This edition of India Judiciary Watch presents a structured overview of key legal developments and judicial pronouncements delivered by the Supreme Court and various High Courts during the week of 16th to 21st March 2026. The developments span a wide range of domains, including constitutional law, administrative governance, labour regulation, electoral processes, and individual rights.
During the week, notable proceedings included the Supreme Court’s consideration of the long-pending interpretation of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act by a nine-judge bench, judicial scrutiny of agency powers in Centre-State contexts, and important rulings relating to maternity benefits, electoral outcomes, and enforcement of natural justice principles. High Courts across jurisdictions also addressed issues concerning religious administration, criminal procedure, regulatory powers, and public order.
The objective of this digest is to provide a clear and accessible summary of significant judicial activity, enabling readers to stay informed about evolving legal positions and institutional trends. The document captures both interim proceedings and final verdicts, offering a comprehensive snapshot of the judiciary’s engagement with contemporary legal issues.
I. Key Legal Developments:
Supreme Court's 9-Judge Bench Reserves Judgment On 48-Year-Old Definition Of 'Industry' Under Industrial Disputes Act
Source: Live Law
Development: On 17th March, 2026, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant commenced a hearing to reconsider the expansive definition of "industry" laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978), which had applied a triple test to include clubs, charities, educational institutions and government welfare bodies within its ambit, the reference having arisen due to conflicting interpretations in subsequent cases and Parliament's 1982 amendment to narrow the definition remaining unenforced. On 18th March, 2026, the Central Government submitted that welfare state functions and charitable activities cannot be treated as industrial activity, as they arise from constitutional and social obligations rather than commercial operations. On 19th March, 2026, the bench reserved judgment on whether the Bangalore Water Supply triple test lays down correct law, whether Government welfare activities qualify as industries, and what activities fall under sovereign functions.
Madras High Court Stays Deepam Contempt Proceedings; Justice Swaminathan Criticises State Over Compliance
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 17th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman stayed the contempt proceedings initiated by Justice G.R. Swaminathan against the Madurai District Collector, City Police Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police for alleged wilful disobedience of the 4th December, 2025 order permitting the lighting of Karthigai Deepam atop the Thiruparankundram hillock, noting that the Collector had even passed a prohibitory order under Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to frustrate the judicial directive. On 18th March, 2026, Justice Swaminathan remarked that he believes in respecting court orders, unlike the administration, and warned that police officers who failed to appear before him would be dealt with in accordance with law. He further observed that he had been "taken for a ride," as the state had sought an adjournment to deliberate on his suggestion of symbolic compliance, only to use the two-week window to file appeals and obtain a stay from the Division Bench
ED’s Article 32 Petition Against West Bengal Challenged As Unconstitutional; State Argues Agency Lacks Juristic Personality
Source: Live Law
Development: On 18th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria heard arguments on the maintainability of a writ petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Article 32 against the State of West Bengal, arising from the alleged obstruction of ED's search of I-PAC's Kolkata office on 8th January, 2026, in a money laundering probe linked to the coal scam. The ED sought a First Information Report (FIR) by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and State police officials. The West Bengal Government argued that the ED lacks juristic personality as a mere Government department and cannot invoke fundamental rights jurisdiction. It contended that Centre-State disputes must be resolved through Article 131 read with Article 300, and that permitting such petitions would be dangerous to federalism and the basic structure. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for Mamata Banerjee further argued that ED cannot seek a CBI FIR through a writ petition. Both sides sought reference to a Constitution Bench.
Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Stays Special Court's Observations In Thanthri Rajeev's Bail
Source: Live Law
Development: On 17th March, 2026, Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court stayed observations made by the Special Court against the SIT's investigation while hearing the State's petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to Chief Priest Kandararu Rajeevaru, accused of consenting to re-plating gold-clad idols that facilitated the alleged misappropriation. The State contended the remarks were unwarranted and prejudicial to investigation. Notice was issued to Rajeevaru. On 19th March, 2026, the Kollam Vigilance Court granted statutory bail to jewellery shop owner Govardhan and Smart Creations owner Pankaj Bhandari as the SIT failed to file a chargesheet within 90 days, taking the total number of accused out on bail to 10 of 12. Only N. Vijayakumar and K.P. Sankaradas remains in custody. The Devaswom Bench has directed the SIT to file a comprehensive chargesheet by 31st March, 2026.
Allahabad High Court Peruses MHA Records In Case Against Rahul Gandhi; Impleads Central Government
Source: Live Law
Development: On 19th March, 2026, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court perused original records from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regarding a 2019 notice issued to Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi. The bench, led by Justice Rajeev Singh, examined the files in connection with a petition filed by BJP worker S. Vignesh Shishir. The petitioner is challenging a January 2026 Magistrate's order that refused to register an FIR against Gandhi over allegations of holding British citizenship and incorporating a UK-based company, M/s Backops Ltd. The Court formally permitted the petitioner to implead the Government of India as a party to the case and granted the Government Advocate time to file a reply by the next hearing on 6th April, 2026.
Victim’s Compensation Fund Dues: HC Warns Of Attaching Treasury Accounts
Source: The Hindu
Development: On 18th March, 2026, the Kerala High Court issued a stern warning to the State Government over the depletion of the Victim Compensation Fund. Justice V.G. Arun observed that the State Government cannot cite financial constraints as an excuse to delay or deny compensation to victims of crimes, especially women and children. The Court noted that several orders for compensation had remained unimplemented for months due to a lack of budgetary allocation. The judge warned that if the outstanding dues are not cleared or a concrete plan is not presented, the court will be compelled to order the attachment of the State treasury accounts to secure the necessary funds.
Bhojshala Temple–Kamal Maula Mosque Case: MP High Court Judges To Visit Disputed Site; Fresh Jain Plea Adds New Dimension
Development: On 16th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi announced that the Court would personally visit the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar before the next hearing on 2nd April, 2026, directing all parties to file replies, counter replies and objections to the ASI’s nearly 2,200-page scientific survey report by that date. The ASI survey, conducted on the Court’s directions, found that the current structure was built on ruins of ancient temples using their remaining parts and contains several Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions. On 20th March, 2026, a separate Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta heard a fresh PIL filed by Delhi-based activist Salek Chand Jain, claiming the existence of a Jain temple and gurukul at the site and asserting that the idol regarded by Hindus as Vagdevi is actually the Jain goddess Ambika, currently placed in a London museum. The Government raised maintainability objections and was granted two weeks to respond.
CJI Surya Kant Recuses From Election Commissioner Appointments Case
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 20th March, 2026, CJI Surya Kant recused himself from hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which excludes the CJI from the selection panel for appointment of Election Commissioners. The CJI, who was part of a bench with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, observed that hearing a case in which the CJI's own institutional role is at stake could give rise to a conflict of interest. Accepting a suggestion by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, he directed that the matter be placed before a bench whose members are not in line to become CJI.
Delhi HC Calls For Peace And Vigilance In Uttam Nagar After 'Khoon Ki Holi On Eid' Threat
Source: Hindustan Times
Development: On 19th March, 2026, a Delhi High Court bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya directed the Delhi Police and civil administration to ensure a secure environment in West Delhi's Uttam Nagar ahead of the Eid-ul-Fitr festival. The Court was responding to an urgent PIL filed by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) following the murder of 26-year-old Tarun Kumar during a Holi-related dispute on 4th March, 2026. The petition flagged "imminent communal violence" and highlighted specific threats circulating on social media, including calls to play a "khoon ki holi" (blood-soaked Holi) on the day of Eid i.e., 21st March, 2026.
‘Dissent Should Not Be Criminalised, Viksit Bharat Must Have More Space For Debate’: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Flags Judicial Deference, PMLA-UAPA Overuse
Source: Live Law
Development: On 22nd March, 2026, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court, speaking at the 1st Supreme Court Bar Association National Conference, emphasised that a truly developed India must have more space for dissent and debate, and that divergent views and criticism must be tolerated rather than criminalised. He stated that many within the judiciary suffer from a "more loyal than the king" syndrome, denying bail even in deserving cases and causing prolonged incarceration. He flagged reckless FIR registration for trivial matters including student protests, memes and social media posts. On PMLA, he noted 7,771 Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) filed with only 47 trials concluded. On UAPA, he cited conviction rates consistently below 5% between 2019 and 2023, questioning whether keeping the accused in jail for years without charges could be a model for Viksit Bharat.
Ganga Boat Iftar: Varanasi Court Remands All 14 Accused To Judicial Custody For 14 Days
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 20th March, 2026, the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi remanded 14 accused persons to 14 days judicial custody until 1st April, 2026, in connection with an FIR alleging that they organised an Iftar party on a boat on the Ganga on 15th March, during which they consumed chicken biryani and disposed of food waste into the river, thereby hurting Hindu religious sentiments. The accused were arrested on 17th March on a complaint filed by Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha district president Rajat Jaiswal. They have been booked under Sections 196(1)(b), 270, 279, 298 and 299 of the BNS along with Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
" Taking Court For A Ride": Delhi High Court Pulls Up Centre For Delay In Filling Minorities Commission Vacancies
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 20th March, 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, sharply criticized the Central Government for its failure to provide a clear timeline for filling vacancies in the National Commission for Minorities (NCM). The Court remarked that it was being “taken for a ride” after the Government filed a "bald and vague" affidavit stating only that the appointment process was "under examination." The NCM has reportedly been non-functional and headless since April 2025, following the completion of former chairperson Iqbal Singh Lalpura’s tenure. The Court has now directed a Deputy Secretary from the Ministry of Minority Affairs to file a detailed explanatory affidavit within two weeks.
Delhi Liquor Policy Case: Kejriwal Moves Supreme Court For Transfer; Delhi HC Grants Time To File Reply Despite CBI Opposition
Development: Following the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal and other accused AAP leaders in the Delhi liquor policy case, the CBI challenged the order before the Delhi High Court, where Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma prima facie found it "erroneous." Kejriwal's application to the Chief Justice of the HIgh Court seeking transfer of the case was rejected citing roster assignment. On 15th March, 2026, Kejriwal moved the Supreme Court challenging the rejection and simultaneously filed a separate Special Leave Petition (SLP) against Justice Sharma's prima facie observations, citing a "grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension" of lack of impartiality given that three of her prior orders in excise policy matters had been set aside by the Supreme Court. On 16th March, 2026, Justice Sharma granted time to the accused to file replies to the CBI's revision petition despite CBI's strong opposition, ensuring procedural fairness before the revision is heard on merits.
