1. Allahabad High Court: Limitation Cannot Be Extended by Repeated Representations

The Allahabad High Court held that the statutory limitation period cannot be extended merely by repeatedly sending representations or letters to authorities without any admission of liability by the State. The Court observed that once limitation begins, it cannot be paused through one-sided communications. It further ruled that writ petitions under Article 226 are generally not maintainable for recovery of disputed contractual money claims involving contested facts.
Case: Janardan Singh v. State of U.P. (2026)

2. Supreme Court Upholds Section 63(4) BSA on Electronic Evidence

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, holding that disclosure of a hash value ensures the authenticity and integrity of electronic records. It ruled that expert certification under Part B provides an additional safeguard for secondary electronic evidence. The Court also clarified that qualified cyber experts, apart from notified examiners, may certify evidence if the Court is satisfied with their expertise.
Case: Pune Bar Association v. Union of India (2026)

3. Delhi High Court: WhatsApp Acknowledgment of Arbitral Award Triggers Limitation

The Delhi High Court ruled that acknowledging an arbitral award through WhatsApp and subsequently acting upon it amounts to valid receipt, triggering the limitation period for challenging the award. The Court dismissed a Section 34 petition as time-barred after finding that the petitioner replied “Noted thanks” in a family WhatsApp group and participated in implementing the award. The judgment highlights the legal recognition of digital communication in arbitration proceedings.
Case: Vinay Mawandia v. Bimal Mawandia (2026)

4. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Plea Against CBSE Gulf Assessment Scheme

The Supreme Court agreed to examine petitions challenging the CBSE’s assessment scheme for Class XII regular and private candidates affected by the cancellation of board examinations in Gulf countries due to the Iran–US conflict. The Bench issued notices to the Centre and CBSE, following submissions that the assessment formula was unfair. The petitions have been filed by affected students seeking a more equitable evaluation process.

5. Supreme Court: Independent Medical Opinion Mandatory Before Prosecuting Doctors

The Supreme Court reiterated that investigating officers must obtain an independent medical opinion from a qualified specialist before initiating criminal prosecution against a doctor for alleged medical negligence. The Court emphasized that criminal liability arises only in cases of gross negligence and quashed proceedings against an anaesthetist accused under Section 304-A IPC (now Section 106 BNS). It held that the alleged lapse, at most, constituted a civil deficiency in service.
Case: Supriya Kumari M.C. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2026)