Practice Area

Criminal Law

3 articles in this category

Is Enough: Inside the Rajasthan High Court’s Latest Regulations on Cyber Fraud

India’s cybercrime landscape is evolving faster than the systems designed to regulate it. Cyber fraud today is no longer limited to conventional online scams. Sophisticated schemes such as digital arrests, impersonation, identity fraud and the misuse of technology increasingly exploit institutional trust and technological vulnerabilities, particularly among elderly and digitally less confident citizens. Against this backdrop, the Rajasthan High Court’s recent intervention in a cyber fraud bail proceeding raises a larger question: are existing legal and institutional mechanisms equipped to protect citizens from the rapidly changing nature of digital crime? The Court’s directions extend beyond the individual case and address the wider ecosystem that enables cyber fraud, bringing questions of digital identity, SIM regulation, influencer accountability, gig-worker verification, banking systems and specialised cybercrime infrastructure into the judicial conversation.

No More Easy Adjournments? Recalibrating Delay and Due Process in Criminal Adjudication

The Supreme Court’s 18 March 2026 Circular seeks to recalibrate the use of adjournments in criminal proceedings by treating them as an exception rather than a routine procedural device. While adjournments remain essential to ensure a fair trial by allowing parties adequate time to prepare, their mechanical and repeated use has contributed significantly to delays and case backlogs. The Circular introduces a structured process requiring adjournment requests to be formally submitted through prescribed channels, supported by specific reasons and prior notice to the opposing party, with objections permitted within a defined timeline. Adjournments are to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, such as serious medical emergencies or bereavement, while routine adjournment letters and repeated postponements are discouraged. The framework therefore seeks to strengthen judicial scrutiny, procedural accountability, and courtroom efficiency while preserving the constitutional guarantees of a fair trial. Its effectiveness, however, will depend on judicial discretion and ensuring that the strict approach does not prevent genuinely necessary postponements, particularly where additional time is essential to protect the rights of accused persons, victims, and other parties.

When Childhood Survives Conviction: The Supreme Court on Juvenility, Finality and Adult Criminal Consequences

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana clarifies the consequences of establishing juvenility after conviction. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but held that the adult sentence could not operate against an accused who was a juvenile when the offence was committed. It also restricted conviction-based disqualifications, highlighting the rehabilitative purpose of juvenile justice. The judgement balances the finality of criminal proceedings with statutory protection for juveniles, demonstrating that while a conviction may survive, its adult punitive and collateral consequences need not.

Editorial Insight

Aug 18, 2026

448