Today’s briefing leads with a Supreme Court reminder that keeping an accused in jail for long periods before trial cannot become a punishment in itself. We also look at two Allahabad High Court decisions with a direct bearing on Lucknow and Prayagraj residents and students, a Bengaluru civil court ruling on how far employers can restrain former staff, and an Orissa High Court judgment on when a mother can be appointed guardian of a minor’s property.
Supreme Court: Long Pre-Trial Custody Cannot Turn Into Punishment Without Trial
What happened: A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu granted regular bail to two accused, Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak, in a corruption case arising from alleged tender irregularities under the Jal Jeevan Mission in Rajasthan. One appellant, aged about 72, had been in custody since May 2026 and the other since February 2026.
What the court held: The Court found that further custody was neither necessary nor warranted. The investigation was over, chargesheets had been filed, and the case rested largely on documents and electronic records already with the investigators, so the risk of tampering was minimal. The trial is likely to be long, with 22 accused, 124 prosecution witnesses and roughly 20,000 pages of documents, and charges had not even been framed. The bench said the seriousness of allegations alone cannot justify indefinite detention, and that “prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be permitted to degenerate into punishment without trial”. Any legitimate concern of the prosecution, it said, can be met through bail conditions.
What it means for you: For families of undertrial prisoners, this order reinforces a practical checklist for bail applications: whether the investigation is complete, whether the evidence is mostly documentary and already secured, how long the person has spent in custody, how many witnesses remain, and whether co-accused have already been released. Even in large-value economic offences, courts are expected to weigh the likely length of trial against continued detention. Bail conditions such as surrender of passport, regular attendance and a bar on contacting witnesses are the usual tools courts use instead of indefinite custody. For help with bail and trial strategy, see our Criminal Defense & Criminal Law page.
Allahabad High Court Orders Dog-Bite Hotspot Mapping in Lucknow and Prayagraj
What happened: In a suo motu proceeding monitoring compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions on stray dogs and dog-bite incidents, a Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad passed an order dated 1 October 2026, which has now been made public. The matter is next listed on 5 November 2026.
What changed: The Municipal Commissioners of Lucknow and Prayagraj must map dog-bite hotspots and arrange humane capture and removal, giving priority to dogs with repeated attacks or aggressive behaviour. They must also identify at least 30 more sites for inspection, such as hospitals, schools, railway stations, markets and parks, within one month. Captured dogs are to be taken to an Animal Birth Control centre or veterinary facility for treatment and sterilisation, with aggressive or suspected rabid dogs kept in segregation or quarantine. The civic bodies must file year-wise and area-wise data on bite incidents, and Lucknow must explain its sterilisation model and its verified results. District Magistrates are to coordinate the exercise.
What it means for you: Residents, resident welfare associations, schools and hospitals in Lucknow and Prayagraj now have a clear set of court-mandated duties they can point to when raising complaints with the municipal corporation. Keeping written records of bite incidents and complaints, including dates, locations and medical treatment, helps both in follow-up with civic authorities and in any later claim for compensation. The order also stresses humane handling, so the focus is on sterilisation, vaccination and targeted removal of aggressive animals rather than indiscriminate action. Questions on civic accountability or writ remedies can be explored through our High Court & Appellate Litigation practice.
Allahabad High Court: University Need Not Accept JEST Score for PhD Admission
What happened: In Aakash Narayan v. Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow, Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed a writ petition by a candidate who wanted to be called for a PhD (Physics) interview for the 2025-26 session on the basis of his JEST score, since he did not hold a UGC-NET qualification.
What the court held: The university had adopted UGC-NET based eligibility by a resolution in October 2024 and printed it in its 2025-26 prospectus. The Court held that a university which follows UGC criteria cannot be called arbitrary, and that although JEST is a national-level examination, no institution can be ordered to treat it as a mandatory qualifying score. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s JEST scorecard dated back to 2009 and nothing showed it was valid for the current session. The claim for compensation also failed.
What it means for you: Students applying for PhD programmes should read each university’s prospectus and admission rules closely, because the eligibility tests accepted can differ from one institution to another, and courts will generally respect the criteria an institution has openly adopted in line with UGC regulations. It is also wise to check the validity period of any score you rely on. Challenging admission rules works best when the rule itself is shown to be unlawful or applied unequally, not merely when another exam would have been fairer to the applicant.
Bengaluru Court: Confidentiality Clause Cannot Stop an Ex-Employee Joining a Rival
What happened: A Bengaluru City Civil Court dismissed, with costs, a suit by EOX Vantage Private Limited against its former Assistant Manager (Operations), Shruthi BS. The company sought a permanent injunction to stop her from soliciting its staff and clients and from disclosing confidential information, alleging data leaks, poaching and losses of over Rs 20 lakh.
What the court held: The court accepted that employers may legitimately protect trade secrets, pricing, customer data and similar confidential information. But it held that restraints which prevent a person from carrying on a lawful profession or business are void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, and that a confidentiality clause cannot ordinarily be used to stop a former employee from joining a competitor or using general skills and knowledge. On the facts, the company’s evidence fell short: the employees whose messages were relied on were not examined, the forensic investigators were not identified, senior officers involved in the internal inquiry did not testify, and there was no proof that she had joined a competitor or solicited clients.
What it means for you: For employees, a confidentiality clause protects specific business information; it is not a licence for an employer to block your next job. For businesses, the ruling is a reminder that protection must be built carefully: define confidential information precisely, control and log data access, and if a breach is suspected, preserve electronic evidence properly and be ready to prove it through witnesses who can speak to it. Broad post-employment non-compete restrictions remain difficult to enforce in India. Employers and employees reviewing such clauses can refer to our Labour & Employment Law page.
Orissa High Court: Muslim Mother Can Be Appointed Guardian to Sell Minor’s Property
What happened: In Shamina Naaz & Anr. v. Rimsha Taashfeen & Anr., Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra allowed an appeal by a widowed mother who had been refused permission by the District Judge, Ganjam, to sell her minor daughter’s share in property in Bhubaneswar left by the father, who died in 2021.
What the court held: Under Muslim personal law a mother is not, by right, the legal guardian of her minor child’s property. However, under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, a court can appoint her as guardian when that serves the minor’s welfare. The Court found a genuine necessity and evident advantage: the main earner had died, the mother had no sufficient income, the child was of school age, the property was far from the family home, and the proceeds were meant for education, maintenance and investment, with the adult sister supporting the application. It permitted a controlled sale on strict conditions, including that the entire net sale proceeds be kept in a fixed deposit. Her authority, the Court clarified, flows from the court’s appointment and permission, not from personal law.
What it means for you: Families, including NRI families, who need to sell or deal with property inherited by a minor should not assume that a parent can sign on the child’s behalf. In many situations a court appointment and prior permission are required, and any sale without it can later be challenged. A well-prepared application should show a clear need, how the money will be used for the child, and safeguards such as fixed deposits in the child’s name. Guidance on such applications is available under our Property, Real Estate & Waqf Law and Family Law pages.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affects you, your family or your business, you can arrange a consultation to discuss your specific situation.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.