Manupatra Academy

Explore. Learn. Upskill. All Things Law

Courses, Cases, Research, and Resources in One Place

New

Internships

Opportunities : Playbook : Videos

Learn More

Law Notes (1^st - 5^th Year)

Structured notes with flashcards to help law students grasp core subjects quickly.

Know More

Manupatra Certified Legal Research Program

Module-based learning : Legal research skills : Certification test

Learn More

Courses

Structured learning : Practice-oriented modules : Different stages of legal practice

Learn More

News and Recent Judgment Gist

News
Gist

1. Supreme Court: foreign nationality alone does not bar UAPA bail under Section 43D(7)

Supreme Court: foreign nationality alone does not bar UAPA bail under Section 43D(7)

In Union of India v. Mohamed Rifas, the Supreme Court held that an accused's foreign nationality alone does not bar bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and that Section 43D(7) applies only if the foreign national also entered India illegally or without authorisation. A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi was hearing the Union government's appeal against a Madras High Court judgment restoring bail to Mohamed Rifas, whom the prosecution alleged was a Sri Lankan national. The case arose from a 2018 FIR concerning an alleged conspiracy to disrupt communal harmony and commit terrorist acts. Rifas was arrested but secured default bail in July 2018 after the prosecution failed to file its chargesheet within the prescribed time. The National Investigation Agency took over the investigation in January 2019 and filed a chargesheet in January 2021. A separate FIR registered in November 2019 alleged that Rifas had entered India on a Sri Lankan passport, overstayed his visa and illegally obtained Indian identity documents. In April 2022, the prosecution sought cancellation of his bail, arguing that he had concealed his foreign nationality and that Section 43D(7) restricted his release. A special court accepted the plea and cancelled his bail, but the High Court set aside that order in December 2023. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution had not produced material to prima facie establish that Rifas entered India illegally, noting that even the subsequent FIR recorded that he had entered on a valid visa and overstayed after its expiry. It held that Section 43D(7) does not override Section 43D(2) and therefore does not bar default bail, which was a statutory right under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure made applicable to UAPA cases. The Court also held that subsequent filing of a chargesheet did not automatically justify bail cancellation and that no special and strong ground was established to cancel Rifas's bail. It dismissed the Union government's appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment restoring his bail.

2. Delhi High Court holds writ petition against Meta for Instagram account blocking not maintainable, remedy is civil suit

The Delhi High Court has held in Sarthak Bhagat v Union of India & Ors that a writ petition seeking restoration of an Instagram account is not maintainable against Meta Platforms. Justice Amit Mahajan

3. Supreme Court asks Law Commission to review arbitral award execution framework

Supreme Court asks Law Commission to review arbitral award execution framework

The Supreme Court said that delay in execution of arbitral awards strikes at the rationale of choosing arbitration over conventional litigation and asked the Law Commission of India to make legislative and procedural recommendations to strengthen the execution regime. A bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath, also comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Aparesh Kumar Singh, was deciding an appeal by Royal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., which had won an award against National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (NPCC) in 2002 and was awaiting execution for 24 years. The court requested the Law Commission to undertake a focused study of the statutory and procedural framework governing enforcement and execution of arbitral awards, including practical impediments to timely recovery and existing practice in global jurisdictions, and to consider whether domestic and foreign arbitral awards need distinct enforcement procedures or a common framework with safeguards. Royal Construction was represented by advocate Rishabh Sancheti, and the court was told that the 2002 award was upheld up to the Supreme Court in 2015. The court dismissed NPCC's application seeking modification of the 2023 judgment. The 2002 award directed NPCC to pay Royal Iraqi Dinars 2,23,777.14 and ₹20 lakh, each with interest at 12% per annum. The Supreme Court restored the award in full and in 2023 held it payable in foreign currency. NPCC had deposited about ₹1.5 crore in Indian rupees, which Royal Construction withdrew, while the remaining sum was sought to be executed. In the execution proceedings, NPCC contended that its deposit had covered the principal sum without interest. The Delhi High Court in February this year granted liberty to the parties to seek clarification from the top court.

4. Supreme Court orders fresh Selection Board review of Navy woman officer's permanent commission denial

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the Indian Navy's denial of permanent commission (PC) to a female short service commission (SSC) officer it had considered meritorious in 2020 and 2024 was an

Supreme Court orders fresh Selection Board review of Navy woman officer's permanent commission denial

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the Indian Navy's denial of permanent commission (PC) to a female short service commission (SSC) officer it had considered meritorious in 2020 and 2024 was an error, and ordered a fresh Selection Board to reconsider her case. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, decided a contempt plea against the Union defence secretary. The court said the Naval Selection Board in April 2024 refused PC to Commander Seema Chaudhary despite the Supreme Court's March 2020 judgment in Union of India v Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja and its February 2024 judgment in her review. The court found the Selection Board erred on two counts: it applied ACRs from 2015 to 2021, when there was no recommendation for PC, and held that the officer did not have the requisite grading for PC, even though the ACRs recorded highly satisfactory performance. The officer was commissioned in August 2007 in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch. In 2008, the Navy introduced a policy denying PC to female SSC officers; she was promoted as Lieutenant in 2009 and Lieutenant Commander in 2012. The court asked why, if the officer was eligible for promotion on the same grading, that grading was not considered for PC. Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Navy and the Centre, argued that an exception cannot be made for one officer as it could be treated as a precedent. Advocate Ninad Laud, for Chaudhary, said she was one of the petitioners in Annie Nagaraja, in which the 2008 policy was struck down, but the Navy cited lack of vacancies. In the February 2024 review, the court had directed that her PC case be considered afresh by reconvening a Selection Board on a stand-alone basis because she was the only serving JAG Branch officer of the 2007 batch whose PC case required consideration.

