Trilegal advised Blackstone-backed ASK Investment Managers on its proposed acquisition of SageOne Investment Managers.

The acquisition is a strategic move to strengthen ASK's equity investment capabilities and provide SageOne access to ASK's global distribution network.

The deal, estimated at ₹1,500–2,000 crore, will bring together ASK's institutional scale and distribution network with SageOne's investment team and track record. Blackstone will remain the majority shareholder of the combined platform. 

The Trilegal Corporate Team advising on this matter was led by Partners: Nishant Parikh, Arjun Ghose and Rahil Pereira; and supported by Counsel: Ishika Goon; and Associates: Krithika R Bhandari, M Yogish, Muhammed Ijaz, Harsh Mittal and Saif Ali

The Trilegal Financial Regulatory Team advising on this matter was led by Partner: Shruti Rajan; and supported by Counsel: Jitesh Maheshwari; and Associates: Prashasti Mishra and Dishaa Dand

The Trilegal Funds Regulatory Team advising on this matter was led by Partner: Ganesh Rao, Aditya Jha and Yash Bansal; and supported by Senior Associate: Riddhi Joshi; and Associates: Priyanka Chauhan, Ashmit Sharma and Saloni Khaitan

The Trilegal Competition Team advising on this matter was led by Partner: Gauri Chhabra; and supported by Counsel: Gargi Yadav; Senior Associate: Ujwala Adikey; and Associates: Bhabya Mahapatra and Shobhit Shukla

The Supreme Court today quashed the notice issued by Ghaziabad Police to X (formerly Twitter) to hand over data on journalist Abhishek Upadhyay while investigation against him in the road rage case is underway.

Justice Bagchi expressed concern over the UP Police's request seeking details of Upadhyay's X account and said, "seizing data of 3 months prior to date of alleged road rage incident seems to be an overkill."

"Notice to X issued by local police is hereby quashed. Any information taken pursuant thereto or otherwise shall not be utilized against petitioner. This court, while issuing notice, has already directed no coercive action. And that he will cooperate with ongoing investigation. That being so, the order is made absolute.." the bench ordered today.

Upadhyay had moved Supreme Court of India to restrain the Ghaziabad Police from seeking, obtaining, accessing, processing or disclosing any information, including the digital/account information of his X account @upadhyayabhii.

He is accused in a road rage case which he alleged to be a fabricated one in retaliation for his investigative reporting on alleged irregularities concerning the Ram Mandir.

Last month, a mentioning was made before a CJI Surya Kant led bench wherein Advocate Anoop Prakash Awasthi stated, "The Ghaziabad Police has sought my digital footprint from June 1, 2026 in connection to the road rage case..that is when I broke the Ram Mandir donations theft story..all of the sources would be revealed and they would be harassed by the police..I have received information from the Meta office from California that they have sought my digital footprint..I have filed an application..".

Upadhyay's application sought ad-interim stay and quashing of a notice u/s 94 of BNSS dated 22 August, 2026 issued by crime branch unit, Police Commissionerate, Ghaziabad, UP. Upadhyay received an email from X from its legal department at San Francisco, California, informing him that X had received a request from the Crime Branch Investigation Unit, Ghaziabad, seeking production of information relating to the Petitioner’s X account @upadhyayabhii.

On August 25, the Supreme Court stayed the arrest of Upadhyay who had approached Court under Article 32 seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him in Ghaziabad and protection from arrest, alleging that the case was fabricated in retaliation for his investigative reporting on alleged irregularities in Uttar Pradesh. Court further directed the police to supply the copy of the registered FIR to Upadhyay adding that he can then approach the Allahabad High Court for seeking suitable reliefs. The Ghaziabad Police Commissioner has been asked to file a compliance report regarding the supply of the FIR by the next date of hearing.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana had earlier agreed to hear a writ petition filed by Upadhyay challenging the FIR. The petition challenges FIR No. 678/2026, registered at Indirapuram Police Station, Ghaziabad, on August 18 in connection with an alleged road-rage incident near Shipra Mall. The FIR invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Information Technology Act. The petition itself notes discrepancies between the sections reflected in different portions of the FIR record. Upadhyay, who runs the independent news portal “Top Secret”, has alleged that the FIR was lodged after he published investigative reports concerning alleged corruption and irregularities in Uttar Pradesh, including matters relating to the Ram Janmabhoomi premises and senior government officials.

Case Title: Abhishek Upadhyaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi

Hearing Date: October 14, 2026

While hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation's challenge to the discharge of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and all other accused in the excise policy case, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday pressed the agency to point out specific errors in the trial court's order rather than restate its allegations.

A Meerut court today imposed death penalty on convicts Muskan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla for the murder of Rastogi's husband, Merchant Navy Officer Saurabh Rajput, in the case in which Rajput's dismembered body was recovered in 2025 from a ‘blue drum’ sealed with cement.

A Delhi Court on Wednesday issued fresh summons to YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, along with dasti summons, in a criminal defamation complaint pending at Saket since 2018, after recording that the complainant had been trying to serve him ever since he was first summoned in July 2019.

The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation has filed a compliance affidavit before the Supreme Court in response to its October 9 order, that had asked the government to take a decision on the operation of Metro trains and other rail services in a suitable and regulated manner, ahead of CJP protests.

Filed through Group Captain Sanjay Vinayakrao Kute, General Manager (Legal), DMRC, supreme court has been told there was no curtailment or cancellation of Metro Train Services.

"There was zero reduction in the total volume of metro operation i.e. there was no reduction in number of train trips. Trains were inducted strictly as per the standard Saturday Schedule, with 271 trains inducted into service on 10 Oct, 2026. A full complement of 4157 train trips were run on 10 Oct 2026 as per the schedule across the network," the affidavit adds.

It is further submitted that the number of affected stations was scaled down from 57 to 45 stations and upon receiving directions from the Delhi Police to open the above 45 stations from 10:00 PM on 10.10.2026, the station controllers were directed to open the entry and exit gates across all these 45 stations and thereafter the stations were opened and services continued normally.

Court has further been informed that entry and exit regulations were restricted to only 45 out of 303 stations across the Metro network, accounting for only 15% of the entire network.

"Crucially, out of the 45 stations where entry/exit gates were regulated, 14 key interchange stations (including major transit hubs such as Rajiv Chowk, Kashmere Gate, Central Secretariat, Mandi House, Hauz Khas, Dilli Haat-INA, and Netaji Subhash Place) continued to provide full and uninterrupted line-interchange facilities for commuters. Commuters entering into the city as well as inside the city were able to change transit corridors seamlessly without disruption," the affidavit adds.

The affidavit adds the total number of commuters who travelled on the Metro network during its operational hours, was approximately 32 lakh. It is submitted that this figure was slightly lower than the ridership on a normal second Saturday.

"This reduction may be attributed to the protest, which appears to have prompted a large number of commuters to refrain from travelling and, consequently, from undertaking their usual daily activities or attending to their business or private employment," the DMRC reply submits.

On October 9, in the plea before Supreme Court alleging indiscriminate closure of 57 metro stations and cancellation of trains, the Centre had defended its decision, saying the citizens lives cannot be put to risk and its decision is essential to maintaining law and order in the national capital.

SG Mehta had assured the bench that he would take up the issue with the government, but at the same time some leeway has to be granted to the enforcement agencies. Court has asked the Centre to reconsider and take a call.

The government's order was issued ahead of the Cockroach Janta Party protests scheduled for tomorrow October 10 against the Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the SIR row. Notably, the protests have not been granted the requisite permissions.

Petitions before Supreme Court were filed by CPI(M) General Secretary MA Baby and other petitioners challenging the curbs imposed by the authorities ahead of the protests.

Later, a contempt petition was also filed in the Supreme Court alleging that the Central government has violated the court’s order to lift restrictions on metro and train services.

Case Title: MA Baby vs Union of India

The Supreme Court today heard a batch of petitions challenging the Madras High Court's February 2024 decision to quash the First Information Report (FIR) against Venu Srinivasan, Chairman Emeritus of TVS Motor Company and a board member of Tata Sons, in a case concerning allegations of theft and unauthorised replacement of an antique idol at Chennai's Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple in 2004.

One of the pleas has been filed by temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan, who has sought to set aside the high court's decision.

During today's hearing before the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi, Additional Advocate General for Tamil Nadu Prashanto Chandra advanced submissions on behalf of the State. His arguments centred on a resolution allegedly passed ahead of the temple's Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) on August 30, 2004, which, according to the State, indicated that the idol had been replaced before the ceremony.

The State's submissions addressed the dispute over the original idol, which allegedly depicted a peacock holding a flower in its beak. The State contended that an idol had been present before the alleged theft, in response to the contention that no idol depicting a peacock holding a flower was present at the temple.

