Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: April 2026

Judgments

District Judge Appointments : Supreme Court Issues Directions For Reinstatement & Seniority Following 'Rejanish v. Deepa' Judgment

Case Details : REJANISH K.V. v. K. DEEPA [Civil Appeal No. 3947/2020]

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 306

The Supreme Court passed a slew of directions regarding the appointment and seniority of District Judges, in furtherance of last year's Constitution Bench judgment in Rejanish KV v. K Deepa, which held that civil judges with seven years of experience at the bar are eligible to seek direct recruitment as District Judges.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the directions.

Certain Civil Judges, who were directly recruited as District Judges, were reverted to Civil Judge posts following the 2020 judgment in Dheeraj Mor, which had held that only practising advocates were eligible for direct recruitment as District Judges. Dheeraj Mor was overruled in Rejanish.

The three-judge bench ordered that all such reversions are illegal, and all those judicial officers, who were previously appointed as District Judges, will be deemed to be in service as District Judges since their original date of appointment, and that they will be entitled to consequential seniority and benefits.

Delay In Filing Complaint Can Be Fatal In Matrimonial Disputes: Supreme Court Quashes 498A, Dowry Harassment Case Against In-Laws

Cause Title: CHARUL SHUKLA VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS (with connected appeal)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Emphasising that unexplained delay in initiating criminal proceedings can be fatal in matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court quashed a dowry harassment case against a woman's parents-in-law and sister-in-law, holding that a delay of nearly seven years without sufficient explanation cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case.

The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order which had refused to quash the FIR, observing that vague and omnibus allegations without corroborative material cannot justify continuation of criminal prosecution against relatives of the husband.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that in matrimonial and family disputes, where evidence is often limited and relationships are deeply personal, timely reporting of alleged offences assumes critical importance to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings. The Court noted that citizens who allege commission of an offence should pursue their remedies in real time, as the law assists those who are vigilant about their rights.

'Trust Property Matter Of Public Concern': Supreme Court Restores Criminal Case Over Sale of CSI Church Land In Andhra

Cause Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS B REDDEPPA REDDY & ORS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 308

The Supreme Court has restored criminal proceedings in a case concerning the alleged fraudulent sale of land belonging to the Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA), holding that property held in trust for the community cannot be treated as a purely private matter and that any irregularity in its alienation is a matter of legitimate public concern.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order quashing criminal proceedings against several accused persons in connection with the transfer of 7.75 acres of church trust land at Ananthapuramu.

The Court underscored the public character of trust property, observing that even though such property may be administered by a corporate body, it is essentially held for the benefit of the community at large.

Karnataka Stamp Act | Court Has No Discretion To Impose Penalty Below Ten Times Deficit Duty: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Krishnavathi Sharma Versus Bhagwandas Sharma and Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 309

The Supreme Court has observed that when courts determine a deficiency in stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, they have no discretion to impose a penalty lower than ten times the duty.

“There is no discretion insofar as the quantum of penalty is concerned when the instrument is sought to be admitted in evidence before court without transmitting it to the District Commissioner.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran, while setting aside that part of the Karnataka High Court's decision, which had exempted the lessee-bank from the payment of penalty (to be ten times the deficient duty), as mandated under first proviso of Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act (Act”).

The ruling arose from a partition suit filed in 2008 among family members of a deceased businessman. During trial proceedings in December 2023, the plaintiffs sought to rely on two lease documents executed in January and February 2008 in favour of Indian Overseas Bank.

Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies To S.11 Arbitration Act; Fresh Arbitration Barred After Abandoning Earlier Claim : Supreme Court

Cause Title: RAJIV GADDH VERSUS SUBODH PARKASH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 310

The Supreme Court has observed that a party who abandons an earlier arbitration proceeding would be barred from initiating a subsequent arbitration proceeding on the same cause of action. The Court underscored that such conduct amounts to an abuse of the judicial process and is barred on grounds of public policy.

“A litigant cannot be permitted to abuse the process of Court to file a fresh proceeding again on the same cause of action. The bar contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code which applies to proceeding under Section 11 of the Act is founded on Public Policy.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while setting aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order which had allowed the Respondent's subsequent application seeking appointment of arbitration under Section 11(6), despite abandoning the earlier arbitral proceedings.

The dispute arose from a joint venture for the purchase of 550 marlas of land in Hoshiarpur, Punjab, through a bank auction, with financing routed via a joint company. The parties executed three agreements in April 2013 governing their rights, all containing an arbitration clause.

'Too Restrictive' : Supreme Court Modifies Kerala High Court Directions On Police Arrest From Court Premises

Case Details: KERALA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Vs STATE OF KERALA|SLP(C) No. 31008/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 311

The Supreme Court partially modified the Kerala High Court's order laying down guidelines to be followed by police personnel for arresting persons from Court premises.

The Supreme Court endorsed the defintion of "Court Premises" given in Para 8.1 of the High Court's order, which reads - "Court premises” shall be taken as referring to not just the courtrooms, but shall also include all lands, buildings and structures (except residential quarters) used in connection with court proceedings during the notified working hours of the court, or till the court is in session, whichever is later.

At the same time, the Supreme Court found the High Court's directions in Para 8.3 to be "too restrictive". As per this part of the High Court's order, the police can arrest an accused from Court premises only :

• in emergent situations necessitating immediate action in order to prevent the occurrence of a cognizable offence within the court premises, or
• absconding persons/accused in long pending warrant matters in the court premises.

Modifying this part of the High Court's order, the Supreme Court clarified that the police can arrest an accused from court premises :

(a) to prevent occurence of cognisance offence in Court premises

(b) to arrest the accused/suspect where immediate on committing an offence such accused/suspect can be apprehended at the spot

(c) to prevent any suspect/accused from hiding himself in court premises.

'Instead Of Having Casteless Society, We're Dividing Society' : Supreme Court On Plea For Enumeration Of DNT Tribes In Census

Case : DAKXINKUMAR BAJRANGE Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 334/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 312

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking a distinct enumeration of the Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-nomadic Tribe (DNT) communities in the 2027 census.

Observing that the matter was a policy decision and was not a justiciable issue, the Court disposed of the matter, while giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authorities.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging S.129 TP Act For Exempting Muslim Gifts From Registration

Case : HARI SHANKAR JAIN Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 290/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 313

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which exempts gifts (hiba) executed under Mohammedan Law from the Transfer of Property Act.

The petitioner, Hari Shankar Jain, argued that because of this exemption, Muslim gifts are exempted from registration and paying stamp duty, and hence a loss to the public exchequer was caused.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue before the Law Commission of India.

S. 197 CrPC | Subsequent Extension Of Sanction Requirement Won't Invalidate Cognizance Taken When There Was No Bar : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SAMARENDRA NATH KUNDU & ANR. VERSUS SADHANA DAS & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 314

The Supreme Court (April 1) observed that a later extension of sanction protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked to defeat proceedings that were initiated at a time when no such bar existed.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra upheld the criminal proceedings against a subordinate rank officer of the Calcutta Police force, against whom cognizance of an offence was taken before the extension of the benefit of Section 197 CrPC to all subordinate rank officers of the Calcutta Police.

The bench upheld the Calcutta High Court's ruling, noting that since on the date of commission of an alleged offence (in the year 2000), no sanction was required to prosecute the Appellant, a subsequent notification (issue in 2010) extending the benefit of Section 197 CrPC to the Appellant cannot nullify the proceedings already commenced.

In Departmental Enquiry, Document Not Admitted By Employee Must Be Proved Through Witness : Supreme Court

Cause Title: JAI PRAKASH SAINI VERSUS MANAGING DIRECTOR U.P. COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 315

The Supreme Court (April 1) has observed that when the employee doesn't admit the charges labelled against him, he cannot be dismissed from the services based on an employer's unproven documentary evidence. The Court emphasized that employers must prove such documentary evidence through witnesses, so that the employee could have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

“Even in a case based solely on documentary evidence, unless the relied upon documents are admitted by the charged employee, a witness would have to be examined to prove those documents and when so examined, the witness would have to be tendered for cross-examination.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra, while setting aside the dismissal of the U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited's employee who was dismissed from the service.

The Court rejected the Respondent-employer's contention that evasive denial of the charges by the Appellant-employee amounted to admission of the charges. Instead, the Court said that “in a departmental enquiry, unless the charge is admitted, the burden to prove the charge lies on the employer/ department.”, pointing out that the employer's liability to prove the evidence against the delinquent employee could not be brushed aside, when the employee had not admitted the charges.

Company Cannot Give Loan To Director Without Special Resolution In General Meeting : Supreme Court

Case Details: SATINDER SINGH BHASIN Vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI|MA 239/2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2019

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 316

The Supreme Court (April 2) cancelled the bail of businessman Satinder Singh Bhasin for violating the bail conditions imposed by it. One of the conditions imposed was that Bhasin must deposit Rs. 50 crores to the Supreme Court Registry. However, it came to light that he has siphoned off the funds of his company, Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (BIIPL), in order to fulfil this condition.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh noted that Bhasin was required to comply with this condition in his individual capacity. It also said that this was not a case where he had taken a loan from his Company as a Director.

"Upon a consideration of the above submissions and the breakup as filed by the petitioner himself, it cannot be disputed that the amount of Rs. 50 crores has originated from the funds of BIIPL and other related entities. We are inclined to agree with the submissions advanced by the respondents. The condition requiring deposit as a prerequisite for grant of bail, was imposed upon the petitioner in his individual capacity. This condition required bonafide, if not strict, compliance.

Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Satinder Singh Bhasin For Not Settling Claims In Grand Venice Project

Case Details: SATINDER SINGH BHASIN Vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI|MA 239/2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2019

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 316

The Supreme Court(April 2) cancelled the bail of businessman Satinder Singh Bhasin for violating the conditions of bail and ordered him to surrender within a week. Bhasin is accused of non-delivery of residential units, siphoning of their funds, and impropriety in allotment of land in collusion with State officials in relation to Project Grant Venice in the National Capital Region.

The Court cancelled his bail as he failed to comply with the condition that he will settle the claims of the flat allottees, and also for siphoning off Rs 50 lakhs from the funds of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (BIIPL) for deposit as bail condition, despite the Court's direction that the said amount should be from his perosnal account.

It also ordered the forfeiture of Rs. 50 crore, which was submitted as a precondition for the grant of bail. Out of the said amount, the Court has ordered that 5 crores would go to NALSA, and the rest would be used for the insolvency proceedings.

Order IX Rule 13 CPC Application Not Barred By Dismissal Of Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree : Supreme Court

Cause Title: DEEPESH MAHESWARI AND ANR. VERSUS RENU MAHESWARI AND ORS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 317

The Supreme Court (April 1) observed that the filing of an appeal against an ex-parte decree would not bar the filing of an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Court explained that the scope of appeal under Section 96 CPC and the application under Order IX Rule 13 was different. While in the former, the merits of the decree will be examined, in the latter, one can seek setting aside of the decree by showing sufficient reasons for non-appearance.

“The settled principle of law is that the scope of proceedings under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order IX Rule XIII CPC are distinct. Order IX Rule XIII CPC confers a wider jurisdiction, enabling the applicant to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance and seek setting aside of an ex parte decree.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

Election Petition Must Be Decided On Materials On Record, Can't Be Remanded To Fill Evidentiary Gaps : Supreme Court

Cause Title: RAKAM SINGH VERSUS AMIT & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 318

The Supreme Court has observed that an election petition must be decided based on the materials available on record, and it is impermissible for the Appellate Court to remand election petitions for reconsideration merely to lead to fresh evidence or direct the calling of witnesses and expert examination when such issues were not raised before the Election Tribunal.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Trial Court set aside the Respondent's election to the Sarpanch post after finding merit in the Appellant's allegation of double voting. The First Appellate Court's decision to uphold the trial court's findings to hold a fresh election was interfered with by the High Court under the Writ Jurisdiction. The High Court remanded the election petition for fresh consideration, with directions to call voters as witnesses and obtain expert fingerprint analysis of thumb impressions on voter lists.

The High Court reasoned that because the election petition was decided without adopting "required recourses" such as presenting voters as witnesses or obtaining expert evidence. It held that such conclusions were "ill made" and "based on pure surmises."

SARFAESI | Borrowers' Redemption Right Not Lost By Auction Sale If Balance Consideration Was Paid After Timelimit : Supreme Court

Cause Title: E. MUTHURATHINASABATHY & ORS. VERSUS M/S. SRI INTERNATIONAL & ORS. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 319

The Supreme Court has observed that under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, where an auction purchaser fails to deposit the balance sale consideration within time, the sale remains incomplete and does not attain finality; consequently, the borrower cannot be divested of their property if they repay the entire outstanding debt to the creditor.

The Court held that if the balance sale consideration was not deposited within the 3 month period stipulated by Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, then the sale remains incomplete. The fact that a sale certificate was issued will not make such a sale legal and complete, and if the borrower had repaid the dues in the meantime, then the property can be redeemed.

“If the process suffers from material irregularities or fails to conform to mandatory requirements, thereby rendering the sale inchoate, the Court would be justified in intervening, particularly where the borrower has, in the interregnum, discharged the outstanding liability, so as to obviate disproportionate deprivation of property and uphold substantive justice.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while affirming the Madras High Court's decision to set aside the auction sale and restore the secured assets to the Respondent-borrower.

Show Cause Notice Can Be Challenged In Writ Jurisdiction In Exceptional Cases : Supreme Court

Cause Title: J. SRI NISHA VERSUS THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 320

The Supreme Court has reiterated that although courts ordinarily do not entertain writ petitions challenging a show cause notice (SCN), this principle is not absolute, and interference at the notice stage is permissible in exceptional circumstances.

The Court observed that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked where the show cause notice is vitiated by fundamental legal infirmities that could result in manifest injustice.

The Court stated that while the general rule discourages challenges to show cause notices, the High Courts are empowered to intervene where the notice suffers from a patent lack of jurisdiction, reflects non-application of mind, is issued with a predetermined or premeditated approach, amounts to an abuse of the process of law, or violates the principles of natural justice.

FEMA | Non-Confirmation Of Seizure By Competent Authority Under S.37A Has Bearing On Adjudication Proceedings : Supreme Court

Cause Title: J. SRI NISHA VERSUS THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 320

The Supreme Court on April 1 held that the non-confirmation of a seizure order under Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) can have a significant bearing on subsequent adjudication proceedings, and that authorities cannot proceed in a manner that effectively nullifies or prejudges a pending statutory appeal.

While stopping short of declaring adjudication proceedings automatically non est in every such case, the Court ruled that continuation of adjudication despite a reasoned refusal to confirm seizure, and while an appeal against that refusal is pending, may render the resulting order arbitrary and contrary to law.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Madras High Court judgments and the adjudication order imposing penalty and confiscation against the appellants, and directed that proceedings be revived from the stage of the show cause notice..

Blacklisting Is Not Automatic Upon Contract Termination; Requires Independent Application Of Mind : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S A.K.G. CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 321

The Supreme Court on April 2 held that termination of a contract does not automatically justify blacklisting, and that blacklisting requires an independent show cause notice and proper application of mind.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the Jharkhand High Court's order upholding the termination cum blacklisting order issued by the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department for the alleged construction deficiencies on the part of the Appellant, which resulted in the collapse of a structure built by the Appellant.

Although the termination was upheld, the court however, found the blacklisting order to be arbitrary, noting that no automatic blacklisting follows upon termination of a work contract, without abiding by the principles of natural justice

High Ranking Employee Can't Seek Same Lesser Penalty Given To Subordinates : Supreme Court Restores Bank Manager's Dismissal

Cause Title: PUNJAB & SIND BANK VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 322

The Supreme Court has observed that a delinquent officer holding a higher post cannot claim parity in punishment with employees of a lower rank for the same misconduct.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the dismissal of a Punjab & Sind Bank's senior manager from service, who, after conniving with a sub-ordinate bank officer and a gunman, misappropriated the customers' money for their personal gain.

The Court allowed the bank's appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court's decision, which had modified the punishment imposed on the Respondent from that of a 'dismissal from service' to a 'compulsory retirement'. The High Court interfered with the disciplinary committee's decision on punishment merely on account of parity, as the co-delinquent employees were awarded a lower punishment than the Respondent for the same charges.

Pay Commission Benefits Can't Be Denied By Creating Additional Conditions: Supreme Court

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VERSUS SUNIL KUMAR RAI & OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 323

The Supreme Court on April 1 observed that the Central Pay Commission's recommendation cannot be loosely construed to deny a benefit to an employee by creating an additional condition to deny the benefit of the pay commission.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti heard the matter concerning the respondents, who had initially joined the Border Roads Organisation in subordinate engineering cadres and were later redesignated as Junior Engineers following cadre merger. After completing 4 years of continuous service at Level 8 with Grade Pay of ₹4,800, they became eligible for Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Level 9 (Grade Pay ₹5,400) as per Seventh Central Pay Commission recommendation. However, the Government denied the benefit on the ground that only direct recruitees to Level 8 were entitled to NFU, despite the Pay Commission neither prescribing such a restriction nor mandating that the benefit be confined to direct recruits.

The Delhi High Court allowed the Respondents' plea and directed the extension of Level 9 benefit to them, leading to the Union's appeal before the Supreme Court.

Dowry Harassment & Domestic Abuse Continue Despite Legal Reforms & Progress, Patriarchy Still Prevails : Supreme Court

Case : Shankar v State of Rajasthan

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Observing that crimes against women continue to remain widespread despite decades of legal reforms, welfare schemes and judicial interventions, the Supreme Court has remarked that the persistence of domestic violence and gender-based crimes reflects a deeply entrenched patriarchal social order.

The Court noted that while India has witnessed economic growth, improved literacy and greater participation of women in education and the workforce, violence against women remains prevalent, particularly in rural and semi-urban settings where authority within households continues to be overwhelmingly male.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by a man convicted of burning his wife to death, affirming his conviction for murder based primarily on her dying declaration.

Supreme Court Orders Inquiry Into Rampant Conversion Of Residential Areas Into Commercial Zones In State/UT Capitals

Cause Title: LOGANATHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 325

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has taken serious note of rampant violations of building bye-laws and unauthorized conversion of residential areas for commercial use across the country.

“We have also been coming across cases where residential colonies are being converted into commercial areas by the unauthorised use of residential buildings and lands for commercial purposes. Such practices are not only contrary to law and public interest, but also cause significant inconvenience and prejudice to bona fide residents, who have invested substantial resources in purchasing property and constructing their houses. The environmental and civic consequences of such misuse by unscrupulous elements of society are equally serious and have far-reaching implications.”, the Court noted.

While hearing a plea concerning the unauthorized use of a residential colony for a commercial purpose in Chennai, a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan, in an order dated March 25, 2026, expanded the scope of the plea to examine the issue on a pan-India basis. The Court directed the impleading of municipal authorities of all State and Union Territory capital cities and required them to file detailed affidavits.

Toll On National Highways Covered By Union List; States Can Levy Toll Only On Other Roads : Supreme Court

Case Title – T S R Venkatramana v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 326

The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition challenging Union's power to levy toll tax on national highways, observing that such charges fall within the Union List under the Constitution.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that toll collected for use of national highways by the National Highways Authority of India is a fee traceable to Entry 23 (highways declared by or under law made by Parliament to be national highways) read with Entry 96 (fees in respect of any of the matters in the Union List) of List I.

“Having regard to the pith and substance of Entry 23 read with Entry 96 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, we find that any toll which is essentially a charge or fee collected for the use of a National Highways by the National Highway Authority of India is squarely covered within the Union List”, the Court held.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Doctors In NDPS Case Since Grounds Of Arrest Weren't Given In Writing As Per 'Mihir Shah' Verdict

Case Title: DR. RAJINDER RAJAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR, SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3326 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 327

The Supreme Court granted bail to two medical professionals accused in a narcotics case on the ground that they were not supplied the grounds of arrest in writing prior to production before the Magistrate.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, noting that the grounds of arrest ought to have been supplied to the accused, as per the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.

In Mihir Rajesh Shah, a bench of ex-Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih held that failure to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee, in the language they understand, would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

Compassion Has No Place In Public Employment; No Second Chance For Candidate Who Skipped Physical Test : Supreme Court

Cause Title: COMMISSIONER, DELHI POLICE & ANR. VS. UTTAM KUMAR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 328

The Supreme Court has held that a candidate who failed to appear for a scheduled physical test in a police recruitment process cannot claim a right to rescheduling merely because his representations seeking postponement were not answered, emphasizing that compassion and discretion have limited roles in matters of public employment.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Delhi High Court's ruling that had affirmed the Administrative Tribunal's decision to grant a second opportunity to a candidate to appear in the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test for the Delhi Police Constable recruitment, on the ground that he was unwell on the scheduled date.

Background

Calling Someone 'Bas**rd' Not Offence Of Obscenity Under S.294 IPC : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SIVAKUMAR VERSUS STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 329

The Supreme Court (April 6) observed that mere abusive or vulgar language, without a sexual or prurient element, does not constitute an offence of obscenity under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the conviction of two accused under Section 294(b) IPC, who had allegedly used the word “bastard” during a heated altercation arising out of a family property dispute.

“…mere use of the word 'bastard', by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person. More so, when such words are commonly used in modern era during heated conversations. We are, therefore, of the view that conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and is hereby set aside.”, the Court observed.

NEET | Medical Seat National Resource; Seat Rendered Vacant Due To Fraud Must Be Allotted To Next Candidate : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE SECRETARY NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION VERSUS SANJANA THAKUR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 330

The Supreme Court has upheld the admission of a NEET-UG candidate to a seat that became vacant after the originally selected candidate was found to have secured admission using a forged marksheet. The Court observed that when a seat falls vacant under such circumstances, authorities are duty-bound to allot it to the next eligible candidate in merit.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the National Medical Council's appeal against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision to restore the seat to the Respondent No.1 at Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Govt. Medical College in Himachal Pradesh, who was denied the benefit despite being the next candidate in line, after the seat remained vacant on account of forgery committed by the selected candidate in his scorecard.

The Court stressed that restoration of the vacant seat cannot be denied to the next in line candidate, as it would be tantamount to wastage of a precious medical resource due to administrative lethargy.

Surgeon Best Judge To Choose Which Procedure To Adopt : Supreme Court Quashes Medical Negligence Case

Cause Title: DR. S. BALAGOPAL VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 331

The Supreme Court of India (April 6) quashed criminal proceedings against a paediatric surgeon who had performed an orchidectomy (removal of the testicle) on a 1.5-year-old child, amid allegations by the father that no consent had been given for the procedure.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the matter in which the child's father contended that he had consented only to orchidopexy, a procedure to reposition an undescended testicle, but the surgeon proceeded to perform an orchidectomy instead, allegedly without his approval, contending that the consent form was interpolated to include the permission to perform an orchidectomy.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision refusing to quash the case, the surgeon appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the consent form was not interpolated, nor was orchidectomy added to the form after filling out the consent form. The surgeon defended the operation, saying that the consent form contained an option either to perform orchidopexy/orchidectomy. Also, his decision to proceed with orchidectomy was supported by the Medical Board's opinion, he added.

'Failure To Develop Allotted Land Bars Equitable Relief', Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of Lease In Piaggio's Favor

Cause Title: M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 332

The Supreme Court of India (April 6) upheld the forfeiture of a lease granted to Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., observing that the company failed to undertake construction or develop the industrial plot within the stipulated time, and was therefore not entitled to any equitable relief.

“…there is no escape from the conclusion that, right from the date of the grant of lease…the appellant company failed to demonstrate any convincing effort or bona fide intent to establish a full-scale industrial manufacturing unit on the plot in question.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, stressing that non-adherence to the terms of the lease deed do not warrants equitable relief to the company.

“…delaying development of the industrial plot by almost six to seven years, as against the mandatory period of six months prescribed under the lease deed, would equally disentitle it to discretionary relief.”, the court observed.

Supreme Court Orders CBI Preliminary Inquiry Into Allotment Of Contracts To Arunachal CM Pema Khandu's Kin

Case Title: Save Mon Region Federation And Anr v. The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 54/2024

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 333

The Supreme Court(April 6) directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the alleged irregular allotment of public contracts by the Arunachal Pradesh Government to companies owned by relatives of Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu.

The Court has directed the CBI to submit a report within 16 weeks as to whether an independent investigation is warranted. The CBI is directed to examine contracts awarded from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2025. The CBI shall, however, not be precluded from examining the work contracts beyond the above period.

"Having regard to the principles set out above and the material placed on record, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where an independent investigation is necessary. The record discloses repeated resort to non-tender methods in relation to public works, repeated absence of recorded reasons explaining why competition was dispensed with, and repeated nonproduction of vouchers and tender-related documentation in relation to projects of substantial value. Such circumstances raise legitimate concerns not merely of administrative irregularity but of possible abuse of public office, manipulation of procurement processes, and concealment or destruction of official records, matters which require investigation by an independent agency vested with statutory powers of criminal investigation."

Even Single Instance Of Award Of Public Work Through Tainted Process Violates Article 14 : Supreme Court

Case Title: Save Mon Region Federation And Anr v. The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 54/2024

Citation  : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 333

The Supreme Court(April 6) ordered a preliminary enquiryby the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) into the allegations of favouritism and patterns of repeated departures from open and competitive tendering in the allotment of work contracts by the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Pema Khandu, to his relatives and close associates.

The Court observed that the decisions on awarding public contracts are subject to Article 14 of the Constitution and the State is expected to act in a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary manner in order to secure public interest. One of the safest ways of doing that is by inviting competition through tenders. In cases where the allegation is of conflict of interest or related party benefit, the State can't argue that the overall percentage of work awarded is numerically small.

"A constitutional violation in public contracting is not diluted by statistics. Even a single instance, if established, undermines equality, the rule of law and public confidence in fair administration."

Sajjadanashin Of Dargah & Mutawalli Of Waqf Not Same : Supreme Court

Case Title: SYED MOHAMMED GHOUSE PASHA KHADRI versus SYED MOHAMMED ADIL PASHA KHADRI & ORS. ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 13345 - 13346 OF 2015

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 334

The Supreme Court reiterated that the office of a Sajjadanashin of a Dargah is fundamentally distinct from that of a Mutawalli of a Waqf, emphasizing that the former is primarily a spiritual position while the latter is a secular administrative role.

A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi made this observation while deciding a dispute concerning succession to the office of Sajjadanashin of a Dargah in Karnataka.

The Bench observed :

S.528 BNSS | Criminal Proceedings Can Be Quashed When Reliable Material Disproves Allegations : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SAJAL BOSE VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 335

The Supreme Court (April 6) held that where the prosecution fails to rebut credible and unimpeachable material which effectively undermines the factual foundation of the complaint, the Court would be justified in exercising its power to quash the proceedings.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria quashed the criminal proceedings against Appellants who were booked for assaulting an old man, noting that CCTV footage proved to be significant as it contradicts the complainant's version which was not countered by the prosecution.

“Where reliable and unimpeachable material demonstrably displaces the factual basis of the accusations and the prosecution is unable to effectively counter the same, the Court would be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice. Such an approach not only accords justice to the accused but also obviates the wastage of precious judicial time on proceedings which, on the admitted material, do not hold a reasonable prospect of culminating in conviction.”, the Court observed.

Horizontally Reserved PwD Post In Unreserved Category Open To SC/ST/OBC Candidates With Disabilities : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO.LTD & ORS. VERSUS DIPENDU BISWAS & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 336

The Supreme Court (April 7) observed that when a horizontal reservation is applied to an unreserved seat, then it is open to all candidates possessing that horizontal attribute to fight for the unreserved seat, regardless of whether they belong to SC, ST, OBC, or the general category.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh heard the case where one post of Junior Civil Engineer in West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. was notified under UR (PWD-LV), an unreserved post horizontally reserved for Persons with Disabilities (Low Vision/Blindness). The Respondent No.3, belonging to an OBC-A (Most Backward) with PWD-LV attributes, was denied selection by the Calcutta High Court for the post despite scoring more marks than the UR (PWD-LV) candidate.

The High Court had held that since a UR-PWD candidate was available, the post must be filled by him, irrespective of comparative merit.

Personal Hearing Of Borrower Not Necessary Before Banks Declare Account 'Fraud' : Supreme Court Clarifies 'Rajesh Agarwal' Verdict

Cause Title: State Bank of India Versus Amit Iron Private Limited & Ors. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 337

The Supreme Court (April 7) held that borrowers have no legal right to a personal (oral) hearing before their account is classified as "fraud" by banks under the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India(RBI). However, the court said that defaulters must be given the full forensic audit report to respond effectively.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan set aside the Calcutta High Court's ruling, which had relied on the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal to direct the appellant bank to grant the respondent a personal oral hearing before declaring his account as fraud.

The bench was hearing appeals filed by State Bank of India and Bank of India against the rulings of various High Courts requiring banks to grant borrowers a personal (oral) hearing and to provide the entire forensic audit report before declaring accounts as fraud.

Cheque Dishonour Complaint Can't Be Quashed At Pre-Trial Stage Once Section 138 NI Act Ingredients Are Met : Supreme Court

Cause Title: RENUKA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 338

The Supreme Court has observed that when the basic ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are fulfilled, a cheque dishonour case cannot be quashed at the pre-trial stage upon concluding that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt.

The court said that whether the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or not is a matter of trial, and cannot be decided at the pre-trial stage.

“…when the basic ingredients of Section 138 stand duly satisfied and the statutory presumption under Section 139 gets triggered, coming to a conclusion that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt at the pre-trial stage itself without granting an opportunity to the complainant to substantiate her case by leading evidence would amount to ignoring the statutory presumption that the cheque had been issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. As a consequence, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act gets washed away even prior to commencement of the trial.”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Questions Insurance Company For Not Filing Complaint Over Forged Policy; Orders SIT Probe

Case Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. K. SARAVANAN, SLP (C) NO. 1003/2022

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 339

While dealing with a case of insurance policy fabrication, the Supreme Court ordered Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu to constitute a Special Investigation Team to probe the matter.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan passed the order with a view to ensure that Insurance Companies, which deal with substantial amount of public funds contributed by policyholders, discharge their obligations with due vigilance.

The bench noted that the issue seemed to be widespread across the country. It further opined that when it comes to the knowledge of an Insurance Company that a policy has been fraudulently obtained and cannot be acted upon, it is incumbent upon it to take action and make a complaint to the police, as policy fabrication constitutes an offense.

Supreme Court Faults UCO Bank's Attempt To Stall Employee's VRS By Issuing Show Cause Notice

Cause Title: UCO BANK & ORS. VERSUS SK SHRIVASTAVA (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 340

The Supreme Court observed that an employer cannot prevent an employee from taking voluntary retirement merely by issuing a show-cause notice, without formally initiating disciplinary proceedings and refusing permission within the prescribed notice period.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was dealing with a case where a bank employee was served a show-cause notice while his application for voluntary retirement was pending. Although a decision on the VRS request was required within three months, the bank failed to take any such decision and instead issued a show-cause notice regarding certain transactions, without initiating formal disciplinary proceedings.

The respondent employee had submitted a notice for voluntary retirement on October 4, 2010, under the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, which required a three-month notice period. This period expired on January 4, 2011.

Appeal's Dismissal Gives Fresh Starting Point To Limitation Period For Decree Execution : Supreme Court

Cause Title: GAJANAN VERSUS PRALHAD

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 341

The Supreme Court has held that an execution petition filed within 12 years from the dismissal of an appeal for default (owing to non-appearance) is maintainable, as such dismissal triggers a fresh limitation period.

The court rejected an argument that the 12-year limitation period for filing an execution petition should be calculated from the date of the passing of a decree, especially when an appeal against a decree was pending. In essence, the dismissal of an appeal would provide a fresh limitation period for the decree holder to seek its execution, the court said.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside the order of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed the appellant–decree holder's execution petition on the ground of limitation. The High Court said that the dismissal of the judgment-debtor's appeal for default, would not gave decree holder a fresh limitation period to file an execution petition.

Courts Must 'Nip In The Bud' Proceedings By Unlicensed Money Lenders; Investigation Against Them Need Not Await New Law : Supreme Court

Case Title: RAJ KUMAR SANTOSHI VERSUS PRASHANT MALIK, Miscellaneous Application No. 1176/2026 in SLP(Crl) No. 5485/2024

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 342

The Supreme Court clarified that its earlier order closing the suo motu proceedings on unauthorised money lending should not be construed to mean that no law presently exists on the subject or that enforcement actions must wait for fresh legislation by States or Union Territories.

The Court clarified that existing provisions under the State money lending laws and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita be invoked against unlicensed money lenders.

Motor Accident Claim | No Deduction From Salary Just Because Deceased Was On Verge Of Retirement : Supreme Court

Case Title: SUSHILA & ORS. VERSUS SUDHAKAR & ANR., SLP (CIVIL) NO. 21717 OF 2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 343

In a motor accident claim compensation case, the Supreme Court disapproved of a 50 percent deduction made in the salary of the deceased on account of the fact that he had only 6 months of service left.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi enhanced the compensation amount payable to the claimants (deceased's family members), holding that the High Court and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 50% from the deceased's salary while computing the compensation amount.

"In the case at hand before us, both the Tribunal as well as the High Court had made a deduction of 50% from the salary of the deceased on account the fact that only 6 months of service of the deceased was remaining. In our considered opinion, the Courts below have erred in coming to such an unreasonable conclusion", it said.

CCS Pension Rules | Gratuity Can Be Withheld During Pendency Of Criminal Or Disciplinary Proceedings Against Employee : Supreme Court

Cause Title: BIKRAM CHAND RANA VERSUS HIMACHAL PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 344

The Supreme Court has observed that an employer is entitled to withhold the payment of gratuity to an employee against whom a judicial or disciplinary proceeding is pending.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed an appeal filed by an ex-Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Clerk, whose gratuity was withheld by the transport corporation because of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him.

Post-superannuation, the Appellant's gratuity was withheld by the Respondent department as a result of the pendency of a criminal proceeding against him for his alleged involvement in the leak of the question paper of the Combined Pre-Medical Test, 2006.

S. 27 Evidence Act | Recovery Of Weapon Meaningless Without Proof Linking It To Crime : Supreme Court

Cause Title: GAUTAM SATNAMI VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 345

The Supreme Court has set aside the murder conviction, after finding that the prosecution's recovery of evidence based on the accused's disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was riddled with inconsistencies, hostile witnesses, and a lack of forensic linkage.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed that mere recovery of the evidence intrinsic to the commission of a crime based on the disclosure statements would not be sufficient for conviction, unless the recovery process is legally reliable, thereby meeting the standards required under Section 27.

The case arose from the alleged murder, where the Trial Court had convicted the appellant, and his conviction was affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.

When Sentences Of Imprisonment For Multiple Offences Run Concurrently, Fine Also Run Concurrent : Supreme Court

Cause Title: HEM RAJ VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 346

The Supreme Court (April 8) observed that where sentences imposed for different offences are directed to run concurrently, a fine cannot be imposed separately for each offence.

The Court held that fine imposed separately as part of the punishment of two offences would be liable to be treated concurrent along with the sentences of imprisonment.

“Section 53, IPC  also includes fine as a punishment to be part of sentence. In that view when the sentence is directed to run concurrently, the appellant cannot be made to pay fine twice.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N. V. Anjaria while granting a relief to the Appellant from payment of a separate fine for punishment that were directed to run concurrently for two offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“Act”).

'Matrimonial Battle Of Mahabharata', Supreme Court Dissolves 10-Year Estranged Marriage, Quashes 80+ Cases Between Couple

Cause Title: XXX VERSUS YYY

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 347

The Supreme Court (April 8) dissolved a marriage between a couple who were living apart for the last 10 years, and have filed over 80 cases against each other, their relatives and counsel, in what it described as bringing an end to the “matrimonial battle of Mahabharata”.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta strongly criticized the conduct of the respondent-husband, a lawyer by profession, observing that he had deliberately prolonged the litigation by misusing his legal expertise. The Court noted that he went to the extent of targeting the wife's legal counsel, filing nine cases against them across various forums to intimidate them, besides initiating proceedings against relatives.

“…the respondent-husband was exploiting his knowledge as a law professional to frustrate the proceedings and to intimidate the advocates appearing for the appellant-wife…”, the court noted.

Motor Accident Claim | Insurance Company Impleaded As Party Can Raise All Grounds, Contest Quantum Of Compensation : Supreme Court

Case Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. GAURI GURUDAS GAONKAR, SLP (C) No. 11439 of 2023

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 348

The Supreme Court allowed an Insurance Company's plea against a Bombay High Court decision preventing it from raising submissions on the quantum of motor accident claim compensation.

The Court observed that when an Insurance Company is impleaded as a party-respondent to a motor accident claim compensation case, it has a right to contest the claim on all available grounds. That is, there is no restriction to raise only the grounds contained in Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (such as, breach of policy condition, non-disclosure of material fact, etc.)

"the Insurance Company, when impleaded as a respondent in the claim petition, has the right to contest the claim on all available grounds, without any restriction to grounds available under Section 149(2) of the 1988 Act", a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi observed.

S.142 NI Act | Signing Of Board Resolution Doesn't Mean Director Was Aware Of Company's Day-To-Day Affairs : Supreme Court

Case : Saroj Pandey v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 349

The Supreme Court has held that merely signing a Board Resolution does not establish that a director was in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of a company, and therefore cannot by itself justify prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Allowing the appeal of a company director, the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih quashed criminal proceedings initiated against her in a cheque dishonour case, observing that there was no specific allegation demonstrating her active role in the conduct of the company's business.

Background

'Abandonment Of Service Not Voluntary Retirement', Supreme Court Denies Pensionary Benefits To SBI Clerk

Cause Title: K.G. SESHADRI VERSUS THE TRUSTEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 350

The Supreme Court has held that an employee who abandons service shortly before retirement cannot seek pensionary benefits by claiming it to be a voluntary retirement.

“…we have noticed that the present case is not of voluntary retirement, rather of voluntary abandonment of the services, wherein from 24.01.1998 to 11.12.1998, the appellant, without informing and availing leave, started remaining absent for a long time…”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria, while dismissing the appeal filed by former State Bank of India clerk, who had remained absent for nearly 11 months before his services were treated as abandoned.

The Court clarified that, under the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955, pensionable service is to be calculated from the date of confirmation in service and not from the initial appointment, meaning the probation period is excluded, and that the mandatory requirements of completing at least 20 years of service and opting for voluntary retirement must be strictly satisfied.

'Don't Eat Up Court's Time To Show Off Skills' : Supreme Court Cautions Lawyers For Arguing Against Settled Precedents

Cause Title: ROMA AHUJA VERSUS THE STATE AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 351

The Supreme Court (April 9) cautioned lawyers against consuming the Court's valuable time by arguing cases that contradict settled legal positions solely to showcase their argumentative skills.

“As the courts are bound by the law of precedent and to follow the law laid down in the binding judgment of the Constitution Bench, the lawyers are also expected to respect the strong-operated precedent emanating from a judgment holding the field unless exceptional grounds exist to distinguish the decision are available. Merely for the purpose of demonstrating the argumentative skill, the lawyers ought not to eat up the valuable public time of the court by making the submissions, which are worthless against binding precedent.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.

The aforesaid observation came in a matter where the core legal issue revolved around the relevant date for computation of the limitation period for taking cognizance in a criminal case under Section 468 Cr.P.C., i.e., whether it is the date when the criminal complaint is filed or the date when the Court/Magistrate takes cognizance.

Stranger Affected By Interim Order Entitled To Impleadment In Writ Proceedings : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S CHOPRA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 352

The Supreme Court has observed that a stranger to the proceedings, not being a party to the original Writ proceedings, cannot be denied impleadment if the order passed in the proceedings has a direct bearing on the stranger.

“In writ proceedings, where the Court is called upon to interpret the scope and operation of an interim order already passed by it, a person who is shown to be directly and demonstrably affected by that order cannot be shut out merely because such person was not an original party to the principal challenge.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

The matter came, wherein the Appellant, being directly prejudiced by the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order staying certain provisions of the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025, suffered rejection of its revised building plans by the Municipal Authorities.

Court Cannot Substitute Its Decision In Place Of Authority's Discretion : Supreme Court Sets Aside Direction To Governor

Cause Title: THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VERSUS SARITA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 353

The Supreme Court (April 9) held that the grant of an extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981, is subject to the discretion of the Governor.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's decision, which had ordered the state government to grant an extraordinary pension to the widow of the deceased doctor, who died during harness. The Court said that when the Governor had not examined the issue of grant of an extraordinary pension, then it was impermissible for the High Court to assume the discretionary authority of the Governor to grant a benefit to the Respondent No.1.

“Under Rule 4, award of extraordinary pension under the Rules of 1981 is only with the sanction of the Governor…the High Court by the impugned judgment itself proceeded to take a decision in the matter of grant of extraordinary pension without the Hon'ble Governor having an occasion to exercise discretion and take a decision in accordance with the Rules of 1981. For these reasons, we find that the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in issuing a writ of mandamus and directing the appellants to grant extraordinary pension to the first respondent is unwarranted and thus, deserves to be interfered with.”, the court observed.

Title Suit Hit By 'Constructive Res Judicata' If Plaintiff Omitted It In Earlier Injunction Suit Where Title Was Disputed : Supreme Court

Cause Title: CHANNAPPA (D) THR. LRS. VS. PARVATEWWA (D) THR. LRS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 354

The Supreme Court clarified (April 9) that a subsequent suit for declaration of title would be barred under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC (constructive res judicata) if the plaintiff had omitted to seek title declaration in the earlier suit for permanent injunction where title was under dispute.

The Court held that since the claim to title could and should have been raised in the primary suit, the party is barred from re-litigating that issue in a new suit.

The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard a case involving a respondent who sought an injunction against the appellant's interference with their peaceful possession of a property, yet failed to seek a declaration of title to establish ownership in the primary suit. Instead of addressing the title issue in the primary suit, the respondent filed a second suit for title declaration, a claim that could and should have been raised in the initial proceedings.

'FSSAI Is There' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Court-Monitored Committee To Enforce Food Safety Standards

Cause Title: DR. K.A. PAUL @ KILARI ANAND PAUL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 355

The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking court-monitored effective compliance with food safety enforcement measures across the country by constituting a National Task Force.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the PIL that raised the issues of unsafe and unhygienic food being provided to the citizens of the country. To support, the petitioner, Dr KA Paul, had relied on several newspaper reports highlighting instances of alleged unhygienic and unsafe food dispensation to the affected people.

The Court found the PIL to be lacking credible evidence of non-compliance with food safety measures to seek the Court's interference. It added that merely relying on newspaper reports would not justify judicial scrutiny unless corroborated by independent and reliable data.

General Reference To Tender Document Containing Arbitration Clause Will Not Amount To Its Incorporation In Contract : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (MSEDCL) & ORS. VERSUS R Z MALPANI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 356

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a general reference in a Letter of Intent to an arbitration clause contained in a tender document cannot form a valid arbitration clause to seek an appointment of an arbitrator.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Bombay High Court order that had appointed an arbitrator in a construction dispute. The High Court had originally allowed the Respondent's plea for arbitration by concluding that a valid agreement existed. It reached this conclusion because the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued by the Appellant made a general reference to tender documents that contained an arbitration clause.

However, the Supreme Court overruled this, holding that a mere general reference in an LOI of a tender document containing an arbitration clause is insufficient to specifically incorporate an arbitration clause from a separate document unless a specific reference to incorporate an arbitration clause from the tender document into the LOI was made.

Multi-State Co-Operative Societies Barred From Investing Outside Their 'Same Line Of Business' : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S NIRMAL UJJWAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS RAVI SETHIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 357

The Supreme Court has observed that a Multi-State Co-operative Society (MSCS) cannot invest in a business other than its line of business.

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan considered a matter where the Appellant, a multi-state credit co-operative society registered under the MSCS Act, 2002, sought approval of its resolution plan for a textile company. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had rejected the plan on the ground that Section 64(d) of the MSCS Act, 2002, bars such a society from investing its funds in another institution unless the institution is either its subsidiary or operates in the "same line of business."

Affirming the NCLAT's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala observed that the Appellant's resolution plan for a textile company fell afoul of Section 64(d) of the 2002 Act, as the textile business was not the same line of business. Consequently, the NCLAT had rightly refused to approve the plan.

Investments Of Multi State Co-Operative Societies Must Align With Society's Own Business As Per Bye-Laws: Supreme Court

Case Title – M/S Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Ravi Sethia & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 357

The Supreme Court has held that a multi-state co-operative society can invest in another company, including as a resolution applicant under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, only if the target company is either its subsidiary or engaged in the “same line of business”.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan clarified that Section 64 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, which governs how such societies can invest their funds, restricts investments to specific categories and requires that any investment in another institution must align with the society's own line of business as defined in its bye-laws.

“it becomes evident that the expression “any other institution in the same line of business” under Section 64(d) is not to be construed in an expansive manner. It requires that, before deploying its funds, an MSCS must satisfy a threshold condition that the proposed investment aligns with its own line of business as reflected in its bye-laws. This requirement keeps a check on the manner in which funds of members of MSCS are being utilised and is intended to prevent diversion into activities that are unrelated or only remotely connected to the core business that an MSCS is entitled to do as per its bye-laws. Consequently, the determination of eligibility under Section 64(d) must involve an examination of the objects and functions contained in the bye-laws of the MSCS and a comparison thereof with the business activities of the target institution, so as to ascertain whether there exists a predominant or substantial sameness between the two”, the Court observed.

Veil Of Partnership Can Be Lifted To See If It's Device To Cloak Illegal Sub-letting : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRASA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS VERSUS M/S. MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Observing that a partnership arrangement cannot be used as a device to conceal unlawful transfer of possession, the Supreme Court on April 10 held that courts are entitled to tear the veil of partnership to ascertain whether it is merely a cloak for unauthorised sub-letting.

The Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision, which had set aside the trial court's eviction order.

The trial court ordered the eviction of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the premises which was originally rented to Respondent No.1(a partnership firm), upon finding that the original tenant had divested its possession and control over the property, and sub-let the property to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under the pretext of a partnership arrangement, a strategic move intended to mask an unlawful sub-letting in their favor, as neither individual was a party to the lease deed executed with the original tenant.

Public Recruitment | Supreme Court Cautions Courts Against Entertaining Challenges To Rejection Due To Errors In Online Applications

Case : Poonam Dwivedi v State of UP and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 359

The Supreme Court on April 10 observed that in large-scale public recruitment processes conducted through online systems, even minor errors in applications or supporting documents can legitimately lead to rejection of candidature, and courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering with such decisions as it may delay recruitment and adversely affect numerous other candidates.

Highlighting the systemic implications of judicial intervention in recruitment disputes, the Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B. Varale stated that challenges to rejection of candidature arising from application errors should not normally be entertained because doing so could stall the timely completion of recruitment processes.

“In matters of public recruitment, where large number of candidates participate, application forms are submitted online along with the scanned eligibility documents, certificates, etc. Such applications are processed through computer applications/ software and therefore, any error in the application is bound to result in rejection of the candidature.”

Granting Pensioners Lower Dearness Relief Than Employees' DA Is Arbitrary, Violates Article 14: Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF KERALA VERSUS M. VIJAYAKUMAR & ORS. (and connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 360

The Supreme Court (April 10) observed that granting higher dearness allowance (DA) to serving employees than dearness relief (DR) to pensioners is arbitrary and violates Article 14, ruling that both benefits share a common objective, i.e., neutralising the impact of inflation.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B Varale dismissed appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), thereby upholding the Kerala High Court's decision striking down the differential rates.

“…once pension is admissible and, based on inflation, DR is admissible on it, announcing DR at a rate lower than at what DA is provided, when both are linked to inflation and serve a common object, would be nothing but discriminatory as well as arbitrary. Therefore, in our view, the High Court was justified in holding the same to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14.”, the court held.

Right To Contest Co-operative Society Elections Subject To Statutory Limitations : Supreme Court

Case Title: RAM CHANDRA CHOUDHARY & ORS VERSUS ROOP NAGAR DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED AND OTHERS, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4352 OF 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 361

The Supreme Court reiterated that neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right. The two rights are distinct from each other, and the right to contest is subject to stricter regulations, such as, in terms of qualifications, disqualifications, and institutional requirements.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the observation while dealing with an election dispute related to District Milk Unions in Rajasthan.

The judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan observed :

Independent Cooperative Societies Not 'State' Under Art 12; Their Election Process Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Case Title: RAM CHANDRA CHOUDHARY & ORS VERSUS ROOP NAGAR DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED AND OTHERS, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4352 OF 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 361

In a dispute pertaining to election of the Management Committee of District Milk Unions in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that District Milk Unions are independent co-operative societies not amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Courts.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan observed that the Rajasthan High Court erred in entertaining pleas challenging bye-laws framed by the District Milk Unions, as the District Milk Unions cannot be characterized as "instrumentalities of State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

"In the present case, the District Milk Unions are autonomous, member driven bodies governed by the provisions of the Act, 2001, the Rules framed thereunder, and their bye-laws. They are neither departments of the State nor owned, financially controlled, or administratively dominated by the State in a manner that would render them instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12" it said.

IBC | NCLT Not To Examine If 'Pre-Existing Dispute' Will Succeed While Considering S.9 Application Of Operational Creditor : Supreme Court

Cause Title: GLS Films Industries Private Limited versus Chemical Suppliers India Private Limited

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 362

The Supreme Court has reiterated that it is impermissible for the adjudicating authority under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code to examine the merits of the dispute while considering an application for CIRP under Section 9 by an operational creditor. It added that once the authority is satisfied that there exists a plausible pre-existing dispute, the Section 9 application would be non-maintainable.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the NCLAT's judgment, which had interfered with the NCLT's decision to dismiss the Respondent's application under Section 9 as non-maintainable because of a pre-existing dispute.

The Respondent-Operational Creditor sought insolvency proceedings over an alleged debt of ₹2.92 crore. The Appellant-Corporate Debtor contested this, citing a history of defective solvent supplies and claiming that, after adjustments, the Creditor actually owed them money.

'Justice Should Also Be Seen To Be Done' : Supreme Court Directs Another Disciplinary Authority To Decide After Employee Alleged Bias

Cause Title: NATIONAL BAL BHAWAN & ANR. V. KHAZAN CHAND & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Reaffirming the foundational principle of procedural fairness, the Supreme Court has held that a disciplinary authority against whom an employee has previously levelled allegations of bias must recuse from the proceedings, stressing that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan upheld the invalidity of the disciplinary proceedings conducted by an authority against a delinquent employee, who had earlier expressed a lack of faith in her. The Court emphasized that where a disciplinary authority has already been the subject of allegations by the employee, the authorities must exercise caution to ensure that the process remains beyond reproach.

"We are reminded of the maxim that “justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done," the Court observed,

Courts Cannot Re-Adjudicate Settled Issues In Contempt Jurisdiction, Can Only Examine Compliance : Supreme Court

Cause Title: JALIM SINGH VERSUS NAND KISHORE & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 364

The Supreme Court has observed that, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, it is impermissible for the concerned courts to transgress their limits by re-adjudicating issues already decided in the original proceedings, and they must confine themselves to ensuring compliance with binding directions.

“The jurisdiction in contempt proceedings is confined to examining compliance with the directions issued and does not extend to re-adjudication of issues which stand concluded.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The Bench was hearing a matter where the appellant–employee, despite having secured a favourable order from the Allahabad High Court granting full salary and benefits for the suspension period, was not paid his retiral dues, compelling him to initiate contempt proceedings before the High Court. However, instead of limiting its inquiry to ensuring compliance with its earlier directions, the High Court dismissed the contempt petition by re-adjudicating the issues and holding the appellant ineligible for retirement benefits.

Discrimination Is The Other Name Of Injustice: Supreme Court Grants Promotion Relief To Employee Denied Relaxation

Cause Title: KAMAL PRASAD DUBEY VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 365

The Supreme Court has set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that denied promotion to a cooperative society employee, holding that the refusal to grant relaxation in educational qualification despite granting similar relaxation to others amounted to discriminatory treatment violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that “discrimination is the other name of injustice” and emphasized that substantive justice requires adherence to the doctrine of equality in public employment.

Background

Spouse Cannot Withdraw Consent For Mutual Divorce After Agreeing For It In Settlement Of Claims : Supreme Court

Cause Title: DHANANJAY RATHI VERSUS RUCHIKA RATHI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 366

The Supreme Court has observed that while a spouse is legally entitled to withdraw consent for the grant of divorce on mutual agreement, such consent cannot be withdrawn when the parties had earlier agreed to dissolve their marriage in full and final settlement of all disputes.

The Court made this observation while coming down heavily on a wife for attempting to back out of a court-approved mediation settlement.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing an appeal by the husband challenging an order of the Delhi High Court, which had permitted continuation of domestic violence proceedings despite a mediation settlement that expressly barred future litigation between the parties.

Supreme Court Suspends PC Act Sentence Of Ex-Jharkhand Minister Anosh Ekka; Flags 'Overlapping' CBI Prosecutions

Cause Title: ANOSH EKKA VERSUS STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 367

The Supreme Court (April 13) granted relief to former Jharkhand Cabinet Minister Anosh Ekka in a disproportionate assets case by releasing him on bail during the pendency of his appeal, after being apprised of dual prosecutions by the CBI based on the same set of allegations.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision, which refused to allow his Section 389 Cr.P.C. application seeking a suspension of sentence pending an appeal. The Court said that the High Court is expected to take note of the fact while hearing an appeal that whether two separate prosecutions could continue against the Appellant in light of overlapping allegations.

“A fervent contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant that two separate prosecutions were impermissible because the allegations in both the cases are overlapping. This aspect of the case would have to be gone into by the High Court while deciding the pending appeals.”, the court observed.

S.156(3) CrPC/S.175(3) BNSS | Magistrate's Order For Investigation Can't Be Quashed By Relying On Accused's Defence : Supreme Court

Cause Title : ACCAMMA SAM JACOB VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. ETC.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 368

The Supreme Court has observed that High Courts, while exercising their inherent discretionary powers, cannot derail a police investigation directed by a Magistrate when the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence.

It held that at this stage, the Court must remain confined to the allegations in the complaint and the material placed by the complainant and cannot go beyond them to examine the defences put forward by the accused.

“…the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, should not travel beyond the allegations contained in the complaint and the material placed by the complainant by delving into the defences sought to be projected by the accused-respondents.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta while setting aside the Karnataka High Court's decision interfering with the ongoing investigation upon examining the defences put forth by the accused.

Law Does Not Favour The Indolent: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arbitration Initiated After 21-Year Delay

Case Title – State of West Bengal & Ors. v. M/S B.B.M. Enterprises

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 369

The Supreme Court quashed arbitration proceedings between the State of West Bengal and a contractor, holding that the claim was ex facie time barred as the notice invoking arbitration was issued after 21 years from completion of work.

“Arbitration though is an alternate dispute resolution system, which has to be encouraged, it cannot deviate from the fundamental principle that law favours the diligent and not the indolent”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was dealing with a dispute arising from a contract where the work had been completed on July 30, 2000. The contractor issued a notice seeking commencement of arbitration only on June 02, 2022.

Convicts Sentenced To Only Fine Also Entitled To Benefit Of Probation Of Offenders Act : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MILIND S/O ASHRUBA DHANVE AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 370

The Supreme Court has observed that offenders sentenced only to payment of a fine can still be granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ordered the release of convicts, who were convicted under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC for assault and were sentenced to only a fine of Rs. 500-2,000/- without any substantive punishment.

The Court rejected the 'narrow' construction of the term 'release' under Section 4 of the 1958 Act, stating that “'release' cannot mean release only from custody. It has to be read as releasing from the obligation to serve a sentence of payment of fine.”

Kerala Agriculture Income Tax | Amalgamating Company's Loss Can't Be Set-Off From Income Of Amalgamated Company : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ASPINWALL AND CO. LTD. VERSUS INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 371

The Supreme Court has observed that a loss suffered by an amalgamating company cannot be set off against the income of an amalgamated company upon amalgamation unless permitted by a statute.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a batch of appeals filed against the Kerala High Court's judgment, which declined the plea for setting off a loss of the amalgamating company out of the income of the amalgamated company.

The Court said in the absence of any provision contained under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991, a set-off of a loss of an amalgamating company is impermissible from the income of an amalgamated company.

Declaratory Decree Can't Be Set Aside Merely Because Plaintiff Didn't Seek Its Execution: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Hari Ram Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 372

The Supreme Court has observed that the mere non-execution of a decree passed in a declaratory suit, particularly where the plaintiff is already in possession of the property, cannot be a valid ground to justify a delayed challenge to that decree.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Rajasthan High Court's ruling that had affirmed the remand of the respondent's appeal for fresh consideration, which had been filed after an inordinate delay of 31 years from the decree passed in favour of the appellant.

The decree was passed in 1975; however, the appeal was only filed in 2006, which was rejected on the grounds of limitation by the First Appellate Authority. However, the revenue board remanded the appeal for a fresh hearing, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court, prompting the plaintiff to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Appoints Former Madras HC CJ As Administrator To Clear Jaiput Udyog Ltd Workers' Dues

Cause Title: BHARTIYA MAZDOOR SANGH, U.P. & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 373

In a significant development, the Supreme Court (April 15) appointed former Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava as Court Administrator to verify and oversee the long-pending issue of unpaid dues along with PF claims of thousands of workers of Jaipur Udyog Ltd. (JUL), directing completion of the exercise by August 31, 2026.

“An exercise be carried out in a time bound manner for verification of dues of the workmen in order to clear that liability within a period of four months…Needful be done finally by 31.08.2026.”, the court ordered.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that the worker's dues can be settled from the proceeds of money out of the sale of the properties of JAL and its subsidiary M/s Jai Agro Industries Ltd. (JAIL).

Deposition Of Hostile Witness Acceptable To Creditworthy Extent : Supreme Court

Cause Title: The State of Kerala Versus K.A. Abdul Rasheed

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 374

The Supreme Court (April 15) held that courts cannot discard the testimony of a hostile witness in its entirety and must instead identify and rely on the “creditworthy” portions of such evidence.

“…every court considering the deposition of a hostile witness has to look at the extent of the deposition, which is creditworthy to provide proof, of the case set up.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran while setting aside an acquittal in a corruption case, holding that the mere fact that the complainant turned hostile cannot justify acquittal when the demand and acceptance of a bribe are otherwise proved.

The case arose from allegations that Respondent, a Taluk Supply Officer (TSO), had demanded a bribe of ₹500 from the complainant for performing an official act, countersigning an abstract related to his work.

Bank Liable For Delay In Presenting Cheque : Supreme Court Upholds Penalty Under Consumer Protection Act

Cause Title: CANARA BANK VERSUS KAVITA CHOWDHARY

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 375

The Supreme Court (April 15) held that a failure of the bank to present the cheque within the prescribed validity period of the cheque without any reasonable explanation would amount to 'deficiency in service' under the Consumer Protection Act.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the liability of the Canara Bank for deficiency in rendering service to its customer, who had deposited the cheque with the bank, but the bank failed to present the instruments before the expiry of the validity period of the cheque, rendering the check to be dishonoured with the remark “stale cheque.”

“A bank receiving cheques for collection acts as an agent of the customer and is under an obligation to exercise due diligence in presenting the instruments within the prescribed validity period. Failure to do so resulting in the instrument becoming stale, in the absence of any reasonable explanation, would result in negligence in the discharge of banking duties which would constitute deficiency in rendering service within the meaning of the consumer protection law.”, the Court said.

Discharged Accused Stands On Better Footing Than One Acquitted After Criminal Trial : Supreme Court

Cause Title: EX. SQN. LDR. R. SOOD VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 376

The Supreme Court has observed that an accused discharged of a criminal offence stands on a better footing than an accused acquitted after a trial, because discharge happens at the pre-trial stage due to the lack of evidence.

"Discharge signifies and reinforces the position that there is no material against the accused for him to stand trial," the Court observed.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard a case involving an ex-Air Force officer who was dismissed from service following a disciplinary inquiry initiated after his discharge in a criminal case.

Air Force Act | Disciplinary Proceedings Can't Be Initiated Against Officer Discharged In Criminal Trial On Same Charge : Supreme Court

Cause Title: EX. SQN. LDR. R. SOOD VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 376

The Supreme Court (April 15) observed that once the defence forces have elected a continuation of criminal proceedings over the disciplinary proceedings, then acquittal in a criminal proceeding would bar the subsequent initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against a defence personnel.

Setting aside the Delhi High Court's Division bench judgment, a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice KV Viswanathan restored the honour of an ex-Air Force personnel, with granting consequential service benefits nearly after three decades, who was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry post-acquittal in a criminal proceeding.

“…the Air Force upon electing to have the alleged offence tried by the criminal court, it is clear (in view of the discussion above) that they then cannot fall back on either a court martial or any disciplinary action. Once the road is chosen, the traveller must walk it to the end.”, observed the court, emphasizing that “once the appellant has been discharged by the criminal court, that should mark the end of the matter.”

Distinction Between 'Seat' & 'Venue' Of Arbitration : Supreme Court Summarises Principles

Cause Title: J&K ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCY VERSUS RASH BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 377

The Supreme Court has reiterated that merely conducting arbitral proceedings at a place different from the designated seat of arbitration does not confer jurisdiction on the courts of that location.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's decision, which had refused to entertain the Appellant's Section 34 plea for challenging the award, merely because the arbitration proceedings were conducted in New Delhi, while ignoring the fact that the parties had mutually agreed to designate Srinagar as a seat of arbitration.

“The seat of arbitration is governed by the agreement of the parties and not by any stray recital in the award. Once the seat of arbitration is fixed, it remains immutable unless altered by an express agreement. In the absence of any agreement, the designation of Srinagar as seat of the arbitration continues to hold the field…Once such a designation was made, the legal consequence that inexorably follows is that courts at Srinagar alone would have supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral proceeding. The mere fact that arbitral tribunal for reasons of convenience, conducted proceeding at New Delhi or rendered the award at that place does not and cannot, alter the juridical seat of arbitration.”, the court observed.

'Rape Case Filed After Failed Rs 30 Crore Settlement' : Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To IT Entrepreneur

Case : Venu Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala and another

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 378

The Supreme Court (April 16) granted anticipatory bail to a businessman accused of rape and sexual harassment, observing that the complaint against him appeared to have been filed after the failure of a proposed financial settlement of ₹30 crore between the parties.

A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeal filed by Kerala-based IT entrepreneur Venu Gopalakrishnan and set aside the Kerala High Court's order which had denied him anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered at Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam under Sections 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 64(rape), 74(outraging modesty of woman), 75(sexual harassment) and 79(insulting woman's modesty) read with Section 3(5)(common intention) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67A(transmitting sexually explicit acts) of the Information Technology Act.

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail upon furnishing cash security of ₹1 lakh with two sureties, subject to cooperation with the investigation and a condition that he shall not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Supreme Court Issues SOP Mandating Strict Timeline Framework For Filing Legal Aid Appeals

Cause Title: SHANKAR MAHTO VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 379

The Supreme Court (April 16) issued a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prescribing binding timelines for translation, transmission, and filing of records in legal aid appeals, alongside directions for the creation of a unified digital platform to enable real-time monitoring.

The issue relates back to 2017, when the Supreme Court first took note of delays in legal aid appeals. Despite years of deliberations involving institutions such as the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) and the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), the problem persisted.

Data placed before the Court revealed that hundreds of legal aid applications remained pending, while systems failed to even track delays in filing appeals, highlighting structural inefficiencies in the legal aid framework.

Supreme Court Upholds COFEPOSA Detention Of Kannada Actress Ranya Rao In Gold Smuggling Case

Case : Priyanka Sarkariya v The Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 380

The Supreme Court upheld the preventive detention order passed by the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) against Kannada actress Ranya Rao alias Harshavardhini Ranya for allegedly smuggling gold into the country. The Court also upheld the detention of her aide Sahil Sarkariya Jain under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA).

A Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed the Special Leave Petitions challenging the detention orders dated April 22, 2025, which had earlier been upheldby the Karnataka High Court.

Background

Wife & Her Family Cannot Be Prosecuted For 'Dowry-Giving' Based On Her Complaint Against Husband For Taking Dowry : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Rahul Gupta versus Station House Officer and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 381

The Supreme Court (April 16) held that a woman or his family members could not be subjected to proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act for 'giving' dowry based on the averments made by them in their complaint against the 'dowry takers'.

A bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed an appeal filed by a husband who sought to have an FIR registered against his wife and her family.

The husband argued that because his wife had admitted to providing dowry in her own legal complaint against him, she had effectively confessed to a crime under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act), which penalizes the "giving" of dowry. However, the court rejected his attempt to use her allegations as a basis for criminal proceedings against her.

High Courts Must Act As Guardians Of District Judiciary, Not Castigate Judges In Orders: Supreme Court

Case : Shuvendu Saha v. State of West Bengal

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 382

The Supreme Court has cautioned that it has become a recent trend for High Courts to castigate judicial officers and record adverse remarks or strictures against them while exercising supervisory, appellate or revisional jurisdiction, stressing that such an approach is inconsistent with the institutional role of High Courts as guardians of the district judiciary.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that when infirmities are noticed in orders passed by judicial officers, the immediate reaction should not be to make disparaging observations in judicial orders, particularly because High Courts, being courts of record, are expected to protect and guide officers in the subordinate judiciary.

"Before parting, we may record a discordant note that it has become a recent trend to castigate Judicial Officers and record adverse remarks/strictures against them in judicial orders passed by the High Court in the exercise of supervisory, appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The High Court, being a Court of record in the State, is expected to act as the guardian of the Officers in district judiciary. While finding infirmities in the order passed by a Judicial Officer, the immediate reaction ought not to be to make adverse or disparaging observations against the concerned Judicial Officer in a judicial dispensation."

Plaint Can't Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 As Barred Under Order II Rule 2 CPC : Supreme Court

Cause Title: S. VALLIAMMAI & OTHERS VERSUS S. RAMANATHAN & ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 383

In a significant clarification regarding the Code of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court has held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC.

The Court observed that while deciding an application for rejection of plaint, the inquiry must be confined strictly to the averments made in the plaint. It is impermissible for courts at this stage to undertake a detailed comparison of pleadings or examine whether a subsequent suit is barred under Order II Rule 2, as such a determination requires evidence and cannot be decided at the threshold.

A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an appeal against the Madras High Court's decision to reject a subsequent suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The appellants challenged the High Court's approach of undertaking a detailed examination of pleadings and documents in both the earlier and subsequent suits at the threshold stage. They argued that the question of whether a suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC can only be determined on the basis of evidence during trial, and not at the preliminary stage by invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

Even In Ex Parte Suits, Courts Must Frame 'Points For Determination' & Deliver Reasoned Judgments : Supreme Court

Cause Title: PRAMOD SHROFF VERSUS MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 384

The Supreme Court has observed that although formal framing of issues may not be mandatory in ex-parte civil suits, courts are nonetheless required to identify and decide “points for determination."

Though framing of issues is not mandatory, if the omission to frame the same causes prejudice to the parties, then the same can vitiate the trial, the Court stated.

“…even in default or ex parte suits, the court should identify the legal points (even if obvious) and give a reasoned answer. Simply granting a decree on default is not enough under Section 2(9) of CPC doing so would be a “material irregularity”. Thus, points should be framed (or recited from existing pleadings) and addressed regardless of default.”, the court observed.

Landlord's Bona Fide Need To Be Assessed As On Date Of Eviction Petition Unless Subsequent Events Cause Material Change : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MARIA MARTINS VERSUS NOEL ZUZARTE AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 385

The Supreme Court has reiterated that in eviction petitions, the adjudication of a landlord's bona fide need must ordinarily be assessed as on the date when the eviction suit was filed, unless a subsequent event materially changes the ground of relief. Applying this principle, the Court remanded a 31-year-old eviction dispute to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

A Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Bombay High Court's order dismissing the landlord's writ petition and held that the High Court failed to properly consider whether the subsequent developments relied upon by the tenant had a material bearing on the landlord's right to eviction.

Background

'Apply Preventive Detention Against Mining Mafia' : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Curb Illegal Mining In Chambal Sanctuary

Case Title: IN RE: ILLEGAL SAND MINING IN THE NATIONAL CHAMBAL SANCTUARY AND THREAT TO ENDANGERED AQUATIC WILDLIFE Versus, SMW(C) No. 2/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 386

In the suo motu case taken up over illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary region, the Supreme Court passed stringent directions for immediate compliance in order to curb illegal activities in the area.

Notably, it called on the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and UP to come up with effective measures to tackle the illegal mining activities and warned that in case of failure, the Court would be constrained to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to impose directions including - a complete ban on sand mining in MP and Rajasthan, heavy penalty on the states for failing to safeguard the critical habitats and deployment of paramilitary/central forces.

Among other things, the court ordered confiscation proceedings for vehicles/machinery found involved in illegal sand mining, imposition of environmental compensation on violators, constitution of joint patrol teams and deployment of security personnel equipped with modern equipment, protective gear and arms, development of Standard Operating Procedure by states, etc.

Duty To Maintain Spouse Primary; Loan Repayments For Asset Creation No Ground To Reduce Maintenance Liability: Supreme Court

Case : Deepa Joshi v Gaurav Joshi

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 387

The Supreme Court observed that deductions arising out of financial commitments such as loan repayments, particularly where they contribute towards creation of assets, cannot be treated on par with necessary expenditure so as to substantially reduce the liability of maintenance. The Court emphasized that the obligation to maintain a spouse is a primary duty and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih enhanced the maintenance payable to a wife from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 per month, holding that loan repayments leading to acquisition of assets partake the character of capital investment and cannot be equated with essential or unavoidable expenditure.

Background

Clause Saying 'Can Be Settled By Arbitration' Does Not Create Mandate To Arbitrate : Supreme Court

Cause Title: NAGREEKA INDCON PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CARGOCARE LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 388

The Supreme Court (April 17) held that an arbitration clause employing the word “can” does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal filed against the Bombay High Court's decision, which held that Clause 25 of the Bill of Lading containing the arbitration agreement lacked the essential attributes of a valid arbitration agreement as it stated that the dispute 'can be settled by arbitration'.

“…the words used in the agreement should disclose a determination and obligation to go for arbitration and not only provide for the possibility of going to arbitration. When the word provides only a possibility, the same does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement.”, the court endorsed the observation made in Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander, 2007 (5) SCC 719.

Sale Of Accused's Property Can't Be Ordered As Bail Condition : Supreme Court

Cause Title: FEROZE BASHA & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 389

The Supreme Court has held that bail conditions must not be punitive or determinative in nature and cannot deprive an accused of their right to use their property by requiring the sale of that property as a condition for bail.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside a Madras High Court order that had required the sale of immovable properties of the accused as a condition for the grant of bail in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case.

“…we are of considered opinion that neither Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 nor Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 would enable a Court at the stage of bail or investigation to direct the sale of immovable property belonging to accused for settlement of alleged claims.”, the court observed.

Ad Hoc Employees Appointed Without Recruitment Advertisements Or Interviews Cannot Be Regularised: Supreme Court

Case Title – Madan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 390

The Supreme Court partly set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had quashed a set of Haryana government policies aimed at regularising contractual, ad hoc and daily wage employees. The Court upheld the validity of two notifications issued on June 16, 2014 and June 18, 2014, but struck down two notifications issued on July 7, 2014.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar noted that the July 2014 notifications sought to regularise those ad hoc employees who were not appointed following a proper recruitment process initiated via a public advertisement, thus violating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006).

In the Umadevi judgment, the Supreme Court held that public employment must ordinarily be filled through a proper recruitment process and that contractual or ad hoc employees cannot be regularised as a matter of course. The Court had, however, permitted a limited “one-time measure” to regularise employees who had worked for over ten years as of April 10, 2006 without court protection.

Highway Safety | No Parking Of Heavy Vehicles, No Unauthorised Dhabas : Supreme Court Issues Directions

Case Title: IN RE: PHALODI ACCIDENT Versus, SMW(C) No. 9/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 391

Recognizing the "safety of a commuter" as an integral facet of "right to live with dignity" under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court passed a slew of directions to address systemic and infrastructural issues plaguing national highways and expressways in the country.

It ordered inter-alia immediate removal of all unauthorized encroachments such as dhabas, eateries, etc. falling in the Right of Way of any national highway. It further directed provision of basic life support ambulances and truck lay-bye facilities at regular intervals on highways.

"A road, particularly a high-speed Expressway, must not become a corridor of peril due to administrative lethargy or infrastructural gaps. The loss of even a single life to avoidable hazards like illegal parking or blackspots etc., represents a failure of the State's protective umbrella. The 'Right to Life' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not merely a guarantee against the unlawful taking of life, but a positive mandate upon the State to ensure a safe environment where human life is preserved and valued", the Court noted.

'Very Unfortunate' : Supreme Court Flags NCLT Delay In Approving Resolution Plan, Calls For Nationwide Report

Cause Title: AVJ HEIGHTSS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION VERSUS IIFL FINANCE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 392

In an important development, the Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over prolonged delays in approval of resolution plans by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), calling out a case where a plan has remained pending for nearly two years.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan directed both the NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to furnish comprehensive nationwide data on pending approval applications and reasons for such delays.

The Court ordered the NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi to provid the following information at the earliest: -

Indemnity Clause Creates Immediate Liability, Not Contingent On Final Appeal Outcome: Supreme Court

Cause Title: VPS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VERSUS PRABHAT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 393

The Supreme Court has observed that an indemnity clause in a contract creates an immediate and absolute obligation to make good the loss and is not dependent on final confirmation of liability by the higher court.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside the Delhi High Court's decision, which had deferred the enforcement of a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) consent award merely because it was subject to approval from the Singapore Court of Appeal.

Holding the High Court's reasoning to be flawed, the Court observed that an indemnity clause forming part of a consent award creates an immediate obligation and does not depend on a decision of the Highest Court of Appeal. The Court said that an indemnity clause creates an instant liability of the indemnifier to indemnify the loss on behalf of the indemnified.

Short Breaks In Continuous Service Won't Make Ad Hoc Employee Ineligible For Regularisation: Supreme Court

Cause Title: PREM CHAND AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 394

The Supreme Court has observed that mere short breaks in the ad hoc service would not affect the continuity in the service to render an employee ineligible for the benefit of regularization of service.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling, which had denied regularisation to the appellants, appointed as peons and clerks in the Punjab Government's Finance Department in 1995–96 on an ad hoc basis, solely on the ground that their service records reflected breaks ranging from 5 to 187 days.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that similarly situated employees, who had even longer service breaks, were granted regularisation, and the denial of the same benefit to them amounted to a violation of the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree On Ground Of Practical Difficulties : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MAURICE W. INNIS VERSUS LILY KAZROONI @ LILY ARIF SHAIKH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 395

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the execution court cannot go behind the decree and has to execute the decree as it is.

“(Executing Court) has to execute the decree as it is without changing the same. It is settled in law that the jurisdiction of Executing Court is limited to give effect to the decree as passed and not to assume the role of a trial court so as to substitute its own view in place of that expressed under the decree.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside the Bombay High Court's decision which has upheld the Executing Court's decision to modify the civil court's compromise decree. A compromise decree was passed where the parties compromised to exchange some portions of the land.

Supreme Court Approves Contempt Trial Of Advocate For Making Allegations Against High Court Judge In Press Conference

Cause Title: NILESH C. OJHA VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 396

The Supreme Court (April 20) refused to interfere with the criminal contempt proceedings initiated against an Advocate for making an unsubstantiated allegation against a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court by holding a press conference.

The Court observed that imputations of a personal nature against a judge must rest on unimpeachable evidence, and should be pursued through legal remedies, than public commentary..

"While accountability and scrutiny are integral to a constitutional democracy, imputations of personal nature against a Judge must rest on unimpeachable material and be pursued strictly in accordance with law, failing which, they risk undermining the very edifice of judicial independence," the Court observed, refusing to interfere with the contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court against Advocate Nilesh Ojha.

Mere Entry In Municipality Property Register Not Proof Of Title : Supreme Court Rejects MCD's Claim

Cause Title: PAWAN GARG & ORS. VERSUS SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 397

The Supreme Court has observed that mere entry in the property records maintained by a municipal authority cannot, by itself, establish ownership over land, reiterating the primacy of legally recognized title documents and judicial findings.

“A mere entry in the list of properties maintained by the MCD cannot, by itself, constitute a valid proof of title over the subject land.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while setting aside the Delhi High Court's Division Bench judgment in favour of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

The High Court, accepting the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's contention that the property stood recorded in its name in the MCD's property register, had rejected the appellants' plea for incorporation of land purchased through registered sale deeds into the layout.

Legal Representatives Can Challenge Arbitral Award Only Under S 34 Arbitration Act, Not Article 227: Supreme Court

Cause Title: V.K. JOHN VERSUS S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA AND HUF (DIED) REPRESENTED BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 398

The Supreme Court has held that the appropriate remedy for a legal representative aggrieved by an arbitral award is to file an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

"In the considered view of this Court, the appropriate relief for a legal representative to challenge an arbitral award is under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and not under Article 227 of the Constitution/Section 115 of the CPC," the Court stated.

The Court noted that under the legal representatives of the party can also invoke the remedies under the Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Act is a complete Code in itself, the Court stated.

'Appointments To Uniformed Services Require Greater Caution' : Supreme Court Restores Dismissal Of Medically Unfit UP Constable

Cause Title: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. VERSUS. AJAY KUMAR MALIK

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 399

The Supreme Court (April 20) held that a candidate who is medically unfit for a public post like police cannot retain appointment merely due to administrative lapses or parity with similarly placed individuals, reiterating that eligibility criteria goes to the root of public employment

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N. V. Anjaria set aside the Allahabad High Court's ruling, which had upheld the appointment of a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police despite his medical unfitness at the time of recruitment, an aspect overlooked by senior police officials.

Background

Mere Possession Of Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute Minimum Experience Criteria : Supreme Court

Cause Title: HIMAKSHI VERSUS RAHUL VERMA & ORS. (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 400

The Supreme Court has observed that essential qualifications for an advertised post cannot be compromised merely because the candidate possesses a higher qualification.

A bench of Justices J. K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal filed by a candidate who had appeared for the post of Computer Hardware Engineer under the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. Although she topped the selection process and possessed an M. Tech degree, she did not meet the mandatory requirement of five years' work experience prescribed for the post; however, she claimed relaxations in work experience under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

Therefore, the issue was whether a candidate who did not possess the required work experience at the time of recruitment could still be selected and appointed, either on the basis of having a preferred higher qualification or by exercising a supposed relaxation of the eligibility conditions.

POCSO Act | Presumption Of Guilt Under S.29 Does Not Arise On Testimony Of Child Victim Alone If It Is Unreliable: Supreme Court

Case Title – Debraj Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 401

The Supreme Court held that the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 will arise only after the prosecution proves the basic facts of the alleged sexual assault, and cannot be applied if the victim child's testimony itself is not fully credible and trustworthy.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside a judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had reversed the appellant's acquittal and convicted him under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The Court restored the trial court's acquittal dated March 13, 2019.

“Unless the testimony of a victim child is found to be fully credible and trustworthy, the question of applying the presumption on the strength of such statement alone would not arise. The foundational fact of a sexual assault that would attract the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would require more than PW-1's statement which, on the face of it, was not credible as what she had stated to her mother was not borne out by her own statement before the trial court”, the Court stated.

S. 100 CPC | Findings Of Fact, Even If Erroneous, Cannot Be Disturbed In Second Appeal: Supreme Court

Cause Title: RUSSI FISHERIES P. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS BHAVNA SETH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 402

The Supreme Court has reiterated that while hearing a second appeal, it is impermissible for the High Courts to reopen and disturb the factual findings of the Court below by re-appreciating the evidence.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed an appeal filed by the defendant, who was aggrieved by the High Court's affirmation of the First Appellate Court's decree of specific performance. The Appellant-defendant alleged that the fact-based findings recorded by the First Appellate Court on readiness and willingness, extension of time, and payment of cash money were erroneous, which was not re-appreciated by the High Court to arrive at a just conclusion.

The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land executed in 1988. While the trial court denied specific performance and granted only refund of part consideration, the first appellate court reversed the decision and decreed specific performance, finding that the plaintiff had proved payment, extension of time, and readiness and willingness.

Foreign Judgment Passed Without Fair Opportunity To Defend Not Enforceable In India: Supreme Court

Case : Messer Griesheim GMBH v Goyal Gases Private Ltd

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 403

The Supreme Court has held that a foreign judgment rendered in summary proceedings without affording a meaningful opportunity to defend, despite the presence of triable issues, is unenforceable in India under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed a civil appeal filed by Messer Griesheim GmbH (now Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) and upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court refusing enforcement of a decree passed by an English Court against Goyal MG Gases Private Limited.

The Court observed that disposal of a case in summary jurisdiction, where the dispute involves contested facts requiring deeper scrutiny, results in premature adjudication and violates the principles of natural justice.

High Court Cannot Decide Appeal Lying Before A Statutory Appellate Authority Merely Because Of Delay: Supreme Court

Case Title – Premal Pratap Joisher & Anr. v. Vikram Jethlal Joisher & Ors. Etc.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 404

The Supreme Court held that High Courts cannot assume the role of statutory appellate authorities merely because proceedings are delayed while setting aside orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had directly decided a mutation dispute instead of allowing the statutory appeal to be adjudicated.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi said that once a statutory appeal was available under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the High Court ought to have allowed the appellate authority to decide the matter.

“Statutory remedies are provided to enable the parties to work out their rights before various fora at multiple levels. Such statutory schemes cannot be set at naught only because of the delays that may arise in that process”, the Court said.

'Jail Shouldn't Dilute Rights Of Prisoners With Disabilities': Supreme Entrusts Oversight To High-Powered Committee

Case Title: SATHYAN NARAVOOR v. UNION OF INDIA | Writ Petition(C) No(s). 182/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 404

The Supreme Court on April 21 referred certain issues related to prisoners with disabilities to the High Powered Committee constituted in Suhas Chakma case for effective redressal of the prisoners' concerns.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the judgment, having regard to the need for an "effective, structured, and uniform mechanism" to address the issues raised in the case, such as, assistive devices and support mechanism for disabled prisoners.

The Court passed the directions while dealing with a writ petition raising concerns about the conditions of detention and institutional safeguards available to prisoners with disabilities in prisons nationwide. The Court observed that the matter involves issues of considerable importance concerning whether the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional protections are being effectively realised in custodial settings.

SDO Has No Power To Alter Land Classification Under UP Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act: Supreme Court

Case Title – Babu Singh v. Consolidation Officer and Others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 405

The Supreme Court held that under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, a Sub-Divisional Officer has no authority to change the classification of land recorded as public utility land so as to enable grant of bhumidhari rights.

“Even otherwise, the Abolition Act, does not confer any authority upon the Sub-Divisional Officer to alter the category of land so as to bring it outside the prohibitory ambit of Section 132. The only mechanism contemplated by the Abolition Act for any conversion of land category is found in Section 117(6), which empowers the State Government—and the State Government alone—to resume land from the Gaon Sabha and make a fresh declaration vesting such land in a local authority”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria upheld the cancellation of pattas granted over pasture land in Hardoi district, UP, holding that the land was public utility land under Section 132 (Land in which bhumidhari rights shall not accrue) of the UP Land Reforms Act, 1950 and could not have been allotted for private rights.

Maintenance Can't Be Demanded From Man If DNA Test Shows He's Not Child's Father : Supreme Court

Case : Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 406

The Supreme Court has held that when a DNA test conclusively establishes that a man is not the biological father of a child, he cannot be directed to pay maintenance, even though the child was born during the subsistence of marriage.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal filed by a mother challenging the denial of maintenance to her daughter, affirming the Delhi High Court's decision in the matter.

Background

Prosthetic Limb Costs Must Also Be Compensated To Restore Accident Victims To Dignified Life: Supreme Court

Case : Prahlad Sahai v Haryana Roadways and anr

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 407

The Supreme Court has held that compensation awarded to motor accident victims must include the cost of prosthetic limbs and their maintenance, emphasizing that such devices are essential to restoring mobility, confidence, and dignity to amputees.

Observing that a prosthetic limb is integral to the life of a person who has lost a limb, the Court underscored that compensation must aim to place the injured person, as far as possible, in the position they would have occupied prior to the accident.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, hearing an appeal arising out of a bus accident of 2007, noted that neither the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal nor the High Court had awarded any amount towards prosthetic limb expenses, despite the claimant having suffered amputation of his right leg.

Probate Liable To Be Revoked For Non-Impleadment Of Necessary Parties, Suppression Of Facts: Supreme Court

Cause Title: S. LEOREX SEBASTIAN & ANR. versus SAROJINI & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 408

The Supreme Court has held that a probate granted without impleading necessary parties and without full disclosure of material facts is liable to be revoked.

“…if a party has a caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased, it is entitled to be served before the final order is passed. Further, if a person who has even a slight interest in the estate of the testator, he is entitled to file a caveat and contest the grant of the probate of the will of the testator.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vipul M. Pancholi heard a case where a woman obtained probate of a Will despite not impleading her siblings or the appellants, being the subsequent purchasers of the property originally transferred by her father. The probate was later revoked on the appellants' application, as they contended that they were necessary parties who had been excluded from the probate proceedings.

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Can't Be Rejected Over Deficiency In Valuation, Court Fee Without Giving Chance To Rectify: Supreme Court

Case Title: M/s. MARG LIMITED VERSUS SUSHIL LALWANI & ORS., SLP (C) No. 25132 OF 2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 409

The Supreme Court held that a litigant cannot be automatically non-suited under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC over deficiency in valuation of the suit or payment of court fee. As the two are curable defects, an opportunity must be given to the litigant to rectify and suit rejected only if there is non-compliance.

"the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) or (c) is not automatic upon a finding of undervaluation or deficit court fee; rather, it is conditional upon non-compliance with the opportunity so granted by the Court", it said.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe delivered the judgment, holding,

Appellate Court Can Reverse/Modify Conviction Even Without Accused's Appeal : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF ASSAM VERSUS MOINUL HAQUE @ MONU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 410

The Supreme Court has held that even in the absence of an appeal by the accused challenging the conviction, the appellate court is not precluded from reversing the conviction.

“…the appellate Court is vested with the power to examine the correctness of the findings and sentence recorded by the Court below and to reverse, alter or affirm the same, as the interests of justice may require.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while hearing an appeal filed by the State of Assam against the acquittal of the Respondent in a murder-rape case.

The, High Court, which acquitting the accused for the offences of murder and rape, had convicted him for the offence committed under Section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence).

2017 School Headmistress Rape-Murder : Supreme Court Dismisses Assam Govt Appeal Against Acquittal

Cause Title: THE STATE OF ASSAM VERSUS MOINUL HAQUE @ MONU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 410

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Assam against the Gauhati High Court's judgment which acquitted the accused in the 2017 rape and murder case of a school headmistress,

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta upheld the Gauhati High Court's judgment which upheld the acquittal of accused Moinul Haque for the offences of murder and rape. The bench also set aside the High Court's conviction of the accused for causing the disappearance of evidence.

Lapses in recovery and identification

S. 225 BNSS | Magistrate Must Conduct Inquiry Or Order Probe Before Proceeding Against Accused Outside Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

Cause Title: RAJEEV MEHTA @ RAJIV KISHOR KIRTILAL MEHTA VERSUS PARAM BIR SINGH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 411

The Supreme Court has held that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation under Section 225 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before proceeding against an accused residing outside the territorial jurisdiction.

In other words, if a person is being accused in a criminal complaint and lives outside the jurisdictional area of the court, the Magistrate cannot immediately issue a summons without following the mandate of Section 225 BNSS, the Court held.

“…it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to press into service Section 225, upon satisfying himself that the accused person is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises jurisdiction.”, observed a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale, while setting aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment to the extend it upheld the magistrate's decision to proceed against the accused without following the mandate of Section 225.

Supreme Court Requests Allahabad HC CJ To Ensure Priority Disposal Of Long-Pending Service Disputes

Cause Title: RAJENDRA SINGH BORA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 412

The Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to identify long-pending service disputes and take steps to ensure their expeditious disposal, expressing concern that employees often continue litigating service matters for decades, sometimes until they approach superannuation

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh issued the direction while allowing an appeal filed by a government employee seeking cadre reallocation in a 29-year-old dispute.

The Court noted that prolonged pendency of service disputes reflects administrative apathy and causes sustained hardship to employees and their families.

Government Grants Act Prevails Over Rent Control Law : Supreme Court Sets Aside Eviction Proceedings Against Union Govt

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA VERSUS SIR SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 413

The Supreme Court has held that premises occupied under a Government grant, in terms of the Government Grants Act 1895, are governed exclusively by the terms of the grant, and not by rent control legislation, setting aside eviction proceedings initiated against the Union of India under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the Delhi High Court's order, which had affirmed the eviction of the Union Government from the occupation of residential premises at Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi, under the Delhi Rent Control Act, on account of non-payment of the rent.

The Court said that proceeding initiated by Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt Ltd under the Delhi Rent Control Act, are not maintainable, since the lease deed executed in the government's favour attracted the statutory protection under the Government Grants Act, 1895, which overrides inconsistent laws, including rent control statutes, and that eviction cannot be sought unless expressly provided in the grant itself.

'Civil Court Lacks Jurisdiction' : Supreme Court In Boundary Dispute Between Maharashtra Panchayat & Municipality

Cause Title: UNCHGAON VILLAGE PANCHAYAT VERSUS KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 414

The Supreme Court has observed that an issue related to the determination of municipal limits, being subject to determination as per the relevant statutes, cannot be decided by the civil courts.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the Bombay High Court decision, which set aside the District Court's decision to decide the dispute over the determination of the Municipal limits between the Municipal Corporation and a village panchayat.

“…if their adjudication would necessarily involve examination of the validity or effect of statutory determinations relating to municipal limits or actions taken under special statutes, the Civil Court would lack jurisdiction.”, the Court said, emphasizing that civil courts lacks jurisdiction to decide the dispute over the determination of municipal limits, as the area is exclusively reserved for the legislative consideration.

Non-Examination of Independent Witness Not Fatal If Injured Eyewitness Testimony Is Of Sterling Quality : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ADALAT YADAV ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 415

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction in a murder case, noting that non-examination of an independent witness would not prove fatal to the prosecution's case when the sole testimony of the injured witness was reliable, credible, and consistent.

“…convictions on the basis of the testimony of a singular eyewitness is also permissible. After all, evidence on record is to be measured for quality, not on the basis of quantity.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, while dismissing an appeal filed by a father-son duo, convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life under Section 302 and 149 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing an offence of Murder.

The Patna High Court, while affirming the conviction, had rejected the testimony of four eyewitness citing inconsistencies in their statements, however, found the injured witness testimony to be of 'sterling quality'.

Supreme Court Orders Shutdown Of School For Loan Default, Directs Police Aid For Take Over Under SARFAESI Act

Cause Title: CHAITANYA BAHUUDDESHIYA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL & ORS. VERSUS AUXILO FINSERVE PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 416

The Supreme Court has ordered the closure of a private school in Maharashtra's Kolhapur after the school management repeatedly blocked the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, for default in payment of the outstanding dues.

The Court ordered the closure of the school with effect from May 1, 2026, after finding that the management repeatedly defaulted on loan repayments and wilfully disobeyed court orders, showing an “extreme lack of solicitude for the rule of law.”

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma granted liberty to the secured creditor to take the help of the local police to take possession of the school premises, clarifying that a secured creditor's right to take possession cannot be blocked by force or illegal occupation, and the Courts will not tolerate physical resistance to lawful recovery proceedings.

