Wednesday, 19 August 2026

The dispute. Rishi Malhotra, a petitioner appearing in person, filed a writ under Article 32 challenging hanging as the sole execution method under Section 354(5) CrPC, arguing it was barbaric and violated Articles 14 and 21. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition after finding that the binding precedents in Deena v. Union of India (1983) and Shashi Nayar v. Union of India.

The reasoning. A two-judge bench cannot depart from a three-judge or Constitution Bench precedent absent compelling constitutional development, legislative change, or cogent domestic scientific evidence.

Constitutional interpretation is organic and must remain responsive, both to the evolution of constitutional doctrine and to advances in scientific knowledge.

For your practice. A challenger must produce domestic empirical evidence of botched executions in India.

The order. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 145 of 2017 dismissed. Section 354(5) CrPC and Section 393(5) BNSS upheld as constitutional. Deena and Shashi Nayar reaffirmed as binding.

Section 354(5), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

RISHI MALHOTRA vs UNION OF INDIA

Citation

Supreme Court of India · W.P.(Crl.) No.-000145 - 2017 · 2026:INSC:873 · 18.08.2026

Bench

Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta

The dispute. New India Assurance issued a Marine Cargo Annual Turnover Policy to Louis Dreyfus for INR 1,200 crores. When the insured's turnover crossed the limit in July 2010, the Divisional Manager's email had assured continued coverage. The NCDRC awarded the assessed loss of Rs 22,01,29,271 to the insured; the insurer appealed and the Supreme Court set the award aside.

The reasoning. Section 64VB prohibits assumption of risk before premium is received and is directed at the insurer as principal; an agent's act cannot confer liability the principal is legally incompetent to assume.

For your practice. Any representation by an insurer's employee that extends coverage binds the insurer only if it complies with Section 64VB.

The order. Both civil appeals allowed. NCDRC award dated 21 May 2025 set aside. Respondent's claim for loss dismissed. No compensation, damages or interest awarded. Matter disposed.

Section 64VB, Insurance Act, 1938

Case

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs M/S LOUIS DREYFUS COMMODITIES INDIA PVT LTD

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-007687-007688 - 2025 · 2026:INSC:876 · 18.08.2026

Bench

Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

The dispute. Four Sub-Divisional Officers from Haryana's Development and Panchayat Department were deputed, within months of their probationary appointments, to the Public Works (Buildings and Roads) Department and then absorbed as Assistant Engineers against direct-recruitment vacancies. The Punjab and Haryana High Court found the deputation and absorption bad in law but retained the officers on sympathetic grounds.

The reasoning. Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules permits appointment by transfer only in special circumstances exceeding routine vacancies; accrued vacancies and officers' qualifications do not meet that threshold.

For your practice. When challenging absorption under transfer provisions, demand the specific special circumstance recorded in the absorption order and test it against exigency, not convenience.

The order. Deputation of Pradeep Atri and Praveen Chaudhary held illegal; deputation of Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia held irregular. Absorption of all four declared illegal, non est and void, and set aside.

Rule 10, Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965

Case

HEMANT KUMAR vs THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-010930-010931 - 2026 · 2026:INSC:878 · 18.08.2026

Bench

Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar

The dispute. After the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election, the AITC formally nominated Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay as Leader of the Opposition and informed the Speaker in writing, but two of its MLAs were expelled on 1 June 2026 for anti-party activities. The Single Judge refused interim relief and declined to stay the Speaker's order, whereupon the appellant moved a Division Bench on appeal.

The reasoning. Explanation 1 of Section 3 of the 1937 Act refers to the political party's decision, not to a majority of legislators who may regroup post-election.

For your practice. Compile and file the political party's official communications and internal resolutions early.

The order. Single Judge's order modified. Speaker's recognition of respondent No. 5 as Leader of the Opposition and respondent No. 6 as Chief Whip declared provisional for two months or until further orders. Stay of the June 3 2026 order refused.

Section 3, Explanation 1 and 2, West Bengal Legislative Assembly (Members' Emoluments) Act, 1937

Case

SOBHANDEB CHATTOPADHYAY v. HON’BLE SPEAKER, WEST BENGAL LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ors.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · APOT/110/2026 · 2026:CHC-OS:354-DB · 18.08.2026

Bench

Shampa Sarkar, Ajay Kumar Gupta

The dispute. National Spot Exchange Ltd. filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act against directors of M/s Mohan India Private Limited after a Rs 30 crore cheque issued in partial discharge of a Rs 771 crore settlement was dishonoured in February 2014. Magistrate courts rejected the stay applications; the directors renewed the challenge before the Bombay High Court.

The reasoning. Section 96 IBC stays civil actions in respect of any debt but does not extend to the penal components of a Section 138 prosecution.

For your practice. Filing an insolvency application under Section 94 or 95 IBC no longer provides directors a route to halt cheque-dishonour trials.

