PILOT LAW Associates

07/05/2026

*Supreme Court: Eligibility Must Exist on Last Date of Application; Later Qualification Cannot Cure Ineligibility*

_The Supreme Court of India has clarified that *eligibility in recruitment must be determined as on the last date of submission of the application form*, and candidates who acquire qualifications later cannot be considered._

_In *Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Lavanshu Sankhla & Ors.*, the Court set aside the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, holding that candidates who had not obtained their LL.B. degree by the last date of application were ineligible for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer._

_The Court emphasized that the requirement to “possess” a qualification excludes future acquisition and that allowing such candidates would create uncertainty and administrative difficulty. It also noted that the earlier relaxation for final-year students had been deleted, reinforcing strict adherence to the cut-off date. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission were allowed._

*Read full update at*

The Supreme Court held that eligibility in recruitment must be determined as on the last date of application. Candidates who acquire qualifications later are ineligible, as there is no provision fo…

07/05/2026

*Supreme Court: Prolonged Trial Delay Violates Article 21; Grants Bail in Murder Case Despite Serious Charges*

_The Supreme Court of India has granted regular bail to an undertrial accused in a murder case, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration without trial progress violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21._

_In *Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra*, the Court noted that the accused had been in custody since November 2022, charges were framed in 2024, yet not a single witness had been examined. Despite the gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC, the Court held that seriousness of charges cannot override constitutional guarantees._

_Observing that continued detention in such circumstances is unjustified, the Court directed release on bail subject to conditions set by the Trial Court, reaffirming that delay in trial can itself be a valid ground for bail._

*Read full update at*

The Supreme Court granted bail, holding that prolonged incarceration without trial progress violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21. Despite the seriousness of the offence, it emphasize…

07/05/2026

*Supreme Court: Consensual Long-Term Relationship Not R**e on False Promise of Marriage; Proceedings Quashed*

_The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings for r**e on the ground of false promise of marriage, holding that a *prolonged consensual relationship cannot be retrospectively criminalised* merely because the relationship later breaks down._

_In *Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana v. State of Maharashtra*, the Court noted that both parties were aware of their subsisting marriages, had entered into a relationship voluntarily, and continued it for several years without complaint. The FIR was lodged only after the relationship deteriorated._

_Relying on Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated the distinction between a *false promise (no intention to marry from the outset)* and a *mere breach of promise*. It held that for an offence under Section 376 IPC, the physical relationship must be directly induced by a false promise—something absent in this case._

_The Court concluded that consent was not vitiated by misconception of fact and that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed and the appeal was allowed._

*Read full update at*

The Supreme Court quashed r**e charges based on a false promise of marriage, holding that a long-term consensual relationship between adults, aware of each other’s marital status, cannot be crimina…

07/05/2026

*J&K High Court: CDRs Alone Not Enough to Deny Bail in NDPS Case*

_The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that mere call detail records (CDRs) showing contact with co-accused cannot establish involvement in drug trafficking without supporting evidence like recordings or transcripts. In the absence of recovery of contraband and with the case resting only on disclosure statements and call logs, the Court ruled that the stringent bar under Section 37 NDPS Act would not apply._

_Granting bail, the Court emphasised that suspicion cannot substitute proof of conspiracy. It reiterated that disclosure statements of co-accused and phone records alone are insufficient to deny liberty, especially when the accused has already spent significant time in custody without substantive evidence linking him to the alleged offence._

*Read full update at* https://lawcutor.in/2026/05/05/jk-and-ladakh-high-court-call-detail-records-showing-contact-between-accused-and-co-accused-not-sufficient-to-establish-nexus-with-drug-trafficking-in-absence-of-voice-recordings-or-transcripts/

07/05/2026

*MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS CAN BE PURSUED AGAINST DECEASED DOCTOR'S LEGAL HEIRS WHO INHERITED HIS ESTATE: SC*

In _*Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others*_, SLP (C) No. 33646-33647 of 2026, 2026 INSC 443, on 04.05.2026, the Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar inter-alia held that medical negligence cases for compensation can be pursued against legal heirs of the doctor after the doctor's death in order to deal with damages that may have to be paid to the complainant from the doctor’s estate.

