Three Months to Fix How India Releases Its Dying Prisoners

Welcome to this week’s issue of the Indian Legal Brief (ILB). Here are the judgments, orders, regulatory changes, and developments that matter to your practice — without the noise.

The Supreme Court came back to full strength on July 13, and the first week of regular sittings delivered accordingly. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta handed down the week’s most consequential judgment — a systemic mandate on the release of elderly and terminally ill prisoners, with a three-month clock already running against every State. Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma sat on a heavy Monday board and produced both the year’s sharpest mutual-fund compliance authority and a useful mining-royalty ruling. Tuesday, July 14 was an unusually dense day for property and commercial practice: three separate benches settled questions on arbitral jurisdiction, the proof of registered sale deeds, and the reach of the Section 22 preferential right. Off the Bench, the RBI closed a long-standing structuring route in stressed-asset recovery, and the Allahabad High Court barred advocates facing heinous-crime charges from practising anywhere in Uttar Pradesh. Here’s what happened.

Supreme Court Highlights

Prisons: Three Months for Every State to Write a Compassionate-Release Policy

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta — July 16, 2026

The Supreme Court held that continuing to hold prisoners who are advanced in age or terminally ill, with no functioning mechanism to consider their early release, is a systemic failure of Articles 14 and 21 (National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1341; reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 684). The proceedings grew out of NALSA’s own campaign, which identified 5,393 such prisoners across the country — 1,886 undertrials and 3,507 convicts.

Rather than order individual releases, the bench built a compliance architecture. Every State and Union Territory must frame and notify a comprehensive premature-release policy within three months, adopt the UNODC definition of “terminal illness”, constitute independent medical boards at divisional and State level, and integrate the exercise with the Under Trial Review Committees that already exist on paper in every district. Applications are to be routed through the National e-Prisons Portal with tracking numbers, so that a prisoner’s file cannot simply disappear. The Union and the States must file compliance affidavits within six months, setting out the policies framed, the prisoners identified and the prisoners actually released.

Punishment must not become retributive suffering divorced from proportionality, humanity and purpose.

The Court framed the case as calling for “a systemic recalibration of criminal justice system, wherein vulnerability is not treated as an afterthought, but as a constitutionally significant determinant for humane treatment of prisoners” — and, answering the objection that release policy is for the executive, observed that “constitutional restraint cannot be equated with constitutional abdication.”

Why it matters: This converts a diffuse humanitarian concern into a dated, enforceable obligation on every State, and the clock started on July 16. For legal-aid lawyers, prison visitors and criminal defence counsel, it creates a concrete new route: where a client is elderly or terminally ill, there is now a Supreme Court mandate requiring the State to have a policy, a medical board to certify the condition, and a tracked application channel to decide the case. Until the policies are notified, the judgment itself is the authority to press before an Under Trial Review Committee or a High Court. Expect the six-month compliance affidavits to become the next round of litigation, because on past form most States will miss the three-month deadline.

---

Mutual Funds: ‘Mandate First, Gains Later’ — SEBI’s Kotak AMC Penalties Upheld

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma — July 13, 2026

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company, its trustee company and its managing director Nilesh Shah against SEBI and SAT findings arising out of the 2019 Essel Group debt episode (2026 INSC 681). Six close-ended fixed maturity plans had invested roughly ₹266 crore in zero-coupon non-convertible debentures issued by Konti Infrapower & Multiventures and Edison Utility Works, secured on pledged Zee Entertainment shares. When the pledged shares collapsed in value, the AMC restructured and extended maturities rather than enforcing the pledge, and unitholders were paid out after the scheduled maturity dates.

The Court agreed with SEBI that the AMC had not exercised the due diligence expected of it before investing in financially weak Essel entities — the investment committee’s own records showed credit and liquidity risk inadequately assessed — and that extending the maturity of the instruments amounted to a rollover of a close-ended scheme without the unitholder consent the framework requires. It was also unimpressed that SEBI learned of the restructuring only after it began asking questions once the first two schemes matured, and criticised the selective disclosures made to investors along the way.

Mandate first, gains later; SEBI compliance, never falter.

Penalties on the AMC and the trustee company, together with the findings against Shah and other executives, were sustained.

