1. Digital privacy law faces challenge from news publishers
India’s digital privacy framework faced renewed scrutiny after 21 news publishers, including Network18 and NDTV, challenged the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and associated rules before the Supreme Court. The publishers contend that applying consent requirements to journalistic activities could expose confidential sources, hinder investigative reporting, and interfere with freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw indicated that the government was willing to consider concerns raised by media organisations. The Supreme Court has sought the government’s response by 17 November 2026. The dispute raises significant questions about balancing informational privacy with press freedom.
Legal significance: The proceedings could clarify how data-protection obligations interact with constitutional speech and press freedoms.
2. Supreme Court scrutinises reassessment proceedings against Orissa Mining Corporation
The Supreme Court’s 28 October 2026 case listings include The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orissa Mining Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 13959/2026. LawLens reported that the Court upheld the setting aside of reassessment proceedings where the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had not been issued. The dispute concerns reassessments initiated after reopening previously completed assessments. The reported legal principle is that a taxpayer’s participation in assessment proceedings does not, by itself, cure the absence of a statutorily required notice. The decision is relevant to procedural compliance and the validity of reassessment proceedings.
Legal significance: Tax authorities must comply with mandatory statutory procedures; participation by an assessee cannot automatically remedy every procedural defect.
3. Supreme Court examines delays in enforcement of arbitral awards
The Supreme Court reportedly asked the Law Commission of India to examine delays in enforcing arbitral awards, highlighting the practical difficulties faced by successful parties seeking to realise their awards. The matter concerns an arbitral award dated 10 August 2002 in favour of Royal Construction Company. The development brings attention to a persistent challenge in commercial dispute resolution: an award may establish a party’s legal entitlement, yet prolonged enforcement proceedings can postpone the actual recovery of money or other relief. A review of enforcement mechanisms could help identify procedural obstacles and possible reforms to improve the effectiveness of arbitration in India.
Legal significance: Effective enforcement is central to arbitration’s promise of a faster alternative to conventional litigation.
4. Delhi High Court directs grievance review after Meta disables Instagram accounts
The Delhi High Court reportedly declined to entertain a writ petition challenging Meta Platforms India’s disabling of the petitioner’s Instagram accounts. The petitioner alleged that the accounts had been disabled without prior notice or a sufficiently specific explanation, beyond a general reference to violations of community standards. Rather than granting the requested relief directly against the platform, the Court directed the relevant grievance mechanism to consider the petitioner’s appeal expeditiously. The matter illustrates the growing importance of procedural fairness and effective complaint-handling mechanisms in disputes between digital platforms and users whose accounts are restricted or terminated.
Legal significance: The case highlights the role of platform grievance mechanisms and the limits of writ jurisdiction in private-platform disputes.
5. Bombay High Court addresses enforcement of a major US arbitration award
The Bombay High Court reportedly enforced a US arbitration award against an Indian company and its director in a dispute associated with a ruby transaction valued at approximately US$632 million. The enforcement application was brought under Section 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which addresses the enforceability of certain foreign awards under the New York Convention framework. The case is significant for businesses involved in cross-border transactions because it demonstrates the practical importance of obtaining recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in the jurisdiction where assets may be located. The precise scope of liability and relief must be confirmed from the court’s order.
Legal significance: Foreign-award enforcement remains a critical mechanism for protecting contractual rights in international commerce.
6. Supreme Court scrutinises arbitration arrangements involving a Bihar power distributor
The Supreme Court reportedly rejected South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited’s request for a three-member arbitral tribunal after the company had consented to the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The dispute arose from a distribution-franchise agreement containing an arbitration clause providing for a three-member tribunal. The case raises questions about the effect of a party’s subsequent consent to a different arbitral arrangement and the extent to which such consent can affect later procedural objections. The outcome is relevant to commercial entities drafting arbitration clauses and managing disputes after proceedings have commenced.
Legal significance: Parties should document changes to agreed arbitral procedures clearly and consider the legal consequences of their subsequent conduct.
7. Madras High Court directs action on a long-standing religious leadership vacancy
The Madras High Court reportedly directed the traditional Sthalattars of Srirangam to complete the selection of a Jeeyar for the Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar Mutt within six months. The petition concerned a prolonged vacancy in the religious institution’s leadership and the petitioner’s claim that the vacancy infringed the rights of disciples and disrupted established religious customs. The reported ruling distinguishes the traditional selection process from the role of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. It highlights the legal relationship between customary religious practices, institutional governance, and state oversight of religious institutions.
Legal significance: The dispute illustrates the judicial balancing of customary religious administration, institutional obligations, and statutory oversight.
8. Delhi High Court addresses decades-old Rohini housing allotment claims
The Delhi High Court reportedly directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to decide claims concerning plots under the Rohini Middle Income Group Scheme, 1981, within six months. The petitioners had deposited booking amounts through fixed deposit receipts but encountered difficulties establishing payment when allotments were to be completed. The dispute highlights the legal and administrative challenges that arise when housing-scheme claims remain unresolved for decades and documentary records become difficult to retrieve. The Court reportedly also directed the DDA to make allotments in eligible cases. The outcome is relevant to public authorities’ duties to decide long-pending claims fairly and within a reasonable time.
Legal significance: Administrative delay and deficiencies in historical records do not remove the obligation to examine legitimate claims in accordance with the governing scheme.
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications