What the legal press is reporting

The Delhi High Court recently imposed costs of ₹25,000 on a litigant, Mohammad Ahmad, who sought the transfer of a case from the Karkardooma district court due to alleged bias from the presiding judge. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar criticized the petitioner for making serious allegations against the judicial officer based solely on oral observations made during court proceedings. The court stated that such claims should not be made lightly and emphasized that the transfer provisions under the Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked on mere apprehensions of bias. The petition was dismissed as an abuse of the court process, with the judge noting that allegations should be substantiated and not based on a litigant's interpretation of judicial remarks.

The Kerala High Court has set aside the Central government's decision to deny the renewal of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) registrations for two NGOs, the Kerala Social Service Forum and Save a Family Plan India. The court's ruling, delivered by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, stated that there was insufficient evidence to support claims that the NGOs had funded protests against the Vizhinjam Port project. The court emphasized that even if financial support had been provided to peaceful protesters, it could not be classified as an undesirable purpose under the FCRA. The right to peaceful protest is constitutionally protected, and the court noted that administrative disapproval of dissent does not transform such support into an undesirable purpose. Both NGOs had held FCRA registrations since 1985, but their renewal applications were rejected based on a report from a central security agency alleging their involvement in funding the protests. The court found that the allegations were not substantiated by evidence, thus ruling in favor of the NGOs.

On August 12, 2026, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition requesting a uniform policy for the regularization and demolition of long-standing unauthorized constructions across the country. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, stated that such matters fall within the policy domain of individual States and that a one-size-fits-all approach would be imprudent. The Court noted that circumstances vary significantly across States, necessitating different policy frameworks. However, it encouraged States and Union Territories to consider the issues raised in the petition filed by the Centre for Law and Good Governance, which highlighted inconsistencies in demolition practices and argued that demolitions, often carried out without notice and without rehabilitation plans, violate the rights to shelter and dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court stated that it has already issued directions against illegal and unauthorized demolitions but did not establish a court-empowered committee to enforce such policies, indicating that this would interfere with the powers of local authorities.

On August 12, 2026, the Karnataka High Court ordered the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to provide CCTV footage from Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru, which is related to a gold smuggling case involving actress Ranya Rao. The court was informed by Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath that there was a misunderstanding regarding the extent of the footage to be supplied. Justice Suraj Govindaraj was hearing Rao's plea for complete footage of her movements at the airport from 4:30 PM on March 3, 2025, to 6:00 AM on March 4, 2025. Rao's counsel argued that the footage provided only covered part of the requested time frame. The ASG clarified that the original footage had already been erased, but preserved footage would be handed over. Rao was arrested on March 3, 2025, for allegedly smuggling 14.2 kg of gold valued at approximately ₹12.56 crore from Dubai and was later released after a year of preventive detention under COFEPOSA, although she continues to face proceedings in the case.

On August 12, 2026, the Supreme Court of India announced it would hear a plea concerning the disruption of essential services during protests and strikes. The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, directed that this plea be tagged with another ongoing case related to the use of Jantar Mantar as a venue for protests in the national capital. The petitioner’s counsel argued that protests often lead to significant disruptions, making it difficult to distinguish between protesters and non-protesters, which affects public movement and essential services. The Court acknowledged the existing case regarding Jantar Mantar, which raises concerns about its suitability for public protests due to safety and logistical issues, particularly in light of recent student protests that began in June 2026. The Court had previously asked the Solicitor General to provide instructions on this matter during a hearing on August 3, 2026.

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a series of police notices issued to Cloudnine Hospital and its senior consultant in connection with the death of a patient who underwent a hysteroscopic polypectomy in May 2026. The court determined that an inquiry into a patient's death, initiated through an unnatural death report (UDR), does not permit the police to conduct a criminal investigation without the registration of a first information report (FIR). Justice M Nagaprasanna emphasized that the police cannot disrupt the functioning of a healthcare institution or summon staff under the guise of an inquest. The court noted that the hospital had complied with police requests but found that the manner of evidence collection, including demands for surgical machinery and patient records, would hinder hospital operations and affect other patients. The court also highlighted that the complainant had sought the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Medical Council to assess the hospital's liability. The ruling underscored the distinction between an inquiry under a UDR and a formal investigation following an FIR, stating that the former does not grant the police unrestricted authority to interfere with hospital operations.

President Droupadi Murmu has given her assent to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026, which increases the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. The Act, which received presidential assent on August 11, 2026, will be effective retrospectively from May 16, 2026, the date when an ordinance on the same matter was promulgated. The legislation repeals the ordinance while protecting actions taken under it. The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Union Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal on July 20, passed by the Lok Sabha on August 3, and returned by the Rajya Sabha on August 5. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had requested the increase in judges due to a growing inflow of cases, with over 92,000 pending cases reported as of January 1, 2026. This is the first increase in the Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength since 2019, when it was raised from 30 to 33 judges.