Why it matters: This is the most citable Indian authority in years on scheme-mandate fidelity, and it removes a defence that asset managers reach for reflexively — that the deviation was ultimately in the investors’ interest. The Court’s answer is that the mandate is the obligation and a good outcome does not retrospectively license a breach. The reasoning is written broadly enough to travel beyond mutual funds to AIFs and portfolio managers, so anyone advising a pooled vehicle should read it as a statement about fiduciary structure rather than a narrow FMP case. For enforcement defence, the practical lesson is about timing: the Court treated the failure to tell the regulator promptly as an aggravating feature in its own right.

---

Arbitration: Article 227 Can’t Touch a §16 Ruling — Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea

Bench: Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Vijay Bishnoi — July 14, 2026

A High Court cannot use its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with an arbitral tribunal’s rejection of a Section 16 jurisdictional objection, the Supreme Court held in Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. M/s Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited (2026 INSC 701). The losing party must carry the point forward and run it after the award.

The remedy against the rejection of a Section 16 of the Act application strictly lies under Section 34 of the Act after the pronouncement of the final award.

The bench directed High Courts to exercise “extreme circumspection” and to refrain from routinely entertaining petitions under Article 227 against interlocutory arbitral rulings absent a manifest jurisdictional defect. On the related question of non-signatories, it held that the referral court decides only whether an arbitration agreement prima facie exists; whether a particular non-signatory is bound by it is for the tribunal to determine — giving kompetenz-kompetenz its full intended effect.

Why it matters: This shuts down one of the most reliable delay tactics in Indian arbitration, where an unsuccessful Section 16 application becomes a writ petition and the reference stalls for years. Advise clients that a lost jurisdictional challenge must now be banked and deployed at the Section 34 stage, and price the risk accordingly at the drafting table. For counsel resisting a non-signatory’s joinder, the venue has moved: the argument belongs before the tribunal on the evidence, not before the referral court on a prima facie standard.

---

Evidence: §68 Doesn’t Apply to a Registered Sale Deed — R. Veronica v. Rudrayani Devaki

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra — July 14, 2026

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and its proviso have no application to a registered sale deed, the Supreme Court held in R. Veronica & Anr. v. Rudrayani Devaki (D) thr. LRs. (2026 INSC 703). The section is engaged only where the law mandatorily requires a document to be attested — wills, gift deeds, mortgages — and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 requires a sale of immovable property to be registered, not attested.

The bench anchored the point in the opening words of the provision, noting that “Section 68 opens with the words, ‘if a document is required by law to be attested…’”. Crucially, it went on to hold that the mere presence of marginal or attesting witnesses on the face of a sale deed does not attract Section 68 — a party does not import the attestation regime into a document simply by having witnesses sign it. It follows that the proviso, which requires an attesting witness to be called where execution is specifically denied, is equally inapplicable to a registered sale deed.

Why it matters: This removes a routine and costly evidentiary trap in title and partition litigation. Counsel propounding a sale deed have long felt obliged to trace and produce a marginal witness decades after the transaction, and defendants have long argued that a failure to do so is fatal even where execution is otherwise proved. Neither proposition survives. Practically, execution of a registered sale deed can be proved by the ordinary means — the executant, the scribe, the registration endorsements — and the absence of a marginal witness is no longer a hole in the case. Keep the distinction firmly in mind, though: for a will or a gift deed, Section 68 continues to bite with full force.

---

Succession: §22 Preferential Right Extends to Agricultural Land — Mahinder v. Puran Singh

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh — July 14, 2026

The preferential right conferred on Class I heirs by Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to agricultural land, the Supreme Court held in Mahinder & Ors. v. Puran Singh (2026 INSC 698). Where one Class I heir proposes to transfer an interest in inherited property, the other heirs must first be offered that interest — and the rule does not stop at the boundary of a field.

The Court distinguished the Constitution Bench decision in Atam Prakash, which had struck down parts of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. That statute fell because it drew unreasonable classifications between different categories of would-be pre-emptors. Section 22 carries no comparable infirmity: it applies uniformly to every Class I heir, and its object is to keep an inherited estate within the family for as long as the heirs themselves wish it kept there, rather than to privilege one claimant over another.

