14 October 2026
The Delhi Police de-notified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site through a circular issued on 12 October 2026.
Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground East Delhi have been designated as the new protest venues in the capital.
This was told to the Delhi High Court by the Additional Solicitor General, who said the de-notification followed Supreme Court orders of the previous week asking the Union Government to consider another venue.
The disclosure came in Uday Bhanu Chib v. Union of India, a plea by the Indian Youth Congress president before Justice Amit Mahajan on 13 October 2026, against the rejection of permission for a demonstration against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The Indian Youth Congress had applied to the Delhi Police on 25 September for a peaceful demonstration of about 100 to 150 people; the rejection was communicated on 1 October.
The Court issued notice on three of the prayers, including a challenge to the conditions imposed under the 2022 Standing Order, and listed the matter for 17 November 2026.
Circular date:
12 October 2026
New protest venues:
Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground, CBD Ground East Delhi
Case:
Uday Bhanu Chib v. Union of India
Judge:
Justice Amit Mahajan
Next hearing:
17 November 2026
Why it matters for exams: Jantar Mantar's status as the capital's designated protest site, and the three grounds that replace it, is a current-affairs fact about Delhi that also tests Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).
Kerala PSCUPSC
In plain words
De-notify To withdraw an official designation — To cancel by order the official status a place or thing had been given.
ASG Additional Solicitor General — A senior law officer who appears in court for the Union Government.
13 October 2026
Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court has held that allotting public grounds for Ramleela on a first come, first serve basis cannot be countenanced.
The case is Rays of New Beginning Foundation v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Ors., neutral citation 2026:DHC:9064, reported on 13 October 2026.
The petitioner had held the Ramleela Dussehra Mahotsav at Chunk-C Ground, Shivaji Place, Raja Garden, New Delhi in 2023 and 2024, and its application for 2026 was rejected under guidelines that called for first come, first serve allotment.
The Court said the policy is marred with blemishes, that no notice or publication had set out a specific application window, and that preference for societies which hosted the festivities in earlier years could create a de facto monopoly.
The first respondent, the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, was directed to conduct a reasoned review of the applicable instructions and to frame comprehensive guidelines each year for allotting grounds for Ramleela and similar cultural or religious events, before allotment begins.
The Court did not cancel the existing 2026 allotment because the festivities were about to start, and disposed of the petition.
Judge:
Justice Amit Mahajan
Citation:
2026:DHC:9064
First respondent:
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board
Ground in dispute:
Chunk-C Ground, Shivaji Place, Raja Garden, New Delhi
Why it matters for exams: DUSIB is one of Delhi's own statutory bodies, and a court holding a first come, first serve allotment policy unreasonable is a clean administrative-law point.
Kerala PSCUPSC
In plain words
DUSIB Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board — A Delhi government board that handles shelters, slum areas and certain public lands in the capital.
De facto monopoly A monopoly in practice though not in law — A situation where one party in practice controls something even without a legal right to do so.
14 October 2026
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma of the Delhi High Court issued notice on a public interest litigation against dairy analogues being sold as paneer.
The case is Ridhima Singh & Anr v. Union of India & Ors, heard on Wednesday, 14 October 2026.
The Court sought responses from the Union Government, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the Delhi Government and the Delhi Department of Food Safety.
The petition says paneer is a standardised dairy product under the food safety framework, while dairy analogues may contain ingredients wholly or partly from non-milk sources, and that consumers ordering paneer dishes in hotels, restaurants, catering units, eateries and cloud kitchens have no practical way to tell which they are getting.
The challenge is to analogues sold, supplied or served as paneer without adequate disclosure, not to lawfully made analogues in general. Counsel cited the FSSAI Regulations of 2011 on food production standards and food additives.
The petition cites measures on analogue or non-dairy paneer in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab and Chhattisgarh, including a Punjab order prohibiting analogue paneer for a set period.
It also refers to an enforcement action by the Delhi Food Safety Department at Okhla Sabzi Mandi in August 2026, in which about 508 kg of suspected spurious paneer was destroyed.
The petition seeks compliance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and coordinated surveillance, inspection, sampling and testing.
Bench:
Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma
Case:
Ridhima Singh & Anr v. Union of India & Ors
Notice issued to:
Union Government, FSSAI, Delhi Government, Delhi Department of Food Safety
Delhi enforcement action:
About 508 kg of suspected spurious paneer destroyed at Okhla Sabzi Mandi in August 2026
States cited:
Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab, Chhattisgarh
Why it matters for exams: FSSAI, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the idea of a standardised food product versus a dairy analogue are all directly examinable, and the Delhi enforcement figure anchors the item.
Kerala PSCUPSC
In plain words
FSSAI Food Safety and Standards Authority of India — The national regulator for food standards, labelling and safety.
Dairy analogue A product resembling a dairy product but partly or wholly non-milk — A food made to look and work like a dairy product using ingredients that are not milk.
13 October 2026
Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court has held that strictly applying the restrictions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 may not be justified where the seized quantity is only marginally above the commercial threshold.
