Supreme Court Clarifies States Can Withdraw FIRs Except Against Those with Serious Crimina

This weekly legal roundup brings together the latest developments from courts, legislatures and across the legal landscape in India. It features significant judicial pronouncements and legal developments, including the Meghalaya Honeymoon Murder Case, the recognition of the Right to Refuse and the Right to Meet, judicial observations on round-the-clock access to constitutional courts, and the threefold test for AI training. What was Actually Directed on NEET Paper Leak Protest Violence The Supreme Court held that there was a prima facie case for an independent and impartial investigation into the incidents of violence; notice was issued to the States of Maharashtra, Bihar, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Kerala. [ Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India , SLP (Crl.) No. 280 of 2025, ordered on 28-7-2026 ] SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WEEK APAAR SCHEME | Parents Get the Right to Refuse: Directed that APAAR Consent Form to Include Opt-Out Option; Restricts Disclosure of Student Data Beyond Lawful Purposes The Supreme Court directed that the prescribed consent form must expressly provide parents or guardians with the option to withhold consent, holding that such a safeguard is essential to ensure that consent is meaningful and informed. The Court further clarified that all collection, processing, storage, retention and sharing of personal data under the APAAR Scheme are subject to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), and that student information cannot be disclosed to private entities or third parties except in accordance with law. [ Abhishek Baxi v. Union of India , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1391 ] ARBITRATION | Exclusive jurisdiction clause can indicate seat of arbitration: SLP dismissed against Delhi HC order appointing Sole Arbitrator While considering a special leave petition challenging the order passed by the Delhi High Court appointing a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(5) read with Section 11(6) , Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , the Supreme Court held that there was no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. [ Sliksync Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Pidge Technologies (P) Ltd. , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1394 ] COURT VIDEOS REPOSTING | Inside the Order: Why and How Clipped, Out-of-Context Court Videos on Social Media were Curbed The Supreme Court gave an interim direction prohibiting extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing, or hosting of the audio-video recordings of the judicial proceedings on social media or any other digital platforms without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar Generals of the jurisdictional High Courts. [ Harshita Grover v. Union of India , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1393 ] ENVIRONMENTAL LAW | Can an Office Memorandum Create a Perpetual Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance Regime? The Supreme Court held that the observations in Common Cause v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 499 and Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati, (2020) 17 SCC 157 that ex post facto environmental clearance is impermissible, were context-specific and did not curtail the Central Governments power to issue a narrowly tailored, one-time amnesty notification under Section 3 , Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Environment Protection Act). [ Vanashakti v. Union of India , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1404 ] MEGHALAYA HONEYMOON MURDER CASE | Sonam Raghuvanshis bail set aside; fresh bail plea permitted if trial is not concluded within six months The Supreme Court held that a plea regarding the adequacy of the grounds of arrest cannot be invoked in a subsequent bail application after earlier bail rejections on merits. Distinguishing such a case from complete non-service of the grounds of arrest, the Court set aside the respondents bail while permitting a fresh bail application if the trial is not concluded within 6 months. [ State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuva