{"id":399762,"date":"2026-10-26T17:00:42","date_gmt":"2026-10-26T11:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=399762"},"modified":"2026-10-26T17:29:00","modified_gmt":"2026-10-26T11:59:00","slug":"top-legal-developments-this-week-19-25-october-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/top-legal-developments-this-week-19-25-october-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"TOP LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS THIS WEEK [19-25 Oct, 2026] | Detecting child abuse material; rape charge against woman; RTI on PM’s foreign visits; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Catch up on the top legal developments this week (19-25 October 2026), including conversion to Islam for reservation, gift of temple inam property, labelling of microplastics, Sujit Bose Municipal Recruitment Scam, Udaipur Kanhaiya Lal murder case, woman charged for gang rape, custody rights of father, and much more.<\/p>\n

STORY OF THE WEEK<\/p>\n

How will platforms detect child abuse material? Supreme Court proposes a National Hash & URL Database, Time-Bound Reporting; Recognises right to internet access<\/p>\n

In a case concerning the continued circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) on social media platforms, the Supreme Court emphasised the need for a comprehensive framework for its detection, removal and reporting. The Court called for a National Hash & URL List Database, time-bound reporting obligations, effective grievance redressal and accountability of intermediaries. It further held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21<\/a> read with Article 19(1)(a)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, observing that children’s safety must be ensured by targeting harmful material rather than restricting their internet access. The Court also underscored the need for proportionate online safeguards, age-appropriate sex education and digital safety awareness. The Union of India has been directed to file an affidavit of compliance, and the matter will be heard next on 10 December 2026.<\/p>\n

[Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish<\/span>, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161-2162 of 2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/span><\/p>\n

RESERVATION<\/span> | Conversion to Islam does not automatically confer Backward Class Muslim status or reservation benefits under Article 16(4)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a case concerning the issuance of a Backward Class (Muslim) community certificate to a person who converted to Islam from the Hindu social order, the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s special leave petition and upheld the quashing of G.O.(Ms.) No. 314 dated 9 March 2024. Emphasising that conversion to Islam does not, by itself, confer membership of any particular notified Backward Class Muslim community, the Court held that pre-conversion caste or community status cannot automatically be transposed into a notified Muslim Backward Class category and that a community certificate cannot dispense with the substantive constitutional and statutory requirements governing entitlement to reservation under Article 16(4)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[State v. Sameer Ahamed N.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2187<\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY<\/span> | Record of default from Information Utility is enough to admit a petition; Disputes over amount and a company’s profits do not stop CIRP<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In two appeals against the NCLAT’s judgment upholding the admission of GSTAAD Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Neo Capricorn Plaza Pvt. Ltd. into CIRP, the Supreme Court held that at the admission stage, default only has to be shown on a preponderance of probabilities from the documents on record. The Court said the adjudicating authority (AA) does not need to work out the exact amount owed. It also held that a record of default from an information utility (IU) is enough by itself, and that a company being profitable is no answer to default.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[Deepak Raheja v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction (P) Ltd<\/span>.<\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine SC 2184<\/span><\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

SERVICE LAW<\/span><\/span> | Who ranks senior: direct recruits, special or compassionate appointees? Clause 10 of T.N. Special Absorption Rules upheld, ranking 1983 direct recruits higher<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In appeals and transferred cases concerning the inter se seniority of direct recruits, special appointees (temporary appointees regularised under the T.N. Special Absorption Rules, 1987) and compassionate appointees in ministerial posts in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court upheld Clause 10 of the Special Absorption Rules and held that direct recruits selected through the November 1983 TNPSC examination would rank above special appointees, irrespective of their dates of appointment. The Court further held that compassionate appointees could not claim seniority over the direct recruits merely on the basis of their initial appointment dates. However, inter se seniority between special and compassionate appointees must be determined by their respective dates of regularisation, unless applicable recruitment rules prescribe otherwise. The Court modified the judgment dated 3 April 2006 of the Madras High Court accordingly.<\/span><\/p>\n

[M. Prema v. State of T.N.<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine SC 2094<\/span><\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