No Power With District Collector To Impose Penalty For Shortfall Of LPG Cylinders: Kerala High Court
Source: Indian Express
Development: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas set aside an order of the Alappuzha District Collector imposing a penalty of ₹ 500 and directing recovery of ₹ 2.13 lakh from the proprietor of Thiruvonam Indane Services, an LPG dealer, following a surprise inspection in June 2014 that found irregularities in stock registers and a shortfall in LPG cylinders. The Court held that under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000, the District Collector has no jurisdiction to impose a penalty or recover the cost of cylinder shortfalls, as the power to impose penalties vests exclusively with the Court and no provision in the Act empowers the Collector to impose financial liability for shortfalls detected during inspection. The impugned order was set aside in its entirety as without authority or jurisdiction.
Ex-SC Judge Gives Evidence Supporting Nirav Modi In United Kingdom
Source: Live Law
Development: On 18th March, 2026, it was reported that former Supreme Court judge Deepak Verma deposed before the United Kingdom Supreme Court in support of fugitive Nirav Modi’s appeal against extradition to India. Justice Verma stated that if extradited, he would likely face interrogation by agencies like the CBI and ED, despite sovereign assurances from the Indian Government. He argued that such executive assurances would not bind Indian Courts and raised concerns regarding the potential for torture during interrogation. The counsel representing India questioned the former judge's expertise on the matter. Following the hearing, the UK Court reserved its judgment on the extradition appeal.
Bilkis Bano Case: Supreme Court Issues Notice On 2 Convicts' Appeal Against Life Sentence For Murder & Gang Rape
Source: Live Law
Development: On 17th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi issued notice to the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra on special leave petitions filed by two of the eleven convicts, Bipinchand Kanaiyalal Joshi and Pradip Ramanlal Modhiya, challenging the Bombay High Court's May 2017 judgment upholding their conviction and life sentence for gang rape, murder and rioting arising from the 2002 Gujarat communal violence. It is to be noted that in August 2022, the Gujarat Government had granted remission to all eleven convicts under its remission policy, which the Supreme Court subsequently set aside on 8th January, 2024, holding that Gujarat was not the appropriate authority to grant remission since the trial had been transferred to Maharashtra, and directed the convicts to surrender.
Delhi HC Issues Summons To Arnab Goswami, Republic TV In Congress' Defamation Suit Over ‘Turkey Office’ Claim; No Interim Relief For Now
Source: Live Law
Development: On 17th March, 2026, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court issued summons to Shri Arnab Goswami and Republic TV in a defamation suit filed by the Indian National Congress over a May 2025 broadcast falsely claiming that the party had an international office in Turkey’s Istanbul Congress Centre. The Court directed written submissions within 30 days but declined to grant any interim injunction, issuing only notice on the injunction plea. Republic TV had subsequently issued an unconditional apology attributing the error to a video editor. An FIR against Goswami and BJP IT cell chief Shri Amit Malviya in the matter had been stayed by the Karnataka High Court in May 2025.
Supreme Court To Issue Guidelines To High Courts To Avoid Delay In Pronouncing Judgments; Amicus Gives Suggestions
Source: Live Law
Development: On 17th March, 2026, a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard final arguments on framing guidelines for High Courts to prevent delay in pronouncing judgments, after appreciating the draft guidelines submitted by amicus curiae Advocate Fauzia Shakil and seeking responses from all High Courts. The draft proposes a three-month maximum for delivering reserved judgments, automated monthly alerts to Chief Justices for delayed matters, a dedicated tab on each High Court homepage displaying judgments reserved beyond three months, uploading of pronounced judgments within 24 hours, and weekly or monthly updates to undertrials and convicts through State Legal Services Authorities. Similar timelines are proposed for trial courts under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Four High Courts failed to submit reports or appear before the Court.
Allahabad HC Seeks Explanation From POCSO Judge Who Failed To Mention Minor Rape Victim's Injuries In Acquittal Order
Source: Indian Express
Development: On 17th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Ajay Kumar II of the Allahabad High Court issued notice to the Special POCSO Court judge who acquitted an accused in a 2024 rape case in Kushinagar district, after finding that the trial court had entirely failed to discuss the medico-legal report or mention injury marks found on the minor victim's body in its 9th April, 2025 acquittal order. The Court noted that the victim sustained multiple documented injuries including scratch marks on her thigh, abdomen abrasions, and blood on her undergarments as per the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. It also rebuked the prosecution for not examining the examining doctor and the trial court for not summoning the doctor as a court witness. The Court observed that the non-discussion of the medico-legal report prima facie aided the acquittal.
PMK Anbumani v. Ramadoss: Madras High Court Directs Chennai Civil Court To Hear Dispute After 10th May, 2026
Source: The Hindu
Development: On 17th March, 2026, the Madras High Court bench of Justice T.V. Thamilselvi directed a Chennai city civil court to postpone hearing the leadership dispute between Pattali Makkal Katchi founder S. Ramadoss and his son R. Anbumani until after 10th May, 2026. The judge observed that since the legislative assembly elections in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry have been notified, it is not appropriate for courts to decide intra party disputes that could impact the electoral process. The Court maintained a stay on the civil suit where the founder sought to injunct his son from using the party symbol and name. The matter will now be taken up only after the conclusion of the polling process.
Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail After 7 Years in ‘Khalistan’ Poster Case
Source: Indian Express
Development: A bench of Justices Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail on 10th March, 2026 to Sukhmandar Singh, arrested in October 2018 while pasting “Khalistan Zindabad” and “Khalistan Referendum 2020” banners in Amritsar. The case was subsequently taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and involved allegations of receiving funds from banned outfit Sikhs for Justice, conspiracy to procure weapons, attempts to secure arms training in Pakistan, and recruitment of Sikh youth via social media. The Court found pre-trial custody of seven years, two months and 22 days excessive, noting no physical weapons were recovered and evidence was limited to digital data. Bail was granted subject to a bond of ₹ 1 lakh, undertaking not to engage in anti-India activity, surrender of all firearms within 15 days, and no speech beyond Article 19 limits.
Kerala Government Designates All District Courts As Commercial Courts For Arbitration, IP and Specified Disputes
Source: Kerala Gazette
Development: On 5th March, 2026, the Government of Kerala, in consultation with the High Court of Kerala, issued G.O. (Ms.) No.49/2026/Home under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, designating all District Courts and Additional District Courts across Kerala as Commercial Courts at the District Judge level. These Courts will exclusively handle commercial disputes arising under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Copyright Act, 1957, the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the Patents Act, 1970, with a minimum specified value of ₹ 10 lakh. Simultaneously, the 2020 notification designating Subordinate Judges' Courts as Commercial Courts was amended to exclude these categories of disputes from their jurisdiction. Appeals from these Courts will lie before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
Plea In Calcutta High Court Challenges 'Unprecedented' Transfers Of Bureaucrats In Bengal By ECI Ahead Of State Polls
Source: Live Law
Development: On 20th March, 2026, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Calcutta High Court by advocate Arka Kumar Nag, challenging a series of mass transfer orders issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) between 15th-18th March, 2026. The ECI had ordered a sweeping reshuffle of West Bengal’s top administration including the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police (DGP), and Home Secretary, ahead of the 2026 State Assembly elections. The petitioner alleges that these transfers are "retaliatory" in nature, following an impeachment motion initiated by West Bengal’s elected representatives against Chief Election Commissioner Shri Gyanesh Kumar. The plea argues that while the ECI has plenary powers under Article 324, this "unprecedented dismantling" of the state machinery is arbitrary, mala fide, and a violation of the federal structure.
DMK MP Moves Madras High Court Seeking Direction To ED To Register Cases Against AIADMK Leaders
Source: The Hindu
Development: On 19th March, 2026, a Member of Parliament from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) R. Girirajan filed nine writ petitions before the Madras High Court seeking a direction to the Enforcement Directorate to initiate money laundering probes against several top All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) leaders. The petitioner alleged that the central agency had failed to act on detailed complaints filed by him regarding disproportionate assets and illegal financial transactions linked to former ministers. A bench of Justice G. Jayachandran heard the preliminary submissions where the petitioner argued that the ED has a statutory duty to register a case once a predicate offense is established by state agencies. The Court has issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate, seeking their response on the status of these complaints.
Kerala High Court Reviews Roadmap to Address Human-Wildlife Conflict in Aralam and Wayanad
Source: Live Law
Development: On 17th March, 2026, the Kerala Chief Secretary submitted a comprehensive roadmap before a Division Bench proposing a three-pillar strategy consisting of physical barriers, behavioural change, and forest habitat improvement, to address human-wildlife conflict in Aralam and Wayanad. The report highlighted that Kerala had declared the issue a State Specific Disaster in March 2024, with three-tier coordination committees, Rapid Response Teams, and solar fencing along forest fringes among the measures planned. On essential services in tribal resettlement areas such as the Tribal Resettlement and Development Mission (TRDM) area in Aralam, the State reported that ₹ 45 lakh had been sanctioned and 30,000 litres are being distributed daily via GPS-enabled tankers since 25th February, 2026. The Court took note and posted the matter for review of implementation on 22nd May, 2026.
Supreme Court: Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Funds Diversion
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 17th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala and Justice Kalpathy Venkataraman Viswanathan set aside the Securities Appellate Tribunal's order and restored SEBI's penalties against Terrascope Ventures Limited and its directors for diverting funds raised through a 2012 preferential allotment, ostensibly for capital expenditure and overseas expansion, towards purchasing shares and extending loans which were not disclosed in the notice of the Extraordinary General Meeting. The Court rejected SAT's reasoning that a 2017 special shareholder resolution ratifying the fund utilisation cured the violation, holding that private ratification cannot extinguish liabilities arising from statutory breaches. It held that the doctrine of ratification has limited application in public and regulatory law, drawing a parallel with waiver, just as public policy rights cannot be waived, statutory violations cannot be ratified.
SC Declines To Interfere With NIA Probe In Beldanga Violence Case
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 16th March, 2026, a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to entertain West Bengal's appeal against the Calcutta High Court's refusal to stay the NIA probe into the Beldanga communal violence in Murshidabad district. The violence erupted following the death of a migrant worker in Jharkhand, resulting in arson, roadblocks, attacks on journalists and alleged targeting of Hindu properties, with central forces already stationed in the district since April 2025 following Waqf-related unrest. The NIA probe, initiated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, also encompasses the alleged attack on the convoy of State BJP leader Shri Suvendu Adhikari. The High Court, while allowing the investigation to proceed, directed the NIA to file a report by 24th March, 2026 to determine whether a prima facie case under UAPA was made out, which the Supreme Court found a "balanced view" and declined to interfere with.
Bangalore Hotel Association Files Petition In Karnataka HC Seeking Uninterrupted LPG Supply To Hotels And Restaurants
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 17th March, 2026, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum of the Karnataka High Court issued notice to the Central and State Governments on a petition filed by the Bangalore Hotel Association seeking directions to ensure uninterrupted Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) supply to hotels and restaurants in Bengaluru. The petitioners contended that the Israel-US-Iran geopolitical conflict has caused a severe LPG shortage that has forced restaurants to cut menus, shorten working hours and risks complete shutdown. They argued that any abrupt halt in LPG supply was arbitrary and violative of the fundamental right to practise one's profession under Article 19(1)(g). The petition flagged that a shutdown could affect 6 lakh labourers in Bengaluru alone. The matter is listed next on 23rd June, 2026.
Supreme Court Seeks Data From All States/UTs On Prison Occupancy
Source: Live Law
Development: On 20th March, 2026, the Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to submit comprehensive data regarding current prison occupancy and overcrowding. A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed concern over reports suggesting that several jails are operating at double or triple their sanctioned capacity. The Court noted that such overcrowding directly impacts the living conditions, hygiene, and human rights of inmates. The bench ordered the Registry to circulate a proforma to all Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Prisons to collect uniform data on the number of undertrials versus convicts.
Google & MeitY Question Maintainability Of Sri Lankan Supreme Court Judge's Writ Petition In Karnataka High Court
Source: Live Law
Development: On 16th March, 2026, at the preliminary hearing of the writ petition filed by Sri Lankan Supreme Court Judge Justice AHMD Nawaz seeking deletion of defamatory online articles, Google LLC and MeitY both challenged the maintainability of the petition on grounds of territorial jurisdiction before Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum. Google argued that the petitioner is a Sri Lankan national, the allegedly defamatory content originated in Sri Lanka, and Google is incorporated in the United States, questioning how the Karnataka High Court's jurisdiction could be invoked at all. The petitioner's counsel countered that Google, as an intermediary that disseminated defamatory content in India, is liable once put on notice. The Court directed rectification of party arrays and adjourned the matter to 6th April, 2026 for further preliminary hearing.
Supreme Court Again Flags "Inexplicable And Huge Delay" In Trials In Maharashtra
Source: Live Law
Development: On 16th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan issued notice on a bail plea filed by an accused in a 2019 Muthoot Finance dacoity-cum-murder case in Nashik in which employee Saju Samuel was shot dead during a robbery attempt. The Court expressed serious concern that despite the FIR being registered in June 2019 and the petitioner being in custody for nearly seven years, only one witness has been examined so far. It directed the Commissioner of Police, Nashik to file a personally affirmed affidavit explaining the circumstances behind the trial's non-progress and the role of each accused in causing delay.
Can Police Enter Homes In Bihar To Test For Alcohol? Supreme Court To Examine State's Prohibition Law
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 17th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh took up Bihar's appeal against a Patna High Court judgment that quashed an FIR under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, holding that a breath analyser test alone, without confirmatory blood or urine analysis, cannot be conclusive proof of alcohol consumption. The case involved a man found at his residence in Kishanganj who tested 41 mg/100 ml on a breath analyser and was arrested under Section 37. The Court expanded the scope of the appeal to examine the constitutional validity of Sections 37 and 75 of the Act, including whether police can enter a person's home to conduct alcohol testing.
Uttarakhand High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against 'Mohammad' Deepak, Restrains Him From Posting On Social Media
Development: On 17th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal of the Uttarakhand High Court directed the State to submit a status report on investigations into multiple FIRs arising from the 26th January, 2026 Kotdwar incident, where gym owner Deepak Kumar, who had declared "My name is Mohammad Deepak" while defending an elderly Muslim shopkeeper being confronted by Bajrang Dal members over his shop name, sought quashing of an FIR lodged against him. The Court also directed him to disclose donations credited to his bank account. On 20th March, 2026, the Court refused to quash the FIR, disposed of the petition with a direction to police to follow Arnesh Kumar guidelines, and restrained Deepak and others from making any statements or posting videos on social media regarding the incident, noting it was affecting the investigation and that he was not cooperating with the police.
Kerala High Court Seeks Explanation From Deepika Newspaper For Misleading Report On Court Order
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 19th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM directed the editor of Malayalam daily Deepika to file an affidavit explaining a report falsely claiming the Court had ordered a vigilance probe into alleged corruption in the purchase of equipment for Kerala's state-wide digital land re-survey project. The Court stated it had passed no such order. The matter was flagged by Revenue Minister K Rajan. The litigant Shaji J. Kodankandath, who filed the PIL alleging tender corruption and is currently contesting elections from Ollur constituency, allegedly made statements at a press conference that Deepika then misreported. He was also directed to file an affidavit clarifying whether such statements were made
What Happens To Money Left In Bank Accounts After Death? Supreme Court Seeks Answers From Centre, RBI
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 17th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the Centre and RBI to file fresh affidavits within four weeks in a PIL filed by financial journalist Sucheta Dalal, seeking a centralised searchable database to help legal heirs trace and claim over ₹ 1 lakh crore allegedly lying unclaimed in bank accounts, insurance policies, shares and post office funds of deceased persons. Advocate Prashant Bhushan informed the Court that unclaimed amounts are transferred into three Government-controlled funds, namely the Depositors Education and Awareness Fund, the Investor Education and Protection Fund and the Senior Citizens Welfare Fund, which together hold over ₹ 1 lakh crore. The Court questioned why this information cannot be proactively disclosed to legal heirs, while the RBI argued that existing KYC norms and nomination requirements already address the concern.
Kerala HC Notifies Gender Sensitisation And Sexual Harassment Prevention Regulations, 2026; Constitutes Special Complaints Committee
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 17th March, 2026, the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court notified the Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at the High Court of Kerala (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2026 in the Kerala Gazette. The regulations, framed in line with the Vishaka guidelines, extend protection to women lawyers, litigants and members of the public on High Court premises and exclude only those already covered under the POSH Act through existing Internal Complaints Committees. A Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC), with a majority of women, has been constituted with a sitting High Court judge as Chairperson. Complaints must be filed within three months of an incident. Punishments upon finding guilt range from admonition to bar from entry into court premises for up to one year or referral to Bar Council disciplinary proceedings.
Delhi High Court Directs Nakkheeran Publications To Take Down 'Defamatory' Content Against Sadhguru's Isha Foundation
Source: Live Law
Development: On 19th March, 2026, the Delhi High Court directed Tamil media outlet Nakkheeran Publications to take down and delete defamatory content targeting Sadhguru’s Isha Foundation. Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the publication's application to reject the defamation suit, which seeks three crore rupees in damages for allegedly maligning the Foundation's reputation. The case, originally filed in 2024, has seen significant procedural movement, including a transfer petition to the Supreme Court that was eventually referred back to the High Court for an injunction hearing. The Court's order mandates the immediate removal of the contested material while allowing the civil suit to proceed toward a trial on the merits.
Original Complainant Moves Madras HC To Recall Order Quashing FIR Against TVK's Aadhav Arjuna Over Social Media Post
Source: Live Law
Development: On 19th March, 2026, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira of the Madras High Court held maintainable an application filed by the original complainant Shanmugam seeking to recall the court's earlier order quashing the FIR against Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam's (TVK) Aadhav Arjuna. The FIR had been registered under provisions of the BNS relating to promoting enmity, imputations prejudicial to national integrity and statements amounting to public mischief, following a social media post allegedly calling for a revolution similar to those in Nepal and Sri Lanka. The quashing order had held that though the post was politically provocative, it did not call for violence or hatred and did not cross the threshold of hate speech. The complainant has now challenged that finding, and the Registry has been directed to number the recall application.
SC Refuses To Cancel Bail Of Accused In Baba Siddique Murder Case
Source: Hindustan Times
Development: On 19th March, 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justice Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala and Justice Kalpathy Venkataraman Viswanathan refused to cancel the bail granted to Akashdeep Karaj Singh, an accused in the October 2024 murder of NCP leader Baba Siddique. The Court dismissed a plea by the leader’s widow, characterizing the Bombay High Court's February 9 order as “well-reasoned.” The Bench noted a lack of concrete evidence linking Singh to the crime or the Bishnoi gang, emphasizing that individuals cannot be "painted with the same brush" in criminal cases. It further critiqued the State Government for "waking up from its slumber" only after the victim's family moved the Court.
Land-For-Jobs Case: Delhi Court Rejects Plea By Lalu Yadav Seeking Documents Not Relied Upon By Prosecution
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 19th March, 2026, Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts rejected pleas by former Bihar Chief Ministers Lalu Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi seeking documents not relied upon by the prosecution in the land-for-jobs case. The Court held that there is no automatic right for an accused to obtain "unrelied" documents at the pre-trial stage. It emphasized that allowing the introduction of such documents without a projected defense would distort the trial process. The Court noted that the accused had already been provided with a list of these documents and the opportunity to inspect them, finding no prejudice in denying their immediate supply.
Tahir Hussain Moves Delhi Court Seeking Interim Bail In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case On Medical Grounds
Source: Live Law
Development: On 18th March, 2026, former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain moved a Delhi Court seeking interim bail in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. Hussain, an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), sought relief on medical grounds, citing his struggle with a hernia that requires surgery. Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts issued a notice to the Delhi Police and the Superintendent of Tihar Prison, seeking a detailed report on Hussain's health condition. This plea comes shortly after the same Court dismissed his regular bail application on 29th January, 2026, maintaining that the allegations against him were prima facie true.
MP High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Claiming Exclusion Of EWS Quota In Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Admissions
Source: Live Law
Development: On 17th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Vishal Mishra of the Madhya Pradesh High Court sought a response from the Central Government regarding a petition challenging the absence of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservations in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) admissions. The petition, filed by a Class V student, argues that while other schools under the Ministry of Education, such as Kendriya Vidyalayas, provide EWS quotas, JNVs have excluded them from their 2025-26 admission framework. The petitioner contends this omission violates Article 15(6) of the Constitution and creates an "unreasonable and discriminatory classification" between similarly situated students under the same Ministry.