The order. All applications and writ petitions were dismissed, interim orders vacated, and the Section 138 prosecution directed to proceed unabated. No monetary relief was granted to any applicant.

Section 96, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Case

JAGMOHAN GARG vs NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LTD AND ANR

Citation

Bombay High Court · APL/1690/2024 · 2026:BHC-AS:34126 · 18.08.2026

Bench

N. J. Jamadar

The dispute. Jasir Bilal Wani was arrested in November 2025 in connection with an IED explosion at Lal Qila Metro Station and charged under the UAPA. The trial court rejected the default bail application and extended remand to 180 days.

The reasoning. A statutory citation of a repealed provision constitutes legislation by reference, not legislation by incorporation, so Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act mandates reading the reference as to the re-enacted provision, here Section 187 BNSS.

the reference to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. has to be construed as reference to Section 187 of the BNSS in terms of Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

For your practice. In every UAPA custody matter, calculate detention against the 180-day ceiling and raise any objection to an extension order at the earliest opportunity.

The order. Appeal dismissed. Extension orders dated 13 February 2026 and 27 March 2026 upheld. Default bail application dismissed. Remand to 180 days confirmed. Appellant left to pursue other remedies available in law.

Section 43D, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

Case

JASIR BILAL WANI @ DANISH vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation

Delhi High Court · CRL.A.-444/2026 · 2026:DHC:6814-DB · 18.08.2026

Bench

Prathiba M. Singh

The dispute. Jyotsnara Bibi claimed she was married to MD Azam Ali Sarkar under Muslim law in May 2014 and was driven from the matrimonial home four months later. The trial magistrate awarded Rs 6,000 monthly maintenance; the Additional Sessions Judge reversed that order on revision.

The reasoning. Section 125 CrPC is a summary, ameliorative provision and its evidentiary standard is prima facie satisfaction based on cumulative material, not the documentary proof required in a civil matrimonial suit.

The standard of proof required in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not as rigorous, exacting, or formalistic as that required in a criminal trial for bigamy or a full-dress civil suit for declaration.

For your practice. Police charge sheets, Aadhaar cards, and voter identity documents showing a spouse relationship can establish a prima facie marriage in Section 125 proceedings.

The order. The revision order of 25 February 2022 was set aside, the trial magistrate's order of 18 November 2020 restored.

Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

JYOTSNARA BIBI v. MD AZAM ALI SARKAR AND ANR.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · CRR/1349/2022 · 18.08.2026

Bench

Uday Kumar

The dispute. Sergeant Jewel Saha was fatally struck by a speeding vehicle on CGR Road in June 2014 and died four days later. His widow, father, and mother claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Additional District Judge, Alipore, awarded Rs 50,59,560 with 6% interest; the insurer appealed to the Calcutta High Court.

The reasoning. The Motor Vehicles Act does not define accident, and its ordinary meaning includes events caused by positive or intended acts, not only negligent ones; a charge-sheet under IPC does not convert a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal proceeding into a criminal one.

We are, however, of the opinion that an accident within the meaning of the Act may occur not only from the negligent act but also from positive or intended act.

For your practice. Counsel for claimants should resist any insurer argument that an IPC charge-sheet forecloses a Section 166 claim.

The order. Compensation enhanced to Rs 60,00,000, apportioned as Rs 30,00,000 to Barnali Biswas and Rs 15,00,000 each to Pradip Saha and Sikha Saha, with interest at 6% per annum from 24 June 2016; the insurer directed to deposit within eight weeks.

Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Case

United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Barnali Biswas & ors.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · COT/89/2023 · 2026:CHC-AS:1294 · 18.08.2026

Bench

Biswaroop Chowdhury

The dispute. An importer paid excess customs duty on yellow peas cleared in early 2018 and filed a refund claim under Section 27 in November 2018, but revenue delayed re-assessment for seven years while litigation proceeded to the Supreme Court. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed interest at 6% from February 2019.

The reasoning. Applying Ranbaxy Laboratories and Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories, the Tribunal held that the three-month interest clock under Section 27 starts from receipt of the refund application, not from the re-assessment order.

For your practice. File Section 27 refund claims promptly even while Section 149 re-assessment is pending; preserve Sevottam receipt dates.

The order. Revenue appeal dismissed; importer appeal allowed. Interest at 12% per annum on Rs. 2,89,56,399 runs from 20 February 2019 to 20 January 2026. Revenue must pay the balance 6% differential within eight weeks of order communication.

Section 27, Customs Act, 1962

Case

Kolkata-Port vs M/S Atcorp Global Pvt. Ltd.

Citation

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal · Customs Appeal No.75641 of 2026 and Customs Appeal No.75647 of 2026 · 18.08.2026

Bench

R. Muralidhar, K. Anpazhakan