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<\/a>][sci.gov<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) Remission policy: Constitutional vs statutory<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana<\/strong>, the Supreme Court held that a remission policy framed under the Governor\u2019s powers in Article 161 overrides a later remission policy framed under Sections 432\u2013433 CrPC. Haryana\u2019s liberal 2002 policy was held to continue despite the 2008 policy; the Court declared State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar<\/em> (2021) per incuriam for ignoring the earlier three\u2011judge view in State of Haryana v. Jagdish<\/em>.[sci.gov<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Practical effect<\/em>: Life convicts can rely on earlier, more beneficial Article 161\u2011based policies where later CrPC\u2011based policies are more stringent.[sci.gov<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) Article 226: Relief beyond pleadings and limits of certiorari<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Union of India v. Bali Ram<\/strong>, 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Basamma v. Goparappa<\/strong>, the Court stressed the opposite boundary: in certiorari, the High Court cannot re\u2011appreciate evidence or act as an appellate court over a first appellate court\u2019s factual findings, absent jurisdictional error.[lawzone<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n c) Citizenship, foreigners and Assam tribunals<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India<\/strong> 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n d) Nominated local body members and MLC elections<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Pranesh M.K. v. A.V. Gayathri & Ors.<\/strong>, the Court held that nominated Town Panchayat members in Karnataka cannot vote in Legislative Council elections from Local Authorities\u2019 Constituencies. Their inclusion in the electoral roll was held contrary to the constitutional scheme.[lawzone<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) Default bail, cognizance errors, and dowry deaths<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. CBI<\/strong>, the Court held that non\u2011supply 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\u2011sheet is filed in time.[sci.gov<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat<\/strong>, 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Brajesh Kumar @ Birjesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar<\/strong>, the Court reaffirmed that, once a closure report is filed, the Magistrate cannot order the police to file a charge\u2011sheet; 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\u2011laws as a \u201ctravesty of justice\u201d.[lawzone<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) Circumstantial evidence, Arms Act, and murder without a body<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In State of Maharashtra v. Monika Kiran Suryawanshi<\/strong>, the Court upheld acquittal in a 2007 murder case, holding that \u201cmere telephone records\u201d cannot establish an illicit affair or complete the chain of circumstantial evidence needed to sustain conviction.[lawzone<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In State of Jharkhand v. Jagdish Lakra<\/strong>, 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Debojit Pankika Charaideo Sonari v. State of Assam<\/strong>, the Court reiterated that non\u2011recovery 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\u2019s role.[lawzone<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n c) Children in conflict with law and delayed trials<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Sagar v. State of Haryana<\/strong>, the Court held that a Children\u2019s 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Liakat Ali v. State of J&K<\/strong>, 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n d) AI\u2011generated fake precedents and discipline in the legal profession<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr.<\/strong>, the Court condemned the use of AI\u2011generated fake citations by tribunals, holding that citing such non\u2011existent 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association<\/strong>, the Court directed the Bar Council of India to institutionalise Continuing Legal Education and to audit disciplinary mechanisms for advocates, emphasising that self\u2011regulation must be matched by transparency and effectiveness.[sci.gov<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) Security deposits, royalty and mining<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In State of Haryana v. Jai Durgaa Finvest (P) Ltd.<\/strong>, 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In State of Haryana v. Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals<\/strong>, the Court held that silence in a mining lease deed on royalty revision does not remove the State\u2019s statutory power under the MMDR Act to periodically revise royalty; royalty is a statutory levy and not frozen merely by contract.[lawzone<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Kirloskar Ferrous Industries v. Union of India<\/strong>, 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) Heirs\u2019 preferential rights, sale deeds, rectification and probate<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Mahinder v. Puran Singh<\/strong>, the Court held that the Class\u2011I heirs\u2019 preferential right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act to purchase co\u2011heir property applies to agricultural land as well, since the provision is part of succession law within Parliament\u2019s competence.[lawzone<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In R. Veronica v. Rudrayani Devaki<\/strong>, 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Venkatesha v. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa<\/strong>, 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\u2019s consent.[lawzone<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a probate case reported at 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 683<\/strong>, the Court clarified that there is no automatic three\u2011year limitation from the testator\u2019s death; the right to apply for probate arises when it becomes necessary (for example, when a hostile action challenges the Will).