5. Supreme Court directs Centre to grant war injury pension to Army veteran over Kargil posting illness

Supreme Court directs Centre to grant war injury pension to Army veteran over Kargil posting illness

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Union government to grant a war injury pension to Indian Army veteran Narendra Kumar, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis while posted at Kargil between 2003 and 2005 as part of Operation Rakshak. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed the Union government's appeal against orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the High Court directing payment of war injury pension instead of disability pension. Kumar joined the Army in 1996, was discharged in 2013 and received disability pension; he later approached the AFT citing a 2001 Ministry of Defence policy letter covering disability arising from operations specially notified by the Government. The AFT allowed his claim in April 2024, finding the ailment originated at Kargil, and the High Court upheld that decision in August 2025. The Union government argued the 2001 policy covered only specifically notified operations such as Operation Sindoor or Operation Snow Leopard, not ongoing operations like Rakshak in Jammu and Kashmir or Rhino in Assam, and that Kumar's reading would entitle every soldier posted in J&K to the benefit. The Court rejected that submission, saying Category E(i) of the policy letter was an enabling provision meant to give the government flexibility to cover war-like situations, and that once an operation was notified the provision applies unless the policy or notification says otherwise. It found nothing apart from the government's oral submissions to exclude Operation Rakshak, declined to rely on Army Order 01 of 2003, and said the government must be explicit in future about which pensionary benefits apply when notifying operations under Category E(i). The Court also noted continuing uncertainty over applicable Defence Ministry rules and suggested comprehensive, clearly identifiable subordinate legislation.

1. ECL Finance Ltd. and Ors. vs. Abhinav Mukherjee and Ors. (27.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1224/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the appeals by ECL Finance Ltd. and IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. against the NCLAT's decision affirming their exclusion from the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as

2. Raju Shantaram Koli vs. The State of Maharashtra (27.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1223/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether Raju Shantaram Koli's consecutive life sentences for murder and rape should run concurrently. The court referenced the precedent set in Muthuramalingam v.

3. Union of India (UOI) vs. Mohamed Rifas (27.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1222/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether a foreign citizen accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAP Act) is entitled to bail, considering Section 43D(7) of the Act. The Union of I

4. Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II (27.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1225/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether the unpaid excise duty of Rs. 69,91,983 on uncleared closing stock could be added to Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.'s taxable income under Sections 43B and 1

5. Balakrishna (Dead) thr. L.Rs. vs. G.N. Kanniah Naidu (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Ors. (26.10.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1218/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the dispute between the legal representatives of Balakrishna and G.N. Kanniah Naidu regarding the ownership of Site No. 261 in Munnekolala New Extension, Bangalore

View More Gist.. View More News..

Law Students Hub

Notes : Flashcards : Landmark Cases & more…

Learn More

New

Legal Glossary

Complex terms decoded : Easy explanations

Learn More

On-demand Courses

Recorded classes : Comprehensive reading material :Quiz

Learn More

Self-Paced Certification

Courses to upskill or reskill

Learn More

Webinars

Recordings of experts views :Diverse topics

Learn More

Law Teachers Hub

Readings : Resources for legal educators

Learn More

Legal Posts

Explainers : Blogs : Articles : Case Analysis

Learn More

Survey Reports

AI Adoption : Technology in law

Learn More

Illustrated Cases

Legal Design : Supreme Court Cases : Multilingual Exploration

Learn More

New

Case Infographics

Quickly understand key facts, court decisions, and legal principles through easy-to-follow infographics.

Know More

Our Partners

Why Join Manupatra Academy

Brought to you by Manupatra the leaders in legal tech domain.

Curated Resources: A vast repository of meticulously compiled resources tailored for educators and learners.
Diverse Courses: An array of courses designed to cater to various levels of expertise, from beginners to advanced.
User-Friendly Interface: Accessible on any device, our intuitive interface ensures seamless navigation.

What Our Learners Say

User-Friendly Interface: Accessible on any device, our intuitive interface ensures seamless navigation.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

It was extremely beneficial and practical… really helped me understand the nuances of civil drafting and boosted my confidence in preparing real pleadings.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

The sessions were so insightful and well-structured… the faculty explained every concept with patience and clarity, which made learning much easier.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

Honestly, it was a great learning experience… the course covered everything from plaints to petitions in such a smooth and engaging way.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

The workshop was very hands-on and practical… I really liked the live feedback and the real examples shared during drafting exercises.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

Very well conducted and informative… I just wish it could’ve been a bit longer because the sessions were that helpful.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

The session was honestly eye-opening! I never realized how much time I was wasting on formatting until now.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

Really practical and focused on what lawyers actually need… I can already see how it’ll save hours in my daily work.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

The trainer made even the technical tools so easy to understand… and I loved how they used real pleading examples.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

Very relevant for lawyers and interns alike… it bridges the tech gap we all face while working on documents.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

A concise and super useful masterclass… I now feel confident managing citations, templates, and formatting with ease.