{"id":400367,"date":"2026-11-03T11:00:54","date_gmt":"2026-11-03T05:30:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=400367"},"modified":"2026-11-03T11:03:44","modified_gmt":"2026-11-03T05:33:44","slug":"weekly-legal-developments-india-26-oct-1-nov-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/03\/weekly-legal-developments-india-26-oct-1-nov-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Top Legal Developments [26 Oct — 1 Nov 2026] | Adani Defamation Video; Andhra Pradesh Nominations Filing Obstruction; Chorebagan Stampede Inquiry; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This roundup of weekly legal developments in India covers significant judicial and institutional developments, including the latest Supreme Court Collegium recommendations, the distinction between “touching” and “placing” under the POCSO Act, and a wife’s right to alimony after remarriage.<\/p>\n

STORY OF THE WEEK<\/p>\n

Can courts step in during an election? Court on obstruction in filing nominations in Andhra Pradesh<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court held that judicial restraint during an ongoing election process does not preclude intervention where alleged violence or coercion threatens a level playing field. The Court further held that: “Free and fair elections are a basic structure of the Constitution<\/a>. The right to freely participate in such elections by filing nomination papers without hindrance is a facet of the free and fair election process.”<\/p>\n

[Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party v. State of A.P.<\/span>, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 37476 of 2026, decided on 21-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

SUPREME COURT<\/p>\n

ENERGY, POWER AND ELECTRICITY<\/span> | Sinking Fund contribution alongside depreciation permissible in DVC Tariff; Review contrary to binding precedent violates Article 141<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court held that the contribution to the Sinking Fund, constituted for redemption of bonds issued by DVC, could be treated as an item of expenditure recoverable through tariff, alongside depreciation on the capital assets acquired out of the bond proceeds, in terms of Section 40<\/a>, Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948<\/a> and the Terms and Conditions of Tariff Regulations, 2009 (CERC). Rejecting the contention of double allowance, the Court held that the Supreme Court had already considered and upheld the issue in Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corpn., (2018) 8 SCC 281<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[Damodar Valley Corporation v. Maithan Alloys Ltd.<\/span>, Civil Appeal No.11106 of 2024, decided on 30-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

SERVICE LAW<\/span> | War injury pension upheld for Kargil veteran; declares ‘what a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker’<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court held that pensionary benefits could not be denied by adopting a restrictive interpretation unsupported by the language of the policy or the relevant notification. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Union of India’s appeal, upholding the concurrent decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the High Court, and directed the Government to expressly clarify whether the prescribed pensionary benefits would apply whenever operations are notified under Category E(i).<\/p>\n

[Union of India v. Narender Kumar<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2272<\/a>, decided on 28-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

HIGH COURTS<\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

EVIDENCE LAW<\/span> | Does Section 230 BNSS cover recordings sent to CFSL? Court on temporary non-supply of copies to the accused<\/p>\n

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application, holding that since the accused will receive the recordings in due course and had already been given copies of the transcripts and permitted to listen to the investigation copy, no prejudice would be caused by the present non-supply of the same to her. The Court stated that the temporary non-supply of copies of the recordings of conversations, which are not in the custody of the CBI or the court, causes no prejudice to the accused.<\/p>\n

[Prabha Bhandari v. CBI<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 34418<\/a>, decided on 29-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND CHILDREN’S ACTS<\/span> | Juvenile found guilty of murder ‘cannot go unpunished’: 27 years on, conviction upheld; sentence left to JJ Board<\/p>\n

The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence and remitted the matter to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board) for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, as the appellant was below 18 years of age on the date of the offence.<\/p>\n

[Karuna Shanker Singh v. State of U.P.<\/span>, CRLA No. — 253 of 2002, decided on 13-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

REGISTRATION ACTS AND RULES<\/span> | Waqf Board cannot override court orders to keep a property on the Section 22-A prohibited list<\/p>\n

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the repeated communications made to registration authorities by the Waqf Board, despite the Court’s orders dismissing their claim, resulted in repeated litigation, causing inconvenience to the petitioners and were contrary to the judgment and decree passed by the Court and that the respondents were bound to act in accordance with the Court’s orders allowing the registration of the subject property. The Court directed the revenue authorities to ensure that the subject property is deleted from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A, Registration Act, 1908<\/a>, if not already deleted. The registering authority was directed to receive and process the petitioners’ documents strictly in accordance with the Registration Act, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the rules in force.<\/p>\n

[Alivelu Challa v. State of A.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine AP 5105<\/a>, decided on 15-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW<\/span> | Administrative circulars cannot override statutory language; Indian Bank’s ₹96.65 Crore deduction claim for doubtful and loss assets allowed<\/p>\n

The Calcutta High Court allowed Indian Bank’s appeal against disallowance of ₹96.65 crores claimed towards provisions for doubtful and loss assets classified by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The Court held that the deduction under the first proviso could not be rejected merely because a deduction under the main provision had already been allowed.<\/p>\n

[Indian Bank v. CIT<\/span>, ITA 8 of 2018, decided on 13-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

CRIMINAL LAW<\/span> | Mere promotion of religion or persuasion to convert does not amount to outraging religious feelings under Ss. 299 and 302 BNS<\/p>\n

The Bombay High Court held that mere promotion of religion or persuasion to convert does not amount to outraging religious feelings under Sections 299<\/a> and 302<\/a> BNS<\/a>. The Court observed that the allegations merely disclosed promotion of Christianity and efforts to persuade the complainant and his wife to convert from Hinduism to Christianity. The Court accordingly quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.<\/p>\n

[Joseph v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 16581<\/a>, decided on 6-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

LABOUR LAW<\/span> | Trust rules of exempted PF establishments cannot override right to higher pension under EPS 1995<\/p>\n

The Bombay High Court held that trust rules of exempted provident fund establishments cannot defeat the right to pension on higher wages under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995<\/a> (EPS 1995). The Court set aside the impugned orders of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) and directed it to process and allow the petitioners’ joint option applications for higher pension within 8 weeks.<\/p>\n

[Amit Gunvantrai Mehta v. EPFO<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 16896<\/a>, decided on 19-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

LABOUR LAW<\/span> | Procedural lapses do not vitiate inquiry without real prejudice: Reinstatement of school peon quashed<\/p>\n

The Bombay High Court held that the School Tribunal’s approach was perverse as it focused on the alleged illicit relationship between the employee and a lady teacher rather than the actual charges concerning his conduct allegedly bringing disrepute to the school. The Court observed that procedural violations do not automatically vitiate proceedings and that, except in cases involving “no notice, no opportunity and no hearing”, the question is whether the employee suffered real prejudice in defending himself.<\/p>\n

[Ambegaon Taluka Vidya Vikas Mandal v. Husen Kasam Shaikh<\/span>, Writ Petition No. 2115 of 2005, decided on 23-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

BAIL<\/span> | ‘There are trappings of corruption’: Here’s why anticipatory bail to ex-Minister Indranil Sen was denied<\/p>\n

The Calcutta High Court rejected the anticipatory bail prayer, holding that, having regard to the merits of the case and the materials in the case diary, the petitioner had failed to make out a case for the relief sought.<\/p>\n

[Indranil Sen v. State<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 16721<\/a>, decided on 15-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

CHOREBAGAN STAMPEDE<\/span> | Will a sitting Judge head the Chorebagan stampede inquiry? Chief Justice to decide<\/p>\n

The Calcutta High Court, by order dated 20 October 2026, took note of the State Government’s decision to constitute an inquiry commission and observed that whether a serving Judge of the High Court should be spared to head it was for the Chief Justice to decide on the administrative side. The Bench added that, if no serving Judge was spared, it would be for the State Government to constitute the Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952<\/a> by appointing a retired Judge of the High Court, strictly in accordance with law. The petition was kept pending.<\/p>\n

[Tapas Kumar Dey v. State of W.B.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 16640<\/a>, decided on 20-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

DEFAMATION<\/span> | Circulation of Adani defamation video titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India — The Friendship Files” restrained<\/p>\n

The Calcutta High Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the publication and circulation of a video titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India — The Friendship Files”, along with its clips and materially identical reproductions. The Court also directed the relevant platforms, including YouTube, X and Instagram, to remove or disable access to the identified URLs and preserve specified account and access records.<\/p>\n

[Adani Enterprises Ltd. v. Sabeer Bhatia<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 17964<\/a>, decided on 26-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

POCSO<\/span> | Settlement or living together as husband and wife cannot quash POCSO case of minor forced to marry man 20 years older<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and directed that the trial shall continue; and held that forcing a minor into marriage and physical relations is a grave offence with large societal impact, that there is an overriding element of public interest in continuing the trial irrespective of any compromise, and that quashing the FIR would amount to legitimising child marriage and exploitation of a minor.<\/p>\n

[Sher Bahadur v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 8324<\/a>, decided on 30-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

J&K AND LADAKH HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW<\/span> | Administrative report cannot be treated as criminal complaint without following S. 156(3) J&K CrPC procedure<\/p>\n

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that information supplied by a Court employee to the Presiding Officer regarding an attempt to occupy a portion of land under the Court’s possession was merely an administrative report which could not be treated as a criminal complaint warranting registration of an FIR without following the procedure laid down in Section 156(3), Jammu & Kashmir Criminal Procedure Code, 1989 (J&K CrPC). The Court added that the Magistrate had not followed the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 2871, before directing the FIR under Section 156(3), J&K CrPC. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR registered against the public officials.<\/p>\n

[Qadeer-Ul-Rehman v. State (UT of J&K)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine J&K 1088<\/a>, decided on 5-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

ADVOCATES<\/span> | Advocate’s duty is to assist the Court, not insist on a favourable order: Lawyer held for contempt<\/p>\n