The Court has posted the matter for further hearing on October 29, 2026, at 2 PM.

The Peacock Idol

The case concerns allegations that an antique peacock idol at the Punnaivananathar Sannidhi of Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple was removed during renovation work in 2004 and replaced with an apparently identical idol depicting the bird holding a snake in its beak instead of a flower.

In August 2018, temple activist Narasimhan initiated legal proceedings alleging irregularities in connection with the idol and the conduct of temple officials appointed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department of the Tamil Nadu government.

Following the complaint, the Idol Wing of the Tamil Nadu Police initiated an investigation and questioned officials associated with the HR&CE Department. Srinivasan, who was part of a government-constituted committee overseeing the temple's renovation at the time, was also named in the criminal case.

The police registered an FIR in 2018. In 2022, the Idol Wing filed a final report naming Srinivasan and others in the case. Srinivasan subsequently approached the Madras High Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him.

On February 16, 2024, the high court allowed his plea and quashed the FIR against him. Narasimhan challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, seeking its reversal.

As per reports, Srinivasan has denied involvement in the alleged theft and maintained that he was not responsible for the temple's day-to-day administration. He has also stated that he contributed Rs 70 lakh from his personal funds towards the temple's restoration.

Case Title: M. Muthiah Sthapathy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. and Connected Matters

Hearing Date: October 14, 2026

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi

The Madras High Court on Wednesday pressed the Tamil Nadu government to explain why the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is made to seek court intervention every year just to hold a route march, as it took up a plea ahead of the organisation’s founding day celebrations.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan was hearing a petition by RSS member VG Jagadeesan, who wants the police directed to consider his representation and allow marches on October 18, October 25, November 1 or any other suitable date. The petitioner proposes to walk in uniform, led by a musical band, and to follow the march with a public meeting.

The Bench did not hide its unease with the State’s stand. Observing that the RSS had been allowed to march even in a terrorism-affected region like Jammu and Kashmir, the judge asked why Tamil Nadu police refused it year after year.

The Court went further, saying the present government appeared opposed to processions as a category, whether organised by the RSS or the Dravidar Kazhagam. Such blanket refusals, it said, push organisations into avoidable litigation.

“This government is against any procession,” the judge remarked orally, adding that citizens were being treated like enemies when they sought to protest.

He also made it clear that the problem was not limited to one political party. “Whichever government is coming up, they’re rejecting,” the Court observed, suggesting that the reluctance to permit marches cuts across administrations.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate NL Rajah told the Court that the organisation was forced to approach the judiciary every single year. He said the RSS only wished to mark its founding day, which falls on Vijayadashami, with a route march. According to him, police kept rejecting the request on the ground that it could lead to law and order problems.

Sr Adv Rajah also raised a wider concern. Well-organised groups like the RSS can afford to approach the Court, he said, but smaller parties without such resources are left with no real remedy when permission is refused.

Defending the State, Advocate General Vijay Narayan said permission was refused because the RSS had sought to hold the march and public meeting at a location that has not been notified for such gatherings. He also pointed to the burden on the police, who are already stretched during the festive season, and said processions could inconvenience people out shopping.

The Court was not persuaded. It noted that the RSS approaches the High Court every year and receives relief every year, and wondered what had changed in 2026 to justify a different approach. When the State referred to earlier criminal cases, the judge asked it to point to actual incidents of violence linked to RSS marches.

In a pointed remark, the judge suggested that if the State was determined to refuse permission for protests, it should simply bring a law banning marches altogether. “Why are you doing this? Unnecessary litigation,” he said, asking whether the government wanted adverse publicity.

The issue is not new. The Court had earlier laid down detailed guidelines for RSS route marches. Even so, permission was denied in 2024, and the organisation had to return to court. While allowing the march then, the Court had said the police were duty-bound to protect both the public and the organisers, and could not cite law and order as a routine excuse. It had also expected the police to follow judicial orders in future without inventing “new and fanciful reasons” for rejection.

For now, the Court has asked counsel for the petitioner to meet State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan and work out a way for the march and meeting to be held peacefully. The State has also been asked to place on record a report on permitting a peaceful procession.

The matter will be heard again on Thursday, October 15. 

Case Title: V.G. Jagadeesan v. The State Rep. By, The Chief Secretary and Others

Date of Hearing: October 14, 2026

Bench: Justice V Lakshminarayanan

A Delhi court today briefly heard submissions in a civil defamation suit filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee over a video concerning Hindu deities, in which the plaintiff has sought a declaration, damages and other reliefs.

The Delhi High Court has held that kissing a minor child on the lips can fall within the definition of sexual assault under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, provided the requisite sexual intent is established from the facts and circumstances of the case.

Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused against his conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

The trial court had sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹5,000 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

The High Court clarified that even if the allegation of touching the child’s private parts were excluded from consideration, the allegation that the accused kissed the minor on her lips would still require examination under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.

This provision, apart from the specific acts enumerated therein, also covers "any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration".

The Court observed: "The absence of penetration or the exclusion of the allegation regarding touching of the private part would not, by itself, take the alleged act outside the ambit of Section 7, provided the requisite sexual intent is established from the facts and circumstances of the case."

What was the case all about?

The prosecution case was that the incident took place on April 12, 2020, when the victim was around six years old. According to the prosecution, the accused, who was her neighbour, kissed her on the lips and touched her inappropriately.

The victim’s mother told the police that her daughter had disclosed the incident to her after returning home. The mother then informed her husband, who contacted the police.

During the trial, the child testified that the accused had kissed her on the lips and squeezed the area of her stomach below the breast. She also stated that, apart from these acts, he had not subjected her to any other “bad touch” on that day.

The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the child’s testimony contained material inconsistencies and that there was no independent eyewitness or medical or forensic evidence corroborating the alleged acts. The defence also questioned the reliability of the child’s testimony and alleged that she had been tutored.

What did the High Court find?

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court compared the child’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC with her testimony before the trial court.

The Court found that she had remained consistent on the material particulars of the incident, including the allegation that the accused kissed her on the lips. It also noted that her immediate disclosure of the incident to her mother was consistent with the mother’s testimony.

"There may be some minor variation in the testimony regarding the precise part of the body touched by the appellant. However, considering the tender age of the victim at the time of the incident, such variation with regard to the precise description of the body part cannot, by itself, be treated as a material contradiction so as to discredit the core of her testimony" the Court held.

The Court added that the material fact remained that the appellant had subjected the minor to inappropriate physical contact and kissed her on the lips.

The High Court reiterated that a conviction can be based solely on a victim’s testimony if the evidence is consistent and inspires confidence.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh (2025), the Court discussed the principles governing the assessment of evidence given by child witnesses.

It noted that a child witness is competent to testify if the child understands the questions put to her and can provide coherent and rational answers. There is no general requirement that a child witness’s testimony must be corroborated before it can form the basis of a conviction.

However, the Court noted that a child’s evidence must be carefully scrutinised, and corroboration may be sought as a matter of caution where the testimony appears tutored or contains material discrepancies or contradictions.

In the present case, the High Court noted that the trial court had assessed the child’s ability to understand and answer questions. Although the defence had suggested that she was tutored, the Court found that the allegation had not been established and that no material contradiction had been shown to render her testimony untrustworthy.

"In view of the foregoing, the testimony of the victim is consistent and inspires confidence. The minor variations do not constitute material contradictions, and the allegation of tutoring has not been established" the Court concluded.

Finding no ground to interfere with the trial court’s judgment dated April 13, 2026, or its order on sentence dated April 20, 2026, the High Court dismissed the appeal and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.

Case title : SURAJ SINGH @ LAALA v STATE NCT OF DELHI

The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted the Union of India four weeks to file its counter-affidavit in a plea by Community Against Drunken Driving (CADD) that alleges alcoholic beverages are being sold in packaging dominated by fruit imagery, with the alcoholic content barely disclosed, in a manner that makes them attractive to young people and minors.

Background 

In April 2025, CJI Surya Kant led bench of the Supreme Court had rejected a PIL challenging the availability of Wine in tetra packs in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The bench also comprising Justices Bagchi and Pancholi noted that thestate's policy did not have any express permission of selling liquor in tetra pack in the excise policy. However, some administration decision was taken by state government in February 2025 permitting such small packages of liquor, it further noted.

The Supreme Court has directed its Registry to summon the trial court records, in both physical and digital form, in the appeal filed by self-styled godman Asaram Bapu against his conviction for sexually assaulting a minor devotee in Jodhpur in 2013. The Court listed the matter for further hearing on November 6 at 2 PM.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran was hearing Asaram's challenge to the Gujarat High Court's refusal to grant him 20 days' temporary bail to meet his ailing wife, along with his application for bail on medical grounds. Both pleas form part of his pending appeal against conviction.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared for Asaram, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondent State.

Before the Supreme Court, an issue has been flagged by a few voters who have been asked by the Election Commission to re-enroll under the Form-6 as the Special intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in underway.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan informed a CJI Surya Kant led bench today that an urgent application has been moved in the Delhi SIR petition pending before court. "They are asking persons to fill out a declaration in Form 6 that they have not voted before. Last date is October 30th. Your lordship may have this next week. The EC may allow them to fill Form 8. This court issued notice in the petition returnable for October 30th," Bhushan stated.

"We are thinking of passing an order that may resolve your concerns," CJI Kant told Bhushan.

Form 6 is the application prescribed for individuals seeking inclusion of their names in electoral rolls as new voters. The present controversy concerns an additional declaration attached to the online version of Form 6 during the SIR exercise in certain states. The declaration requires applicants to provide information regarding whether they or specified family members appeared in electoral rolls prepared during an earlier SIR exercise.

Two days back, Supreme Court clarified that it has neither approved nor disapproved the modified Form 6 (used for inclusion of their names in electoral rolls) used by the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, stating that the Court had not adjudicated upon the modified form.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the clarification after a petitioner pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier stated that the modified Form 6 had not been approved by it, while the Election Commission had claimed that the declaration attached to the form had been upheld by the Court.

In the Delhi SIR petition, Supreme Court on September 22 had questioned the Election Commission of India over the manner in which notices were being issued to voters during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of Delhi’s electoral rolls.

Court heard a plea concerning notices issued to more than 33 lakh voters whose names have been flagged for either “no mapping” with the 2002 electoral roll or “logical discrepancies.”

The Court observed that the notices appeared to have been issued “almost mechanically” and sought clarification from the ECI on the basis for identifying voters under the “logical discrepancy” category. The Bench also sought details regarding the manpower deployed for the verification exercise.

The petition has been filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri and argued by advocate Prashant Bhushan. It challenges the failure to disclose the names of voters who have been issued notices and the specific reasons for such notices.

The petitioners have sought a searchable, consolidated list identifying all electors who received notices, along with the precise reason for each notice. They have also sought disclosure of the criteria, algorithmic parameters and operational guidelines used to identify “logical discrepancies.”

The Delhi SIR has generated significant attention after the draft electoral roll published on August 31, 2026 removed around 47.7 lakh names from the existing list of approximately 1.45 crore electors. The Election Commission said the enumeration phase resulted in forms being collected and uploaded for about 97.51 lakh electors.

Those whose names are missing from the draft roll can file claims for inclusion between August 31 and September 30, along with the prescribed forms and supporting documents. The process also provides for verification and hearings where required. The Delhi SIR schedule has been revised three times. Under the latest timeline, the final electoral roll is scheduled to be published on November 4, 2026.

Mentioning Date: October 14, 2026

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Advocate Nizam Pasha mentioned the petition before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, seeking its listing alongside similar petitions scheduled to be heard on Thursday.

"The petition challenges the manner in which SIR is conducted..similar matters are coming up tomorrow..this may be listed as well," Pasha told the bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

CJI Surya Kant said he would check and list the petition with the connected cases.

Notably, Opposition leaders led by Rahul Gandhi have also moved a petition before Supreme Court alleging that the Chief Election Commissioner exercised the "collective powers" of the Election Commission of India on his own during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and have asked the Court to call for the Commission's files, minutes and notings to test whether its decisions were lawfully taken.

The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and Mallikarjun Kharge, Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, along with other party leaders and Members of Parliament, also questions the modification of the statutory Form 6, the design and operation of the ECINET and ERONET electoral-roll databases, and the "large-scale exclusion of electors without adequate notice, hearing or an effective mechanism for restoration."

In a related development, the Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it has neither approved nor disapproved the modified Form 6 (used for inclusion of their names in electoral rolls) used by the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, stating that the Court had not adjudicated upon the modified form.

Court made the clarification after a petitioner pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier stated that the modified Form 6 had not been approved by it, while the Election Commission had claimed that the declaration attached to the form had been upheld by the Court.

In May this year, Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. A CJI Surya Kant led bench, in its verdict said SIR is not in conflict with the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Rules framed thereunder. "The impugned SIR does not supplant the Representation of the People Act and the Rules. Rather, it breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted in excess of its statutory powers," the CJI read out in court.

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi

Mentioning Date: October 14, 2026

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) to issue a circular warning police officers that misbehaviour with a high court state law officer while the officer is communicating a court order for compliance will be treated as contempt.

"Any misbehaviour on the part of any officer will be treated as a contempt of this court and shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law," ordered the bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal.

Court was dealing with a bail application in a case registered under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)[earlier Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)] and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act.

During the proceedings, court took note of the misbehaviour by Rajesh Kumar Singh, the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Azamgarh, towards Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Anurag Pandey.

The incident occurred when Pandey was attempting to inform Singh over the phone about court's one order dated September 16, 2026. Court noted that the PRO had misbehaved with the AGA while he was conveying the order.

Observing that AGAs are officers of the court and communicate judicial orders to officials as part of their duty, the bench said that misbehaviour with them by any officer, irrespective of rank, may amount to contempt.

"Whenever they inform to any officer about the compliance of the order of this court, they are discharging their duty in compliance of the order of the court," court observed.

Court, however, noted that the SSP had issued a show-cause notice to the PRO and removed him from the post after learning of the incident.

Appreciating the prompt action, Justice Deshwal directed that the PRO be taken into custody and remain in the court's custody until 5 pm, after which he was to be released.

Another issue of failure to comply with court's directions concerning a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against investigating officer Vinay Kumar Mishra came to light. 

Pursuant to court's order, the SSP, Azamgarh, Dr Anil Kumar-II, appeared before the court and filed an affidavit explaining the sequence of events. He informed that a communication regarding compliance had been forwarded to the relevant police units, but Sub-Inspector Subash Singh had kept the letter with himself instead of acting on it. A preliminary inquiry also found the Station House Officer (SHO) of Maharajganj police station negligent in complying with the court's order. SSP stated that show-cause notices had been issued to both officers and appropriate action will be taken against them.

The SSP apologised for not personally executing the NBW against the investigating officer, as he was under the impression that ensuring the officer's presence was sufficient for compliance.

"Though this is not the correct legal position," Justice Deshwal said, clarifying that whenever any police officer receives an NBW issued by the high court to be executed by him, then he should personally ensure the arrest of that person and produce him/her before the high court.

Court, however, closed the matter against the SSP without passing any further order, taking into account his unblemished record and expressing the expectation that he would be more careful in future.

Separately, court appreciated the SSP's prompt action against the PRO and his humanitarian gesture of adopting the two minor daughters of a criminal who had killed his wife and another child, who later died in a police encounter.

In the bail application, court noted that the allegations against the accused were that after his marriage was fixed with a woman, he developed a relationship with her and prepared obscene video and photographs of her. Thereafter, he started blackmailing her. When the woman refused to pay him Rs. 2 lacs, he uploaded those videos and photographs on a fake Facebook ID. 

The counsel for the accused submitted that the concerned Facebook ID did not belong to him and he had been falsely implicated in the matter. He also submitted that the accused had no criminal history, had been in custody since March 1, 2025, and would cooperate with the trial if released on bail.

However, opposing the plea, the AGA submitted that the pendrive and the Cyber Cell report indicated that the accused had created the fake Facebook account on September 8, 2024, and subsequently uploaded the obscene material of the victim through it.

Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties and taking into account the report of the Cyber Cell, court held that it was clear that the accused had created the Facebook ID and uploaded the obscene video and photograph. Therefore, court declined to grant him any relief and rejected the bail application. 

Case Title: Sachin Yadav v. State of U.P.

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

Order Date: October 12, 2026

Delhi's Special Executive Magistrate on Wednesday remanded Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to five days of judicial custody for allegedly trespassing at Jantar Mantar yesterday by crossing police barricades and entering the area after it was no denotifies as a protest site.

The two, along with party member Ajinkya Shinde, were put under preventive detention yesterday.

They were produced before a Special Executive magistrate (SEM) at Mandir Marg in Delhi on Wednesday morning. While Das and Ranka were remanded to judicial custody, Shinde was released on a personal bond, according to the party's legal team.

The case arises from an incident in which the party members allegedly crossed barricades and entered the Jantar Mantar area, raising slogans and holding the national flag. The police action followed the removal of Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest venues.

Yesterday, ANI reported that the Delhi Police has registered a case against the three and various others on allegations of trespassing, forming an unlawful assembly, and disobeying an order promulgated by a public servant.

Police Allege Violation Of Peace Bond

According to Delhi Police, Das and Ranka had previously executed bonds undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year after being detained during an earlier protest.

The police alleged that the two had again violated the restrictions applicable in the area and breached the conditions of their bonds. They were consequently treated as repeat offenders and produced before the magistrate.