[lawzone<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n c) Specific performance and IBC<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar<\/strong>, the Court held that a clause providing for refund of earnest money in case of non\u2011execution 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha<\/strong>, 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Bajaj Trading Co. v. Union of India<\/strong>, the Court held that for consignments booked at \u201cowner\u2019s risk\u201d, Railways are not liable for short delivery unless they themselves counted or weighed the goods, thereby assuming responsibility for quantity.[lawzone<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Alok Kotahwala v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.<\/strong>, 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Union of India v. Bali Ram<\/strong> (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 \u20b91.25 crore as composite compensation.[sci.gov<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India<\/strong>, 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\u2011enabled framework to identify such cases.[lawzone<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) POCSO, sentencing and sexual offences<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Kanhaiya Lal v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/strong>, 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Santosh Tiwari v. State<\/strong>, the Court upheld the conviction of a temple priest for raping an intellectually disabled woman, describing his conduct as \u201csatanic and unholy\u201d and recognising abuse of religious trust as an aggravating factor.[livelaw<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In State v. K<\/strong>, the Court cancelled bail granted to a teacher accused of raping a three\u2011year\u2011old school student, holding that absence of the teacher\u2019s name in the first complaint cannot negate subsequent credible identification by such a young child.[livelaw<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) Matrimonial maintenance and family pension<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In XXX v. YYY<\/strong>, 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Savitri Devi v. Bank of Maharashtra<\/strong>, the Court refused to extend family pension to a widow beyond the scheme\u2019s eligibility, holding that courts cannot rewrite or dilute express terms merely because the scheme is beneficial.[livelaw<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n c) Tenders and foreign missions\u2019 visa contracts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In E Trav Tech Ltd v. Union of India<\/strong>, a Division Bench quashed the MEA\u2019s 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<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n d) Public health and protest \u2013 Sonam Wangchuk<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Rakesh Kumar Saini v. Union of India<\/strong>, the Court directed daily clinical monitoring and necessary treatment for climate activist Sonam Wangchuk during his hunger strike, stressing that \u201cevery life is precious\u201d and the State has a duty of care.[livelaw<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India<\/strong>, 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\u2019s duty to protect life.[livelaw<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n e) Media, \u201cself\u2011styled reporters\u201d and press freedom<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Abid Ali @ Aabi v. State & connected matters<\/strong>, the Court warned that freedom of press cannot be a shield for intimidation or irresponsible journalism by \u201cself\u2011styled reporters\u201d on social media, and called for regulatory introspection while still protecting legitimate media freedom.[livelaw<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Open AI OpCo LLC<\/strong>, the Court refused ANI\u2019s 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\u2011domain information.[scconline<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2011and\u2011data mining to trial.[scconline<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trend<\/em>: The Court is drawing a line between protected satire and unlawful deepfake\/AI impersonation, particularly where deception or commercial exploitation is involved.[scconline<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Mohammed Nawaz Shaikh v. John Doe\/Ashok Kumar & Ors.<\/strong>, the Court noted that Meta\u2019s copyright\u2011strike system is being misused as a \u201cplatform for extortion\u201d 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.<\/strong>, raises similar allegations about Instagram\u2019s strike mechanism.[scconline<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anti\u2011piracy litigation continued:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Techtalkwithmalik & Ors.<\/strong>, the Court ordered Reddit to disclose details of an anonymous user alleging a \u201cGalaxy S26 blast in the box\u201d, balancing reputational interests with online speech by focusing first on identification, not immediate takedown.[scconline<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Key July 2026 trademark decisions include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other strong injunctions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nI. Supreme Court of India \u2013 Major July 2026 Rulings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1. Constitutional, Remission and Public Law<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n2. Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n3. Property, Contract, Mining and Succession<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n4. Land Acquisition, Disability and Prison Policies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nII. Delhi High Court \u2013 Key July 2026 Judgments<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1. Criminal, Social Justice and Public Law<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n2. IPR, Technology and AI \u2013 Delhi High Court\u2019s July 2026 IPR Docket<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
a) AI training, copyright and ChatGPT \u2013 ANI v OpenAI<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
b) Deepfakes, cloned voices and personality rights<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n
c) Platform liability, copyright strikes and piracy<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n
d) Trademarks and well\u2011known marks<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
e) Patents and pharma<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nIII. Why These Judgments Matter (Editorial Notes)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n