Insights
In a significant development for disability rights jurisprudence in India, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union Government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking stronger enforcement mechanisms for recommendations issued by disability commissioners under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The matter, titled Shashank Pandey v. Union of India, was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, which has listed the case for further consideration on July 21, 2026.
In a significant judgment reinforcing the principles of natural justice and fair trial, the Allahabad High Court has held that a person summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be convicted solely on the basis of evidence recorded before his summoning. The Court emphasized that evidence recorded in the absence of the accused cannot be relied upon for conviction, as doing so would violate the accused's statutory and constitutional rights. The ruling came in Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Guddu Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary, Department of Home, where the Court acquitted a man who had been convicted of murder despite the fact that the principal evidence against him had been recorded before he was added as an accused during the trial.
In India’s evolving corporate and regulatory landscape, directors occupy a position of significant trust, responsibility and legal accountability within the governance framework of companies. Directors are entrusted with overseeing corporate management, safeguarding stakeholder interests, ensuring statutory compliance and maintaining ethical business conduct. With increasing regulatory scrutiny, investor activism and enforcement proceedings relating to corporate misconduct, the role of directors has expanded far beyond routine managerial supervision and now encompasses extensive fiduciary, financial and governance obligations.
In a significant judgment reinforcing the constitutional mandate of quality education, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a batch of review petitions challenging its earlier decision that made the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) mandatory for in-service school teachers. While refusing to reconsider the legal principles laid down in its 2025 judgment, the Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend the compliance deadline by one additional year, allowing eligible teachers until August 31, 2028 to obtain TET qualification.
In a significant judgment reinforcing the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India, in Mehtab v. State of Uttarakhand, acquitted two men who had been sentenced to death for the alleged rape and murder of a 55-year-old woman in Uttarakhand. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the crime. The three-judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside both the conviction and the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court and subsequently affirmed by the Uttarakhand High Court. The judgment serves as a powerful reminder that even in cases involving heinous offences, courts cannot substitute suspicion for proof, nor can they overlook investigative deficiencies merely because the allegations are grave.
India’s startup ecosystem has experienced unprecedented growth across sectors including technology, fintech, e-commerce, healthcare, artificial intelligence and digital services. Driven by innovation, venture capital investment and rapid market expansion, startups frequently prioritise product development, fundraising and commercial scaling during their formative stages. However, in the process of pursuing accelerated growth, many early-stage businesses inadvertently overlook critical legal and regulatory compliance requirements during their first year of operations.
In a landmark constitutional ruling delivered on May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court of India upheld the authority of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across various States and Union Territories. The judgment, delivered in Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. v. Election Commission of India, marks a significant development in India’s electoral jurisprudence and clarifies the constitutional scope of the Election Commission’s powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the SIR process undertaken by the ECI is constitutionally valid, statutorily supported, and directly connected to the constitutional objective of ensuring free and fair elections. The judgment carries substantial implications for electoral administration, voter verification procedures, and the relationship between electoral rights and citizenship verification mechanisms.
In India’s rapidly evolving corporate and industrial landscape, labour law compliance has become a critical component of corporate governance, operational continuity and regulatory risk management. Indian companies across sectors—including manufacturing, technology, infrastructure, retail, financial services and e-commerce—are subject to a complex network of employment, social security, workplace safety and employee welfare laws designed to regulate employer-employee relationships and protect workforce rights.
The legal fraternity in India has once again come under intense scrutiny after a writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking a nationwide verification mechanism for advocates’ law degrees, enrolment credentials, and practice status. The plea follows controversial remarks reportedly made by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), who allegedly stated that nearly 35–40% of advocates may possess fake or fabricated law degrees and are practising before courts using forged educational documents.
A recent petition filed before the Supreme Court of India has triggered widespread debate on the limits of satire, freedom of speech, judicial dignity, and the increasing commercialisation of courtroom proceedings in the digital age. The matter, titled RAJA CHOUDHARY V. UNION OF INDIA, seeks a court-monitored investigation into the activities linked with the viral online movement known as the “Cockroach Janta Party,” along with a broader probe into fake advocates and fraudulent law degrees operating within the legal profession. The petition raises significant constitutional and institutional questions. It examines whether oral courtroom observations which are not final judicial findings can legally be transformed into memes, monetised digital campaigns, trademarked slogans, or political branding tools. Simultaneously, it also highlights growing concerns regarding the alleged infiltration of fake lawyers into the legal system and the erosion of professional standards within the legal fraternity.