The earlier bonds were furnished after the two were detained on October 10. They were reportedly released after furnishing surety bonds of ₹50,000 each and undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year.

A peace bond is an undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for a specified period. Alleged breach of such conditions may lead to further proceedings before the competent authority or court.

Advocate Abhisht Hela, appearing for Das, Ranka and Shinde, however, questioned the grounds on which the two leaders had been sent to judicial custody.

He alleged that the police had relied on an apprehension that the activists might commit an offence and disputed the claim that they had violated the conditions of their bonds.

The lawyer also disputed the police's claim that the activists had issued a call asking people to assemble at the protest site. He further alleged that a separate complaint relating to Connaught Place had been used in the present matter.

The incident took place amid changes to the designated venues for protests in Delhi.

On October 11, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar issued an order identifying Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground as designated venues for protests and demonstrations. Jantar Mantar was removed from the list of approved protest sites.

The police subsequently detained the CJP members after they allegedly crossed barricades and entered the area.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that technology, data and knowledge are the new sources of global power, but the real question is how that power is used, as he outlined a “Power to Empower” vision at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in New Delhi.

Addressing global business leaders and policymakers at the forum, which is being held in India for the first time, PM Modi asked: “Will technology advance only a few people? Or will it create new opportunities for millions?” He said power must go beyond control, towards enabling others.

The digital thread ran through much of his speech. PM Modi said affordable mobile data had allowed a student in a small town to access digital learning and a village shopkeeper to find new customers. He also pointed to India’s digital payments ecosystem, saying a street vendor and a large car showroom use the same system, which he described as “the strength of inclusive technology.”

India, he said, is also sharing its digital public infrastructure with other countries so they can build systems suited to their needs. He recalled that the CoWIN platform created during the COVID-19 pandemic was open source, adding that the country’s capability “should empower humanity.”

On governance, PM Modi said a government has authority, but its objective should not be to make citizens dependent on the system. He cited the JAM Trinity and Direct Benefit Transfer, under which aid is sent straight to beneficiaries’ bank accounts, claiming it had reduced corruption and created “a direct connection” between the government and citizens.

His speech also carried a legal and regulatory pitch to investors. Listing reforms, he said India had transformed “a complex web of taxes into a national market” through GST, created an insolvency law, consolidated 29 labour laws into four codes and decriminalised hundreds of minor business-related errors. “Reforms are not a compulsion. Reforms are our conviction,” he said.

PM Modi also warned that things which once connected the world “are today becoming weapons.” Supply chains, energy, minerals, payments and technology, he said, can become “a means of pressure and dominance.” With artificial intelligence changing the way of working in every sector, he said the major question before the world is one of trust: that supplies will continue, that promises will be kept and that partners will stand by each other in a crisis.

He referred to the AI Impact Summit held in India a few months ago, noting that it discussed not only the use of AI for humanity but also how animals could benefit from the technology. PM Modi listed the “responsible use of emerging technologies” alongside climate change, water governance and public health as areas where the world needs solutions.

On the economy, PM Modi said India’s startups have grown from a few hundred before 2014 to over 250,000, with nearly half from small cities and towns and over 45 per cent having at least one woman director or partner. He said growth stood at 7.8 per cent in the April-June quarter, the current account deficit had fallen to 0.61 per cent of GDP and foreign exchange reserves exceeded 700 billion dollars.

Concluding with a Vedic verse urging people to walk and speak together, he said dialogue builds understanding. Pointing to the International Solar Alliance, the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure and the Global Biofuels Alliance, he said India’s platforms are meant to “benefit everyone.”

Four advocates practising before the Supreme Court have moved the Supreme Court seeking a party-neutral framework to keep political processions, protests and sloganeering away from constitutional courts, and have asked it to consider initiating suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against several opposition leaders over the events of Monday, October 12, when an opposition march headed towards the Court and posts demanding the resignation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant appeared on X.

Case Title: Digant Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 

Bench: Supreme Court of India (hearing expected) 

The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a premature release filed by a convict names Mohammed Asgar Ali, who is serving a life sentence for the murder of former Gujarat Home Minister Haren Pandya.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Aparesh Kumar Singh passed the order after Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate-onRecord appearing for the respondent-State of Gujarat placed before the Court a copy of the order dated7th October, 2026, passed by the competent authority, rejecting the petitioner’s application for remission/pre-mature release. 

"In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to continue with these matter(s) any further. The Special Leave Petition(s), accordingly, stand dismissed. It would, however, be open for the petitioner, if so advised, to assail the correctness of the order dated 07.10.2026, rejecting the application for remission/pre-mature release, before the jurisdictional High Court.  It would also be open to the petitioner to seek such interim relief as may be permissible in law before the High Court," the bench ordered.

In 2024, supreme court had refused to consider the plea by another convict in the murder case seeking a direction to the state government to decide his plea for remission.

"The applicant is a convict under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). It is true that he is undergoing sentence past 14 years. The main petition is pending before the High Court of Gujarat in the form of Special Criminal Application," the bench had noted in its order.

Then Gujarat home minister Haren Pandya was shot dead outside Law Garden in Ahmedabad on March 26, 2003. The CBI had investigated the case and said that Pandya was allegedly killed to avenge the 2002 Gujarat riots. In July, 2019, the Supreme Court had set aside the Gujarat High Court's 2011 judgement that had acquitted nine out of 12 convicts, undergoing life term, in the case of sensational killing of Pandya on March 26, 2003 in Ahmedabad.

The apex court had then restored the trial court's judgement of June 25, 2007 which awarded life imprisonment to nine persons and handed out sentences ranging from five to seven years to the other three under various provisions of the IPC, Arms Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.

Case Title: MOHAMMED ASGARALI MOHAMMAD VAJIRALI VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

The Supreme Court has scheduled all pleas concerning protests for hearing on October 15, citing the health condition of Justice Mohana.

The matters, which were originally to be listed for consideration before the Court today, will now be taken up on the rescheduled date. 

The pleas relate to protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. They also concern restrictions imposed on public transport ahead of the October 10 demonstrations, including the closure of metro stations and disruptions to train services.

The Court is also expected to consider pleas concerning alleged assaults on protesters and women journalists covering the demonstrations.

Today, the court also opined that it cannot ask Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to put in counters to every issue relating to the October 10 protests. Justice Bagchi said, "There are multiple matters, we cannot ask the SG to file counter in every case..there are overlapping issues.."

We would have heard it today if Justice Mohana was well, the CJI said.

"Your lordship must rest," SG Mehta told the bench in response.

Adding to the concern, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said, "We have known your lordship from the Bar..her commitment is unparalled..".

Supreme Court will also be hearing the issue concerning detention of lawyers who took part in the protests concerning the SIR row on October 10, 2026.

Also, a contempt petition will be heard by Supreme Court alleging that the Central government has violated the court’s order to lift restrictions on metro and train services. The plea has named Union home secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) chairperson D Thara as contemnors. 

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

A PIL has been filed by an Indore School in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Centre to put in place a binding child-safety framework for social media.. "Children in India are signing up for social media platforms that verify nothing beyond a self-declared date of birth, while the same children cannot buy liquor, tobacco or acid and cannot watch adult content on an OTT platform without an age check," the plea states.

Case Title: The Emerald Heights International School and Anothers v. Union of India and Others.

Bench: Supreme Court of India (hearing expected) 

The Supreme Court has held that where circumstances disclose a prolonged and unconstitutional deprivation of the fundamental right to dignified wages, the court may, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, award quantified monetary compensation as a public-law remedy.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the observation while directing the States of Bihar and Jharkhand to compensate employees and workmen whose salary, wages, provident fund and other monetary dues remained unpaid for prolonged periods.

Why did the Supreme Court award compensation to the daily-wage employees?

Court was dealing with an appeal filed by Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karmchari Maha Sangh and others concerning the long-pending payment of dues following the reorganisation of the State of Bihar under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.

The reorganisation of Bihar and the creation of Jharkhand gave rise to questions concerning the apportionment and discharge of liabilities, dues and service-related claims of employees and workmen of State-owned inter-State corporations.

Court noted that the controversy, which had its roots in the statutory reorganisation, had traversed a "long and chequered course", necessitating successive rounds of judicial intervention and administrative consideration.

The dispute concerned employees and workmen of five State-owned inter-State corporations which were Bihar State Construction Corporation Ltd; Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd; Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd; Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd; and Bihar State Panchayati Raj Financial Corporation Ltd.

Court accepted a report submitted by a Committee headed by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, former judge of the Supreme Court.

The Bench noted that the daily-wage employees/workmen had been engaged by the concerned corporations and had rendered services in discharge of the functions entrusted to them.