Why it matters: Title diligence on inherited agricultural land needs to account for this directly. A sale by one co-heir to an outsider, without the other Class I heirs first being offered the interest, is now squarely vulnerable to challenge — and in much of northern and western India that describes a very large number of transactions sitting in clients’ title chains. For purchasers, the practical answer is a documented offer to, or a written waiver from, every Class I heir before completion. For heirs who have been cut out of a family holding by a sibling’s quiet sale, the judgment supplies a clean cause of action.

---

Electoral Rolls: Does an SIR Deletion Also Cost You Your Rations?

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana — July 17, 2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission, the State of West Bengal and the State Chief Electoral Officer on a petition raising a question the SIR litigation had not previously reached: what happens to a citizen’s welfare entitlements when their name is deleted from the electoral roll (Prasenjit Bose v. Election Commission of India & Ors.). The petitioner, who chairs the West Bengal Congress SIR committee, pointed to State government orders issued since May 2026 that tie eligibility for benefits — including the public distribution system and Annapurna — to a person’s status on the roll.

The petition also presses for time-bound disposal of SIR exclusion appeals, and the numbers it puts before the Court are the story: of roughly 34 lakh appeals, about 38,000 have been heard — and around 70% of the appeals decided so far have ended in the voter being re-included. The bench referred to its own May 27 judgment in the Bihar SIR matter, which had recorded that SIR data should be used for electoral purposes only and should not feed into the implementation of other welfare schemes. It indicated the matter may be listed again before July 25; separate West Bengal SIR petitions, including one filed by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, are listed for August 25.

Why it matters: This opens a second and more tractable front in the SIR litigation. The challenges to the legality of the revision exercise itself have largely gone against the petitioners; a challenge to the downstream consequences of a wrongful deletion is a different and more concrete case, and the 70% re-inclusion rate is a powerful fact — it suggests the exclusions being appealed are wrong far more often than they are right, while the appellate machinery moves at roughly one per cent of the necessary pace. For lawyers doing election or public-law work in the SIR States, the actionable point is that a deletion is now arguably a deprivation of far more than the vote, which widens the range of reliefs worth pleading.

Other Notable SC Orders This Week

• Guidelines on judicial sensitivity in sexual offence cases approved (July 14) — A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana approved the report of the National Judicial Academy’s expert committee and directed it be circulated to every High Court, district judiciary, State Legal Services Authority, State Law Department and Directorate of Prosecution, with the handbook to be uploaded on court websites. Prosecution directorates were directed to sensitise police on the safeguards that apply at the FIR and chargesheet stage. This is now binding practice guidance for all courts.
• An oral pronouncement is not a judgment until it is signed (July 15) — The same bench declined to direct the Karnataka High Court to upload a judgment pronounced in open court but not yet signed. Justice Bagchi explained that “the oral pronouncement not followed by signing of a judgment is not a judgment which is complete”, and that a judge who spots a serious lacuna before signing may re-list and re-hear the matter.
• A Magistrate cannot order the police to file a chargesheet (July 15) — Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran held that on a closure report a Magistrate may accept it, reject it and take cognizance himself, or direct further investigation — but cannot direct the police to file a chargesheet against their own opinion, because “the formation of opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is exclusively with the officer in charge of the investigation.”
• Royalty can be revised mid-lease even without a lease clause (July 13) — In State of Haryana v. M/s Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 673), Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma held that a mining lease is a statutory grant rather than a private contract, so the rules under Section 15 of the MMDR Act operate as implied conditions and “a lessee cannot claim any vested right to static royalty for the entire lease period.”
• Sonam Raghuvanshi bail adjourned to July 21 (July 14) — Meghalaya’s challenge to the bail granted to the prime accused in the Raja Raghuvanshi murder came before Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale, who adjourned it at the Solicitor General’s request. Note for anyone tracking this: the possible larger-bench reference on whether grounds of arrest must be supplied in writing was flagged by a vacation bench on July 9 and was not advanced this week.
• NEET-UG 2026 re-test challenge dismissed as infructuous (July 15) — Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe disposed of Mangala Kohli v. Union of India, the challenge to the NTA’s cancellation and re-conduct of the examination, on the ground that the re-test had already been held. The Court indicated the petitioner may instead intervene in the separate pending batch on NTA institutional reform, which remains live.
• Court sanitation: “lack of funds” is not an answer (July 18) — Hearing a petition on the absence of washrooms for women lawyers in district and taluka courts, CJI Surya Kant’s bench directed States to complete a fact-finding assessment in two weeks, submit proposals in four and file status reports in six, and suggested an additional excise levy on liquor or cigarettes to pay for the work. “Imagine the poor and shabby conditions for our daughters and elders,” the CJI said.

