The Supreme Court has ruled that prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not required for cases involving the demand of a bribe. A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria held that demanding illegal gratification is a criminal act unconnected to a public servant's official duties. The judgment was delivered while dismissing an appeal by a Rajasthan Police constable charged under Section 7 of the Act.
Daily Bulletin
“The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance.”
— Alan Watts
“The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance.”
— Alan Watts
Polity & Governance
The President of India has promulgated the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) Regulation, enabling the establishment of hill councils in all eight districts of the Union Territory. According to Ladakh's Lieutenant Governor, Shri Vinai Kumar Saxena, the decision will extend autonomous governance structures across the region, including the newly-created Sankoo district. The regulation aims to strengthen democratic decentralisation and local administration.
The Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to widely publicise the 'Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026', framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan ordered the Centre to publish the scheme in the Official Gazette. The court also sought clarification on whether the scheme covers accidents involving uninsured vehicles.
The voter roll deletion process is under judicial scrutiny over the mandatory use of Form 6 for reinstating names. Petitions before the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court argue that Form 6, meant for new voters, forces previously registered electors to make a false declaration, which is punishable under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The issue gained prominence after 47.56 lakh electors were excluded from Delhi's draft electoral roll.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Dr MK Ravi Varma v. National Institute of Technology, observed that its precedents barring the recovery of excess payments made to employees by mistake have not considered Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu noted that Section 72 obligates a person to repay money paid by mistake, aligning with the principle against unjust enrichment. The Court upheld the recovery of excess Academic Grade Pay from teachers who had given an undertaking to refund any erroneous payments.
The Kerala High Court, in a ruling by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, has held that it cannot extend a deadline for the registration of elephants for temple processions that was previously fixed by the Supreme Court. The court clarified that without a specific extension granted by the Supreme Court itself, neither the High Court nor the government possesses the authority to direct a delayed registration or consider an application for a time extension. This judgment reinforces the binding nature of deadlines set by the apex court on lower courts and executive bodies.
The Supreme Court has clarified the conditions for amending a plaint after a trial has commenced, as per Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan, in the case of Haramani Sahoo & Others v Lalita Nayak & Others, ruled that such an amendment can be allowed if the party demonstrates that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite due diligence. The Court emphasized a liberal approach to ensure complete justice, stating that mere delay is not a sufficient ground for refusal and that amendments can be permitted subject to costs, which was set at Rs 25,000 in this instance.
The Supreme Court, in a ruling on October 15, affirmed that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right for every individual, including children. A bench comprising Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K V Chandran, however, clarified that this right is not absolute. The Court held that reasonable restrictions may be imposed subject to constitutional requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality, particularly in the interest of public order or child safety.
Read the rest of today's bulletin
You are reading 8 of today's 64 items. An account brings you the other 56, the day's market indicators and every past bulletin.
Takes about a minute. Your email and a password is all it needs.