Court’s suo motu action on the welfare of younger generations to the Delhi High Court’s 6,884-URL personality rights ruling and Allahabad High Court’s ₹25 lakh compensation order, here is a quick summary of the month’s most significant High Court rulings.<\/p>\n

STORIES OF THE MONTH<\/p>\n

Delhi HC Order in Saurav Das Case: What the Court said on Summons, Amendment of Plaint and Injunction Plea<\/p>\n

In Saurav Das<\/span> v. The Pamphlet<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6469<\/a>, while hearing a case concerning a prayer for interim injunction, a Single Judge Bench permitted Saurav Das to amend the memo of parties as well as the plaint for substituting the name of Defendant 4 from “Information TV Private Limited” to “Good Morning India Private Limited”, stated to be the entity publishing the newspaper The Sunday Guardian. The Court directed the amended memo of parties and plaint to be filed within one week and ordered issuance of summons in the suit. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

From Paper Leaks to Screen Time: Rajasthan High Court takes suo motu cognizance of welfare of Gen Z, Alpha & Beta<\/p>\n

In Re: “In the matter of Welfare and Future of Generation Gen-Z, Gen-Alpha and Gen-Beta”, taking suo motu cognizance of the issues affecting the welfare and future of “Generation Z”, “Generation Alpha” and “Generation Beta”, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., examined several concerns relating to education, technology, paper leaks, screen time, nutrition, health, safety and school infrastructure and emphasised the need to modernise the education system by integrating artificial intelligence (AI), digital learning and other emerging technologies while preserving foundational skills such as reading, writing, independent thinking and reasoning. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ARBITRATION LAW<\/p>\n

Madhya Pradesh HC appoints Justice Sujoy Paul as Sole Arbitrator in Pioneer Newspaper Arbitration dispute<\/p>\n

In Idieal Multi Media Network (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Cmyk Printech Ltd<\/span>., 2026 SCC OnLine MP 24365<\/a>, the maintainability of an application filed under Section 11(6)<\/a>, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, for the appointment of presiding arbitrator, was challenged, a Single Judge Bench of Vivek Jain, J., upon interpretation of Clause 9 of memorandum of understanding (MoU), held that the application is maintainable as once Clause 9 refers to place of arbitration, it would become the juridical seat in view of Section 20<\/a>, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> and Clause 9 indicates that courts at Bhopal or New Delhi will have the jurisdiction and the place shall be Delhi or Bhopal or as decided by the parties and since, parties did not decide differently, the seat of arbitration was Delhi or Bhopal and the High Court exercising jurisdiction over Delhi or over Madhya Pradesh would have the jurisdiction to entertain the application. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Bombay High Court: Contractually authorised unilateral appointment of arbitrator not void ab initio in pre-Section 12(5) arbitrations<\/p>\n

In S. E. Investments Ltd.<\/span> v. Star Bazaar Pvt. Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 8602<\/a>, connected execution applications challenging the legality of awards passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator in arbitrations invoked before Section 12(5)<\/a>, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> came into force on 23 October 2015, the Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain, J., held that, “Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator prior to 23 October 2015 wherein the arbitration clause provides for a named arbitrator or by designation or authorising appointment of an arbitrator by one of the party will not be without jurisdiction and consequently, the proceedings arising therefrom would not be void ab initio except in cases, where there is no contractual clause in the agreement naming a particular arbitrator or conferring on one of the party the right to unilateral appointment of an arbitrator but the appointment is made by one of the party in the absence of consent of other party. In the latter case, it will be void.” Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW<\/p>\n

“Exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights”: All HC releases daughters confined by father for converting to Islam, orders 25 Lakhs compensation<\/p>\n

In Kunwar Sultan Ali<\/span> v. State of U.P<\/span>., 2026 SCC OnLine All 25788<\/a>, filed against illegal detention of 2 major women by their father because they converted to Islam, the Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Jain, J., allowed the petition, holding that both daughters were unwillingly confined in their parental home and were prevented from exercising their independent choice solely because they decided to embrace a different faith, which was manifestly violative of their constitutional rights. Thus, the Court was duty-bound to restore their liberty in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Not a matter of State charity, but an unassailable constitutional right; Tenure based Senior Residents\/Tutors cannot be denied Maternity Benefits: J&K and Ladakh HC<\/p>\n

In Sonakshi Gupta<\/span> v. State (UT of J&K)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine J&K 548<\/a>, challenging the communication dated 14 October 2025 whereby pay and allowances were denied to Senior Residents\/Tutors during maternity leave, a Single Judge Bench of Rajnesh Oswal, J., held that maternity benefits for Senior Residents\/Tutors could not be denied merely because appointments were tenure-based. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

No one can interfere with consenting adults’ choice to live together, much less threaten their life or liberty<\/p>\n

In Uma Bharti<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6423<\/a>, a petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> read with Section 528<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS), seeking direction to be issued to Respondent 1 to provide protection to petitioner’s lives and liberty against Respondents 3 and 4, a Single Judge Bench reaffirmed that the choice of a partner and the decision to reside together are protected by Articles 19<\/a> and 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, and that “nobody, be it their parents\/relatives\/ friends, have a right and\/ or authority to cause any hinderance and\/ or interfere with their choice thereof, much less threaten their life and\/ or liberty”. Accordingly, the Court directed the police authorities to provide the petitioners all necessary assistance in accordance with law. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Free to move, not free to break the law: Delhi HC on Karni Sena President’s habeas corpus case<\/p>\n

In Raj Shekhawat<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6463<\/a>, a habeas corpus petition filed by petitioner, president of Kshatriya Karni Sena\/Akhand Karni Party, seeking his production on the assertion that he was being illegally detained at the residence of a friend, the Division Bench while accepting the Delhi Police’s statement that the petitioner had not been detained, held that he was free to move around, while directing that any protest he wished to participate should be in accordance with law. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Appearing via video conferencing not a fundamental right: Allahabad HC imposes ₹6.7 Lakhs cost on man who filed several RTIs, refused to appear in person<\/p>\n

In Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 24262<\/a>, filed against dismissal of his right to information (RTI) appeal, the Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the information sought by the petitioner had already been supplied to him. The Court also rejected the petitioner’s claim that he had an absolute right to appear only through video conferencing and held that appearing via video conferencing is not a fundamental right but a mode of convenience. The Court imposed costs totalling ₹6.7 lakhs, comprising ₹50,000 for a misconceived application, ₹1.2 lakhs at ₹5,000 each for the 24 RTI applications, and a further ₹5 lakhs to discourage such conduct, payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Electricity supply is fundamental to revival of business operations: Calcutta HC applies Clean Slate principle; rejects late payment surcharge demand<\/a><\/p>\n

CRIMINAL LAW<\/p>\n

2-year incarceration, no presence at crime scene, CCTV FSL awaited, only 1 of 46 witnesses examined; Delhi HC grants bail in Jungpura Doctor Murder case<\/p>\n

In Himanshu Joshi<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6424<\/a>, the bail applications filed by the applicants, the accused in chilling murder of Dr Yogesh Chander Paul in Jangpura, the Single Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., while considering their prolonged incarceration, the stage of the trial, the nature of the evidence and their fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, granted them regular bail. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

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

In Manoj Kumar Jha<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5812<\/a>, 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 of Girish Kathpalia, J., 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. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Orissa HC denies pre-arrest bail to media editor accused of making false bribery allegations against minister<\/a><\/p>\n

“Extremely Disconcerting”: Delhi HC Grants Bail After Confirming Prisoner’s Fracture; Orders Preservation of CCTV and Probe into Another Assault at Tihar<\/p>\n

In Ashish<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5462<\/a>, the applications seeking directions for the appellant’s immediate medical examination, production of his medical records, and grant of interim suspension of sentence\/interim bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal, the Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan, JJ., granted interim bail while directing preservation of CCTV footage and further examination of the allegations of custodial assault. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

‘Sex workers entitled to equal protection’: Chhattisgarh HC quashes criminal proceedings under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act against consenting adult sex worker<\/p>\n

In XYZ<\/span> v. State of Chhattisgarh<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 16356<\/a>, a petition under Section 482<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR and consequential criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 3<\/a>, 4<\/a>, 5<\/a> and 7<\/a>, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956<\/a> (Immoral Traffic Act), the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha*, CJ., and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J., held that the material placed on record did not disclose any specific allegation demonstrating that the petitioner was engaged in any independent act which would constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged against her, apart from the allegation regarding her status as a sex worker. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

30 to 40 Cases a Day: Madras HC Seeks Response from Bar Councils on Increasing Criminal Cases Against Practising Advocates<\/p>\n

In B. Jagadeeshwaran<\/span> v. State<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 7131<\/a>, a criminal original petition under Section 482<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC) and Section 528<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS), filed by a practising advocate seeking relief in relation to criminal proceedings, a Single Judge Bench of D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J., while permitting the respondent police to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law, expressed concern over the increasing number of criminal matters involving practising advocates coming before the Court. Observing that advocates are officers of the Court and constitute an integral part of the justice delivery system, the Court held that the issue had reached a stage where an appropriate policy decision may be required at the level of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP). Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court stays FIR against SPM Chemicals & Minerals in ₹1.75 crore dispute; holds breach of contract cannot be forcefully converted into criminal action<\/p>\n

In Renu Jain<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5811<\/a>, a petition challenging the order directing registration of an FIR under Section 175(3)<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS), a Single Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., stayed the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order, observing that a simple commercial dispute arising out of alleged deficiency in supply of goods appeared to have been forcefully converted into a criminal action. Relying on Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736<\/a>, the Court reiterated that the growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases and settle civil disputes and claims by applying criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

FAMILY LAW<\/p>\n

“The court cannot shut its eyes”: Delhi HC denies bail to man accused of killing wife, chopping her body and dumping it in septic tank<\/p>\n

In Ashu Pal<\/span> v. State<\/span> (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6410<\/a>, a bail application filed by a husband seeking regular bail in connection with the alleged murder of his wife, followed by the chopping of her body and disposal of the remains in a septic tank, a Single Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J. held that delay in trial, although a relevant consideration for grant of bail, cannot be considered in isolation and is not by itself sufficient to warrant the release of an accused. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Can Marriage or Divorce Be Performed Via a Notarised Agreement Under Hindu Law? Madhya Pradesh HC Answers<\/p>\n

In Ram Kripal Singh<\/span> v. State of Madhya Pradesh<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 22161<\/a>, filed by a man claiming benefits of his deceased wife, the Division Bench of Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia* and Anuradha Shukla, JJ., dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to any benefits on account of the deceased as he was never married to her and his relationship with her did not have any legal status as she divorced the first husband via a notarised agreement, which was not a valid divorce. Reiterating that long cohabitation can be presumed to be a valid marriage, the Court stated that since the first marriage of the deceased was never severed, and if the long cohabitation (if any) is treated as a presumption of a valid marriage, then such presumption would be contrary to Section 5<\/a>, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> (HMA). Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Shariat Law Cannot Override Child Marriage Prohibition: Allahabad HC Dismisses Fir Quashment Bid by Family That Attacked Police While Stopping 16-Year-Old’s Marriage<\/p>\n

In Rubi<\/span> v. State of U.P<\/span>., 2026 SCC OnLine All 21146<\/a>, filed seeking quashing of an FIR filed against the accused persons for stopping Police and Child Line Team from rescuing a minor girl from child marriage, the Division Bench of J.J. Munir* and Achal Sachdev, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that the nature of the allegations and the corpus delicti were such that it was not a fit case to injunct the investigation at an initial stage by quashing the FIR and disregarding the process of investigation. The Court also held that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937<\/a> (Shariat Law) providing for puberty as the competent age under the law, permissible for a girl to marry or be married, violates the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006<\/a> (PCMA) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a> (POCSO), i.e., child marriage could not be permitted under Shariat Law. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Proof of Hindu marriage requires ceremonies; Voter-list entry alone not conclusive: Patna HC<\/p>\n

In X<\/span> v. Y<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Pat 8373<\/a>, a miscellaneous appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Family Court, whereby the alleged marriage between the appellant and respondent was held not to have been solemnised in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals, the Division Bench of Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh*, JJ., held that the appellant had failed to prove the factum of her marriage with the respondent in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

“Marriages are being solemnised without verifying age of persons concerned”: Allahabad HC bars Aliganj Arya Samaj Mandir from solemnising marriages<\/p>\n

