Between 14 and 20 September 2026 the Supreme Court delivered five judgments spanning civil procedure, criminal evidence, arbitration, tax and constitutional law, while the Delhi High Court granted UAPA bail after nearly eight years' custody and the Centre formally notified 14 of the 15 High Court judges the Collegium had recommended the previous week. S. Panchalingu & Ors. v. People's Education Trust (2026 INSC 1010) and Kartika @ Kirtan v. State of Odisha (2026 INSC 1015), both decided 18 September 2026, anchor the week for Judiciary Mains and CLAT GK alike.
Why This Week Matters for Exam Aspirants
W38 rewards students who tracked W37 closely: two items here are direct sequels. The Delhi High Court's UAPA bail grant at nearly 8 years' custody, read against the Madras High Court's denial at 1 year 9 months the week before, gives a ready-made comparative answer for any UAPA bail question. And the Centre's notification of 14 judges on 19 September completes the civics sequence that began with the Collegium's 10 September recommendation — examiners testing "how does a High Court judge get appointed" now have a full, dated worked example spanning two weeks. On substantive law, 18 September alone produced four Supreme Court judgments: a civil-procedure rule on trust suits, a criminal-evidence rule on circumstantial proof, a constitutional-law rule on proportionality, and a tax-law rule on the limits of CBDT circulars. Judiciary Mains candidates should mine items 1 (bail comparator), 2 (Section 92 CPC), 3 (panchsutra) and 5 (proportionality) hardest; CLAT and AIBE candidates should mine items 6, 8 and 11 for figures and dates.
Developments — W38 2026
1. UAPA Bail Granted After Nearly 8 Years — The "Melts Down" Test Applied
Date: 14 September 2026 | Court/Authority: High Court of Delhi, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja | Citation: Mohammad Saqib @ Saqib Iftekar v. National Investigation Agency, CRL.A. 676/2024 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐⭐ High
What happened: Saqib was arrested in December 2018 as an accused in an alleged Harkat-ul-Harb-e-Islam terror conspiracy. By September 2026 he had been in custody for nearly eight years; of 120 prosecution witnesses, only 40 had been examined, and the prosecutor indicated 39 more would be dropped. The Court allowed his bail appeal, setting aside the trial court's 2024 rejection.
The legal principle: Quoting Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Bench held the restrictions of Section 43D(5) UAPA "melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence." It framed the inquiry as accused-specific, quoting Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi): "the proper constitutional question... is not whether Article 21 is superior to Section 43D(5)... [but] how Article 21 is to be applied" given Parliament's conditioning of bail for national-security offences. The Court also held it could consider witness testimony recorded after the trial court's rejection, since its own adjournment had created the opportunity for that testimony.
For your exam: Pair this directly with the Madras High Court's UAPA bail denial the previous week (W37 2026), where 1 year 9 months' custody and a strong prima facie harbouring case tipped the balance the other way. The comparator figures worth memorising: K.A. Najeeb (~5 years, bail granted), Madras W37 (1 yr 9 mo, bail denied), Delhi W38 (~8 years, bail granted).
2. No Receiver in a Public-Trust Suit Before Leave Under Section 92 CPC
Date: 18 September 2026 | Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan | Citation: S. Panchalingu & Ors. v. People's Education Trust (R) & Others, 2026 INSC 1010 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐⭐ High
What happened: Before leave was granted on a Section 92 CPC suit alleging mismanagement of a public charitable trust, a District Judge constituted an ad hoc management committee under Order XL Rule 1(a) CPC — effectively a receiver. The Karnataka High Court set this aside as premature; the Supreme Court affirmed.
The legal principle: The Court held Section 92 CPC's leave requirement is a mandatory condition precedent — a suit remains "stillborn" until leave is granted — and applied generalia specialibus non derogant ("general provisions yield to specific ones") to hold that Section 92's specific safeguard prevails over the general supplemental-proceedings power in Section 94 and the inherent powers in Sections 141 and 151 CPC. "Inherent powers... cannot be exercised where jurisdiction itself has not yet arisen." It clarified a narrower exception survives: in genuinely urgent cases, a court may dispense with notice before granting leave itself, provided reasons are recorded in writing.
