Monday, 12 October 2026 brought a significant pricing step for cancer patients, a clear rule from the Supreme Court on where an arbitration is legally seated, and a warning to students about fake colleges. The High Courts also delivered useful rulings on alimony claims, arrest procedure, the POCSO Act and Christian wills. Here is what each development means in practical terms.
Centre caps trade margins on cancer medicines at 30%
During the hearing of Kishan Chand Jain v. Ethics and Medical Registration Board before a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on 12 October 2026, the Union government informed the Supreme Court that trade margins on anti-cancer drugs have been capped at 30% of the Maximum Retail Price (MRP). At an earlier hearing the Court had flagged a cancer drug costing about Rs 2,700 that carried an MRP of Rs 27,000.
What changed: The gap between the price at which a cancer drug leaves the manufacturer and the MRP printed on the pack can no longer exceed 30% of the MRP. The government said it will publish a periodically updated list of covered cancer medicines, leaving out only inexpensive formulations. The Court questioned why the cap is limited to cancer drugs and pointed to other products with large mark-ups. The matter is next listed on 27 October.
What it means for you: Families paying for long-term cancer treatment should see lower MRPs on many medicines once the list is notified, and it is worth comparing printed prices and asking pharmacies for the revised rates. Hospitals, distributors and chemists will need to re-check their pricing and stock to stay within the cap. The wider question of mark-ups on other medicines and devices remains open before the Court.
Related practice area: Consumer Protection
Supreme Court: an arbitration venue is not automatically the seat
In Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Parshva Innovation, decided on 12 October 2026, a Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi examined a contract whose arbitration clause mentioned two places, Delhi and Goa, while the governing law clause gave exclusive jurisdiction to courts in Goa. The Delhi High Court had appointed an arbitrator on an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
What the court held: Where an arbitration clause names more than one place without clearly fixing one as the juridical seat, the seat must be found by reading the agreement as a whole, and the exclusive jurisdiction clause carries real weight. The words “place of arbitration” alone do not make that place the seat. On the facts, Goa was the seat and “Delhi is just a venue”, so the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed.
What it means for you: For businesses, the drafting of the dispute clause decides which court will supervise the arbitration, from appointing arbitrators to hearing challenges to the award. Contracts should name one seat clearly and keep the jurisdiction clause consistent with it. Filing in the wrong court can cost months and lead to orders being set aside.
Related practice area: Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution
Supreme Court asks UGC and regulators to warn public about fake institutions
In Ayesha Jain v. Amity University, Noida, a case the Supreme Court has widened into a review of how private universities are set up and regulated, a Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and NV Anjaria passed an order on 9 October 2026 after being told of a fake medical college in Etah district, Uttar Pradesh. The so-called college ran from a run-down farmhouse offering D Pharma, B Pharma and B Sc Nursing courses, with a tea seller named as chairman who said he only signed papers given to him.
What the court held: The Court directed the UGC and all regulatory authorities to issue public advisories asking people to verify an institution’s authenticity before taking admission or dealing with it, and asked the Central government to monitor compliance. It noted that the Uttar Pradesh government has ordered an independent inquiry alongside the police investigation. The matter is next listed on 19 November.
What it means for you: Before paying fees, students and parents should check that the institution and the specific course are recognised by the relevant regulator, such as the UGC or the council for that profession. Keep receipts and written communication. If you have already paid a fake institution, both criminal action for cheating and civil or consumer remedies for recovery may be available.
Related practice area: Consumer Protection
Allahabad High Court: permanent alimony should normally be sought in writing
In P v. A, a Division Bench of Justices J.J. Munir and Indrajeet Shukla heard a wife’s appeal against a 2012 Family Court decree that granted divorce to the husband and dismissed her petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
What the court held: The Bench held that a claim for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act should, as a rule, be made through a written application, so that both sides can lead evidence. An oral request is acceptable only in exceptional cases where entitlement and amount need no adjudication. Here both sides agreed on Rs 9 lakh, which was awarded as a lump sum. It also held that Family Courts cannot grant divorce on irretrievable breakdown, a power only the Supreme Court has under Article 142, and upheld the divorce on cruelty alone.
What it means for you: Spouses in divorce cases should file a proper written claim for permanent alimony with supporting financial details rather than relying on a request at the final hearing. Amounts already paid as interim or other maintenance may be adjusted against the final award. The ruling is also a reminder that a long separation by itself does not end a marriage in the trial courts.
Related practice area: Family Law, Divorce & Matrimonial Disputes
Allahabad High Court urges Law Commission to revisit POCSO punishments
In RK v. State of UP, a habeas corpus petition by a husband seeking the release of his wife from a children’s home, a Division Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev dealt with a couple who had eloped and now have a two-month-old child. With no reliable age records, a medical test placed the young woman at about 18.
What the court held: The Court treated her as a major, noted her wish to live with her husband and allowed her to leave with him. It directed that the separate POCSO case against the husband be decided strictly on law and evidence. Observing that rigid application of the Act can sometimes cause injustice, it asked the Law Commission of India to consider giving Special Judges limited discretion in sentencing in exceptional cases and to examine alternatives such as community service.
What it means for you: The law has not changed. Any sexual relationship with a person under 18 remains an offence under the POCSO Act regardless of consent or marriage, and the prosecution in this case continues. Families should keep reliable birth and school records, because age disputes frequently decide such cases. Any reform will depend on the Law Commission and Parliament.
Related practice area: Criminal Defense & Criminal Law
Madras High Court: no written grounds of arrest means departmental action
In Ankur Kumar Jain v. State, Justice N Ramesh of the Madras High Court heard a bail plea by a regional manager of a coaching company accused of failing to refund caution deposits collected from parents. He was given only a printed arrest memo in Tamil, a language he could not read, which mentioned the case number and penal provision but not his alleged role.
What the court held: The Court held that the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing in a language he understood, so the arrest and remand were illegal, and it granted bail. Explaining a memo orally does not cure the defect when the memo itself has no grounds. The Tamil Nadu DGP was directed to issue instructions treating such failures as dereliction of duty liable to departmental proceedings.
What it means for you: If you or a family member is arrested, ask for the written grounds of arrest in a language you understand and keep a copy. Missing or vague grounds can be a strong basis to challenge the arrest and seek release. For police officers, the ruling makes clear that the obligation is personal and lapses can carry consequences.
Related practice area: Criminal Defense & Criminal Law
Kerala High Court upholds rule that marriage revokes a Christian’s will
A Division Bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar decided a suo motu reference along with connected petitions challenging Section 69 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Under this provision, a will made by a person to whom it applies, such as a Christian, is automatically revoked when that person marries. The rule does not apply to Hindus.
What the court held: The Bench upheld Section 69. It held that the provision protects the new family formed by marriage, and that the different treatment of Hindus is a reasonable classification because Hindu law separately gives a wife maintenance rights. The section does not restrict anyone from making a fresh will at any time and does not conflict with Section 20 of the Act.
What it means for you: Christians, and others governed by Section 69, who made a will before marrying should make a fresh will after marriage. Otherwise the earlier will stands cancelled and the estate may pass under intestate succession rules, which may not match their wishes. NRIs with property in India should review their Indian wills after any change in marital status.
Related practice area: Drafting & Legal Documentation
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affects you, you can request a consultation through our online consultation page.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.