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. Kerala High Court to hear Monday appeals by Pinarayi Vijayan and kin against Vigilance FIR order in CMRL-Exalogic case

Kerala High Court to hear Monday appeals by Pinarayi Vijayan and kin against Vigilance FIR order in CMRL-Exalogic case

The Kerala High Court is scheduled to hear on Monday, October 26, the appeals filed by former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and his son-in-law and former Minister Muhammed Riyas against a Single Bench order directing a Vigilance FIR against them in the CMRL-Exalogic pay off case. The appeals were mentioned before a Division Bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar on October 24, and the Bench posted the matter to be heard on Monday. The Supreme Court had, on October 21, set aside an order refusing to permit Pinarayi and his family to appeal against the Single Bench order directing the FIR against them and had held that they are entitled to move appeals before the Division Bench. A Single Bench had directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR incorporating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Pinarayi, Veena and Riyas based on the information passed by the Directorate of Enforcement. The Single Bench found that the government's decision to conduct a preliminary enquiry without registration of an FIR was illegal considering the facts of the case, and it also set aside the State's order forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct the preliminary enquiry. Aggrieved by the direction, the three moved separate appeals before the Division Bench. They contend that they were not heard by the Single Bench before it passed an order that directly affects them, violating principles of natural justice. The Division Bench did not grant them leave to prefer the appeal. Subsequently, the three moved the Supreme Court challenging that decision, and the appeals were remanded back to the Division Bench for consideration. The Supreme Court also granted a 10-day stay on the investigation in the FIR registered against them. Counsel for the appellants included S. Sreekumar (Sr.), T.A. Shaji (Sr.), K. Gopalakrishna Kurup (Sr.), Raman B. Pillai (Sr.), Ameen Hassan K., Lisna Sherin T.T., Ummul Fadla T., Abdul Fathah, Rajesh A., Muneer Ahmed, Gilbert George Corrreya, K.K. Ravindranath, P. Narayanan, Manu V., Thanushree Damodaran, Abhijith M.A. and Clarina Christopher P. Counsel for the respondents included K. Jaju Babu, AG, P. Sreekumar, ASGI, and V. Sethunath.

2. Kannada news channel head seeks anticipatory bail in Bengaluru sting operation case; court reserves order

Rakesh Shetty, head of a Kannada news channel, has sought anticipatory bail in connection with the sting operation case being investigated by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) of the Bengaluru police. On

3. Bengaluru court to hear news channel head Rakesh Shetty's anticipatory bail plea in Siddaramaiah sting operation case

Bengaluru court to hear news channel head Rakesh Shetty's anticipatory bail plea in Siddaramaiah sting operation case

A Bengaluru court will on Friday take up the anticipatory bail application of a news channel head in connection with a purported sting operation targeting ruling Congress leader and former chief minister Siddaramaiah. Police said Rakesh Shetty, the channel head, was taken into custody from a hotel in Mysuru on Wednesday night and brought to Bengaluru for questioning early on Thursday. Shetty, who had been staying at the hotel for four days, was questioned and asked to appear for further questioning. The Bengaluru court adjourned the hearing in Shetty's anticipatory bail application to Friday. Karnataka's Cyber Crime Division has been investigating the case over the past week after Siddaramaiah filed a complaint over the purported operation and the circulation of a video. Siddaramaiah this month moved court seeking to restrain media organisations from publishing details of, or broadcasting videos linked to, the sting allegedly carried out at the behest of his successor, DK Shivakumar, to force the former to step down as Karnataka chief minister in May. Siddaramaiah's resignation ended months of uncertainty over the Congress leadership transition and cleared the way for his then deputy and challenger Shivakumar to assume office. Siddaramaiah described the circulation of the videos on social media as false propaganda intended to damage his reputation. Siddaramaiah acknowledged being aware of sting operations in Karnataka and called for those responsible to be identified. Union minister and Janata Dal (Secular) leader H D Kumaraswamy alleged Shivakumar used the purported sting operation to force Siddaramaiah out of office. Kumaraswamy alleged that Siddaramaiah was called to Delhi for discussions on Cabinet expansion but was instead confronted with compromising material purportedly obtained through the sting operation. He said the ruling Congress leadership and a media organisation were allegedly involved. Kumaraswamy demanded Shetty's arrest and sought a special investigation team probe. He submitted complaints to top police officers, identifying Shetty as the prime person behind the purported sting operation. Kumaraswamy alleged that the operation was part of a conspiracy targeting Siddaramaiah. The allegations are under investigation. Shivakumar rejected the allegations against him, saying attempts were also made to trap him through sting operations after he became chief minister. He said he possessed photographs and documents identifying those allegedly involved and warned Cabinet colleagues and government officials to remain vigilant. In May, Siddaramaiah said he stepped down as the chief minister acting on directions from the Congress leadership but will remain active in Karnataka politics. Siddaramaiah, the state's longest-serving chief minister, took over after the Congress won its biggest victory in a generation in Karnataka in 2023. Siddaramaiah's government remained mired in tensions over the chief minister's post.

4. Kerala High Court holds State liable for harm by wild animals despite lacking ownership or control

Kerala High Court holds State liable for harm by wild animals despite lacking ownership or control

The Kerala High Court, in [2026 (Ker) 594], held that the State’s lack of ownership or physical custody over wild animals does not by itself exclude it from liability for harm caused by them. Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. made the observation while dismissing a Regular Second Appeal filed by the State against concurrent findings of the Munsiff’s Court, Kalpetta, and the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery. The plaintiff, an agriculturist residing at Thariode in Wayanad district, was attacked by three wild elephants in 2017 when he stepped out of his house to milk his cow. The attack caused serious injuries, including multiple fractures, and required hospitalisation and surgery. The plaintiff said he incurred substantial medical expenses and suffered permanent disability that impaired his ability to do physically demanding work, and alleged his left leg had become shorter than his right. He maintained that authorities failed to install adequate protective infrastructure, including electric fencing and trenches, at the interface between forest land and private property. The Forest Range Officer had initially paid ₹75,000 as emergency relief. The plaintiff approached the civil court seeking ₹8 lakh in damages, contending the amount paid was inadequate and that authorities had failed to reimburse his remaining expenses. The State and forest officials argued ₹75,000 was the maximum compensation payable under the Kerala Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980, read with the relevant Government Order dated March 22, 2013. They further contended that wild animals roaming freely in forests were neither owned nor controlled by the State and that authorities had taken reasonable measures to prevent such attacks. The trial court held the compensation scheme did not bar victims from seeking damages in a civil court if the prescribed compensation was inadequate. The Munsiff’s Court, Kalpetta, partly decreed the suit and awarded ₹5,37,030, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the suit until realisation. The award comprised ₹1.20 lakh for loss of earnings, ₹2,000 for clothing and transportation, ₹3,750 for bystander expenses, ₹3,000 for extra nourishment, ₹1,24,280 towards medical expenses, ₹50,000 for pain and suffering, and ₹2.34 lakh for permanent disability. The State’s appeal was dismissed by the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery, and the matter came before the High Court. The State argued that the doctrine of strict liability could not be applied to wild animals freely roaming in forests, as authorities neither owned nor possessed the animals. It also contended that the principles laid down in State of Kerala v. V.V. George, [2017 (3) KHC 882], could not be applied to the facts of the present case, as it applied only where the State owned, possessed or had custody of the animal. The High Court dismissed the State’s Regular Second Appeal.

5. Jharkhand High Court quashes Sentence Review Board rejection of life convict's premature release plea

Jharkhand High Court quashes Sentence Review Board rejection of life convict's premature release plea

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the State Sentence Review Board's rejection of a life convict's plea for premature release, holding that the Board cannot pass a mechanical order without considering relevant reports on his conduct, age, propensity to commit crime and prospects of rehabilitation. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay was hearing a writ petition by the life convict challenging Notification No. 1262 dated 25.03.2026 issued by the State Sentence Review Board, which rejected his premature release claim. At the time of consideration, the petitioner had completed 26 years of actual custody and 29 years including remission. The petitioner was convicted in Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 12 of 1999, arising from an incident in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi, in which he was alleged to have assaulted another inmate, Sudhir Singh @ Bhoma, causing his death. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC on 22.03.2002 and sentenced him to death. The High Court confirmed the conviction in appeal but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, and his appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 30.04.2004. The petitioner later sought premature release. In 2018, the Prisoner Welfare Officer directed the Superintendent of Central Jail, Dumka, to submit proposals of life convicts eligible for premature release under the applicable policy. The petitioner's name appeared in the list of prisoners who had completed 14 years of actual custody and 20 years including remission, and his application was forwarded to the Inspector General of Prisons. Several reports placed before the authorities were favourable, including a Probation Officer's report that considered his age, family responsibilities and villagers' favourable opinion and said he was expected to lead the life of a good citizen upon release. Another Probation Officer's report recorded that he had been acquitted in all other cases and that premature release could appropriately be extended to him. A police enquiry recorded that villagers had no objection to his premature release. Nevertheless, the Board repeatedly rejected his plea. The latest rejection dated 25.03.2026 relied on three grounds: that the petitioner had committed murder inside jail, that there was a strong possibility of gang war and disturbance of public peace, and that he had previously escaped from judicial custody. The High Court found that the Board had failed to meaningfully consider the material reports. It referred to factors identified by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jagdish for considering premature release, including the possibility of recurrence of crime, whether the convict had lost his potentiality to commit crime, whether any fruitful purpose would be served by continuing confinement, and the socio-economic condition of his family. In contrast, the Probation Officer's report dated 18.09.2024 recorded that the petitioner was 63 years old, suffered from various ailments, and that his propensity to commit crime had greatly reduced. His jail conduct was cordial, he had been granted parole several times without adverse report, and he actively participated in reformative activities inside jail. The Court noted that the Review Board made only a "fleeting reference" to the opinions of the Jail Superintendent, Superintendent of Police, Probation Officer and concerned court; it neither specified the contents of those reports nor explained how a possibility of gang war and disturbance of public peace remained despite the Probation Officer's assessment.

1. Gir Vanvaso Resort vs. Pancard Clubs Limited (22.07.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1207/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the dispute between Gir Vanvaso Resort and Pancard Clubs Limited, focusing on the ownership and possession of a resort under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proces

2. Anumandala Rajesh Reddy vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (24.08.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1206/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the appeals by Anumandala Rajesh Reddy against the State of Karnataka and others, focusing on whether the High Court erred in quashing proceedings initiated by Red

3. Indroneel Goho vs. Razouvonuo Thong and Ors. (29.09.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1203/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the appeal by Indroneel Goho against Razouvonuo Thong and others, focusing on whether the criminal proceedings for cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC s

4. Zaki Ullah Khan vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (15.07.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1202/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether the deed granting fishing rights to Zaki Ullah Khan constituted a lease of immovable property, thus requiring registration and stamp duty. The Collector of

5. Rasilaben and Ors. vs. Dinesh Deumal Harani and Ors. (21.07.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1201/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether Rasilaben and others should be impleaded as necessary parties in a suit filed by Dinesh Deumal Harani, who sought a declaration of his status as a tenant o

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.