Week of April 20–26: SC Holds a DNA Test Trumps the §112 Legitimacy Presumption

Welcome to this week’s issue of the Indian Legal Brief (ILB). Here are the judgments, orders, regulatory changes, and developments that matter to your practice — without the noise.

Here’s what happened this week.

Supreme Court Highlights

Sabarimala Reference: Nine-Judge Bench Reserves Verdict

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi — April 21–22, 2026

The nine-judge Constitution Bench concluded oral arguments in the Sabarimala reference this week. Parties opposing the 2018 judgment had argued between April 14 and 16; rejoinders were heard on April 21, and the amicus curiae concluded submissions on April 22.

The reference covers seven framed questions on the scope of Articles 25 and 26, the doctrine of essential religious practices, the meaning of “morality” in those provisions, and whether non-believers can challenge a religion’s practices through PIL. The verdict will travel beyond Sabarimala — 66 tagged matters include Muslim women’s entry to mosques, Parsi women’s right to enter a Fire Temple after marrying a non-Parsi, and the practice of female genital mutilation among the Dawoodi Bohra community.

Why it matters: The verdict will set the framework for resolving conflicts between individual religious freedom (Article 25) and denominational autonomy (Article 26). Practitioners with matters tagged to the reference, or pending personal-law challenges, should prepare for a wide-ranging restatement of essential religious practices doctrine.

DNA Test Excluding Paternity Prevails Over Section 112 Presumption

Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu [2026 INSC 399] Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh — April 21, 2026

The Supreme Court held that a man cannot be directed to pay maintenance for a child where a court-ordered DNA test conclusively excludes biological paternity, even if the child was born during the subsistence of marriage.

The Court applied the Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik line of authority and held that an unchallenged DNA report excluding paternity displaces the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. The presumption is rebuttable; conclusive scientific evidence rebuts it.

Although it denied maintenance, the Bench directed the Department of Women and Child Development, NCT of Delhi, to assess the child’s living conditions and ensure a minimum standard of living through state welfare measures.

Why it matters: Family law practitioners handling Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS maintenance applications should note both limbs of the holding — DNA evidence will displace the marriage presumption where unchallenged, but the Court is prepared to use Article 142 to route the child toward statutory welfare protection. The decision is likely to influence pending paternity-linked maintenance disputes and reopen drafting choices in DNA test applications.

Supreme Court Mandates Time-Bound Rollout of Minimum ICU Standards

April 23, 2026

The Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to prepare a “realistic and practical” action plan within three weeks for implementing minimum ICU standards drawn from a consensus-based foundational document already shared with health departments.

The Court directed Additional Chief Secretaries / Secretaries (Health) to convene meetings within a week and identify five priority areas — particularly on manpower, equipment, and logistics — that are “absolutely essential and mandatory.” The Bench also directed creation of a GPS-based hospital locator so that members of the public can identify the nearest facility and the services available, and impleaded the Indian Nursing Council and the Para Medical Council of India, asking them to file plans on training, courses, and curricula for ICU nursing staff.

Why it matters: Hospital operators, healthcare counsel advising private and public providers, and consumer-protection practitioners should track the action-plan filings — they will define the compliance baseline for ICU infrastructure and staffing across States, and will likely feature in negligence and consumer cases involving critical care.

”A Chief Minister Cannot Put Democracy in Peril”: SC on ED v. Mamata Banerjee

Bench: Justices P.K. Mishra and N.V. Anjaria — April 23, 2026

The Supreme Court continued hearing the Enforcement Directorate’s Article 32 petition arising from the alleged obstruction of a PMLA search at the I-PAC office in Kolkata on January 8, 2026. The State of West Bengal contested maintainability, arguing that the ED is not a “citizen” capable of invoking Part III rights and that a Centre–State functionary dispute cannot proceed under Article 32.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that authorised search officers — wrongfully confined, with documents and storage devices removed — were victims of personal offences under the BNS, giving them standing in their individual capacity. The Bench observed that the matter is not framed as a Centre–State dispute and that “a Chief Minister of any State cannot just walk in in the midst of an inquiry or investigation and put democracy in peril.”

Why it matters: The maintainability ruling will shape whether central investigative agencies can route obstruction grievances directly to the Supreme Court under Article 32, bypassing the writ jurisdiction of High Courts. The substantive question — what amounts to obstruction by a constitutional functionary, and what remedy follows — has implications well beyond this matter.

Article 227: High Courts Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence as Courts of First Appeal

Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh v. Natwarlal Shamji Gada [2026 INSC 416] Bench: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar — April 26, 2026

The Supreme Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not authorise a High Court to reassess material considered by subordinate courts. The case arose from an eviction matter in which the High Court had reweighed the evidence on merits and substituted its view for that of the appellate court.

Justice Chandurkar, writing for the Bench, held that where the subordinate court has taken a plausible view, interference under Article 227 is impermissible — even where another view is possible. The judgment also addressed the related question of bona fide need claims by legal heirs continuing the landlord’s case after death, holding that legal representatives can pursue such claims.

Why it matters: Litigators routinely framing Article 227 petitions as a back-door appellate route should expect tighter scrutiny. The decision strengthens the line that 227 is for jurisdictional error, not merits reappraisal.

