Saturday, 17 October 2026

The dispute. An elector filed a private criminal complaint alleging an elected MLA declared a false address in his nomination affidavit. The magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offence of furnishing false election information under the Representation of the People Act. The Karnataka High Court quashed the complaint, ruling that Section 195(1) CrPC required an official complaint by the Election Commission.

The reasoning. Section 125-A carries a non-obstante clause and is omitted from the offences catalogued in Section 195(1) CrPC. Private citizens may thus prosecute false election affidavits directly, while magistrates retain power to dismiss frivolous complaints.

For your practice. Voters can directly file criminal complaints against candidates for false election affidavits without seeking prior sanction from election authorities.

The order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the quashing of the complaint on facts while holding that private prosecutions under Section 125-A remain maintainable.

Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

RAJKUMAR MADKI vs SHAILENDRA BELDALE

Citation

Supreme Court of India · Crl.A. No.-003387-003387 - 2026 · 2026:INSC:1138 · 16.10.2026

Bench

Dipankar Datta, Sheel Nagu

The dispute. A police constable in Sirohi was arraigned for corruption after a colleague alleged he demanded a Rs 1.5 lakh bribe. The trial court framed charges under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act following investigation and sanction. The High Court dismissed his revision petition against the charge for lack of prior investigative approval, prompting this appeal.

The reasoning. Section 17A protects only recommendations or decisions made in the bona fide discharge of official functions. Demanding illegal gratification is an unconnected criminal act outside official duties that requires no prior sanction.

Section 17 -A by any stretch of imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification.

For your practice. Defence counsel cannot invoke Section 17A to stall bribery probes that do not stem from official administrative decisions.

The order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order, allowing the trial on bribery charges to proceed.

Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Case

TEJARAM vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation

Supreme Court of India · Crl.A. No.-004988-004988 - 2026 · 16.10.2026

Bench

S.v.n. Bhatti, N.v. Anjaria

The dispute. A consultant engaged on a one-year contract by a state environmental committee applied for six months of maternity leave. The pollution control board rejected the request, citing a contractual clause permitting only declared public holidays. The consultant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the rejection order and claiming paid maternity benefits.

The reasoning. Statutory maternity protections override inconsistent contractual terms under Section 27 of the 1961 Act. Once eligibility criteria are satisfied, the law creates a legal fiction treating the employee as continuing in service to secure benefits.

The law creates a fiction in such a case by treating her to be in employment for the sole purpose of availing maternity benefits under the 1961 Act.

For your practice. Contractual employees can enforce statutory maternity benefits against the entity utilising their services regardless of restrictive clauses in their appointment orders.

The order. The High Court quashed the rejection order and directed the board to grant 180 days' maternity leave. The board must disburse consolidated salary of Rs 40,000 per month with 6% interest within three months.

Section 27, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

Case

SMT. SHIVANGI KHANDELWAL vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation

Rajasthan High Court · CW / 1561 / 2023 · 2026:RJ-JD:49861 · 16.10.2026

Bench

Bipin Gupta

The dispute. A mother separated from her husband sought her minor child's passport renewal as a single parent with custody. The Regional Passport Authority refused to process the application without the estranged father's consent or a court order. The mother approached the Gujarat High Court in a writ petition seeking a direction to issue the passport without spousal approval.

The reasoning. The Passport Rules recognise separated parents as eligible single applicants entitled to declare custody under Annexure C. Demanding spousal consent or custody decrees lacks statutory backing and constitutes an impermissible internal precaution.

For your practice. Single parents living separated can secure a minor child's passport using statutory declarations without seeking custody orders or estranged spousal consent.

The order. The High Court allowed the petition and directed the Regional Passport Authority to issue or reissue the child's passport within eight weeks.

Section 4(A)(3)(a), Passport Rules, 1980

Case

Shital Maulik Thakkar Mother of Maulik Thakkar v. Regional Passport Authority

Citation

Gujarat High Court · R/SCA/11277/2026 · 2026:GUJHC:65535 · 16.10.2026

Bench

Nisha M. Thakore

The dispute. Following his wife's death, the petitioner faced two criminal cases filed by in-laws, both quashed by the High Court in 2021. The unredacted quashed orders remained accessible online, causing severe stigma and harassment to his minor family. The petitioner moved the High Court to mask all identity markers in the quashed orders and across third-party portals.