Madras High Court Issues Directions For Removal Of Invasive Plant Species 'Seemai Karuvelam', Appoints Two Retired Judges To Oversee
Source: Live Law
Development: On 19th March, 2026, a bench of Justices N. Sathish Kumar and Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court issued extensive directions for the removal of the invasive “Seemai Karuvelam” across Tamil Nadu. Lamenting the lack of progress despite 11 years of Court orders, the Bench appointed two retired High Court judges to supervise the removal process. The Court launched a project titled "Sezhumai Karuvoolam," designating District Collectors as the central authorities for clearing the species and replanting native trees. It also directed the creation of a public webpage to track real-time progress, including the revenue generated from auctioning the removed wood as firewood.
Kerala High Court Orders Status Quo On State’s Nomination For SNDP Yogam Directors
Source: Live Law
Development: On 19th March, 2026, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, led by Chief Justice Soumen Sen, ordered a status quo regarding the nomination of directors for the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam. This interim order effectively halts the State Government's process of appointing new directors to the organization. The case arose from appeals filed by longtime General Secretary Vellappally Natesan and other office bearers challenging their disqualification by a Single Judge. The earlier ruling had disqualified 117 directors under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act for failing to file annual returns for consecutive years. The Division Bench will hear all connected matters on 23rd March (Monday).
Formulate Policy To Separate Law And Order From Investigation Wings: Rajasthan High Court To State Government
Source: Live Law
Development: On 19th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani of the Rajasthan High Court directed the State Government to formulate a clear policy for the separation of the law and order wing from the investigation wing of the state police. The Court noted that the current integrated system often leads to a compromised quality of investigation as police personnel are frequently pulled away for crowd control and security duties. The division bench emphasized that such a separation is a long-standing judicial mandate aimed at improving the professional standards of the force and ensuring timely completion of trials. The State has been asked to submit a compliance report within eight weeks outlining the steps taken toward this structural reform.
Madras High Court Orders Arrest Of Panama-Flagged Ship MV Zhong Peng You Yi
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 17th March, 2026, Justice C. Saravanan of the Madras High Court ordered the arrest of the Panama-flagged vessel MV Zhong Peng You Yi while it was stationed at the Kamarajar Port in Ennore. The order was passed in a commercial admiralty suit filed by a Singapore-based company seeking recovery of unpaid dues for bunker fuels supplied to the vessel. The Court directed the Marshall of the High Court to execute the warrant and communicate the arrest to the port and customs authorities to prevent the ship from sailing. The judge noted that a prima facie case for a maritime lien was established and the arrest was necessary to secure the plaintiffs' claim against the foreign owners of the vessel.
‘Don’t Know What You're Investigating, But Follow Procedure’: Delhi High Court Tells Delhi Police Over Alleged Illegal Detention Of Activists
Source: Live Law
Development: On 16th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by kin of activist Rudra Vikram, orally directed Delhi Police to follow the procedure prescribed in law during its investigation against 10 activists who alleged illegal detention. The Court noted that while it did not know the subject of investigation, procedural compliance was non-negotiable. The petitioner's counsel alleged that Rudra was released only after the Court's Sunday sitting on 15th March, and bore marks of physical injury from alleged torture. The Court declined to constitute a medical board, directed preservation of CCTV footage and listed the matter for 27th March along with other habeas corpus petitions concerning the remaining detainees.
Anticipatory Bail Allowed To ‘Middleman’ In Police Constable Recruitment Exam Fraud: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Source: Live Law
Development: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an individual accused of acting as a middleman in the Police Constable Recruitment Examination fraud. The applicant was accused of facilitating illegal selections by coordinating between candidates and solvers. In its order, the court observed that the investigation had progressed significantly and that the applicant's custodial interrogation was no longer strictly necessary, provided he cooperated with the ongoing probe. The bench also noted that several other co-accused had already been granted regular bail, establishing a ground for parity.
Subsequent Bail Applications Must Be Placed Before Same Judge Who Rejected Earlier Plea: Delhi High Court
Source: Live Law
Development: On 16th March, 2026, the Delhi High Court issued a categoric direction reinforcing the judicial principle that any subsequent bail application filed by an accused must be placed before the same judge who had previously rejected or dismissed an earlier bail plea in the same case. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while dealing with a procedural irregularity, noted that this practice is essential to prevent "forum shopping" and to ensure judicial discipline. The Court clarified that even if a judge has since moved from a criminal roster to a civil roster, the Registry must move an application to the Chief Justice to ensure the matter is heard by the original judge, provided they are still available in the same court.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To 2 Men Booked For ISIS Propaganda Under UAPA After 4 Years In Jail
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 20th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court granted bail to two Kashmiri men, Haris Nisar Langoo and Zamid Adil Bhat, who were arrested in 2021 by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for allegedly propagating Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) ideology. The court noted that the accused had spent over four years and four months in custody without the trial reaching a conclusion. The judges emphasized that continued detention would violate their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. Crucially, the court observed that the mere presence of radical digital material or "ideological alignment" does not automatically equate to operational participation in terrorism, and such activities alone do not justify prolonged incarceration without trial.
Blackmailing By Digital Platforms Like Digital Arrest: CJI Surya Kant
Source: Live Law
Development: On 20th March, 2026, CJI Surya Kant compared the conduct of unregulated digital platforms to "digital arrests," describing their coercive nature as a growing menace. While hearing a plea against the police practice of parading accused individuals on social media, the CJI agreed with the Solicitor General that some platforms act as "blackmailers." The Bench, including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, noted that such digital coercion is "unfortunately not an offence" under current law. The Court highlighted the dangers of "atomized social media" in fueling biased social media trials and compromising personal dignity.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Reserves Judgment On Former MLA’s Plea To Transfer Amaravati IRR Case To CBI
Source: The Hindu
Development: On 19th March, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reserved its judgment on a petition filed by a former MLA, Alla Ramakrishna Reddy seeking the transfer of the Amaravati Inner Ring Road (IRR) corruption case from the state Crime Investigation Department (CID) to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Andhra Chief Minister Shri N. Chandrababu Naidu, who was at that time Leader of the Opposition, is one of the prime accused in the case. A bench of Justice V.R.K. Krupa Sagar heard arguments from the petitioner, who alleged that the state agency is being used as a tool for political vendetta and that a fair probe is impossible under the current administration. The State Government opposed the plea, asserting that the investigation is in an advanced stage and no evidence of bias exists. After hearing extensive submissions from both sides, the Court concluded the proceedings and slated the matter for a final verdict.
“Investigation Against MP Navas Kani Has Begun,” Income Tax Dept Tells Madras High Court
Source: The Hindu
Development: The Income Tax Department informed the Madras High Court on 18th March, 2026, that it has launched an independent inquiry into allegations of suppressed income and unlawful enrichment against Ramanathapuram MP K. Navas Kani of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML). The department confirmed the legislator already appeared for questioning and submitted defense documents. The Court was hearing a petition filed by advocate K. Venkatachalapathy, who alleged the MP's assets grew exponentially between 2019 and 2024 despite limited legitimate income. While the department suggested closing the petition based on their progress, the bench directed the MP to file a formal counter affidavit by 26th March, 2026, to further aid the ongoing investigation.
Amrutanjan Possessed Mylapore Kapaleeswarar Temple Land Till 2018 Has 974 Crore Rental Arrears HR&CE Dept Tells Madras High Court
Source: The Hindu
Development: On 16th March, 2026, the Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar was informed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department that Amrutanjan Healthcare Limited owes ₹9.74 crore in rental arrears for a temple property in Mylapore. The department stated the company occupied the land belonging to the Kapaleeswarar Temple until 2018 but failed to pay the revised rent fixed by a committee. While the company challenged the fair rent fixation, the department argued that the occupant cannot continue to withhold dues while litigation is pending. The Court has now directed the company to file a detailed response regarding the calculation of these arrears and the status of the premises.
Delhi High Court Orders Takedown of Posts Linking Union Minister Hardeep Puri's Daughter To Jeffrey Epstein, But No Global Relief
Source: Live Law
Development: On 17th March, 2026, Justice Mini Pushkarna granted interim injunction in favour of Himayani Puri in her ₹ 10 crore defamation suit, directing social media platforms including Twitter, Google, YouTube, Meta and LinkedIn to take down allegedly defamatory content linking her to convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his criminal network. The content, which began circulating around 22nd February 2026, also falsely alleged her involvement in the collapse of Lehman Brothers. The Court however declined to pass a global takedown order, holding that the issue of global injunctions against platforms is pending before a Division Bench. The injunction operates within Indian jurisdiction, with foreign-origin Uniform Resource Links (URLs) to be blocked from Indian access within 24 hours.
HC Directs BRS To File Counter In PIL Pleas Over Land Allotment To BRS During BRS Rule
Source: The Hindu
Development: On 16th March, 2026, the Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin directed the Bharat Rashtra Samithi to file its counter affidavit within three weeks regarding the allotment of 11 acres of prime land during its tenure. The petitions challenge Government Order (GO) Ms No. 167 (issued in 2018), which authorized the land transfer for just ₹ 3.41 crore, a fraction of its multi-crore market value. Despite notices issued in July 2023, the BRS had failed to respond. The court is now scrutinizing whether this allotment, ostensibly for an "Institute of Excellence," constitutes an arbitrary misuse of power. The petitioners claim the allotment was made under the guise of an educational institute despite the party already possessing an existing office.
Illegal Resorts Inside Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve Sealed, TN Tells Madras HC
Source: The Indian Express
Development: On 20th March, 2026, the Madras High Court bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan was informed by the Tamil Nadu government that forty two illegal resorts within the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve eco sensitive zone have been sealed. The state submitted that out of fifty three inspected properties, only eleven had valid permissions. The bench granted authorities three weeks to file a fresh status report regarding remaining illegal structures. It also directed that any appeals from the sealed resorts must be considered by the relevant appellate authority.
