Supreme Court Settles a Recurring Environmental-Law Dispute: Land Allotment Is Not a Pre-Condition for Seeking Environmental Clearance In a significant ruling delivered on 07.09.2026, the Supreme Court of India (J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.) in M/s Punahchakran Pvt. Ltd. v. Indotech Waste Solution & Ors. , 2026 INSC 956, Civil Appeal No. 7367 of 2024, clarified several questions that regularly trouble project proponents, pollution control boards, and environmental litigators alike particularly in cases concerning Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities (CBWTFs). Key takeaways: 🔹 CPCB's Revised Guidelines, 2016 are mandatory non-publication in the Official Gazette does not dilute their binding force where publication on the CPCB's official website is otherwise reasonable and the parent statute/rules prescribe no fixed mode. 🔹 Land allotment ≠ pre-condition for Form 1 under Clause 6 of the EIA Notification, 2006, mere identification of a prospectiv...

Supreme Court's Verdict on Circumstantial Evidence In the intricate tapestry of evidence law, where shadows of doubt can unravel convictions, the Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark ruling that reaffirms the sanctity of procedural rigor. On October 6, 2025, in Nazim and Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2018), a bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.C. Sharma acquitted three appellants in a grisly child murder case, spotlighting the frailties of circumstantial evidence , the "last seen" theory, the absence of Test Identification Parades (TIP), and the pivotal role of scientific evidence . This decision, authored by Justice S.C. Sharma, serves as a clarion call for courts to tread cautiously, ensuring that suspicion never masquerades as proof. As India grapples with evolving forensic capabilities and witness vulnerabilities, this judgment underscores the enduring principles governing convictions built on inference rat...

As a practicing advocate at the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, I am pleased to share insights from a significant recent judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rohit Sharma Alias Raju v. State of Punjab (2025 NCPHHC 61133). This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to balancing legal rigor with constitutional protections, particularly under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.In this case, the petitioner, accused under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, for possessing a commercial quantity of Tramadol tablets, sought regular bail after nearly three years in custody. The court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil, granted bail, emphasizing that “bail is the rule and incarceration the exception.” Key factors influencing the decision included the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal history, the prolonged custody period (2 years, 11 months, and 3 days), and the anticipated delay in trial completion, with only 3 of 16 prosecution witnesses examine...