In X v. State of Bihar & Anr., the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines for Juvenile Justice Boards while conducting preliminary assessments under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act for children aged 16–18 accused of heinous offences. The Court held that Boards must independently evaluate four statutory factors—mental capacity, physical capacity, understanding of consequences, and the circumstances of the alleged offence—without conducting a mini-trial or determining guilt. Expert opinions are advisory and cannot be treated as conclusive. Equal importance must be given to the Social Investigation Report and Social Background Report. The Court emphasized reasoned orders, independent application of mind, protection of the presumption of innocence, and the reformative objective of juvenile justice.
In Harshita Grover v. Union of India & Others, the Supreme Court issued an interim direction prohibiting the uploading, clipping, editing, reposting, dissemination, or monetisation of audio-video recordings of court proceedings without prior permission. The Court clarified that livestreaming promotes transparency but does not permit unrestricted digital exploitation or commercial use. It expressed concern that selective clips, AI-generated deepfakes, and manipulated recordings could misrepresent judicial proceedings and undermine public confidence. The restriction does not affect fair and accurate news reporting. Permission must be obtained from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the concerned High Court’s Registrar General before sharing official court recordings.
In Khalid Eqbal v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., the Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a father accused of kidnapping his four-year-old son from the mother’s custody. The Court held that a biological father, being a natural guardian of his minor child, cannot ordinarily be said to have kidnapped his own child under Section 363 IPC by taking the child from the mother’s custody. Kidnapping requires taking a minor from the keeping of a lawful guardian. The Court also rejected the allegation under Section 323 IPC, observing that a mere allegation of “maar peet” without medical evidence, injury report, or specific details establishing bodily pain was insufficient to constitute the offence of voluntarily causing hurt. Similarly, no ingredients of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC were established. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and quashed the Magistrate’s summons and the entire criminal proceeding.
In Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the continuing deaths of workers while cleaning sewers despite its earlier directions to eradicate manual scavenging. The Court noted that 54 sewer deaths were reported in 2024 and 46 in 2025, raising concerns about the ineffective implementation of its orders. It observed that judicial directions had not sufficiently “percolated” to the local level. The Court also emphasized administrative accountability, rejecting attempts by States to shift responsibility onto private contractors. It held that senior administrative authorities must ensure compliance with the law and court directions. The Supreme Court issued show-cause notices to the Chief Secretaries of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. The judgment reinforces that manual scavenging violates human dignity and Article 21, and that constitutional and judicial protections must be effectively implemented on the ground.
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju (2026 INSC 744), the Supreme Court clarified the scope of an accused’s right to legal representation during police interrogation under Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The case arose from an alleged custodial death. While granting police custody of the accused Police Inspector, the lower courts imposed conditions requiring interrogation inside Central Prison, continuous videography including during transit, and the presence of advocates throughout interrogation. The Supreme Court held that such rigid conditions could make effective investigation unworkable. Section 38 BNSS gives an arrested person the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, but not throughout the interrogation. Therefore, a lawyer cannot remain continuously present or interfere with questioning. The Court also removed the requirement of uninterrupted videography during transit, while maintaining safeguards for actual interrogation and discovery procedures. The judgment emphasizes a balance between an accused’s Article 21 rights and the police’s power to conduct an effective investigation. Judicial safeguards must protect against custodial abuse without defeating legitimate investigative requirements.