1. Lokesh BH v State of Karnataka
Citation : 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1470 (SC, 3 August 2026)
Facts:
The Appellant moved the court to quash two criminal proceedings for cruelty, dowry harassment and assault including under sec 498-A IPC. He claimed there was no valid marriage, but the complainant claimed a Hindu rites marriage. The Karnataka High Court refused to quash the proceedings.
Issue:
Does sec 498-A IPC extend to a man in a live-in relationship, or is ‘husband’ restricted to one in a valid marriage.
Held:
Section 498-A IPC extends to live in relationships ‘in the nature of marriage’ so long as there is an established intent to marry, between consenting adults. The ruling is confined to section 498-A and the arrest safeguards under Arnesh Kumar must be complied with. The appeals were dismissed and the trials continued.
Brief Analysis:
The Court used a purposive interpretation to hold that distinguishing between married and such partners is not rational to prevent domestic cruelty and violates Art 14. It held the civil DV Act to be inadequate since only 498-A has criminal deterrent, and that requiring the complainant to prove intent to marry is a safeguard against misuse, albeit difficult to prove.
2. Bhumika Trust v Union of India
Citation : 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1687 (SC, August 2026)
Facts:
In a batch of matters on eligibility for Civil Judge (Junior Division), the Court’s judgment of 20 May 2025 had re-instated the requirement of three years’ practice at the Bar. This was challenged as discriminatory to recent law graduates.
Issue:
Is three years conventional practice the only means of acquiring the courtroom experience necessary to enable a judicious exercise of the powers of the Judicial Office.
Held:
By 2:1, the Court modified its directions. Graduates may apply till 31 March 2027, followed by one year’s training at the State Judicial Academy and one year’s Law Clerkship. From 1 April 2027, one year’s practice is required before the examination, followed by the same training and clerkship post selection. The scheme will run five years, then be reviewed on empirical data.
Brief Analysis:
The Court retained the prior exposure to courts, but rejected Bar practice as the sole source, in order to balance the quality of the bench against the right of access to the bar for recent graduates. The review clause is prudent since continuation is on evidence; and the divided verdict shows the matter is not closed.
3. Rishi Malhotra v Union of India
Citation : 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1602 (SC, 18 August 2026)
Facts:
The Petitioner challenged sec 354(5) CrPC (now sec 393(5) BNSS) prescribing hanging as the only method of execution as cruel and violative of Art 21. Project 39A, as an impleader, cited medical studies and urged lethal injection. The Union argued that the choice of the method of execution is a matter for the legislature.
Issue:
Whether Deena v Union of India (1983) 4 SCC 645 upholding hanging should be referred to a larger Bench.
Held:
Reference declined and petition dismissed as no material cast doubt on Deena. However the Court added that the matter need not be re-opened if there emerges compelling scientific evidence and the Union may consider expert review of the methods of execution.
Brief Analysis:
A two judge Bench should not depart from a three judge decision which was later approved by a Constitution Bench unless there are significant developments. The Court did not find reliable evidence that hanging was unreasonably painful or that lethal injection was less painful.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY TANISHA SAHU FROM SISTER NIVEDITA UNIVERSITY