For your exam: The reusable Latin maxim is generalia specialibus non derogant. The examinable distinction is between dispensing with notice before granting leave (permitted, in urgency) and passing a substantive protective order like a receiver before leave is granted at all (not permitted).
3. Panchsutra Applied: Four Acquitted in 25-Year-Old Murder After Discrediting Dark-Night Identification
Date: 18 September 2026 | Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale | Citation: Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. Etc. v. The State of Odisha, 2026 INSC 1015 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐⭐ High
What happened: Six men were convicted for a 2001 murder based on eyewitness identification on a night lit only by the assailants' own torches, plus circumstantial evidence. The Orissa High Court had already discarded the eyewitness testimony but upheld conviction on the remaining circumstances. The Supreme Court acquitted the four surviving appellants.
The legal principle: Applying State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar, (1979) 3 SCC 1 and Tamilselvan v. State, (2008) 7 SCC 755, the Court held identification by torchlight the accused carried (not the witnesses) is inherently unreliable. It then applied the panchsutra — the five conditions from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 (circumstances fully established; consistent only with guilt; conclusive; excluding every other hypothesis; forming a complete chain) — and found the "circumstances" the High Court relied on "rest substantially on the depositions" of the same discredited eyewitnesses, so they collapsed once that testimony fell. The alleged murder weapon, a 53 kg stone, was never recovered or forensically linked.
For your exam: Memorise the panchsutra's five conditions in order — this is one of the most frequently tested doctrines in criminal-law papers. The structural point worth a bonus mark: a discredited eyewitness cannot be silently repurposed as the evidentiary foundation for "circumstances" in a circumstantial-evidence case.
4. Arbitration Declared Non Est for Unproven Consent and Unaddressed Bias
Date: 17 September 2026 | Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran | Citation: Arth Micro Finance Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd., 2026 INSC 1014 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐ Medium-High
What happened: A tribunal appointed by one party, on a claim of consensual appointment that was never proven, passed three Section 17 interim orders — account freezes, property takeover, fund transfer — despite an unaddressed bias objection. The Supreme Court set aside all three orders and the arbitration itself.
The legal principle: The Court held that where there is "nothing on record" to show consent to the tribunal's appointment, and a bias objection is left unaddressed, "the initiation of arbitration itself is non est" — void from inception, not merely voidable — so every interim order the tribunal passed fell with it. It appointed a fresh arbitrator, expressly leaving the underlying commercial dispute open.
For your exam: The reusable rule is that procedural defects at the constitution stage of a tribunal are not cured by the tribunal proceeding to function; if consent cannot be shown and bias is unaddressed, everything downstream — including interim relief already granted and executed — can be unwound.
5. Maharashtra's Methanol Licensing and Additive Rules Struck Down on Proportionality
Date: 18 September 2026 | Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran | Citation: M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 1009 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐⭐ High
What happened: Following a 1991 hooch tragedy, Maharashtra's Poisons Rules required licence verification (Rule 18A(1)) and a mandatory bitterant-and-colourant additive (Rule 18A(2)) before any methanol sale, with confiscation for non-compliance (Rule 18B). Chemical manufacturers using methanol as a raw material challenged all three as disproportionate to lawful industrial buyers who hold no seller-type licence.
The legal principle: Applying the four-part proportionality framework from K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9 J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 — legitimate aim, suitability, necessity of the least restrictive alternative, and balance — the Court held Rule 18A(1) "fails to constitute a reasonable restriction in public interest within the meaning of Article 19(6)" because it structurally excluded lawful industrial buyers who never held Form A licences in the first place, while leaving "less drastic measures like cancellation or debarment of licensees found in breach" unaddressed. Rule 18A(2)'s additive mandate was held "manifestly arbitrary" under Article 14 because the causes of adulteration — "illegal and unlicensed channels... corruption... pilferage" — "do not originate at the point of lawful sale." Rule 18B fell with them.
For your exam: This is a clean, fresh vehicle for testing the Puttaswamy four-part proportionality test outside privacy law — note it now governs ordinary Article 19(1)(g) challenges to subordinate legislation too. The reusable line: a facially neutral licence-verification rule can fail because it structurally burdens a class of lawful end-users the rule was never meant to reach.
