1. Supreme Court: Section 22 HSA Applies to Agricultural Land

The Supreme Court held that the preferential purchase right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, extends to agricultural land. Dismissing the appeal, the Court affirmed that Class-I heirs have the first right to purchase a co-heir’s share before it is transferred to outsiders. The judgment upholds the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision relying on Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (2019), ensuring the provision applies uniformly to all inherited property, including agricultural land.
Case: Mahinder & Ors. v. Puran Singh (2026)

2. Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief in Bhojshala–Kamal Maula Mosque Dispute

The Supreme Court granted interim relief to Muslim petitioners challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s verdict declaring the Bhojshala–Kamal Maula Mosque complex a Hindu temple. The Court permitted Friday prayers between 1 PM and 3 PM at a nearby open space without affecting either party’s rights. It also directed that no alterations made by the Archaeological Survey of India to the disputed complex shall take effect without the Supreme Court’s prior permission.

3. Jharkhand High Court Quashes 7-Year-Old Cheating Case After Settlement

The Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings in a seven-year-old cheating case after finding that the parties had amicably settled the dispute. Relying on the principles laid down in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat and reflected in Section 528 BNSS, the Court held that the offence was purely private, non-heinous, and continuation of prosecution would amount to an abuse of the judicial process, with little possibility of conviction.
Case: Pappu Kumar Saw v. State of Jharkhand (2026)

4. Supreme Court: Phone Records Alone Cannot Prove Motive for Murder

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of a wife and her alleged lover in the 2007 ICICI employee murder case, holding that telephone records alone cannot establish an illicit relationship or motive for murder. The Court found serious deficiencies in the prosecution’s case, including unreliable last-seen evidence, contradictory call records, improperly handled recovered articles, and lack of blood at the alleged crime scene, breaking the chain of circumstantial evidence.
Case: State of Maharashtra v. Monika Kiran Suryawanshi & Ors. (2026)

5. Sikkim High Court: Victim Saying “Thank You” Does Not Weaken POCSO Case

The Sikkim High Court upheld the conviction of a taxi driver under the POCSO Act, ruling that a 13-year-old victim saying “thank you” to the accused after the assault does not undermine her credibility. The Court observed that post-incident behaviour of a child cannot, by itself, discredit otherwise reliable testimony. It affirmed the conviction for aggravated sexual assault and the sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Case: Buddha Raj Rai v. State of Sikkim (2026)

6. Supreme Court Fines Samay Raina ₹3 Lakh for Non-Compliance

The Supreme Court imposed a ₹3 lakh fine on comedian Samay Raina for failing to comply with its earlier directions, observing that he had taken the Court “for a ride.” The Bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, found that the undertaking given before the Court had been violated and rejected the claim that a compliance affidavit had been filed. The matter also concerns comedian Ranveer Allahbadia over alleged non-compliance with the Court’s orders.