Patna High Court Orders Toll-Free Helpline For Mentally Ill Persons, Stresses Vocational Training To Make Recovered Patients Self-Sufficient
Source: Live Law
Development: On 21st March, 2026, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar, hearing a suo motu PIL on deficiencies in Bihar's mental healthcare infrastructure, directed the State to establish a 24x7 toll-free helpline for reporting persons suffering from mental illness, with local police required to act under Section 100 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 upon receiving such information. The Court also directed the State to file a detailed report on vocational training and financial assistance being provided to recovering patients in half-way homes to make them self-sufficient.
III. Details of Important Cases
A. Supreme Court
Adoptive Mothers Entitled To 12 Weeks Maternity Leave Regardless Of Child's Age; Supreme Court Also Urges Centre To Enact Paternity Leave Law
Source: Live Law
Development: On 17th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan struck down Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, which restricted maternity leave of 12 weeks to adoptive mothers only if the adopted child was below 3 months of age, as unconstitutional. Reading down the provision, the Court held that a woman who legally adopts a child is entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave regardless of the child's age. In the same judgment, the Court urged the Central Government to enact a law recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit, emphasising that its duration must be responsive to the needs of both parents and the child.
Centre Forms Panel Of KK Venugopal, Justices Indu Malhotra, Aniruddha Bose To Re-Draft Chapter On Judiciary In NCERT Textbook
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 20th March, 2026, the Central Government informed a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.M. Pancholi has constituted an expert committee to re-draft the chapter on the judiciary in National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbooks. The committee includes former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, former Supreme Court Justice Indu Malhotra, and Justice Aniruddha Bose (Director of the National Judicial Academy). This development led to the disposal of a suo motu case registered by the Court over a controversial section in the Class 8 textbook “Exploring Society,” which reportedly included disparaging content regarding “corruption in the judiciary.”
Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad Following Haryana’s Refusal to Prosecute
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 16th March, 2026, the Supreme Court was informed by the Haryana Government that it had, on 3rd March, 2026, declined as a “one-time magnanimity” to grant sanction to prosecute Ashoka University faculty member Ali Khan Mahmudabad over Facebook posts on Operation Sindoor. Two FIRs had been registered against him, one for allegedly promoting hatred and endangering national integrity under the BNS, and another on a complaint by the Haryana Women's Commission Chairperson, following which he was arrested and granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on 21st May, 2025. The trial had also been stayed in August 2025. The Court, while noting the closure of the matter, cautioned Mahmudabad that as a highly learned person he must act prudently, observing that writing between the lines in sensitive situations can create problems.
Supreme Court Upholds SEBI Nod To Wework India IPO
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 13th March, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging SEBI's approval to WeWork India's IPO (Hemant Kulshrestha v. SEBI & Ors.), declining to interfere under Article 136 with the Bombay High Court's December 2025 order. The appellants had alleged that IPO documents failed to disclose significant criminal proceedings under PMLA against promoters and that investors cannot be expected to unearth omissions. WeWork India countered that SEBI had thoroughly vetted the Draft Red Herring Prospectus and ensured key enforcement risks were prominently disclosed. The Court found no grounds for interference. With this dismissal, the last remaining legal challenge to WeWork India's IPO stands closed.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea to Declare Guru Gobind Singh Jayanti a National Holiday
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 17th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed a petition filed in 2021 by the All India Shiromani Singh Sabha seeking declaration of Guru Gobind Singh Jayanti as a national public holiday across India and directions to the Central and State Governments to formulate a policy for declaration of public and gazetted holidays. The petitioner argued that no existing policy governed such declarations and that the Central Government had not responded despite notices being issued. The Court dismissed the petition, with Justice Mehta remarking orally that India already has numerous religious holidays and need not add more. The Court indicated it would pass a detailed judgment.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy Waste Disposal : Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Raise Mercury Leakage Concern Before MP High Court
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 16th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court directed a petitioner to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court regarding concerns of mercury leakage from toxic waste of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The petitioner challenged the incineration of 337 metric tonnes of waste, alleging that a report from Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad showed high mercury levels that the Government Oversight Committee failed to detect. The Court declined to interfere directly, noting it lacked scientific expertise to resolve conflicting technical reports. It emphasized that the High Court, which has monitored the decontamination for over two decades, is the appropriate forum to assess the risk of groundwater and soil contamination.
'We Can't Thrust Our Views' : Supreme Court On Plea To Reduce 5 Year LL.B Course As 4 Year
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 16th March, 2026, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to reduce the duration of the five-year integrated LL.B. course to four years. The petitioner, BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, argued that the extra year was an unnecessary burden on students. The Court remarked, "We can't thrust our views," emphasizing that matters of academic curriculum and duration fall strictly within the expertise of regulatory bodies like the Bar Council of India (BCI). Responding to the submissions, the Chief Justice said that issues relating to legal education require wider consultation among all stakeholders and cannot be decided solely by the judiciary. Observing that it cannot perform the role of an educationist, the Bench dismissed the plea.
Foreign Divorce Decree Not Enforceable In India If Party Had No Meaningful Opportunity
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 19th March, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that a divorce decree passed by a Foreign Court is not enforceable in India if the spouse residing in India was denied a meaningful opportunity to contest the proceedings. The Court held that such decrees violate principles of natural justice and Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It emphasized that mere formal service of notice is insufficient if the party lacks the financial or logistical means to represent themselves in a foreign jurisdiction. The Bench concluded that Indian Courts must protect the rights of abandoned spouses by scrutinizing whether the foreign judgment was delivered on merits and through a fair trial process.
Fresh Poll Not Needed When Election With 2 Candidates Set Aside, Runner-Up Be Declared Winner: Supreme Court
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 18th March, 2026, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court ruled that if an election featuring only two candidates is set aside due to the winner's disqualification, the runner-up must be declared elected without conducting a fresh poll. The Court set aside an Odisha High Court order that had called for new elections for a Panchayat Samiti Chairperson post regulated by the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959. The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal and High Court erred in seeking to give other members a fresh opportunity to contest after a valid election process between specific candidates had already concluded. Consequently, the Court restored the original tribunal's decision declaring the appellant as the duly elected Chairperson.
SAIL Entitled To Withhold Gratuity And Adjust Penal Rent Against Ex-Employees Who Illegally Retain Company Quarters: Supreme Court
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 19th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti allowed SAIL's appeals against Jharkhand High Court orders directing release of gratuity with interest to retired Bokaro Steel Plant employees who had not vacated staff quarters after superannuation. The Court upheld Rule 3.2.1(c) of the SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978, holding that SAIL is entitled to withhold gratuity and adjust penal rent against dues for unauthorised occupation, and that awarding interest on withheld gratuity would effectively reward such occupation. The Court held that penal rent is a natural consequence of holding over. However, exercising equitable jurisdiction, the Court fixed a uniform penal rent of ₹ 1,000 per month for the present batch only, noting that strict enforcement could erode gratuity entirely for retired skilled workers. SAIL and employees were directed to discharge their obligations simultaneously within four weeks.
‘Disturbing Animals After Lawful Import May Result In Cruelty': Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Vantara
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 19th March, 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria dismissed a PIL challenging the importation of animals by Vantara and its animal rehabilitation and welfare trusts. . The Court noted that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had already cleared the facility of any legal violations in a 2025 report. Crucially, the Bench observed that disturbing rescued animals after their lawful import, by questioning their custody or moving them again, could itself constitute “cruelty.” The Court emphasized that once administrative approvals for import are validly granted and acted upon, they cannot be casually undone based on subsequent objections.
Movie Making Is High Risk Business; Failure To Earn Profit Not Cheating: Supreme Court
Source: Bar and Bench
Verdict: On 19th March, 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra quashed a cheating case against a film producer, ruling that the failure of a movie project to generate profits does not constitute criminal cheating. The Court observed that filmmaking is inherently a “high-risk business” where no one can guarantee financial success. It emphasized that to establish the offense of cheating, a dishonest intention to deceive must exist from the very beginning of the transaction. In this case, the producer’s inability to return a lender’s investment after the film flopped was deemed a civil dispute rather than a criminal offense.
Vadodara Car Crash: Supreme Court Upholds Bail To Accused; Says He Was Under Influence Of Drugs
Source: Bar and Bench
Verdict: On 19th March, 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice N.V. Anjaria refused to cancel the bail granted to Rakshit Ravish Chorasiya, a 23 year old law student accused in a fatal car crash in Vadodara. The State of Gujarat had challenged the bail, highlighting that the accused was under the influence of drugs and showed no remorse, allegedly shouting “another round” after hitting multiple vehicles. However, the Court observed that because the accused was under the influence of drugs, the crash was “not at all voluntary or deliberate.” The Bench noted he had already spent nine months in custody for an offense carrying a maximum 10 year sentence and dismissed the State’s plea.
‘Go To HC': Supreme Court Rejects Journalist Ravi Nair’s Plea Against Gujarat Crime Branch Notice Over Article On Adani Ports
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 16th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed as withdrawn the writ petition filed by journalist Ravi Nair, Executive Director of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, challenging a Gujarat Crime Branch notice issued to him pursuant to a complaint allegedly filed by Adani Ports and SEZ Ltd in connection with an article he had written. The Court declined to entertain the petition directly and asked him to approach the jurisdictional High Court, granting liberty to do so. The article in question was reportedly published on a US-based news platform and related to Adani Ports operations.
UP Gangster Act Has Perilous Consequences, So Strict Compliance With Procedure Mandatory: Supreme Court
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 20th March, 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran quashed an FIR against an alleged gangster, Gabbar Singh, under the stringent UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Court held that "perilous consequences" follow when a person is labeled a gangster, making strict adherence to procedural safeguards mandatory. In this case, the "Gang Chart" used to invoke the Act lacked the essential signatures and recommendations of the Station House Officer (SHO) and the Additional Superintendent of Police, violating the 2021 Rules. The bench emphasized that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act to be done (especially one affecting personal liberty), it must be done in that manner or not at all.
HCs Can Look Beyond FIR/Complaint To Quash Frivolous Or Vexatious Criminal Proceedings : Supreme Court
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 20th March, 2026, while quashing a copyright infringement case against film producer Sujoy Ghosh, the Supreme Court clarified that High Courts exercising quashing powers are not restricted to the literal text of an FIR or complaint. A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe ruled that if a proceeding appears frivolous or vexatious, the Court has a duty to read between the lines and examine the broader record, including materials collected during investigation or expert reports. In this specific matter, the court noted that the complainant had concealed an earlier expert report from the Screenwriters Association that found no similarities between the film and the script.