In Neha<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 24124<\/a>, filed by a young couple seeking protection, the Division Bench of Rajnish Kumar and Babita Rani, JJ., listed the matter while holding that it appeared that marriages were being solemnised in the Arya Samaj Mandir even without verifying the age of the persons concerned. Accordingly, the Court directed that until further orders, the Arya Samaj Mandir concerned shall not solemnise any marriage or issue any marriage certificate. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Mother’s Settlement cannot override State’s duty to prosecute; Kerala High Court denies Bail to Father accused of Sexually Assaulting Minor Daughter<\/p>\n

In Shiju<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 9067<\/a>, a second application for regular bail under Section 483<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a>, in connection with offences punishable under Sections 10<\/a>, 9(l)<\/a>, 9(n)<\/a>, 12<\/a> and 11(i)<\/a>, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a>, a Single Judge Bench of Kauser Edappagath, J. held that a parent or guardian cannot legally compromise or settle proceedings concerning the alleged sexual assault of a minor. The Court further held that such a settlement cannot override the State’s duty to prosecute offences against children. Read more<\/span> Here<\/a><\/p>\n

HEALTH & MEDICAL LAW<\/p>\n

Two years, no Commission: Delhi HC directs Centre to decide on constitution of National Nursing and Midwifery Commission within 2 months<\/p>\n

In Indian Professional Nurses Association<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6465<\/a>, a case concerning the non-constitution of the National Nursing and Midwifery Commission (NNMC) despite the coming into force of the National Nursing and Midwifery Commission Act, 2023<\/a>, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation on behalf of the petitioner. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

NI ACT<\/p>\n

No greater damage to reputation than a criminal case: Rajasthan HC quashes S. 138<\/a>, NI Act<\/a> case against School Principal who resigned before the Cheque was signed<\/p>\n

In Mohan Lal Sharma<\/span> v. Ashok Vardhan Singh<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 4938<\/a>, while considering a petition challenging the validity of an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by which cognizance was taken under Section 138<\/a>, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a> (NI Act) against the petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., quashed the impugned order, holding that the petitioner could not be held liable for the affairs of the school after his resignation. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

IBC Moratorium Not a Safe Harbour Against Section 138 NI Act Prosecution; Directors Can’t Escape Cheque Dishonour Liability<\/p>\n

In Ajay Gupta<\/span> v. Can Bank Factors Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 22396<\/a>, petition filed under Section 482<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code<\/a> (CrPC), 1973, seeking quashing of a complaint under Sections 138<\/a> and 141<\/a>, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a> (NI Act) on the ground that the accused-company had subsequently undergone the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC), the Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra, J., dismissed the petition, holding that subsequent insolvency proceedings cannot efface or obliterate criminal liability already crystallised upon dishonour of cheques, and that prosecution of the persons in-charge remains maintainable despite the moratorium or liquidation. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

SARFAESI Act<\/a> | Writ remedy not maintainable where efficacious DRT remedy available against sale of mortgaged property: Bombay HC<\/p>\n

In Ravijyot Finance and Leasing (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd<\/span>., 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 9570<\/a>, challenging the proposed sale of the subject property by the respondent-Bank and seeking to interdict the respondent-Bank from proceeding with the sale on the basis of provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC), the Division Bench of Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ., held that the petitioner had an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002<\/a> (SARFAESI Act). Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

PERSONALITY RIGHTS<\/p>\n

Janhvi Kapoor’s Personality Rights: Delhi High Court declines blanket injunction against 6884 URLs; directs takedown of 552 URLs<\/p>\n

In Janhvi Kapoor<\/span> v. Ashok Kumar\/John Doe<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6408<\/a>, concerning the alleged misuse of Janhvi Kapoor’s personality rights through several URLs, social media accounts and other digital material, a Single Judge Bench of A.J. Bhambhani, J., declined to grant a blanket injunction against all 6884 URLs forming subject-matter of the proceedings. The Court held that the claims and prayers were over-broad and directed Janhvi Kapoor to segregate the impugned URLs into 3 categories, namely, ex facie pornographic and sexually vulgar content, content directly monetising Janhvi Kapoor’s personality rights, and content indirectly promoting sale of merchandise and services by using Janhvi Kapoor’s name and likeness. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

POCSO<\/p>\n

Investigation done, Survivor examined: Meghalaya HC grants bail to POCSO accused after a year in custody<\/p>\n

In Edmerald G. Momin<\/span> v. State of Meghalaya<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Megh 738<\/a>, the Single Judge Bench of W. Diengdoh, J. granted bail to the accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a> (POCSO) case after considering his prolonged custody of more than one year. The Court granted bail after noting completion of investigation and examination of the survivor under Section 35<\/a> POCSO<\/a>. The Court considered the general principles of bail jurisprudence and imposed strict conditions on bail, including complete prohibition on contact with the survivor. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

When Justice Demands Closure, Criminal Proceedings Need Not Continue; Allahabad HC Quashes POCSO FIR<\/p>\n

In Pritesh Khare<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 24058<\/a>, seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 64(1)<\/a>, 87<\/a> and 137(2)<\/a>, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNS) and Sections 5(j)(ii)<\/a> and 6<\/a>, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a> (POCSO), the Division Bench of Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, JJ., allowed the petition, holding that the peculiar facts of the case, including the prosecutrix carrying the petitioner’s child, the compromise between the parties, the complainant’s unwillingness to pursue the prosecution, and the parties living together with the intention to solemnise their marriage upon the prosecutrix attaining majority, warranted quashment of the FIR to secure the ends of justice. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

RAILWAY LAW<\/p>\n

Technical Approval for Concrete Sleeper Plants Cannot Be Judicially Presumed; Deemed Approval Unknown to Railway Policy: Allahabad HC<\/p>\n

In Calcutta Springs<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 22860<\/a>, seeking directions to the Ministry of Railways to grant approval\/provisional approval for a proposed concrete sleeper plant (CSP), extend the time for commissioning the railway siding, and permit participation in Railway tenders, the Division Bench of Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that there is no concept of deemed approval under the Railway policy governing CSPs. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

SERVICE LAW<\/p>\n

Retired Armed Forces personnel cannot be denied ex-serviceman status when seeking re-employment after completing prescribed service; Delhi HC upholds CAT order<\/p>\n

In ESI Corpn.<\/span> v. Jagadish Chandra Sharma<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5129<\/a>, a writ petition preferred by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), challenging the judgment dated 13 February 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Vinod Kumar, JJ. held that Armed Forces personnel who had already completed the prescribed period of service could not be denied the status of an ex-serviceman merely because the application for civil employment was made after expiry of that period. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to the age relaxation under Rule 5, Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Retired before July 1? 6 month’s service from date of last increment entitles retiree to Notional Annual Increment: Bombay High Court<\/p>\n

In Jyotiram Maruti Tupe<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 8928<\/a>, while considering a petition seeking grant of notional annual increment falling due on 1 July after superannuation and consequential revision of retirement benefits, the Division Bench of Milind N. Jadhav and Nandesh S. Deshpande, JJ., held that annual increment is an earned benefit accruing on account of service rendered during the relevant period and that employees who had completed more than six months of qualifying service before retirement were entitled to notional annual increment while determining pensionary benefits. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

SOCIAL AUDIT<\/p>\n

Pune sweet shop shut despite 98% Compliance; Bombay HC orders Maharashtra FDA to pay ₹5 lakhs compensation for loss suffered<\/p>\n

