Legal Current Affairs 03 February 2026 for Judiciary/APO/APP Exams

Legal Current Affairs 03 February 2026 for Judiciary, APO, and APP exams provides a detailed analysis of the most significant judicial developments and legislative updates occurring today. This edition covers the Supreme Court's critical interpretation of property rights under Article 300A, the nationwide constitutional challenge to various state anti-conversion laws, and the latest implementation timeline for the new Industrial Relations Code. Designed specifically for legal aspirants, this content synthesizes complex rulings—such as those regarding the non-arbitrability of forged agreements—into structured insights essential for competitive examinations.

1. Supreme Court on Demolition of Private Property (Article 300A)

Case: M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Jogen Chowdhury & Ors. (2026)

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a Calcutta High Court order that had directed the demolition of a multi-storey building near Santiniketan.

• Drastic Remedy: The Court held that demolition is an extreme and "draconian" step that should only be reserved for blatant and substantive illegalities, not for curable procedural lapses.

• Constitutional Mandate: While the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it remains a valuable constitutional guarantee under Article 300A. No person can be deprived of their property except by "authority of law," which requires a clear statutory foundation.

• Evidence-Based Action: The Court criticized the use of "conjectures and surmises" by authorities, noting that the classification of land must be based on scientific and contemporaneous evidence rather than speculative reports.

• PIL Limits: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cannot be used as a vehicle for "selective or targeted challenges" against specific individuals or properties while leaving similar adjacent constructions untouched.

DAILY LEGAL CURRENT AFFAIRS FREE BATCH - Enroll Now

2. Nationwide Challenge to Anti-Conversion Laws

Case: National Council of Churches in India (NCCI) v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the Centre and 12 states regarding the constitutional validity of various state-level anti-conversion statutes.

• Challenged States: The laws in Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana, and Rajasthan are under scrutiny.

• Core Contentions:

• Presumption of Coercion: The petitioner argues these laws incorrectly assume all adult conversions are fraudulent or forced.

• Privacy Violation: Mandatory prior approval from a District Magistrate is argued to violate the right to liberty and privacy under Article 21.

• Vigilantism: The petition alleges that the structure of these Acts "incentivizes" vigilante groups to file complaints by offering rewards, leading to a surge in false cases against minorities.

• Next Steps: The matter has been tagged with similar pending petitions and will be heard by a three-judge bench.

3. Industrial Relations Code 2020: Implementation Update

Case: N.A. Sebastian & Anr. v. Union of India

The Central Government informed the Delhi High Court that the rules required to implement the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, will be finalized by the end of February 2026.

• Interim Measures: To prevent a "paralysing effect" on the adjudicatory machinery, the Centre issued two notifications on February 2, 2026. These ensure that existing labor tribunals will continue to function until new statutory bodies are constituted under the Code.

• Consolidation: The Industrial Relations Code is one of four new labor codes designed to replace 29 existing laws, including the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

• Key Focus: The Code aims to balance business flexibility (e.g., increasing the layoff threshold to 300 workers) with worker protections, such as statutory benefits for gig and platform workers.

4. Arbitration and Forgery: Jurisdiction at the Threshold

Case: Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee (2026)

In a significant ruling for commercial law, the Supreme Court clarified when a dispute is "non-arbitrable" due to allegations of fraud.

• Existence vs. Performance: The Court distinguished between "fraud in performance" (which an arbitrator can decide) and "fraud striking at the root of the agreement" (which a court must decide).

• The Ruling: If a party seriously disputes the very existence of an arbitration agreement—alleging the document containing the clause is forged or fabricated—the court cannot compel arbitration under Section 8 or appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 without first resolving the forgery issue.

• Consent is Key: Since arbitration is founded on consent, a party cannot be forced into it if they never signed the underlying agreement.