Last updated: 18 October 2026
Short answer: The first half of October 2026 was busy for legal news. Three High Court Chief Justices joined the Supreme Court on 6 October, taking its working strength to 37; a seven judge bench closed a reference on legislative privilege and press freedom that arose from a 2003 case; the Court declared the right to access the internet a fundamental right, including for children; and it ruled on election petitions, Hindu women’s property, temple land, mid course fee hikes and sections 163 and 172 of the BNSS. Below are 20 developments from 1 to 17 October 2026, each checked against reports of the order, followed by 10 practice MCQs with answers.
Judiciary and constitutional law
1. Three new Supreme Court judges (6 October). Justices Sunita Agarwal (Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court), Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya (Chief Justice, Delhi High Court) and Aparesh Kumar Singh (Chief Justice, Telangana High Court) took oath before Chief Justice Surya Kant. The Court’s working strength rose to 37 against a sanctioned strength of 38, and it now has three women judges.
2. Legislative privilege reference closed (6 October). A seven judge bench disposed of N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai as infructuous, recording that the 2003 Tamil Nadu Assembly resolution against journalists of The Hindu had been withdrawn in 2004. The questions on Article 194(3) versus Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 were left open for a future case.
3. Internet access is a fundamental right (reported 17 October). In Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held that the right to access and use the internet flows from Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) and extends to children. Blanket bans on children’s access were called disproportionate, though age based safeguards and blocking of harmful content remain open to the Union.
4. National database of child abuse material (same order). The Union was directed to create a database of hash values and URLs of confirmed child sexual exploitation and abuse material, verified by at least three trained analysts, so that platforms can remove it everywhere. Intermediaries must report such material to Indian police, not only to foreign bodies. The next hearing is on 10 December 2026.
5. Women’s safety in Delhi NCR (5 October). In a suo motu case on recent rape incidents, a bench of Justices Pardiwala and Vinod Chandran directed enhanced beat patrolling, strict verification of cab and bus drivers and real time monitoring through command centres, while cautioning that preventive policing cannot justify arbitrary action.
6. Section 163 and section 172 BNSS (15 October). A bench of the Chief Justice and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to examine the validity of section 163 BNSS, the successor of section 144 CrPC, noting that section 144 was upheld in Babulal Parate (1961). It issued notice on a challenge to section 172 BNSS, which lets police detain a person who disregards lawful directions, and listed the matter on 19 November.
7. Andhra Pradesh local body quota (9 October). Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu dismissed the State’s appeal against the High Court ruling that quashed 34 per cent reservation for Backward Classes in local body elections. The High Court had found that total reservation crossed the 50 per cent ceiling of Indra Sawhney without reliable data.
Criminal law and evidence
8. Ahmedabad blasts: execution stayed (1 October). A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Augustine George Masih stayed the death sentence of one of the 38 convicts in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts case while hearing his appeal. The Gujarat High Court had confirmed all 38 death sentences in July 2026.
9. Demand is essential for bribery (5 October). In Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (2026 INSC 1084), Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a conviction under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act because the demand for a bribe was not proved by more than the complainant’s uncorroborated word.
10. Civil disputes dressed as crimes (5 October). In Sudha Rakesh v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 1086), the Court quashed a cheating case over a land sale and called the habit of turning civil disputes into criminal complaints an “open secret” that courts must check.
11. Courts must compare handwriting themselves (reported 6 October). In Gopal Pathak v. Nitin, Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Manmohan held that under section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam a court must compare disputed signatures itself, and may call a handwriting expert only when it has real doubt or the writing is unclear.
12. Anticipatory bail directly from the High Court (judgment reserved, reported 8 October). A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Aparesh Kumar Singh reserved judgment on whether a person may approach the High Court directly under section 482 BNSS (section 438 CrPC) without first going to the Sessions Court. The bench indicated that the Sessions Court should ordinarily be the first stop.
13. Vacation and listing dates (16 October). In Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran, Justices Datta and Nagu held that when a High Court directs listing “two weeks hence” and the period ends during vacation, the Registry should ordinarily exclude the vacation days, subject to the High Court’s rules.
Want the whole year in one place? The Lexfolio Legal Current Affairs 2026 compilation brings the year’s key judgments and legal developments together month by month, with practice MCQs.
Civil, family, election and commercial law
14. Election petitions must be presented personally (7 October). In V. Pon. Paneerselvam v. S. Regupathy (2026 INSC 1092), the Court held that section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires the petitioner to present the election petition himself, so a petition filed through counsel was not maintainable.
15. Overlapping contracts and arbitration (8 October). In Shubham Equipment v. Rothwell Water Company (2026 INSC 1098), a bench led by the Chief Justice held that an overlap between disputes under a joint venture agreement and a separate licence agreement is no ground to refuse a section 11 reference at the threshold, and appointed a sole arbitrator.
