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 declines to modify Delhi riots UAPA accused's bail condition, directs him to trial court

Supreme Court declines to modify Delhi riots UAPA accused's bail condition, directs him to trial court

The Supreme Court on October 26 refused to entertain a plea by Shadab Ahmad, an accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, seeking permission to leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi to attend classes at a law university in Ghaziabad. The plea was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the accused to approach the Trial Court. Ahmad had filed a miscellaneous application seeking modification of bail condition number (ii), which prohibits him from leaving the NCTD without prior permission of the Trial Court, and of bail condition number (v), to mark his attendance before the Station House Officer, Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Marg once a week instead of the two days a week, Monday and Thursday, imposed by the Supreme Court. Ahmad was granted bail along with Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman and Mohd. Saleem Khan by a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria on January 5 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and a Delhi Court ordered his release on January 8. When the matter was taken up by a bench comprising Justice Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, Ahmad's counsel submitted that the accused is on the path of reformation and has secured admission in a law school in Ghaziabad, that classes are held on Tuesdays and Sundays from 10 am to 3 pm about 10 km from Delhi, and that the session had already started in August, leaving him behind schedule. Counsel said Ahmad had applied for a three-year course at Delhi University but was unable to secure admission there. Justice Kumar refused to modify the conditions and questioned whether the accused had first approached the Trial Court; counsel said the Trial Court did not deal with the second bail condition as that had to be done by the Supreme Court only. The bench remarked that the accused should tell the Trial Court and observed that it knew why he had joined that law college, leaving out all the law colleges inside Delhi. The counsel then sought leave to withdraw the petition, which the Court allowed, ordering that the petition be dismissed with liberty to approach the trial court. The Supreme Court had imposed 11 bail conditions on the accused, including prohibitions on attending rallies or public meetings and on circulating posters, banners or other campaign material in any form, and directed them to execute a personal bond of Rs. 2 lakh with two local sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioners, student activists at the forefront of organising anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests in 2019-2020, face charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the Indian Penal Code for allegedly formulating the larger conspiracy behind the communal riots in the national capital in the last week of February 2020.

2. Supreme Court told FIR registered against Ashish Mishra, others for threatening Lakhimpur Kheri witness

Supreme Court told FIR registered against Ashish Mishra, others for threatening Lakhimpur Kheri witness

The Supreme Court was informed on Thursday (October 9, 2025) that an FIR had been registered against former Union Minister and BJP leader Ajay Mishra, his son Ashish Mishra, and two others for allegedly threatening a key witness in the Lakhimpur Kheri killings case. The incident of October 3, 2021, claimed eight lives, including four farmers who were mowed down during a protest against the now-scrapped farm laws. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Baghchi was told by the Uttar Pradesh police that the witness's allegation was found to have some substance. An FIR was accordingly registered at the Padua police station in Lakhimpur Kheri under Sections 195A (threatening any person to give false evidence), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. In its affidavit, the State said a Deputy Superintendent of Police had been deputed to Punjab, where the witness, Baljinder Singh, resides, and his statement was recorded there; he confirmed he had been under pressure not to depose during the trial, after which the FIR was registered. The affidavit added that armed police protection has been extended to him and his family. Mr. Singh had approached the apex court in January alleging he received a threatening call warning him against deposing in the trial. The FIR follows the court's sharp criticism of the U.P. police on August 7 for prolonged inaction on the complaint alleging threats to the witness; the police had cited the complainant's unwillingness to visit the police station, and the court observed that a senior officer ought to have personally visited the complainant to verify the written complaint. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the witness, urged that the investigation be entrusted to a DSP-level officer given the sensitivity of the case and the stature of the accused, while senior advocate Siddharth Dave, for Ashish Mishra, opposed the plea. The Bench directed that the officer who recorded the witness's statement, or another officer of equivalent rank, head the investigation, and directed the U.P. police to place the latest status of the probe on record at the next hearing. Mr. Bhushan also sought directions for expeditious conduct of the trial, pointing out that the trial court was hearing the matter infrequently and 99 witnesses were yet to be examined. Justice Kant declined to issue such a direction, observing it would directly amount to monitoring of the trial by the court and could inconvenience witnesses and disrupt other cases. Mr. Dave sought permission for his client to visit his hometown during Diwali to be with his family; Mr. Mishra's bail conditions prohibit him from entering Lakhimpur Kheri except when required for trial. The Bench allowed the request but clarified that all stringent conditions under its March 24, 2025, order would remain in force, and recorded his undertaking to return from Lakhimpur on October 22. The court had earlier granted him a two-day relaxation to visit his hometown for the Ram Navami festival on April 5 and 6.

