{"id":397867,"date":"2026-10-05T18:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-05T12:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=397867"},"modified":"2026-10-05T17:40:26","modified_gmt":"2026-10-05T12:10:26","slug":"weekly-legal-developments-india-28-september-4-october-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/05\/weekly-legal-developments-india-28-september-4-october-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Top Legal Developments This Week [28 Sep – 4 Oct 2026] | Delhi-NCR Safety Audit; Students’ Right to Dissent; Minimum Stipend for Junior Advocates; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This roundup of weekly legal developments in India covers the most significant Supreme Court and High Court rulings, including duplicate NEET-UG scorecard issuance; Students’ Right to Dissent; Mankind Trademark Dispute; Kennel Club of India Case; Junior Advocates Minimum Stipend Guidelines; AOR Exam 2026, etc.<\/p>\n

STORY OF THE WEEK<\/p>\n

Suo Motu Cognizance of Crimes Against Women and Children; 4-Week Safety Audit Across Delhi-NCR Directed<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings to examine the safety and security of public spaces and the broader institutional mechanisms in place to protect women and children. Emphasising that the right to live with dignity, free from the fear of violence, is an intrinsic facet of Article 21, the Court observed that public spaces cannot be permitted to become zones of high risk due to inadequate illumination, poor surveillance, lax patrolling or other preventable administrative deficiencies.<\/p>\n

[In Re: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR<\/span>, Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 6 of 2026, decided on 28-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

SUPREME COURT UPDATES<\/p>\n

ARBITRATION<\/span> | Mere conduct of arbitral proceedings at a place does not make it the “seat” of arbitration: Section 34 petitions restored before Sundargarh Court<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court held that the petitions filed before the District Judge, Sundargarh were maintainable. The Court held that the petitions were filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act and that Cuttack could not be treated as the “seat of arbitration” merely because the arbitral proceedings were conducted there. The Court further observed that neither the order appointing the sole arbitrator nor any agreement between the parties designated Cuttack as the juridical seat of arbitration. Holding that the mere appointment of the arbitrator by the High Court at Cuttack did not confer jurisdiction on the courts at Cuttack, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restored Section 34 petitions before the District Judge, Sundargarh for adjudication in accordance with law.<\/p>\n

[Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. GSCO (Gurmeet Singh and Company) Infrastructure (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1981<\/a>, decided on 23-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

POCSO<\/span> | Mother permitted to relocate minor children to UK; custody to father facing POCSO prosecution unwarranted<\/span> The Supreme Court held that the appellant-mother’s frequent changes of employment and residence could not be characterised as a “nomadic life” and that the paramount consideration in determining custody was the best interest and welfare of the children. The Court took note of the disclosure made by the minor son before the psychiatrist at NIMHANS, the consequent registration of the POCSO FIR and the charge-sheet filed after investigation and held that granting custody to the respondent-father, who was facing POCSO prosecution, would be unwarranted.<\/p>\n

[X v. Y<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1979<\/a>, decided on 23-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

ELECTION LAW| Independent Election Commission and Analysis of the Collegium System: Inside Justice Dipankar Datta’s opinion on the EC Act challenge<\/p>\n

While considering the challenge to various provisions of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023<\/a> (2023 Act), especially Section 7<\/a> of the 2023 Act<\/a>, which deals with the composition of the Selection Committee for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., delivered a split verdict over referring this matter to a larger Bench for consideration.<\/p>\n

[Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1980<\/a>, decided on 23-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

HIGH COURTS UPDATES<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

EDUCATION LAW<\/span> | Ad interim relief granted to PCI-approved pharmacy college, inclusion in upcoming Central Admission Process rounds directed despite State ban<\/p>\n

The Bombay High Court noted that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) had already granted approval to the petitioner-institution after carrying out an inspection. The Court observed that the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the State authorities to impose such a blanket ban would be considered at the final hearing. Following the course adopted in earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court, including Dhumane Patil Foundation<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 11462<\/a> and Mauli Vidyapith Kaij<\/span> v. Pharmacy Council of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 12688<\/a>, the Court granted ad interim relief and directed Respondent 3 to include the petitioner-institution’s name on its website and Respondent 7 to shortlist the institution in the upcoming central admission process (CAP) rounds.<\/p>\n

[Shri Shamrao Patil (Yedravkar) Educational and Charitable Trust v. Pharmacy Council of India<\/span>, Writ Petition No. 4774 of 2026, decided on 23-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

GST<\/span> | GST on Copyright Licensing of Films; Digital Content Cannot Be Equated with “Software”<\/p>\n