The Supreme Court clarified that while claims relating to personal injury or suffering may not continue after a person’s death, claims involving financial liability can still be pursued against the estate left behind by the deceased.

It explained that legal heirs cannot be held personally liable for alleged medical negligence, but they can represent the estate of the deceased doctor and may be required to satisfy claims to the extent of the assets inherited by them.

*BACKGROUND*
The case arose from a complaint filed on 13.08.1997 before District Forum, Munger, Bihar under the *Consumer Protection Act,1986* alleging medical negligence after a woman lost vision in her right eye following surgery performed by Dr. P.B. Lall (deceased) at his private clinic on 10.02.1990. The complainant consulted at various places. The complainant had sought compensation for treatment expenses and mental agony.

A *District Forum* in Munger on 05.11.2003 found the doctor negligent for deficiency in service and awarded compensation of ₹2.60 lakh. However, the *State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission*, Patna, Bihar (*SCDRC*) set aside the order on 02.12.2005 after noting the absence of expert evidence to establish negligence and observing that the surgery had been performed to relieve the patient’s pain.

The complainant then approached the *National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission* (*NCDRC*). During the pendency of the proceedings, the doctor passed away on 04.08.2009, following which his legal heirs were brought on record, which was allowed by NCDRC on 26.05.2010 (Impugned Order). In the meantime, the original complainant also died on 16.01.2014 and her legal heirs were substituted. NCDRC vide order dated 24.05.2018 (Impugned Order II) dismissed both the applications and posted the matter for final
hearing on 20.09.2018.

Aggrieved by such orders, the heirs challenged their impleadment before the Supreme Court, arguing that the complaint was personal in nature and should not survive after the doctor’s death.

*ANALYSIS*
The Supreme Court rejected this contention and held that Indian law does not fully follow the old common law principle that personal actions die with the person. Instead, it permits continuation of proceedings where claims relate to the estate. On 13.01.2026, the Bench appointed the _amicus curiae_.

In this regard, the Bench referred to the legal position under the *Indian Succession Act, 1925*, and explained the distinction between personal claims and claims affecting property. the Bench noted that: -

_“64(v) Generally, all rights and liabilities to maintain a suit are carried to the legal representative under Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. However, when adjudicating claims under 1st exception to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, personal injury claims abate, while claims for or against the estate of the deceased survive,”_

The Court further clarified that this principle applies to consumer disputes as well, including cases involving allegations of medical negligence. The Bench inter-alia held that: -

_“67. … .. In view of the preceding discussion and the statutory framework provided in 1986 Act as well as 2019 Act, we conclude that upon the death of the alleged medically negligent doctor, his/her legal heirs can be impleaded and brought on record. Consequently, the extent of liability will be determined based on the pleadings and evidence presented. The question is answered accordingly”_

The Bench emphasised that while legal heirs are protected from personal liability, they cannot avoid proceedings altogether when claims are tied to the assets inherited from the deceased.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the impleadment of the legal heirs and remitted the matter back to the National Commission (*NCDRC*) to determine whether medical negligence was established and to assess the extent of financial liability that may be enforced against the estate of the deceased doctor.

*Weblink*:https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/38299/38299_2018_3_1501_70747_Judgement_04-May-2026.pdf

07/05/2026

*Calcutta HC: Highly Qualified Spouse Cannot Claim Maintenance Without Disclosure of Earning Capacity*

_The Calcutta High Court set aside the direction granting ₹12,000 per month as interim maintenance to a wife holding MBBS and DNB qualifications in Critical Care Medicine, while upholding ₹8,000 per month for the minor daughter. The Court held that ad-interim maintenance cannot be quantified without compliance with the mandatory disclosure requirements laid down in *Rajnesh v. Neha*._

_The Court observed that a highly qualified professional cannot simply claim inability to maintain herself without proper scrutiny of earning capacity. It held that the PWDV Act is meant to protect vulnerable persons and not to convert a professionally qualified spouse into a “pensioner” of the other spouse. The matter was remanded to the Magistrate for fresh consideration after filing of affidavits of assets and liabilities by both parties._

