1. Section 66 IT Act — Bailable Offence


The Supreme Court has clarified that offences under Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000 are bailable. A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale set aside a Punjab & Haryana High Court ruling that had treated the offence as non-bailable. The Court held the High Court failed to consider Section 77B, which deems offences carrying up to three years’ imprisonment bailable. Since Section 66 prescribes punishment up to three years, it falls squarely within Section 77B’s scope. Maharaj Saran v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2026.

2. Article 142 Cannot Rewrite Settlements


The Supreme Court held that its inherent powers under Article 142 cannot be used to alter terms of a consensual settlement between parties. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih dismissed a wife’s plea seeking to modify a divorce settlement to create an additional corpus of roughly ₹6-6.5 crore for her son’s higher education. The Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to override what the parties had mutually agreed upon. Vijayalakshmi R. v. C.L. Balaji, 2026.

3. “Last Seen” Theory Is Weak Evidence


The Supreme Court ruled that “last seen together” evidence is inherently weak and generally insufficient to sustain a murder conviction alone, unless the gap between the last sighting and discovery of the body is negligible enough to rule out third-party involvement. Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi allowed appeals of two men convicted under Section 302/34 IPC, overturning findings of the Trial Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court. Didar Singh @ Dari v. State of Haryana, 2026 INSC 726.

4. CJI Declines Urgent Hearing on Protest Policing


A bench led by CJI Surya Kant declined to urgently hear a plea concerning police action against protesters at Jantar Mantar, telling counsel not to waste the Court’s time and declining to view video evidence of alleged police excess. When counsel raised concerns about NEET exam conduct and National Testing Agency reforms, the CJI offered no further engagement. The Delhi High Court similarly declined to urgently entertain a related matter.

5. Fair Trial Safeguards Apply Even in Terrorism Cases


The Supreme Court reiterated that constitutional fair trial guarantees cannot be diluted even in terrorism cases or offences that shock public conscience. The Court held that effective legal representation, presumption of innocence, and proof beyond reasonable doubt are substantive protections, not formalities, distinguishing the rule of law from public sentiment. It reaffirmed that suspicion cannot replace proof and that wrongful conviction of the innocent is worse than a guilty person escaping punishment. Abdul Hameed v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 734.

Thank You LegalRath Team