The Supreme Court has handed a significant win to investors who held YES Bank’s Additional Tier 1 (AT1) bonds, while the Centre told the Court that rules to curb erratic airfares will be published within two weeks. The Allahabad High Court delivered three rulings with direct consequences for families, including on a mother’s right to custody, who gets family pension, and juvenile offenders convicted decades ago.
Supreme Court Keeps YES Bank’s Rs 8,415 Crore AT1 Bond Write-off Quashed
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed appeals filed by YES Bank against the Bombay High Court’s January 2023 judgment in YES Bank Limited v. Axis Trustee Services Limited. The judgment was delivered on 15 October 2026. The dispute concerns AT1 bonds worth about Rs 8,415 crore that were written down to zero during the bank’s reconstruction in March 2020.
What the court held: The draft reconstruction scheme had proposed a permanent write-down of AT1 bonds, but the final scheme notified on 13 March 2020 dropped that clause. The bank’s Administrator wrote the bonds down the next day anyway. The Court held that an Administrator under the Banking Regulation Act acts in place of the Board and must stay within the powers the statute gives him; anything beyond those powers is void. Reading the RBI’s Basel III Master Circular, the Court held that any write-down linked to the point of non-viability had to happen before the reconstruction scheme took effect. It also found that AT1 bonds had been sold to individual investors contrary to the Master Circular, and observed that the RBI “was a mere bystander” while the bank’s capital eroded. Investors, it said, should not bear the cost of administrative lapses.
What it means for you: Retail and institutional holders of these bonds now have a final ruling that the write-off was illegal, which strengthens their claims against the bank. More broadly, the judgment signals that even in a banking crisis, regulators and administrators must follow the exact terms of the scheme and the bond documents. If you were sold complex, high-risk instruments like perpetual bonds by a bank relationship manager as a “safe” product, the Court’s remarks on mis-selling may be relevant to your own claim. Guidance is available through our Banking, Finance & Recovery practice.
Airfare Pricing Rules Finalised, Centre Tells Supreme Court
On 16 October 2026, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Singh heard a public interest petition, S. Laxminarayanan v. Union of India, which challenges arbitrary and exorbitant fares charged by private airlines. The Solicitor General informed the bench that the airfare pricing rules have been finalised, have received administrative approval and will be published within two weeks.
What changed: The petition targets algorithm-driven dynamic pricing, steep last-minute fare spikes during festivals and peak travel, and the reduction of free check-in baggage from 25 kg to 15 kg. The rules are expected to deal with fare pricing, surge pricing and excess baggage charges. The Court has listed the matter on 16 November 2026 and asked for the published rules to be placed before it by then.
What it means for you: No new rule is in force yet, so current fares and baggage charges continue for now. Once published, the rules may give passengers a clearer basis to question sudden fare spikes and baggage fees, which matters for families travelling home for Diwali and for NRIs booking connecting domestic flights. Our Consumer Protection team tracks these developments.
Allahabad HC: Child Kept Away From Mother Cannot Make an Informed Choice
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Siddharth Nandan, allowed a widowed mother’s appeal against a Family Court, Agra order that had refused her custody of her son. The child’s father died in 2020 when the boy was eight months old, and the child had since been living with his paternal grandmother. The mother alleged that her signatures, taken on blank paper for an insurance claim, were used to create an agreement handing the child over to the grandmother.
What the court held: With the father deceased, the mother is the natural guardian. The alleged compromise and the father’s Will appointing the grandmother as guardian carried little weight, because the child’s welfare is paramount. The child, about six when his statement was recorded, had been denied access to his mother, so his stated wish to stay with his grandmother could not be treated as an intelligent preference, and tutoring could not be ruled out. The Court also held that a mother cannot be denied custody merely because of her income or financial dependence. Custody was given to the mother immediately, with visitation rights for the grandmother.
What it means for you: Grandparents and other relatives cannot rely on a private agreement or a Will to keep a child away from a surviving parent. A parent who loses physical custody should approach the court quickly, as the mother’s prompt action counted in her favour here. Our Family Law, Divorce & Matrimonial Disputes page explains the custody process.
Allahabad HC: Family Pension Depends on Service Rules, Not Succession Law
In Smt. Shashi v. Smt. Sona Devi, Justice Anil Kumar-X of the Allahabad High Court considered a dispute over the service benefits of a deceased UP Police constable, including pension, gratuity and group insurance. The trial court, while deciding a succession certificate application, had held a minor child of the deceased entitled to family pension and divided the other benefits among the widow, the mother and the child.
What the court held: A court deciding a succession certificate application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act cannot finally decide who is entitled to family pension and other retiral benefits. Being a legal heir and being entitled to a particular service benefit are different questions. Pension and similar benefits are statutory rights governed by the applicable service rules, are not part of the deceased’s estate, and general succession law cannot widen the class of eligible persons named in those rules. The order was set aside to that extent, and the competent authority was directed to decide the rival claims afresh.
What it means for you: If a government employee in your family has died, family pension is paid to the person the service rules name, which is not always the same as the legal heirs. Claims should be made to the employer department with documents proving status under those rules, such as marriage or birth records. A succession certificate helps with debts and securities, but it does not settle pension rights. Our Labour & Employment Law practice handles service-benefit disputes.
Allahabad HC Finds Two Life Convicts Were Juveniles, 45 Years Later
A Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava decided a criminal appeal, Ali Hasan v. State of UP, against a December 1981 judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, which convicted the accused of a murder committed in September 1980. Two surviving appellants claimed they were under 18 at the time. After an age inquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board based on school and other records, the Court found both were about 17 years and 10 to 11 months old on the date of the offence.
What the court held: The convictions were upheld, as the eyewitness evidence was not in dispute, but the life sentences were set aside. Relying on Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which allows a juvenility claim to be raised at any stage, even after final disposal, the Court sent the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board to decide the sentence. Since the offence took place under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the punishment cannot exceed what that law allowed. The appellants must appear before the Board on 28 October 2026, and the Board must decide within six weeks.
What it means for you: A claim that the accused was a juvenile on the date of the offence can be raised at any stage, even decades after conviction, and it can change the sentence. School records and birth documents are the key evidence, so families should preserve them carefully. Our Criminal Defense & Criminal Law team advises on appeals and juvenility claims.
Delhi HC: Free Legal Aid No Ground to Deny Parole for Supreme Court Appeal
On 16 October 2026, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court decided Mahender Rathore v. State (NCT of Delhi). The petitioner, a convict whose conviction had been upheld by the High Court on 5 August, sought 30 days’ parole to arrange funds, consult lawyers and file a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. The Delhi Government refused, saying he could use free legal aid available in prison.
What the court held: The availability of legal aid counsel, or the option of filing a petition from jail, is not a valid reason to refuse parole. Rule 1208(viii) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 specifically allows parole for filing a Special Leave Petition against a High Court judgment upholding a conviction, and a convict must have a fair chance to approach the Supreme Court through a lawyer of his choice. Parole of 30 days was granted, subject to conditions.
What it means for you: Families of convicted persons should know that parole for preparing a Supreme Court appeal is a recognised entitlement under the Delhi Prison Rules. A refusal based only on the availability of legal aid can be challenged. Timing matters, because an appeal has its own limitation period. Our High Court & Appellate Litigation practice covers such matters.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affects you, your family or your business, you can book a session through our online consultation page.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.