3. Madras High Court denies anticipatory bail to Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi in party fund collection case

Madras High Court denies anticipatory bail to Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi in party fund collection case

The Madras High Court on Monday (October 26, 2026) denied anticipatory bail to former DMK Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi in a case booked against him on charges of collecting crores of rupees towards a 'party fund' from private school managements in Tamil Nadu for grant of various approvals during his tenure as School Education Minister between 2021 and 2026. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan dismissed the advance bail plea after accepting the arguments of State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan, assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani, that the Chennai Central Crime Branch (CCB) police had gathered sufficient material to suspect the former Minister's active involvement in the crime, requiring his custodial interrogation. In a counter statement opposing advance bail, an Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to the CCB told the court that the former Minister is the fifth accused in the First Information Report and that the investigating team had so far arrested only the first accused, B.T. Arasakumar, while the second accused, Muthukumar, remains at large and absconding. The investigating officer said the former Minister had reassured the relatives of the absconding accused that the latter was safe and would return at an appropriate time; referring to the counter statement, the SPP submitted that the whereabouts of the absconding accused could be ascertained only if the former Minister was arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation. According to the CCB, the first and second accused were the founder president and treasurer respectively of an unregistered body titled 'Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association', and were instrumental in collecting crores of rupees from private school managements for purposes such as permanent recognition, upgradation, DTCP/CMDA approvals, building-related permissions and other government approvals. The agency claimed the unregistered association was formed in 2024 on the basis of the former Minister's communication through his personal assistant, Valadi Karthick, and that Mr. Poyyamozhi participated in the inauguration event held at Kalaivanar Arangam in Chennai on December 30, 2024. Claiming it had secured video footage of the event, the CCB said the then Minister projected Mr. Arasakumar and Mr. Muthukumar before a large gathering of school correspondents, after which the needs of individual school managements were routed through the first two accused to be placed before the higher government level. The CCB told the court that more than 177 victim school managements had come forward and a prima facie amount of Rs 17,26,73,650 had been traced, with the complete financial trail and ultimate beneficiaries still under investigation. Denying the petitioner's claim that it was a case of mere name-dropping, the investigating agency said that by virtue of his position as School Education Minister he lent his office and access and was the link at the government level through whom the same category of demands were taken up and processed, and that materials had surfaced showing monies collected were handed over to the Minister. The CCB stated that it arrayed Mr. Poyyamozhi as the fifth accused only after coming across materials regarding collection of bribe money termed 'party fund' and the direct interactions the victims had with him on different occasions, and said much more of the illegalities could be unearthed only after securing the second accused, citing the magnitude of the conspiracy, the gravity of the accusations, the organised manner in which the offences were committed and the continuing investigation into the money trail.

4. Experts discuss sports selection and eligibility disputes at AIAC ADR Week 2026

Experts discuss sports selection and eligibility disputes at AIAC ADR Week 2026

At the session titled “Selection and Eligibility Disputes in Sports: Asia’s Answer to a Global Problem” during AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026 in Kuala Lumpur, panellists examined how sports arbitration can address disputes involving athletes, sports federations and governing bodies. The discussion covered transparent selection criteria, specialised arbitrators, internal dispute resolution mechanisms and the commercial consequences of selection decisions. Mr. Richard Wee of Richard Wee Chambers moderated the session. The panellists were Dato’ M. Rajasekaran, a practising lawyer and sports arbitrator; Ms. Foo Yuet Min, Managing Director, Dispute Resolution, Drew & Napier LLC; and Mr. Arturo Galván Tomillo, Head of Sports Legal, Disciplinary & Governance at the Asian Football Confederation. Dato’ M. Rajasekaran said selection disputes must first be categorised by their underlying causes so appropriate remedies can be identified. He divided them into three categories: objective qualification failures, including errors in calculating ranking points, failure to satisfy timing criteria, numerical quotas and cases where an athlete meets published qualifying standards but a federation applies different unpublished standards; misapplication of subjective criteria, including current form, tactical suitability and inconsistent or improper exercise of discretion; and eligibility disputes and status barriers, including suspensions, disciplinary issues, nationality, residency, age, gender eligibility, transfer rules and classification requirements in Paralympic sports. Referring to nationality-related disputes, he mentioned the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s award dated 6 March 2026 concerning the Football Association of Malaysia’s appeal against FIFA involving seven footballers. He emphasised that selection and eligibility disputes do not arise in a legal vacuum and that an athlete’s rights may derive from the relevant sports body’s constitution, selection guidelines, policies, contractual arrangements, competition regulations and the principles of natural justice. Mr. Arturo Galván Tomillo agreed on the need to distinguish subjective selection considerations from objective eligibility requirements. He said selection may depend on performance, tactical considerations and fitness, whereas eligibility is generally governed by competition regulations. In football, he said eligibility requirements may concern nationality, age, player registration, registration deadlines and gender eligibility. He stressed that governing bodies must establish clear and publicly accessible rules so athletes, clubs and member associations understand participation requirements. He also discussed provisions under FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players concerning a player’s ability to terminate a contract with just cause. He explained that a player who participates in fewer than 10 per cent of matches during a season may seek to rely on this ground, but the relevant circumstances must be established, and a player who fails to prove just cause may face sanctions. He further referred to situations in which clubs withhold.

5. Gujarat High Court criticises Vadodara Collector over affidavit remarks against judicial officer

Gujarat High Court criticises Vadodara Collector over affidavit remarks against judicial officer

Justice Niral R Mehta of the Gujarat High Court expressed strong displeasure with Vadodara Collector Anil Dhameliya over statements made against a judicial officer in an affidavit. The affidavit was filed in response to a query concerning the Collector's rejection of an application for permission to use certain land for non-agricultural purposes. Dhameliya had rejected the application on August 17, 2026, mainly on the ground that revision applications were pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, while the petitioner claimed those proceedings had concluded in 2024. In the affidavit, the Collector also stated that the in-charge Chairman had passed an order concerning other land in Anand District without properly appreciating and interpreting orders of the Gujarat High Court. The Court held that the Collector could simply have said the disposal of the revisions was not reflected on the online portal, instead of narrating additional facts about the then in-charge chairman of the GRT. Justice Mehta observed that the facts stated on oath were completely irrelevant and not only disturbing but scandalous in nature, amounting prima facie to imputing aspersions against a judicial officer. The judge repeatedly asked Dhameliya why he had included those details, rejected his repeated unconditional apologies, and declined to permit him to withdraw the affidavit. Justice Mehta said the Collector had crossed the limits and that he had been ignoring many orders but could not ignore this. The Court also noted pending contempt proceedings against Dhameliya in a separate matter, in which a Division Bench had framed charges in April 2026, and expressed concern that similar issues continued to arise. It questioned how the sincerity of a government officer's apology could be gauged when the conduct appeared to recur. The judge remarked that Dhameliya could offer such apologies to his superiors and emphasised that the Court refrains from personal comments against officers and follows decorum. The Court asked Additional Chief Secretary in charge of the General Administration Department T Natarajan to join the proceedings virtually and explain what action the State administration proposed to take against the Collector. Justice Mehta told Natarajan that repeated apologies were not sufficient, that the officer had crossed the limits, was not immune and must know that. The supplied text ends before Natarajan's full response is set out.

1. Gir Vanvaso Resort vs. Pancard Clubs Limited (22.07.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1207/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the dispute between Gir Vanvaso Resort and Pancard Clubs Limited, focusing on the ownership and possession of a resort under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proces

2. Anumandala Rajesh Reddy vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (24.08.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1206/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the appeals by Anumandala Rajesh Reddy against the State of Karnataka and others, focusing on whether the High Court erred in quashing proceedings initiated by Red

3. Indroneel Goho vs. Razouvonuo Thong and Ors. (29.09.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1203/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the appeal by Indroneel Goho against Razouvonuo Thong and others, focusing on whether the criminal proceedings for cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC s

4. Zaki Ullah Khan vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (15.07.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1202/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether the deed granting fishing rights to Zaki Ullah Khan constituted a lease of immovable property, thus requiring registration and stamp duty. The Collector of

5. Rasilaben and Ors. vs. Dinesh Deumal Harani and Ors. (21.07.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1201/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether Rasilaben and others should be impleaded as necessary parties in a suit filed by Dinesh Deumal Harani, who sought a declaration of his status as a tenant o

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.