Supreme Court Notifies New Procedure For Adjournment Letters
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 18th March, 2026, the Supreme Court notified a stricter, formal procedure for seeking adjournments to curb litigation delays, superseding previous 2025 guidelines. Under the new framework, adjournment letters are permitted only in "exceptional circumstances," such as medical emergencies or bereavement, and must be submitted before 11 AM on the previous working day with proof of service to the opposing side. The opposing counsel has the right to object by noon. Key restrictions include a "one-time-only" rule for fresh cases and a ban on two consecutive adjournments. Crucially, no adjournment requests will be entertained for cases listed as "regular matters," reinforcing the Court's commitment to timely judicial proceedings.
Supreme Court Grants Final 9-Month Extension To Complete Trial In Sheena Bora Murder Case
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 16th March, 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh granted a final nine month extension to the special CBI court in Mumbai to conclude the Sheena Bora murder trial. The order followed a request from the special judge seeking additional time to complete the proceedings, which began after the 2012 killing came to light in 2015. The bench explicitly stated that no further extensions would be entertained, signaling an end to the procedural delays in the case where 237 witnesses were originally cited. Additionally, the court granted prime accused Indrani Mukerjea liberty to file a fresh application for international travel.
B. Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Directs Maharashtra To Reconsider Distance Limit For School Admissions
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 17th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Laxman Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta directed the Maharashtra Government to remove the distance restriction imposed for admissions under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, which reserves 25% seats in private unaided schools for children from weaker sections. A Government Resolution dated 12th February, 2026 had imposed a rigid 1-kilometre limit for such admissions. Even after the State offered to extend it to 3 kilometres, the Court held that any fixed distance limit could defeat the Act's purpose, since at many places no school falls within the prescribed radius, reflecting the State's own failure to establish schools under Section 6 of the RTE Act. The Court directed the State to modify the policy and remove the distance restriction entirely.
Bombay High Court Closes Plea On LPG Shortage After Centre's Assurance
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 17th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode closed a petition filed by six distributors of Confidence Petroleum India Limited seeking directions to increase the supply of household LPG cylinders. The petition alleged that global crude supply disruptions arising from the Iran-Israel conflict had constrained LPG production, and that despite Ministry of Petroleum directives prioritising domestic supply, the company had failed to augment household cylinder supply. The Central Government, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, filed an affidavit assuring that the matter was being handled at diplomatic levels and that all domestic and international steps were being taken to prevent hardship to citizens. The Court accepted the assurance and closed the petitions.
Bombay HC Raps FRRO For Stalling US National's Exit Despite Sessions Court Travel Permission In Religious Conversion Case
Source: Bar and Bench
Verdict: On 18th March, 2026, Justice Nijamoodin Jahiroddin Jamadar of the Bombay High Court directed the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) to process the exit permit application of US national James Leonard Watson within two days, after it had refused to do so citing objections by the investigating agency. Watson is accused of attempting religious conversion at a prayer gathering in Bhiwandi and was booked under the BNS, the Maharashtra Black Magic Act, 2013 and the Foreigners Act, 1946. A Thane Sessions Court had granted him permission in February 2026 to visit his ailing mother in the United States between 9th March and 18th April, 2026. The Court held that an investigating agency cannot indirectly frustrate a valid judicial order by raising objections before the FRRO. It observed that the agency ought to have challenged the Sessions Court order in time rather than circumventing it through an administrative route.
C. Karnataka High Court
Karnataka HC Issues ‘Gender Neutral’ Guidelines To Obtain Spouse's Financial Records In Maintenance Cases, Says RTI Act Cannot Be Utilised
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 17th March, 2026, Justice Suraj Govindaraj set aside a Central Information Commission order directing the Income Tax Department to disclose a husband's ITRs to his estranged wife under the RTI Act, holding that such records constitute personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless larger public interest is demonstrated. The Court held that the RTI Act is not the appropriate mechanism for obtaining a spouse's financial records in maintenance proceedings and that the correct route is through the competent Matrimonial Court. It then issued comprehensive gender-neutral guidelines directing that Trial Courts may, even suo motu, summon ITRs from the Income Tax Department when fair determination of maintenance is not feasible without such records, provided the taxpayer-spouse is given a hearing before any production order is passed.
Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Child Marriage Case; Holds Subsequent Marital Happiness No Defence To Penal Liability
Source: The Hindu
Verdict: Justice Mahesh Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court dismissed petitions seeking quashing of a 2021 case under the Prohibition of Child Marriages Act registered against the groom, who was 27 at the time of marriage, and parents of both parties, for the marriage of a minor girl aged 16. The Court held that the couple living happily thereafter cannot retrospectively validate the illegality at the time of solemnization. The Court rejected the accused's plea of ignorance of law, noting they had registered the marriage only after the girl turned 18, indicating awareness.
CM’s Office Should Not Directly Entertain Requests For Posting And Transfer: Karnataka High Court
Source: The Hindu
Verdict: On 19th March, 2024, the Karnataka High Court ruled that the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) cannot directly entertain or process requests for the posting and transfer of government officials. Justice Mahesh Nagaprasanna set aside a transfer order of an assistant engineer, noting that the intervention of the Chief Minister in routine administrative placements bypassed established departmental procedures and seniority norms. The Court declared that such direct interference undermines the statutory framework governing civil services. While disposing of the matter, the judge directed the State Government to ensure that all future transfers originate from the concerned departments rather than being dictated by the CMO.
Law Over Compassion: Why Karnataka High Court Denied Govt Job To Minors Disabled Guardian
Source: The Indian Express
Verdict: On 18th March, 2026, the Karnataka High Court bench of Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad dismissed a petition seeking a compassionate appointment for a disabled spinster acting as a minor's guardian. The petitioner’s brother and his wife died in a 2017 accident, leaving behind a one year old child. Although rules were amended in 2021 to include certified guardians as eligible family members, the court ruled that the application was filed beyond the prescribed one year time limit from the date of death. The bench emphasized that compassionate appointment is a legal exception to regular recruitment and must be governed strictly by rules rather than individual circumstances or sympathy.
D. Kerala High Court
Kerala High Court Refuses To Suspend Ex-MLA Antony Raju's Conviction In Evidence Tampering Case
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 17th March, 2026, Justice C. Jayachandran of the Kerala High Court dismissed the plea filed by former Janadhipathiya Kerala Congress (JKC) MLA Antony Raju seeking to set aside the Sessions Court's order that had refused to suspend his conviction in the 1990 Thiruvananthapuram Airport evidence tampering case, where a narcotics-laden underwear belonging to Australian national Andrew Salvatore was allegedly switched to secure his acquittal. The Court had earlier heard detailed arguments on 6th March, 2026, raising pointed oral observations questioning the absence of proven motive and the non-impleading of the senior advocate, while also noting the case rested purely on circumstantial evidence. Despite those observations, the Court ultimately declined to interfere with the conviction, meaning Raju’s disqualification from contesting elections continues to operate pending the main appeal.
Intellectual Disability Caused By Motor Accidents Can’t Be Confined To Percentages: Kerala High Court
Source: Bar and Bench
Verdict: On 20th March, 2026, the Kerala High Court ruled that intellectual and cognitive disabilities resulting from motor vehicle accidents cannot be calculated through rigid mathematical percentages used for physical limb injuries. A bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Kartha Jayachandran and Johnson John observed that brain injuries affecting memory, behavior, and mental faculty have a profound impact on a person's quality of life and future prospects that exceeds a simple clinical assessment. The court set aside a lower tribunal's conservative award and enhanced the compensation, holding that the functional disability in cases of intellectual impairment must be assessed based on the actual loss of earning capacity and the lifelong need for a caregiver.
Kerala High Court Closes Plea On Angamaly-Sabari Rail Project After Railways ‘Defreezes’ It On State’s Offer To Bear 50% Cost
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 18th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. disposed of a 2019 PIL concerning the long-stalled Angamaly-Sabari railway line after the Ministry of Railways submitted that the project had been defreezed following a meeting on 18th February, 2026. The Kerala Government agreed to bear ₹1,900 crore, representing 50% of the total estimated project cost of ₹3,800.9 crore inclusive of land acquisition expenses, with financial assistance from KIIFB. The Court took on record official communications confirming the funding commitment and noted that preparatory measures for land acquisition, including dedicated district-level units, are underway, expressing hope that all stakeholders would ensure completion within a reasonable time.
E. Delhi High Court
Newslaundry Acted With Malicious Intent Towards TV Today, Its Tone Reflects Intolerance: Delhi HC Orders Takedown Of Disparaging Content
Source: Bar and Bench, Bar and Bench
Verdict: On 20th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla partly allowed TV Today's appeal in a suit filed in October 2021 alleging copyright infringement, defamation and commercial disparagement by Newslaundry against TV Today and its channels Aaj Tak and India Today. The Court found that Newslaundry had acted with malicious intent, its tone reflecting intolerance rather than fair criticism, noting that it not only targeted TV Today's editorial work but also commented negatively on the death of one of its anchors. It directed removal of statements including “high on weed or opium” and “your punctuation is as bad as your journalism,” holding these to be ex facie disparaging, biased and without any independent standard, going far beyond legitimate criticism.
Making Professor Clean Toilet To “Inculcate Dignity” Is Misconduct: Delhi High Court
Source: The Indian Express
Verdict: On 20th March, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh of the Delhi High Court set aside a clean chit given to the Jamia Millia Islamia administration, ruling that forcing a professor to clean toilets under the guise of “inculcating dignity of labour” constitutes professional misconduct and harassment. The Court was hearing a plea by a professor who was allegedly subjected to this treatment as a disciplinary measure. The judge observed that while dignity of labour is a noble concept, it cannot be used as a tool to humiliate or dehumanize a member of the faculty. The Court held that such actions fall outside the scope of permissible administrative or disciplinary conduct and directed the university to compensate the petitioner for the mental agony and loss of reputation.
Delhi High Court Quashes Look Out Circulars Against Prannoy Roy And Radhika Roy In CBI Cases
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 20th March, 2026, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court quashed the Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued at the behest of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against former NDTV promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy. The LOCs were linked to two FIRs registered in 2017 and 2019 regarding alleged financial irregularities. The Court noted that the CBI had already filed a closure report in the 2017 case, which the court accepted in January, 2025, while the 2019 case remains pending without a chargesheet. The judge ruled that the travel restrictions could not be sustained indefinitely, especially given the closure of the primary case, and quashed the circulars subject to the petitioners' continued cooperation with the ongoing investigation.