Supreme Court Approves BCI Rule Amendment Allowing Bar Association Office Bearers To Contest Bar Council Elections

Case Title: SHYAM LAL THAKUR v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, Diary No. - 20512/2026 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 417

The Bar Council of India informed the Supreme Court that it has amended its rule which barred office bearers of Bar Associations from contesting elections to State Bar Councils without resigning from the Bar Association post.

Under the earlier Rule, an office bearer of a Bar Association could not contest in elections of a State Bar Council until they resigned from the Bar Association post. Now, as per the amended Rule, an advocate holding a Bar Association post can contest in the elections of a State Bar Council, subject to filing of an undertaking before the Returning Officer that they would not simultaneously hold the two representative posts in the Bar Association as well as the Bar Council. That is, if elected to the State Bar Council, they would either resign from the Bar Association post or give up the Bar Council post.

The amendment will apply to all cases where elections have not yet been held, from the date of its publication in the official gazette.

IBC Mechanism Not Substitute For Decree Execution Or Recovery Proceedings : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LTD. VERSUS SHUBH GAUTAM

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 418

The Supreme Court (April 23) reiterated that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process cannot be invoked as a substitute for executing a money decree, especially against a solvent and functioning company.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing an appeal filed by the corporate debtor against the NCLAT's decision to allow the admission of CIRP against it.

At the heart of the dispute was whether a decree-holder creditor could trigger the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) merely to recover dues under a civil court decree, particularly when the debtor company remained financially sound, and the debt quantum was contested.

Police Cannot Arrest Accused In Complaint Case Unless Non Bailable Warrant Issued Along With Summons : Supreme Court

Cause Title: OM PRAKASH CHHAWNIKA @ OM PRAKASH CHABNIKA @ OM PRAKASH CHAWNIKA VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 419

The Supreme Court (April 23) flagged a serious procedural irregularity in Bihar and Jharkhand, noting the practice of litigants approaching the Sessions Court / High Court for anticipatory bail in complaint cases on the apprehension that the mere issuance of process would lead to their arrest.

The Court clarified that once a process is issued, the litigant needs to only comply with the process, as no arrest can take place in a complaint case unless a non-bailable warrant is issued to effect process.

“Once the Court takes cognizance and issues summons, all that the accused has to do is to appear before that Court and join the proceedings. Why should the accused go before the Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, and pray for anticipatory bail? Police has no power to arrest the accused in a complaint case unless there is a non bailable warrant issued by that Court along with the summons.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Court Cannot Direct Accused To Surrender While Rejecting Anticipatory Bail : Supreme Court

Case Title – Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 419

The Supreme Court emphasised that a court has no jurisdiction to direct an accused to surrender before the trial court while rejecting anticipatory bail.

“If the Court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so but the Court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a plea filed by a man accused of cheating and forgery against a Jharkhand High Court order which had rejected his anticipatory bail plea and asked him to surrender and seek regular bail.

Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement Of Gujarat Judicial Officer, Quashes De Novo Inquiry After First Inquiry Report

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 420

The Supreme Court has ordered the reinstatement of a judicial officer in Gujarat, holding that she was subjected to an impermissible de novo inquiry in disciplinary proceedings. The Court ruled that once an inquiry report is taken on record, a fresh inquiry cannot be ordered under the applicable Rules, and only a further inquiry is permissible.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the judicial officer's plea against the Gujarat High Court's decision, which refused to halt the de novo inquiry against her, despite the initial inquiry report rejecting the majority of the charges against her, except one relating to willful absenteeism from service.

The appellant, a judicial officer in the Gujarat State Judicial Service, was subjected to departmental proceedings based on multiple allegations, including absenteeism and procedural irregularities.

Right To Speedy Trial Cannot Displace Conditions For Bail Under S 37 NDPS Act : Supreme Court

Case : State of Punjab v Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 421

The Supreme Court has held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot override the stringent statutory requirements for grant of bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1987.

"The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is undoubtedly a valuable constitutional guarantee; but in the context of a special statute such as the NDPS Act dealing with commercial quantity, that right has to be read alongside, and not in displacement of, the mandate of Section 37," the Court observed.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside bail orders granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to two accused persons in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of heroin, directing them to surrender before the trial court within one week.

Mere Knowledge Of Second Marriage Insufficient To Implicate Relatives In Bigamy Offence : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SIVARAMAN NAIR AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 422

The Supreme Court (April 24) held that relatives cannot be fastened with liability for the offence of bigamy merely based on their knowledge of the second marriage. The Court said that unless it is shown that the relatives have actively participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the solemnisation of second marriage, they cannot be held liable for bigamy.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih quashed the proceedings under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the husband's relatives, including his father, mother, and sister, who the complainant-wife had accused of subjecting her to cruelty and encouraging the husband to contract a second marriage.

The case arose from an FIR registered in 2016 by a woman alleging prolonged cruelty, dowry harassment, and her husband's second marriage. While detailed allegations—including physical assault, monetary demands, and deception—were made against the husband, the accusations against the in-laws were largely limited to claims of “presence” during incidents and general “encouragement” of the husband's conduct to do bigamy.

'Service Inam' Land Attached To Mosque Is Wakf Property, Can't Be Alienated : Supreme Court

Cause Title: A.P. STATE WAKF BOARD THROUGH CHAIRPERSON VERSUS JANAKI BUSAPPA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 423

The Supreme Court (April 24) has observed that lands attached to Mosques known as 'service imams' form part of the Wakf Property, and therefore cannot be alienated.

“It is undisputed and settled that lands granted as service inam for religious or charitable purposes partake the character of endowed property and are impressed with a public or religious trust, thereby restricting their alienability.”, observed a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The Court set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment, which had overturned the Wakf Tribunal's decision to annul the alienation of the 'service imam' in the Respondent's favour.

Article 227 | High Courts Cannot Reassess Materials Considered By Trial Courts : Supreme Court

Cause Title: VINAY RAGHUNATH DESHMUKH VERSUS NATWARLAL SHAMJI GADA RESPONDENTS AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 424

The Supreme Court has observed that it is impermissible for the High Courts to exercise their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the subordinate Courts' findings on merits.

“It is well settled that in exercise of such jurisdiction, it would not be open for the High Court to review or reassess the material that was taken into consideration by the Court while passing the impugned order.”, observed a bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had interfered with the Appellate Court's decision to allow the Appellant to amend the suit for eviction.

An amendment to the suit for eviction was sought by the Appellant (landlord's son), to include an additional ground of eviction on the bonafide need, based on a subsequent event unfolded after the death of his father, who had originally instituted the eviction suit taking a ground for bonafide need for himself and family members.

Landlord's Legal Heirs Can Amend Eviction Suit To Add Bona Fide Need : Supreme Court

Cause Title: VINAY RAGHUNATH DESHMUKH VERSUS NATWARLAL SHAMJI GADA  AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 424

The Supreme Court has observed that where a landlord, who filed an eviction suit on the ground of bona fide requirement for himself and his family, passes away, his legal heirs may amend the pleadings to incorporate additional grounds of bona fide need, provided such amendments do not conflict with or alter the original basis of the suit.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal filed by the legal heirs of the landlord (wife and children), who were aggrieved by the Bombay High Court's decision to deny them an opportunity to amend the plaint to include their additional bona fide needs in congruence with the bonafide mentioned originally by the landlord.

In an original suit for eviction, the landlord sought eviction of the Respondent-tenant on the ground of bona fide need for himself and family members. The trial court dismissed the suit after noting that the landlord failed to put forth the business idea to be executed on the suit premises if vacated.

Unsuccessful Party Can Invoke S. 9 Arbitration Act Post-Award: Supreme Court Settles Conflicting HC Views

Case : Home Care Retail Marts Pvt Ltd v. Haresh N Sangavi

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 425

The Supreme Court has held that an unsuccessful party in arbitration may invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 even after the arbitral award is passed. However, the Court cautioned that courts must exercise care, caution and circumspection while considering such applications filed by unsuccessful parties.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan made this important clarification while deciding a batch of appeals arising from disputes between commercial parties concerning the maintainability of post-award interim relief petitions filed by parties who had failed in arbitration. The question before the Court was "whether a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act at the post-award stage, by a party that has lost in the arbitral proceedings and has no enforceable award in its favour, is maintainable in law."

Background

S.480(3) BNSS Bail Conditions Not Applicable To Offences Punishable Up To 7 Yrs Imprisonment : Supreme Court

Cause Title: NARAYAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 426

The Supreme Court has observed that for non-bailable offences punishable up to seven years, bail can be granted without imposing the conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal filed by an accused, who was granted bail in a case registered under the MP Excise Act (Act) for allegedly possessing illicit liquor.

Noting that the offence in question carries a maximum sentence of three years and is non-bailable, the Court set aside the order of the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had cancelled the Appellant's bail solely on the ground of alleged violation of conditions imposed under Section 480(3) of the BNSS.

S.27 Evidence Act | Joint Statement By Different Accused Admissible Only If They Lead To Distinct Discoveries: Supreme Court

Cause Title: ANAND JAKKAPPA PUJARI @GADDADAR VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 427

S.27 Evidence Act | Joint Statements By Different Accused Admissible If They Lead To Distinct Discoveries: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that joint or simultaneous disclosure statements made by different accused persons are admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, provided such statements lead to the discovery of distinct and relevant facts connected with the crime.

A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan delivered the ruling while deciding criminal appeals filed by two convicts challenging their conviction in a murder case arising from Karnataka. The Court ultimately acquitted the appellants, but clarified the legal position on the evidentiary value of joint disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Supreme Court Approves Shifting Of Deers From Delhi's AN Jha Park To Rajasthan, Directs Centre To Frame Guidelines On Wildlife Relocation

Cause Title: NEW DELHI NATURE SOCIETY THROUGH VERHAEN KHANNA VERSUS DIRECTOR HORTICULTURE DDA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 428

The Supreme Court has upheld the translocation of deer from Delhi's A.N. Jha Deer Park in Hauz Khas to tiger reserves in Rajasthan, while issuing wide-ranging directions to regulate wildlife relocation across the country.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta upheld the Delhi High Court's decision regarding deer's translocation to places outside Delhi while retaining a few of them at the AN Jha Park.

Accepting the findings of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), the Court closed the proceedings, directing authorities to implement a scientific and time-bound translocation plan.

Buyer Not Criminally Liable For Purchasing Property Based On Will Later Found Forged : Supreme Court

Cause Title: S. ANAND VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 429

The Supreme Court has observed that a property purchased on a Will later found to be forged cannot make the buyer liable for the fraudulent sale deed executed by the vendor.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the criminal proceedings against the purchaser, who had been accused of facilitating a fraudulent property transfer by the vendor. The Court held that the buyer, having no knowledge of the allegedly forged Will at the time of purchase and being abroad during the relevant period, could not be held criminally liable for a transaction later found to be tainted by fraud on the part of the vendor.

The Court said that in such a scenario of fraudulent transfer of property, the buyer cannot be called as accused, as they “would be the persons aggrieved because in such circumstances, their title over the property in question would land in dispute, having being acquired from the vendor who used the so called fabricated will to execute the registered sale deeds.”

RTE Act | School Cannot Delay Admission To State-Allotted Student Raising Dispute On Eligibility : Supreme Court

Cause Title: LUCKNOW PUBLIC SCHOOL, ELDICO AND ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 430

The Supreme Court has held that private “neighbourhood schools” must grant immediate admission to students allotted by the State under the Right to Education Act, 2009, and cannot refuse admission on the ground that any dispute regarding the student's eligibility is pending.

The Court clarified that even if a school has doubts about a student's eligibility, it may approach authorities for clarification, but cannot withhold admission in the meantime.

“…we find that for schools like the petitioner that may have some disagreement with the selection by the Government, can make representation to the concerned authority, but they ought not wait for the outcome of such a representation and are mandated to grant admission to the student whose name finds mention in list forwarded to the school in the interregnum. This immediacy is essential to actualise the promise of Article 21A of the Indian Constitution.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.

Trial Courts Must Call Reports On Mitigating & Aggravating Factors In Potential Death Penalty Cases Before Sentencing : Supreme Court

Case : Aman Singh and another v. State of Bihar

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 431

The Supreme Court has held that trial courts must, as a matter of course, call for reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances immediately after conviction and before determining sentence in cases involving a potential death penalty. The Court observed that failure to obtain such reports at the earliest stage undermines a balanced sentencing process and delays meaningful consideration of reformative factors.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi issued the directions while hearing appeals against the judgment of the Patna High Court confirming their death sentence. The Court stayed the execution of the death sentence pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeals.

The Court noted that in Manoj and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, it was directed that the trial courts must elicit information regading mitigating factors before the imposition of death penalty.

No Right To Complete Tenure If Appointment Is Subject To 'Until Further Orders' : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SADACHARI SINGH TOMAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 432

The Supreme Court (April 28) observed that where an appointment order makes the tenure subject to “until further orders,” it does not confer an enforceable right on the employee to continue for the full term.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the Delhi High Court's decision affirming the curtailment of the appellant's tenure by the respondent authorities, noting that although the appointment specified a five-year term, it was expressly subject to the condition “or until further orders, whichever is earlier.”

The appellant joined the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) as a scientist in 1978 and rose through the ranks before being appointed as Assistant Director General (ARIS) in 1998. His appointment order specified a tenure of five years “or until further orders, whichever is earlier.”

Motor Accident | In Head-On Collision, Can't Blame One Driver Alone Without Careful Scrutiny Of Circumstances : Supreme Court

Case Title: PARMILA & ORS. VERSUS RAJENDER & ORS., SLP(C) No. 14922/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 433

The Supreme Court observed that in cases of head-on collisions, courts cannot attribute the entire blame to one driver without undertaking a careful and comprehensive scrutiny of the conduct of all parties and the surrounding circumstances.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside concurrent findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had held the deceased car driver solely responsible for a fatal accident involving a Haryana Roadways bus. The Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after finding that key issues relating to contributory negligence and the validity of the bus driver's licence had not been properly examined.

The bench recorded its perplexity at the findings of the MACT and the High Court that the entire blame for the accident rested solely upon the deceased, without attributing any degree of contributory negligence to the bus driver.

IBC | Corporate Guarantee Qualifies As 'Financial Debt' : Supreme Court

Cause Title: STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS DOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 434

The Supreme Court has held that a corporate guarantee furnished by a company to secure another company's borrowing, backed by arrangements such as hypothecation, constitutes a “financial debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe considered a dispute in which an SBI-led consortium sought recognition of its claims in the CIRP initiated against Reliance Infratel Ltd. (RITL)-Corporate Debtor. The consortium contended that since RITL had executed corporate guarantees in its favour for loan facilities extended to group entities such as Reliance Communications (RCOM) and Reliance Telecom, the declaration of RITL's account as an NPA entitled the banks to invoke those guarantees and submit their claims in the insolvency proceedings against RITL.

The NCLT and NCLAT refused to allow the SBI-led Consortium claims against the RITL, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Criticises Assam Police For Faulty Probe Leading To Acquittals In Murder Case

Cause Title: Sadek Ali @ Md. Sadek Ali and Anr. Versus The State of Assam and Anr. (with connected appeals)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 435

The Supreme Court (April 28) criticized the Assam Police for undertaking a flawed investigation in a Murder case, which led to the wrongful conviction of 16 accused persons due to the 'scripted investigation' by the State Police. The Court advised the State Government to equip and educate its police officers involved in the investigation of the due procedure.

"An inept investigation or a scripted enquiry, both are fatal to criminal prosecution; but the latter has lethal consequences when there is a possibility of totally innocent persons being crucified," the Court observed at the outset.

The Court noted that although the police reached the scene of the incident, they failed to follow due procedure by delaying the registration of the FIR by two days. The FIR was eventually lodged by a complainant who was not an eyewitness, based on information provided by another person who was never examined during the trial.

Based On Finance Act 2026, Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Verdicts That JAOs Can't Issue IT Reassessment Notices

Case : Asst Commissioner of Income Tax v. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 436

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has remitted thousands of tax appeals to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration of the issue concerning the authority to issue reassessment notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Taking note of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2026, which clarifies that such powers vest in Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) and not faceless units, the Court chose not to adjudicate the matter on merits and instead directed the High Courts to re-examine the issue in light of the revised legal position.

The controversy stemmed from the interplay between the traditional reassessment framework and the faceless assessment regime introduced after 2021.

While some High Courts upheld the authority of Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) to issue reassessment notices, others held that, following the introduction of faceless schemes, only designated faceless authorities could exercise such powers. This divergence led to large-scale litigation, with reassessment notices being quashed in several jurisdictions.

No Hate Speech Offence Made Out Against Anurag Thakur & Parvesh Verma : Supreme Court In Brinda Karat's Plea

Case Title: Brinda Karat And Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi And Anr., Diary No. 35545/2022

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 437

In CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat's plea against alleged hate speeches by BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma in the year 2020, the Supreme Court took a view that no cognizable offense for registration of an FIR was made out.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment, while dealing with Brinda Karat's challenge to a Delhi High Court orderwhich upheld the Magistrate's refusal to direct the registration of FIR.

Briefly put, Brinda Karat's plea referred to various speeches made by the two politicians including the speech dated January 27, 2020 given by Anurag Thakur at a rally shouting the slogan "desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaron saalon ko". Reference had also been made to another speech made by Parvesh Verma dated January 27-28, 2020, while campaigning for Bhartiya Janata Party and subsequently in an interview given to media.

No Legislative Vacuum On Hate Speech; Union & States May Consider If Amendments Needed : Supreme Court

Case Title : Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 943/2021 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 437

The Supreme Court observed that the existing criminal law adequately deals with the offence of hate speech. The notion that the offence of hate speech is unoccupied by the legislation is misconceived, the Court observed.

The Court emphasised that there is no legislative vacuum in that regard. It added that it was beyond the remit of the judiciary to create an offence, as it is a field exclusively within the domain of the legislature.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was pronouncing the judgment in a batch of petitions seeking directions and guidelines to address the growing menace of hate speeches.

Magistrate Doesn't Require Prior Sanction To Direct FIR Registration Under S.156(3) CrPC : Supreme Court

Case Title: Brinda Karat v.State of NCT of Delhi and others SLP(Crl) 5107/2023 (and connected cases)

Case Title : Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 943/2021 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 437

The Supreme Court held that a Judicial Magistrate does not require prior sanction under Section 196/197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing the registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

"The requirement of prior sanction under Section 196 and 197 CrPC (or corresponding provisions in the BNSS) operates at the stage of taking cognizance and does not extend to the pre-cognisance stage of registration of FIR or investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC/Section 175(3) BNSS", the Court said.

Referring to Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (2006) 1 SCC 627, the Court observed -"The power exercised by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC falls at the pre-cognisance stage. An order directing investigation under the said provision does not amount to taking cognizance of the offence."

Hate Speech | Public Figures Must Be Mindful That Words Have Consequences In Our Diverse Society : Supreme Court

Case Title : Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 943/2021 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 437

Even while refraining from issuing directions to curb hate speech offences on the ground that the relief fell outside the judicial domain, the Supreme Court appealed to all citizens to imbibe a sense of fraternity, and sounded a strong word of caution against the propagation of communally divisive remarks.

The Court underscored that the preservation of constitutional order is not the responsibility of the State alone, and individuals and public figures must also bear that responsibility. Highlighting the diversity of our nation, and the Constitutional vision for fraternity, the Court stated that individuals and public figures must remember that words have consequences in a diverse society like ours.

"In a constitutional democracy, public discourse carries with it a corresponding duty of restraint and responsibility. Individuals, public figures, and institutions alike must remain mindful that words have consequences, particularly in a society as diverse as ours," the Court cautioned.

CIRP | Admission Of Claim By Resolution Professional Does Not Amount To Acknowledgment Of Debt: Supreme Court

Case Title – Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 438

The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT judgment which had held that admission of a creditor's claim by a resolution professional amounts to acknowledgment of debt and gives a fresh limitation period to file a application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that admission of a claim by an interim resolution professional or resolution professional is only an administrative act and cannot be treated as acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

"RP has no adjudicatory powers and his role involves collation of claims. RP performs its administrative duties under Section 18 of the Code. The admission of a claim by RP is merely an administrative/clerical task performed as part of its statutory duties under Section 18 of the Code8 and, therefore, admission of claim by RP only means induction/entry of a claim. An admission of a claim by RP is akin to mere recital/reference of debt, which does not amount to an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the 1963 Act", the Court observed, relying on judgments in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. (2020) and Prabhakaran & Ors. v. M. Azhagiri Pillai (2006).

'Shocking' : Supreme Court Criticises Allahabad HC For Denying Bail To Undertrial Despite 9 Years' Custody

Cause Title: VAIBHAV SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 439

The Supreme Court granted bail to a murder accused who had spent nearly nine years in jail as an undertrial in a murder case, observing that the High Court failed to appreciate the accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed strong disapproval of the Allahabad High Court's order denying bail, terming the matter “very shocking” and the impugned order “very disappointing.” The Court held that the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner without conclusion of trial constituted a gross infringement of the right to speedy trial.

This is not the first time the bench led by Justice Pardiwala is criticising the Allahabad High Court in bail matters. After a similar criticism by the bench, a judge of the High Court requested that he be removed from the bail roster. Last year, Justice Pardiwala's bench had directed that another Allahabad HC judge be withdrawn from criminal roster, an order which was later recalled at the request of the Chief Justice of India.

Arbitration Act | Jurisdictional Objection Rejected By Arbitrator Cannot Be Independently Challenged Under Sections 34 Or 37: Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/s. MCM Worldwide Private Limited versus M/s. Construction Industry Development Council

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 440

The Supreme Court has held that an arbitral tribunal's decision to dismiss the plea challenging its jurisdiction cannot be challenged independently under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The matter can be challenged only after the conclusion of the proceedings, while appealing against the award.

“…there is no option for the party aggrieved by the decision of the arbitrator upon the application filed under Section 16 except to wait till the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and then raise that issue by way of an application under Section 34 against the final award.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The Respondent sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal; however, it remained unsuccessful after the arbitrator dismissed the plea on the grounds of limitation. Aggrieved by this, the Respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the Act before the District Judge, which had also dismissed the application on merits, leading to an appeal under Section 37 before the High Court.

'State Must Be Model Employer' : Supreme Court Criticises Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers Despite Earlier Directions

Cause Title: R. IYYAPPAN & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 441

The Supreme Court (April 29) criticised the Union Government for failing to implement the regularisation of daily wage workers in an ISRO subsidiary, despite earlier directions requiring it to frame a scheme or issue ad hoc rules within six months by creating the necessary posts to absorb them on a permanent basis.

The Court set aside the Madras High Court judgment and quashed portions of the “Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012”, observing that the scheme merely provided temporary engagement instead of permanent status as mandated earlier.

The Court held that once judicial directions attain finality, the authorities cannot dilute their substance by framing schemes that fall short of compliance. It emphasised that the obligation of the State to act as a model employer flows directly from Article 14 of the Constitution

Order XIII-A CPC | Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines For Summary Judgment In Commercial Suits

Cause Title: RELIANCE EMINENT TRADING AND COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 442

The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for the grant of summary judgment in commercial suits in terms of Order XIII-A of the Civil Procedure Code.

Interpreting Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court emphasized that summary judgment is a vital procedural mechanism intended to promote efficiency and prevent unnecessary trials in commercial disputes.

The Court clarified that summary judgment should be granted where the defence is merely speculative or lacks a real prospect of success, and where a full trial would serve no meaningful purpose. It cautioned courts against allowing litigation to continue on the basis of illusory or fanciful defences.

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Pawan Khera In Assam Police FIR

Case : Pawan Khera v. State of Assam

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 443

The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with the FIR registered by Assam Police on the complaint by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, over Khera's allegation that she held multiple passports.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice AS Chandurkar had reserved the judgment on Khera's petition challenging the Gauhati High Court's dismissal of his anticipatory bail application.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court observed that the observation made by the High Court "is not based on correct appreciation of all the material which has been placed on record and appears to be erroneous, in particular shifting the burden on the accused."

The Court also observed that the allegations and counter-allegations prima facie "appear to be politically motivated and seemingly influenced by such rivalry, rather than disclosing a situation warranting custodial interrogation, and the veracity of the allegations can be tested at trial."

Order XXI Rule 97 CPC | Decree Execution Can't Be Stalled By Raising Belated Objection : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory Versus Kamal

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 444

The Supreme Court has observed that execution proceedings cannot be stalled by raising a belated objection to the decree when the objector had a fair chance and knowledge about the passing of a decree during the earlier stage of challenge to the execution of a decree.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench order, which had interfered with the Executing Court and First Appellate Court's decision to decline the execution of a decree passed in the Appellant's favour.

Supreme Court Summarises Principles For Exercise Of Article 227 Jurisdiction

Cause Title: NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD. & ANR. VERSUS B. GURAPPA NAIDU & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 445

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the High Courts, while exercising the supervisory Writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot re-appreciate the issues to substitute their view in place of what was decided by the subordinate court.

The Court said that the High Court cannot act as an appellate court to adjudicate the plea on merits, rather its examination should be restricted to determine whether the subordinate court has exceeded in its jurisdiction or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria laid down the following principles for the High Courts while deciding an Article 227 writ petition:

"a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an

(a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or

(b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or

(c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals.

b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record.

c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal."

Woman's Choice Relevant; Can't Force To Continue Unwanted Pregnancy Saying Child Can Be Given For Adoption : Supreme Court

Case : S v Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 446

The Supreme Court observed that a woman cannot be compelled to continue with an unwanted pregnancy merely on the ground that the child can be given up for adoption after birth, stressing that the choice of the pregnant woman must remain paramount.

Allowing the medical termination of pregnancy of a 15-year-old girl who was over seven months pregnant, the Court observed.

"What is relevant here is the choice of the pregnant woman rather than that of the child to be born. It is easy to say that if the pregnant woman is not interested in raising the child, she may give away the child in adoption and therefore she must give birth to the child.

'Govt Must Consider Detenu's Representation At Earliest Point Of Time' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Detention Under NSA

Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA ALIAS SUNIL CHAIN v. UNION OF INDIA, Diary No. - 10476/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 448

The Supreme Court set aside a preventive detention order passed under the National Security Act on the ground that the detenu's representation against the preventive detention was considered by the State government belatedly.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh noted from the facts of the case that the appellant-detenu made 2 representations against the detention order passed against him - one, to the detaining authority, and another, to the State government. However, the State government considered his representation after it approved the detention order.

As the State government considered the detenu's representation only after it approved the detention order, the court set aside the preventive detention order, noting that a detenu's representation must be considered at the earliest point in time.

"A duty is imposed on the concerned Government to consider the representation of the detenu at the earliest point of time. In the present case, the detaining authority did not forward the representation to the State Government immediately, though it had actually been sent to the detaining authority by the prison authority at the earliest point of time."

The Court held that the belated consideration of the detenu's representation vitiated both the detention order and its approval. Accordingly, both the preventive detention order and its approval were quashed and the appellant directed to be released forthwith.

Supreme Court Asks AIIMS To Constitute Expert Committee For Exploring Alternatives To 'Brain Death' Verification

Case Title: DR. S. GANAPATHY Versus THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 29395/2017

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 449

The Supreme Court called for the constitution of a medical experts Committee by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences to consider and report on a doctor's suggestions regarding scientific methods to ascertain 'brain death'.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing petitioner-Dr. S Ganapathy, a Kerala-based doctor, who alleged inter-alia that doctors certify a patient as 'brain dead' without even looking at them and/or on the basis of apnea test, which is subjective and not foolproof.

Supreme Court Allows Appointment Of ReT Candidates In J&K Subject To Clearing TET In Three Years

Cause Title: UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. VERSUS SABA WANI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 450

The Supreme Court has allowed the appointment of candidates placed in select panels under the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) Scheme in Jammu and Kashmir, holding that the closure of the scheme cannot retrospectively deprive them of appointment. The Court directed that such candidates be issued engagement orders, subject to acquiring the minimum qualifications, including passing the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), within three years and three attempts.

A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to balance the equities between candidates awaiting appointment and the statutory requirement of maintaining minimum teaching standards under the Right to Education Act.

While permitting appointments, the Court emphasised that compliance with statutory qualification norms remains essential. It therefore directed that candidates appointed under the scheme must acquire the minimum qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education, including clearing the TET, within three years and three attempts from the date of appointment.

Orders and Other Developments

West Bengal SIR | Appellate Tribunals Can Entertain Fresh Documents After Verifying Genuineness : Supreme Court

Case Title: MOSTARI BANU Versus THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (and connected cases)

In the West Bengal SIR matter, the Supreme Court allowed the Appellate Tribunals, which are hearing appeals against exclusions from the electoral rolls, to entertain fresh documents subject to the verification of their authenticity.

The Court initially ordered that the Appellate Tribunals should not entertain fresh/new documents which were not submitted before the adjudicating officer. However, after the petitioners raised concerns, the Court modified its order to state, "The Appellate Tribunal will not entertain fresh documents without verifying the genuineness of such documents."

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was informed by the Election Commission of India that 19 Appellate Tribunals, headed by former High Court Chief Justices/Judges have been notified, and Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee National Institution of Water and Sanitation, Kolkata, has been chosen as the venue for the sitting of the Tribunals.

Supreme Court Stays Trial Against TN Minister Durai Murugan In Disproportionate Assets Case

Case Title – Durai Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court granted interim stay on trial proceedings against Tamil Nadu Minister Durai Murugan in a disproportionate assets case. Murugan is currently the Minister for Water Resources in the state government led by Chief Minister MK Stalin.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and issued notice on his delay condonation application and SLP against a judgment of the Madras High Court which had set aside his discharge in the case and directed the trial court to proceed.

“There shall be no further proceedings until the next date of hearing. Issue notice returnable on 20th April”, the Court stated.

'Govt Biggest Litigant Adding To Pendency' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Union For Unnecessarily Challenging Relief To CISF Constable

Case Title – Union of India v. Sukhwinder Singh

The Supreme Court imposed cost of ₹25,000 on the Union of India for challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had set aside the dismissal of a CISF constable and granted him 25% back wages.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the SLP, criticising the Union for pursuing it.

“We fail to understand why the Union of India and others have approached this court by assailing the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. We dismiss this SLP with cost of Rs. 25000”, the Court ordered.

Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Dispute: MP High Court Will Consider Objections Recorded During ASI Survey Videography, Says Supreme Court

Case : Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society Dhar v. Hindu Front for Justice (Regd. Trust No. 976) and Ors. SLP(C) No. 11468/2026

In the Bhojshala Temple- Kamal Maula Mosque dispute, the Supreme Court (April 1) observed that it had no reason to doubt that the Madhya Pradesh High Court would consider the objections of the Mosque management, which are stated to be recorded in the videography of the survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition filed by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society. The Society had filed an application before the High Court seeking the production of the video records and the photographs. The High Court deferredthe hearing of the application, saying that it would be considered at the time of the final hearing. The Society approached the Supreme Court, aggrieved by the course adopted by the High Court.

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, for the petitioner, submitted that excavations had happened in the site, contrary to the Supreme Court'sdirectionspassed in April 2024, and the mosque management had raised their objections to it, which were recorded in the video.

Racial Discrimination | Supreme Court Urges Delhi HC CJ To Consider Policy Decision For Expeditious Trials In Sensitive Cases

Case Title: MODOYIA KAYINA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 6014-2026

While dealing with a PIL assailing racial discrimination against Northeastern people, the Supreme Court expressed a need for expeditious trials in sensitive cases.

The Court requested the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to take up the issue on the administrative side and consider a holistic policy decision.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order while dealing with a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Modoyia Kayina and argued by Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai.

Post-Facto EC Not Automatic, Impermissible Projects Can Be Demolished, Says Centre; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Title – Vanashakti v. Union of India

The Supreme Court reserved judgment in the Vanashakti plea challenging the regime permitting post-facto environmental clearances.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging post-facto environmental clearances. The matter arises from the Court's earlier decision recalling its own order that had prohibited retrospective environmental approvals.

In earlier hearings, the Supreme Court had questioned whether courts could adopt a rigid rule barring ex post-facto environmental clearances altogether, and if the legislature or a delegated law-maker could be treated as completely denuded of power to provide for such a regime.

Air India Plane Crash | Supreme Court Rejects Engineer's PIL Seeking Details On Fuel Cut-Off In AAIB Preliminary Report

Case Title: SURESH CHAND SHRIVASTVA Versus AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BUREAU (AAIB), SLP(C) No. 11209/2026

The Supreme Court rejected a petition seeking “reading down” of the preliminary investigation report on the Air India plane crash that took place in Ahmedabad on June 12 last year, claiming 270 lives.

The petitioner prayed for a reading down of the report to the extent it excluded a complete sequence of events with a time chart. He also sought modification of the AAIB report to include the time chart of flameout and switches transition from cut-off to run, whether mechanical or manual, with the time chart. However, the Court rejected his plea.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi heard the matter.

West Bengal SIR | New Voters Included By Form 6 After Qualifying Date Won't Get Right To Vote : Justice Bagchi

Case Title: MOSTARI BANU Versus THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (and connected cases)

During the hearing of the West Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR) matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court orally commented that the inclusion of a person in the electoral roll through Form 6 (registration form for new voter) will not give them a right to vote in the present assembly election, if such inclusion is after the 'qualifying date' notifed by the Election Commission.

As per Section 14(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the qualifying date for preparation or revision of the electoral roll is the 1st day of January, April, July, and October of the year, with reference to which a person must have attained the age of eighteen years to be eligible for registration as an elector.

Justice Bagchi distinguished between a person's right to get enrolled in the electoral roll in terms of Form 6 vis-a-vis their right to vote as per the electoral rolls that go for polls as per the qualifying date announced by the Election Commission of India.

Supreme Court Slams West Bengal Officials Over Attack On Judges During SIR Duty, Directs Use Of Central Forces

Case : In Re : Safety and Security of Judicial Officers deputed for work relating to SIR of Electoral Rolls in the State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues | SMW(c) 3/2026

The Supreme Court took serious notice of a protest in West Bengal during which judicial officers engaged in Special Intensive Revision (SIR) work were held hostage by demonstrators from afternoon till midnight, and their vehicles were attacked using stones and sticks while they were being evacuated after midnight.

The Court referred to a letter received from the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice regarding the incident that occurred in Kaliachak village in Malda district.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi registered a suo motu case on the issue and took it up this morning.

'Never Seen Such A Polarised State' : Supreme Court On West Bengal After Attack On Judges In SIR Duties

Case : In Re : Safety and Security of Judicial Officers deputed for work relating to SIR of Electoral Rolls in the State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues | SMW(c) 3/2026

West Bengal is the most politically polarised State, said the Supreme Court in exasperation, following the unfortunate gherao and attack on judicial officers performing Special Intensive Revision(SIR) duties in a village in Malda district.

The Supreme Court orally said that in the State, "everyone speaks in political language".  The Court said thatdeploymentof judicial officers would be welcomed by all, since they are neutral agents; but even they are spared from attacks, the Court added in disappointment.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi took a suo motu case on the issue following a letter from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court regarding the incidents.

Justice Chandurkar Recuses From Hearing Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea In Gadchiroli Arson Case

Case Title: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra

Justice Atul Chandurkar of the Supreme Court recused from hearing advocate Surendra Gadling's bail plea in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case. The matter was listed before a bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar.

Earlier, Justice MM Sundresh had recused from the case. Subsequently, the case was being heard by a bench led by Justice JK Maheshwari., Justice Maheshwari was sitting with Justice Chandurkar, who recused.

Background

Justice KV Viswanathan Recuses After Reserving Judgment On Discovering Prior Appearance As Lawyer For Appellant

Case Title – Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited (AARC) v. Raju Chappakal Pappu & Ors.

In a rare instance, the Supreme Court recalled an order reserving judgment after it came to light that one of the judges who heard the matter had previously appeared as counsel for a party.

Justice KV Viswanathan recused from a civil appeal filed by Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Viswanathan had earlier heard the appeal and reserved judgment on March 17, 2026. Thereafter, Justice Vishwanathan recused, as it was later known that he had appeared as a counsel for the appellant in a related Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

West Bengal SIR | Supreme Court Asks INC Candidate Deleted From Electoral Roll To Approach Appellate Tribunal

Case Title: MOTAB SHAIKH Versus THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 399/2026

The Supreme Court allowed one Motab Shaikh, seeking to contest the upcoming West Bengal Assembly Elections on Indian National Congress' ticket, to approach the formed Appellate Tribunal in Kolkata against his deletion from the electoral roll after SIR exercise.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi heard the matter.

Briefly put, the petitioner approached the Court aggrieved by his inclusion in the 'Adjudication Deletion List' resulting in deletion from the electoral roll. He sought restoration of his name to the electoral roll and permission to file nomination papers as an INC candidate in the State's Assembly Elections. The petitioner also prayed for immediate operationalization of the Appellate Tribunals with proper online and offline mechanism enabling filing of appeals with relevant material.

Monkey Menace In Judges' Residential Bungalows : Supreme Court Floats Tender To Engage 'Monkey Scarers'

The Supreme Court has issued a tender notice inviting bids from agencies to provide manpower to manage the menace of monkeys at the residential bungalows of its judges.

In a notice issued through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal, the apex court stated that it intends to invite online bids from vendors and agencies from the open market for providing personnel designated as "Monkey Chasers/Handlers/Repellers (Monkey Scarers)" to drive away monkeys from the residential bungalows of judges, the Supreme Court Guest House, and other court premises.

The engagement is proposed for a period of two years.

Possible To Reform Murderer, But Cyber Criminal Should Not Be Spared : CJI Surya Kant

Case Title: SURAJ SRIVASTAV ALIAS SANJAY Versus STATE OF U.P, SLP(Crl) No. 5243/2026

During the hearing of a cybercrime case, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant commented that it maybe possible to release and reform a murderer, but cyber criminals must not be spared at all.

Referring to the accused before the Court, who apparently had a history of cyber frauds, the CJI said that a cyber criminal like him should be kept in single member cell without possibility of use of any mobile phone, etc. "That's the only way to deal", the CJI remarked.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was dealing with one Suraj Srivastav's challenge to the Allahabad High Court order which rejected his bail application in a case registered under Sections 420/120B of the IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act.

Can Cadets Boarded Out Due To Training Injury Be Treated As Ex-Servicemen For Job Reservation? Supreme Court Asks Centre

Case Title – In Re: Cadets Disabled In Military Training Struggle

The Supreme Court asked the Union Government whether military cadets who are boarded out due to injury or disability during training can be treated as ex-servicemen for the purpose of availing reservation in government and semi-government jobs.

“During the course of submissions, one of the aspects that was discussed was as to whether the boarded-out cadets could also be considered as ex-servicemen or ex-military personnel for the purpose of having the benefit of reservation for such persons in various governmental and semi government jobs and posts. Learned ASG to seek instructions on this aspect, so that the scope of the exploratory personnel could also include the boarded out, since the majority of them are in the 20s”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a suo motu case concerning the difficulties faced by such cadets.

Supreme Court Dismisses IT Dept Challenge To Quashing Of Reassessment Notice Against NDTV Holding Company

Case Title – Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax v. RRPR Holdings Private Limited

The Supreme Court dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against the Delhi High Court judgment which had quashed reassessment proceedings against RRPR Holdings Private Limited, a company owned by NDTV promoters Radhika Roy and Prannoy Roy.

A bench of Justice PS Narsimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.

In 2009, RRPR Holdings took a loan from Vishwa Pradhan Commercial Pvt. Ltd. It claimed that the loan proceeds were utilized clear outstanding loans with the ICICI Bank.

Supreme Court Stays Rajasthan Govt Decision To Denotify Areas In Chambal Sanctuary, Raises Concerns Over Illegal Sand Mining

Case Title: IN RE: ILLEGAL SAND MINING IN THE NATIONAL CHAMBAL SANCTUARY AND THREAT TO ENDANGERED AQUATIC WILDLIFE Versus, SMW(C) No. 2/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the notification by the Rajasthan Government, which de-notified 732 hectares of the National Chambal Sanctuary without taking prior approval of the Court. The bench expressed that the State "could not have done it on their own."

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with thesuo motu case taken up over illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary and the threat to endangered aquatic wildlife, including gharials.

Previously, the bench expressed an intention to hold officials of the states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh vicariously liable for the destruction of wildlife habitats in the National Chambal Sanctuary area due to their "lethargy and inaction" in preventing illegal sand mining.

Conversion, Reconversion & Caste: When Scheduled Caste Status Ceases Or Revives Under 1950 Order? | Explainer

On March 20, the Supreme Courtgave a rulingthat a pastor, who had converted to Christianity, ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community. A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan said that any person other than those professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism can't be deemed to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community (CHINTHADA ANAND v STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS).

Religious conversion is one of the most controversial topics in India, yet it remains a social reality.

In the background of the ruling, the piece explains the various nuances of conversion and reconversion and their effect on caste.

Disappointed That West Bengal Chief Secretary Could Not Be Contacted When Judges Were Gheraoed : Supreme Court

Case : In Re : Safety and Security of Judicial Officers deputed for work relating to SIR of Electoral Rolls in the State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues | SMW(c) 3/2026

Expressing strong displeasure over the administrative response to the gherao of judicial officers in West Bengal, the Supreme Court said it was "extremely disappointed" that the State's Chief Secretary remained out of reach of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court during the crisis, noting that he had not shared a mobile number with WhatsApp facility to enable communication.

The Court was dealing with a suo motu case concerning the safety of judicial officers deputed for work relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the State.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi recorded that seven judicial officers, including three women, were gheraoed by anti-social elements at a BDO office in Kaliachowk area of Maldah district around 3:30 p.m., and that urgent intervention sought by the High Court authorities was met with "conspicuous inertia" until about 8:30 p.m.

Sabarimala Reference | Internal Autonomy Of Religion Must Be Protected : Jain Organisations Tell Supreme Court

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Versus INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

Certain Jain organizations have filed submissions before the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala Reference matter, contending that regulation of religious practices should be left upon adherents of the religion and a person belonging to one religion should not be permitted to challenge practices of another religion.

The applicants contend that issues which concern the internal authority or autonomy of a religion to define and govern its own practices are protected under Article 25. They argue that whether a particular practice is religious or not is not for the courts to decide. Rather, it is for the religion's adherents to decide, unless there is a dispute between different factions within the religious denomination which cannot be resolved internally.

"the State – whether in the form of the Legislature, Executive, or the Courts – ought not to have a role in defining, limiting, or adjudicating upon what a community genuinely holds to be its religious practice, so long as there is no dispute within that community which cannot be resolved through the internal mechanisms recognised in the religion of that community."

Supreme Court Holds Good Friday Sitting To Modify Order On Rajasthan SI Selection Exam

Case Details: Suraj Mal Meena v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.|SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 38278 OF 2025

The Supreme Court, in a special sitting, modified itsyesterday's orderwhich allowed the petitioner and similarly placed candidates to appear for the Sub Inspector Police/Platoon Commander Recruitment Examination 2025 in Rajasthan. The exam is scheduled to take place on April 5. The Court has now restricted the benefit only to the present petitioner, Suraj Mal Meena.

To briefly state, the petitioner Suraj Lal Meena participated in the recruitment for Sub Inspector pursuant to a 2021 notification. The written exam was conducted, and the results were announced in 2023, but it was challenged in the Rajasthan High Court because the paper was leaked. During the pendency, the Cabinet Committee of Ministers recommended the cancellation of the 2021 exam.

A new notification with adequate posts along with age relaxation for candidates who appeared in 2021 was published on July 17, 2025. However, it was alleged that there was no age relaxation for the 2021 applicants. In the meantime, the single judge of the High Court on August 28, 2025, ordered the cancellation of the entire 2021 recruitment process on grounds that some gangs were involved in leaking the paper through exam groups.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Transgender Persons Amendment Act 2026, Says Omitting Self-Identification Violates Art 21

Case : Lakshmi Narayan Tripathi and another v. Union of India and another | Diary No. 20054/2026

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, contending that the recent amendments take away the fundamental right of transgender persons to self-determination of gender.

The petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been filed by Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Zainab Javid Patel, two transgender women. While the first petitioner is the Acharya Mahamandaleshwar of the Kinnar Akhara, Bharatanatyam dancer, author, social activist, and the Founder of the Astitva Trust, the second petitioner is the Director (Inclusion & Diversity) at KPMG India, and a Member of the National Council for Transgender Persons (Western Region).

The petition assails the Amendment Act, which received the assent of the President on March 30, 2026, as causing "irreparable constitutional injury" to the fundamental rights of transgender persons guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It raises what it terms a crucial constitutional question: whether the State, through legislation, can define who a person is by substituting biological or socio-medical classifications for a person's lived and self-perceived identity.

Are CPCB Guidelines On Petrol Pump Establishment Mandatory? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Title – Shakuntala Devi v. Roshan Joshi & Ors.

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the issue of whether the siting criteria prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board for setting up petrol pumps are mandatory, in view of a conflict with local zoning regulations.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran was dealing with appeals concerning guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in its Office Memorandum dated January 7, 2020 for establishment of new petrol pumps.

The guidelines were framed pursuant to directions of the National Green Tribunal to regulate the environmental impact of petrol pumps.

Supreme Court Declines To Quash Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sameer Wankhede, Gives Fresh Opportunity To Respond To Chargesheet

Case Title – Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Union of India & Anr.

The Supreme Court declined to quash disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede in connection with the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug bust case, but directed that he be given an opportunity to respond to the chargesheet before any further steps are taken in the inquiry.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said it was not inclined to quash the proceedings, but held that the appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on March 7, 2026 had taken place without giving Wankhede sufficient opportunity to file his reply to the chargesheet.

The Court permitted Wankhede to file his reply within two weeks and directed the authorities to take a fresh decision on whether to appoint an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer within two weeks thereafter.