Insolvency & Corporate

IBC: Clean Slate Upheld, but the Court Asks Parliament to Fix the MSME Waterfall

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan — July 17, 2026

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the clean-slate principle in the strongest terms and then, unusually, told the legislature that the principle is producing an unfair result for small suppliers (M/s Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 694). Allowing Tata Steel’s appeals as successful resolution applicant for Bhushan Steel, the bench held that pending civil suits and arbitrations which have not produced a quantified and crystallised claim by the date the resolution plan is approved stand extinguished. A recovery suit for roughly ₹38.89 lakh was accordingly dismissed.

The context matters to the result. Because Bhushan Steel’s financial debt far exceeded its liquidation value, the operational creditors were legally entitled to nil — the ₹1,200 crore that Tata Steel set aside for them, of which ₹1,000 crore went to critical operational creditors and ₹200 crore to pro-rata distribution, was a voluntary commercial choice rather than a statutory entitlement.

Having applied the law, the Court said plainly that the law needs looking at. The Code, it observed, “does not adequately account for the position of small operational creditors, including MSMEs and statutory local bodies, who stand significantly disenfranchised under the present framework by being placed at the bottom of the repayment waterfall”, and MSMEs “are ill-equipped to absorb even a minor financial setback”.

The Law Commission and the Legislature may usefully examine the matter to ensure a fair and balanced repayment mechanism alongside an efficient insolvency regime.

Why it matters: For insolvency practitioners the operative holding is unambiguous and immediately useful: an unquantified claim in a pending proceeding does not survive plan approval, and a successful resolution applicant can have such proceedings dismissed rather than defended. For everyone advising suppliers, the judgment is a warning to convert disputed dues into crystallised claims — or at least to file them in the CIRP — long before a plan reaches the adjudicating authority, because the alternative is extinction without compensation. And the referral itself is worth noting: a judicial invitation to the Law Commission lands while IBBI’s own CIRP and liquidation reform consultation is still open, and it will be quoted in every MSME-creditor submission made in that process.

---

Competition: ₹142 Crore on HP India, and No Full Immunity for the Cartel’s Architect

Competition Commission of India — July 13, 2026

The CCI imposed penalties of over ₹142 crore in aggregate on HP India and 21 resellers for rigging bids on the Government e-Marketplace, across two connected suo motu matters covering personal systems and printer supplies. The Commission found contraventions of Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3)(d) of the Competition Act, 2002, imposed penalties under Section 27, and fixed officer liability under Section 48. HP India bore the overwhelming share — roughly ₹126.87 crore on the personal systems stream and ₹11.98 crore on printer supplies — with the balance spread across the resellers.

The proceedings began with HP’s own application for lesser penalty under Section 46. The Commission found that HP had dictated bid prices and orchestrated cover bidding through its reseller network, and declined to grant it full immunity precisely because it had architected the arrangement rather than merely participated in it. It also rejected the argument that an OEM–reseller relationship is inherently vertical and therefore outside the reach of Section 3(3).

Why it matters: This is the clearest Indian statement yet that the leniency regime does not deliver a 100% waiver to the party that built the cartel — a significant recalibration of the incentive to self-report first, and something to factor into any advice on whether and when to approach the Commission. The hub-and-spoke reasoning is the other half of the story: treating OEM price guidance to resellers bidding on the same tender as horizontal conduct puts a large amount of ordinary channel-management practice into the risk zone. Anyone running a reseller programme that touches GeM procurement should be auditing price-guidance communications now.

Regulatory Watch

Stressed Assets: Banks Can No Longer Sell Seized Property Back to the Borrower

Reserve Bank of India — July 16, 2026

The RBI issued a coordinated batch of amendment directions on July 16 governing immovable property that lenders acquire in satisfaction of their claims, covering every regulated lender category from commercial banks to NBFCs, co-operative banks and All India Financial Institutions. The flagship instrument is the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Resolution of Stressed Assets) Third Amendment Directions, 2026 (RBI/2026-27/187), with companion amendments to the IRACP Directions.

