Key Supreme Court and Delhi High Court Judgments – July 2026

July 2026 saw important decisions from the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court across criminal law, constitutional and administrative law, property and commercial disputes, and rapidly evolving areas like AI, digital platforms, and personality rights. This roundup highlights the judgments most relevant for legal practitioners, policy researchers, and serious law students.[scconline][sci.gov]

I. Supreme Court of India – Major July 2026 Rulings

1. Constitutional, Remission and Public Law

a) Remission policy: Constitutional vs statutory

In Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that a remission policy framed under the Governor’s powers in Article 161 overrides a later remission policy framed under Sections 432–433 CrPC. Haryana’s liberal 2002 policy was held to continue despite the 2008 policy; the Court declared State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021) per incuriam for ignoring the earlier three‑judge view in State of Haryana v. Jagdish.[sci.gov]

Practical effect: Life convicts can rely on earlier, more beneficial Article 161‑based policies where later CrPC‑based policies are more stringent.[sci.gov]

b) Article 226: Relief beyond pleadings and limits of certiorari

In Union of India v. Bali Ram, the Court clarified that High Courts under Article 226 are not rigidly confined to the reliefs pleaded. Where the record clearly shows a legal entitlement and denying relief on pleading technicalities would perpetuate injustice, relief may be moulded beyond the prayer clause.[lawzone]

In Basamma v. Goparappa, the Court stressed the opposite boundary: in certiorari, the High Court cannot re‑appreciate evidence or act as an appellate court over a first appellate court’s factual findings, absent jurisdictional error.[lawzone]

c) Citizenship, foreigners and Assam tribunals

In Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India and connected cases, the Court set aside ex parte Foreigners Tribunal opinions and Gauhati High Court orders which had upheld the declaration of 27 appellants as foreigners. The Court held that while Section 9 of the Foreigners Act places the burden of proving citizenship on the proceedee, tribunals must still follow a fair, lawful and reasoned process before declaring someone a foreigner.[lawzone]

d) Nominated local body members and MLC elections

In Pranesh M.K. v. A.V. Gayathri & Ors., the Court held that nominated Town Panchayat members in Karnataka cannot vote in Legislative Council elections from Local Authorities’ Constituencies. Their inclusion in the electoral roll was held contrary to the constitutional scheme.[lawzone]

2. Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure

a) Default bail, cognizance errors, and dowry deaths

In Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. CBI, the Court held that non‑supply of a copy of the charge sheet to an accused is not a ground for default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, so long as the charge‑sheet is filed in time.[sci.gov]

In Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that taking cognizance under a wrong section is a curable defect if the Magistrate otherwise has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the correct offence (Section 465 CrPC).[sci.gov]

In Brajesh Kumar @ Birjesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, the Court reaffirmed that, once a closure report is filed, the Magistrate cannot order the police to file a charge‑sheet; the options are to accept the report, reject it and take cognizance, or order further investigation. In the same matter, the Court acquitted the husband in a dowry death case and criticised the mechanical prosecution of 17 in‑laws as a “travesty of justice”.[lawzone]

b) Circumstantial evidence, Arms Act, and murder without a body

In State of Maharashtra v. Monika Kiran Suryawanshi, the Court upheld acquittal in a 2007 murder case, holding that “mere telephone records” cannot establish an illicit affair or complete the chain of circumstantial evidence needed to sustain conviction.[lawzone]

In State of Jharkhand v. Jagdish Lakra, the Court held that mere recovery of a weapon from a house is insufficient for conviction under the Arms Act unless conscious possession and dominion are proved.[lawzone]

In Debojit Pankika Charaideo Sonari v. State of Assam, the Court reiterated that non‑recovery of a dead body is not fatal to a murder prosecution if a complete chain of reliable circumstantial evidence establishes homicidal death and the accused’s role.[lawzone]

c) Children in conflict with law and delayed trials

In Sagar v. State of Haryana, the Court held that a Children’s Court cannot try a child as an adult without a prior, reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act; failure to do so vitiates the trial.[sci.gov]