"While their status as daily-wage workmen cannot, by itself, confer upon them the same rights and entitlements as regular employees, but at the same time, such status cannot be treated as a reason for disregarding the services rendered by them or denying the entitlements lawfully accruing from such engagement," the Bench said.

What did the Supreme Court say about delayed provident fund dues?

Considering the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Court held that entitlement to interest on delayed provident fund dues must be considered having regard to the statutory character of provident fund as a measure of social security.

"The amount standing to the credit of an employee by way of provident fund constitutes a statutory benefit accrued during the course of employment and is intended to provide financial security to the employee upon cessation of service. Such amount, therefore, cannot be treated as an ordinary monetary claim capable of being withheld without the consequences prescribed by law," the Bench said.

Court pointed out that liability to pay interest follows by operation of law upon delayed payment of amounts due under the provident fund scheme. Such liability, it said, cannot be defeated merely because the underlying dues were subsequently discharged.

Court therefore directed payment of 12% interest on delayed provident fund dues as mandated under the Act.

"Interest, in its ordinary legal sense, represents compensation for the deprivation of the use of money to which a person is otherwise lawfully entitled. The concept of interest is not confined to a return upon money borrowed or advanced, but extends to compensation for the unjust deprivation occasioned by the withholding of money beyond the time when it becomes due and payable," the Bench said.

Court further explained that the rationale behind awarding interest lies in compensating a person for being deprived of the use of money lawfully due to them.

"Where a monetary entitlement has crystallized and payment thereof is delayed beyond the time when it became due and payable, the person entitled thereto is, for the intervening period, deprived of the use and benefit of the amount to which he is lawfully entitled. Interest, in such circumstances, serves as recompense for such deprivation and seeks to compensate, to the extent capable of monetary assessment, for the loss occasioned by the delay," the Bench said.

What compensation did the Supreme Court order Bihar and Jharkhand to pay?

Court directed the States of Bihar and Jharkhand to ensure payment of simple interest at 6% per annum on salary/wage arrears and other monetary dues, excluding EPF dues governed by Section 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.

The interest is to be calculated from the date on which the respective amounts became due and payable until the date of actual payment, Court ordered.

For delayed EPF dues, Court directed the States to pay simple interest at 12% per annum for the corresponding period.

In addition, Court directed Bihar and Jharkhand to pay a one-time sum of Rs 1 lakh to each of the concerned daily-wage employees/workmen who were engaged during the relevant period.

"The States of Bihar and Jharkhand shall ensure payment of simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed EPF dues, and at the rate of 6% per annum on the delayed salary, wages and other monetary entitlements, for the period commencing from the date on which the respective amounts became due and payable until the date of their actual payment," the Bench said.

Case Title: Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karmchari Maha Sangh & Ors Vs State of Bihar And Others

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta 

Date of Judgment: September 28, 2026

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mohan Yadav has said he held detailed consultations with the country’s top law officers on the High Court ruling that struck down the State’s decision to raise OBC reservation from 14% to 27%, indicating that the government is now charting its next legal move.

In a post on X, the Chief Minister said he met Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Advocate General Prashant Singh in New Delhi. According to the post, the discussion covered “the legal aspects connected to the Hon’ble High Court’s decision on OBC reservation” and the strategy for forthcoming legal proceedings.

The post did not spell out what course the State will take, including whether it intends to approach the Supreme Court. Its reference to forthcoming legal proceedings, however, suggests the government is weighing further steps after the setback in the High Court.

The meeting follows the October 9 judgment of a Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Vinay Saraf, which held that the enhanced quota was not supported by the circumstances and data placed before the Court. The Advocate General had appeared for the State during the hearing.

Background

The dispute dates back to March 8, 2019, when Madhya Pradesh issued Ordinance No. 2 of 2019 increasing OBC reservation in public employment and higher education from 14% to 27%. The State later enacted the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes Reservation) Amendment Act, 2019, to give effect to the change.

The lead petition, Ashita Dubey and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, arose from medical admissions. The petitioners, who belonged to the general category and had appeared for NEET-PG 2019, challenged the change shortly before counselling was due to begin. Similar petitions followed on recruitment and admissions.

Petitioners argued that the higher quota pushed total reservation beyond the 50% limit and violated the constitutional guarantee of equality and equal opportunity in public employment. They were represented by senior advocates including Aman Lekhi, Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Pradeep Sancheti, Ankur Chibbar and Aparajita Singh.

The High Court agreed. It stressed that the question was not whether OBCs deserve reservation but whether the State had justified increasing their existing share. “This case is not about grant of reservation but extent of reservation,” the Bench observed, adding that OBCs were entitled to 14% reservation, but the case did not justify raising it to 27%.

Examining data on higher education and public services, the Court found OBCs adequately represented for the purpose of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. It saw no extraordinary conditions or emergent situation warranting a departure from the 50% ceiling recognised in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and reiterated in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister. The Bench also pointed to shortcomings in the legislative process and drafting, observing that the measure appeared to have been prepared in undue haste. Declaring the ordinance and the 2019 Amendment Act unconstitutional, it struck them down.

The ruling also deals with appointments already made. OBC appointments made under the enhanced quota up to September 29, 2022, the date on which the General Administration Department clarified the position on interim relief, were protected. Those appointees will not be removed, and the additional posts will be adjusted in the next three recruitment drives.

Appointments made after that date beyond the 14% OBC quota, however, were held liable to be treated as null and void to the extent of the excess. Recruiting agencies, including the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and the Employees’ Selection Board, were directed to declare results accordingly and fill the affected 13% posts from the unreserved category.

Petitions challenging the 2019 amendment were allowed, while connected petitions seeking additional OBC or Economically Weaker Sections reservation, and those raising horizontal reservation issues, were treated as dismissed in view of the decision. The ruling restores the earlier 14% position for OBC reservation in public services and higher education.

Case Title: Ashita Dubey and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others with connected matters

Judgment Date: October 9, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Vinay Saraf

Opposition leaders led by Rahul Gandhi through a petition have told the Supreme Court that the Chief Election Commissioner allegedly exercised the "collective powers" of the Election Commission of India on his own during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and have asked the Court to call for the Commission's files, minutes and notings to test whether its decisions were lawfully taken.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a plea seeking implementation of a standard operating procedure (SOP) to regulate protests, with the petitioner alleging that traders in the surrounding areas had suffered losses of around ₹2,000 crore due to ongoing protest activities.

The Delhi High Court was informed on Thursday that the song Shoorveer, associated with the valour of Maharana Pratap, had been voluntarily removed from the climax scene of Mirzapur: The Movie following a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging its use in the film.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma accepted the submission made on behalf of the film’s producer that the song had already been removed and was no longer being played in the movie.

The Court observed that had the song not been removed voluntarily, it would have directed its removal.

"If the song had not been removed voluntarily, we would have directed that it be removed" the Court remarked.

During the hearing, the Acting Chief Justice also asked whether costs should be imposed on the filmmakers and asked counsel to make a submission on whether they would voluntarily pay some costs.

" You volunteer and pay some costs and contribute to the social purpose; otherwise, we'll say that you have misused it all these days. Your act has to be coupled with some social responsibility," ACJ Sambre orally reamrked.

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and the petitioner did not dispute the submission that the song had been removed.

The Court recorded the producer’s submission and disposed of the PIL, observing that no further orders were required in view of the voluntary removal. However, the Court said it won’t sign the order unless costs are imposed.

What Was the PIL About?

The petition, filed by Prashant Kumar Singh, challenged the use of Shoorveer as background music in the climax of Mirzapur: The Movie. The musical composition is associated with the heroic conduct of Maharana Pratap and his followers.

The petitioner alleged that using the song during a violent sequence involving the film’s characters created an undesirable association between the historical ruler’s ideals and the violence depicted in the movie.

The plea sought directions to the concerned respondents to remove the musical composition from the climax scene.

During an earlier hearing on September 17, the High Court had questioned the use of the song in a violent fight sequence, observing that its use was prima facie “not in good taste” and that society had reached a point where it was “revering violence”.

The filmmakers had submitted that the song was used only as background music to embellish the climax, which depicts a fight between two factions. They had also argued that the film did not compare any of its characters with a historical figure.

The CBFC had informed the Court during the earlier proceedings that the producer had independently approached it with a proposal to modify the scene and that it would take a decision on the proposal.

The Court had observed that if the filmmakers themselves were modifying the background music, the purpose of the petition would be achieved.

Producer Confirms Voluntary Removal

During today’s hearing, counsel appearing for the producer submitted, on instructions, that the song had already been removed from the film and was no longer being played. The removal had taken effect on September 17, 2026, the Court was told.

A certificate reflecting the voluntary deletion was also placed on record.

The petitioner’s counsel did not dispute the factual submission. The Court accordingly accepted the producer’s statement and disposed of the PIL, holding that no further orders were required.