The directions create a defined category — the “specified non-financial asset” — and a new chapter to govern it. An acquired property is to be recorded at the lower of the net book value of the extinguished exposure or a distress sale value determined by at least two independent external valuers. It must be disposed of within a maximum of seven years, with a preference for public auction on SARFAESI principles. Unrealised interest and charges on the extinguished exposure cannot be recognised as income on acquisition. And the headline prohibition: the asset cannot be sold back to the borrower or to related parties, a restriction that survives even after the property ceases to be classified as an SNFA.

Why it matters: The resale bar closes a structuring route that has been quietly available for years, in which a defaulting promoter reacquired the very asset the lender had taken, often at a distressed price, with the intervening default written off. Anyone advising on stressed-asset resolution, SARFAESI enforcement or distressed real-estate acquisition needs to re-examine live deal structures against this before October 1, 2026, when the directions take effect. There is also a legacy clean-up: assets on the books as at September 30, 2026 must have previously recognised unrealised income reversed through the profit and loss account by September 30, 2027. Expect the seven-year disposal window to change how recovery timelines are modelled.

Other Notable Regulatory Moves This Week

• RBI rewrites the bank board agenda framework (July 14) — The Commercial Banks (Governance) Amendment Directions, 2026 (RBI/2026-27/177) replace the old prescriptive list of board agenda themes with principle-based guidance built around three core oversight areas, and add appendices specifying what must go to the Board and what may be delegated to which committee. Parallel amendments were issued for small finance banks, payments banks and local area banks. Effective October 1, 2026 — board charters, committee terms of reference and delegation matrices all need re-papering before then.
• SEBI adopts a new conflict-of-interest code for its own Board members (July 15) — The Code of Conduct for Members of the Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2026 replaces the 2008 code, following the high-level committee constituted after the controversy involving the former Chairperson. It bars members from holding equity or trading equity and commodity derivatives, mandates periodic disclosure of assets and professional interests, establishes a formal recusal mechanism, and imposes a two-year post-retirement cooling-off on appearing before or against SEBI.
• SWP and STP standing instructions extended to demat-held mutual fund units (July 17) — A SEBI circular gives units held in demat form parity with those held in statement-of-account form, with depositories as nodal agencies. Three dates to diarise: the joint standard operating framework by October 31, 2026, Phase I (unit-based mandates) by January 31, 2027, and Phase II (amount-based mandates) by April 30, 2027.
• Special Rupee Vostro Account instructions consolidated (July 17) — A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 19 consolidates the SRVA framework into a single instrument with immediate effect, and — the substantive change — extends settlement through these accounts beyond trade to all permissible capital and current account transactions under FEMA. Relevant to anyone structuring rupee-settled cross-border arrangements.
• IRDAI issues a second set of Ind AS transition clarifications (July 14) — Circular No. IRDAI/IFRS/CIR/MISC/94/7/2026 addresses the Appointed Actuary’s role in preparing Ind AS financial statements, the structure and scope of independent validation, and the use of Ind AS 104-based statements for consolidation during the forbearance period.
• Monsoon Session agenda published (July 17) — Seven bills are listed for the session that convenes July 20 and runs to August 13. Two are pending: the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, which would vest the funds and assets of NGOs whose FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered or lapsed in a notified Designated Authority, and the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025. Five are new, including bills to replace the Income-tax and Supreme Court (Number of Judges) ordinances promulgated on May 16.

At the Bar

Practice Rights: Allahabad HC Bars Advocates Facing Heinous-Crime Charges

Allahabad High Court, Justice Vinod Diwakar — July 19, 2026

The Allahabad High Court barred advocates facing charges for heinous crimes from practising before any court or tribunal in Uttar Pradesh until the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials against them conclude (Mohammad Kafeel v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 432). The court also directed that such advocates’ own trials be transferred, to secure impartiality in their conduct.

How can a person facing criminal charges be permitted to espouse the cause of another accused in a court of law, in the capacity of an Officer of the Court, while enjoying the rights and privileges conferred under the Advocates Act, 1961?

The judgment records the court’s concern that “gangsters and mafia elements have taken the legal profession as a means of seeking safe refuge” — using enrolment and the access it brings as protective cover.

