Constitutional Law

The Supreme Court of India has strengthened the rights of convicted persons under Article 21 of the Constitution by holding that prolonged delay in hearing an appeal against conviction can, in appropriate cases, justify the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal. The 2026 ruling addresses a systemic problem in the Indian criminal justice system: appeals against conviction often take years or even decades to be heard, during which the convicted person remains

The Supreme Court of India has reinforced the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil court has ruled in favour of the accused on a related issue. In a 2026 judgment, the Court restored a criminal trial in a family property dispute where the accused had sought to terminate the prosecution on the ground that a civil court had already upheld the validity of the disputed documents. The ruling reaffirms the well-established legal position that

In Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu (2026 INSC 434), the Supreme Court of India delivered a firm restatement of the boundaries of High Court supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar held that High Courts cannot use their supervisory powers to act as appellate courts, re-appreciate evidence, or substitute their own view for a plausible finding reached by a subo

In Nagreeka Indcon Products Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics, the Supreme Court of India addressed a question that recurs frequently in commercial arbitration: does the word "can" in an arbitration clause create a binding obligation to arbitrate, or does it merely confer a permissive option? The Court held that "can" is not equivalent to "shall" and that a clause using permissive language does not constitute a mandatory arbitration agreement. This ruling has significant implicatio

In a recent order passed in April 2026, the Bombay High Court highlighted a severe systemic problem in the disposal of motor accident and railway compensation appeals. Justice Jitendra Jain, while dismissing an appeal filed by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award of Rs 74,422, observed that the appeal had waited 15 years just to come up for admission. The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Ministry of

On April 21, 2026, the Delhi High Court held YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja guilty of criminal contempt of court for publishing videos containing scandalous allegations against judicial officers. The proceedings were initiated suo motu after judicial officers flagged objectionable content on Pahuja's YouTube channel titled Fight 4 Judicial Reforms. The videos featured interviews with advocates, displayed banners naming specific judges alongside sensational captions, and made baseles

The Election Commission of India (ECI) derives its authority from Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests in it the superintendence, direction, and control of all elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice President. This constitutional mandate gives the ECI sweeping powers that extend well beyond merely conducting polls. From deploying central armed police forces across state boundaries to enforcing the Model Code of Conduct, the

The Supreme Court of India has reiterated a critical principle affecting millions of government employees: appointments subject to 'until further orders' do not confer an automatic right to complete a full tenure. This landmark observation, made on April 28, 2026, clarifies the legal distinction between fixed-term appointments and conditional appointments, with profound implications for job security and employee rights. Understanding Fixed-Term vs. Conditional Appointments T

In January 2026, the Karnataka High Court lifted the blanket ban on bike taxis, holding that motorcycles used as transport vehicles cannot be denied permits on a categorical basis. The state has since appealed to the Supreme Court.

In a landmark order passed on April 25, 2026, the Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu Government to formulate a comprehensive rehabilitation scheme for transgender persons at the taluk level. The direction came in V. Sarathkumar v. The State, CrlOPMD No. 5185 of 2026, while hearing an anticipatory bail application connected to the circulation of a video showing the self-immolation of a transgender person near a police station in Srivilliputhur. The Court observed that t

A significant procedural judgment from the Supreme Court has refined how courts should approach applications to amend pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court held that when a party seeks to amend its plaint or written statement to introduce a new plea or argument, the court deciding the amendment application cannot examine the merits or correctness of the proposed plea. Instead, courts must assess whether allowing the amendment would cause irre

The Supreme Court's decision in Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu v. S Raja (2026 INSC 407), delivered on April 22, 2026, addresses a critical intersection of property law: how courts should treat third-party rights acquired during the pendency of litigation when status quo orders are in place. This judgment clarifies when courts can and cannot disturb completed transactions, particularly when bona fide purchasers are involved. Understanding this ruling is essential for sta

The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant clarification regarding the rights of legal heirs and representatives to challenge arbitral awards. In a recent judgment (2026 INSC 393), the Court held that legal representatives of a deceased party can mount a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if they were not originally parties to the arbitration agreement. This ruling resolves considerable uncertainty in arbitration law and pr

Civil litigation in India has been shaped by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which prohibits the institution of two or more separate suits where a single suit would be competent to decide all disputes between the parties. This rule has long been a source of procedural challenges, with questions arising about whether courts can summarily reject a plaint based on violation of this rule. In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified that the bar u

The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant clarification regarding the rights of legal heirs and representatives to challenge arbitral awards. In a recent judgment (2026 INSC 393), the Court held that legal representatives of a deceased party can mount a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if they were not originally parties to the arbitration agreement. This ruling resolves considerable uncertainty in arbitration law and pr