New Delhi | February 18, 2026
LENTIS LEGALIS BREAKING

The Supreme Court of India has allowed applications seeking permission to file Review Petition(s) in a long-pending matter arising out of Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989. Importantly, applications requesting that the Review Petition be listed in open court with oral hearing have also been allowed, recognizing the significance of the issues involved. The review petition has been filed by Advocate Chandrasen Yadav, through Advocate-on-Record Kunal Yadav.

The order was passed by a Bench comprising The Chief Justice of India, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The Court has issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 26 February 2026, directing them to respond to the Review Petition. The Review Petition has also been tagged with Writ Petition (C) No. 1110 of 2025 (Diary No. 52914 of 2025 – Bhumika Trust) to ensure comprehensive and consistent adjudication of connected issues.

In the Writ Petition (C) No. 1110 of 2025 (Diary No. 52914 of 2025 – Bhumika Trust vs. Union of India), the Supreme Court of India has already invited suggestions from law universities across the country on the issue of mandatory three-year legal practice as a prerequisite for entry into judicial service. With the Review Petitions now permitted and ordered to be heard in open court, the forthcoming hearing will address the wider constitutional, institutional, and practical issues raised both in the Review Petitions and in the writ petition filed by Bhumika Trust, enabling a comprehensive reconsideration of the policy’s impact on law students, judicial recruitment, and access to justice.

The Review Petition assails the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 20 May 2025 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989, challenging the direction mandating three years’ minimum practice at the Bar for entry into the Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre. The petitioner, Chandrasen Yadav argues that the decision is unsupported by empirical data, impact studies, or objective evaluation, and rests largely on subjective opinions of certain High Courts while ignoring dissenting views of several States and High Courts. It is contended that no credible evidence establishes that fresh law graduates perform poorly as judges or that prior advocacy experience necessarily enhances judicial competence, particularly when rigorous competitive examinations and structured judicial training exist. The petition further highlights that the judgment selectively overlooks key recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission, earlier binding precedent in All India Judges Association (1993), and the role of institutional training as an alternative to mandatory practice. The uniform, nationwide imposition of the rule is alleged to be arbitrary, exclusionary, and disproportionate, adversely impacting economically weaker sections, SC/ST/OBC candidates, recent graduates, and those working in law firms, PSUs, or corporate roles. It is also argued that the absence of a transitional mechanism, the impractical certificate requirement, and the coercive nature of forcing graduates into litigation practice infringe Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner asserts that by effectively prescribing eligibility norms without legislative backing or inclusive consultation, the ruling raises serious constitutional concerns regarding arbitrariness, equal opportunity, and access to judicial service, warranting reconsideration by the Supreme Court of India.

The matter is now scheduled for further proceedings upon return of notice on 26.02.2026.

Lentis Legalis
New Delhi | 9 February 2026

In a significant ruling clarifying the law on anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court of India held that once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily cannot be restricted till the filing of the charge sheet, unless exceptional circumstances are recorded. The Court set aside an order of the High Court of Allahabad which had denied continued protection to an accused after completion of investigation.

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1536 of 2026, titled Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

The appellant, Sumit, is the brother-in-law (devar) of a deceased woman who had been married to the appellant’s brother for about seven months prior to her death.

• The deceased died under mysterious circumstances at her matrimonial home.
• An FIR bearing No. 560/2024 was registered at Akbarpur Police Station, Kanpur Dehat, under:
  • Sections 80(2) / 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
  • Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
• The FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased, alleging dowry-related harassment and death.

Apprehending arrest, the appellant initially approached the Allahabad High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Proceedings Before the High Court

First Anticipatory Bail Order

In Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3992/2025, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. However, the relief was restricted only till the filing of the police charge sheet.

The High Court:

• Accepted that there were no specific allegations against the appellant.
• Noted that he was implicated largely due to his relationship as a brother-in-law.
• Observed that he had no criminal antecedents.
• Still imposed a time-bound limitation, terminating protection once the investigation concluded.

Second Anticipatory Bail Application

After the charge sheet was filed, the appellant again sought anticipatory bail. This time, the High Court rejected the application without identifying any new aggravating circumstance or change in the factual matrix.

This rejection led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether anticipatory bail can be restricted till the filing of the charge sheet as a matter of routine?
2. Whether filing of a charge sheet automatically extinguishes the protection of anticipatory bail?
3. Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the second anticipatory bail application without recording special reasons?

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Discussion

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the practice of granting time-bound anticipatory bail orders.

