India: Crime

Leadership is often tested not during periods of stability, but in moments of extraordinary uncertainty. Whether confronting organised criminal networks, managing terrorist threats, or leading hostage rescue operations where every decision carries life-and-death consequences, public leadership demands clarity of purpose, sound judgment, and unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

In Mohd. Aftab v. Union of India and others, the Allahabad High Court, by an interim order dated September 14, 2026, observed that passport authorities have, prima facie, no business denying a passport merely because a criminal case is pending against the applicant. The Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla also clarified that holding a passport does not give a person a spontaneous passage across borders.

The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings against a company cannot be quashed merely because no natural person acting for it has been identified or arraigned. Allegations must prima facie reveal that a natural person acted on behalf of the company and that the surrounding circumstances do not render the existence of the requisite mens rea patently absurd or inherently improbable.

The Constitution of India protects children as a distinct category requiring special protection, that the objective of juvenile justice legislation is meant to penal in rehabilitative and not penal in nature.

In Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram & Anr. v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar & Anr., 2026 INSC 724, the Supreme Court clarified the threshold for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) for alleged false statements made in judicial proceedings. The Court held that a mere finding that a party has made a “wrong statement” is insufficient to initiate criminal proceedings. There must be material indicating a deliberate falsehood, and the Court must additionally be satisfied that initiating an inquiry is “expedient in the interests of justice.”

Expecting someone to remember pages of oral explanations is unrealistic. By requiring written grounds, the Court has ensured that individuals can consult their lawyers, prepare their defense, and exercise their right to bail meaningfully. It’s a small procedural shift, but one that makes a world of difference to personal liberty.

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, in its judgment dated June 9, 2026, addressed a compelling intersection of contempt jurisdiction...

The Supreme Court of India addresses a critical case involving wrongful attribution of criminal antecedents to a citizen during bail proceedings, examining the State's accountability when false records impact fundamental rights. The judgment scrutinizes the government's explanation of a "computer error" and establishes important precedents for protecting personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

This article examines when a supplementary chargesheet or further report or subsequent complaint is a legitimate continuation of the investigation, and when it becomes a second attempt to improve the prosecution case.