16. Hindu widow’s limited estate (9 October). In Sultan Singh v. Financial Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi (2026 INSC 1107), the Court reiterated that section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 converts a female Hindu’s limited estate into absolute ownership, describing it as a measure against gender discrimination in inheritance.
17. State cannot accept gift of temple land (reported 17 October). In K. Ramalingam v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declared void a gift of temple inam land to the State for a taluk office. The State is only a custodian of temple property, and section 41 of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 bars such gifts; enhanced rent was ordered instead.
Education, health and service law
18. Law student attendance (judgment reserved, 6 October). Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Augustine George Masih reserved judgment on appeals by the Bar Council of India and NMIMS against a November 2025 Delhi High Court ruling that law students cannot be barred from exams only for shortage of attendance. A key paragraph of that ruling has been stayed since 26 May 2026.
19. No mid course fee hikes (reported 15 October). In Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College v. State of West Bengal, Justices Narasimha and Aradhe held that fees for professional courses should be fixed for the whole course before admission, and may change midway only in exceptional cases such as a sudden, unforeseen rise in costs.
20. Pharma marketing to doctors (8 October). In a petition by medical representatives’ associations, Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the Union to form a committee to recommend statutory regulation of pharmaceutical marketing within two months of its first meeting. The non statutory Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices, 2024 continues until then; the case returns on 29 January 2027.
10 practice MCQs with answers
Q1. After the oath of three judges on 6 October 2026, the working strength of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, is:
(a) 34 (b) 35 (c) 37 (d) 38
Answer: (c). The working strength rose to 37 against a sanctioned strength of 38.
Q2. Section 163 of the BNSS corresponds to which provision of the CrPC?
(a) Section 107 (b) Section 133 (c) Section 144 (d) Section 151
Answer: (c). Section 144 CrPC, upheld in Babulal Parate (1961), was the basis for the Court declining to examine section 163.
Q3. The reference closed on 6 October 2026 in N. Ravi v. Speaker concerned the interplay of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 with:
(a) Article 105(3) (b) Article 194(3) (c) Article 212 (d) Article 361
Answer: (b). Article 194(3) deals with the powers, privileges and immunities of State Legislatures.
Q4. In October 2026 the Supreme Court declared the right to access the internet a fundamental right under:
(a) Article 19(1)(g) alone (b) Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) (c) Article 21A alone (d) Article 51A
Answer: (b).
Q5. Under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as read in V. Pon. Paneerselvam, an election petition must be presented by:
(a) any advocate on record (b) the petitioner himself (c) the Election Commission (d) any elector of the constituency
Answer: (b).
Q6. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
(a) gives daughters coparcenary rights by birth (b) makes a female Hindu’s limited estate absolute (c) disqualifies remarried widows (d) governs succession to agricultural tenancies only
Answer: (b). Coparcenary rights for daughters are in section 6, as amended in 2005.
Q7. The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling left in place by the Supreme Court on 9 October 2026 found that local body reservation breached the ceiling laid down in:
(a) M. Nagaraj (b) Indra Sawhney (c) Jarnail Singh (d) K. Krishna Murthy
Answer: (b). Indra Sawhney (1992) fixed the 50 per cent ceiling.
Q8. In Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (October 2026), the conviction under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act failed mainly because:
(a) sanction was invalid (b) the trap was not recorded on video (c) demand of bribe was not proved (d) the complainant turned hostile
Answer: (c).
Q9. The provision of the BNSS that corresponds to section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail) is:
(a) Section 480 (b) Section 482 (c) Section 483 (d) Section 528
Answer: (b). Section 528 BNSS is the successor of section 482 CrPC (inherent powers), a common trap.
Q10. In Gopal Pathak v. Nitin, the Court held that in a handwriting dispute under section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam:
(a) expert opinion is mandatory (b) the court must compare the writing itself and call an expert only if in doubt (c) only a forensic laboratory can decide (d) the burden always lies on the defendant
Answer: (b).
For the larger picture of 2026, read our list of 30 important Supreme Court judgments for CLAT PG 2027, and plan your remaining weeks with our last 50 days strategy.
Revise current affairs the quick way. Legal Current Affairs 2026 gathers the year’s key legal developments in short, exam ready notes with MCQs, in a printable PDF.
Frequently asked questions
How much legal current affairs is asked in CLAT PG?
CLAT PG has no separate current affairs section. Recent developments matter because passages are drawn from judgments and statutes, and questions may ask about related rulings.
Which period of current affairs should I cover for CLAT PG 2027?
Cover roughly the twelve months before the exam, with extra attention to major constitutional and criminal law rulings from 2026.
Are reserved judgments worth noting?
Yes, briefly. If the judgment is delivered before the exam, it may become a passage. Note the question involved and the bench, and update your notes when the ruling comes.
*This article is general information, not legal advice.*