PMLA Can Apply Even If Scheduled Offence Predates The Law, Provided Proceeds Of Crime Continued To Be Possessed After Its Commencement
Source: Bar and Bench
Verdict: The Delhi High Court ruled that the PMLA can be invoked even if the scheduled offence occurred before the Act came into force on 1st July, 2005, provided the accused continued to possess or use the proceeds of crime after that date. A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla overturned a Single Judge's order that had quashed the ED's attachment of a Vasant Vihar property purchased in 2005 using funds allegedly linked to a NAFED cheating and conspiracy case. The Court held that money laundering under Section 3 PMLA is a continuing offence, encompassing not just the initial acquisition but ongoing possession and use of proceeds of crime and clarified this does not amount to giving the Act retrospective effect.
Delhi High Court Rejects Padmaja Kumari’s Plea in Mewar Royal Estate Dispute
Source: Bar and Bench
Verdict: On 17th March, 2026, Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court dismissed a testamentary petition filed by Padmaja Kumari Parmar seeking letters of administration over the estate of her late father Shri Arvind Singh Mewar, a member of the erstwhile Mewar royal family of Udaipur. Her brother Shri Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar had separately filed a testamentary case claiming their father left a will naming him sole heir to his self-acquired properties. Padmaja Kumari contended that no valid will existed and that it was executed under undue influence when their father was of unsound mind. The Court held that since the will's validity had assumed a contentious character under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, parallel intestacy proceedings would be contrary to the legislative scheme and risk inconsistent findings. Liberty was granted to raise all objections in Shri Lakshyaraj's case.
SSC Recruitment: Medical Opinions Obtained Independently By Candidate Can't Justify Fresh Medical Examination: Delhi High Court
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 17th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal order directing a fresh medical examination of a candidate declared medically unfit during SSC's recruitment process for the post of Constable (Executive). The candidate had relied on independent medical opinions obtained privately to challenge the official finding. The Court held that courts and tribunals must defer to the opinion of Government Medical Boards constituted specifically for recruitment purposes, and that a candidate's privately obtained medical opinions cannot by themselves justify a direction for re-examination. It further held that the CAT had exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own assessment for that of the expert medical board.
High Court Quashes UK Extradition In Murder Case; Says Prima Facie No Evidence Of Stabbing
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 20th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri of the Delhi High Court quashed the extradition order of an Indian national sought by the United Kingdom for a 2009 murder. The Court found that the medical evidence and witness statements did not prima facie support the prosecution’s claim that the deceased was stabbed by the accused. The judge noted that the essential requirement of establishing a dual criminality and a strong prima facie case for extradition under the Extradition Act, 1962, was not met. The Court highlighted significant discrepancies in the forensic reports provided by the UK authorities and held that the petitioner could not be sent to face trial abroad based on such weak and contradictory evidence.
F. Madras High Court
Madras High Court: “To Protect The Temple, The State Gave Away God”
Source: Bar and Bench
Verdict: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court quashed the Tamil Nadu Government's allotment of sand dune land in Periyapattu village to St. Joseph's Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Cuddalore, as alternative land in exchange for 3.40 acres of temple land mistakenly auctioned to the school in 1979. The Court found the alternative land unsuitable in nature, location and value. The resumed temple land was worth approximately ₹ 8 crore in Cuddalore town while the alternative land offered was valued at ₹ 2 crore and located 34 kilometres away without road access. The Court held that allotting ecologically sensitive sand dunes for development violated the public trust doctrine. It directed the State to identify suitable alternative land of equivalent value within and around Cuddalore within a fixed timeline. Failing that, the State must refund the value of the resumed land to the school.
Madras HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Ban On Pre-Poll Alliances Between Political Parties
Source: Live Law
Verdict: A bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan of the Madras High Court dismissed a plea by R. Viswanathan seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ban pre-poll alliances between political parties ahead of the upcoming assembly elections. The petitioner argued that pre-poll alliances are formed with selfish motives to defeat political opponents rather than serve voters, that smaller parties are forced into mergers, and that voters are left with no meaningful choice. The Court remarked that it could not issue directions to ECI restricting parties from forming pre-poll alliances and noted that a similar plea had already been dismissed by its Madurai Bench. Finding no merits, the plea was dismissed.
Madras High Court: Residence And Cultivation For Livelihood Essential For Forest Dweller Rights
Source: Live Law
Verdict: A Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender of the Madras High Court dismissed appeals filed by a group claiming forest dweller rights over land declared Reserved Forest in connection with the Panamarathupatti Lake and reservoir. The appellants contended that their ancestors had resided and cultivated the land for over 75 years, and that they qualified as "other traditional forest dwellers" under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The Court held that under Section 2(o) of the Act, primary residence in the forest and dependence on it for bona fide livelihood for at least three generations prior to 13th December, 2005 are essential conditions. It found that the appellants were presently residing outside the forest area and had been exploiting the land commercially rather than for subsistence cultivation, making them ineligible for the claimed status.
“Conducted Parallel Trial”: Madras High Court Quashes Tamil Nadu SHRC Order Against Police In Lois Sofia Case
Source: Live Law
Verdict: A bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed quashed the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission's order recommending ₹ 2 lakh compensation to Lois Sofia and disciplinary action against police officers who had arrested her in September 2018 for shouting "fascist BJP Government down, down" on a flight in the presence of then BJP Tamil Nadu president Smt. Tamilisai Soundararajan, who had lodged a complaint. The Court held that the SHRC had exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating on discrepancies in the FIR, including a handwritten insertion of Section 505(1)(b) IPC, which were properly matters for trial before a Magistrate. It held that the Commission had conducted a parallel trial and its findings were per se illegal, adding that the police officers' spot decisions to maintain law and order could not be faulted.
Madras HC Closes PIL Challenging “Anti-Federal” Provisions Of VB-G-RAM-G Act Replacing MGNREGA
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 18th March, 2026, a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan closed a PIL filed by Advocate T. Sivagnanasambandan challenging provisions of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act (VB-G-RAM-G), which replaces MGNREGA. The plea alleged that provisions granting the Central Government exclusive control over State-wise allocations, notified work periods and fund-sharing were anti-federal and ultra vires Articles 245 and 246, as they encroached on the State List and Concurrent List. The Court questioned whether constitutional validity of a law's provisions could be challenged by way of a PIL. The petitioner, unable to answer, agreed to withdraw and file a fresh petition after research.
Madras High Court: Detention Order Cannot Substitute Criminal Law
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 20th March, 2026, the Madras High Court ruled that preventive detention cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass ordinary criminal law. A bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and Sunder Mohan observed that the detaining authority failed to demonstrate how the accused, who was already in custody for a solitary offense, posed a threat to public order that could not be managed through regular prosecution. The Court noted that the subjective satisfaction of the authority was flawed as there was no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the individual.
Tamil Nadu Assembly Election 2026: Madras High Court Dismisses Cases Challenging Tender Conditions For Live Webcasting
Source: The Hindu
Verdict: On 17th March, 2026, the Madras High Court bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed petitions challenging the tender conditions for live webcasting in the upcoming state elections. Two surveillance companies argued that requirements for high annual turnovers and specific past experience were arbitrary and designed to favor large players. The Court ruled that judicial review in tender processes is limited and the tendering authority is the best judge of its own requirements. The bench noted that the Election Commission’s need for 1.5 lakh cameras across 75,032 polling stations necessitated stringent eligibility criteria to ensure technical capacity and reliable manpower for the large scale project.
G. Allahabad High Court
'No Impediment To Prayers On Private Premises, State Must Protect Worshippers': Allahabad HC Upholds Article 25 Rights Across All Faiths In Sambhal Namaz Case
Source: Live Law, The Indian Express
Development: On 16th March, 2026, the Allahabad High Court bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan disposed of a petition by Munazir Khan concerning administrative restrictions on Namaz in Sambhal during Ramzan. The Court ruled that prayer on private premises, regardless of faith, cannot be obstructed, and the State must act against any objection and provide protection. It clarified that Article 25 is religion-neutral, protecting all faiths, and asked if Hindu group prayers at home could similarly be stopped. The Court mandated compliance with its prior ruling in Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries v. State of Uttar Pradesh that no State permission is needed for religious prayer meetings on private property. However, the petitioner was admonished as the disputed structure was a single room, not a mosque, and Justice Nandan warned that incendiary post-prayer speeches are punishable under the BNS.
Allahabad High Court: Property Attachment Requires Crime Nexus, Not Just Relationship
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 17th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh of the Allahabad HIgh Court set aside attachment orders passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur and upheld by the Special Judge (Gangster Act) against Mansoor Ansari, cousin of late gangster Mukhtar Ansari, in respect of shops and a building valued at ₹ 26,18,025, alleged to be benami assets of Mukhtar Ansari. The Court held that under Section 14 of the UP Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, attachment requires an objective, evidence-based satisfaction that the property was acquired through commission of a scheduled offence, "reason to believe" is a higher standard than suspicion. Since Mansoor had no criminal history under the Act and there was no material linking his property to any criminal act, the Court held the attachment wholly arbitrary and directed immediate release of the property.
Allahabad High Court Orders Payout For Incorrect Criminal History; Slams UP Police Over Illegal Detention
Source: The Indian Express
Verdict: On 20th March, 2026, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, ordered the Uttar Pradesh Government to pay a compensation of ₹ 50,000 to a citizen who was illegally detained due to an incorrect criminal history provided by the police. The Court noted that the petitioner was kept in custody for several months because the police wrongly attributed cases belonging to a namesake to his record during a bail hearing. The bench slammed the Uttar Pradesh Police for “gross negligence” and “mechanical reporting,” observing that such errors result in a systemic denial of liberty. The Court further directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure that criminal antecedents are verified using unique identifiers like Aadhaar or Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and System (CCTNS) data to prevent such identity mix-ups in the future.
Ancient Jain Idol: Why Allahabad High Court Ordered Its Move To Central Museum From Police Custody
Source: The Indian Express
Verdict: On 20th March, 2026, a bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi of the Allahabad High Court directed that a 9th–10th century Jain idol, currently in police custody in Etah, be shifted to the Central Museum in Prayagraj. The order comes amid a sectarian dispute between the Digambar and Shwetambar sects of the Jain community, both claiming ownership of the artifact discovered during an excavation. The Court noted that previous Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) reports were inconclusive regarding the idol's specific sectarian character. The bench ruled that the idol should be placed in the museum for public view and subjected to a fresh, detailed examination by a team of experts from the ASI and the museum to determine its historical and religious nature.
UP Police Browbeating Judicial Magistrates? Allahabad High Court Tells Judges To Seek Contempt Of Court Action
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 19th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Jamshed Jehangir Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi of the Allahabad High Court advised judicial magistrates facing intimidation by police officers to initiate contempt of court references. The Court acknowledged that magistrates often face pressure or “frowns” from superior police officers when passing uncomfortable directions. It emphasized that magistrates must not hesitate in performing their legal duties due to such high-handedness. While dismissing a writ petition, the Court clarified that under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the appropriate remedy for non-registration of an FIR lies in moving the competent magistrate rather than filing representations.
H. Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Despite Statutory Status, Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Not 'State' Under Article 12: J&K&L High Court
Source: Live Law
Verdict: Justice Sanjay Dhar of the Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Pujari challenging his discontinuation of service by the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, holding that the Board, despite being constituted under statute, cannot be treated as "State" under Article 12 in the absence of financial, functional or administrative governmental control. The Court however clarified that Article 226 jurisdiction is wider than Article 12, and writs may lie against bodies performing public duties even if not "State." On merits, it held that the petitioner's adhoc appointment conferred no vested right to continue in service, and the impugned order being non-stigmatic and non-punitive required no procedural safeguards under Article 311.
Academic Arrangement Rules Can't Extend Registrar/Tutor Tenure Beyond 3 Years In Medical Colleges: J&K&L High Court
Source: Live Law
Verdict: A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that appointments made under the J&K Medical and Dental Education Academic Arrangement Rules, 2020 cannot be used as a mechanism to extend the tenure of posts such as Registrar, Tutor or Demonstrator in government medical and dental colleges beyond the maximum period of three years prescribed under the applicable recruitment framework. The Court held that the Academic Arrangement Rules were designed to fill temporary vacancies and manage short-term exigencies in medical education, and could not be stretched to confer indefinite or extended continuation on incumbents who had already completed their prescribed maximum tenure in such posts.
I. Tripura High Court
“No State Of War With Bangladesh, Cannot Deviate From Fair Tender Process”: Tripura HC Slams State For Overlooking Lowest Bidder
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 13th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit of the Tripura High Court set aside the State’s decision to award an embankment strengthening and anti erosion contract to the second lowest bidder in a tender process. The petitioner, a Class 1(A) contractor, had emerged as the lowest bidder but was rejected on grounds of alleged lack of experience and abnormally low rates. The Court held the decision arbitrary and violative of Article 14, observing that deviation from awarding a contract to the lowest bidder requires strong justification and cannot be defended by citing unrelated concerns such as the situation in neighbouring Bangladesh.
J. Punjab and Haryana High Court
Arms Licence A Right Or Privilege? Punjab And Haryana High Court Draws Line, Denies Permit To Delhi Lawyer Over Criminal Cases
Source: The Indian Express
Verdict: On 16th March, 2026, Justice Sandeep Moudgil of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that an arms licence is not a "right of entitlement" but a privilege subject to the licensing authority's satisfaction regarding an applicant's conduct and impact on public safety. The Court dismissed a plea by a Delhi-NCR based advocate whose application was rejected due to pending criminal cases in Varanasi, including charges of voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation, as well as property disputes. The Court emphasized that discretionary power under the Arms Act cannot be transformed into a fundamental right merely because an applicant faces personal threats.
‘Trafficking Under Garb Of US Migration’: Punjab And Haryana High Court Denies Bail To Agent Who Cheated Man Of ₹11 Lakh
Source: The Indian Express
Verdict: On 17th March, 2026, Justice Sumeet Goel of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a pre-arrest bail plea filed by an accused, Harish Walia, charged with defrauding a complainant of ₹11.25 lakh on the pretext of facilitating legal migration to the United States. The Court observed that such fraudulent activities strike at the “very fabric of social trust” and often fall within the ambit of organized human trafficking. The bench emphasized that the offense was not merely financial deceit but had far-reaching consequences on public order and human dignity. Consequently, the Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the broader conspiracy and recover the illicit funds, refusing to grant leniency at the pre-trial stage.
Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Law Student Booked For FB Posts Against Hindu Deity
Source: Bar and Bench
Development: On 16th March, 2026, Justice Sumeet Goel of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail plea filed by a law student booked under provisions relating to promoting enmity, hurting religious sentiments and cheating. The accused allegedly posted derogatory content on Facebook targeting Hindu deity Bajrang Bali Hanuman and made objectionable remarks against a caste community. He was additionally accused of falsely presenting himself as a practising advocate despite being an LLB student not enrolled with any Bar Council. The Court held that preliminary investigation prima facie supported the allegations and that custodial interrogation was necessary for an effective probe. It rejected the argument that bail could be granted since nothing remained to be recovered from the accused.
K. Calcutta High Court
Click, You’ve Been Served: Calcutta High Court Rules ED Can Send PMLA Notices Summons Via Email
Source: The Indian Express
Verdict: On 16th March, 2026, the Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Krishna Rao ruled that summons and show cause notices served by the Enforcement Directorate via email are legally valid under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Court rejected a petitioner’s argument that physical service was mandatory, citing statutory rules and the Information Technology Act which recognize electronic transmission. While upholding the digital service, the bench noted that natural justice requires the complete supply of “relied upon documents” to allow a proper defense. Consequently, the Court directed the adjudicating authority to provide all relevant documents to the petitioner within two weeks and allowed a subsequent period for filing a supplementary reply.
I. Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Tribunal Order Granting Service Benefits Without Hearing State's Version
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 20th March, 2026, the Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside an order of the State Administrative Tribunal that had granted service benefits to an employee without a formal response from the Government. A bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed that the Tribunal had proceeded to pass a final order on the very first day of the hearing without giving the State a reasonable opportunity to file its reply. The Court ruled that such a procedure violates the principles of natural justice and the fundamental right to be heard. Consequently, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after considering the State's contentions.
M. Gujarat High Court
Wife Earning Some Income Cannot Be The Sole Criteria To Deny Maintenance: Gujarat High Court
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 19th March, 2026, Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar of the Gujarat High Court ruled that the mere fact that a wife is earning some income cannot be the sole ground for a husband to refuse maintenance. The Court emphasized that the test is whether the wife’s income is sufficient to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed in her matrimonial home. The bench observed that maintenance is a social justice measure intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The Court set aside a lower court order that had denied maintenance simply because the wife was gainfully employed, holding that the husband’s legal and moral obligation to support his spouse remains unless her income is demonstrably adequate for her complete sustenance.
N. Telangana High Court
State Cannot Compel Employees To Accept Promotions Against Their Will Says Telangana High Court Citing Statutory Right To Forego
Source: The Indian Express
Verdict: On 17th March, 2026, the Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G. M. Mohiuddin ruled that the state cannot compel a Government employee to accept a promotion against their will. The Court set aside a previous single judge order that used “public interest” to force a senior professor of Ophthalmology to accept a principal’s post at a new medical college. The bench held that under Rule 11(b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, an employee has a statutory right to forgo a promotion, with the only consequence being forfeiture of that promotion for the specific year.
O. Andhra Pradesh High Court
Integrity Allegations Against Judicial Officers Must Be Verified From Multiple Sources Before Adverse ACR Entry
Source: Live Law
Verdict: On 16th March, 2026, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that allegations concerning the integrity of judicial officers must be thoroughly cross-checked and substantiated from multiple sources before recording adverse remarks in their Annual Confidential Reports (ACR). The Court emphasized that a judge’s reputation is their most valuable asset and cannot be tarnished by vague or unverified complaints from disgruntled litigants. It noted that while Superior Courts have the duty to monitor the conduct of the subordinate judiciary, such oversight must be exercised with caution to ensure that honest officers are not demoralized by baseless aspersions on their character without a preliminary inquiry or objective material.
P. Tribunals and Other Courts
J&K Consumer Court Orders IndiGo To Pay ₹1.19 Lakh For Loss Of Passenger Baggage
Source: Live Law
Verdict: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Baramulla and Bandipora allowed a consumer complaint against IndiGo Airlines over the loss of checked in baggage during an international journey from Dammam to Srinagar via Delhi. The Commission comprising President Peerzada Qousar Hussain and Member Nyla Yaseen noted that the complainants had checked in five pieces of luggage but received only four upon arrival. Despite a Property Irregularity Report and subsequent communication, the airline failed to trace the missing baggage. Holding the airline liable for deficiency in service, the Commission awarded ₹ 1,19,000.
Antrix-Devas Corruption Case: CBI & NIA Special Court Returns CBI Chargesheet After 10 Years Citing Lack Of Jurisdiction
Source: Bar and Bench
Verdict: On 17th March, 2026, Special Judge (CBI) Atul Krishna Agarwal returned the 2016 CBI chargesheet filed against former Indian Space Research Organisation Chairperson G. Madhavan Nair, former ISRO Additional Secretary Veena Sri Ram Rao and other officials in the Antrix-Devas deal corruption case, holding that the Delhi Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the substantial portion of the alleged acts of cheating and corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act occurred within Bengaluru. The case stemmed from a 2005 agreement between Antrix Corporation and Devas Multimedia under which satellite spectrum was allegedly leased at throwaway prices, causing a loss of ₹ 578 crore to the exchequer. The CBI was directed to approach the competent court in Bengaluru.
Overall, the week reflects the continued centrality of the judiciary in addressing complex legal questions and maintaining the functioning of institutional frameworks across sectors. The decisions and proceedings highlighted in this digest demonstrate the courts’ role in interpreting statutory provisions, examining administrative actions, and clarifying procedural safeguards in diverse contexts.
From constitutional questions on institutional powers to rulings on service law, criminal justice, and social welfare measures, the judiciary’s engagement remains wide-ranging and consequential. The developments also indicate an ongoing emphasis on due process, accountability, and consistency in the application of legal principles across jurisdictions.
As legal and governance challenges continue to evolve, consistent tracking of such developments remains essential for understanding broader regulatory and institutional trajectories. This digest aims to serve as a reliable reference point for those seeking a concise yet substantive understanding of India’s judicial landscape.