A week about proof rather than power. Three courts told the State what it must actually establish before a conviction or an arrest will stand, the GST Council proposed giving up the power to arrest altogether, and the Delhi High Court extended personality rights to deepfakes. The first week of October 2026, with what each item is worth in an answer.

What happened

An unusually coherent week, and the thread running through it is the burden of proof. Four of the ten items below turn on something the State or the claimant failed to establish, that is, a demand, a foundational fact, a written ground of arrest, a petition presented in person and in each the failure was fatal regardless of how strong the rest of the case looked. That is a theme an examiner can set directly, and a candidate who can name four authorities for it in one week is well ahead.

The second thread is the power to arrest. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that a boilerplate arrest memo is not in compliance with Article 22(1), and three days later the GST Council recommended removing the power of arrest from the goods and services tax law altogether.

A demand that is not proved sinks the whole corruption case

In Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 1084, decided on 05-Oct-2026, a Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar restated that proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is the sine qua non of offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Recovery of tainted money, standing alone, proves acceptance at best; without evidence of the demand, the prosecution fails, however, it completes the trap. The judgment applies the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) and the earlier line in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, which is what makes it a safe citation rather than a novelty.

Exam pointer The cleanest fresh authority available for a settled proposition. Use it the moment a question gives you a recovery without a proven demand.

Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not do the prosecution's work for it

In Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya, 2026 INSC 1102, decided on 09-Oct-2026, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and held that Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) shifts nothing onto an accused until the prosecution has first proved the foundational fact that brings it into play. In this case, it was that the deceased was last seen in his company. The provision allocates the burden of proving facts especially within a person's knowledge; it is not a licence to convict on an unexplained silence.

Exam pointer A model of the house rule in action: the Court is working the new Adhiniyam while the learning under the old Evidence Act carries straight across.

An election petition must be presented by the petitioner, in person

In V. Pon. Paneerselvam v. S. Regupathy, 2026 INSC 1092, decided on 07-Oct-2026, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar held that Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires the election petition to be presented by the petitioner himself, and that non-compliance is not a curable irregularity but attracts the mandatory dismissal for which Section 86(1) provides. A High Court rule requiring personal presentation was held to be a valid incident of the Court's own jurisdiction rather than a conflict with the statute.

Exam pointer A textbook mandatory-versus-directory holding on a provision that recurs in every election law paper. Note the reasoning: the consequence of breach is written into Section 86(1), which is what makes the requirement mandatory.

A widow's limited estate, and the law that governs when she dies

In Sultan Singh (Dead) Through LRs v. Financial Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi, 2026 INSC 1107, decided on 09-Oct-2026, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that succession to the holding of a female Bhumidhar under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is governed by the personal law in force on the date of her death, not the law in force when she first inherited. Because she died after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 commenced, Section 14(1) had already enlarged her limited estate into an absolute one, so the property devolved on her own heirs rather than reverting to her first husband's male line.

Exam pointer The crispest statement this year of the Section 14(1) enlargement rule together with the date-of-death principle. Both limbs are standard Judiciary mains material.

Several agreements, several arbitration clauses and the tribunal decides who is bound

In Shubham Equipment Private Limited v. Rothwell Water Company Limited, 2026 INSC 1098, decided on 08-Oct-2026, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana held that where parties execute several related instruments each carrying its own dispute-resolution clause, a dispute arising exclusively under one agreement goes to that agreement's clause and not to the clause in a connected contract. Whether a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement was left to the arbitral tribunal, the referral court under Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being confined to the existence of an agreement.

Exam pointer A Chief Justice's Bench on the referral court's narrow role. Use it with Cox and Kings on the group of companies doctrine — this decision is about which clause governs, that one about who is bound.

From the High Courts

A printed line in the arrest memo is not a ground of arrest

In Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1478 of 2025, decided on 06-Oct-2026, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court through Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra, held that a standard-form paragraph recording that the officer "explained the grounds of arrest" is not compliance with Article 22(1). The grounds must be furnished in writing, and far enough ahead of production before the Magistrate to be of use. The Court mapped the duty onto Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), and fixed the remedy precisely: the arrest and the remand fall, bail follows notwithstanding the restrictions in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, but the investigation, the charge-sheet and the trial survive.

Exam pointer The remedial boundary is the examinable part. A defective arrest does not acquit anybody, it undoes the custody, not the case. Use words like boilerplate arrest memo to impress the examiner.

Personality rights reach deepfakes

In Dr Devi Prasad Shetty v. Medicine Me, CS(COMM) 1053 of 2024, decided on 05-Oct-2026, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court held that the personality and publicity rights of a well-known person extend to his name, image, voice and likeness and are protectable against misuse by artificial intelligence, the injury being aggravated where fabricated videos put medical claims in a doctor's mouth and so mislead the public about their health. Unauthorised use of the associated registered marks infringed independently under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. A permanent injunction and takedown directions to the intermediaries followed, while the declaration that the marks are well known was reserved and damages were not pressed.

Exam pointer The current Indian authority on deepfakes and persona. Strong essay material for CLAT and for the technology-and-law questions now appearing in Law Optional.

The thirty-day notice under the Special Marriage Act can be dispensed with

In X v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026:AHC-LKO:71109-DB, decided on 06-Oct-2026, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow through Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, held that where an interfaith couple establishes a credible threat to life and liberty, the publication and objection machinery in Sections 6 and 7 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 may be dispensed with in that case, leaving the Marriage Officer to satisfy himself on identity, age and consent on the Section 5 notice. Police protection was directed before and after solemnisation.

Exam pointer Constitutional avoidance done properly: the Court read the notice regime down on Article 21 grounds in the individual case rather than striking it down. That distinction is worth a sentence of its own in an answer.

From the institutions

The GST Council proposes to give up the power to arrest

At its fifty-seventh meeting on 08-Oct-2026 the GST Council, the body constituted under Article 279A of the Constitution, recommended omitting Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 altogether, withdrawing the power of arrest under the goods and services tax. The threshold for prosecution would rise from one crore rupees to five crore, Section 132(1) would be recast to narrow the offences, and the general penalty under Section 125 would fall from twenty-five thousand rupees to ten thousand. These are recommendations only: they take effect when carried into amending legislation, notifications or circulars, as the Council's own release records.

Exam pointer The most litigated coercive provision in the GST law, proposed for deletion. A ready example for any question on decriminalising economic offences but write "recommended" not "abolished".

Three High Courts get acting Chief Justices under Article 223

The elevations reported in last week's capsule have produced their consequence. By notifications dated 05-Oct-2026 the President appointed acting Chief Justices under Article 223 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to appoint a Judge of a High Court to act as its Chief Justice when the office is vacant. Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre took charge at the Delhi High Court with effect from 06-Oct-2026, and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak at the Gujarat High Court. The same batch appointed an additional Judge of the Delhi High Court under Article 224(1), so the two provisions can be read side by side.

Exam pointer Article 223 is a prelims staple and this is a dated, live illustration. Keep it apart from Article 126, which is the equivalent for the Supreme Court.

What aspirants must remember

Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) never relieves the prosecution of proving its case; it operates only once the foundational fact that engages it has been established.
Where a statute writes the consequence of non-compliance into itself, as Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does, the requirement is mandatory, and the court has no discretion to excuse the breach.
A defective arrest and an unsound prosecution are different things. Breach of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and the remand and will support bail; it does not touch the investigation, the charge-sheet or the trial.

Where this can be asked

Exam vertical	How it can come up
Judiciary (prelims and mains)	Very high. The Section 14(1) succession point, the mandatory-versus-directory holding on the election petition, the burden of proof under the new Adhiniyam and the arrest memo ruling are all directly examinable, and all four are recent enough to reward the candidate who knows them.
UPSC Law Optional	High. Article 22(1) and Article 21 for Paper I, together with Article 223; the corruption, evidence and arbitration items for Paper II; the deepfake judgment for the technology and law questions now being set.
AIBE	High. The Prevention of Corruption Act, the Special Marriage Act and the arbitration item sit squarely on the subject list, and the GST proposal is standard taxation awareness.
CLAT and other law entrances	Moderate to high. The deepfake judgment and the GST Council proposal are strong current affairs; the Special Marriage Act case works well as legal reasoning.

Putting this in an answer

"The courts are presently insisting on proof rather than inference: in October 2026 the Supreme Court held in Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand that a recovery without a proved demand will not sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and days later in Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya that Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 shifts nothing onto an accused until the foundational fact is established."

A sentence of that shape works in any answer on the burden of proof, because it does what a list of section numbers cannot, it shows a direction of travel and dates it. The method is to take two decisions from the same fortnight that answer the same question in different statutory settings and put them in one sentence. The caution this week is the GST item: the Council recommends, it does not legislate, and an answer that says the power of arrest under the goods and services tax has been abolished will be marked wrong.

Source

Supreme Court of India, full judgment texts: Ajit Kumar (2026 INSC 1084), V. Pon. Paneerselvam (2026 INSC 1092), Shubham Equipment (2026 INSC 1098), Charming Rupon (2026 INSC 1102) and Sultan Singh (2026 INSC 1107). All five are marked Reportable.

High Court judgment texts: Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani v. Union of India, Patna High Court; Dr Devi Prasad Shetty v. Medicine Me, CS(COMM) 1053 of 2024, High Court of Delhi; X v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026:AHC-LKO:71109-DB, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.

GST Council, press release of the fifty-seventh meeting dated 08-Oct-2026: gstcouncil.gov.in. Acting Chief Justice appointments: the High Court of Delhi at delhihighcourt.nic.in and the High Court of Gujarat at gujarathighcourt.nic.in.

Current Affairs