The Supreme Court has sought a report from the Intelligence Bureau on a plea filed by Beant Singh assassination case convict Jagtar Singh Hawara, seeking his transfer from Tihar Jail in Delhi to a prison in Punjab.

Noting that the situation concerning Hawara is very volatile, Justice MM Sundresh led bench ordered today, "We will request the Delhi government to get instructions..we will consider issues..we are not the competent persons to decide issues like security..we can get an input from the IB...we are not in a position to go against the Delhi and Punjab government..we don't want to get involved in it.."

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati told the bench today that the Punjab government had said law and order in Punjab will be affected if Hawara is transferred to a jail there.

"He was found in jailbreak..his death penalty was converted to life imprisonment..he killed the former Chief Minister of Punjab..," ASG further told court today.

Last month, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had cited concerns regarding Hawara’s proposed transfer to a Punjab jail.

“This is a matter where the person convicted for killing the former Chief Minister of Punjab wants to go back to Punjab jail,” the Solicitor General submitted. Mehta further told the Court that the State would have difficulty with Hawara being sent back to a Punjab jail, pointing out that he had previously escaped from a jail in the region. The State, he submitted, would prefer that Hawara continue to remain lodged in Tihar Jail.

Background

Hawara has approached the Supreme Court seeking his transfer from Tihar Jail to a prison in Punjab. He has contended that his continued incarceration in Delhi was unjustified, particularly since the case for which he is serving his sentence arose in Punjab and no criminal case against him was pending in Delhi. He had also relied on his conduct in prison and his family circumstances in seeking the transfer.

The Supreme Court had issued notice on Hawara’s plea to the Centre, the Chandigarh Administration, and the governments of Delhi and Punjab. The matter was subsequently listed on several occasions. On March 11, 2026, the Court again listed the matter for April 28.

Hawara was convicted in connection with the August 31, 1995 assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh and the deaths of 16 others in a blast outside the Civil Secretariat in Chandigarh. He was initially sentenced to death, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court commuted the sentence to imprisonment for life for the remainder of his natural life in 2010. Appeals arising from that judgment remain pending before the Supreme Court.

Hawara had earlier escaped from Burail Jail in Chandigarh in January 2004 after allegedly using a tunnel and was subsequently arrested. A previous plea seeking his transfer from Tihar to Punjab had also been dismissed by the Delhi High Court in 2018.

Case Title: Jagtar Singh Hawara v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and PB Varale

Hearing Date: October 13, 2026

The Supreme Court has held that civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding concerning matters which a Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) is empowered to determine under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

A Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih said that any challenge to actions taken in exercise of powers conferred under the SARFAESI Act, must be adjudicated by the designated tribunals, as the jurisdiction of civil courts is expressly barred.

Court made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by International Asset Reconstruction Co Pvt Ltd and holding that the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore erred in granting liberty to the respondent to pursue civil and criminal remedies against actions taken under the SARFAESI Act.

Why can civil courts not interfere in SARFAESI proceedings?

Court relied on Sections 32, 34 and 35 of the SARFAESI Act to hold that challenges to actions taken under the Act must be raised before the DRT or the DRAT, and not before a civil court.

Section 34 expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of matters which the DRT or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. Court also noted that Section 35 gives the SARFAESI Act an overriding effect over any other law that is inconsistent with its provisions.

The Bench further underscored that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding would lie against a secured creditor or its officers for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith under the Act.

"Proceedings seeking damages for actions taken under the Act are untenable if the actions were protected by the good faith provision," the Bench said.

Court stressed that this protection extends to actions taken in good faith under the SARFAESI Act and protects such actions from civil or criminal litigation.

The dispute

Certain credit facilities had been extended to respondent No.1 by respondent No.2-bank. As security for the facilities, charges and encumbrances in the nature of mortgage and hypothecation were created over the movable and immovable properties of respondent No.1 in favour of the bank.

Following non-payment of the dues, the account of respondent No.1 was classified as a Non-Performing Asset.

In 1996, the bank filed a suit before the Bombay High Court, which was subsequently transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai.

On October 17, 2005, the DRT allowed the application and directed respondent No.1 to pay the bank a sum of Rs 28,28,56,282.49, along with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Pursuant to the order, a recovery certificate was issued on December 5, 2005, and recovery proceedings were initiated against respondent No.1.

Thereafter, the bank entered into a deed of assignment with International Assets Reconstruction Co Pvt Ltd, under which the debts, assets and liabilities of respondent No.1 were transferred to the appellant.

The appellant subsequently initiated recovery proceedings. A notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to respondent No.1 on January 16, 2009, following which the appellant took possession of the secured property under Section 13(4) of the Act.

On June 21, 2023, an offer of Rs 189 lakh was received from Apexter Corporation. The offer was subsequently enhanced to Rs 284 lakh and was accepted by the appellant. The sale was confirmed in favour of Apexter Corporation through an acceptance letter dated July 11, 2023.

The possession of the hypothecated property, comprising plants and machinery, was thereafter handed over to the successful purchaser and a sale certificate was issued.

What did the high court hold?

Aggrieved by the sale, respondent No.1 approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, seeking, among other reliefs, setting aside of the sale on the ground that it was null and void, arbitrary and fraudulent.

The high court dismissed the writ petition on February 9, 2024, observing that the sale proceedings had already been completed and the entire movable property of respondent No.1 had been sold.

It further observed that any objection regarding irregularities in the procedure followed under the SARFAESI Act by the appellant could be raised by availing the alternative remedy before the DRT and the DRAT.

Respondent No.1 thereafter filed a review petition.

On May 8, 2024, the high court allowed the review petition and modified its earlier order by granting liberty to respondent No.1 to avail the alternative remedy or pursue appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court.

High court could not permit civil and criminal proceedings

The Supreme Court held that the high court was not justified in granting liberty to respondent No.1 to file a suit seeking damages or to pursue criminal proceedings in relation to actions taken under the SARFAESI Act.

"We find that the high court was not right in reserving liberty to respondent No.1 herein to seek remedies by filing a suit for claiming damages etc or for pursuing criminal proceedings while allowing review petition and by modification of its earlier order," the Bench said.

Court noted that its February 9, 2024 order had already disposed of the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy was available to challenge the actions allegedly taken by the appellant under the SARFAESI Act.

"In the review petition, the high court instead of reiterating the said order, has granted further liberty to respondent No.1 herein which in our view is not right. We say so for the reason that the high court has not taken into consideration Sections 32 and 34 of the SARFAESI Act," the Bench said.

Court pointed out that any action taken under the SARFAESI Act in good faith, as well as any omission under the Act, is protected.

"Similarly, a challenge to an action taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act can be assailed only under the provisions of the said Act and the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect thereof," the Bench said.

Court further noted that under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, its provisions have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of such law.

It held that if respondent No.1 sought damages for the actions initiated by the appellant under the SARFAESI Act, there first had to be a finding that those actions were wrongly initiated so as to make respondent No.1 entitled to damages.

Such a finding, the Court said, could only be made by the DRT and not by a civil court, in view of the express bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.

The Bench further observed that criminal proceedings in respect of actions taken or omitted to be taken under the SARFAESI Act would also be protected where such actions were undertaken in good faith under the Act.

"We do not find that the high court was right in enlarging the scope of the alternative remedy available to respondent No.1 herein," the Court said.

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the order passed by the high court in the review petition and restored its original order dated February 9, 2024.

Allowing the appeal, Court clarified that its order would not prevent respondent No.1 from pursuing an appropriate remedy against the appellant under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

All contentions of both sides were left open to be raised before the DRT, Court further clarified.

Case Title: International Asset Reconstruction Co Pvt Ltd Vs Jayant Vitamins Ltd & Anr

Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih 

Date of Judgment: September 17, 2026

A public interest litigation (PIL) before the Delhi High Court has alleged that land allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Daman and Diu and Lakshadweep Bhawan in Delhi's Chanakyapuri area was instead developed into a commercial hotel operated under the Ginger Hotels brand.

During the hearing, the petitioner sought the original allotment deed to substantiate the allegation that the property had been put to commercial use contrary to the purpose for which it was allotted.

Responding to the Court's query, the petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner would approach the DDA within three days to obtain a copy of the document.

Counsel appearing for the DDA assured the Court that the request would be dealt with expeditiously and that a copy of the allotment deed would be provided within a fortnight of receiving the request.

The petitioner has alleged that the commercial development of the property was contrary to the original allotment, under which land was provided at a concessional rate for a public purpose.

The matter was heard by a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma.

PIL Questions Commercial Use Of Land Allotted For Lakshadweep Bhavan

The petitioner submitted that, under the Central Government's policy, the DDA allotted land to States and Union Territories for the construction of their respective Bhavans in Delhi.

It was contended that Daman and Diu and Lakshadweep, both Union Territories, were allotted land in the Chanakyapuri area, where a State Bhavan had earlier been operational.

According to the petitioner, the respondent authorities subsequently developed the property through a private entrepreneur and established a hotel and cafeteria operating under the name Ginger Hotels.

The petitioner argued that land allotted at a concessional rate for a public purpose could not be used in a manner that resulted in unjust enrichment through a private commercial enterprise. It was submitted that the property ought to have been utilised for the benefit of the public and in accordance with the purpose underlying the original allotment.

The petitioner contended that the alleged commercial use violated the terms of the allotment and ran contrary to the objectives of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Petitioner Highlights Accommodation Needs Of Lakshadweep Residents

The petitioner also highlighted the difficulties faced by residents of Lakshadweep who travel to Delhi for education, healthcare and other medical purposes.

It was submitted that Lakshadweep is predominantly inhabited by tribal communities and that a designated Bhavan in the national capital would serve as an important source of accommodation for residents visiting Delhi.

According to the petitioner, State Bhavans are intended to cater to the needs of people from their respective regions, including those who travel to Delhi for essential purposes and may find it difficult to arrange accommodation.

The petitioner further alleged that Ginger Hotels operated the property by charging dynamic room rates, which, according to the submission, were not less than ₹7,000 on a given day.

The petitioner argued that such commercial use was inconsistent with the public purpose for which the land had allegedly been allotted.

DDA To Provide Allotment Deed Within A Fortnight

During the hearing, the Court asked the petitioner's counsel about obtaining the original allotment deed.

Counsel responded that the petitioner would approach the DDA within three days with a request for a copy of the document.

The DDA's counsel, appearing on advance notice, stated that the request would be attended to expeditiously and that the allotment deed would be made available within a fortnight.

In view of the proposed request and the DDA's assurance, the Court permitted the petitioner to amend the PIL to incorporate appropriate pleadings in support of the allegations. The amended petition is to be placed on record within four weeks, and the matter has been directed to be listed after six weeks.

The original allotment deed is expected to provide the petitioner with the document sought to support the contention that the property's present use is inconsistent with the terms and purpose of its allotment.

The allegations concerning the diversion of the property remain the petitioner's contentions and have not been established as findings of the Court.

The Supreme Court has held that while an accused is entitled to seek documents in the possession of the prosecution to shape their defence, the stage at which such documents can be sought must be balanced against the nature and volume of the records.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said that an accused may seek production of documents from the investigating agency under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [now Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023]. However, where the documents sought are voluminous, the prosecution may permit the accused to inspect them first.

The accused can thereafter seek production of specific documents required for their defence at the appropriate stage of the trial, including during the examination of witnesses, instead of seeking all such documents indiscriminately at the stage of framing of charges, the Bench said.

Section 91 of CrPC empowers a court or an officer-in-charge of a police station to summon or order the production of any document or thing necessary or desirable for an investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding.

Court was hearing a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against orders directing it to produce certain documents, specifically "unrelied" documents, at the stage of framing of charges.

The accused, Anil Dixit, had filed an application under Section 91 CrPC seeking certain documents. The application was allowed by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, on September 21, 2019.

The CBI subsequently filed a compliance report, producing some of the documents while resisting the production of others and stating that certain documents were not in its possession.

A further application filed by Dixit resulted in an order dated July 18, 2022, which was affirmed by the impugned order and subsequently challenged by the CBI before the Supreme Court.

Before the Court, Dixit filed an affidavit stating that he was not seeking the source of information received by the CBI or the case diaries.

Court proceeded on the premise that an accused is entitled to documents available with the prosecuting agency for the purpose of shaping their defence. However, it said the question of at what stage such documents can be sought had to be examined with reference to the specific documents being requested.

The Bench noted that the documents sought included registers maintained by the CBI and source information, which could not be divulged. Dixit had also withdrawn his request for those documents.

As regards the request for photocopies of all documents seized by the investigating officer but not relied upon in the chargesheet, Court noted that the CBI had permitted inspection of the documents considering their voluminous nature.

"The accused could examine such documents and seek for production of the specific document required at the appropriate time, when the appropriate witness is being examined either by the prosecution or the defence, for which purpose the CBI shall keep the files ready at the time of trial," the Bench said.

Alternatively, Court said, the CBI could permit the accused or their authorised representative to identify the particular documents required during inspection.

Such documents could then be specified in writing and signed by both sides. The same would also be produced before the trial court without delay, and only the documents so identified would need to be kept available before the court at the time of trial, the Supreme Court ordered.

In view of these directions, Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case and set aside the impugned orders, with a view to facilitating an expeditious trial.

In the present case, the FIR was registered on October 31, 2014, against several accused persons. It alleged that between 2010 and 2014, the accused, acting in criminal conspiracy with each other, awarded consultancy work for preparation of the master plan and comprehensive architectural, building, designing and engineering designs for the permanent campus of the Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

The prosecution alleged that the work was awarded on the basis of fake documents and that fraudulent payments were made to the concerned firms, causing a wrongful loss of Rs 1,92,08,774.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Anil Dixit

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: September 25, 2026

The Delhi Police's decision to strip Jantar Mantar of its status as a designated protest site has been challenged before the Supreme Court. The challenge is to a standing order issued on October 11, 2026 by Delhi Commissioner of Police Anurag Kumar, which de-notified the site and named Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi as the venues for protests and demonstrations in the national capital.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who has filed a joint petition before the Supreme Court along with several opposition leaders on October 12, challenging alleged electoral irregularities and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has run into 14 procedural defects, the Supreme Court Registry flagged. 

The objections include missing authorisation documents, an illegible identity card of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and a shortfall of Rs 220 in court fees. The registry has also raised questions about the documents submitted with the petition and the naming of individual Election Commissioners as respondents.

Five Opposition leaders, led by Gandhi, approached the Supreme Court on Monday, October 12, 2026, with a writ petition against the Election Commission of India, alleging irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. The petition was lodged through Advocate-on-Record S Prasanna shortly before the Court's filing counter was due to close for the day.

Apart from Gandhi, the petition has been filed by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav and others. The matter has been titled "Rahul Gandhi vs Election Commission of India".

The petition invokes the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and is directed against the Election Commission of India, the constitutional body responsible for the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections. Its central grievance is that the SIR process has been marred by irregularities.

The contents of the petition have not yet been made public. Details of the grounds urged, the prayers made and the specific relief sought by the petitioners are awaited. It is not known when the matter will be listed before a Bench.

Ahead of the filing, the Supreme Court permitted a delegation of 10 to 15 Congress leaders to enter the filing counter within the Court premises. According to reports, the delegation was to submit the petition against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and alleged vote theft. The reports added that the delegation would remain outside the high-security zone of the Court complex.

The filing coincided with the INDIA bloc's planned "Chalo Dilli" march, which Gandhi led from Connaught Place to the Supreme Court in protest against the functioning of the Election Commission.

CJI Surya Kant declined request to meet opposition MPs

The Opposition went ahead with the march although Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had declined a request for a meeting with Opposition MPs on the issue.

Notably, on October 11, the CJI had refused to meet with Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and other opposition leaders and discuss their allegations concerning electoral irregularities.

On October 10, the leaders had requested an appointment on Monday, 12the October, 2026, between 4 PM and 5 PM, to submit a memorandum concerning:
(a) the Chief Election Commissioner / Election Commission of India;
(b) the arbitrary arrest of several students;
(c} the closure of metro stations; and
(d) the cancellation of trains, among other issues.

In a letter, the CJI had said, "At the very outset, it may be noted that the issues referred to hereinabove are already sub judice before the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, convening a meeting to discuss pending cases would wholly contravene the principle of Separation of Powers, an intrinsic facet of the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India, and would be incompatible with the established ethics and judicial propriety."

CJI Kant also reminded Gandhi and other that within our constitutional framework, the Supreme Court of India is not endowed with any administrative powers to deal with the issues highlighted by them.

"It would thus be more appropriate on your part to invoke the judicial powers of the Supreme Court of India, instead of submitting a memorandum on the administrative side. Incidentally, some matters highlighting similar issues are scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, 13.10.2026. If so advised, you may submit your petition on Monday, either physically at the Supreme Court of India, between 10:30 A.M. and 04:30 P.M., or alternatively, by utilising the e-filing option, which permits filing at any time and on any day. You have my assurance that any such petition shall be heard at the earliest possible opportunity, in accordance with the law," the letter added.

This development came ahead of a planned Opposition march to the Supreme Court today under the banner “Chalo Delhi – March for Democracy”, announced by Gandhi amid the continuing political controversy over electoral rolls and demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Gandhi and Kharge had written to the CJI requesting an opportunity to hand over a memorandum setting out their concerns.