'Project Will Be Lifeline For Kerala' : Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To EC For Wayanad Tunnel Construction

Case : WAYANAD PRAKRITHI SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI Vs UNION OF INDIA | SLP(C) No. 10154/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Environmental Clearance(EC) granted for the Kozhikode-Wayanad tunnel construction in Kerala.

Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal if there was any violation of the conditions of the EC during the construction of the tunnel, the Court rejected the challenge.

During the hearing, the Court observed that the project was of "national importance" and would give a new "lifeline" to the people of Kerala, where there is immense congestion in roads due to high population density and difficulty in procuring land.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Adani's Resolution Plan For Jaiprakash Associates; Urges NCLAT To Hear Vedanta's Appeal On Priority

Case Title – Vedanta Limited v. Bhuvan Madan and Ors.

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which refused to accept the plea of Vedanta Ltd to stay the implementation of Adani Enterprises' resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.

The Court declined interference noting that the NCLAT has posted Vedanta's appeal for hearing on April 10. The Court however requested the NCLAT to hear Vedanta's appeal out of turn on April 10 itself or on the next immediate working day if arguments do not conclude.

The Court further observed that if the monitoring committee needs to take any major policy decision, it must first take the leave of the NCLAT.

NCERT Book Row : Blacklisted Academics Request Supreme Court To Hear Them

Case Title: In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade-8 (Part 2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues

The three academics, who were blacklisted by the Supreme Court for writing a chapter on corruption in judiciary in the Class 8 Social Science textbook of the NCERT, appeared through their lawyers before the Court, seeking an opportunity of hearing.

They have filed personal affidavits, explaining the context in which they wrote the chapter.

On March 26, the Court had barredthe academics- Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar - who were involved in the preparation of the controversial chapter, from associating with any future academic projects of public institutions. The Court had also passed strong adverse comments against them, observing that "they either do not have reasonable informed knowledge about the Indian Judiciary and/or they deliberately and knowingly have misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian Judiciary to students of Class 8."

Should Biren Singh Be Asked To Give Voice Sample? Supreme Court Asks After NFSU's Inability To Verify Clips

Case Details: KUKI ORGANIZATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS TRUST Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 702/2024

The Supreme Court(April 6) expressed frustration over the inability of the central forensic laboratories to authenticate the audio clips allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh in the State's ethnic violence. It has asked the Union Government to explore whether Singh could visit the National Forensic Science University (NFSU), Gandhinagar, Gujarat, to give a voice sample.

In Februarylast year, the Court had passed an order seeking production of the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati, in a sealed cover. In May, a bench comprising former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, after expressing dissatisfaction with the report submitted by the Central FSL, had asked for afresh FSL report. In August, the Court directedthe NFSL to take up the exercise after the report of the CFSL indicated no clear findings. Later, in January this year, the Courtdirectedthe National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU) to examine the entire 48-minute clip and compare with the admitted voice of Singh.

Today, when a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran took up the matter, it asked why no central laboratory is able to come up with conclusive findings.

CCTVs In Police Stations | Supreme Court Directs Appearance Of Union Home Secretary ; Asks Why 'Kerala Model' Can't Be Followed

Case Details :

In the suo motu proceedings concerning the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations, the Supreme Court directed the personal presence of the Union Home Secretary on the next date of hearing to assist the Court in issuing directions for effective monitoring of CCTV installations across States. The Court also questioned why other States were not adopting the "Kerala Model" of live monitoring.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the matter.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave, the amicus curiae in the matter, informed the Bench that while most States had complied with the requirement of installing CCTV cameras, significant work remained in establishing dashboard systems for monitoring. He submitted that the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Kerala were "outstandingly good" in this regard. Dave further highlighted that Kerala had developed the most efficient system so far, enabling police officers to directly log in through their phones and monitor police stations in real time, describing it as a "live monitoring" set up.

West Bengal SIR | Nandalal Bose's Grandson Deleted From Electoral Roll; Supreme Court Asks Him To Approach Appellate Tribunal

Case : MOSTARI BANU v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS | W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 and connected cases

The 88-year-old grandson of Nandalal Bose, who illustrated the Indian Constitution, approached the Supreme Court after he was excluded from the electoral roll in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in West Bengal.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, for the applicant, told the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi about the plight of the applicant.

The bench allowed the applicant to approach the Appellate Tribunal against the deletion. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, for the Election Commission of India, assured the bench that necessary assistance will be given to the Tribunal to decide the matter.

'Serious Allegations Against State Police' : Supreme Court Directs NIA To Investigate Judges' Gherao During West Bengal SIR

Case Title – In Re: Safety and Security of Judicial Officers deputed for work relating to SIR of Electoral Rolls in the State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues

The Supreme Court directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over the investigation into incidents involving the gherao of judicial officers in a village in Malda district in West Bengal during Special Intensive Revision (SIR) duty last week.

The NIA has been directed to take over the investigation in the 12 FIRs registered by the local police over the incident, irrespective of the provisions under which the FIRs have been registered. In other words, regardless of whether the scheduled offences under the NIA Act are attracted or not, the NIA can investigate these matters.

The direction was passed after noting that there were serious allegations against the members of the State police.

Judges' Gherao During SIR | Supreme Court Censures West Bengal Chief Secretary, DGP; Drops Further Action

Case : In Re : Safety and Security of Judicial Officers deputed for work relating to SIR of Electoral Rolls in the State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues | SMW(c) 3/2026

The Supreme Court dropped action against West Bengal officials over the violence in Malda last week, when seven judicial officers were held hostageduring SIR duties.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi had last week, taking suo motu case over the judges' gherao, directed the personal appearance of the Chief Secretary, the DGP, Home Secretary, Malda Collector and SSP, to explain their inaction.

These officers were present online.

WB SIR | Appeals May Take Time, But Can't Order Interim Inclusion Of Deleted Voters Just Because They're Earlier Mapped: Supreme Court

Case Title – Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court declined to permit the interim inclusion of voters, who failed verification by judicial officers during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, when their appeals are pending.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the appellate process may take some time but the Court cannot allow inclusion of some persons on that basis merely because they appeared in the 2002 roll.

“Persons aggrieved are entitled to file an appeal. Appellate authorities will formulate a fair procedure and natural justice is followed and the final order is passed. That may take a month, that may even take 60 days. We cannot on that contemplation allow some people because they were earlier mapped”, he said.

'There Can't Be Untouchability For 3 Days A Month', Justice Nagarathna On Article 17 Application In Sabarimala Case

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court, on the issue of application of Article 17, remarked that a woman cannot be treated as "untouchable" for three days in a month and then cease to be considered untouchable on the fourth day.

Justice Nagarathna made this comment when Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta criticised the observation in the 2018 Sabarimala judgmentthat the exclusion of women in the age group of 10-50 years from the temple was a form of 'untouchability', violating Article 17 of the Constitution. Article 17 prohibits the practice of untouchability in any form.

In the Sabarimala case, Justice DY Chandrachud's judgment held that the bar on women entry on the notion of menstrual impurity was a form of untouchability, which was prohibited by Article 17.

CCTVs In Police Stations | Attorney General Assures Supreme Court Of Positive Steps In 2 Weeks

Case Details :

In the suo motu case concerning lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations, Attorney General R Venkataramani assured the Supreme Court that positive steps would be taken within 2 weeks.

Representing the Union Home Secretary, whose personal presence was directed by the Court, the AG said he has taken stock of the matter and will hold meetings with the Amicus Curiae (Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave), the Union Home Secretary and other concerned officers to resolve the issues.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.

Supreme Court Questions Non-Implementation Of National Commission For Allied & Healthcare Professions Act; Summons Officer

Case : DR. DAYAL INSTITUTE OF PARAMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN | SLP(C) No. 31145/2025

The Supreme Court flagged the non-implementation of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021, noting that regulations governing paramedical courses under the statute have not yet been framed even five years after its enactment.

A Bench led by Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that the absence of regulations cannot be a ground to stall the enforcement of a Parliamentary statute.

Justice Narasimha remarked, "You can't stop enforcement of an Act just because regulations aren't notified."

India Not Patriarchal Or Gender Stereotyped As The West Understands : Solicitor General To Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Versus INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, submitted before the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala reference that India cannot be characterised as a patriarchal or gender stereotyped society in the manner understood in Western discourse, while opposing the extension of constitutional doctrines such as untouchability to gender-based temple entry restrictions.

Addressing the 9-judge Bench, the Solicitor General stated:

"India is not that patriarchal or gender stereotyped that the West understands."

NEET PG 2025-26 : Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Challenging Cut-off Reduction On April 28

Case Title – Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India and connected matters

The Supreme Court will hear the batch of pleas challenging reduction in the cut-off percentile for NEET-PG 2025-26 on April 28, 2026.

On the previous date, a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe had said it would examine whether the sharp reduction in the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025-26 affects standards in postgraduate medical education.

Today, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, for the petitioners, submitted that sufficient number of students qualified NEET PG to fill all available seats without necessitating a reduction in cutoff. However, the available qualified candidates are unable to take admission in the vacant seats because of high fees, he said.

Judgment Allowing Women Entry In Sabarimala Temple Wrong: Centre Tells Supreme Court In 9-Judge Bench Reference

Case Details: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Versus INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Union Government told the Supreme Court that the 2018 judgment permitting entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple was wrongly decided and deserves to be declared a wrong law.

Appearing for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a 9-judge bench that the 2018 ruling requires reconsideration and reversal on legal grounds.

"It is my case that it is wrongly decided and deserves to be declared a wrong law," the Solicitor General stated during the hearing of the Sabarimala reference.

West Bengal SIR | 'ECI Could Not Furnish Reasons' : Appellate Tribunal Restores Deleted INC Candidate To Voter List

Acting on the Supreme Court's direction to decide his plea urgently, the Appellate Tribunal for Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal on Sunday set aside the deletion of Indian National Congress candidate Motab Shaikh's name from the electoral roll.

The Tribunal, headed by former Calcutta HC CJ Justice TS Sivagnanam, observed that the Election Commission of India could not place the reasons for his exclusion.

“The Tribunal desired to see the reasons given by the Adjudicating Judicial Officer to examine the basis on which the appellant's name was excluded. It appears that for technical reasons that information/reasons could not be placed before the tribunal by the Election Commission of India,” the Tribunal said, deciding to examine the available records on its own.

Not Reviewing Sabarimala Verdict In Reference; Only Considering Constitutional Questions, Says Supreme Court

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Versus INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

The Supreme Court(April 7) began hearing the Sabarimala temple reference, which has raised larger questions of law, including on religious denomination and essential religious practice.

The arguments were opened by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who clarified the Union's position that the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, allowing all sections of women to enter the temple, was wrongly decided. But the bench said that since the contour of the present reference is about the interpretation of Articles 25(Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and 26(Freedom to manage religious affairs), the merits of the Sabarimala judgment won't be examined.

Before the hearing commenced, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the original writ petitioners, submitted that her understanding was that the nine-judge Bench was not examining the review petitions, and that the review would be decided separately by the five-judge Bench after the reference questions were answered. The Chief Justice of India indicated that Jaising's understanding was correct and observed that the fate of the review petitions may ultimately depend on the answers rendered in the reference.

'Will Consider If There's Institutional Damage' : Supreme Court Reserves Order In Yatin Oza's Contempt Case

Case Title: YATIN NARENDRA OZA Versus SUO MOTU, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANR., Crl.A. No. 669/2020

The Supreme Court reserved orders in Senior Advocate Yatin Oza's appeal against the Gujarat High Court orderof 2020 which convicted him for criminal contempt over his levelling allegations of maladministration of justice against the High Court.

While reserving orders, Justice JK Maheshwari said that the Court will watch the videos of the subject incident and examine the case from the lens of the "institution" (High Court).

"What the Court is considering is whether damage is to an individual or the institution? Once institutional damage is there, then we have to think in a different manner" said Justice Maheshwari.

Gurugram Child Rape Case : Max Hospital Doctor Gives Explanation To Supreme Court, Denies Changing Medical Opinion

Case Title : XXX v. STATE OF HARYANA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2026

In the rape caseof a 4-year old minor girl from Gurugram, a doctor of Max Hospital, who was issued a show-cause notice, submitted before the Supreme Court that she did not change her medical opinion with regard to the child's condition.

Dr Babita Jain, Principal Director and Head of Department (Paediatrics), Max Healthcare, Gurugram, who interacted with the 4-year old victim and prepared her case sheet, categorically denied having been influenced to change her medical opinion.

"I have not changed my medical opinion in any manner through report dated...Any submission to the contrary given by any party to the present case is incorrect", she said in her affidavit.

Supreme Court Directs Sealing Of 44 Unauthorised Properties In Meerut, Pulls Up Officer For Defying Demolition Orders

Cause Title: LOKESH KUMAR KHURANA VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR BARJATYA, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 877/2025 in C.A. No. 14604/2024, BIMALENDU PRADHAN v. STATE OF ODISHAand connected cases.

The Supreme Court (April 7) directed the immediate sealing of 44 properties in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, after discovering that residential plots had been illegally converted into commercial establishments, schools, and hospitals, many operating without sanctioned plans or basic fire safety measures.

While hearing a contempt petition in a matter relating to the unauthorized conversion of residential premises into commercial establishments without approved layouts, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan took serious exception to the conduct of the former Meerut Divisional Commissioner, Rishikesh Bhaskar Yashod, who was personally present in Court.

The bench questioned under what authority he chose to disregard earlier judicial directionsagainst unauthorised construction by issuing an order stating that certain commercial establishments in Meerut's Central Market area would not be demolished “at present.”

Sabarimala Reference | Never Understood What Transformative Constitutionalism Is : Solicitor General Questions 'Constitutional Morality'

Before the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court hearing the Sabarimala reference, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta questioned the use of concepts such as transformative constitutionalism and constitutional morality as standards to adjudicate claims under Article 25 of the Constitution.

He submitted that constitutional morality cannot be a ground of judicial review and expressed difficulty in understanding the doctrine of transformative constitutionalism.

"Transformative constitutionalism, I have not been able to understand it. I have been hearing this for some years, but in my limited understanding, I couldn't understand," SG Mehta submitted.

How Can Non-Devotees Of Lord Ayyappa Challenge Sabarimala Custom? Supreme Court Asks

The 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court, hearing the reference on the Constitutional questions arising from the Sabarimala temple women-entry case, asked how persons who are not devotees of Lord Ayyappa could challenge the temple custom.

It was on a Public Interest Litigation filed by an organisation named "Indian Young Lawyers Association" that the Supreme Court in 2018 struck downthe restriction on the entry of women in the age group of 10-50 years to the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa temple.

Justice BV Nagarathna, part of the 9-judge bench, asked if the petitioner was an organisation of devotees. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta replied that they were not.

Sabarimala Reference | Judicial Review Over Superstitious Practices Not Barred, Says Supreme Court In Hearing

Case Details: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Versus INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

While hearing the Sabarimala Reference, the Supreme Court verbally expressed that Courts cannot be barred from striking down practises or 'superstition' if they violate public order, morality or health, even if the legislature has powers to make laws for reform of religion under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.

The Court also remarked that any 'Essential Religious Practice' (ERP) has to be seen from the philosophical lens of the particular religion in question alone.

The 9-judge Constitution bench led by CJI Surya Kant, and comprising Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the reference.

Sabarimala Reference | Centre Questions Verdicts Decriminalising Adultery & Homosexuality For Applying 'Constitutional Morality'

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India in the Sabarimala review proceedings, has criticised the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment in Joseph Shine striking down the offence of adultery under Section 497 of the IPC, arguing that it reflects an impermissible expansion of judicial review through reliance on “constitutional morality”.

He has said that constitutional morality has been erroneously used in some judgments to “exercise the power of judicial review when no other ground is found to invalidate a legislative or executive action.”

“It is pertinent to note that 'constitutional morality' is not textually present in the Constitution, rather it is a judicially evolved, vague and indeterminate concept. Hence, the expansion of the term 'morality', which is explicitly referred to in the Constitution to mean and include 'constitutional morality', amounts to not only judicial overreach but an amendment of the Constitution”, he has further contended.

Don't Take Child Trafficking Lightly, Gangs Operating Across Country : Supreme Court Tells State Home Secretaries

Case Title – Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

The Supreme Court implored States and Union Territories to not take child trafficking lightly, stressing that the issue involves serious law and order concerns and requires urgent action at the level of State authorities.

“Kindly take this issue very very seriously. Child trafficking is at a rampage. There are gangs operating across the country. If you all don't pay attention to this things will be beyond control. And it is only the state government and its Home Department that can act vigilantly in this regard. As a court we can monitor, but ultimately the action has to be on the part of the state government, the police, the other agencies. Therefore this is our humble request”, Justice JB Pardiwala said.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan while interacting with Home Secretaries appearing online, said trafficking networks are operating across the country and stressed that effective action must come from State machinery.

'Forest Guard Run Over In Chambal Sanctuary While Attempting To Stop Tractor Carrying Sand': Amicus Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: IN RE: ILLEGAL SAND MINING IN THE NATIONAL CHAMBAL SANCTUARY AND THREAT TO ENDANGERED AQUATIC WILDLIFE Versus, SMW(C) No. 2/2026

An urgent mentioning was made before the Supreme Court regarding the alleged murder of a forest guard in Madhya Pradesh's National Chambal Sanctuary region when he attempted to stop a tractor carrying illegally mined sand.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took note of the incident, stated to have taken place, based on an application filed by the Amicus Curiae in the suo motu casetaken up over illegal sand mining in the region. The matter will be heard next week.

As per reports, forest guard-Harkesh Gurjar, 33, attempted to stop the tractor during a patrol, but he was run over by the vehicle and died on the spot.

Supreme Court Orders Demolition Of Illegal Setbacks In 859 Meerut Properties Within 2 Months; Bars Compounding

Cause Title: LOKESH KUMAR KHURANA VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR BARJATYA, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 877/2025 in C.A. No. 14604/2024, BIMALENDU PRADHAN v. STATE OF ODISHA and connected cases.

In a continuation of its crackdown on unauthorized and widespread illegal constructions in Uttar Pradesh's Meerut, the Supreme Court (April 9) ordered the demolition of all unauthorized setbacks across 859 properties within two months, while pulling up the Uttar Pradesh authorities for allowing schools, hospitals, and even nationalized banks to operate from buildings that were "absolutely illegal and unauthorized."

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan made it clear that the "rule of law cannot succumb to public hue and cry," as it directed the authorities to demolish all setbacks, i.e., the mandatory open spaces around buildings that had been illegally encroached upon, across every single one of the 859 properties in the Shastri Nagar scheme area.

The proceedings arise from a contempt petition where the Court has been examining large-scale illegal constructions in Meerut's Shastri Nagar area. It may be recalled that on the last date of hearing on April 6, 2026, the Court had pulled up the former Meerut Divisional Commission for its earlier order halting the demolition of the illegal structure in defiance of the Court's order. The Court was informed that there were a total of 859 unauthorized structures, out of which 44 were used for commercial purposes.

'Infiltrators Getting Aadhaar Cards' : PIL In Supreme Court Seeks To Limit Aadhaar Enrolment Only For Children Below 6 Years

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No.21141/2026

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking that an Aadhaar Card be issued to citizens only upto the age of 6 years, and after the said ceiling limit, they be allowed to obtain an Aadhaar from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Tehsildar office.

The PIL has been filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay impleading the Union of India, the States/Union Territories and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). It seeks a direction to the UIDAI to issue new Aadhaar card only to children and framing of stringent guidelines for adolescents and adults, so as to prevent infiltrators from getting it and masquerading as Indian citizens.

Further, the petitioner seeks directions for the conspicuous display of punishment for obtaining government documents by filing false documents. He also seeks installation of a 'Display Board' at Common Service Centres and other places, mentioning that 'Aadhaar is proof of Identity only, Not of Citizenship, Address and Date of Birth'.

Sampradayas Attached To Temple Must Be Followed While Visiting It: Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

In the course of hearing the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court observed that while Hinduism does not impose a rigid denominational structure, devotees visiting a particular temple are required to adhere to the sampradayas or customs associated with that temple.

A 9-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the reference.

Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, who appeared for organisations including the Nair Service Society, Ayyappa Seva Samajam and Kshetra Samrakshana Samiti, submitted that Hinduism does not have a strict structure, and has various pluralistic practices within.

Excluding Other Denominations From Temples Will Affect Hinduism : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court commented that the exclusion of other denominations from denominational temples will affect Hinduism.

The comment was made by Justice BV Nagarathna, who is part of the 9-judge bench which is hearing the Constitutional issues referred in the Sabarimala review matter.

Justice Nagarathna made the observation while Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, who is appearing for the Nair Service Society and religious organisations from Kerala, was making his submissions. Vaidyanathan put forth an argument that Article 26(b) - which gives the right to a religious denomination to manage its own affairs - would prevail over Article 25(2)(b) - which allows the State to make law for reform within a religion or to throw open all Hindu religious institutions of public character to all sections of Hindus.

There Are Temples Where Only Women Can Go : Centre To Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Versus INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

The Union Government argued that there can be either male or female-centric restrictions imposed by the religions, and it has nothing to do with gender stereotypes or patriarchy. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta(for the Union) concluded his arguments on the Sabarimala reference being heard by a nine-judge Constitution bench on the larger issues of religious freedom.

Mehta told the Court that the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, which allowed entry of women of all ages to the temple, is wrong as it proceeds on the presumption that men are superior and women are on a lower pedestal. Whereas, the restriction has nothing to do with gender.

"In my written submissions...I have given instances of temples where men are not allowed because it is a Devi Bhagwati temple, and there are some faith and beliefs. I have mentioned the details that there are male priests are under a religious mandate to wash the feet of women devotees. There are temples, like Pushkar temple, the only Brahma temple, in the country where married men are not allowed."

West Bengal SIR | Supreme Court To Consider 'Freezing Date' Issue For Pending Appeals On April 13

The issue relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal was mentioned before the Supreme Court, with a counsel submitting that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had frozen the electoral rolls on April 9 despite multiple appeals pending on the issue.

Before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, the counsel submitted that the appellate tribunal headed by former Calcutta High Court Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam allowed two appeals, after finding that the adjudication officers deleted the names of the appellants without application of mind. He said that so many similar appeals are pending. But since the ECI has frozen the rolls on April 9, they will be left out.

"We will consider the freezing issue on (April) 13th, and if necessary, we will pass appropriate orders," Justice Bagchi said.

'Don't Rush To Court' : Supreme Court To Advocate Who Filed 25 PILs

Case : Sachin Gupta v. Union of India WP(c) 444/2026

The Supreme Court, in a single stroke, dismissed 25 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions filed by one advocate as party-in-person.

Today, as soon as the matter was taken, the petitioner, Sachin Gupta, told the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi that he wanted to withdraw the matters.

"You should approach the authorities make them wiser on certain issues instead of rushing to the court. When appropriate stage will come we will entertain your petitions," the CJI told the petitioner.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Stop Caste Census, Questions 'Badtameezi Ki Language' In Petition

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Union Government to stop the proposed caste census, link redistribution of resources to population responsibility, and frame policies to provide economic incentives to families with a single child.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi refused to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner appearing in person.