6. CBDT Circulars Bind Revenue Officers, Not Courts
Date: 18 September 2026 | Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria | Citation: Orient Crafts Limited & Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 143-144 of 2013 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐ Medium-High
What happened: An Assessing Officer allowed an export-incentive deduction under Section 80HHC on export-quota-premium income, relying on a 1998 CBDT Office Memorandum. The Commissioner revised the assessment under Section 263 as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue; the Supreme Court upheld the revision.
The legal principle: Applying the Constitution Bench in CCE, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, (2008) 13 SCC 1, the Court reaffirmed four principles: circulars bind subordinate Revenue authorities; once a constitutional court declares the law, no tribunal may prefer a circular over it; circulars reflect only the executive's understanding and cannot bind courts, whose function is interpretation; and a circular contrary to the statute has no legal force before a court. On the merits, quota-premium income lacks the foreign-exchange element common to Sections 28(iiia)-(iiic), so it falls under the residuary Section 28(iv), attracting the 90% exclusion under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC rather than fuller relief. Both Malabar Industries conditions for Section 263 revision — error and prejudice to Revenue — were met because the Assessing Officer never examined whether the Section 80HHC(3) turnover threshold was satisfied.
For your exam: Fix the four-principle Ratan Melting framework verbatim — it is the standard answer whenever a question pits a CBDT circular against statutory text or judicial precedent.
7. IBC Section 96(4) Applies Retroactively — Interim Moratorium Misuse Ends
Date: 18 September 2026 | Court/Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat | Citation: Indian Bank v. Shabbir Abbas Patel and Others, Writ Petition No. 2819 of 2026, with connected petitions | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐⭐ High
What happened: Personal guarantors were filing Section 94/95 IBC applications — often at the eleventh hour, before an auction or possession — purely to trigger the automatic "interim moratorium" under Section 96, freezing secured creditors' SARFAESI recovery. Parliament inserted Section 96(4), effective 26 May 2026, ending the automatic moratorium. The Bombay High Court held it reaches applications already pending on that date, and quashed DRT orders that had stalled recovery on the old moratorium.
The legal principle: The Court found, per the Select Committee report, the moratorium had become "the number one mechanism to siphon off crores of rupees by debtors," and applied the Mischief Rule (Heydon's Rule): "the office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy." It held the present-tense phrase "is filed" in Section 96(4) "necessarily include[s] applications/proceedings under Sections 94 or 95... that were pending on the date on which the amendment was brought into effect" — rejecting the argument that only future filings were covered.
For your exam: This is a textbook application of Heydon's Case / the Mischief Rule to a retroactivity question — learn the four-part Heydon's formulation and the "is filed" versus "to be filed" textual contrast the Court drew.
8. Centre Notifies 14 of 15 Collegium-Recommended Judges
Date: 19 September 2026 | Court/Authority: Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India | Citation: Notifications under Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India, 19 September 2026 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐ Medium
What happened: The Centre notified 14 judicial officers as Judges/Additional Judges of the Delhi (7), Jharkhand (3), Karnataka (3) and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (1) High Courts, giving legal effect to most of the Collegium's 10 September 2026 recommendations.
The legal principle: Appointment under Article 217(1) requires the President's warrant after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, following Central Government processing of the Collegium's recommendation. Of Delhi's eight Collegium-recommended names, the notification carries seven — two as permanent judges, five as additional judges (an initial term, typically around two years, later confirmable). Why the eighth name was not included is reported but not independently confirmed against a primary gazette text.
For your exam: This completes the appointment pipeline taught in W37 item 7 — Collegium resolution (10 Sep) → Government processing → President's warrant → Gazette notification (19 Sep). Note the permanent-versus-additional-judge distinction: an additional judge's continuation is not automatic and requires a further Collegium recommendation before the initial term expires.
9. Unsigned GST Notice and Order Are "No Notice, No Order" in Law
Date: 15 September 2026 | Court/Authority: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, Justice Arun Monga and Justice Bhuwan Goyal | Citation: Star Raison Landmarks v. Chief Commissioner State Tax and others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8893/2024 (2026:RJ-JP:36956-DB) | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐ Medium
What happened: A GST show cause notice, order-in-original and recovery attachment carried no digital signature certificate, e-signature or physical signature. The Court quashed all three as non est in law.
The legal principle: Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 imposes two cumulative requirements — electronic issuance and authentication. "Mere electronic generation of a document on the portal satisfies only the first requirement." The Court rejected the Department's argument that a signed portal login authenticates an uploaded document: "A login authenticates access. A signature authenticates content." Because "there is no notice and no order in existence to be saved," the defect could not be cured under Section 160 CGST Act, and the alternative-remedy bar under Section 107 did not apply because that remedy "presupposes an order."
For your exam: Fix the Court's own phrase — "a login authenticates access; a signature authenticates content" — as a quotable line, and the resulting rule: unsigned GST documents are void ab initio, not merely irregular, so the challenge is not confined to the statutory appeal timeline.
10. West Bengal, Not the Centre, Is the Appropriate Government for SAIL's Contract Workers
Date: 14 September 2026 | Court/Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) | Citation: Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., WPA 8853 of 2026 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐ Medium
What happened: A Central labour authority held Central minimum wages applied to SAIL's Durgapur contract labourers partly because SAIL carries 65% Central Government equity, ordering Rs 97,56,111 in arrears and Rs 9,75,61,110 in ten-times compensation. The Calcutta High Court set the order aside.
The legal principle: Applying the Constitution Bench ruling in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1, the Court held majority Central shareholding alone does not trigger Central "appropriate government" status under Section 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 — the test is functional: is the specific establishment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government? SAIL, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 rather than by a Central Act, with the Durgapur warehouse locally registered under West Bengal law and locally tendered on terms specifying State minimum wages, fell to the State.
For your exam: The examinable trap is equating PSU ownership percentage with Central jurisdiction. The correct test is functional and establishment-specific — registration, contracting practice and local regulatory status, not the parent company's shareholding.
11. Delay in Rendering an Arbitral Award Is Not Fatal by Itself
Date: 16 September 2026 | Court/Authority: High Court of Delhi, Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar | Citation: Unison Hotels Private Limited v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, FAO(OS) (COMM) 29/2026 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐ Medium
What happened: A Single Judge set aside a Rs 65.12-crore arbitral award solely because two years elapsed between the tribunal reserving and pronouncing it. The Division Bench restored the award.
The legal principle: Applying Lancor Holdings, the Bench held delay vitiates an award "only... [if] unexplained and... [shown to] have adverse impact on findings in the award" — both conditions, not either alone. The tribunal's explanation (COVID-19, delayed written submissions, scheduling three geographically dispersed arbitrators) was adequate, and the Single Judge had never identified which specific finding the delay affected — "militat[ing] against the test laid down in Lancor Holdings."
For your exam: The two-part conjunctive test — unexplained and prejudicial to specific findings — is the reusable rule; a Section 34 court cannot set aside an award on unexplained delay alone without locating the affected finding.
12. Cabinet Approves EPF Wage Ceiling Rise From Rs 15,000 to Rs 25,000 — Not Yet Notified
Date: 16 September 2026 (Cabinet approval); reported effective 17 September 2026 | Court/Authority: Union Cabinet, Government of India | Citation: Cabinet decision announced 16 September 2026 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐ Medium
What happened: The Union Cabinet approved raising the mandatory-coverage wage ceiling for the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation from Rs 15,000 to Rs 25,000 per month, reportedly bringing over 51 lakh additional employees within mandatory EPF, Employees' Pension Scheme and Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance coverage, at a reported annual government outgo of roughly Rs 11,339 crore.
The legal principle: The change sits under the Code on Social Security, 2020 and the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme framework — a materially different statutory anchor and figure from the Rs 21,000 wage ceiling for ESI coverage under the ESI Act, 1948, which students should take care not to conflate. As at this digest, no gazette notification or amended Scheme rule giving the Rs 25,000 figure legal effect had been traced — this is Cabinet-approved policy, not yet a notified legal threshold.
For your exam: Do not answer a question on "the current EPF wage ceiling" with Rs 25,000 without qualifying it as Cabinet-approved but not yet notified as at September 2026 — the operative legal figure remains Rs 15,000 until the implementing notification issues. Keep the EPF (Rs 15,000 → proposed Rs 25,000) and ESI (Rs 21,000) ceilings separate; they are different schemes under different statutes.
Key Facts to Remember
| Date | Item | One-line fact | Subject |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 Sep 2026 | Mohammad Saqib | ~8 years' custody sufficient for UAPA bail under the Najeeb "melts down" test | Criminal Law |
| 18 Sep 2026 | 2026 INSC 1010 | No receiver in a s. 92 CPC trust suit before leave is granted | Civil Procedure |
| 18 Sep 2026 | 2026 INSC 1015 | Panchsutra's 5 conditions; dark-night torchlight ID held unreliable | Criminal Law/Evidence |
| 17 Sep 2026 | 2026 INSC 1014 | Arbitration void (non est) for unproven consent + unaddressed bias | Arbitration Law |
| 18 Sep 2026 | 2026 INSC 1009 | Puttaswamy proportionality strikes down Maharashtra's methanol rules | Constitutional Law |
| 18 Sep 2026 | Orient Crafts | Ratan Melting: CBDT circulars bind officers, not courts | Tax Law |
| 18 Sep 2026 | Indian Bank v. Patel | IBC s. 96(4) applies retroactively from 26 May 2026 (Mischief Rule) | Insolvency Law |
| 19 Sep 2026 | Art. 217(1) | 14 of 15 Collegium-recommended judges notified | Judicial Appointments |
| 15 Sep 2026 | Star Raison | Unsigned GST notice/order is non est; not curable under s. 160 | Tax Law |
| 14 Sep 2026 | SAIL v. UOI | 65% Central equity alone ≠ Central "appropriate government" | Labour Law |
| 16 Sep 2026 | Unison Hotels | Award delay fatal only if unexplained AND prejudicial to findings | Arbitration Law |
| 16 Sep 2026 | Cabinet decision | EPF wage ceiling: Rs 15,000 → Rs 25,000 proposed, not yet notified | Labour/Social Security Law |
Practice MCQs
Q1: In S. Panchalingu & Ors. v. People's Education Trust, 2026 INSC 1010, the Supreme Court held that a civil court's power to appoint a receiver in a public-trust suit before leave under Section 92 CPC is granted:
(a) Exists under the inherent powers in Section 151 CPC (b) Exists under the supplemental-proceedings power in Section 94 CPC (c) Does not exist, because Section 92's specific leave requirement prevails over general CPC powers (d) Exists only if the trust consents
Answer: (c) — Decided 18 September 2026. Applying generalia specialibus non derogant, the Court held Section 92's specific safeguard prevails over the general supplemental-proceedings power in Section 94 and the inherent powers in Sections 141 and 151 CPC; inherent powers cannot be exercised where jurisdiction has not yet arisen because leave has not been granted.
Q2: Under the panchsutra test from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, which of the following is NOT one of the five conditions for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence?
(a) The circumstances must be fully established (b) The circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused (c) The accused must have made a confession before a Magistrate (d) The circumstances must form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis except guilt
Answer: (c) — Applied in Kartika @ Kirtan v. State of Odisha, 2026 INSC 1015, decided 18 September 2026. The five genuine conditions are: circumstances fully established; consistent only with guilt; of a conclusive nature; excluding every other hypothesis; and forming a complete, unbroken chain. A confession is not one of the five conditions.
Q3: Which two conditions must both be satisfied for delay in rendering an arbitral award to be a ground for setting it aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, per Lancor Holdings as applied in Unison Hotels v. IFFCO Tokio?
(a) The delay must exceed three years, and the tribunal must have changed composition (b) The delay must be unexplained, and it must be shown to have affected the award's findings (c) The delay must be unexplained, and the losing party must have objected at the time (d) The award must exceed Rs 50 crore, and the delay must exceed one year
Answer: (b) — Delhi High Court, 16 September 2026. Mere delay is insufficient; both the delay must be unexplained AND shown to have had an adverse impact on findings in the award. The Single Judge's order was reversed precisely because it found the delay unexplained but never identified which specific finding the delay affected.
Q4: Per CCE, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, (2008) 13 SCC 1, as applied in Orient Crafts Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (18 September 2026), a CBDT circular that runs contrary to a court's declaration of the correct legal position:
(a) Prevails, because CBDT circulars have statutory force (b) Has no force in law before a court, though it continues to bind subordinate Revenue officers acting under the statute until withdrawn (c) Automatically becomes void and cannot bind anyone (d) Can only be challenged by the taxpayer who benefited from it
Answer: (b) — The Supreme Court reaffirmed that departmental circulars bind subordinate Revenue authorities, but once a constitutional court declares the law, no tribunal may prefer the circular over that declaration, and a circular contrary to the statute or judicial precedent has no force before a court, since interpretation of statutes is a judicial function.
Q5: Under the Bombay High Court's ruling in Indian Bank v. Shabbir Abbas Patel and Others (18 September 2026), Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which ends the automatic interim moratorium for personal guarantors, applies:
(a) Only to Section 94/95 applications filed on or after 26 May 2026 (b) Retroactively, to applications pending on 26 May 2026 as well, applying the Mischief Rule (c) Only where the adjudicating authority has admitted the application (d) Only to corporate debtors, not personal guarantors
Answer: (b) — Applying Heydon's Case / the Mischief Rule, the Court held the phrase "is filed" in Section 96(4) includes applications already pending on 26 May 2026, so the interim moratorium ceased to operate for pending applications from that date too, ending a pattern of last-minute Section 94/95 filings used to stall SARFAESI recovery.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the single most examinable holding from W38 2026?
S. Panchalingu & Ors. v. People's Education Trust (R) & Others, 2026 INSC 1010, decided 18 September 2026 by Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan. The Supreme Court held that a civil court cannot pass a protective interim order, including appointment of a receiver, in a public-trust suit while an application for leave under Section 92 CPC remains pending, applying generalia specialibus non derogant to hold Section 92's specific safeguard prevails over the general and inherent powers in Sections 94, 141 and 151 CPC.
Does prolonged UAPA custody automatically entitle an accused to bail?
No, but W38 supplies the clean comparator case. On 14 September 2026, in Mohammad Saqib @ Saqib Iftekar v. National Investigation Agency, the Delhi High Court granted bail after nearly 8 years' custody, applying the "melts down" test from Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and the accused-specific inquiry from Gulfisha Fatima. Read against the Madras High Court's UAPA bail denial the previous week (W37) at 1 year 9 months' custody, the two rulings fix a useful outer boundary for revision.
What is the panchsutra test for circumstantial evidence, and how was it applied in Kartika @ Kirtan?
The five-part test from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116: circumstances fully established; consistent only with guilt; conclusive; excluding every other hypothesis; and forming a complete, unbroken chain. In Kartika @ Kirtan v. State of Odisha, 2026 INSC 1015, decided 18 September 2026, the Court held that once dark-night torchlight identification was discarded as unreliable, the "circumstances" relied on collapsed because they rested on the same discredited eyewitnesses, acquitting four men convicted in a 2001 murder.
Does the IBC's new Section 96(4) apply to applications filed before the amendment?
Yes, per the Bombay High Court. In Indian Bank v. Shabbir Abbas Patel and Others, decided 18 September 2026, the Court applied the Mischief Rule to hold that "is filed" in Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 includes applications already pending on 26 May 2026, so the automatic interim moratorium ceased for pending applications from that date too.
Are CBDT circulars binding on courts?
No. In Orient Crafts Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided 18 September 2026, the Supreme Court applied the Ratan Melting framework: circulars bind subordinate Revenue authorities but not courts, and any circular contrary to the statute or a judicial declaration has no legal force before a court.
Were all 15 judges the Collegium recommended in W37 actually appointed in W38?
Mostly, but not all. On 19 September 2026 the Centre notified 14 of the 15 names under Article 217(1) of the Constitution; the Delhi notification carries seven of the Collegium's eight recommended names, and why the eighth was omitted was not independently verified against a primary gazette text. The sequence — Collegium resolution (10 Sep) → Government processing → President's warrant → Gazette notification (19 Sep) — is itself the examinable civics point.
Sources: Supreme Court of India — S. Panchalingu & Ors. v. People's Education Trust (R) & Others, 2026 INSC 1010 | Supreme Court of India — Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. Etc. v. The State of Odisha, 2026 INSC 1015 | Supreme Court of India — Arth Micro Finance Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd., 2026 INSC 1014 | Supreme Court of India — M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 1009 | Supreme Court of India — Orient Crafts Limited & Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax | High Court of Delhi — judgment search | High Court of Judicature at Bombay — judgment portal | High Court at Calcutta — judgment portal | High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur | Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice | India Code — Bare Acts and Central legislation
Content by Veritect Legal Intelligence. For examination preparation purposes only. Verify current legal position from official sources — sci.gov.in, indiacode.nic.in, egazette.gov.in — before any practical application.