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi and Ors. v. Election Commission of India

The Madras High Court on Tuesday upheld Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker JCD Prabhakar’s decision to accept the resignations of AIADMK legislators who quit the Assembly after the state elections and subsequently joined Chief Minister Joseph Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).

A Division Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the resignations were genuine and that the Speaker was not expected to conduct a detailed inquiry into the reasons behind the legislators’ decision to resign.

However, the Court clarified that acceptance of the resignations would not bring the pending disqualification proceedings against the legislators to an end. It directed the Speaker to complete those proceedings within two months.

The Court partly allowed a petition filed by AIADMK whip Agri Krishnamurthy challenging the Speaker’s decision to accept the resignations.

The dispute arose from allegations that certain AIADMK legislators had defied the party whip by voting in favour of the TVK government during a confidence motion before subsequently resigning and joining the ruling party.

The petitions concerned six legislators: Maragatham Kumaravel, P Sathyabhama, Isakki Subbaiah, Jayakumar, MR Vijayabhaskar and C Vijayabhaskar.

AIADMK Challenged Acceptance Of Resignations

AIADMK whip Agri Krishnamurthy and National People’s Power Party leader Ravi approached the High Court challenging the orders accepting the legislators’ resignations.

The petitioners questioned the manner in which the resignations had been accepted, contending that the Speaker had not conducted a meaningful inquiry into whether they were voluntary. They also referred to allegations of horse-trading and argued that the circumstances surrounding the resignations warranted closer scrutiny.

According to the petitioners, the legislators tendered their resignations on May 25, 2026, and the Speaker accepted them on the same day. A Gazette notification was subsequently issued, and the legislators joined the TVK.

The AIADMK argued that the speed with which the resignations were accepted, followed by the legislators’ move to the rival party, raised questions about whether the constitutional procedure had been followed in substance.

Relying on Article 190 of the Constitution, the petitioners submitted that the Speaker was required to satisfy himself that the resignations were voluntary and genuine. They contended that the procedure adopted in the present case amounted to little more than formal compliance and that the party should have been given an opportunity to raise its objections.

The petitioners also referred to a complaint submitted to the Governor alleging horse-trading.

Speaker Says Resignations Were Voluntary

Opposing the challenge, the Speaker maintained that he had personally interacted with the legislators before accepting their resignations and was satisfied that they had acted voluntarily.

The Assembly Secretary argued that the petitions were based on an incorrect understanding of the legal consequences of resignation. It was submitted that a legislator’s resignation did not erase the consequences of conduct that could attract disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

Accordingly, accepting a resignation could not, by itself, extinguish or render infructuous disqualification proceedings arising from alleged defection.

The Speaker argued that Article 190(3)(b) required the Speaker to examine the genuineness of a resignation rather than investigate the political motives behind it.

He submitted that there was no allegation that the resignation letters had been written by anyone other than the legislators themselves. According to the Speaker’s side, the resignations had been accepted after verifying that they reflected the members’ own free will and were not the result of coercion or undue influence.

The legislators who resigned, argued that a member’s decision to vacate an Assembly seat should not automatically be treated as evidence of wrongdoing.

She submitted that resigning from the legislature before joining another political party was an exercise of democratic choice and dissent, and that the legislators’ actions could not, merely on that account, be presumed to involve corruption or malpractice.

The legislators maintained that they were entitled to leave their seats and join another political party.

Background: AIADMK MLAs Backed TVK Government

The dispute followed the Tamil Nadu Assembly election results declared on May 4, 2026, in which the TVK emerged as the party with the highest number of votes but fell short of the majority required to form the government on its own.

The TVK, led by Vijay, subsequently secured support from other parties and formed the government. A confidence motion was held in the Assembly on May 13, with the government securing 144 votes in its favour.

According to the AIADMK, the party had issued a whip on May 11 directing its legislators to oppose the confidence motion. However, 25 MLAs allegedly voted in favour of the TVK government, contrary to the party’s direction, prompting disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule on May 14.

Some proceedings against legislators were later dropped after they apologised for their conduct, according to the material placed before the Court.

The legislators whose resignations are at issue subsequently tendered their resignations on May 25 and joined the TVK.

By-elections were also held in Maduranthakam and Dharapuram after Maragatham Kumaravel and P Sathyabhama resigned and joined the TVK. Both contested on TVK tickets and retained their seats.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed further proceedings in a criminal defamation case against Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, which arises from his alleged references to Prime Minister Narendra Modi as "Choro ke Sardar" and "Commander-in-Chief". The Court issued notice on Gandhi's petition seeking to quash the case.

Trilegal advised Runwal Enterprises Limited (REL) on its initial public offering (IPO) aggregating to ~INR 5,000 million. The issue comprised a fresh issue of 16,398,962 equity shares of face value INR 2 each.

REL, through itself, it’s subsidiaries, joint ventures and associate (REL Group) is a real estate developer present across the full spectrum of real estate development, specializing in residential projects that cater to affordable, mid-income, and luxury segments, as well as commercial spaces, retail malls and educational buildings.

REL Group is a recognized brand in the industry and has a strong presence in Mumbai. REL Group is also backed by marquee investors including, HDFC Capital Affordable Real Estate Fund - 3, Nishi-Nippon Railroad Co. Ltd, Genkai Capital Secured Investment Pte. Ltd and Nexus Realty Trust.

The proceeds from the IPO will be used for repayment / prepayment of full or in part of certain borrowings availed by REL and its subsidiaries.

The syndicate of book running lead managers comprised ICICI Securities Limited and Jefferies India Private Limited.

The Trilegal Capital Markets team advising on the matter was led by Partners, Richa Choudhary and Maitreya Rajurkar, and comprised Senior Associate, Pooja Tada and Associates, Yug Gambhir, Siddhant Mishra, Samruddhi Varma, Shreyansh Gupta, and Arnab Goswami.

Trilegal’s Partner, Sai Krishna Bharathan, provided strategic inputs on the transaction.

Trilegal advised the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board on its proposed direct investment of INR 30 billion (c. C$441 million) in Prestige Hospitality Ventures, the hospitality arm of the Prestige Group. Subject to receipt of regulatory approvals and upon consummation of the investment, CPPIB will acquire a stake of ~27% and the investment marks CPPIB’s first direct investment in India’s hospitality sector.

Trilegal advised CPPIB on the transaction and on corporate, operational and real estate due diligence, CCI filing, and drafting and negotiation of the transaction documents. The closing of the transaction is subject to completion of CPs, including receipt of regulatory approvals.

Prestige Hospitality Ventures owns luxury and premium hotels in key gateway cities across India, with a development pipeline spanning Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Goa, Hyderabad and Mumbai.

The Trilegal Transaction Team advising on the matter was led by Partner: Sai Krishna Bharathan; and comprised Senior Associate: Raina Mitra; Associates: Archi Jain and Annika Bohra.

Diligence Teams:

The Trilegal Real Estate Team advising on the matter was led by Partners: Monika Bhonsale, Mridul Kumbalath, Sadaf Shaikh, and Arnav Nagalia; and comprised Counsels: Dilnaz Bapasola, Sohni Kherada and Mohammed Sayed; Senior Consultant: Yunus Nawab; Consultant: Ganesh Memane; Senior Associates: Mythri Jonnala and Roshini Bansal; Associates: Siddhartha Fondekar, Shashank D Bharadwaj, Rajat Deepak Kalal, Suhaschandra BS, Aakanksha Dalal, Akanksha Shah, and Parth.

The Trilegal Corporate Team advising on the matter was led by Partner: Apeksha Mattoo; and comprised Counsel: Namesha Singh; Senior Associates: Maitreya Sharma, Raina Mitra; Associates: Vrinda Bhola, Vaishnavi Bansal, Sanchit Thapliyal, Rohan Singhal, Rehaan Engineer, Harsh Bhatti, Anjali AR, Arshan Kazi, Archi Jain and Annika Bohra.

The Trilegal Operational Team advising on the matter was led by Partners: Apeksha Mattoo, Kunal Gupta, Thomas J. Vallianeth; and supported by Counsel: Shrishma Dandekar; Senior Consultant: Chandan Dhand; Consultants: Shashwat Shrivastava, Vaishnavi, Pranvi Manglick; Senior Associates: Anshul Sharma, Sidharth Ray, Maitreya Sharma, Raina Mitra; Associates: Akshobhya Nitin Pol, Anjali AR, Annika Bohra, Archi Jain.

The Trilegal Competition Team advising on the matter was led by Partner: Gauri Chhabra; and supported by Senior Associate: Eesha Sheth; Associate: Shobhit Shukla.

The Trilegal SEBI Regulatory Team advising on the matter was led by Partner: Pranav Atit; and supported by Senior Associate: Janeesha Singh; Associates: Tanvi Godiwala and Ashlesha Pandey