3 years" requirement has been replaced with an effective 1 year of Bar practice + 2 years of structured post-selection training/clerkship (which is deemed equivalent to the remaining two years).

Key directions issued:

1. Transitional period (advertisements issued after the 2025 judgment up to 31.03.2027):

• All law graduates remain eligible to apply, deemed to have completed 1 year of practice (no certificate needed).
• Selected candidates become "Trainee Judicial Officers" and undergo 1 year of training at the State Judicial Academy (counted as a further year of "practice"), on half pay.
• This is followed by 1 year of Law Clerkship (6 months under a District/Sessions Judge, 6 months under a High Court Judge) — counted as the final year of "practice."
• Only after a satisfactory evaluation report does the trainee get appointed to a regular post.

2. Post-transition period (advertisements from 01.04.2027 onward):

• Candidates need 1 year of actual practice (verified by certificate) to even apply.
• Selected candidates still undergo the same 1-year Academy training + 1-year Law Clerkship structure before regular appointment.

3. The Court dismissed the applications (I.A. Nos. 336090, 336091/2025) seeking to count time spent in higher legal education toward the practice requirement.
4. This scheme is to remain in force for 5 years, after which its working (quality of recruits, training efficacy, etc.) will be reviewed by the Court.

State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg

Detailed Facts of the Case

• Victim: A young woman, barely 20 years old, married into Ajmal Beg’s family.
• Dowry Demands: Her in-laws demanded a color television, motorcycle, and ₹15,000.
• Incident: She died under suspicious circumstances within a few years of marriage, leading to charges of dowry death (Section 304B IPC) and cruelty (Section 498A IPC).
• FIR: Registered at Police Station Kiratpur, Bijnor in 2001 (FIR No. 94/2001).
• Trial Court (2003): Convicted Ajmal Beg and his co‑accused under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• High Court (Allahabad, 2003 appeals): Acquitted the accused, finding evidence insufficient.

Key Directions

The Court issued 10 major directions to tackle dowry case backlogs and improve enforcement:

1. Educational Reforms: States/Union Govt to integrate anti‑dowry awareness into curricula, reinforcing equality in marriage.
2. Dowry Prohibition Officers: Ensure proper appointment, training, resources, and public dissemination of contact details.
3. Training & Sensitization: Regular training for police, prosecutors, and judicial officers on social/psychological aspects of dowry cases.
4. Case Prioritization: Treat dowry death/cruelty prosecutions as priority matters; identify cases pending beyond 3 years.
5. Timelines: Frame charges within 60–90 days of charge‑sheet; commence evidence promptly; conduct evidence day‑to‑day where possible.
6. Adjournment Regulation: Stricter control of adjournments; preparation of witness calendars.
7. Digital Monitoring: Use dashboards and alerts for old cases.
8. High Court Oversight: Periodic review of pending appeals, revisions, bail matters, and stayed trials.
9. Counselling/Mediation: Explore mediation in matrimonial disputes not involving death or grievous violence.
10. Compliance Reporting: States/UTs & High Courts to submit reports thrice yearly (15 Jan, May, Sep); next listing fixed for 15 Oct 2026.

Significance

• Systemic Reform: Moves beyond individual conviction to nationwide compliance exercise.
• Victim Protection: Strengthens support mechanisms like One Stop Centres, Women Help Desks, and counselling services.
• Judicial Efficiency: Seeks to reduce pendency and ensure continuous trial proceedings.
• Social Impact: Recognizes dowry’s deep cultural roots, requiring sustained multi‑stakeholder effort.

Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. Versus Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.: 2026 INSC 52------------------------------- Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that transfers during the pendency of the suit, especially after registration of lis pendens, cannot defeat the decree.A transferee pendente lite does not acquire an independent title, is bound by the decree as if a party to the suit.Hon‟ble Court further observed that under Order XXI Rule 98(2), obstruction by transferees pendente lite mandates removal of the obstruction and delivery of possession.Allowing such obstruction would nullify Section 52 TPA and encourage abuse of judicial process.The decree holder had been deprived of possession for over three decades, and continued obstruction amounted to misuse of law.

Kiran v. State of Karnataka: 2025 INSC 1453 -------------------------------------------------------------Key Findings & Legal Principles • Sentencing Authority: The Court ruled that Sessions Courts (trial courts) lack the power to direct that a life sentence be served for the "remainder of natural life" without the possibility of remission. • Constitutional Limits: Only Constitutional Courts (the Supreme Court and High Courts) have the authority to impose special categories of sentences that bypass statutory remission to bridge the gap between a 14-year life term and the death penalty. • Statutory Set-off: The Court held that a trial court cannot deny an accused the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the CrPC (or Section 468 of the BNSS) for the period of detention undergone during the investigation or trial.

Investigating agencies retain the flexible and swift police power under Section 102 CrPC to freeze suspicious bank accounts even in corruption cases under the PC Act, without being compelled to follow the more cumbersome judicial attachment route at the investigation stage.