Thazhambur Land Dispute: Third-Party Purchasers Cannot Be Denied Basic Amenities

The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu v. S. Raja [2026 INSC 407] April 22, 2026

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court vacated a long-standing status quo order in a batch of SLPs concerning land transactions in Thazhambur village, Kancheepuram district. The Court held that occupants of villas and flats already constructed and sold on the land cannot be denied basic amenities by State authorities, and that procedural delays cannot be used to withhold those amenities from third-party purchasers.

Why it matters: Real estate practitioners advising on title-encumbered developments — particularly where State authorities are litigating ownership decades after sale — can point to this order to protect end-buyers’ access to municipal services pending final determination.

Conflict Referred: Can High Courts Exempt Convicts From Surrender Before Hearing Revision/Appeal?

Sudhir Khaitan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe — April 25, 2026

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question of whether a High Court can use its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to exempt a convicted person from surrendering before entertaining a criminal revision or appeal, in the face of High Court rules that mandate surrender.

The Bench noted conflicting positions taken by coordinate benches on the interplay between procedural rules requiring surrender and the inherent power of the High Court.

Why it matters: Criminal appellate practitioners advising convicted clients on suspension of sentence and surrender mechanics should hold off on relying on the more permissive line of authority until the larger Bench rules. The reference also matters for High Court rule-making — it tests how far procedural rules can constrain inherent powers.

Other Notable SC Orders This Week

NCLT delays flagged — A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, hearing a matter arising out of AVJ Developers / IIFL Finance, took note of a resolution-plan approval pending nearly two years and directed the NCLT Principal Bench and IBBI to file nationwide data on pending applications. Next hearing on April 29.
SCBA elections — VP post for women — The Court directed that the Vice President position in the upcoming SCBA elections be reserved for women candidates.
Larger Bench reference: live-in and rape charges — A Bench questioned whether a break-up after a live-in relationship can attract rape charges, signalling possible reconsideration of the consent-vitiated-by-promise-of-marriage line.
Christian Michel James — Supreme Court took up his petition challenging continued detention in the AgustaWestland case.
Pawan Khera — Approached the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court declined anticipatory bail.
Suo motu cognisance — The Court took suo motu cognisance of the stabbing of a lawyer by her husband.
CJI Surya Kant — Spoke in favour of institutionalising the engagement of retired judges as arbitrators and law teachers.

Insolvency & Corporate

Supreme Court Calls for Nationwide Data on NCLT Resolution-Plan Backlogs

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, hearing a matter arising from AVJ Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. — where a Rs 85 crore claim by IIFL Finance has been the subject of insolvency proceedings since 2020 — took note of an instance in which a resolution plan has awaited NCLT approval for nearly two years. The Court directed the NCLT Principal Bench at New Delhi and IBBI to place on record nationwide data on pending resolution-plan applications and the duration of pendency.

The next hearing is scheduled for April 29, when the Court is expected to consider whether broader judicial directions are needed to address systemic delay.

Why it matters: The hearing creates an evidentiary record of NCLT pendency that may inform the next round of IBC reform and may support stay/expedition applications in pending CIRPs. Counsel acting for resolution applicants and CoCs facing protracted approvals should track the April 29 hearing.

Resolution Plan Approvals This Week

NCLT benches approved resolution plans for SDF Industries Limited, Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., and Indrajit Power Pvt. Ltd. on April 22, and for Jaryal Motor Finance Company Limited and Imperial Tubes Pvt. Ltd. on April 24.

Legislative & Regulatory Watch

IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2026 — Key Provisions in Force

With the IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2026 having cleared Parliament earlier this month, practitioners should re-paper their CIRP and appeal templates. Among the operative changes:

NCLAT timeline: Appeals must be disposed of within three months of receipt.
Resolution plan definition: Expressly permits sale of one or more assets of the corporate debtor through one or more plans, codifying what had been litigated under the prior framework.
Dissenting financial creditors: The minimum legal entitlement of a dissenting financial creditor has been revised.

April 1 Regulatory Changes — A Reminder

The SEBI and RBI changes effective from the start of this financial year remain bedded in. Practitioners advising broking, MF, and bank-broker lending relationships should confirm they have updated documentation for: SEBI’s new mutual fund framework (40 categories, revised TER/BER), the algo trading framework (mandatory algo IDs, order tagging), and RBI’s Commercial Banks Credit Facilities Amendment Directions, 2026 (fully secured lending to capital market intermediaries; prohibition on bank funding for proprietary trading by brokers).

Access to Justice

Challenge to AoR Election Voter List

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the exclusion of newly registered Advocates-on-Record from the voter list for the SCAORA elections scheduled for April 29, 2026.

What We’re Watching Next Week

Sabarimala reference — Verdict reserved; date of pronouncement awaited
NCLT delays — SC hearing on April 29; nationwide data filings expected
ED v. Mamata Banerjee — Maintainability ruling awaited
SCAORA elections — April 29; voter list challenge to be decided in time-bound manner
Live-in / rape charges — Larger Bench reference framing expected

That’s all for this week. If a colleague would find this useful, forward them this page — or better yet, ask them to subscribe.

SC Holds a DNA Test Trumps the §112 Legitimacy Presumption