Judgment Notes
Short notes on recent judgments, written in our own words, with a link to the full text.
Latest entries
Newest first. Each entry links to the official notice or the full judgment. Older entries remain on this page for reference — for job and exam notices, check the last date before applying.
Surinder Ahuja & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr. — 2026 INSC 1068 (Dipankar Datta & Sheel Nagu, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: where contiguous land is acquired for one project, the Court restored a uniform market value and set aside the High Court’s distance-based step-down. Severance damages are to be assessed on the value of the remaining unacquired land (50% restored). Solatium under Section 23(2) and the additional amount under Section 23(1A) are payable only on the market value of the land, not on trees, tubewells or severance. Compensation for trees was limited to those pleaded in the Section 18 reference.
‘R’ v. ‘E’ & Anr. — 2026 INSC 1049 (J.B. Pardiwala & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)
POCSO allegation against a parent during a custody dispute: the FIR was quashed as an abuse of process after a CBI investigation with a psychiatric evaluation of the child, and legal custody stayed with the father. The Court laid down safeguards (paras 47–77): where a POCSO offence is alleged against a parent or family member living with the child and a matrimonial dispute exists, the investigating officer is to engage an expert in child psychiatry or clinical psychology before deciding on arrest; for complaints under Section 33, the Special Court is to obtain such an evaluation before issuing summons. The report aids, but does not bind, the decision. Reportable.
Deepak v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) — 2026 INSC 1008 (Prashant Kumar Mishra & N.V. Anjaria, JJ.)
The presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are rebuttable and arise only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts; the prosecution must still prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while the accused may rebut on a preponderance of probability. Conviction under Section 363 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act (Saket, Delhi) set aside, as the witness accounts contradicted each other and the medical and FSL evidence did not support the charge.
Information only — not legal advice
This page gives general information with links to official sources. It is not legal advice and does not create an advocate-client relationship. Please verify every detail from the official website or document before relying on it.
Bar Council of India Disclaimer
As per BCI Rules (Rule 36) · Advocates Act, 1961 · BCI Circular BCI:D 4657/2026 (17.07.2026)
As per the Bar Council of India Rules, advocates are not permitted to advertise or solicit work. This website is intended solely for informational purposes. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice or solicitation. An advocate-client relationship is established only upon execution of a formal engagement.
Contacting us through this website or by email does not create an advocate-client relationship. Do not share confidential or privileged information until a formal engagement has been confirmed in writing. By accessing this website you acknowledge that you are seeking information of your own accord and that no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort has been made by ASK Law Xperts or any of its members.
Enrolment Number
D/4029/2014
Bar Council of Delhi
Practicing Since
2014
Bar Council of Delhi
Enrolled Under
Advocates Act, 1961
Section 24
Courts of Practice
Delhi
District Courts · Delhi HC · Tribunals