Insights

In a significant reaffirmation of the evidentiary safeguards governing criminal trials, the Supreme Court recently clarified the scope and applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court held that a disclosure statement leading to recovery of material evidence is admissible only when made while the accused is in police custody. Any such disclosure made outside custody falls outside Section 27 and cannot be used to sustain conviction.

In a significant ruling underscoring the importance of procedural discipline and statutory limitation, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and lies entirely within the discretion of the Court.

In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional protections against misuse of criminal procedure, the Supreme Court held that the successive registration of FIRs merely to keep an accused in custody after grant of bail constitutes a clear abuse of the legal process. The ruling came in BINAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. V. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS., where the Court also reiterated that it will not hesitate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 when a prima facie violation of fundamental rights is established.

In a significant order aimed at preserving the effective functioning of environmental adjudication in India, the Supreme Court recently permitted three Judicial Members of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to continue in office beyond their retirement dates as a temporary stopgap arrangement. The Court recognised that imminent vacancies in judicial positions could severely disrupt the Tribunal’s functioning across multiple locations and adversely impact litigants seeking environmental justice.

In a significant reaffirmation of personal liberty under criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail should not ordinarily be restricted to a fixed duration such as till the filing of a chargesheet. The ruling in Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another strengthens the principle that once granted, anticipatory bail generally continues unless special reasons justify limitation or cancellation.

In a significant ruling delivered on Wednesday 11 February, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal distinction between Central Government employees governed by statutory pension rules and employees covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court held that retired personnel of the Heavy Water Plant (HWP), Tuticorin, functioning under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), cannot claim gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act because they are Central Government servants governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

In a major regulatory development, the Central Government has notified sweeping amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, significantly strengthening the legal framework governing synthetically generated and artificial intelligence-based content on digital platforms. Issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology under Section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the amendments will come into force on 20 February 2026.

In a significant ruling reinforcing access to justice and procedural fairness, the Supreme Court of India has held that delays in filing appeals under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) may be condoned by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

In a significant reaffirmation of victim’s rights and state accountability, the Supreme Court of India has directed all States and Union Territories to release pending compensation amounts to acid attack survivors whose claims have already been approved. The Court made it clear that administrative delays and lack of fund disbursal cannot be permitted to render judicial directions meaningless.

In a significant ruling on Hindu joint family property jurisprudence, the Supreme Court clarified that when ancestral property capable of generating income is proven to exist, any property subsequently acquired by the Karta during the continuance of the joint family is presumed to be joint family property. The burden then shifts to the person asserting self-acquisition to establish the same through convincing evidence.