In Liakat Ali v. State of J&K, the Court granted bail to an accused incarcerated for over nine years in a murder case, stressing that where an accused is in custody, both court and prosecution are constitutionally obliged to ensure an expeditious trial.[lawzone]

d) AI‑generated fake precedents and discipline in the legal profession

In Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr., the Court condemned the use of AI‑generated fake citations by tribunals, holding that citing such non‑existent precedents without verification amounts to professional misconduct for advocates and serious lapse for adjudicators. Judgments based on such fake precedents were held void. The Court asked the Bar Council of India to frame norms on AI usage in legal practice.[sci.gov]

In Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association, the Court directed the Bar Council of India to institutionalise Continuing Legal Education and to audit disciplinary mechanisms for advocates, emphasising that self‑regulation must be matched by transparency and effectiveness.[sci.gov]

3. Property, Contract, Mining and Succession

a) Security deposits, royalty and mining

In State of Haryana v. Jai Durgaa Finvest (P) Ltd., the Court held that a clause in a commercial contract denying interest on security deposit is not against public policy merely for that reason.[sci.gov]

In State of Haryana v. Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals, the Court held that silence in a mining lease deed on royalty revision does not remove the State’s statutory power under the MMDR Act to periodically revise royalty; royalty is a statutory levy and not frozen merely by contract.[lawzone]

In Kirloskar Ferrous Industries v. Union of India, the Court upheld rules including royalty and payments to DMF and NMET in computing average sale price for royalty, rejecting Article 14 and 19(1)(g) challenges.[sci.gov]

b) Heirs’ preferential rights, sale deeds, rectification and probate

In Mahinder v. Puran Singh, the Court held that the Class‑I heirs’ preferential right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act to purchase co‑heir property applies to agricultural land as well, since the provision is part of succession law within Parliament’s competence.[lawzone]

In R. Veronica v. Rudrayani Devaki, the Court held that the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act (about calling attesting witnesses) does not apply to registered sale deeds because law does not require sale deeds to be attested at all; thus proof of attestation is unnecessary unless execution is specifically denied.[lawzone]

In Venkatesha v. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa, the Court ruled that a rectification deed cannot, under the guise of correcting an error, substitute the very property conveyed by an earlier sale deed without the original transferor’s consent.[lawzone]

In a probate case reported at 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 683, the Court clarified that there is no automatic three‑year limitation from the testator’s death; the right to apply for probate arises when it becomes necessary (for example, when a hostile action challenges the Will).[lawzone]

c) Specific performance and IBC

In Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar, the Court held that a clause providing for refund of earnest money in case of non‑execution of sale deed does not, by itself, bar specific performance; it merely secures a minimum remedy for the purchaser, not an option for the seller to walk away.[lawzone]

In Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha, the Court reaffirmed that claims not provided for in an approved IBC resolution plan and crystallised prior to its approval are generally extinguished, but flagged policy concerns about the harsh impact on MSMEs and small operational creditors.[sci.gov]

In Bajaj Trading Co. v. Union of India, the Court held that for consignments booked at “owner’s risk”, Railways are not liable for short delivery unless they themselves counted or weighed the goods, thereby assuming responsibility for quantity.[lawzone]

4. Land Acquisition, Disability and Prison Policies

In Alok Kotahwala v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., landowners who failed to appear for a Section 5A LA Act hearing later alleged denial of hearing; the Court held they had effectively abandoned their right of hearing and upheld the acquisition.[lawzone]

In Union of India v. Bali Ram (CRPF driver case), the Court castigated CRPF for invalidating a driver who developed visual disability during service instead of accommodating him under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, and awarded ₹1.25 crore as composite compensation.[sci.gov]

In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, the Court directed all States/UTs to frame and notify within three months a policy for early release of elderly and terminally ill prisoners, emphasising Articles 14 and 21 and the need for a technology‑enabled framework to identify such cases.[lawzone]

II. Delhi High Court – Key July 2026 Judgments

1. Criminal, Social Justice and Public Law

a) POCSO, sentencing and sexual offences

In Kanhaiya Lal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court held that Section 354 IPC is not covered by Section 42 of the POCSO Act, meaning the trial court erred in not awarding a separate sentence for Section 354 IPC alongside POCSO convictions.[livelaw]

In Santosh Tiwari v. State, the Court upheld the conviction of a temple priest for raping an intellectually disabled woman, describing his conduct as “satanic and unholy” and recognising abuse of religious trust as an aggravating factor.[livelaw]

