The Supreme Court expressed shock over the "total neglect" of Delhi’s heritage structures leased to private entities like the Delhi Golf Club and Panchsheel Public School.

The Bench observed that despite preservation obligations, historical monuments face rampant encroachment, theft, and vandalism.

The Court directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to ensure SHOs protect these sites, warning of immediate suspension for any dereliction of duty.

Additionally, the Court summoned the NDMC Chairperson to explain the lack of supervision and questioned the Delhi government on how the 14th-century Kharbooze ka Gumbad was settled within a private school.

[Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that an apprehension of political vendetta behind a Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) raid on Trident Limited appears "reasonably palpable."

The Court noted the raid occurred on April 30, 2026, just days after the company’s Chairman Emeritus, Rajinder Gupta, switched political allegiance from the Aam Aadmi Party to the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Applying the Wednesbury principle, the bench held that the Board failed to demonstrate an emergent situation justifying action without prior notice.

Consequently, the Court directed the PPCB to provide the company a 30-day window to rectify any deficiencies before taking coercive steps.

[Trident Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Anr.]

The Supreme Court granted bail to a man accused of being a Bangladeshi national involved in a transnational human trafficking syndicate.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the petitioner had been in custody for approximately 2.5 years since his arrest in November 2023.

While the NIA alleged his involvement in trafficking persons from Bangladesh and Myanmar, the Court observed that the trial should be expedited.

Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions, including seizing his passport, informing the NIA of his residential address for verification, and reporting to the agency every Saturday.

[Amol Chandra Das @Sujib v. NIA]

The Calcutta High Court rejected the Union Government's objection regarding the maintainability of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the ₹72,000 crore Great Nicobar infrastructure project.

The Centre argued that the petitioner, a Hyderabad resident, lacked locus standi, however, the bench ruled that courts must permit genuine public causes concerning vulnerable communities.

The Court noted that the tribal populations in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are "very vulnerable" and may be unable to approach the Court themselves.

The bench further clarified that massive expenditure or national importance does not exempt a project from judicial review regarding compliance with the Forest Rights Act and environmental laws.

In the Indian criminal justice system, parole and furlough are reformative tools designed to humanize imprisonment.

Parole is a discretionary release granted for specific, urgent needs, such as a family death or medical emergency. It is not an absolute right and is usually deducted from the total sentence.

In contrast, furlough is viewed as a substantive right for long-term convicts to maintain social ties and break the monotony of jail. It requires no specific reason and is counted as time served.

Both mechanisms aim to prevent "institutionalization," though neither is typically granted to those deemed a threat to national security.

The Right to be Forgotten has become a critical constitutional issue in India, stemming from the Right to Privacy under Article 21.

It allows individuals to request the removal of personal data from digital platforms once it is no longer necessary. This frequently clashes with the Open Court Principle, which demands that judicial records remain public for transparency.

While victims of sexual offenses and matrimonial litigants often receive protection, the judiciary remains cautious about "erasing" criminal history.

Balancing an individual’s digital dignity with the public’s right to information remains a complex challenge for Indian courts and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act.

The Bombay High Court criticised the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) over recurring biometric and technical errors in Aadhaar records that are forcing citizens to approach constitutional courts for relief.

The Court observed that ordinary citizens should not be burdened with litigation due to administrative or technological irregularities in the Aadhaar system.

Hearing petitions involving biometric mismatches and authentication failures, the Bench stressed the need for an effective and accessible grievance redressal mechanism.

It also noted that such errors can seriously affect access to essential services and welfare benefits, and directed UIDAI to respond on measures being taken to address these issues efficiently.

[Rohit Nikalje & Anr. v. Regional officer, UIDAI & Ors.]

A Bengaluru special court sent Gameskraft founder Vikas Taneja to five days of Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody in a money laundering case linked to alleged irregularities in online rummy operations.

The ED alleged that Gameskraft’s platforms lured users into online gaming through misleading practices, manipulated gameplay mechanisms, and routed nearly ₹100 crore as bogus expenses to evade scrutiny.

The investigation is based on allegations of cheating and unlawful financial transactions connected to the company’s gaming business.

During the hearing, the ED argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the money trail, examine digital evidence, and identify the role of other individuals involved in the alleged scheme.

The Delhi High Court held that a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award against Air India remains maintainable despite the airline’s privatisation.

Justice Sachin Datta observed that the dispute arose when Air India was still a government-controlled entity and the Labour Court award itself was passed before privatisation.

The Court distinguished earlier rulings which held that writ petitions against Air India were not maintainable after it ceased to be a “State” under Article 12. It clarified that cases involving liabilities and proceedings originating during Air India’s public sector status could still be examined under writ jurisdiction.

The matter concerns a challenge to a Labour Court award directing reinstatement and back wages.

[Suraj Singh v. Indian Airlines]

A functionary of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) has approached the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Tamil Nadu Governor to swear in actor-turned-politician Vijay as Chief Minister of the State.

The plea reportedly argues that Vijay enjoys significant public support and claims there is a constitutional obligation on the Governor to consider his appointment.

The petition has drawn attention due to its unusual nature, especially as no electoral mandate or legislative majority in favour of Vijay currently exists.

The matter is expected to test the constitutional scope of governor's discretion and judicial intervention in government formation. 

Tripura High Court has stayed recruitment to the State Prosecution Directorate while examining the constitutional validity of giving preference in government jobs to residents of the State.

The Court observed that Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equal opportunity in public employment and generally prohibits discrimination based on place of birth or residence, except where Parliament specifically permits such reservations.

The petition challenged recruitment rules allegedly favouring local residents in appointments to prosecutorial posts.

Prima facie disagreeing with the State’s stand, the Court stayed the recruitment process and sought responses from the authorities. 

[Sri Arun Kumar Panwar v. The State of Tripura & Ors.]

Former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, resigned from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) tribunal, expressing concern over the massive backlog of pending appeals.

Although he cited personal reasons in his resignation, Justice Sivagnanam reportedly observed that, at the current pace, it could take nearly four years to dispose of all Kolkata-related appeals before the tribunal.

During his brief tenure, he disposed of 1,777 appeals in just 22 days without rejecting any.

His resignation has drawn attention to the mounting pendency and administrative challenges surrounding the SIR process in West Bengal.