The Bombay High Court held that licensing by the original copyright holder falls under Service Accounting Code (SAC) 997332, and that classification must be determined by the essential character of the supply, not the mode of transmission.<\/p>\n

[Dharma Productions (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 12696<\/a>, decided on 10-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY LAWS<\/span> | CIRP and subsequent jurisdictional proceedings constitute sufficient cause: SAP India’s Arbitral Tribunal mandate extended by one year<\/p>\n

The Bombay High Court held that the petitioner had made out sufficient cause for extending the mandate of the Tribunal. The Court observed that the arbitral proceedings had been adjourned sine die after the respondent was admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and the moratorium under Section 14<\/a>, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC), came into force, following which the respondent invoked fresh arbitration involving a virtually identical claim.<\/p>\n

[SAP India (P) Ltd. v. Cox and Kings Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 12690<\/a>, decided on 10-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAWS<\/span> | Mere completion of ITI course or ability to move independently does not establish financial self-sufficiency; Maintenance for disabled child despite attaining majority affirmed<\/span><\/p>\n

The Calcutta High Court held that the impugned orders suffer from no material irregularity or legal impropriety, and the trial court has correctly interpreted the statutory safeguards protecting a physically handicapped adult dependent.<\/p>\n

[Samit Pramanick v. State of W.B.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 14034<\/a>, decided on 21-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

BAIL<\/span> | “Predator of innocent girls”: Bail denied to man accused of using fake matrimonial profiles to induce women into sexual relations on false promise of marriage<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court refused to grant bail to an accused alleged to have operated 9 different matrimonial profiles using varying identities and particulars. The Court observed that the creation and operation of multiple matrimonial profiles, including one in which the accused posed as a woman, prima facie lent credence to the prosecution’s case that he was a “predator of innocent girls” and held that the case was not fit for grant of bail.<\/p>\n

[Gaurav Jaiswal v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7438<\/a>, decided on 22-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

CRIMINAL LAW<\/span> | Man convicted in 2009 minor rape case released; notes parties are now married and settled separately<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court stated that the appellant and the prosecutrix are living their married life with their respective spouses. Therefore, sending the appellant to jail, who has otherwise clean antecedents, would be nothing short of a travesty of justice. Thus, the Court accepted the appellant’s submissions and treated the period of custody already undergone by the appellant as sufficient punishment to meet the ends of justice, and accordingly directed the appellant to be released.<\/p>\n

[Vakul Kapoor v. State<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7015<\/a>, decided on 7-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Delhi HC Waives ₹ 50,000 Costs, gives Samosas & Tea direction for DHCBA Staff | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

DISPARAGEMENT<\/span> | Gillette’s Disparagement Plea: Bombay Shaving Company Restrained from Running Revised Switch4 Advertisement<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court prima facie found that the purportedly “revised” advertisement, concerning Gillette’s products, had no perceptible difference in its impact from the original advertisement. While considering the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A<\/a> read with Section 151<\/a>, Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC), the Court directed Bombay Shaving Company not to run the revised advertisement till the next date of hearing and directed that the plaintiff’s interim injunction application be heard along with the contempt application.<\/p>\n

[Gillette India Ltd. v. Visage Lines Personal Care (P) Ltd.<\/span>, CS(COMM) 1007 of 2026, decided on 21-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

EDUCATION LAW<\/span> | Big relief to FMGE aspirants; Procedure for issuance of duplicate NEET-UG scorecards simplified<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court allowed the application and issued directions simplifying the procedure for issuance of duplicate NEET-UG scorecards to enable FMGE aspirants to participate in the examination.<\/p>\n

[Ayush Kumar v. NTA<\/span>, W.P.(C) 11746\/2026, decided on 24-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

HOUSING AND REAL ESTATE<\/span> | DDA directed to process pending freehold conversion applications; says revised policy cannot apply retrospectively<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court noted that there were a large number of pending applications for which conversion charges had already been collected; however, they were not being processed because the portal had been shut down. Thus, the Court stated that any fresh policy would ordinarily have to be prospective, and that all pending paid applications must be dealt with as per the policy prevailing when the applications were filed.<\/p>\n

[DDA v. Mala Sahni Seth<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7108<\/a>, decided on 7-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

LAND AUCTION<\/span> | Regularisation of unauthorised temple denied on Nazul land; upholds DDA’s auction-only policy<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court, in a writ petition challenging a Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) resolution that refused to regularise an unauthorisedly constructed temple and directed disposal of Nazul land only by auction, dismissed the petition, holding that DDA’s policy decision to auction all Nazul lands earmarked for health, education, socio-cultural and sports facilities suffered from no infirmity, that the temple built without sanction was an illegal structure. The Court stated that the petitioner remained free to bid in a fresh auction for any other plot to run the temple.<\/p>\n

[Sanmati Sabha v. DDA<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6995<\/a>, decided on 24-8-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE<\/span> | Absence of words “only” or “exclusive” does not prevent a jurisdiction clause from excluding other competent courts<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court allowed the application and directed return of the plaint, holding that the stipulation “Subject to Meerut Jurisdiction” in the invoice, in the absence of the words “only”, “alone” or “exclusive”, was sufficient to exclude the jurisdiction of other competent courts.<\/p>\n

[Vikrant Kapoor v. Anuj Kohli<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6866<\/a>, decided on 31-8-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

PUBLIC HEALTH<\/span> | GNCTD Directed to Fill Vacancies, Ensure Round-the-Clock Referral Coordinators and Proper Utilisation of Medical Equipment in 38 Government Hospitals<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court, in a case concerning the functioning of 38 government hospitals across Delhi, directed the GNCTD to take concrete measures to address deficiencies relating to ICU bed availability, referral coordination, shortage of medical and technical staff, recruitment, and utilisation of medical equipment.<\/p>\n

[Court on its own motion v. Union of India<\/span>, W.P.(C) 3903 of 2017, decided on 21-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

RIGHT TO DISSENT<\/span> | “Smiling at protestors” not indiscipline; Students’ right to dissent, demonstrate and express support recognised<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court held that, even assuming the allegations to be correct, the petitioners were, at best, seen “smiling at the protestors”, which prima facie did not constitute an act of indiscipline. The Court recognised students’ right to “express dissent\/demonstrate and\/or to express support by way of cheering for a demonstration” as a valuable right and stayed the recovery of the ₹19,000 fine imposed on each petitioner pending further proceedings.<\/p>\n

[C. Arjun v. JNU<\/span>, W.P.(C) 13316\/2026 & CM APPL. 61924\/2026, decided on 10-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

TRADEMARK<\/span> | Mankind Pharma’s “KIND” formative marks protected against deceptively similar pharmaceutical marks<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court, in a trade mark infringement and passing off suit instituted by Mankind Pharma Ltd., granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing in pharmaceutical products under the marks “Florakind”, “Coskind”, “Etorikind”, “Pandokind”, “Rabelkind” and “M-Predkind”, or any other identical or deceptively similar “KIND”-formative mark or trade name.<\/p>\n

[Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Coskind Pharma (P) Ltd.<\/span>, CS(COMM) 1011 of 2026, decided on 16-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

GAUHATI HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

CYBER CRIME<\/span> | Bandhan Bank Directed to Defreeze the Petitioner’s Bank Account; Ordered to Hold Suspicious Amount Under Lien<\/p>\n

The Gauhati High Court held that restricting the account holder from doing any transactions impacts the person’s right to earn a livelihood and to carry out business transactions, which comes within the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court directed the bank authorities to defreeze the account by placing a lien only to the extent of the suspicious amount specified by the investigating authority, i.e. ₹1700, and to permit the account holder to operate the bank account with respect to the remaining balance.<\/p>\n

[Ismail Hussain v. Bandhan Bank<\/span>, Civil Writ Petition No. 2308 of 2026, decided on 18-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Guj HC denied anticipatory bail in GPCB officer impersonation case | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

UAPA<\/span> | UAPA Property Attachment: Jharkhand HC Distinguishes Legitimate Assets from Alleged Terror Proceeds<\/p>\n

The Jharkhand High Court partly allowed an appeal challenging attachment of properties under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967<\/a> (UAPA). The Court released a TVS scooty owned by Appellant 1, holding that her independent employment and salary supported legitimate acquisition. However, the attachment of a JCB loader and a double-storeyed building was upheld as the appellants failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence establishing legitimate sources of funds for their acquisition or construction.<\/p>\n

[Appellant 1 v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 1856<\/a>, decided on 5-8-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

ARBITRATION<\/span> | Arbitral Tribunal’s interlocutory orders not amenable to interference absent patent lack of inherent jurisdiction<\/p>\n

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Arbitral Tribunal’s decision to recall an earlier order and reopen evidence. The Court held that an Arbitral Tribunal possesses substantial procedural autonomy under Section 19<\/a>, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (1996 Act) and the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should ordinarily not be used to correct interlocutory procedural orders of an Arbitral Tribunal unless there is a patent jurisdictional defect or exceptional perversity. The Court reiterated the principle of minimal judicial intervention in pending arbitration.<\/p>\n