The reasoning. The right to privacy under Article 21 encompasses the right to be forgotten. Once proceedings are quashed, continuing public online dissemination serves no public purpose and infringes personal dignity.

There is no reason why an individual who has been duly cleared of any guilt by law should be allowed to be haunted by the remnants of such accusations easily accessible to the public.

For your practice. Seek identity masking rather than blanket expungement after criminal cases are quashed to balance personal privacy against open justice.

The order. The Registrar General must mask identity markers in quashed orders dated 7 September 2021 and 13 May 2021. The petitioner may approach search engines and online platforms to host the masked versions.

Article 21, Constitution of India

Case

XX vs HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH LD REGISTRAR GENERAL

Citation

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-15503/2026 · 2026:DHC:9375 · 16.10.2026

Bench

Amit Mahajan

The dispute. A Jharkhand migrant belonging to the Bhuiya caste agreed to sell his Odisha land for Rs 10 lakh. The Sub-Registrar refused registration, demanding tribal transfer permission because Bhuiya is a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha. The vendor filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court challenging the refusal to register the sale deed.

The reasoning. Presidential caste notifications are strictly State-specific and do not travel with a migrant across borders. Statutory land transfer restrictions apply solely to locally notified tribes, exempting unnotified migrants.

Thus, a person migrating to another State does not carry with him the status of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe that he enjoys in his original State.

For your practice. Conveyancers must verify a migrant vendor's origin State caste status and certificate rather than mechanically applying destination State transfer curbs.

The order. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the demand letter, and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed within three days of receiving the order.

Article 341, Constitution of India

Case

Binoy Krishna Das v. State of Odisha & ors.

Citation

Orissa High Court · WP(C)/17774/2026 · 16.10.2026

Bench

Sashikanta Mishra

The dispute. A cement manufacturer invested over Rs 300 crore relying on Odisha's 2015 industrial policy offering net SGST reimbursement. The company filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the retrospective exclusion and seeking release of the tax benefits.

The reasoning. Policy modification powers do not permit retrospective withdrawal of accrued incentives without proven public interest. Having induced substantial capital investment, the state cannot defeat legitimate expectations on mere fiscal grounds.

The financial consequences of continuing an incentive and the legality of withdrawing it for a past period are separate matters.

For your practice. Litigants challenging retrospective incentive rollbacks can shift the burden to the state to demonstrate compelling public interest rather than fiscal convenience.

The order. The High Court set aside the retrospective exclusion of cement units under the 2020 resolution. The authorities were directed to determine and release the net SGST reimbursement with applicable interest within four weeks.

Section 11, Orissa Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2004

Case

M/S JSW Cement Limited, Jajpur & ors. v. State of Odisha & ors.

Citation

Orissa High Court · WP(C)/36871/2020 · 2026:OHC:213-DB · 16.10.2026

Bench

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, Murahari Sri Raman

The dispute. A widow claimed two lakh rupees under two life insurance policies following her husband's death from cardiac arrest. The public insurer repudiated both claims, asserting that the deceased had concealed prior treatment for hepatitis during policy inception. The District Commission dismissed the consumer complaint upholding the insurer's repudiation, prompting the widow to appeal before the Uttarakhand SCDRC.

The reasoning. Under uberrimae fidei, non-disclosure of a past illness does not justify repudiation unless proved material to the underwritten risk. Absent any medical nexus between the cured hepatitis and the fatal cardiac arrest, the insurer could not deny liability.

For your practice. Practitioners must now insist that insurers demonstrate materiality of any alleged non-disclosure before repudiating claims; mere proof of concealment is insufficient. Interest on awarded sums runs from the date of complaint filing, providing a clear benchmark for calculating relief in insurance deficiency cases.

The order. The appeal is allowed. The District Commission’s order dated 30.06.2016 is set aside. The respondents (LIC) are directed to pay ₹2,00,000 to the appellant with interest @ 6% p.a. from 24.03.2014 till actual payment, plus litigation charges of ₹10,000 within one month from the judgment. No costs awarded.

Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Case

Smt. Saroj Gangwar vs Regional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & ors.

Citation

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · SC/5/A/167/2016 · 16.10.2026

Bench

Kumkum Rani, C.M. Singh