Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Supreme Court of India
•
22 September 2026
•
2026 INSC 1052; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 990
Criminal Procedure / BNSS — Victim’s Right of Appeal, Appeal Against Acquittal, Sections 413, 415(3) & 419 BNSS
The Supreme Court held that a victim’s appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate lies before the Sessions Court and not the High Court.
The proviso to Section 413 BNSS gives a victim an independent statutory right to appeal against an acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or award of inadequate compensation. Crucially, it directs that such an appeal must be filed before the court to which an appeal would ordinarily lie against a conviction passed by the same trial court.
Since Section 415(3) BNSS provides that an appeal against a conviction by a Magistrate of the First or Second Class lies to the Court of Session, a victim challenging an acquittal by such Magistrate must likewise approach the Sessions Court.
The Court further clarified that Section 419 BNSS, which separately regulates appeals against acquittal in the circumstances specified therein, does not determine the forum when the victim exercises the specific right conferred by the proviso to Section 413.
Read Full Headnote →
Rajendra Narpatmal Lodha v. Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai & Anr.
Bombay High Court
•
23 September 2026
•
2026:BHC-AS:38365
PMLA / Criminal Law — Section 19 Arrest, Section 50 Interrogation, Personal Liberty & Judicial Review
The Bombay High Court held that where the Enforcement Directorate had already invoked Sections 50(2) and 50(3) PMLA, approached the Special Court and obtained permission to confront and examine the petitioner on the basis of material already in its possession, it could not simply abandon that course and proceed to arrest him under Section 19 on essentially the same material, in the absence of fresh incriminating material or a supervening circumstance.
The Court emphasised that Section 19 uses the expression “may arrest”, demonstrating that arrest is discretionary rather than an automatic consequence of investigation. On the facts, the Court found the change from Section 50 interrogation to Section 19 arrest unsustainable and characterised the exercise as a colourable exercise of power. The arrest and consequential remand were interfered with, and the petitioner was granted bail subject to conditions.
Read Full Headnote →
‘R’ v. ‘E’ & Anr. (Rajeev Giri v. Ekta Singh)
Supreme Court of India
•
24 September 2026
•
2026 INSC 1049; Civil Appeal No. 13119 of 2026, arising out of SLP(C) No. 1092/2024, with connected criminal appeals and contempt proceedings
POCSO / Family Law / Child Custody — Matrimonial Disputes, POCSO Allegations, Arrest Safeguards & Welfare of Child
The Supreme Court laid down safeguards for POCSO allegations against a parent or family member living with a child when a matrimonial dispute exists. An investigating officer should not mechanically or hastily arrest the accused merely because a POCSO FIR has been registered. Where the prescribed threshold is met, a child and adolescent psychiatry or clinical psychology expert should ordinarily assist the investigation before coercive action, subject to a limited exception where the material is palpable and reasons are recorded in writing. A POCSO FIR alone cannot automatically defeat a parent's custody or guardianship claim; courts must assess the material and circumstances case by case.
Read Full Headnote →
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s GSCO (Gurmeet Singh and Company) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India
•
23 September 2026
•
2026 INSC 1038
Arbitration Law — Seat vs Venue, Territorial Jurisdiction, Section 34, Section 42 & Limitation
The Supreme Court held that mere conduct of arbitral proceedings at a particular place does not, by itself, make that place the juridical “seat” of arbitration. The Court reiterated the distinction between the seat, which determines supervisory jurisdiction, and the venue, which ordinarily refers only to the physical location where arbitral sittings take place.
In the present case, neither the parties nor the order appointing the arbitrator designated Cuttack as the seat of arbitration. The proceedings were held at Cuttack only for the convenience of the arbitrator. Therefore, Cuttack could not be treated as the juridical seat merely because the hearings took place there.
The Court further held that the fact that the Orissa High Court, situated at Cuttack, appointed the arbitrator under Section 11(6) did not confer jurisdiction upon the District or Commercial Courts at Cuttack. The Section 34 petitions filed before the District Judge, Sundargarh were restored for adjudication.
Read Full Headnote →
Loganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Supreme Court of India
•
22 September 2026
•
Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 17103 of 2026, arising out of SLP(C) No. 8044 of 2025
Municipal Law / Property Law / Urban Planning — Unauthorized Construction, Change of Land Use & Commercial Use of Residential Premises
In continuing proceedings, the Supreme Court directed authorities to prioritize preventing commercial activity in areas specifically earmarked exclusively for residential use. Premises sanctioned only for residential use but used commercially should, in the first instance, be sealed. For areas where permissible land use is unclear, the existing position should not presently be disturbed, though proceedings may continue. Pending title or other litigation does not prevent sealing where actual use violates the sanctioned purpose. Wholly unauthorized structures may be sealed or demolished in accordance with law, and enforcement must be uniform and non-discriminatory.
Read Full Headnote →
Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab
Supreme Court of India
•
21 September 2026
•
2026 INSC 1022
Constitutional Law / Criminal Procedure — Articles 21 & 22, Grounds of Arrest, Illegal Detention and Re-arrest
The Supreme Court held that furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing and in a language understood by the arrested person is a mandatory constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1). Non-compliance renders the arrest and consequential remand illegal. Where an accused is released because of such a constitutional violation, the investigating agency cannot simply re-arrest the person at its own discretion. It must first furnish the written grounds of arrest and approach the Magistrate for permission for custody or re-arrest, explaining both the necessity for re-arrest and the earlier failure to comply with the constitutional requirement.
Read Full Headnote →
Ganapati (Dead) Through LRs. v. Prabhakar & Ors.
Supreme Court of India
•
22 September 2026
•
2026 INSC 1033
Hindu Succession / Property Law — Section 14(1) HSA, Hindu Widow’s Estate, Pre-1956 Property Rights & Partition
The Supreme Court held that the limited interest acquired by a Hindu widow under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 could enlarge into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The Court rejected the contention that an actual partition between the widow and the surviving coparcener was a sine qua non for such enlargement. Even assuming that the defendants failed to prove the alleged oral partition, Kashibai's statutory right under the 1937 Act remained unaffected and, by operation of Section 14(1) of the 1956 Act, matured into absolute ownership.
The Supreme Court consequently upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision recognising Kashibai's absolute ownership and dismissed the appeal.
Read Full Headnote →
Asit Baran Mondal & Anr. v. Dr. Rita Sinha MBBS MS (Obst. Gynae) & Ors.
Supreme Court of India
•
21 September 2026
•
2026 LiveLaw (SC) 988; M.A. No. 1364/2026 in C.A. No. 8402/2016
Medical Law / Public Health — ICU Standards, Healthcare Infrastructure & Critical-Care Staffing
The Supreme Court issued a nationwide mandamus for time-bound implementation of the 2026 Guidelines for Organization and Delivery of Intensive Care Services. For Level I ICUs, infrastructure timelines of up to 12 months were reduced to 9 months. Recruitment of ICU specialists, trained MBBS doctors, nurses and allied healthcare personnel must commence immediately and be completed within 6 months. Infection-control and safety requirements apply immediately, while several equipment and laboratory requirements carry three-month deadlines.
Read Full Headnote →