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. Supreme Court seeks Centre, Delhi Police replies on national guidelines for journalists at protests

Supreme Court seeks Centre, Delhi Police replies on national guidelines for journalists at protests

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought responses from the Centre and the Delhi Police on a plea seeking national guidelines for interactions between law-enforcement authorities and journalists during protests and crowd-control operations, Press Trust of India reported. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, “We would like to lay down guidelines,” after senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that there should be a national protocol. The court directed that no coercive action be taken against a woman journalist who was booked following a complaint by a Delhi Police officer alleging that she made casteist remarks against him and publicly humiliated him during a protest near Jantar Mantar. Jaising said the woman journalist was molested by a police officer but no first information report had been registered on her complaint. The bench said the allegations in her complaint were “very serious” and asked the police to examine it and complete the inquiry. Jaising urged the bench to direct authorities not to register any more cases against women journalists, and argued that police could not investigate themselves, so an independent committee should examine complaints filed by women journalists. She said journalists had a right to report, and referred to war zones in Israel and Palestine to argue that journalists are not stopped there, while here they were being stopped from going to Jantar Mantar. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that identifying journalists had become difficult in the digital age, saying that anyone with a mobile is a journalist, that several people claim to be freelance journalists, and that what was going on was reel-making in the protests, with authorities unable to distinguish a reel-maker from an independent journalist. Jaising alleged that several women journalists performing their duties were pushed and assaulted, including by male police officers, and asked the court to form an independent committee. The bench said such a committee could predominantly or exclusively comprise women, including retired judges, retired Indian Police Service officers and others. Jaising said she could suggest names for the committee and would submit a list of complaints by women journalists in a sealed cover. The bench observed that before the court every voice is valuable and everyone will be heard irrespective of numbers. The court then issued notices to the Centre and the Delhi Police. One lawyer said police had seized electronic devices belonging to several journalists covering the protests, and another lawyer alleged that police had mistreated a large number of women protesters. Mehta said he should be allowed to file his response. After the court barred coercive action against the woman journalist, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for other petitioners, raised the case of a pregnant journalist and alleged that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi pushed her on the Supreme Court premises during the October 12 march; he said she was three months pregnant and was hospitalised, and urged the court to take note of the incident.

2. Bombay High Court Rules Additional Public Prosecutor Is Not A Public Servant Under Prevention Of Corruption Act

Bombay High Court Rules Additional Public Prosecutor Is Not A Public Servant Under Prevention Of Corruption Act

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a criminal revision application filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging an order of the Special Judge discharging an Additional Public Prosecutor accused of demanding a bribe. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh heard the matter, which concerned offences under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused, Dhananjay Sakharam Bhosale, was alleged to have demanded Rs 25,000 to favour an accused in a criminal case; the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which arranged a trap. The accused sought discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Special Judge held that an Additional Public Prosecutor is not a public servant and therefore cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The State challenged that discharge. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, which distinguishes the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors from that of Assistant Public Prosecutors, who are employees of the State. It noted that the appointment of a Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor is a tenure appointment whose conditions are not governed by statutory rules. The Court also observed that there was no basis for accused No. 1 to demand a bribe to favour a complainant whose appeal had already been allowed, and it underlined the discrepancies noted by the Special Judge in the statements of the panch witnesses. The Court held that a person holding the post of Additional Public Prosecutor is not a public servant and cannot be prosecuted under the PC Act. The criminal revision application, State of Maharashtra v. Dhananjay Sakharam Bhosale [Criminal Revision Application No. 497 of 2008], was accordingly dismissed.

3. MP High Court Says Sanctioning Authority Must Independently Assess Evidence In Corruption Case

MP High Court Says Sanctioning Authority Must Independently Assess Evidence In Corruption Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the authority competent to grant prosecution sanction must independently apply its mind to the sanction question and cannot be influenced by a Special Judge's prima facie findings against a public servant. A division bench of Justices Subodh Abhyankar and Jai Kumar Pillai partly allowed a petition seeking quashing of the Special Judge's order rejecting the final closure report against a public servant accused of corruption. The applicant, now retired, had worked as Sub Divisional Officer in Bridge Corporation and was posted as Executive Engineer in Indore after its merger with the Public Works Department. A Class A government contractor complained that he was awarded a tender for construction of a submersible bridge over the Khan River; the PWD and the complainant signed an agreement, and when the work was about 80 percent complete, he received running payments of approximately Rs 1.50 crores. According to the prosecution, on May 13, 2017, the applicant called the complainant to his office, said his bills were cleared, and demanded a bribe of Rs 6.5 lakh as commission. The complainant claimed he paid Rs 1.5 lakh in cash and did not want to pay the remaining amount, so on July 4, 2017 he submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police in Indore. He was given a digital voice recorder to record his conversation with the applicant. During a meeting in the applicant's office that evening, the applicant allegedly agreed to accept the remaining Rs 5 lakh and instructed the complainant to hand over the money to the SDO. The next day, the applicant allegedly called the complainant and asked why the money was not given to the SDO and asked him to come to the office with the money; the complainant recorded the call. Based on the audio recordings, police registered an FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Trap attempts on July 13, 14, and 17, 2017 failed because the applicant was unavailable and his phone was switched off. After investigation, police filed a closure report on February 15, 2019, saying there was insufficient reason to believe a bribe had been demanded, particularly because the running bills had already been paid and the trap had failed. The Special Judge rejected the closure report by order dated May 1, 2025, holding that a prima facie case under Section 7 of the PCA was made out, and directed police to forward records to the competent authority for prosecution sanction within three months. The applicant approached the High Court contending that the Special Judge did not have jurisdiction to direct the investigation agency to obtain prosecution sanction and that the Special Judge ought to have accepted the closure report. His counsel claimed the sanctioning authority must decide prosecution sanction independently and without pressure from the court. The State argued that the Special Judge merely exercised the power to reject a police report and that the closure report was completely flawed. The High Court observed that if a Special Judge records a final finding that a prima facie charge is already made out, the sanctioning authority may feel it has no choice but to grant sanction, which defeats the purpose of statutory protection for public servants. It said the sanctioning authority must take a decision independently, without being influenced by the Special Judge's order.

4. Madras High Court closes plea on delay in complaint against Udhayanidhi Stalin after magistrate issues pre-cognisance notice

Madras High Court closes plea on delay in complaint against Udhayanidhi Stalin after magistrate issues pre-cognisance notice

The Madras High Court on Thursday, October 15, closed a plea concerning the delay in numbering a complaint filed against Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin over alleged corrupt practice during the 2026 Assembly Elections. Justice V Lakshminarayanan closed the plea after taking note of a report from the Metropolitan Magistrate stating that the complaint had been numbered and a pre-cognisance notice had been issued. The court had previously asked the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Georgetown, Chennai, to state how long it would take to number the criminal complaint. The plea was filed by Milany, who had also contested from the Chepauk constituency. Milany had earlier approached the court seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to furnish election-related documents of Udhayanidhi Stalin and other documents sought by Milany. The court had observed that filing an election petition was a statutory right. Milany submitted that documents received from the District Election Officer confirmed corrupt practice by Udhayanidhi, amounting to undue influence on voters. Arguing that Udhayanidhi had made false declarations in his election affidavit, Milany submitted that as per a Supreme Court judgment, a false declaration regarding the assets of a candidate or his or her spouse constitutes corrupt practice irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration. Milany further submitted that he had filed a complaint with the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act on September 8, 2026. He added that when a question was raised regarding the maintainability of the complaint, he made an oral clarification and also filed a written clarification. He submitted that though the complaint was filed in September and more than 25 days had lapsed, it had not been accepted or returned for want of compliance. He submitted that the complaint had been kept pending without assigning any case number. Milany submitted that Udhayanidhi was a highly influential person with both men and money power, and keeping the complaint pending without taking cognisance amounted to a travesty of justice. He added that though special courts were formed with the sole intention to expedite prosecution in cases involving MPs and MLAs, the stark reality was that despite presenting the complaint, it had not been taken on record. He had thus approached the court seeking to direct the Magistrate to expedite and take on file his complaint.

5. PIL in P&H High Court seeks CBI probe into live-streamed killing of anti-drug activist in Mansa

PIL in P&H High Court seeks CBI probe into live-streamed killing of anti-drug activist in Mansa

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking transfer of the investigation into the daylight killing of anti-drug activist Parvinder Singh alias Parminder Singh alias Jhota in Mansa to the Central Bureau of Investigation. In a Facebook Live broadcast started by Jhota, he entered a local chemist shop near the railway crossing in Mansa, Punjab, to confront the owner, Ashwini Kumar, over the suspected illegal sale of habit-forming pharmaceutical drugs. In the live video, Kumar was seen shooting Jhota. The FIR was registered on October 14, 2026 at Police Station City-2, Mansa. It invokes Sections 103(1), 109, 118(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The petition also seeks independent inquiries into how the accused chemist's drug licence and arms licence were granted, renewed and continued, the police's alleged failure to respond to the deceased's call, and the delay in shifting him to hospital. The petitioner stated that he is a social worker from Rania in Haryana's Sirsa district, which borders Mansa and Bathinda in Punjab. The petition says people in these areas share close social, economic, religious and family ties and regularly travel between the two States. It contends that the killing and the resulting unrest affect citizens' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21. According to the petition, the deceased was about 45 years old and a former freestyle kabaddi player. He ran an Anti-Drug Task Force and exposed the illegal sale of intoxicants at medical stores through live videos on his Facebook page, which had about 63,000 followers. In July 2023, he had raised allegations that banned intoxicating capsules were being sold by Ashwani Kumar, who owns a medical store on Bathinda Road, Mansa. A case was registered against the accused on his complaint, and a cross-case was registered against the deceased. He was taken into custody and released in September 2023. The petition says that on October 13, 2026, the deceased saw a person leaving the store after allegedly buying intoxicating capsules. He began recording a video, questioned the accused, and called the police, but they did not arrive. While he was questioning the accused, the accused allegedly opened fire. The petition alleges that the police took about 20 to 25 minutes to reach the spot after the firing, and that the deceased was not immediately taken to hospital. He was declared brought dead at Civil Hospital, Mansa. The petition is titled Hukam Singh v. State of Punjab & others.

1. B. Anasuyamma (Died) per L.R. and Ors. vs. B. Madhusudhan Reddy (Died) per L.Rs. and Ors. (14.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1175/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed a dispute originating from a 1959 family settlement involving B. Anasuyamma and others against B. Madhusudhan Reddy and others, concerning the rightful ownership a

2. Sanjay Prasad vs. Madhusudan Dwivedi and Ors. (14.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1174/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether an intra-court appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in contempt proceedings, specifically when the order addresses the merits o

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Division vs. Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala and Ors. (14.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1173/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether the appeal filed by The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax against Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala and others was barred by limitation under the

4. Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf vs. Mohammed Saleem and Ors. (14.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1172/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed a dispute between Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf and Mohammed Saleem regarding the execution of a decree for specific performance of a property sale agreement. T

5. Mohd. Asad Choudhary vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (14.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1171/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of Mohd. Asad Choudhary's academic credential verification by Manav Bharti University, which was necessary for his employment confirmation as a Sub-Inspe

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

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.