Manupatra Academy

Explore. Learn. Upskill. All Things Law

Courses, Cases, Research, and Resources in One Place

New

Internships

Opportunities : Playbook : Videos

Learn More

Law Notes (1^st - 5^th Year)

Structured notes with flashcards to help law students grasp core subjects quickly.

Know More

Manupatra Certified Legal Research Program

Module-based learning : Legal research skills : Certification test

Learn More

Courses

Structured learning : Practice-oriented modules : Different stages of legal practice

Learn More

News and Recent Judgment Gist

News
Gist

1. Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Caste Scrutiny Committee Cancellation of Officer's Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Caste Scrutiny Committee Cancellation of Officer's Scheduled Tribe Certificate

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in an order by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh at Jabalpur dated October 28, 2026, allowed Amrat Lal Meena's writ petition and quashed the December 9, 2025 order of the Madhya Pradesh State Level High Powered Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelling his Scheduled Tribe certificate. The Court restored the Meena Scheduled Tribe certificate issued on October 29, 1991 by the Tehsildar of Lateri in Vidisha district. The dispute concerned Sironj Sub-Division, which was part of Rajasthan before the 1956 reorganisation and where Meenas were notified as a Scheduled Tribe; after merger into Vidisha the community remained a Scheduled Tribe only in that sub-division, and a 2002 amendment effective January 8, 2003 removed Sironj Meenas from the Scheduled Tribe list. Meena ranked 25th in the 1995 State Services Examination for Deputy Superintendent of Police and joined on February 27, 1999 after verification delay. Complaints began in 2007, a CID inquiry closed the first in 2010, and the Committee cancelled the certificate in 2016; a coordinate bench quashed that order in September 2024 and ordered fresh independent scrutiny. The Committee directed the Superintendents of Police of Vidisha and Guna to investigate, and both reports dated October 14, 2025 and November 12, 2025 favoured Meena, but the Committee discarded them as mainly based on oral evidence and cancelled the certificate again. Senior Advocate Manoj Kumar Sharma argued that the Supreme Court's Madhuri Patil guidelines and a 1997 State circular barred further action once a vigilance report was favourable unless fraud was shown; Deputy Advocate Generals Swapnil Ganguly and Shweta Yadav defended the order, saying the reports ignored school records and pre-1950 revenue documents. The Court dismissed three intervention applications, holding the applicants were strangers without legal injury and that a complainant could at most be a witness, relying on Ravi Yashwant Bhoir and Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan. It said it was not sitting as an appellate court over evidence but examined whether the Committee followed mandatory procedure, found no finding that either vigilance report was procured fraudulently, and held the Committee had no jurisdiction to sit as an appellate authority over its own Vigilance Cell. It rejected criticism that the reports lacked old records, noting both inspected Meena's clan deity shrine and recorded villagers' testimony while the State Collectorate had destroyed older revenue records in 2005, and said the law does not compel a citizen to perform the impossible. The Court criticised the Committee's change of course and reliance on a 2014 CID compilation already quashed, called the cancellation after 27 years of service, including the President's Police Medal for Gallantry and on the eve of induction into the Indian Police Service, malice in law, declined a second remand, and held the only lawful course for respondent No. 4 was to drop and close the proceedings. The impugned order and consequential proceedings were set aside, the certificate was restored, and no costs were imposed. Case Title: Amrat Lal Meena @ Amrat Meena vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others.

2. Supreme Court directs MeITy policy to include enforcement measures against unauthorised court video circulation

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing Harshita Grover v. Union of India & Ors, a plea seeking measures to curb unauthorised extraction and

Supreme Court directs MeITy policy to include enforcement measures against unauthorised court video circulation

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing Harshita Grover v. Union of India & Ors, a plea seeking measures to curb unauthorised extraction and monetisation of videos of court proceedings. The Court had previously passed an interim order prohibiting unauthorised use or circulation of live-streamed court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission, later clarifying that recognised news organisations may report on hearings but must comply with restrictions on circulation of video or audio recordings. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that suggestions from High Courts, lawyers and stakeholders had been placed before the Supreme Court Registry and that MeITy is formulating a policy on the issue; he noted breaches of the Court's directives. The Court directed that necessary measures for taking action against those who fail to comply with its directions also be incorporated in the policy regime. Advocate Prashant Bhushan suggested digital watermarking and cryptographic signing for official clips and opposed prior permission for journalistic reports, citing open justice principles from the Swapnil Tripathi ruling. The Bench maintained that some court supervision is required over extraction and circulation of clips, said administrative safeguards are being developed, and stated it would examine the concerns in due course.

3. Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Home ACS Personal Affidavit Over Year-Old Charge-Sheet Delay

Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Home ACS Personal Affidavit Over Year-Old Charge-Sheet Delay

The Allahabad High Court questioned the Uttar Pradesh Police's failure to submit a charge-sheet to the competent court despite having drawn it up nearly a year earlier. The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Niharika Mishra seeking directions to file the charge-sheet in an FIR lodged under provisions relating to criminal intimidation and publishing or transmitting obscene material. The petitioner said that although the police had stated on August 25, 2026, that the charge-sheet had been forwarded and was likely to be filed, it had still not been submitted. The Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, said a charge-sheet dated October 26, 2025, had been sent to the Circle Officer on December 20, 2025, but the Assistant Prosecution Officer raised objections on January 13, 2026, after which the matter was remanded for further investigation. The Bench found this contrary to its earlier order and noted that the remand for further investigation had not been disclosed earlier. Referring to Section 177 BNSS, the Court observed that a police report must be transmitted to the Magistrate without delay. It directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit within three weeks explaining why the charge-sheet had not been sent to the court and why it was repeatedly moved between the supervisory authority and the investigating officer. The affidavit must also indicate remedial or punitive action. The matter is listed for November 19, and if the affidavit is not filed, the ACS (Home) shall appear in person with records. The Court expected the police report in the case to be submitted expeditiously.

4. Tripura High Court: Disciplinary Authority Cannot Circumvent CCS Rule 15(2) by Ordering Further Inquiry Under Rule 15(1)

Tripura High Court: Disciplinary Authority Cannot Circumvent CCS Rule 15(2) by Ordering Further Inquiry Under Rule 15(1)

The Tripura High Court dismissed the State Government's appeal against an order quashing a further inquiry against government employee Goutam Choudhury, who had been exonerated in the original departmental inquiry. A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice S.Datta Purkayastha held that the disciplinary authority could not circumvent Rule 15(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, by invoking Rule 15(1) to order further inquiry, especially after an earlier High Court order had attained finality. The court set aside the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 28.07.2021 for non-compliance with Rule 15(2) and questioned how the appellants could invoke Rule 15(1) in the impugned order dated 02.03.2024. Choudhury was exonerated on May 10, 2021; the High Court set aside an order on December 11, 2023 for non-compliance with Rule 15(2), and authorities later ordered further inquiry under Rule 15(1) on March 2, 2024, which a Single Judge quashed on September 26, 2025. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and directed the disciplinary authority to communicate tentative reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report within four weeks, with the respondent given a further four weeks to submit objections and a final order to follow in accordance with law. Date of decision: 29.09.2026.

5. Supreme Court refuses to interfere with Khurram Parvez bail, dismisses NIA plea in UAPA terror funding case

Supreme Court refuses to interfere with Khurram Parvez bail, dismisses NIA plea in UAPA terror funding case