In State v. K, the Court cancelled bail granted to a teacher accused of raping a three‑year‑old school student, holding that absence of the teacher’s name in the first complaint cannot negate subsequent credible identification by such a young child.[livelaw]

b) Matrimonial maintenance and family pension

In XXX v. YYY, a Division Bench held that a wife is entitled to interim maintenance even during the appeal against a divorce decree; the appeal is a continuation of the matrimonial proceedings, and interim relief must continue until final adjudication.[livelaw]

In Savitri Devi v. Bank of Maharashtra, the Court refused to extend family pension to a widow beyond the scheme’s eligibility, holding that courts cannot rewrite or dilute express terms merely because the scheme is beneficial.[livelaw]

c) Tenders and foreign missions’ visa contracts

In E Trav Tech Ltd v. Union of India, a Division Bench quashed the MEA’s tender process for Consular, Passport and Visa outsourcing at missions in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra, finding the technical evaluation arbitrary and opaque and thus violative of fairness and transparency.[livelaw]

d) Public health and protest – Sonam Wangchuk

In Rakesh Kumar Saini v. Union of India, the Court directed daily clinical monitoring and necessary treatment for climate activist Sonam Wangchuk during his hunger strike, stressing that “every life is precious” and the State has a duty of care.[livelaw]

In Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India, the Court refused to order his transfer to a private hospital of choice, holding that shifting him from Jantar Mantar to a government hospital was not arbitrary and fell within the State’s duty to protect life.[livelaw]

e) Media, “self‑styled reporters” and press freedom

In Abid Ali @ Aabi v. State & connected matters, the Court warned that freedom of press cannot be a shield for intimidation or irresponsible journalism by “self‑styled reporters” on social media, and called for regulatory introspection while still protecting legitimate media freedom.[livelaw]

2. IPR, Technology and AI – Delhi High Court’s July 2026 IPR Docket

a) AI training, copyright and ChatGPT – ANI v OpenAI

In ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Open AI OpCo LLC, the Court refused ANI’s request for an interim injunction against OpenAI for allegedly using its news content to train ChatGPT. Justice Amit Bansal observed that forcing AI developers to obtain licences from every content source used in training would make LLM development economically unviable and that AI models depend on public‑domain information.[scconline]

The Court held that ANI had not made out a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement at the interim stage, while upholding jurisdiction and leaving deeper questions of fair dealing and text‑and‑data mining to trial.[scconline]

b) Deepfakes, cloned voices and personality rights

  • Ravi Kishan case: In Ravindra Shukla @ Ravi Kishan v. Ashok Kumar (John Doe) & Ors., the Court ordered immediate takedown of AI‑generated deepfakes and cloned voice ads exploiting the actor‑MP’s persona; platforms like Google and X were directed to remove the content.[scconline]
  • Yuvraj Singh case: In Yuvraj Singh v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., the Court indicated it would direct takedown of infringing content, giving uploaders 48 hours to voluntarily remove it before compelling intermediaries to act.[scconline]
  • Salman Khan / Kala Hiran*: In Salman Khan v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors., the Court ordered specific teaser links for Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy to be removed but questioned “how far personality rights can be stretched”, distinguishing between legitimate personality protection and attempts to block artistic titles or content broadly.[scconline]
  • Raghav Chadha case: In Raghav Chadha v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors., the Court ordered removal of six “profane and vulgar” AI posts but refused to block other content categorised as political satire.[scconline]

Trend: The Court is drawing a line between protected satire and unlawful deepfake/AI impersonation, particularly where deception or commercial exploitation is involved.[scconline]

c) Platform liability, copyright strikes and piracy

In Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors., the Court noted that Meta’s copyright‑strike system is being misused as a “platform for extortion” and directed Meta to provide subscriber details and IP logs of those allegedly abusing the system. A related PIL, Nitin Joshi v. Union of India & Ors., raises similar allegations about Instagram’s strike mechanism.[scconline]

Anti‑piracy litigation continued:

  • HBO case: In Home Box Office Inc & Ors. v. Streamzy.to & Ors., the Court granted an ad‑interim injunction against 30 rogue sites streaming HBO content and ordered ISPs and DNRs to extend the order to mirror/redirect/alphanumeric versions after verification.[scconline]
  • Sony sports rights cases: In multiple suits, including Sony Pictures Networks v. Cricgo.pro & Ors. and Sony v. Cricfree.cyou & Ors., the Court granted ex parte injunctions blocking sites infringing Sony’s exclusive sports broadcasting rights.[scconline]

In Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Techtalkwithmalik & Ors., the Court ordered Reddit to disclose details of an anonymous user alleging a “Galaxy S26 blast in the box”, balancing reputational interests with online speech by focusing first on identification, not immediate takedown.[scconline]

d) Trademarks and well‑known marks

Key July 2026 trademark decisions include:

  • Asian Paints Ltd v. Saroj Arora & Ors. – injunction against “Asia Paints” as deceptively similar to “ASIAN PAINTS”.[scconline]
  • Industria De Diseno Textil (ZARA) v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. – cancellation of “ZORA” as deceptively similar to the well‑known “ZARA” mark; Registrar’s refusal to treat ZARA as a well‑known mark was set aside.[scconline]
  • Parle Products Pvt Ltd v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. – dismissal of Parle’s attempt to block a rival “20‑20” registration; the rival’s earlier application prevailed despite Parle’s later commercial use.[scconline]
  • ADS Spirits Pvt Ltd v. Registrar of Trade Marks – Court held “uniqueness” is not a statutory test for registration; the Registrar must focus on distinctiveness in relation to goods.[scconline]

Other strong injunctions:

  • Opella Healthcare v. Pureca Laboratories – “PHENSERYL” restrained as deceptively similar to “PHENSEDYL”.[scconline]
  • Nava Healthcare v. Antex Pharma – similar restraint protecting “HAIRFUL” and “UDIVIN”.[scconline]
  • Dabur India v. MDL Herbal – ex parte restraint against use of “HAJMOLA”.[scconline]
  • Havells India v. Havai Home Products – “HAVAI” restrained as deceptively similar to “HAVELLS”.[scconline]
  • Zepto Ltd v. Naman Finlease – injunction against “Zepto” and “Zepto Finance” for lending services, recognising “Zepto” as a coined term.[scconline]

e) Patents and pharma

  • Array Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents – refusal of a patent for a cancer drug combination was set aside and remanded; the Court found the Controller’s Section 3(d)/3(i) and inventive‑step analysis unsatisfactory.[scconline]
  • Intra‑Cellular Therapies Inc v. Controller of Patents – rejection of a psychiatric drug patent was upheld; mere improvement in bioavailability without true inventive step is insufficient.[scconline]
  • Sulzer Mixpac AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents – plastic static mixer patent refused for being a “mere modification” over prior art.[scconline]
  • Incyte Holdings Corp v. Aurore Life Sciences – ex parte injunction against manufacture/sale of Ruxolitinib products, recognising a clear prima facie infringement case.[scconline]

III. Why These Judgments Matter (Editorial Notes)

  • Remission and prison policy: The Supreme Court has clarified the supremacy of Article 161‑based remission, which will directly affect premature release petitions and State policy design.[sci.gov]
  • Evidence and over‑prosecution: The insistence on proper circumstantial chains, limits on mass arraignment in dowry deaths, and emphasis on fair process in Foreigners Tribunals will influence trial and appellate strategy across criminal courts.[lawzone]
  • Property and real estate practice: Section 22 HSA’s extension to agricultural land, the limits on rectification deeds, and clarification on sale‑deed proof under Section 68 Evidence Act are particularly important for real‑estate drafting and litigation.[lawzone]
  • Arbitration and writs: The Supreme Court’s continued reluctance to allow Article 227 interference with Section 16 decisions, coupled with Delhi HC’s active pro‑arbitration stance (e.g., Newgen case), signals a tighter corridor for mid‑arbitration challenges.[lawzone][scconline]
  • AI, platforms and content: Delhi HC’s approach in ANI v OpenAI and the deepfake/personality‑rights line of cases (Ravi Kishan, Yuvraj Singh, Salman Khan, Raghav Chadha) are early building blocks of Indian AI and platform jurisprudence.[scconline]
  • Trademark/IP enforcement: July 2026 decisions reiterate strong protection for well‑known marks, early applicants and established brands, and show courts ready to issue broad ex parte injunctions and dynamic blocking orders in piracy and trademark cases.[scconline]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR