1. PARMAL & Anr. V. State & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2026)
Date of Judgement: 21 May 2026
Facts: Senior citizen parents-in-law sought eviction of their son and daughter-in-law from their self-acquired property under the Senior Citizens Act. While eviction was allowed, authorities directed the parents-in-law to provide permanent alternate accommodation to the daughter-in-law.
Legal Issue: Whether a daughter-in-law can claim permanent alternate accommodation from her parents-in-law under the DV Act or the Senior Citizens Act.
Significance: The Delhi High Court held that neither Act grants such a right. A daughter-in-law may claim residence rights, but the obligation to provide maintenance and shelter primarily rests on the husband, not the parents-in-law.
2. Ayodhya Devi @ Jyoti v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Judge: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Judgment Date: 27 May 2026
Facts: A 19-year-old woman died by suicide within eight months of marriage. Her family alleged continuous dowry harassment and a demand of ₹3 lakh by her husband and in-laws. The mother-in-law sought bail, claiming the allegations were unsubstantiated.
Legal Issue: Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a dowry death case involving the suspicious death of a young bride soon after marriage.
Significance: The Delhi High Court denied bail, holding that courts must exercise “heightened vigilance” in dowry death cases involving young brides. The Court emphasized the seriousness of dowry-related offences and the need to protect the integrity of the trial and evidence.
3. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sunita Devi & Ors.
Judge: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Judgment Date: 27 May 2026
Facts: A truck driver was attacked and killed by unknown assailants while performing his duties. His family sought compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act. The insurer challenged the award, arguing that murder could not be treated as an accidental death.
Legal Issue: Whether the murder of an employee during the course of employment can be considered an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, entitling the family to compensation.
Significance: The Delhi High Court upheld compensation, holding that an on-duty employee’s murder may be treated as an “accidental death” if it was not a personal, targeted killing. The Court applied the “dominant intention” test and ruled that compensation is payable when the death has a clear nexus with employment.
4. Court on its Own Motion v. State & Anr.
Judge: Justice Prateek Jalan
Judgment Date: 15 May 2026 (reported in May 2026)
Facts: A 19-year-old student was accused under the POCSO Act and for abetment of a minor girl’s suicide. The prosecution alleged harassment through intimate photographs and videos. The accused contended that both were in a consensual relationship and were of similar age.
Legal Issue: Whether the existence of a consensual romantic relationship between young adults can be considered while deciding anticipatory bail in a POCSO case, despite consent being legally irrelevant under the Act.
Significance: The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail, observing that although consent has no legal relevance under POCSO, courts cannot ignore the “de facto approval” of both participants in a sexual relationship while considering bail. Such cases must be distinguished from exploitative sexual offences.
5. Court on its Own Motion v. Director General of Prisons, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Mahajan
Judgment Date: 22 May 2026
Facts: The Delhi High Court took suo motu cognizance of delays in releasing prisoners even after bail had been granted. Data showed that verification of sureties and bail bonds often took several days or even weeks, keeping undertrials and convicts in jail despite valid bail orders.
Legal Issue: Whether administrative delays in verifying bail bonds and sureties can justify continued detention of prisoners after courts have ordered their release on bail.
Significance: The Court held that delays in accepting bail bonds defeat the very purpose of bail. It directed all Delhi Jail Superintendents to use Aadhaar QR code-based verification and digital authentication methods to expedite prisoner release, emphasizing that personal liberty cannot be compromised due to bureaucratic inefficiencies.