PROPERTY LAW<\/span> | Gift of temple inam property to State Government void ab initio; State is custodian, not owner<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a case concerning the validity of a gift of temple inam land to the Government of Tamil Nadu by a temporary trustee, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Madras High Court’s judgment dismissing the writ petition challenging the alienation. Emphasising that property dedicated to a deity vests in the deity and is held in trust for its benefit and the community of worshippers, the Court held that a gift of inam property granted for the support and maintenance of a religious institution is null and void ab initio under Section 41(1), Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and was incapable of valid registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908<\/a>, as applicable to Tamil Nadu.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

[K. Ramalingam v. State of T.N<\/span>.<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2195<\/span><\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

HIGH COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/span><\/p>\n

POCSO<\/span> | Young age, prior romantic relationship, differing statements: Bail granted in POCSO case<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

While considering a regular bail application for offence punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a> (POCSO Act), the Delhi High Court granted bail to the applicant, who had been in custody for about 3 years, observing that the prosecutrix’s contradictory statements, the documented romantic relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix, their young ages, the applicant’s prolonged incarceration, absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the trial was likely to take time constituted mitigating circumstances tilting the balance in favour of bail.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[Vicky v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Del 7791<\/span><\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

MEDICAL AND HEALTH LAW<\/span> | Can microplastics labelling be mandated despite absence of conclusive scientific proof of harm?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

While considering the validity of directions requiring packaged drinking water, sugar and salt sold in plastic packaging to carry labels stating that they may contain micro\/nano plastics, the Madras High Court held that consumers have a right to informed choice and that scientific uncertainty cannot be a ground to withhold disclosure of potential health risks. The Court, relying on the principles of risk communication and public health protection embodied in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006<\/a>, dismissed the review petition filed by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the recall petitions filed by industry associations.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Food Safety & Standards Authority of India v. G. Subramania Koushik<\/span>,<\/span> <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Mad 9606<\/span><\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY<\/span> | Mere trade mark registration insufficient to establish first ownership of copyright in original artistic work<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a case concerning rectification of the Register of Copyrights in respect of an artistic work incorporating the “CAMEL” mark, the Delhi High Court held that mere registration of a trade mark could not, by itself, establish the proprietor thereof as the “first owner” of copyright in the underlying original artistic work. Emphasising that the petitioner was required to establish, as a fact, its first ownership and first publication of the original artistic work under Section 17<\/a>, Copyright Act, 1957<\/a>, the Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on prior trade mark registrations and books relating to the history of the “CAMEL” brand, without duly proving the relevant documents, was insufficient to discharge the initial burden of proof. The Court further held that alleged admissions made in a separate trade mark infringement suit could not establish the petitioner’s copyright ownership, and dismissed the petition seeking rectification and expunging of the impugned copyright registration.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Japan Tobacco Inc v. Central Wearhouse<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7818<\/span><\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

Also read: Settlement demand extortion or negotiation? Bombay HC quashes FIR over demand of ₹25 lakh each by flat purchasers<\/a><\/p>\n

HABEAS CORPUS<\/span> | Habeas corpus cannot compel an adult woman who voluntarily marries and resides with person of her choice to return to parental home<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

While considering a habeas corpus petition in respect of a major woman who was missing, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that once the corpus had attained majority and made a voluntary and unequivocal choice to accompany and reside with her husband, such decision had legal recognition and could not be displaced through a writ of habeas corpus in the absence of illegal detention. The Court consequently dismissed the petition filed by her father and held that she was at liberty to accompany the person of her choice.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Bashir Ahmed v. U.T. of J&K<\/span>,<\/span> <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine J&K 1033<\/span><\/a>]<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