Why it matters: The practical consequence for the affected members of the UP Bar is immediate and severe, but the doctrinal question is the one to watch: the Advocates Act, 1961 vests disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates in the Bar Councils, and a single judge imposing a State-wide practice bar is an assertive reading of the High Court’s power over who may appear before it. That tension is unlikely to rest here. Expect a reaction from the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council, and an appeal in short order. For practitioners, it is also a reminder of a live and under-appreciated exposure — a pending criminal charge can now carry a professional consequence that arrives well before any conviction.

Other Notable at the Bar

• Delhi HC Bar strike over pecuniary jurisdiction, then a truce (July 16) — The Delhi High Court Bar Association’s abstention from work, in protest against a proposal to raise the district courts’ pecuniary jurisdiction from ₹2 crore to ₹10 crore, was suspended after talks with Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal and an assurance from Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya. The Association says it will continue to oppose the hike. The proposal would move a large majority of the High Court’s original side work to the district judiciary — and it has split the Bar, with district bar associations calling the strike unfortunate and pressing for the ceiling to go to ₹20 crore instead.
• SCAORA objects to mandatory AI-use disclosure (July 19) — The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association filed objections to the Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, calling the requirement to disclose AI use in preparing pleadings, documents or evidence unjustified and redundant given existing professional-conduct accountability. It also sought Bar representation on the proposed governing committees, a phased rollout addressing automation bias and hallucination risk, and pre-deployment audits of existing systems including SUPACE, SUVAS and AI-enabled e-filing. This would be the first Indian rule imposing an affirmative AI-disclosure duty on advocates — worth reading the draft and filing comments.
• Delhi HC recalls its own decision to sit on Saturdays (July 17) — A notification recalled the Full Court decision of December 22, 2025 that had made the first and third Saturdays of each month sitting days, pursuant to a resolution of the Full Court on July 9. The issue will be re-examined.
• Delhi HC suspends two district judges (reported July 18) — The High Court, on its administrative side, suspended District Judge Veena Rani (Saket) and District Judge Vinay Singhal (Tis Hazari) pending disciplinary proceedings, by orders of July 10 and July 15. The allegations concern forum shopping in one case, and the appointment of ineligible court auctioneers and inflated payments to them in the other.
• AIBE XXI results, with the cutoff cut by three marks (July 18) — The Bar Council of India declared results for the examination held on June 7, after its monitoring committee agreed to lower the qualifying score by three marks — from 45 to 42 for the general category and 40 to 37 for SC/ST/PwD candidates. Of 175,701 candidates, 65.92% passed. AIBE XXII is set for November 29, 2026, with registration opening August 19.
• A sitting judge criticises a Supreme Court arbitration precedent (July 18) — Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said the Court’s Delhi Metro judgment “caused extensive damage to arbitration in India”, and that it is “pointless to celebrate arbitration weeks if court verdicts, policies undermine arbitration.”

What We’re Watching Next Week

• Sonam Raghuvanshi, July 21 — Meghalaya’s challenge to her bail returns before Justices Sundresh and Varale, with the Solicitor General having said the non-supply-of-arrest-grounds question needs final adjudication. Whether the larger-bench reference flagged on July 9 is revived is the point to watch.
• The Monsoon Session opens July 20 — The Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 is the one with the widest client impact: it would raise the CSR trigger from ₹5 crore to ₹10 crore of net profit, lift the small-company thresholds, drop the merger shareholder-approval threshold from 90% to 75% and designate IBBI as the Valuation Authority. The Joint Committee under Sudheer Gupta completed clause-by-clause examination on July 16–17 and is targeting a report this session.
• Three larger-bench references still without a bench — The UAPA bail reference, the Section 138 NI Act / IBC moratorium reference from Dineshchand Surana, and the Section 392 CrPC reference from Rakesh Kumar Gupta all remain unconstituted despite regular sittings resuming. The Sabarimala nine-judge verdict, reserved since May 14, is likewise unlisted.
• IBBI’s reform consultation closes July 22 — Comments on the CIRP and liquidation regulations are due, and the Supreme Court’s referral in Tata Steel v. Varsha has just handed MSME creditors a citation to build on.
• Chambal sand mining, July 22, and the NCLT transfer-power question, July 29 — The compliance matter returns before the Court, and UoI v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India, on the NCLT President’s power to transfer cases across States under Rule 16(d), is posted for the end of the month.

That’s all for this week. If a colleague would find this useful, forward them this page — or better yet, ask them to subscribe.