The Supreme Court has given Indian Railways a firm deadline to extend travel insurance to tickets bought at station counters, and has also called for a gentler approach towards drug users while refusing a taxpayer’s attempt to raise a fresh deduction claim in revision. From the High Courts, the Delhi High Court spelt out a father-in-law’s duty to house a widowed daughter-in-law, and the Allahabad High Court delivered two rulings of direct relevance to families and to police conduct in Uttar Pradesh.
Supreme Court: Counter Tickets Must Get the Same Insurance as Online Tickets
A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan, hearing Union of India v. Radha Yadav (a long-running matter on railway passenger safety and compensation), has directed Indian Railways to provide insurance cover on every ticket sold at reservation counters across all stations, with effect from 27 October 2026.
What the court held: The Bench noted that it had earlier given the authorities time to design a mechanism for passengers who buy tickets at counters, many of whom come from the poorest sections of society, but found that little had changed on the ground. It ordered that counter tickets be insured in the same manner as tickets bought online, made the Railway Board directly responsible for compliance, and directed the Chairman and Members of the Board to appear personally before the Court on 16 November 2026. The Court also recorded its “utter disappointment and displeasure” with the conduct of Railway Ministry officers.
What it means for you: Until now, the optional travel insurance offered on e-tickets has not been available in the same way to passengers who pay cash at a counter. Once the direction takes effect, a family travelling on a counter ticket should have comparable cover if an accident occurs. Passengers should keep their physical ticket safely, since it will be the key document for any claim, and families of accident victims should note that this cover is in addition to statutory compensation available before the Railway Claims Tribunal. For help with claims against service providers, see our Consumer Protection page.
Supreme Court: Treat Drug Users as Victims, Target the Supply Chain
In Sanjana Bhaskaran v. State of Telangana, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran quashed the prosecution of a young woman named as the fourth accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The police alleged she had received a packet of ganja from sellers near a college, but nothing was recovered from her or her bag, and the case rested largely on statements of co-accused and an alleged confession.
What the court held: The Court found that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and allowed her appeal. More broadly, it observed that people at the very end of the narcotics chain should not be treated merely as offenders, and warned that prosecuting users and keeping them in pre-trial custody can pull them deeper into the drug trade through contacts made in prison. Enforcement, the Bench said, should concentrate on cutting availability and dismantling supply networks.
What it means for you: This is an important signal for families of students and young adults caught up in NDPS cases on thin evidence. Where there is no recovery and the case depends mainly on what a co-accused has said, there may be a strong ground to seek quashing or discharge. The observations also support pleas for de-addiction and rehabilitation rather than prolonged custody for users. The ruling does not dilute the law for those found with drugs for sale. See our Criminal Defense & Criminal Law page for more on how such cases are handled.
Supreme Court: No Fresh Income Tax Claim in Revision Without a Timely Revised Return
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed an appeal by Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. against the income tax department. For assessment year 2006-07, the company had declared a loss, but ended up with a demand of roughly Rs 10 crore including interest. It then tried to claim deductions it had left out of its return by approaching the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, without having filed a revised return within time.
What the court held: The Supreme Court agreed with the Commissioner and the Orissa High Court that a fresh claim cannot be entertained in revisional proceedings when the assessee has not filed a revised return within the permitted period. The Bench noted that if such claims were allowed, there would be no end to new claims being raised at later stages. It distinguished the earlier decisions relied on by the company because none of them dealt with the effect of missing the revised-return deadline.
What it means for you: For businesses and individual taxpayers, including NRIs filing Indian returns, the lesson is simple: if you spot a missed deduction or exemption, file a revised return within the statutory window. Waiting to raise it later before an appellate or revisional authority may not work. It also shows that choosing a revisional remedy can close the door on a parallel appeal, so the choice of forum needs care. More on our Taxation Law page.
Delhi High Court: Father-in-Law Must Ensure Shelter for Widowed Daughter-in-Law
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court decided an appeal arising from an eviction suit filed by a father-in-law against his son’s family over a house in Paschim Vihar. The son died while the suit was pending, and his widow and daughters continued to live in the property, claiming it as their shared household.
What the court held: The Court held that the house was the widow’s shared household and that her right of residence did not end with her husband’s death. Under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a father-in-law has a pious obligation to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law who cannot support herself from her own earnings or property or from her husband’s estate, and maintenance includes a place to live. At the same time, her right was not an absolute bar to the owner’s claim. The Court upheld the decree for possession but stayed its execution until the father-in-law either arranges comparable accommodation in the same or a nearby locality, or pays her Rs 15,000 a month towards rent. It set aside the trial court’s award of Rs 10,000 a month as damages against the family.
What it means for you: Widows living in a property owned by their in-laws cannot simply be put out on the street after the husband’s death. Equally, property owners are not left without remedy, since the court will balance ownership against the right to shelter. Families facing this situation, whether in India or managing property from abroad, should take advice before filing or contesting eviction proceedings. See our Family Law, Divorce & Matrimonial Disputes page.
Allahabad High Court: Caring for an Elderly Father Does Not Make a Will Suspect
Justice Siddharth Nandan of the Allahabad High Court dismissed a second appeal in Bhanu Datta Pathak v. Hardutta Pathak, where a grandson had sought cancellation of a 1971 Will by which his grandfather left property to one son. The testator died about six months after making the Will. The trial court had cancelled the Will, but the first appellate court upheld it.
What the court held: The High Court held that the testator’s advanced age, combined with the fact that the son looked after him and his property, does not by itself raise a presumption of undue influence. Being in a position to influence someone is different from actually exercising that influence, and the burden lies on the person who alleges it. On proof, the Court held that Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires attestation by two or more witnesses, who need not be relatives or from the testator’s village, and that a scribe who also signed as an attesting witness can be a competent witness. Old age alone did not show a lack of testamentary capacity.
What it means for you: Many Wills in Uttar Pradesh families favour the child who stayed back and cared for elderly parents, and are later challenged by other heirs. This ruling makes it harder to overturn such a Will on general allegations alone; specific evidence of coercion or abuse of a dominant position is needed. Anyone making a Will should still use two reliable attesting witnesses and consider registration to reduce later disputes. See our Property, Real Estate & Waqf Law page.
Allahabad High Court: Misbehaving With a Lawyer on Court Duty Is Contempt
While hearing a bail application in Sachin Yadav v. State of UP, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal of the Allahabad High Court learnt that a police public relations officer had misbehaved over the phone with the government counsel who was conveying the Court’s bail order to the police.
What the court held: The Court observed that lawyers are officers of the court, and misbehaviour with them while they discharge duties connected with court proceedings amounts to contempt. Instead of passing a stricture, it kept the officer in court custody till 5 pm and directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to issue a circular to all police officers that such conduct “will be treated as a contempt of court”. The Court later noted that show-cause notices had been issued and the officer moved from his post.
What it means for you: Delays in communicating and acting on bail orders directly affect the liberty of accused persons and their families. A DGP circular should push police across Uttar Pradesh to cooperate promptly when counsel conveys court orders. If a court order in your case is being ignored or obstructed at the police level, the court can be approached directly. See our High Court & Appellate Litigation page.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affects you, your family or your business, you can book a consultation with our team through the online consultation page.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.