Five Supreme Court rulings from the week of 2 to 6 November 2026 that every law student, judicial aspirant and practitioner should know: handwriting experts must face cross-examination, a spouse’s insults are not automatically a crime, plaints can be rejected even before registration, the two-child norm goes to a larger Bench, and forest cultivation alone does not make you a forest dweller.
1. A handwriting expert’s report is useless unless the expert is cross-examined
Goverdhan v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 1190 · Justices Sandeep Mehta and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya · 3 November 2026
A husband was convicted under Section 306 IPC for abetting his wife’s suicide, mainly on four letters that a handwriting expert attributed to him. The expert was never examined at trial. The Supreme Court held that a handwriting expert’s opinion cannot prove authorship unless the expert is examined and the opinion is tested in cross-examination; it is not admissible on its own under Section 293 CrPC (now Section 329 BNSS). Even if genuine, the letters did not amount to abetment. The conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted.
2. Calling your wife “stupid” or “useless” is not cruelty or criminal intimidation
P v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 INSC 1183 · Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manmohan · 2 November 2026
After a wife’s death, her father alleged dowry demands and abuse. Her suicide note did not mention dowry or her husband, and the dowry allegations surfaced only after her death. The Court held that the husband’s words reflected his temperament, not a crime: “A temperamental issue of a spouse cannot be equated with the offence of criminal intimidation or grievous hurt.” The FIR under Sections 304B, 498A, 323 and 504 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed.
3. A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 even before the suit is registered
G. Pazhanivel v. S. Thilagavathy, 2026 INSC 1197 · Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar · 5 November 2026
The trial court rejected the plaint at the threshold, before it was registered as a suit, and the High Court agreed. The Supreme Court held that rejection before registration is permissible, but the fact of rejection must be recorded in the register maintained under Order IV Rule 2 CPC. On the facts, the trial court had ignored the pleaded cause of action and prayers, so the plaint was restored.
4. Two-child norm for panchayat polls sent to a larger Bench
Mangala Bhimrao Ingle v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati, 2026 INSC 1193 · Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe · 4 November 2026
A Sarpanch was disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for having a third child. The Court questioned whether the population-control rationale still holds given demographic change, and referred Javed v. State of Haryana (2003), which upheld the two-child disqualification, to a larger Bench. The stay continues, so she remains in office for now.
5. Cultivating forest land does not by itself make you a forest dweller under the FRA
A. John Kennedy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 INSC 1204 · Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta · 6 November 2026
The case concerned Forest Rights Act claims in the Megamalai region, where much of the land was used for silk cotton cultivation. The Court held that people who cultivate forest land while living outside the forest, or only temporarily inside it, do not qualify as Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes or Other Traditional Forest Dwellers on that basis alone. It said that “planned or promoted cultivation of a commercial crop inside the forest areas is completely impermissible”, and set up a Special Committee headed by Justice B.R. Gavai to oversee the claims.
Quick revision
- Expert opinion on handwriting: examine the expert; Section 293 CrPC / 329 BNSS does not cover it.
- Harsh words between spouses are not, without more, cruelty or criminal intimidation.
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC can apply before registration; record it under Order IV Rule 2.
- Javed v. State of Haryana (2003) is now under reconsideration.
- FRA: residence in the forest matters, not cultivation alone.