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

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY<\/span> | Injunction granted to Mankind against ‘ACNE SCAR’ mark for infringing ‘ACNESTAR’ trade mark<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a trade mark infringement suit instituted by Mankind Consumer Products (P) Ltd., the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or otherwise dealing in pharmaceutical or medicinal preparations, skin care preparations, or allied and cognate goods under the marks “ACNE SCAR”, “ACNE + SCAR”, “ACNESCAR”, or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered trade mark “ACNESTAR”. Holding that the rival marks were phonetically nearly indistinguishable and that the possibility of confusion among consumers or chemists could not be ruled out, the Court found a prima facie case of infringement and directed Defendant 2 to recall existing stock and withdraw online listings within 2 months.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Mankind Consumer Products (P) Ltd. v. Alaina Healthcare (P) Ltd<\/span>.<\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Del 8260<\/span><\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

UAPA<\/span> | Can 4.5 years in custody earn bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA? Appeal denied in Udaipur Kanhaiya Lal murder case<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Dismissing a batch of criminal appeals against the rejection of bail in the Udaipur Kanhaiya Lal murder case, the Rajasthan High Court held that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie true case under Section 43D(5) UAPA, and that the accused could not secure bail merely on the basis of prolonged custody when the trial was proceeding at a fast pace.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[Wasim Ali v. NIA, New Delhi<\/span>, D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 438 of 2024]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

ELECTION LAW<\/span> | Use of children to influence voters is in “bad taste”, but does not warrant setting aside election: Plea against TVK candidate, rejected<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In an application filed under Order 14 Rule 8, High Court O.S. Rules, read with Sections 81<\/a> and 86(1)<\/a>, Representation of the People Act, 1951<\/a> (the Act), and Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> and Section 151<\/a>, Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC), seeking rejection of the election petition challenging Rajendran R.’s election as the Member of the Legislative Assembly from the Salem North Assembly Constituency, the Madras High Court held that persuading parents through children to vote for a particular candidate did not, by itself, amount to undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Act. The Court described the involvement of children in such campaigning as being in “bad taste” and reflecting “poor parenting”, but held that the allegations did not disclose a triable issue of undue influence. It further held that violation of the Election Commission of India’s circular prohibiting the use of children in election campaigns was not, by itself, a ground to invalidate the election.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[K. Sivakumar v. Rajendran R.<\/span>, OA No. 890 of 2026 in ELP No. 46 of 2026]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

PMLA<\/span> | Why was Sujit Bose denied bail in the alleged municipal recruitment scam?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a bail application filed under Section 483<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS), read with Section 45<\/a>, Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002<\/a> (PMLA), in connection with the alleged municipal recruitment scam in West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court rejected the bail plea of Sujit Bose, former Minister of State and former Vice-Chairman of South Dum Dum Municipality. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to overcome the rigours of Section 45 PMLA. Taking note of the ongoing investigation, the tracing of approximately 45 immovable properties belonging to the petitioner and his family, and the further investigation initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Sujit Bose v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Cal 16109<\/span><\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

CRIMINAL LAW<\/span> | Use of Aadhaar database permitted for fingerprint comparison in double murder investigation; Privacy objection rejected<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

While considering a writ petition filed by the State seeking assistance from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in investigating an unresolved double-murder case, the Kerala High Court held that the statutory restrictions under Sections 28<\/a> and 29<\/a>, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016<\/a> (Aadhaar Act), would not bar disclosure ordered under Section 33 and that the investigating agency’s request did not involve transmission of core biometric information. The Court consequently permitted Aadhaar database access in criminal investigation and directed UIDAI to conduct fingerprint comparison and furnish information regarding persons whose fingerprints were found matching with those recovered during investigation.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[State of Kerala v. Union of India<\/span>, W.P. (Crl.) No. 639 of 2024]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

RAPE<\/span> | Woman can be charged with gang rape for sharing common intention; “Persons” under Section 70 BNS is gender neutral<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a matter concerning whether a woman can be charged with gang rape despite not physically committing the act of rape, the Delhi High Court held that gang rape under Section 376-D<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC) and Section 70<\/a>, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNS) is a separate and substantive offence, and that the word “persons” in it is gender neutral. A woman who forms part of a group or acts in furtherance of a common intention to have rape committed on the victim, can therefore be charged with the offence. The Court clarified that a woman alone cannot be charged with gang rape and expressed no opinion on whether a woman can commit rape or whether the word “man” in Section 63 BNS is gender neutral.<\/span><\/p>\n