The Centre has presented its case before the Supreme Court, asserting that a rule requiring private hospitals to charge within a government-determined range for medical procedures is constitutionally valid. This rule is part of the Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012, specifically Rule 9(ii). The government contends that this regulation aims to standardize charges across clinical establishments, thereby preventing excessive pricing, price gouging, and arbitrary inflation, which would ultimately protect patients. However, the Centre acknowledged that the specific range of rates has not yet been finalized due to a lack of consensus among states.

The Allahabad High Court has ordered an inquiry into the actions of senior police officers in Ghaziabad, including the commissioner, for failing to register a First Information Report (FIR) related to a complaint that involved allegations of digital rape, molestation, and other offenses. The court's directive came during the hearing of a case titled Arpit Gupta v State of UP and 2 Others, where it was emphasized that police cannot refuse to file an FIR based on the absence of material evidence such as WhatsApp chats or call recordings from the complainant. The court stated that the burden of conducting a lawful investigation should not be placed on the victim, and the police must act on the complaint without requiring prior evidence to substantiate the claims.

Madhu Purnima Kishwar, an academic, has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking to quash an FIR filed by the Chandigarh Police. The FIR was registered in April 2026 following a complaint regarding a 14-second video clip shared by Kishwar on social media, which allegedly misrepresented Prime Minister Narendra Modi receiving a face massage from a woman. During the hearing, Justice Vikram Aggarwal directed the Chandigarh Administration to file an affidavit addressing the assertions made by Kishwar in her petition. The court also directed the parties to address how the quashing petition would be maintainable in light of a previous court judgment regarding Kishwar's anticipatory bail application, which had been dismissed.

The Karnataka High Court, during a hearing on August 11, 2026, addressed a plea from the Hindu Jagarana Vedike seeking permission to hold a torchlight march in Mysuru on Independence Day. Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that the organizers would be subject to strict liability, meaning they would be held accountable for any untoward incidents that may occur during the event. The court emphasized that the organizers must provide the names of individuals responsible for the event, asserting that no defense would be permitted in the event of any issues arising. The Hindu Jagarana Vedike described the march as a secular and patriotic event intended to promote nationalism and commemorate historical events leading up to India's independence. The police opposed the rally, raising concerns about potential disturbances.

On August 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India acquitted a man accused of raping a five-year-old girl in a case titled Ram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh. The Court criticized the Himachal Pradesh High Court for reversing the trial court's acquittal without adequately considering the medical and forensic evidence presented. The Supreme Court noted that the absence of blood on the victim's clothes and the lack of injuries on her body raised significant doubts about the prosecution's case. A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul Chandurkar emphasized that the High Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record before overturning the trial court's decision.

On August 11, 2026, the Delhi High Court ordered the Central government to immediately assign one additional personal security officer (PSO) to Pappu Yadav, an independent Member of Parliament representing Purnia, Bihar. This directive came after Yadav reported receiving death threats and public calls for his beheading, particularly following an attack at his official residence in Delhi after he performed a skit addressing alleged theft related to Ram Temple donations. Justice Manoj Jain emphasized that the threats were credible and warranted increased security measures.

On August 11, 2026, the Kerala High Court urged both the Central and State governments to consider implementing a monthly pension of ₹50,000 for living freedom fighters. The court also recommended the establishment of a special welfare fund and the creation of a data portal to maintain updated information on these individuals, allowing them to access available welfare schemes. This directive was issued by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. during a public interest litigation case.

The Delhi High Court has instructed the Private Secretaries of Supreme Court and High Court judges to submit Permanent Account Number (PAN) details and other relevant information to the Income Tax Department. This directive follows a previous interim order related to the taxability of judicial allowances under the new tax regime. The court is addressing whether certain allowances received by judges should be exempt from taxable income, a matter currently under dispute.

The Calcutta High Court recently questioned the contention that Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee is influential enough to interfere with police investigations if granted further interim protection. During a hearing on Banerjee's plea to quash three FIRs against him, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya noted that the demolition of Banerjee's office was initiated on a Friday evening, which forced courts to sit on weekends to hear petitions seeking relief. The court also indicated that the political situation in West Bengal has changed, questioning whether such actions could have happened before the current government.

The National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal has emerged victorious in the first National Trial Advocacy Competition organized by National Law University Delhi (NLUD) in collaboration with Think India. The valedictory ceremony took place on August 9, 2026, at the Moot Court Hall of NLU Delhi, where prizes were awarded to the winners. The University of Rajasthan was the runner-up in the competition. Additionally, Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), Nagpur received the award for Best Memorial, while Mansi Dadhich from the National Forensic Sciences University was recognized as the Best Speaker. Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta served as the chief guest at the ceremony, addressing the audience on the principles of governance and the intersection of law, emphasizing the role of young legal professionals in societal welfare and the development of India.

Google LLC informed the Delhi High Court that YouTuber Dhruv Rathee's video, which allegedly claims that Hindu deities Ram, Sita, and Krishna consumed meat and alcohol, has been withheld in India. This action was taken following an order from the Centre, as per the court's request to address a plea regarding the content. The video remains accessible outside India, as the issue of a global injunction is still under consideration by a division bench of the court.