No Rationale for Automatic Expiry

The Bench observed:

• Once a court, after considering the nature of allegations, role of the accused, and overall facts, exercises discretion in favour of the accused, there must be strong and special reasons to subsequently deny protection.
• Merely because the charge sheet is filed, the anticipatory bail does not automatically lapse.

The Court questioned the logic behind such restrictions, noting:

“Either the Court grants anticipatory bail or declines it. Having granted it after due consideration, there was no justification to limit it till the filing of the charge sheet.”

Reliance on Constitution Bench Precedent

The Bench reaffirmed the law laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), holding that:

• Anticipatory bail need not have a fixed expiry period.
• Duration of bail is a matter of judicial discretion, not procedural milestones.
• Arbitrary timelines undermine personal liberty.

The Court also relied upon Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, reiterating that:

• Anticipatory bail should not hinge upon investigation stages like filing of charge sheet or taking cognizance.

Conditions, Not Time Limits, Are the Safeguard

Addressing concerns of misuse, the Court clarified that:

• Risks can be mitigated through conditions of cooperation, attendance, and non-tampering of evidence.
• If circumstances change, the prosecution is always at liberty to seek cancellation or modification of bail under law.
• However, expiry clauses at inception are legally unsustainable.

Clarification on Addition of Graver Offences

Before concluding, the Court addressed an important legal scenario:
What happens if new, serious non-bailable offences are added after bail is granted?

Relying on Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019) and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi (2001), the Court held:

• Addition of graver cognizable and non-bailable offences may disentitle the accused from earlier bail.
• In such cases:
  • Courts must apply their mind afresh.
  • Investigating agencies may seek custody through appropriate judicial orders.
  • Arrest cannot be mechanical and must follow judicial authorization.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:

• Set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court rejecting anticipatory bail.
• Directed that In the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer. The appellant shall thereafter appear before the Trial Court and furnish fresh bail bonds. Directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court for placement before the Hon’ble Chief Justice.

Click Below to read the Judgment
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/3119/3119_2026_5_32_68496_Judgement_09-Feb-2026.pdf

Lentis Legalis
New Delhi | February 3, 2026

The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the appointment of five retired judges as ad hoc judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a period of two years, invoking Article 224A of the Constitution of India.

The decision was taken in the Collegium meeting held on 3rd February, 2026, and was communicated through a resolution titled “Statement dated 3rd February reg. appointment of ad hoc Judges in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.”

As per the Collegium resolution, the following retired judges have been approved for appointment as ad hoc judges:

1. Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
2. Justice Mohd. Aslam
3. Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
4. Justice Renu Agarwal
5. Justice Jyotsna Sharma

These appointments are to be made in terms of Article 224A of the Constitution, subject to the consent of the appointees and approval of the President of India.

Article 224A of the Constitution of India empowers the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the prior consent of the President, to request a retired judge of that or any other High Court to sit and act as a judge of the High Court.

While such ad hoc judges enjoy the same jurisdiction, powers, and privileges as regular judges, they are not deemed to be permanent judges of the High Court. Their allowances are determined by a Presidential order, and their appointment is contingent upon their consent.

The provision gained renewed significance following the Supreme Court’s directions in April 2021, issued to address the unprecedented backlog of cases pending before High Courts across the country.

In Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court invoked Article 224A and laid down guidelines for appointing ad hoc judges, emphasizing that such appointments should ordinarily be made after genuine efforts to fill regular judicial vacancies.

The Court permitted the use of Article 224A where:

• Vacancies exceeded 20% of sanctioned strength
• Certain categories of cases were pending for over five years
• More than 10% of total pending cases were older than five years
• The disposal rate was lower than the rate of fresh filings

In a later development, the Supreme Court relaxed several conditions imposed in its 2021 ruling, acknowledging the gravity of pendency, particularly in criminal cases.

A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant ruled that:

• Chief Justices of High Courts may recommend retired judges for ad hoc appointments
• Each High Court may appoint 2 to 5 ad hoc judges, subject to a ceiling of 10% of the sanctioned strength
• Ad hoc judges shall hear criminal appeals, sitting in benches headed by a serving High Court judge

The Supreme Court also kept in abeyance certain restrictive conditions laid down earlier, including:

• The requirement that vacancies must exceed 20% before ad hoc appointments
• The restriction preventing ad hoc judges from sitting on regular benches

The Court declined to prescribe a fixed timeline for appointments but stressed that the process should begin without delay.

The ruling was prompted by alarming pendency figures, with over 60 lakh cases pending in High Courts nationwide, including nearly 20 lakh criminal appeals.

T