1. Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging 18% GST on Legal Research Databases
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) imposed on online legal research and legal education database services. The petitioner argued that the tax classification was unreasonable and that the rate affected access to essential legal information. The services concerned include databases used by lawyers and researchers to access judgments, legislation and other legal materials. The Court questioned why the petitioner had challenged a tax rate that had existed since 2017. The decision leaves the existing GST treatment undisturbed, highlighting the importance of establishing sufficient grounds when bringing public interest litigation.
Case Title – Aniket Gupta v. Union of India and 4 Others, 2026 HC (ALL) 90
2. Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Social Media Platforms’ Right to Remove Infringing Content
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, allowing social media platforms to remove content that violates intellectual property rights. On September 17, 2026, a Division Bench dismissed content creator Anmol Jain’s petition challenging the rule after Instagram removed his posts following copyright complaints. The court held that intermediaries have the right to manage their platforms and remove infringing content. It also highlighted grievance redressal mechanisms, including appeals to the Grievance Appellate Committee, as safeguards for affected users.
Case Title – Anmol Jain v. Union of India and Others (2026:MPHC-JBP:73411)
3. Supreme Court Issues Notice to Rahul Gandhi Over Journalist’s Allegation of Assault
The Supreme Court issued formal notice to Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi on a plea filed by a pregnant journalist, Richa Parashar, alleging that she was pushed during the Opposition’s October 12 march to the Supreme Court. The march concerned challenges to the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The journalist alleged that Gandhi grabbed and pulled her while she was covering the event and that security personnel subsequently pushed her, causing her to fall. The Congress party has denied the allegations. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notice after concerns were raised regarding the listing of the matter. The allegations remain unproven.
4. Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against B.Tech Student Over Operation Sindoor Instagram Repost
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR against B.Tech student Khadeejah Shaikh for reposting controversial Instagram content concerning Operation Sindoor. Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that merely reposting content without evidence of criminal intent cannot justify prosecution. Shaikh had voluntarily deleted the post within two hours and issued a public apology, yet was arrested two days later. The Court noted that she was not the original author and that her repost had caused no communal disturbance. Emphasising her young age and career prospects, the Court ruled that a youthful error of judgment cannot automatically constitute a criminal offence.
Case Title – Khadeejah Shahabuddin Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.(2026:BHC-AS:43573-DB)
5. Supreme Court Mere Foreign Nationality Not Enough to Deny Bail Under UAPA; Illegal Entry Must Be Proved
The Supreme Court held that foreign nationality alone cannot justify denying bail under Section 43D(7) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi clarified that the prosecution must establish both foreign nationality and illegal or unauthorised entry into India. The Court ruled that overstaying a valid visa does not retrospectively make the original entry illegal. Dismissing the Union Government’s appeal, it upheld the Madras High Court’s decision granting bail to Mohamed Rifas, an alleged Sri Lankan national. The Court also emphasised that stricter bail restrictions apply when all statutory conditions are satisfied
Case Title – Union of India v. Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas Criminal Appeal No. 5070 of 2026, SLP (Criminal) No. 7177 of 2024
6. Supreme Court pulls up Centre over rising acid attacks
New Delhi, October 27 — The Supreme Court criticised the Centre over continuing acid attacks, saying its guidelines to curb illegal acid sales have failed. A bench led by CJI Surya Kant said rising incidents show a policy failure and that mere circulars cannot ensure compliance. The Court asked the Centre to ensure State implementation, fix officers’ accountability, and consider a complete ban on over-the-counter acid sales. It noted substitutes are available and legitimate industrial purchases can be separately regulated. The bench also sought data on acid attacks and directed NALSA to examine a survivor-centric rehabilitation framework. The matter will be heard in two weeks.
Case Title Shaheen Malik v. Union of India W.P. (C) No. 1112 of 2025, Diary No. 62038 of 2025
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications