Search cases

In re: Guidelines for production of arrested persons before Judicial Officers

On 24 October 2026, the Kerala High Court set aside state government guidelines that restricted the production of arrested persons before judicial officers to business hours between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. The court clarified that the 24-hour statutory period for producing an arrested individual before a magistrate is an outer limit rather than a justification for delay and affirmed that police must ensure timely production regardless of the time of day.

In re: Criminal liability of advocates practising without qualifying AIBE

The Karnataka High Court ruled on 20 October 2026 that lawyers practicing without passing the AIBE may face criminal prosecution, noting that Bar Council disciplinary proceedings do not preclude private criminal complaints. On 22 October 2026, the court ordered the Karnataka State Bar Council to establish a digital system to identify such practitioners. Subsequently, on 23 October 2026, the court dismissed a petition by advocate M Prasanna Kumar, allowing his trial for alleged offenses under the IPC and Advocates Act to proceed.

Umesh Chand vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had granted probation to two convicts in a 2003 attack case involving Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran criticized the lower court for showing misplaced sympathy in such a serious matter. Following the decision on 13 October 2026, the Supreme Court directed the convicts to surrender as reported on 22 October 2026.

In re: Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors for POCSO cases

The Kerala High Court quashed a State Government Order that permitted Special Public Prosecutors for POCSO cases to handle non-POCSO matters on 14 October 2026. The Court directed the State to appoint exclusive prosecutors within six weeks of that date. On 22 October 2026, the Court further ordered the State Government to evaluate the establishment of 13 additional permanent and exclusive POCSO Special Courts and report its decision to the Court.

In re: Interpretation of gang rape provisions for female accused

In the case of Ansxxx and anr v. State of NCT of Delhi And Anr, the Delhi High Court ruled on 16 October 2026 that a woman can be charged with gang rape under Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita if she facilitated the crime under common intention. The court clarified that while the term persons in the legislation is gender-neutral, a woman cannot be charged as a principal perpetrator of rape in isolation.

Md. Ainul Haque vs The State of Bihar

On 10 October 2026, the Patna High Court modified Md. Ainul Haque's conviction from attempted rape to outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the IPC, ruling that evidence of an overt act toward penetration was absent. Following this judgment, the Court sentenced the accused on 14 October 2026 to pay a fine of Rs 25,000 and mandated compensation for the victim.

State of Karnataka v Prathik Parasrampuria — Election black money case

In a judgment delivered on 18 August 2026, the Supreme Court established nationwide guidelines to curb the influence of black money in elections, following proceedings regarding the 2014 Bellary Lok Sabha bye-election. The Court mandated that the withdrawal of election-related cases requires High Court approval, imposed a one-year deadline for investigations, and directed the Election Commission of India and governments to submit compliance reports by 18 November 2026.

State vs. Police Personnel — Custodial Death Case, Madhya Pradesh

In a custodial death case in Madhya Pradesh, the High Court ruled on 18 June 2026 that custodial violence does not constitute official duty and therefore does not require sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecution. On 16 August 2026, the Court further affirmed that Magistrates hold the authority under Section 176(1-A) CrPC to explicitly name accused police officials and doctors within their enquiry reports.

State vs Accused — Organized Crime charges under BNS Section 111

An accused was charged under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for organized crime. The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that criminal charges of organized crime cannot be levied solely on the basis of criminal history, unless the necessary conditions and ingredients for such offences are met.

Gunjan Girija Kumari and Others v. State of NCT of Delhi — Caste-based abuse and SC/ST Act

In an appeal by Gunjan Girija Kumari and others, the Supreme Court ruled on 11 May 2026 that casteist abuses uttered inside a private residential house, away from public view, do not constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Following this determination, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings that had been previously dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 22 August 2024.