The wife filed for divorce alleging cruelty and adultery, claiming her husband stayed at a Jaipur hotel with another woman between 29 April–1 May 2022. With CCTV footage already deleted, she sought hotel booking records, occupant IDs, payment details and his Call Detail Records; the Family Court allowed this in a sealed cover. The husband challenged it up to the Supreme Court, citing his right to privacy. The Court (Justices Manmohan and Vinod Chandran), citing K.S. Puttaswamy and Joseph Shine, held privacy is not absolute and must yield to a spouse's statutory right to prove adultery under Section 13(1)(i) HMA, aided by Section 14 of the Family Courts Act. Sealed-cover production balances privacy with evidentiary need; the appeal was dismissed.
In Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana (2026 INSC 667), a life convict sought premature release under the 2002 Haryana Remission Policy (Article 161), but the State applied the stricter 2008 statutory policy. The High Court relied on State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021), which called the 2002 policy a mere "statutory memo." The Supreme Court (Justices Karol and Kotiswar Singh) held Raj Kumar was per incuriam, since it ignored the 3-judge bench ruling in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010), which treated the 2002 policy as constitutional in nature. A smaller bench cannot override a larger bench; such conflicting rulings must instead be referred onward. The appeal was allowed, Jagdish restored, and the State directed to reconsider remission within four weeks.
An 8-year-old was allegedly sexually assaulted by a senior student; she told her sister and Head Girl, who informed the Headmistress. School authorities privately "verified" the complaint, noticed injuries, but stayed silent instead of reporting to police, until the mother filed an FIR months later. Lower courts discharged the Headmistress for lacking direct "knowledge." The Supreme Court (Justices Misra and Viswanathan) held knowledge under POCSO Section 19 isn't limited to eyewitnessing—credible information from a child triggers mandatory reporting. Schools cannot run their own "mini-trials"; only police/SJPU may verify. Her discharge was set aside for trial, while teachers with no direct information from the victim remained discharged, since liability requires direct receipt of the complaint.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Mittal's private member's Bill, introduced in the Rajya Sabha in December 2025, proposes a statutory National Commission for Men modeled on the NCW, to probe men's grievances and Section 498A misuse, alongside welfare and counselling services. It explicitly bars intervening in a woman's complaint unless a court has already found it false or malicious. The demand gained momentum after high-profile suicides (Atul Subhash, Puneet Khurana) and murders of husbands (Raja Raghuvanshi, Ketan Agarwal) fuelled #MenToo activism. Courts have repeatedly upheld Section 498A's constitutionality (Janshruti v. UOI, 2025) under Article 15(3)'s protective-legislation exception, while cautioning against misuse case-by-case. As a private bill, its chances of passage remain historically slim.
Advocate Ajay Vijh's name was placed on the Indian Banks' Association's Caution List over a legal opinion the bank deemed negligent. The Supreme Court (Justices Narasimha and Aradhe) set aside his inclusion, holding a banking body cannot blacklist an advocate through such a list without due process. Beyond the individual relief, the Court directed the Bar Council of India to constitute a multi-stakeholder committee for a comprehensive performance audit of disciplinary mechanisms run by it and State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961, citing chronic pendency, delays and lack of transparency. Ten assessment factors were laid down, including disposal times and sanction patterns. The Court framed this as evidence-based reform, not blame, reasoning self-regulation must be matched with accountability; BCI must file a compliance affidavit.
A wife suffered fatal burns in 2000; her father alleged dowry harassment by the husband and 16 relatives. Over 26 years, 16 relatives were acquitted through split trials, leaving only the husband convicted; the High Court later ordered a fresh retrial on procedural grounds instead of deciding on merits. The Supreme Court (Justices Kumar and Vinod Chandran) found the prosecution suppressed a Dying Declaration in which the wife said the fire was accidental (a leaking gas pipe) and that her husband was burned trying to save her. Documentary proof showed he'd invested heavily in her name, far exceeding the alleged ₹50,000 demand, while no post-mortem or independent witnesses were examined. Applying Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's "probable hypothesis of innocence" test, the Court acquitted him outright.
A 6-year-old went missing in Palwal, Haryana in May 2021; her body was found the next day, raped and strangled. DNA evidence matched neighbor Anand Singh, last seen buying her biscuits. The Trial Court awarded death; on confirmation, the Punjab & Haryana High Court (Justices Chitkara and Dimri) upheld conviction, calling the DNA evidence conclusive despite flawed investigation, and invoked Evidence Act Section 106 since the accused couldn't explain what happened after being last seen with her. On sentencing, citing the accused's youth, clean record and "residual doubt" from careless investigation, the Court commuted death to life imprisonment without remission for 50 actual years, following the Swamy Shraddananda "middle path," plus ₹73 lakh compensation to the family.
A client's "deficiency in service" complaint against his lawyer was dismissed successively by the District Forum, State Commission and NCDRC; he then petitioned the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi (2024), the High Court (Justices Tilhari and Samanta) held the legal profession is sui generis and a lawyer-client relationship is a "contract of personal service," not a "contract for services," since the client directly controls and instructs the lawyer—placing it outside the Consumer Protection Act's definition of "service." Advocates owe fiduciary, not consumer-law, duties. The petition was dismissed, though lawyers remain accountable to Bar Councils under the Advocates Act for professional misconduct.
The Bar Council of India (BCI), through Circular No. BCI:D:4657/2026 dated July 17, 2026, has introduced a Digital Ethics Code for advocates, law students, and interns under the Advocates Act, 1961. The Code prohibits courtroom reels, "Day in Chamber" videos, client testimonials, clickbait legal promotions, misuse of live-streamed proceedings, and AI-generated deepfakes involving judges or litigants. Law students and interns must sign confidentiality undertakings before internships and are barred from revealing case files, client details, or presenting themselves as advocates. Violations are categorized as minor, serious, or aggravated, attracting penalties including internship withdrawal, disciplinary proceedings, or removal from the State Roll. State Bar Councils will establish Digital Ethics Committees to monitor online conduct and enforce professional standards in the digital space.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court of India has approved a comprehensive strategy to reduce case backlog and improve judicial efficiency. The Court will prioritize 100 "bunch matters," where a single judgment can resolve around 9,177 connected cases, significantly reducing pendency. After these are decided, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays will be dedicated to hearing the oldest pending matters. As part of the Samadhan Samaroh, all judges will participate in a Special Lok Adalat from August 21–23 to encourage speedy dispute resolution. To strengthen case management, advocates must specify the time required for oral arguments, enabling better scheduling. A committee will simplify and standardize the daily Cause List, while parties appearing without lawyers will be allowed to interact virtually with the Registrar under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. These reforms reinforce efficiency, digital accessibility, and judicial discipline to ensure faster delivery of justice.
Following its February 2025 suo motu intervention against an Allahabad High Court ruling that grabbing a minor's breasts and tearing clothing wasn't "attempt to rape" but mere aggravated sexual assault, the Supreme Court (CJI Surya Kant, Justices Bagchi and Mohana) learned a Patna High Court order had repeated near-identical regressive reasoning. The Bench criticized High Courts for inadequate research before contradicting settled SC positions, and stressed offensive local-dialect phrasing often masks victims' trauma. It approved a National Judicial Academy handbook (headed by Justice Aniruddha Bose) on judicial sensitivity in sexual-offence cases, directing all courts, State DGPs, and prosecution directors to follow it, and ordering its circulation to judicial academies and NLUs for training.
In Dilip Agarwal v. Rajshri Agarwal & Ors., the Supreme Court held that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be awarded merely because a vehicle was involved in the sequence of events leading to a person's death. The Court ruled that claimants must establish a real and proximate causal link between the use of the vehicle and the fatal injuries. Since there was no evidence proving that the deceased was murdered inside the vehicle or that the vehicle contributed to the death, the compensation award was set aside. The Court clarified that murder claims are compensable only when directly connected with the vehicle's use.
The Kerala High Court, in Geetha v. State Police Chief, criticized the routine handling of hit-and-run cases and observed that investigations often gain momentum only after media attention. The Court directed the State to establish district-level special squads for prompt and scientific investigation of such cases. It emphasized immediate collection of CCTV footage, forensic evidence, toll-plaza records, and digital data during the "golden hours" after an accident. The Court also highlighted deficiencies in the Hit-and-Run Compensation Scheme, 2021, and suggested considering a dedicated statutory compensation authority for victims. It reaffirmed that effective investigation and fair compensation are integral to Article 21.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced in the Lok Sabha, seeks to increase the Supreme Court's sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. The Bill replaces the 2026 Ordinance and amends the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 under Article 124 of the Constitution. Parliament can make this change through an ordinary law without a constitutional amendment. The objective is to improve judicial capacity, reduce case pendency, and facilitate Constitution Benches. However, increasing sanctioned strength alone will not reduce delays unless existing vacancies are promptly filled through the Collegium-based appointment process.
The Supreme Court, in In Re Pay and Allowance of the Members of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, addressed inadequate pay and service conditions of members of Consumer Commissions. The Court expressed concern that retired judicial officers appointed to District Consumer Commissions in Uttar Pradesh received extremely low remuneration, with some reportedly receiving only ₹5,000–₹10,000 per month. It emphasized that fair and respectable compensation is essential to maintain the dignity and effectiveness of quasi-judicial bodies. The Court also introduced a pendency-based approach to administrative efficiency. States having fewer than 1,000 pending consumer cases may consider abolishing certain District Commissions, subject to concurrence of the jurisdictional High Court and transfer of matters to serving judicial officers. The Court further directed states to comply with earlier orders concerning pay protection and submit compliance reports, reinforcing state accountability and the independence of consumer justice institutions.