On Friday, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order granting bail to Khurram Parvez in the National Investigation Agency's terror funding case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and dismissed the NIA's petition, having regard to the long period Parvez has spent in custody. A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale passed the order. Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare appeared for the NIA, and Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir appeared for Parvez. Mir submitted that Parvez has a prosthetic leg, has been in custody for nearly five years, and that the trial has not reached the stage of framing charges, which has been deferred since August 19 when the NIA sought time to file a supplementary chargesheet. In July, the Delhi High Court had refused to stay a trial court order granting bail to Parvez and Irfan Mehraj in a 2020 UAPA case and instead imposed stricter bail conditions. The NIA had challenged the July 18 order of the Patiala House Court by Principal District and Sessions Judge Pitamber Dutt granting bail. The case arises from an NIA FIR registered in October 2020 alleging that NGOs, trusts and societies in Jammu and Kashmir collected funds in India and abroad under the guise of charitable and welfare activities and diverted them to finance terrorist activities, and that the organisations developed links with banned outfits including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen. The accused dispute the allegations. The NIA alleged that Parvez, coordinator of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Societies, raised funds from international entities under the guise of promoting human rights and channelled them to support terror-related activities, propagated a secessionist agenda through NGOs, and provided material support to protesters during the 2016 Kashmir unrest. It alleged that Irfan Mehraj was a close associate of Parvez and worked as a researcher with the JKCCS until March 2022. The trial court bail order paved the way for Parvez's release, as he had recently obtained bail from the Delhi High Court in a separate 2021 NIA case alleging that he recruited overground workers for the banned terrorist outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba; in that order the High Court imposed 13 conditions, including a bar on uploading, sharing or circulating anti-national material on social media.

1. The Supreme Industries Limited vs. Supremo India Private Limited (28.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1235/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed a dispute between The Supreme Industries Limited and Supremo India Private Limited concerning trademark infringement. Both parties filed commercial suits in differ

2. South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. vs. India Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (28.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1234/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the dispute between South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. and India Power Corporation Ltd. regarding the extension of an arbitral tribunal's mandate under th

3. State of Rajasthan vs. Jhabra Ram (28.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1233/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the High Court's decision to grant bail to Jhabra Ram, accused of espionage under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and

4. Chetan Sabharwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 28(1), New Delhi (28.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1232/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether the notice dated 31.03.2015 for reopening assessments of Chetan Sabharwal and Nitin Sabharwal for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 was valid under Sections 147-14

5. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. vs. Narender Kumar (28.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1231/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the dispute between the Union of India and Narender Kumar regarding the entitlement to War Injury Pension instead of Disability Pension for Kumar's Rheumatoid Arth

View More Gist.. View More News..

Law Students Hub

Notes : Flashcards : Landmark Cases & more…

Learn More

New

Legal Glossary

Complex terms decoded : Easy explanations

Learn More

On-demand Courses

Recorded classes : Comprehensive reading material :Quiz

Learn More

Self-Paced Certification

Courses to upskill or reskill

Learn More

Webinars

Recordings of experts views :Diverse topics

Learn More

Law Teachers Hub

Readings : Resources for legal educators

Learn More

Legal Posts

Explainers : Blogs : Articles : Case Analysis

Learn More

Survey Reports

AI Adoption : Technology in law

Learn More

Illustrated Cases

Legal Design : Supreme Court Cases : Multilingual Exploration

Learn More

New

Case Infographics

Quickly understand key facts, court decisions, and legal principles through easy-to-follow infographics.

Know More

Our Partners

Why Join Manupatra Academy

Brought to you by Manupatra the leaders in legal tech domain.

Curated Resources: A vast repository of meticulously compiled resources tailored for educators and learners.
Diverse Courses: An array of courses designed to cater to various levels of expertise, from beginners to advanced.
User-Friendly Interface: Accessible on any device, our intuitive interface ensures seamless navigation.

What Our Learners Say

User-Friendly Interface: Accessible on any device, our intuitive interface ensures seamless navigation.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

It was extremely beneficial and practical… really helped me understand the nuances of civil drafting and boosted my confidence in preparing real pleadings.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

The sessions were so insightful and well-structured… the faculty explained every concept with patience and clarity, which made learning much easier.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

Honestly, it was a great learning experience… the course covered everything from plaints to petitions in such a smooth and engaging way.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

The workshop was very hands-on and practical… I really liked the live feedback and the real examples shared during drafting exercises.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

Very well conducted and informative… I just wish it could’ve been a bit longer because the sessions were that helpful.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

The session was honestly eye-opening! I never realized how much time I was wasting on formatting until now.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

Really practical and focused on what lawyers actually need… I can already see how it’ll save hours in my daily work.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

The trainer made even the technical tools so easy to understand… and I loved how they used real pleading examples.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

Very relevant for lawyers and interns alike… it bridges the tech gap we all face while working on documents.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

A concise and super useful masterclass… I now feel confident managing citations, templates, and formatting with ease.