SC: No Anticipatory Bail Needed Once Magistrate Issues Summons
The Supreme Court held that once a judicial magistrate takes cognizance in a private complaint and issues summons, the accused need not separately seek anticipatory bail. A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Arun Palli made this clarification while allowing Ram Pukar Yadav’s appeal against a Patna High Court order that had denied anticipatory bail in a case before Madhubani’s CJM.
Ram Pukar Yadav & Anr v. State of Bihar & Anr (2026)

Jharkhand HC: Bhang Possession Not an NDPS Offence
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that possessing bhang isn’t punishable under the NDPS Act, 1985, since bhang falls outside the statutory definition of “cannabis (hemp)” under Section 2(iii). The Court quashed the appellant’s conviction after the FSL report confirmed the seized substance was bhang, not ganja, holding that the conviction couldn’t survive once this distinction was established.
Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2009)

Madras HC: PILs Can’t Rest on “Digital Gossip”
The Madras High Court held that PILs cannot be based on digital gossip, YouTube videos, newspaper clippings, or unverified claims. A Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadikari and Justice Arul Murugan dismissed a plea seeking probe into a college’s accreditation, ruling that reliance on a pending DVAC probe alone doesn’t meet the “sufficient research” threshold required for PILs.
Radha Krishnan v. Union of India (2026)

Delhi HC: No Higher Pay Without Formal Appointment
The Delhi High Court held that performing duties of a higher post doesn’t entitle an employee to that post’s pay without a formal appointment order. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla clarified that being assigned higher-post work by an employer doesn’t automatically trigger higher pay, and “equal pay for equal work” cannot be invoked here.
National Institute of Public Co-operation & Child Development v. Tejinder Kaur (2014)

Bombay HC Upholds Disqualification for Withholding Society Documents
The Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification of managing committee members of a co-operative housing society who deliberately withheld documents sought by a member, violating timelines under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. While substantial compliance may sometimes excuse disqualification, the Court held this leniency doesn’t apply where refusal is deliberate and persists despite repeated statutory directions.
Shashikant M. Ramane v. Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, SRA/MHADA (2026)