On August 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal by activist Ravi Nair challenging the quashing of his criminal defamation case against journalist Nilanjana Bhowmick. The case stemmed from a 2010 article published in TIME magazine regarding the scrutiny of NGO funding. The Supreme Court's bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vinod Chandran, questioned the four-year delay between the publication of the article and the filing of the defamation complaint, ultimately deciding not to interfere with the Delhi High Court's ruling.

The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of obscene and pornographic content concerning actress Janhvi Kapoor. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued an ex parte ad-interim order to take down the offending material, emphasizing the need to protect Kapoor's personality rights. However, the court expressed reservations about imposing a blanket ban on fan pages, questioning the feasibility of such an action. Justice Bhambhani remarked, "How can you shut down all fanclubs? Who is immune from all this today?" This ruling follows a similar order regarding the protection of personality rights for other public figures, including actress Tabu and actress Khushi Kapoor.

The Bombay High Court has permitted students of the Indian Law Society's (ILS) Law College to sit for their semester-end examinations despite having attendance shortages. This decision was made in the case of Aniruddha Gaurav Gursal and others versus the State of Maharashtra and others. The court clarified that the relief applies not only to students who petitioned the court but also extends to all students facing attendance issues (Bar & Bench, 11 Aug 2026; LiveLaw, 11 Aug 2026).

On August 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India issued notices to the Central government, the Bar Council of India (BCI), and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in response to a petition seeking an investigation into fake advocates and fraudulent law degrees. The petition also calls for scrutiny of the activities associated with the 'Cockroach Janta Party' (CJP), described as a satirical political group. Additionally, the petitioner has requested action against the commercial exploitation and monetization of oral courtroom observations made during Supreme Court proceedings.

A Thiruvananthapuram court has granted bail to TG Mohandas, a right-wing activist, journalist, and lawyer, who was arrested for making offensive remarks against women protesters at Jantar Mantar. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mithun Gopi G.S., noted procedural irregularities in the case during the bail hearing. Mohandas faced accusations of insulting womanhood and violating women's dignity through his YouTube videos, which included threats against the protesting students, including a statement suggesting they should be shot dead. His remarks have drawn significant public and legal scrutiny, leading to his arrest prior to the bail hearing.

On August 10, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court initiated suo motu proceedings regarding the safety of its Jodhpur building, which features a dome that the court described as potentially at risk of collapse. The court highlighted issues such as repeated roof and ceiling collapses, water seepage, corrosion, and deficiencies in fire safety protocols in the building, which was inaugurated in 2019. Additionally, the court upheld charge-sheets against two Public Works Department (PWD) engineers for 'grave deficiencies' in the construction of the building, noting that there have been multiple incidents of roof collapses.

During a Supreme Court hearing, the Uddhav Thackeray faction of Shiv Sena, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, contended that permitting the legislative wing of a political party to split and subsequently claim to be the party itself would make a "mockery" of democracy. This argument was presented as part of their challenge against the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to recognize the Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena and to allot it the 'bow and arrow' symbol. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, is examining whether a split in the legislative wing can reflect a split in the broader political party. Justice Bagchi observed that while a split in the legislature party must be assessed, it could

The Telangana High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against actors Rana Daggubati, D Venkatesh, D Abiram, and film producer D Suresh Babu in a property dispute case. Justice N Tukaramji stated that the complaint included prima facie allegations of criminal trespass, unlawful dispossession, theft, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy. The case arose from a complaint filed by businessman K Nandukumar, who alleged that the accused forcibly entered his property, broke open doors, removed belongings, and threatened him and his family. The court noted that the existence of a parallel civil dispute does not preclude criminal prosecution if the complaint discloses cognizable offences. The court found that key questions regarding the alleged unlawful dispossession and the validity of the complainant's lease rights could only be resolved through trial, not through a pre-trial petition to quash the proceedings.

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the appointment of Sadashiva Murthy as a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the murder case of Father Daniel KJ, a Christian priest. The court found that the appointment was made at the request of the complainant, a seminary, and that the complainant was also responsible for paying the SPP's legal fees. Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the accused's concerns about bias were reasonable, although the court did not question the integrity of Murthy. The court emphasized the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. It cited a Supreme Court ruling which stated that appointing an SPP based on the complainant's request could distort justice, particularly in cases where a powerful complainant might seek to victimise an opponent. The court also criticized the lack of recorded reasons for Murthy's re-appointment, deeming it arbitrary. This ruling follows a history of objections regarding Murthy's appointment, including a previous removal prompted by a complaint from one of the accused, who did not disclose her involvement in the case.

As autonomous AI systems begin to make decisions independently, organizations must grapple with the implications for their cyber insurance. Reports indicate that cyber insurers are scrutinizing how these systems are deployed and whether current policies adequately address the new risks they introduce. Traditional cybersecurity focuses on protecting against unauthorized access and data breaches, but autonomous AI can access sensitive information and make operational decisions, complicating accountability in the event of a cyber incident. Law firms and other organizations are advised to implement thoughtful governance regarding the use of autonomous AI, ensuring that there is meaningful human oversight and clear understanding of the systems' capabilities and risks. Additionally, many organizations mistakenly believe that their existing business insurance will cover cyber incidents, but traditional policies often exclude such losses and do not provide essential support for incident response or recovery.