In Gurunanak Dairy & Sweets<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 9410<\/a>, while considering a writ petition challenging the continued suspension of a Pune sweet shop’s food licence by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) despite a subsequent inspection recording 98 per cent compliance, the Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge, ACJ., and Gautam A. Ankhad, J., held that food licence suspension cannot continue after 98 per cent compliance is achieved. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A quick roundup of the key High Court developments and important cases from August 2026, covering major rulings and directions on AI and personality rights, constitutional freedoms, criminal law, arbitration, POCSO, family law, education, medical rights, service law, RTI, intellectual property, and other significant legal developments.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67543,"featured_media":395927,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[46069,45673],"tags":[114435,114452,114446,114451,114434,114437,114440,114445,114449,114447,114441,114442,114448,114450,114436,114444,114443,114439,114438],"class_list":["post-395917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-high-court-round-up","category-columns-for-roundup","tag-ai-digital-learning-child-welfare","tag-commercial-dispute-fir-quashing-delhi-high-court","tag-ex-serviceman-status-re-employment-delhi-high-court","tag-fda-licence-suspension-5-lakh-compensation-bombay-high-court","tag-gen-z-gen-alpha-gen-beta-welfare-rajasthan-high-court","tag-janhvi-kapoor-personality-rights-6884-urls","tag-jungpura-doctor-murder-bail-delhi-high-court","tag-maternity-benefits-senior-residents-jk-high-court","tag-national-nursing-midwifery-commission-delhi-high-court","tag-notional-increment-pensionary-benefits-bombay-high-court","tag-pocso-bail-allahabad-high-court","tag-pocso-fir-quashing-compromise-allahabad-high-court","tag-rti-misuse-allahabad-high-court","tag-sarfaesi-drt-alternative-remedy-bombay-high-court","tag-saurav-das-pamphlet-delhi-high-court-amendment","tag-section-11-arbitration-act-arbitrator-appointment","tag-sex-worker-rights-itpa-chhattisgarh-high-court","tag-tihar-custodial-assault-delhi-high-court","tag-25-lakh-compensation-illegal-confinement-allahabad-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHigh Courts Roundup August 2026 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"High Courts Roundup August 2026 summarises key rulings across India including Gen Z Welfare, Janhvi Kapoor Personality Rights, \u20b925 Lakh Illegal Confinement Compensation, Tihar Custodial Assault and More\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Saurav Das's Injunction Plea, Gen Z Welfare and a \u20b925 Lakh Compensation Order: High Court Roundup August 2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"High Courts Roundup August 2026 summarises key rulings across India including Gen Z Welfare, Janhvi Kapoor Personality Rights, \u20b925 Lakh Illegal Confinement Compensation, Tihar Custodial Assault and More\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-11T06:00:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/11_Blog-5.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ankita Kumari\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Saurav Das's Injunction Plea, Gen Z Welfare and a ₹25 Lakh Compensation Order: High Court Roundup August 2026\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ankita Kumari\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Ankita Kumari\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0a983c394088f73d0d35f9f6af3a4770\"},\"headline\":\"Saurav Das’s Injunction Plea, Gen Z Welfare and a ₹25 Lakh Compensation Order: High Court Roundup August 2026\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-11T06:00:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":4009,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11_Blog-5.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"AI Digital Learning Child Welfare\",\"Commercial Dispute FIR Quashing Delhi High Court\",\"Ex-Serviceman Status Re-Employment Delhi High Court\",\"FDA Licence Suspension \u20b95 Lakh Compensation Bombay High Court\",\"Gen Z Gen Alpha Gen Beta Welfare Rajasthan High Court\",\"Janhvi Kapoor Personality Rights 6884 URLs\",\"Jungpura Doctor Murder Bail Delhi High Court\",\"Maternity Benefits Senior Residents J&K High Court\",\"National Nursing Midwifery Commission Delhi High Court\",\"Notional Increment Pensionary Benefits Bombay High Court\",\"POCSO Bail Allahabad High Court\",\"POCSO FIR Quashing Compromise Allahabad High Court\",\"RTI Misuse Allahabad High Court\",\"SARFAESI DRT Alternative Remedy Bombay High Court\",\"Saurav Das Pamphlet Delhi High Court Amendment\",\"Section 11 Arbitration Act Arbitrator Appointment\",\"Sex Worker Rights ITPA Chhattisgarh High Court\",\"Tihar Custodial Assault Delhi High Court\",\"\u20b925 Lakh Compensation Illegal Confinement Allahabad High Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"High Court Round Up\",\"Legal RoundUp\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":[\"WebPage\",\"FAQPage\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/\",\"name\":\"High Courts Roundup August 2026 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11_Blog-5.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-11T06:00:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0a983c394088f73d0d35f9f6af3a4770\"},\"description\":\"High Courts Roundup August 2026 summarises key rulings across India including Gen Z Welfare, Janhvi Kapoor Personality Rights, \u20b925 Lakh Illegal Confinement Compensation, Tihar Custodial Assault and More\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11_Blog-5.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11_Blog-5.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"High Courts Roundup August 2026\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/11\\\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Saurav Das’s Injunction Plea, Gen Z Welfare and a ₹25 Lakh Compensation Order: High Court Roundup August 2026\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0a983c394088f73d0d35f9f6af3a4770\",\"name\":\"Ankita Kumari\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/61287afbb38990ef798009235c546852c3eadc558bed9bb8c92b43d5aaea0bb8?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/61287afbb38990ef798009235c546852c3eadc558bed9bb8c92b43d5aaea0bb8?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/61287afbb38990ef798009235c546852c3eadc558bed9bb8c92b43d5aaea0bb8?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ankita Kumari\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/ankita-kumari\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"High Courts Roundup August 2026 | SCC Times","description":"High Courts Roundup August 2026 summarises key rulings across India including Gen Z Welfare, Janhvi Kapoor Personality Rights, \u20b925 Lakh Illegal Confinement Compensation, Tihar Custodial Assault and More","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Saurav Das's Injunction Plea, Gen Z Welfare and a \u20b925 Lakh Compensation Order: High Court Roundup August 2026","og_description":"High Courts Roundup August 2026 summarises key rulings across India including Gen Z Welfare, Janhvi Kapoor Personality Rights, \u20b925 Lakh Illegal Confinement Compensation, Tihar Custodial Assault and More","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-09-11T06:00:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/11_Blog-5.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ankita Kumari","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Saurav Das's Injunction Plea, Gen Z Welfare and a ₹25 Lakh Compensation Order: High Court Roundup August 2026","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ankita Kumari","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/"},"author":{"name":"Ankita Kumari","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a983c394088f73d0d35f9f6af3a4770"},"headline":"Saurav Das’s Injunction Plea, Gen Z Welfare and a ₹25 Lakh Compensation Order: High Court Roundup August 2026","datePublished":"2026-09-11T06:00:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/"},"wordCount":4009,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/11_Blog-5.webp","keywords":["AI Digital Learning Child Welfare","Commercial Dispute FIR Quashing Delhi High Court","Ex-Serviceman Status Re-Employment Delhi High Court","FDA Licence Suspension \u20b95 Lakh Compensation Bombay High Court","Gen Z Gen Alpha Gen Beta Welfare Rajasthan High Court","Janhvi Kapoor Personality Rights 6884 URLs","Jungpura Doctor Murder Bail Delhi High Court","Maternity Benefits Senior Residents J&K High Court","National Nursing Midwifery Commission Delhi High Court","Notional Increment Pensionary Benefits Bombay High Court","POCSO Bail Allahabad High Court","POCSO FIR Quashing Compromise Allahabad High Court","RTI Misuse Allahabad High Court","SARFAESI DRT Alternative Remedy Bombay High Court","Saurav Das Pamphlet Delhi High Court Amendment","Section 11 Arbitration Act Arbitrator Appointment","Sex Worker Rights ITPA Chhattisgarh High Court","Tihar Custodial Assault Delhi High Court","\u20b925 Lakh Compensation Illegal Confinement Allahabad High Court"],"articleSection":["High Court Round Up","Legal RoundUp"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":["WebPage","FAQPage"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/","name":"High Courts Roundup August 2026 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/11_Blog-5.webp","datePublished":"2026-09-11T06:00:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a983c394088f73d0d35f9f6af3a4770"},"description":"High Courts Roundup August 2026 summarises key rulings across India including Gen Z Welfare, Janhvi Kapoor Personality Rights, \u20b925 Lakh Illegal Confinement Compensation, Tihar Custodial Assault and More","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/11_Blog-5.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/11_Blog-5.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"High Courts Roundup August 2026"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/11\/high-courts-roundup-august-2026\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Saurav Das’s Injunction Plea, Gen Z Welfare and a ₹25 Lakh Compensation Order: High Court Roundup August 2026"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a983c394088f73d0d35f9f6af3a4770","name":"Ankita Kumari","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/61287afbb38990ef798009235c546852c3eadc558bed9bb8c92b43d5aaea0bb8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/61287afbb38990ef798009235c546852c3eadc558bed9bb8c92b43d5aaea0bb8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/61287afbb38990ef798009235c546852c3eadc558bed9bb8c92b43d5aaea0bb8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ankita Kumari"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/ankita-kumari\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/11_Blog-5.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395917","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67543"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=395917"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395917\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":395929,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395917\/revisions\/395929"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/395927"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=395917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=395917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=395917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}