[ANSXXX v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span><\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine Del 7997<\/span><\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

RIGHT TO INFORMATION<\/span> | Special Flight Returns (SFR-II) of PM’s foreign visits can be withheld under RTI Act on security grounds<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Articles 226<\/a>\/227<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> assailing the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order dated 8 July 2020 directing disclosure of Prime Minister’s special flight returns (SFRs) records, the Delhi High Court held that SFRs containing details of the Prime Minister’s foreign air travel can be withheld under Section 8(1)(a) and (g)<\/a>, Right to Information Act, 2005<\/a> (RTI Act), where disclosure could jeopardise national security or endanger the life and physical safety of the Prime Minister. Accordingly, the Court set aside the CIC’s direction to disclose the records, holding that redacting the names of security personnel alone could not eliminate the potential risks to the Prime Minister’s security.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[Central Public Information Officer, Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, Indian Air Force v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (Retd.)<\/span>, W.P.(C) 10165\/2020]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

TRADE<\/span> | Can new import restrictions apply to goods already shipped to India? Relevant date of import under Foreign Trade Policy, examined<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition challenging communications concerning refusal to clear imported studded platinum jewellery following a change in import policy from “Free” to “Restricted”, where the goods had arrived in India before publication of the notification but the Bills of Entry were filed thereafter, the Bombay High Court held that the notification “can be validly applied only to the goods dispatched from the country of export after its publication and not to goods already dispatched and arrived in India prior to its publication” and directed the authorities to release the consignments expeditiously.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[Heimerle Refinery (P) Ltd. v. Union of India<\/span>, Writ Petition No. 3274 of 2026]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also read: Consent decree in Admiralty suit binds Charterer; Calcutta HC rejects Section 45 Arbitration plea<\/p>\n

CUSTODY<\/span> | Child cannot be made a “football” between parents: Father’s visitation rights upheld, said that child cannot be deprived of either parent’s love and affection<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a matter concerning the visitation rights of an estranged father, the Division Bench of Subramonium Prasad and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ. upheld a Family Court order granting a father visitation rights to his 15-year-old son on the first and third Saturdays of every month, observing that a child cannot be made a “football” between estranged parents. The Court held that parents cannot, through a mutual settlement, deprive a child of the love, affection and companionship of either parent, emphasising that the child’s welfare remains paramount and that consent-based custody arrangements may be modified whenever the child’s best interests so require.<\/span><\/p>\n

[X v. Y<\/span>, CNR No. DLHC010231382026]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

TRIBUNALS AND COMMISSIONS<\/p>\n

NCLT<\/span> | Can a third party take back goods from a company in CIRP? Ancile’s claim to pharmaceutical goods, dismissed<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In applications filed by Ancile Investment Company under Section 60(5)<\/a>, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC), read with Rule 11, National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking exclusion and return of pharmaceutical goods allegedly belonging to it from the assets of Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench-II dismissed both the applications. The Tribunal held that Ancile had failed to establish its entitlement to the specific goods claimed or make out a case for their exclusion from the assets of the corporate debtor. The Tribunal further held that the application seeking disclosure of additional documents and information was not maintainable.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Ancile Investment Co. v. Anshul Gupta Resolution Professional of Arch Pharmalabs Ltd<\/span>.<\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine NCLT 6131<\/span><\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

CAT<\/span> | WhatsApp “OK” not conclusive proof of leave sanction; Railway employee’s transfer upheld<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed an Original Application filed under Section 19<\/a> of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985<\/a>, challenging the transfer order dated 25 July 2025, whereby the applicant was transferred from Prayagraj to Fatehpur, along with the consequential relieving order dated 28 July 2025. The applicant contended that his request for two additional days of leave had been approved by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager\/Coaching, Prayagraj, through a WhatsApp response stating “OK”. However, the Tribunal observed that the said response could not, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of sanction of leave by the competent authority.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Priya Ranjan Kumar v. Union of India<\/span>, Original Application No. 782 of 2025]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

OTHER UPDATES<\/p>\n

NEWS<\/p>\n