*Read full update at*

The Calcutta High Court set aside an ex-parte ad-interim maintenance award of ₹12,000 to a highly qualified doctor-wife under the DV Act, holding that courts must assess earning capacity and mandat…

07/05/2026

*Delhi HC Refuses to Quash FIR Despite Settlement in Matrimonial Dispute Involving Sexual Misconduct Allegations*

_The Delhi High Court refused to quash an FIR under Sections 498A, 406 and 354 IPC despite a settlement between the parties, holding that serious allegations of sexual misconduct cannot be ignored merely on the basis of compromise. The Court noted specific accusations against the complainant’s brother-in-law, including sexual advances, threats and intimidation, which were affirmed by the complainant before the Court._

_Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to “dump under the carpet” grave allegations affecting dignity and bodily autonomy. The Court clarified that while matrimonial disputes of a purely private nature may be quashed after settlement, heinous allegations involving sexual misconduct stand on a different footing and must proceed to trial._

*Read full update at*

The Delhi High Court refused to quash an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 354 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act despite settlement between parties, holding that serious and specific allegations of sex…

07/05/2026

*Supreme Court: Failure To Deposit Balance Sale Amount Within Time Makes Specific Performance Decree Inexecutable*

_The Supreme Court has held that when a decree for specific performance requires the buyer to pay the balance sale consideration within a fixed period, failure to comply within that timeline renders the decree inexecutable and results in automatic rescission of the contract under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963._

_A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti ruled that courts cannot presume automatic extension of time merely because a later deposit was permitted during ex*****on proceedings. Holding that continuous readiness and willingness must continue even after the decree, the Court set aside orders allowing delayed deposit and directed refund of the earnest money with 8% interest to the buyer._

*Read full update at*

The Supreme Court held that a decree for specific performance becomes inexecutable if the decree holder fails to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated in the decree. The…

03/05/2026

दिल्ली न्यायिक सेवा (DJS) के युवा एवं प्रतिभाशाली न्यायिक अधिकारी श्री अमन कुमार शर्मा (30 वर्षीय) के आकस्मिक निधन का समाचार अत्यंत दुखद, पीड़ादायक और स्तब्ध कर देने वाला है। यह खबर न केवल उनके परिवार और परिचितों के लिए बल्कि पूरे न्यायिक समुदाय के लिए गहरा आघात है।

प्राप्त जानकारी के अनुसार, वे दिल्ली के नॉर्थ-ईस्ट ज़िले में जिला विधिक सेवा प्राधिकरण (DLSA) में सचिव के पद पर कार्यरत थे और वर्ष 2021 में दिल्ली न्यायिक सेवा में चयनित हुए थे। अपने छोटे से कार्यकाल में ही उन्होंने अपनी ईमानदारी, समर्पण और उत्कृष्ट कार्यशैली से एक अलग पहचान बनाई थी, जिसके कारण वे अपने सहकर्मियों के बीच बेहद सम्मानित थे।

मीडिया रिपोर्ट्स के अनुसार, उनका निधन दिल्ली के सफदरजंग क्षेत्र में हुआ, जिसे प्रारंभिक तौर पर आत्महत्या का मामला बताया जा रहा है। हालांकि, इस घटना के पीछे के कारणों की विस्तृत जाँच अभी जारी है और सभी को अंतिम निष्कर्ष का इंतजार है।

उनके जानने वाले उन्हें एक अत्यंत बुद्धिमान, विनम्र, सरल स्वभाव के और कर्तव्यनिष्ठ अधिकारी के रूप में याद कर रहे हैं। उनका इस प्रकार अचानक चले जाना न्यायपालिका के लिए एक अपूरणीय क्षति है, जिसकी भरपाई संभव नहीं है।

ईश्वर दिवंगत आत्मा को शांति प्रदान करें और शोक संतप्त परिवार को इस कठिन समय में धैर्य और शक्ति दे।

ॐ शान्ति शान्ति ॐ 🌹🙏

02/05/2026