The Shrinking Gatekeeper: How Far Can Negative Competence-Competence Really Go?

Introduction: The Evolution of Negative Competence-Competence

Doctrines rarely arrive fully formed. They are built one exception at a time, and then, if the underlying policy is strong enough, the exceptions themselves start to disappear. Negative competence-competence in Indian arbitration law is currently living through exactly that second phase. The seven-judge bench reference in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (2024) 6 SCC 1, sits at the absolute center of this unfolding story.

The Bench—headed by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud—offered a now widely quoted description of the doctrine’s two faces:

1. The Positive Aspect: Empowering the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction first.
2. The Negative Aspect: Instructing judicial courts to defer to that ruling instead of pre-empting it at the referral stage.

Print Page

The 90-Day Rule: How BNSS Ended Police Silence Over Your FIR

 Section 193(3)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 quietly performs one of the most citizen-friendly reforms in India's new criminal justice framework — it gives every victim and informant a legal right to be told, within 90 days, what the police have actually done about their case.

For decades, filing an FIR under Section 154 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure was the easy part. What followed was often silence — sometimes for years — until a final report finally surfaced under Section 173(2) CrPC. The complainant had no enforceable right to interim information. That era of "administrative silence" has now been legislatively dismantled.

Why The Old System Failed Victims

Print Page

Supreme Court: While rejecting or dismissing a pre-arrest bail application (on maintainability or merits), courts cannot grant interim protection from arrest.

We hold that while dismissing a petition seeking pre-arrest bail on the ground that the same is not maintainable - whatever be the ground therefor - the high court or the sessions court, as the case may be, cannot extend or grant protection which is in the nature of interim relief that could be granted during the pendency of the application.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3795 of 2026 

Decided On: 12.08.2026

Union of India (UOI) Vs. Sunil Biyani

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, JJ.

Author: Dipankar Datta, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 849, MANU/SC/0866/2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court direction for seizure of cash or other assets and withdrawal of prosecution of election offences

DIRECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

18. Keeping in view the above, i.e, the discussion made above, reference to case laws, the detailed affidavits of the parties, and the submission of the learned amici, this Court issues the following directions:

a. When a seizure of cash or other assets takes place, the authority affecting the seizure, must, within 24 hours, report the same to the District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate/Court having competent jurisdiction along with written reasons disclosing the prima facie nexus between the cash or other asset seized and the suspected electoral offence.

b. When FIRs are registered, the Investigation Officer (IO) entrusted with the investigation thereof shall make every possible endeavour to complete investigations thereinto, within a year, from the date of registration. If this timeline is exceeded, reasons therefor shall be recorded and communicated to the Election Commission of India;

c. The investigating officer shall submit a quarterly status report regarding the investigation to the EC through the Nodal Officer, after due approval of the Senior Superintendent of Police/the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the concerned district;

d. When Static Surveillance Teams (SST) during checks find money in excess of Rs. 10 lacs, information about the same shall be forwarded to the income tax authorities.

e. All endeavours ought to be made for expeditious disposal of cases against candidates/sitting MPs/MLAs keeping in view the recurrent nature of elections. For this purpose, it is directed that the High Courts may, by following respective procedures, designate courts for the purposes of prompt hearing and disposal of such cases.

f. For withdrawal of cases against candidates in a particular election cycle, the approval of the concerned High Court is mandatory in view of K. Ajith (supra) and Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay (supra).

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. ... of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3549 of 2016)

Decided On: 17.08.2026

The State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Prathik Parasrampuria

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 868, MANU/SC/0895/2026

Print Page