[State of Karnataka v. Everonn Education Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 13664<\/a>, decided on 7-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

ARMED FORCES<\/span> | Investigating Officer can act as Prosecutor in Court Martial proceedings; Regulation 178(3), Navy Regulations not violative of Article 21<\/p>\n

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by Naval personnel and allowed the Union of India’s appeal, holding that there is no prohibition under the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965, (Navy Regulations) against appointing an investigating officer as the Prosecutor in the same court martial proceedings. The Court further held that Regulation 178(3), which provides that the Prosecutor is a competent witness, is not ultra vires of Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[Union of India v. Santosh Karwade<\/span>, W.A. Nos. 218 of 2026 and 2980 of 2025, decided on 18-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

ADVOCATES<\/span> | State Bar Council, Bar Association directed to create guidelines for minimum stipend to be paid to junior advocates<\/p>\n

The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council (MPBC), in consultation with the MP High Court Bar Association (MP HCBA) and MP High Court Advocates’ Bar Association (MP HCABA), to lay down a guideline for minimum stipend to be paid to junior advocates for 3 years from the date of their engagement as per the Bar Council’s circular.<\/p>\n

[Vipin Pandey v. Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur<\/span>, WP No. 7749 of 2005, decided on 28-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

MADRAS HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

ARBITRATION<\/span> | Inside the Kennel Club of India Case: Section 21 Notice, Limitation and Appointment of Sole Arbitrator<\/p>\n

The Madras High Court held that the application is maintainable on the grounds of limitation under Section 14<\/a>, Limitation Act, 1963<\/a> and notice to be served under Section 21<\/a>, Arbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a>. The Court appointed Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, Former Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court, as sole arbitrator in the Kennel Club of India arbitration dispute holding that a formal Section 21 notice becomes unnecessary where the petitioner had already disclosed all details in a prior civil suit and the respondent had responded by filing a Section 8 application acknowledging that the dispute must be resolved via arbitration.<\/p>\n

[C.S. Sanjay Reddy v. Kennel Club of India<\/span>, Arb O.P. No. 40 of 2026, decided on 1-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

MOTOR ACCIDENTS<\/span> | Does an Australian driving licence establish the right to drive in India?<\/p>\n

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an Australian domestic driving licence does not automatically entitle its holder to drive a motor vehicle in India. The Court observed that, in the absence of a valid International Driving Permit or any authorisation recognised under Indian law, such a licence cannot be treated as a valid and effective driving licence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988<\/a>. The Court consequently upheld the insurer’s right to recover the compensation amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.<\/p>\n

[Sameer Gaba v. Priyanka<\/span>, Case No. FAO-6604-2016, decided on 7-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE<\/span> | Can a civil suit for partition, separate possession and rendition of accounts continue when division of property is covered by an arbitration agreement?<\/p>\n

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, while considering a civil revision challenging the dismissal of an application under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a>, Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC), held that the reliefs sought in the civil suit extended beyond the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement, and that the arbitrator would not be able to consider the interests of other parties entitled in equity and law. Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the present petition.<\/p>\n

[Vijay Kumar Aggarwal v. Shubham Aggarwal<\/span>, CR No. 4293 of 2025 (O&M), decided on 14-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

TRIBUNAL UPDATES<\/p>\n

CESTAT<\/span> | Clandestine Clearance: Electronic data retrieved without compliance with Sections 9-D<\/a> & 36-B<\/a>, Central Excise Act, 1944<\/a> cannot sustain duty demand<\/p>\n

The Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, allowed the appeal and held that the statements and documents were inadmissible for sustaining the charge of clandestine clearance of goods as not complied in terms of Section 36-B(2) and (4)<\/a>, Excise Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[Jai Mangla Sponge Iron (P) Ltd. v. Commr. (CGST)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine CESTAT 2070<\/a>, order dt. 17-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

FOREIGN COURT UPDATES<\/p>\n

Does eligibility for coal mining long service leave depend on the employer’s business or the employee’s work?<\/p>\n

The Australian High Court, by a 3:2 majority, held that eligibility may depend on the nature and location of an employee’s work rather than the business carried on by the employer. The Court ruled that employees performing shot firing work at black coal mines were not excluded from the statutory scheme merely because their employer was not otherwise engaged in the black coal mining industry, clarifying the operation of the employer limb and location limb in the definition of “eligible employee” under the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992 (the Administration Act).<\/p>\n

[Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation v. Orica Australia Pty Ltd.<\/span>, [2026] HCA 30, decided on 9-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS WEEK<\/p>\n

LEGISLATION UPDATES<\/p>\n