The case is Sunny v. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appl. 2008/2026, with the order dated 13 October 2026.
The seizure was 259.3 grams of morphine, against a commercial quantity threshold of 250 grams under the NDPS Act. The FIR was registered under Sections 8 and 21 of the Act.
The Court granted regular bail under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
It reasoned that the applicant had been in custody since 6 July 2025, that the investigation was complete, that the chargesheet had been filed and prosecution evidence was about to begin.
The Court relied on Article 21 and on the principle that undue delay in trial can justify bail even under Section 37, and said such cases call for a more nuanced assessment.
Judge:
Justice Amit Bansal
Case:
Sunny v. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appl. 2008/2026
Seizure:
259.3 grams of morphine
Commercial quantity threshold:
250 grams
In custody since:
6 July 2025
Why it matters for exams: Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the small, medium and commercial quantity thresholds are standard questions, and here the exact figures of 259.3 grams against 250 grams make the point concrete.
Kerala PSCUPSC
In plain words
NDPS Act Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — India's law on narcotic drugs, which fixes small, medium and commercial quantities.
Section 37 Bar on bail for commercial quantity offences — The NDPS provision that makes bail harder where the quantity involved is commercial.
14 October 2026
Justice Anish Dayal of the Delhi High Court has held that compensation cannot rest on the assumption that people stop contributing with age.
The judgment in Ganga Devi v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors., neutral citation 2026:DHC:9013, is dated 14 October 2026.
The claimant, a 74-year-old homemaker, was hit while boarding a bus at Samaspur bus stand, Pandav Nagar, on 19 February 2019. Both her legs were crushed under the rear wheels and she suffered 74 per cent permanent disability, including a below-knee amputation of the left leg.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Karkardooma Courts had awarded ₹14,42,000 with 7.5 per cent interest on 23 December 2023, granting nothing for loss of income on the reasoning that a 74-year-old could not be presumed to perform household services.
The High Court recomputed the total at ₹20,79,307, an enhancement of ₹6,37,307. It fixed notional income at ₹16,962 a month, the Delhi minimum wage for a skilled worker, set functional disability at 50 per cent and applied a multiplier of 5.
It awarded ₹1,30,000 for a prosthetic limb, ₹75,000 for maintenance, ₹5,00,000 for attendant charges and ₹1,00,000 for pain and suffering.
The Court relied on the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India and HelpAge India data showing older women continue caregiving and household work, and held that the principle of valuing unpaid care has no age ceiling.
Enhanced total:
₹20,79,307
Enhancement:
₹6,37,307
Notional income used:
₹16,962 per month, Delhi minimum wage for a skilled worker
Permanent disability:
74 per cent
Multiplier:
5
Why it matters for exams: The Delhi minimum wage for a skilled worker, the multiplier method and the valuation of unpaid household work are all examinable, and the figures are exact.
Kerala PSCUPSC
In plain words
MACT Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — The tribunal that decides compensation claims arising out of road accidents.
Multiplier Factor used to capitalise annual loss — A number by which yearly loss of income is multiplied to arrive at compensation.
Notional income An assumed income for a person with no proved earnings — An income figure the court assumes where the claimant has no proved earnings, such as a homemaker.
10 October 2026
Justice Girish Kathpalia of the Delhi High Court has issued directions to all criminal trial courts in Delhi on when an accused may be declared an absconder or proclaimed offender.
The judgment in Tajinder Mohan Singh v. The State (Government of NCT of Delhi), neutral citation 2026:DHC:8954, was reported on 10 October 2026.
The petitioner was an accused in a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Process reports said he had not lived or worked at either of the two addresses given in the complaint for about four years, yet the trial court ordered proclamation at those addresses, declared him an absconder and directed an FIR under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court quashed that FIR and all consequential proceedings.
The Court directed that courts must not declare an accused an absconder because of case backlog, and must have cogent grounds to believe the accused is deliberately avoiding summons or warrants.
Complainants must file an affidavit at the start of a complaint case giving the accused's correct residential address and any other addresses for electronic service.
The presiding judge must personally examine the process server's or police official's report and record reasons in writing before finding that service was avoided.
The Registrar General was directed to send the judgment to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi and to the Delhi Judicial Academy, and to circulate it among criminal trial courts in Delhi.
Judge:
Justice Girish Kathpalia
Citation:
2026:DHC:8954
FIR quashed under:
Section 174A, Indian Penal Code
Underlying complaint:
Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act
Circulation ordered to:
All Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi and the Delhi Judicial Academy
Why it matters for exams: Section 174A IPC, Section 82 CrPC and the corresponding BNS and BNSS provisions on proclamation are high-value criminal procedure topics, and here they come with concrete judicial guidelines.
Kerala PSCUPSC
In plain words
Proclaimed offender A person declared by court to be absconding — An accused whom a court has publicly proclaimed to be avoiding its process.
BNSS Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — The criminal procedure code that replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure.