Articles & Daily Digest
Articles & Insights Publications
Read vetted legal analyses, contract assemblies, and evidentiary dispatches.
Legal News & Daily Digest
Supreme Court Clarifies Digital Forensics Admissibility
The bench held that secondary digital evidence is fully admissible under Section 65B of the Evidence Act provided a certified hash value is appended at the time of seizure.
New Arbitral Regulations Standardize Fee Cap
The Arbitration Amendment Act implements standard caps on hourly fees for commercial arbitrations over 100 Crore, aiming to establish regional arbitration centers.
High Court Reaffirms Tenants Protection Against Arbitrary Ejectments
The division bench ruled that a summary default clause cannot bypass the mandatory 15-day cure notice period required under regional Rent Control statutes.
SEBI Overhauls Corporate Governance Norms for AI Startups
New algorithmic compliance disclosures require companies leveraging generative AI for wealth advising to submit standard audit trails quarterly to maintain registration.
Judgments & Resources
Landmark judgments, statutes and reference material — open the link or download the PDF.
Magistrate Must Not Record Prosecution Evidence In Case Exclusively Triable By Sessions Court : Supreme Court
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.776 of 2020On 12 April 2007, a verbal and physical altercation took place between the complainant, his father, and the respondents. During the incident, the complainant's father collapsed, lost consciousness, and was declared dead upon being taken to the hospital. Despite the seriousness of the incident, no FIR was registered by the police. The complainant subsequently submitted written complaints to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 16 April 2007 and 19 April 2007, seeking registration of a criminal case, but no action was taken. Consequently, the complainant approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking directions for registration and investigation of the offence. The Magistrate proceeded with the complaint under Section 200 CrPC, recorded the complainant's preliminary evidence, and thereafter issued summons to the accused. Since the complaint disclosed offences including Section 302 IPC, which are exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed charges only against one accused while discharging the remaining two accused. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a criminal revision challenging their discharge. Simultaneously, the accused against whom charges had been framed challenged the summoning order and the order framing charges before the High Court. The High Court, by a common judgment, held that before committing a complaint case exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate was required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC, and therefore remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh proceedings. The complainant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, contending that once the Magistrate finds that the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the law does not require recording of prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing the case for trial.
Supreme Court Declares " Right to Walk on Footpath " a Fundamental right
Citation: 2026 INSC 647Case Title: Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors. Citation: 2026 INSC 647 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice A.S. Chandurkar Date of Judgment: 19 June 2026 Facts of the Case The appellant, a young father, was walking with his five-year-old son to school when a tanker struck the child from behind, causing fatal injuries. The child succumbed to the injuries. Notably, there was neither a pedestrian crossing nor any designated walking infrastructure at the accident site. The father filed a compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded ₹7,82,000 with interest. However, the High Court reduced the compensation to ₹4,70,000, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. Issues Before the Court Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the compensation awarded by the MACT. Whether the absence of safe pedestrian infrastructure violates constitutional rights. Whether the right to walk safely forms part of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Whether public authorities have a constitutional duty to provide and maintain pedestrian infrastructure. Whether citizens can seek constitutional remedies for violations of pedestrian rights independent of remedies under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Decision of the Court The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the High Court erred in reducing the compensation. Relying on its earlier decision in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, the Court recalculated the compensation and awarded: Loss of Dependency: ₹10,11,528 Loss of Consortium: ₹96,800 Loss of Estate: ₹18,150 Funeral Expenses: ₹18,150 Total Compensation Awarded: ₹11,44,628, payable within two months. Landmark Constitutional Findings The Supreme Court declared that the Right to Walk is a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution and is integral to Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), and 21. The Court emphasized that walking is the most basic form of human movement and deserves constitutional protection. The Court further held that this right includes the right to safe, demarcated, and well-maintained pedestrian infrastructure. It observed that pedestrian rights are primary and must be given priority over motorized traffic. The Court imposed a corresponding duty on Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and Panchayats to construct, maintain, and safeguard pedestrian infrastructure wherever roads exist. It also clarified that where such rights are violated, citizens are entitled to constitutional and legal remedies, including restitution and compensation against public authorities, independent of remedies available under the Motor Vehicles Act. Recognizing the absence of a dedicated statutory framework, the Court directed that the judgment be forwarded to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road Transport and Highways, and the Law Commission of India for consideration of comprehensive legislation protecting pedestrian rights and establishing an effective regulatory mechanism. Significance of the Judgment This judgment marks a significant development in Indian constitutional jurisprudence by expressly recognizing the Right to Walk as a Fundamental Right. The decision transforms pedestrian safety from a matter of administrative policy into a constitutional guarantee and imposes a positive obligation on public authorities to create and maintain safe pedestrian infrastructure. It also opens the door for citizens to seek constitutional remedies where authorities fail to discharge these duties. Key Takeaway: The Supreme Court held that the Right to Walk safely is a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of India, and public authorities are under a constitutional obligation to ensure adequate pedestrian infrastructure and safety.
Magistrate , Police officer personally liable to compensate to stop abuse of preventive detention
Allahabad High Court: Magistrate & Police Officers Personally Liable for Illegal Preventive Detention Case: Chander Pal Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. Court: Allahabad High Court Bench: Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi Decision Date: 08 June 2026 Key Facts The petitioner, a practicing advocate, alleged that he was illegally detained by Ghaziabad Police on 22.02.2026 and was kept in custody for more than 24 hours before being produced before the competent authority. Despite furnishing bonds in proceedings initiated under Sections 126, 135 and 170 BNSS, he was sent to jail and released only after the filing of a habeas corpus petition before the High Court. The Court found no satisfactory explanation for continuing the detention after execution of the required bonds. Observations of the Court Preventive detention powers under Sections 126, 135 and 170 BNSS cannot be exercised mechanically and must strictly comply with statutory safeguard. A person arrested under preventive provisions cannot be detained beyond 24 hours unless further detention is authorized by law. The Court reiterated that detention under preventive proceedings is permissible only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law and constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and 22 must be respected. Mechanical orders passed on printed formats without application of mind were strongly deprecated. Important Directions The High Court issued detailed guidelines to Executive Magistrates and Police Authorities regarding proceedings under preventive provisions of the BNSS. Authorities must record reasons, apply independent judicial mind, and avoid routine or cyclostyled orders. Surety amounts must be reasonable and proportionate to the facts of each case. Illegal detention in preventive proceedings can expose responsible officers to personal liability and compensation claims.