The Supreme Court on 30 October 2026 directed that measures for action against violations of its interim restrictions on the unauthorised circulation of live-streamed court hearings be incorporated into the policy being formulated by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) in Harshita Grover v Union of India. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that suggestions from High Courts, lawyers and stakeholders are before the Registry and a policy is being formulated, and that breaches of the earlier directions have occurred. The court's earlier interim order barred unauthorised use or circulation of live-streamed proceedings on social media without prior permission, while clarifying that recognised news organisations may report on hearings but must comply with the restrictions on circulating video or audio recordings. Source: Bar & Bench (Bar & Bench)
The Supreme Court has held that income tax reassessment proceedings cannot go ahead without the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the Revenue's appeals in PCIT Bhubaneswar v Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (2026 INSC 1171, judgment dated 28 October 2026). A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva ruled that a taxpayer's participation does not cure a notice that was never issued, that Section 292BB covers faulty service rather than non-issuance, and that neither a Section 142(1) letter nor treating an earlier return as the Section 148 response can substitute for the notice. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had set aside the reassessments and the High Court had upheld that decision. Sources: LiveLaw Biz Raw Law (Livelawbiz, Rawlaw)
The Madras High Court on 30 October 2026 directed Tamil Nadu Police to refuse permission for public gatherings or marches aimed at personally targeting, defaming or intimidating sitting judges, and to stop any permitted assembly that turns into such an attack. A division bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, ruling in Karthikeyan v Union of India, held that citizens may criticise or disagree with judgments, but coordinated abusive, defamatory or caste-based attacks on judges are not protected free speech. The court also directed the Cyber Crime Division to monitor digital platforms for criminal intimidation of judges, while rejecting a blanket ban on all discussions or gatherings about court rulings, which must be considered case by case. Source: Bar & Bench (Bar & Bench)
The Supreme Court on 30 October 2026 set aside the Patna High Court's 19 March 2026 order granting bail to Mokama MLA Anant Singh in the Dularchand Yadav murder case, holding that the High Court had not adequately weighed the gravity of the offence and Singh's criminal antecedents. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale directed Singh to surrender by 1 December 2026 and gave Bihar Police four months to complete the investigation. Yadav was killed on 30 October 2025 during Bihar election campaigning in Mokama, and Singh was arrested on 1 November 2025; the bail challenge was brought by Niraj Kumar, the deceased's grandson. The cancellation of bail is not a conviction, and the case continues. Sources: The Indian Express The New Indian Express (Indian Express, New Indian Express)
The bench held that the legislature cannot override judicial decisions that had already upheld the selection's cancellation. Karnataka must now run fresh recruitment for the vacant Group A and Group B posts. (Indian Express)
The Supreme Court on 28 October 2026 questioned why Delhi voters already on the 2026 electoral roll, whose names were omitted from the draft roll, must file Form 6, a form meant for first-time voters that requires declaring they were never enrolled. Justice Joymalya Bagchi called the situation a structural incongruity, observing that missing one enumeration form cannot forfeit the right to vote forever, and the Election Commission's counsel said it would discuss a new residual category for voters who missed the enumeration form. The bench also noted that about 47 lakh of Delhi's 1.45 crore voters had been deleted, and listed the matter again in two weeks. Source: Telegraph India (Telegraphindia)
The Supreme Court on 28 October 2026 asked the Election Commission to devise a mechanism to reach out to nearly 47 lakh Delhi voters omitted from the draft rolls during the Special Intensive Revision, observing that the right to vote cannot be forfeited merely because a voter was absent during enumeration. Chief Justice Surya Kant suggested publishing a list of voters the poll panel could not contact, with their previous polling locations, and asking them to approach their nearest booth-level officer. The court also urged the Commission to keep accepting Forms 6 and 8 with no cut-off for now, and listed the matter again in two weeks. Sources: New Indian Express, Deccan Chronicle, National Herald (New Indian Express, Deccan Chronicle, Nationalheraldindia)
A door-to-door audit across four polling booths in Trilokpuri found that 416 of 1,236 verified voters, about one in three, had been wrongly categorised as absent, shifted, dead or duplicate in Delhi's draft electoral roll, organisers said at a public hearing on 27 October 2026. Only 87 of the 416 had filed Form 6 to seek restoration, three voters marked dead were found alive, and 55% of those marked absent were found living at their registered addresses. The Election Commission has not independently verified the audit findings. Sources: The Hindu, Indian Express, The Wire (The Hindu, Indian Express, The Wire)
During the 28 October 2026 hearing on Delhi's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, the Supreme Court observed that being away from home for one or two months for work cannot be treated as a permanent change of residence, and cannot justify deleting migrant workers, street vendors and daily wagers from the rolls. The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also clarified that Form 6 is meant only for first-time voters, while voters who have merely changed address should use Form 8. The court was hearing a challenge concerning about 47 lakh allegedly deleted names and 33 lakh notices, and listed the matter again in two weeks. Source: New Indian Express (New Indian Express)
The remarks followed concerns over the ministry outsourcing NCLT staff recruitment to a private company. The court said appointment power must rest with the NCLT president alone. (Bar & Bench)
The Supreme Court on October 27, 2026 upheld the exclusion of ECL Finance and its debenture trustee from Palm Developers' Committee of Creditors. It held that steering a debtor's policy counts as related-party status under the insolvency law, even without complete control. (Lawchakra)
The Supreme Court has said it is yet to decide the constitutionality of using 'logical discrepancy' as a ground to remove voters from electoral rolls, during the hearing on petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of rolls in Delhi. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted that the ground was never an issue when the court upheld the Bihar SIR, because it had not been used there, and that its use in West Bengal was only an interim arrangement, not a final decision. The court also questioned how entries in the 2003 voter list could be reopened on this ground, and told the Election Commission not to treat October 30 as a cut-off date, asking it to keep accepting Forms 6 and 8 and to reach out to voters. The Indian Express (Indian Express)
The court directed the Maharashtra government to hand over custody of the petitioner's licensed revolver within eight weeks. A pending appeal against acquittal, it said, does not excuse leaving a return application unexamined on its merits. (Deccanherald)
IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw invited all editors to put their suggestions on record. He said journalistic freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution and there is no intention to affect it. (Reuters)
A United States extradition request dated 27 September 2021 for idol-smuggling accused Subhash Chandra Kapoor remains pending, even as the Supreme Court's stay on the Madras High Court order directing his return to Germany keeps him in custody. The High Court judgment recorded that, according to a Ministry of External Affairs status report, if Kapoor were released from domestic detention he would be produced before the Special Court at Patiala House, New Delhi, for proceedings under Section 5 of the Extradition Act on the US request. Kapoor was extradited from Germany in July 2012 and convicted in November 2022 to 10 years in the Suthamalli temple idols case, while the High Court had held his continued detention for other pre-extradition offences without Germany's consent violated the rule of specialty. The Supreme Court posted the matter for hearing after four weeks. Sources: Devdiscourse, New Indian Express. (Devdiscourse, New Indian Express)
The Supreme Court on 28 October asked the Election Commission to extend deadlines for Delhi's Special Intensive Revision and simplify enrolment, after around 43 lakh voters were left out of the draft electoral roll. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana questioned why voters already on the roll had to file Form 6, meant for first-time voters, to seek re-inclusion, noting that Forms 6, 7 and 8 are cast in stone and cannot be changed. The court said there should be no cut-off dates for applying for re-inclusion, the Commission agreed to extend the claims, objections and enrolment deadlines, and it was given two weeks to make the necessary changes. Sources: The Hindu, ABP Live. (The Hindu, News)
The Supreme Court on 28 October termed cybercrimes involving digital arrests digital dacoity and refused to consolidate 35 criminal cases pending across 12 states against Gourab Kumar Saha and Nidhi Bhandari, who allegedly allowed their company's bank account to be used as a mule account for cyber offences. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana cited an 81-year-old man from Ernakulam who was defrauded of Rs 1.90 crore, with the money allegedly deposited in the mule account. Justice Bagchi said victims could not be forced to travel to Delhi merely for the accused's convenience, and the petitioners ultimately withdrew their plea. Sources: New Indian Express, CNBC-TV18. (New Indian Express, Cnbctv18)
The Supreme Court on 27 October questioned the Centre over the wide gap between medicine prices and retail costs, describing the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority as seemingly totally defunct. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta pointed to a medicine with a price to retailer of Rs 15 carrying a maximum retail price of Rs 250, and asked why a uniform 16 per cent trade margin could not apply to all medicines after the Centre said anti-cancer drug margins were capped at 30 per cent. The court also cited a cancer injection available for Rs 11,000 that a hospital charged Rs 1.30 lakh for, and reserved its verdict on two petitions seeking stricter price controls. Sources: Mathrubhumi, Telegraph India. (English, Telegraphindia)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a Madras High Court order that directed the Centre to take custody of antique dealer Subhash Chandra Kapoor from prison in Tamil Nadu and proceed with his return to Germany. A bench of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan passed the stay while hearing a challenge to the High Court's September 8 order. The Madurai Bench had allowed Kapoor's habeas corpus petition, holding that his continued detention for other offences allegedly committed before his extradition could not be sustained without Germany's consent, under the rule of specialty in the Extradition Act, 1962 and the India-Germany Extradition Treaty. Kapoor, extradited from Germany in July 2012, was convicted in November 2022 and sentenced to ten years for the theft and illegal export of 19 idols from a Tamil Nadu temple, valued at over Rs 94 crore, while four more idol-smuggling cases remain pending against him. Sources: New Indian Express, Latestly (ANI), Punjab Kesari (IANS) (New Indian Express, Latestly, English)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Centre's response to the Digital News Publishers Association's challenge to the DPDP Act and Rules. The plea says the lack of a journalistic exemption could impede reporting and compromise the confidentiality of sources. (Economic Times)
The petitioners got time to answer the Election Commission affidavit, which had been filed the previous day. The court also directed the commission to respond to the other pending petitions before the case returns. (News)
The Supreme Court on Monday directed all states and Union Territories to fund bar rooms, washrooms and other basic amenities for women advocates in district and taluk courts. The bench said those facilities must be provided regardless of how many women advocates practise in a court. (New Indian Express)
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed a homebuyers' appeal against Tata Value Homes, upholding a December 24, 2025 order that had thrown out their complaint. The three-year clock runs from the proposed completion date, not from a delayed handover, so late possession does not create a fresh cause of action. (New Indian Express)
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant will hear the matter on Tuesday. The Commission's counter-affidavit says that from October 21, the online application would be split into Form 6 and the separate SIR declaration, mirroring the physical form. (Deccanherald)
Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a petition challenging repeated scrutiny at Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport, according to the Delhi High Court ruling. The court held that the inconvenience of extra checks alone did not justify judicial intervention, because the traveler was allowed to depart after each one. (News18)