Legal News for September 2026
Lawyers can represent senior citizens in tribunals
The Calcutta High Court has declared Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, holding that parties can be represented by advocates before tribunals and appellate tribunals constituted under the 2007 Act.
Justice Krishna Rao passed the order on a petition by 63-year-old Kripal Singh Khurana, who is involved in a dispute with his wife and son over residential property. Khurana had approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking eviction of his wife and son, restoration of peaceful possession of his flat and protection of his life and property.
On April 21, 2026, Khurana appeared before the Tribunal with his advocate. However, the Tribunal refused to allow him to be represented through counsel, relying on Section 17, which bars legal practitioners from representing parties before the Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal.
The High Court noted that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which gives advocates the right to practise before tribunals legally authorised to take evidence, came into force on June 15, 2011, after the 2007 Act had been enacted.
The court observed that Maintenance Tribunals have powers to take evidence on oath, enforce attendance of witnesses and compel discovery and production of documents. They are also deemed Civil Courts for specified purposes. Given these powers, the court held that the right of advocates to practise before such tribunals cannot be taken away by Section 17.
The court, following earlier rulings of the Punjab and Haryana, Kerala and Delhi High Courts, declared Section 17 ultra vires Section 30 and held that parties are entitled to be represented by advocates before the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and courts constituted under the 2007 Act.
Consumer forums can’t be mere rehab centres for retd: SC
Flagging slow disposal in consumer forums, Supreme Court said the consumer dispute redressal commissions cannot be the place for rehabilitation of retired judges and bureaucrats and said a detailed pan-India performance evaluation exercise of these quasi-judicial bodies is urgently needed.
In a case relating to pay and allowances of members of consumer forums across the country of which the court had taken suo motu cognisance five years ago, a bench of CJI Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it came across a disturbing news report narrating the plight of consumers who are denied a hearing for four years. “If this is the way the consumer forums function, what benefit is it for the consumers who are mandated to approach the specialized quasi-judicial bodyRs. The members of consumer forums are asking for more and more facilities and perks. Vacancies and infrastructure in these forums remain a cause for concern. But are the forums justifying their salaries, perks and facilitiesRs. The purpose of constituting these commissions appears to have been frustrated,” the CJI said.
Referring to the news item, SC said these issues have highlighted the poor disposal rate of consumer commissions including the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
SC suggests making ‘digital arrest’ a separate offence
The Supreme Court indicated that the Centre should consider introducing a specific offence of “digital arrest” under criminal law, with stringent penalties, and empower authorities to freeze the assets of accused persons once a prima facie case is established through reasoned material.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan was hearing suo motu proceedings initiated to address the growing incidence of digital arrest scams and other cyber-enabled frauds.
Referring to the existing legal framework, the Bench observed that while such offences may involve elements of extortion or robbery, a dedicated statutory provision may be necessary to deal with the evolving nature of the crime.
“Do you have to define formally the case of digital arrest in penal laws? It has elements of extortion, robbery. Do you need to define this as a standalone offence with serious consequences, along with a provision that when something is found against an accused… his assets will be frozen,” CJI Kant remarked.
Justice Bagchi also noted the emerging threat posed by deepfake technology and said legislative intervention was necessary to address such offences. “We have deepfakes now. It can be used for cheating and impersonation. You fight with the given tooth, but you need to chisel it as well. Under Article 142, we cannot define a crime,” the judge observed.
SC orders wider crackdown on cyberfraud
The Supreme Court issued a series of nationwide directions, asking the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) within four weeks for freezing all mule accounts linked to cyber-related offences, including accounts used to receive proceeds from digital arrest scams and extortion.
The apex court also directed the Centre, states and Union Territories (UTs) to operationalise grievance redressal and money restoration modules in their respective jurisdictions, along with the ‘e-Zero FIR’ registration system, to ensure prompt registration of complaints relating to cyber frauds instead of waiting for jurisdictional police officers to register an FIR.
States and UTs were further directed to give wide publicity to the grievance redressal and money restoration modules, which will function under the overall supervision of the ministry of home affairs’ Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C).
The court also directed the Registrars General of High Courts across the country to place these measures before the respective High Courts and other adjudicating authorities dealing with the freezing of bank accounts in cyber fraud cases to facilitate effective handling of such matters.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the directions in the suo motu proceedings initiated last year following letter petitions addressed to the Chief Justice of India and public interest litigations concerning the rising incidence of digital arrest scams.
The apex court said the authorities concerned must take all necessary and prompt steps to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases involving the freezing of bank accounts arising from cyber-related financial frauds.
It further directed that the inter-departmental committee constituted by the Union government should hold regular consultations with officials of the RBI, banks and other intermediaries to consolidate technological measures aimed at preventing digital arrest scams, recovering defrauded amounts, ensuring quick and timely investigations, and creating a “shared liability and victim compensation frameworks.”
Government to introduce Bill to repalce 125-year-old law on presenting bank records as evidence in court
The government is replacing a colonial-era law with one that seeks to preserve access to banking evidence while protecting banks from unnecessary legal proceedings, shifting the emphasis to better-targeted judicial oversight rather than unrestricted access to banking records.
To this end, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman will introduce the Bankers’ Books Evidence Bill, 2026 in Parliament, replacing the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, which has governed the production of banking records in courts for over 125 years.
According to the List of Business for August 3, the proposed legislation seeks to provide “for law relating to evidence with respect to bankers’ books and to align it with contemporary digital banking practices.”
The Bill comes against the backdrop of the rapid expansion of digital banking and the sharp rise in cyber-enabled financial frauds, including online scams and so-called “digital arrest” cases. It seeks to modernise the legal framework governing banking evidence to reflect the realities of electronic record-keeping and digital financial transactions.
A key feature of the proposed law is the introduction of the concept of “special cause”, under which a court may, by a written order, compel a bank officer to produce bankers’ books or appear as a witness in proceedings where the bank itself is not a party. The provision raises the threshold for summoning bank officials, ensuring they are not routinely drawn into litigation merely because they hold customer records.
The Bill defines “special cause” to include circumstances where the accuracy or authenticity of an entry in the bankers’ books is in doubt, where an event suggests that the bank’s normal record-keeping process has been disrupted, or where the bank has failed to comply with a legal order. In other words, courts will continue to have access to banking records in genuine cases, but only after recording specific reasons for doing so.
