Daily Bulletin

A Supreme Court Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, on October 30, 2026, directed the Union to include stringent enforcement measures in its forthcoming policy on courtroom recordings to prevent unauthorised use. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted existing violations of interim restrictions, which prohibit the extraction, circulation, monetisation, modification, and online hosting of judicial proceedings' audio-video recordings without prior permission. Advocate Prashant Bhushan suggested digital watermarks and hosting authenticated recordings on the Supreme Court’s official website.

A Supreme Court Quarterly Digest for July-September 2026, released on October 30, 2026, highlighted a significant ruling that police cannot independently investigate offences exclusively punishable under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act. The Court clarified that the Appropriate Authority (AA) appointed under Section 17 of the Act is the sole competent authority to investigate violations and institute criminal complaints. This ruling, from State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 842, reinforces the specialised enforcement machinery established by the Act.

The Supreme Court, in a ruling highlighted in its quarterly digest released today, October 30, 2026, clarified the scope of an arrested person's right to meet an advocate during interrogation under Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court held that while Section 38 guarantees the right to meet an advocate of choice, it does not mandate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of the advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session. This decision, from State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 722, allows courts to regulate the manner and distance of the advocate's presence to prevent interference, without granting an unqualified entitlement to continuous presence.

A Supreme Court ruling, featured in its quarterly digest released today, October 30, 2026, emphasized the mandatory nature of communicating grounds of arrest and producing an arrestee within 24 hours. The Court, in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 967, affirmed that the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS (Section 50 CrPC) is a binding constitutional safeguard, necessitating written communication in a language understood by the arrestee, with any infringement vitiating the arrest. Furthermore, the constitutional mandate under Article 22(2) and Section 58 of BNSS (Section 57 CrPC) for production before a Magistrate within 24 hours must be strictly observed, as detention beyond this period without magisterial authorization is unconstitutional and unlawful.

The Supreme Court, in its quarterly digest released today, October 30, 2026, provided clarity on interim maintenance for minor children under Section 125 CrPC, emphasizing the shared obligation of both parents while acknowledging the significant non-monetary contribution of the custodial mother. In Sujata Kumari v. Rahul Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 839, the Court stated that a mother's employment does not automatically halve the father's liability, as the custodial parent's day-to-day care and emotional support constitute a substantial contribution. Additionally, in Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 748, the Court ruled that an adultery defense raised under Section 125(4) CrPC must be decided in the interregnum after an interim maintenance order and before the final adjudication of the main maintenance petition, rather than deferring it to final disposal.

A Supreme Court ruling, highlighted in its quarterly digest released today, October 30, 2026, clarified the extent of the window for police custody under Section 187(2) and (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 722, observed that the BNSS enlarges the period during which police custody (not exceeding 15 days in aggregate) may be sought, allowing it to be taken in parts during the first 40 or 60 days of detention. This legislative change aims to address situations where fresh facts or discoveries emerge later in the investigation, and courts cannot impose an absolute, non-extendable outer limit on custody that runs counter to the statutory object.

The Supreme Court, in a ruling highlighted in its quarterly digest released today, October 30, 2026, clarified that the mere non-supply of a charge sheet copy to the accused does not entitle them to default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). In Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 649, the Court upheld a High Court judgment, stating that default bail is applicable only when the investigating agency fails to file the charge sheet within the stipulated time. The ruling emphasizes that non-delivery of a charge sheet copy after it has been filed within the prescribed period does not constitute a ground for granting default bail.

A significant Supreme Court ruling, featured in its quarterly digest released today, October 30, 2026, affirmed the dynamic and uncurtailable power of Constitutional Courts under Article 226/227 and Section 482 CrPC to order a fresh or de novo investigation by an independent agency or Special Investigation Team (SIT). In Kusumavati Gowda v. Government of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 970, the Court held that this power can be exercised where an investigation was tainted, biased, sham, or conducted to shield real culprits, even if a trial culminates in the acquittal of a wrongly accused person. This underscores that a fair investigation is as fundamental a facet of Article 21 as a fair trial, ensuring that real perpetrators do not remain unapprehended due to flawed investigative processes.