Karnataka High Court, while considering the matter, deprecated the conduct of the petitioner’s counsel for repeatedly insisting that the Court pass an order in his favour despite being directed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased complainant on record. Thus, the Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the counsel for his conduct before the Court.<\/p>\n

[V.M. Kumarswamy v. State of Karnataka<\/span>, CRL.P No. 7531 of 2020, decided on 17-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAWS<\/span> | Does remarriage extinguish a wife’s right to alimony? Court on how it affects permanent alimony<\/p>\n

The Karnataka High Court, while modifying a Family Court order pertaining to the quantum of permanent alimony, held that subsequent remarriage does not itself extinguish a wife’s right to permanent alimony; rather, it is a relevant factor in determining the quantum payable. Noting that Section 25(3)<\/a> of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> (the Act), contemplates variation of permanent alimony on the wife’s remarriage, the Court reduced the quantum from ₹25,00,000 to ₹10,00,000. In fixing the reduced quantum, the Court weighed the financial position of the parties, the period for which the wife remained unmarried after the decree of dissolution (09-02-2023 to 21-04-2024), and her subsequent remarriage.<\/p>\n

[X v. Y<\/span>, Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1557 of 2023, decided on 18-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

MOTOR VEHICLES COMPENSATION<\/span> | Employee’s compensation enhanced by ₹1.42 Lakh, directs insurer to pay and recover from tractor owner<\/p>\n

The Karnataka High Court enhanced the compensation by ₹1,42,067, holding that the appellant’s monthly income ought to have been assessed at ₹8000 in accordance with the applicable notification and that the correct age-related factor of 225.22 under Schedule IV, EC Act should have been applied.<\/p>\n

[N. Suresh Naik v. Manikyam K.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 15596<\/a>, decided on 28-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

POCSO<\/span> | Placement of penis on vagina constitutes penetrative sexual assault; Court distinguishes between “touching” and “placing” under POCSO Act<\/p>\n

The Kerala High Court held that the placement of a penis on a vagina constitutes penetrative sexual assault and could not be treated merely as sexual assault under Section 7<\/a>, POCSO Act<\/a>. The Court, however, observed that the accused cannot be separately sentenced under Section 376-AB<\/a> IPC<\/a> after sentence under Section 6<\/a>, POCSO Act<\/a>, and accordingly set aside the separate sentence imposed under IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[Shaji v. State of Kerala<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 18776<\/a>, decided on 13-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

MADRAS HIGH COURT<\/p>\n

MEDICAL LAW<\/span> | Termination of 31-week pregnancy permitted after detecting serious foetal brain abnormalities<\/p>\n

The Madras High Court quashed the Medical Board’s refusal to permit termination of a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks, holding that the medical reports established substantial foetal abnormalities and that the pregnant woman’s reproductive autonomy and decision to terminate the pregnancy deserved primacy. The Court observed that the mother has the right to decide whether she wishes to bring such a child into the world, particularly when the child may not lead a normal life.<\/p>\n

[B.T. Pavithra Kumari v. Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 11022<\/a>, decided on 15-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

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

BAIL<\/span> | Bail denied to Vuenow Group founder in alleged “Cloud Particle” scam, citing prima facie evidence of money laundering<\/p>\n

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at the given stage, as the material collected during investigation prima facie disclosed his active association with the alleged money laundering scheme involving the Vuenow Group of Companies. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n

[Arif Nisar v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 31372<\/a>, decided on 18-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

TRIBUNALS\/COMMISSIONS\/REGULATORY BODIES<\/p>\n

DCDRC<\/span> | Amazon liable for delivery of e-waste instead of laptop; 1.29 lakh refund ordered with 9 per cent interest<\/p>\n

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, in a consumer complaint filed against Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., seeking a refund of ₹1,29,990, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and litigation costs, alleging that a laptop purchased through Amazon’s online platform was not delivered and that the package instead contained electronic waste (e-waste). The Commission held Amazon liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, while dismissing the complaint against Samsung.<\/p>\n

[Rounak Burrows v. Amazon Seller Services (P) Ltd.<\/span>, Consumer Complaint No. CC\/496\/2023, decided on 15-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

NCDRC<\/span> | Oriental Insurance directed to pay 7 per cent interest on ₹4.68 lakh vehicle fire damage claim; imposes ₹50,000 litigation costs<\/p>\n

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), while disposing of a revision petition filed by the petitoner against Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking enhancement of relief by way of interest on the vehicle damage insurance claim arising from a fire incident, AVM J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) and Saroj Yadav, J. (Member), directed the insurer to pay interest at 7 per cent per annum on ₹4,68,000, from the date commencing 3 months after the incident until final payment, and ₹50,000 as litigation costs.<\/p>\n

[Dharmendra Singh Palsaniya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>, Revision Petition No. 2801 of 2018, decided on 6-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

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

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

LEGISLATION UPDATES<\/p>\n