During the hearing, the Court expressed strong disapproval over the language used in the petition.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea To Repatriate Indians Allegedly Forced By Russia To Fight Ukraine War

Case : DIVYA vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 000451 / 2026

The Supreme Court sought the response of the Union Government on a habeas corpus petition filed seeking directions to facilitate the safe repatriation of 26 Indian nationals who are allegedly detained in Russia and forced to fight the war against Ukraine.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi issued notice to the Centre after the Solicitor General sought time to obtain instructions in the matter. The Court directed that the notice be made returnable within one week.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners submitted that there had been "continuous and uninterrupted inaction" on the part of the authorities, and alleged that the stranded individuals were being compelled to participate in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Tamil Nadu SIR | Supreme Court Rejects Plea Of Candidate Deleted From Electoral Roll; ECI Says 'It's Too Late'

Case :C GEETHA Vs THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER | SLP(C) No. 13042/2026

The Supreme Court rejected a plea filed by a person whose name was deleted from the electoral roll following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Tamil Nadu, after the Election Commission of India (ECI) opposed the request on the ground that the challenge was belated.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition filed by C Geetha.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the deletion of the petitioner's name was unjustified as she had been on the electoral roll continuously since 2007 and possessed multiple identity documents demonstrating eligibility. He told the Court that the petitioner held a passport, Aadhaar card, and earlier Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC), and questioned what further proof could be required to establish his entitlement.

Supreme Court Stays Criminal Proceedings Against Pastor For Saying Christianity Is Only True Religion

Case Details: VINEET VINCENT PEREIRA ALIAS FATHER VINEET VINCENT PARESH vs. STATE OF U.P.| Diary No. - 20718/2026

The Supreme Court(April 10) issued notice on the plea of a Christian pastor challenging the Allahabad High Court's order, which observed that preaching that one's religion is the only true religion would attract the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs).

According to the High Court, it was wrong for any person to claim in secular India that a particular religion is the "only true religion", as doing so implies a 'disparagement' of other faiths and the same.

Issuing notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh on the plea against the High Court's order, the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also stayed the further proceedings against Reverend Father Vineet Vincent Pereira, the petitioner.

Supreme Court Slams Ghaziabad Police Over Faulty Probe In Rape-Murder Of 4 Yr Old, Flags Hospitals' Lapses

Case :W.P.(Crl.) No. 139/2026 |XXX Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

The Supreme Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to appear in person in a case concerning the rape and murder of a 4-year-old child, flagging the failure of the police to invoke sexual assault provisions and the refusal of two private hospitals to treat the child when she was still alive.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that the conduct of the private hospitals as well as the local police was inhuman and insensitive.

“This case also exhibits complete indifferent, inhuman and insensitive approach of two private hospitals as well as the local police”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Asks CBI To Investigate Wife's FIR Alleging Sexual Abuse Of Daughter By Husband Amid Matrimonial Dispute

The Supreme Court handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation the investigation of an FIR lodged by a woman against her husband alleging sexual offences against their 11-year old daughter, after the husband won custody of the daughter.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan passed the order, keeping in mind the sensitivity of the case. It stated,

"We want the First Information Report lodged by the mother, i.e., the respondent before us to be investigated in the right direction and in accordance with law. In such circumstances, we are of the view that we should direct the CBI to takeover the investigation from the investigating agency in-charge of the investigation as on date."

Supreme Court Allows Transwoman To Apply As Transgender For Delhi Teaching Posts Regardless Of Gender Notified For Vacancy

Case Title: JANE KAUSHIK v. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS., SLP(C) No.12480/2026

The Supreme Court came to the aid of a transgender person, who has been filing repeated petitions seeking protection of her employment rights, by allowing her, as an interim measure, to apply as a transgender person to teaching posts advertised by the Delhi Government regardless of the gender mentioned against a particular vacancy.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by Jane Kaushik, who was aggrieved by the Delhi Directorate of Education and the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) notifying teachers' posts only in either male or female categories. She has  registered as a 'transgender person' in the DSSSB's online Academic Registration System (OARS) portal.

She approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court disposed of her petition asking her to approach the Advisory Committee constituted by the Supreme Court in 2025, in another petition filed by Jane Kaushik herself.

Umar Khalid Files Review Petition Against Supreme Court's Bail Denial; Seeks Open Court Hearing

Case Details: UMAR KHALID v STATE OF NCT Delhi|Review Petition__/2026

Umar Khalid has filed a review petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to review theJanuary 5 order,which denied him bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The matter is listed.

It may be recalled that a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria had denied bail to Khalid and another co-accused, Sharjeel Imam, observing that the materials showed a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It stated that prosecution materials prima facie disclosed "a central and formative role" and "involvement in the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction extending beyond episodic and localised acts."

At the same time, the Court granted bail to some of the other accused in the case - Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.

Supreme Court Allows Lalu Prasad Yadav To Raise Issue Of S.17A PC Act Sanction During Trial Of 'Land-for-Railway Jobs' Case

Case Title - Lalu Prasad Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation

The Supreme Court allowed RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav to raise the issue of the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the alleged land-for-jobs case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation during the trial.

The Court also dispensed with his personal appearance during the trial.

Dictating the order, the Bench observed that it was not expressing any view on the issue of whether Section 17A operates prospectively or retrospectively. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise the legal issue at the time of trial. The Court further clarified that the earlier High Court order, which refused to quash the case, would not stand in the way of the petitioner raising the contention before the trial court.

Supreme Court 3-Judge Bench To Hear Teesta Setalvad's Plea To Release Passport Surrendered As Bail Condition

Case Details: TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT, MA 1233/2026 in Crl.A. No. 2022/2023

The Supreme Court (April 13) directed that the Miscellaneous Application filed by human rights activist Teesta Setalvad for the release of her passport be listed before a three-judge bench.

It may be recalled that Setalvad was granted regular bail in 2023 in the Gujarat police case over the alleged fabrication of evidence in the 2002 riots cases. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai(now retired), AS Bopanna(now retired) and Dipankar Datta quashed the Gujarat High Court's order, which denied her regular bail.

One of the conditions imposed for bail was that Setalvad's passport would continue to be in the custody of the Sessions Court.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Farmers' Plea Seeking MSP Fixation Based On Actual Cost Of Cultivation

Case : PRAKASH GOPALRAO POHARE Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 384/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Union Government to accord effective weightage to the exact cost of cultivation, known as C2, proposed by respective State Governments while fixing the Minimum Support Price for agricultural produce.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard submissions from Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who argued that the issue was critical for farmers across the country, pointing to large numbers of farmer suicides and inadequate procurement mechanisms. He contended that MSP is often fixed even below the comprehensive cost of cultivation and that procurement at MSP is significant only for crops such as wheat and rice, leaving farmers cultivating other crops in acute distress.

Bhushan clarified that the petition does not seek payment of cost plus 50 percent profit margin, but only the actual cost of cultivation, referred to as C2. He submitted that these calculations are already made by the government itself, and that farmers should at least be assured recovery of the full cost incurred. He further argued that welfare measures such as free ration schemes should not come at the expense of ensuring that farmers receive remuneration covering their production costs.

Bar Council Elections : Supreme Court Requests Justice Dhulia Committee To Decide Manner Of Co-opting Women Members

Case : Siva Kumari v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 372/2026

In the matter relating to 30% women's reservation in the State Bar Council elections, the Supreme Court requested the High-Powered Supervisory Committee headed by Justice (retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia to decide the manner in which 10% co-option of women candidates is to be carried out.

In December last year, the Courthad directed that the Bar Councils must ensure 30% women's reservation. To address the contingency of inadequate women candidates competing, the Court had clarified that 10% of those positions can be filled up by way of co-option.

Today, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition which raised concerns about the misuse of the co-option method.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Biometric Identification At Polling Booths To Prevent Electoral Malpractices

Case : ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS | W.P.(C) NO. 383/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking implementation of fingerprint and iris-based biometric identification at polling stations to prevent electoral malpractices such as proxy voting, duplicate voting and bribery.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay under Article 32 of the Constitution.

"Prima facie, the nature of reliefs cannot be considered for the ensuing elections in some of the states. However, whether such a recourse deserves to be followed for the next parliamentary elections and/or elections of state legislatures needs to be examined," the Court observed.

Assam Police Move Supreme Court Against Telangana HC Order Granting Anticipatory Bail To Congress Leader Pawan Khera

Case Details: THE STATE OF ASSAM vs. PAWAN KHERA|Diary No. - 22236/2026

The Assam Police have moved the Supreme Court over thegrant of transit anticipatory bailto the official spokesperson of Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR filed by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma over Khera's allegations that she held multiple passports of different countries.

On April 10, Justice K Sujana of the Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to Khera for one week, subject to conditions, including that he will approach the Gauhati High Court to seek appropriate relief.

The Assam Government has challenged the bail order on the grounds that the anticipatory bail petition was filed in Hyderabad, whereas Khera has not shown any reason as to why he cannot come to Assam and file for anticipatory bail there.

West Bengal SIR |'If Winning Margin Is 2 % & 15% Couldn't Vote?' : Justice Bagchi Raises Concerns, Says ECI Deviated From Bihar Stance

Case : QUARAISHA YEASMIN AND ORS. v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS.| W.P.(C) No. 462/2026

Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court raised certain concerns about the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in the State of West Bengal, emphasising the need to have a "robust appellate mechanism" to consider the appeals filed by persons who were deleted from the electoral rolls.

Justice Bagchi noted that when it came to West Bengal, the Election Commission of India deviated from the process in other states and introduced a new category of 'Logical Discrepancy'. Justice Bagchi also stated that the ECI deviated from the stand taken in the Bihar SIR matter that persons who were mapped in the 2002 electoral roll need not upload documents.

Justice Bagchi stated that judicial officers, who are performing SIR adjudication, cannot be expected to work with 100% accuracy amidst the high-pressure situation. When a person is dealing with over 1000 documents a day against a tight deadline, even an accuracy of 70 % would be deemed 'excellent', Justice Bagchi said. Hence, there was a need for a robust appellate mechanism, he stated.

Supreme Court Earmarks 4 Posts For Women AoRs In SCAORA Elections

Case Title: VIVYA NAGPAL Versus SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 466/2026

With regard to the ensuing elections of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, the Supreme Court recorded in its order that the posts of Secretary and Joint Treasurer, as well as two Executive Members posts, may be earmarked for women AoRs.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, while invoking its power under Article 142, in a plea seeking adequate representation of women AoRs in the SCAORA Executive Committee.

During the hearing, both sides agreed to the Court's suggestion to earmark the abovementioned posts for women AoRs. The CJI, on his part, noted that the Bar has had a good experience with the election of AoR Pragya Baghel as Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Advocate Moves Supreme Court Challenging P&H High Court's Refusal Of Senior Designation

Case Details: SATISH CHAUDHARY Vs HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|W.P.(C) No. 371/2026 Diary No. 17846 / 2026

The Supreme Court is set to hear a writ petition filed by Advocate Satish Chaudhary, challenging the non-inclusion of his name in the list of advocates designated as 'Senior Advocates' by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The petitioner had raised issues of transparency, objectivity and fairness in the process of senior designation of advocates by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is the petitioner's case that, despite securing higher marks, his name was not placed before the Full Court for consideration, while certain advocates who had secured lower marks were ultimately designated as Senior Advocates, without considering the fact that the Petitioner belongs to a marginalised community.

A reliance has been placed on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in 2017and 2023 Indira Jaising judgments on senior advocate designation.

Gherao Of Judges During West Bengal SIR | Supreme Court Asks If Instigators Had Political Background

Case : In Re : Safety and Security of Judicial Officers deputed for work relating to SIR of Electoral Rolls in the State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues | SMW(c) 3/2026

The Supreme Court sought to know the political background of the persons who instigated the gherao against seven judicial officers in Malda district on April 1, while they were performing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) adjudication.

Last week, the Court had directedthe National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate the FIRs registered by the State Police over the incident, after noting that there were serious allegations against the State Police.

Today, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the NIA will continue the investigation.

West Bengal SIR | Can't Allow Deleted Persons To Vote In 2026 Elections When Their Appeals Are Pending : Supreme Court

Case Title – Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors and connected cases.

The Supreme Court expressed reluctance to allow the persons excluded from the electoral rolls to vote in the upcoming West Bengal assembly elections while their appeals are pending before the appellate tribunals. A similar view was expressed by the Court last week as well.

The Court however indicated that it might consider the plea to allow the publication of supplementary rolls to include persons whose appeals are allowed before the assembly elections, which are to take place in two phases on April 23 and 29.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court that over 34 lakh appeals have been filed as on April 11.

'State Govts Failed' : Supreme Court Slams Rajasthan, MP Over Sand Mafia Rampage In Chambal Sanctuary

Case Title: IN RE: ILLEGAL SAND MINING IN THE NATIONAL CHAMBAL SANCTUARY AND THREAT TO ENDANGERED AQUATIC WILDLIFE Versus, SMW(C) No. 2/2026

The Supreme Court came down heavily upon the state of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh over the illegal digging near a bridge by the 'sand mining mafia' in the Chambal Sanctuary.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with the suo motu case taken up over illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary and the threat to endangered aquatic wildlife, including gharials.

During the hearing, the bench referred to the recent report of a forest guard being run over by a tractor, allegedly carring illegally mined sand.

Plea Filed In Supreme Court Against S.44(3) Of DPDP Act, Seeks Interim Relief Against Masking/Deletion Of Available Data; Notice Issued

Case Title: MAZDOOR KISAN SHAKTI SANGATHAN AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 358/2026

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court against Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, which substituted Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act and exempted disclosure of any sort of "personal information" of a person.

The petitioners have also sought an interim relief against deletion/masking of data already made available on public portals in compliance of provisions of the RTI Act or other welfare legislations, as it would impair ground-level work that benefits from such information.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the plea, after hearing Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan (for petitioners). On the petitioners' request, it also impleaded the State of Rajasthan as a party. The matter will be considered along with similar other pleas, which the Court has agreed to consider.

Frightening That Over 7.95 Lakh Execution Petitions Pending Beyond 6 Months: Supreme Court Seeks Mechanism For Speedy Disposal

Case Title – Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr.

The Supreme Court noted that almost 8 lakh execution petitions pending across the country are more than six months old and described the situation as “very frightening and disappointing”.

“The position as on date appears to be very frightening and disappointing. We say so because as on date 7,95,981 execution petitions are pending across the country which are six months old”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal directed all High Court to inform it about the mechanism evolved in order ensure speedy disposal of execution petitions.

Supreme Court Disposes Plea Against Moratorium On Allied Health Courses After NCAHP Issues Guidelines For 2026-27

Case Details: DR. DAYAL INSTITUTE OF PARAMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.|Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31145/2025

The Supreme Court on April 9 disposed of special leave petitions challenging a moratorium imposed on granting permission to start additional allied and healthcare courses, after taking note of a fresh framework issued by the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) to facilitate approvals for the academic year 2026-27.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe recorded that the regulatory mechanism under the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 is being put in place and that the directions issued by the NCAHP through its letter dated April 8, 2026 would enable institutions to seek permissions to offer additional courses.

The plea arises from writ petitions filed by the aggrieved Dr Dayal Institute of Paramedical Technology before the Rajasthan High Court, which were dismissed by the single Judge and the division bench of the High Court.

'We'd Examine' : Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Free Pre-Primary Education As Proposed By NEP 2020

Case Title: HARIPRIYA PATEL v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 361/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking provision of free and compulsory education at the pre-primary level as per the National Education Policy, 2020.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order. "We'd like to examine...", said the CJI.

Presently, the Right to Education Act mandates free and compulsory education only for children aged between 6-14 years old, and does not cover pre-primary education. The National Education Policy 2020aims to ensure that "all students, particularly students from underprivileged and disadvantaged sections, shall have universal, free and compulsory access to high-quality and equitable schooling from early childhood care and education (age 3 onwards) through higher secondary education (i.e., until Grade 12)"

Supreme Court Stops Outsourcing Of Tughlaqabad Fort Survey To Private Agency, Says Departments Can't Abdicate Responsibility

Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India and others SLP (c) 12213/2019

The Supreme Court took an objection to the committee formed by the Delhi High Courtoutsourcing a survey relating to the encroachment of Tughlaqabad Fort. It remarked that outsourcing such a survey reeks of bureaucratic red-tapism.

The survey was ordered by the Delhi High Court in a 2001 public interest litigation concerning the illegal encroachment and settlement at the Tughlaqabad Fort. The High Court had constituted a committee for the survey, but the committee made a decision to outsource it to a private agency. The Supreme Court has now ordered that no private agency shall be hired for conducting the survey, and has asked the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi and the School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi, to work in tandem with the High Court's Committee.

The High Court's committee consisted of the following members :

'We're Surprised' : Supreme Court Stays Telangana High Court's Transit Anticipatory Bail To Pawan Khera In Assam FIR

Case Details: THE STATE OF ASSAM v. PAWAN KHERA | Diary No. - 22236/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the order passed by the Telangana High Court granting transit anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR registered by the Assam Police on Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, over Khera's allegations that she held multiple passports of different countries.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petition filed by the State of Assam against the High Court's order.

The bench said that if Khera applies for anticipatory bail in the Court having jurisdiction in Assam, then the interim order passed by the Supreme Court will not have any adverse effect on the consideration of such an application.

Sabarimala Reference | Travancore Devaswom Board Disagrees With Nair Service Society's Argument On Articles 25(2)(b) & 26(b)

In the Sabarimala Reference hearing before the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the Travancore Devaswom Board disagreed with the argument advanced by the Nair Service Society and certain temple organisations from Kerala that Article 26(b) of the Constitution was subject to 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.

Article 25(2)(b) allows the State to enact law for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

As per Article 26(b), a religious denomination has the fundamental right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.

'Go To HC': Supreme Court Rejects Savukku Shankar's Nephew's Plea Against 3rd Preventive Detention Order Under Goondas Act

Case Title: D BHARATH Versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR., W.P.(Crl.) No. 142/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by YouTuber and journalist Savukku Shankar's nephew seeking quashing of a third detention order passed against Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter and asked the petitioner to approach the High Court. It also said that upon being so approached, the High Court may hear the matter expeditiously.

To recap, Shankar was arrested on 13 December, 2025 in connection with an extortion case registered under Sections 296(b), 353(lxc), 308(5), 61(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Following his arrest, his mother Kamala approached the Madras High Court seeking his medical treatment. A habeas corpus plea was also filed to forbear the police authorities from isolating Shankar from other prisoners.

Sabarimala Reference | Can't Hollow Out Religion In The Name Of Social Reform, Supreme Court Says In Hearing

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court orally commented that in the name of social welfare and reform, one can't hollow out a religion.

Justice BV Nagarathna, part of the 9-judge bench hearing the matter, made this observation while hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi regarding Article 25(2)(b) and its interplay with the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs conferred as per Article 26(b).

Article 25(2)(b) allows the State to enact law for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Difficult To Declare Belief Of Millions Wrong : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court orally commented that it is difficult for a Court to declare the faith of millions of people wrong.

On the fourth day of the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi was addressing the 9-judge bench on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board.

Dealing with the seventh issue raised in the reference -whether the Court can entertain a Public Interest Litigation questioning a religious practice at the instance of a person not belonging to that religion- Singhvi advocated that the Courts should adopt a very high threshold to entertain such PILs.

Sabarimala | Visit Of Fertile Women Antithetical To Deity's Identity; They Can Visit Other Ayyappa Temples : TDB To Supreme Court

Case Details : KANTARU RAJEEVARU Versus INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

Duringthe Sabarimala Reference hearing, the Travancore Devaswom Board told the Supreme Court that excluding the category of menstruating women aged 10- 50 years from visiting the Sabarimala Temple was within the reasonable classification test.

Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, made submissions for the Board before the 9-judge bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and  Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

Notably, in 2018, the 5-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court permitted entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala temple, holding that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'.

'Constitutional Morality' In Religious Matters Like A Bull In A China Shop : Singhvi Tells Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the Supreme Court that the concept of 'constitutional morality' is fluid, warning that it is a dangerous proposition to rely on such a subjective standard to interpret religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution

He made this argument during the hearing of the Sabarimala reference before the nine-judge bench on April 15.

Singhvi stated that the Constitution framers consciously used the term 'morality' in Articles 25 and 26 and neither public nor constitutional morality. He added that it's a 'term of art' never envisaged to challenge legislation, and the Court can't rewrite it.

Sale Of Liquor In Tetra Packs: Supreme Court Allows Petitioner To Raise Concerns Before UP Authority

Case : MEENAKSHI SHREE TIWARI Vs UNION OF INDIA | Diary No. 68730/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation challenging the Uttar Pradesh excise policy which allegedly permitted the sale of wine in tetra packs.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that there was no material on record showing any express permission under the excise policy for sale of liquor in tetra pack packaging. The Court noted that an administrative decision dated February 4 appeared to have allowed such small packaging of liquor, but the relevant policy itself was not placed before the Court.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner raised concerns about the social impact of allowing liquor in small tetra packs, submitting that such packaging could make alcohol more accessible and normalized among children.

'Can't Compel People To Vote' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking To Make Voting Mandatory

Case :AJAY GOEL Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 464/2026

The Supreme Court (April 16) rejected a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to introduce compulsory voting in India along with penal consequences for citizens who deliberately abstain from voting, observing that participation in elections cannot be enforced through coercive measures.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi remarked that while citizens are expected to exercise their franchise in a democracy governed by the rule of law, the State cannot compel individuals to vote.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel suggested that the Court could direct the Election Commission of India to constitute a committee to frame guidelines for compulsory voting and consider restrictions on access to certain government amenities for those who fail to vote without valid reasons.

Supreme Court Dismisses Anil Ambani's Plea To Stay Fraud Classification Of Loan Accounts

Case : ANIL D AMBANI Vs BANK OF BARODA | SLP(C) No. 12943-12944/2026 and connected cases.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Anil Ambani seeking to stay the classification of his loan accounts as "fraudulent" by the Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank Ltd and the IDBI Bank Ltd in terms of the Reserve Bank of India's 2024 Master Directions.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that it saw no ground to interfere with thejudgment of the Bombay High Court Division Bench, which vacated the stayoriginally granted by the Single Bench.

The bench however clarified that the observations made by the High Court will have no bearing on the final adjudication of the suit filed by Ambani against the Banks over the accounts classification.

NEET PG 2025 | Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Special Stray Vacancy Counselling Round

Case Title – Education Promotion Society For India and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for conducting a Round 5 or Special Stray Vacancy Round for NEET-PG 2025 counselling and challenging the National Medical Commission's decision not to hold such a round.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to entertain the plea.

The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Ravi Bharuka, sought directions to the authorities to conduct a Round 5 or Special Stray Vacancy Round to fill vacant postgraduate medical seats under the All-India Quota for NEET-PG MD/MS/DNB-2025 after completion of the stray vacancy round. The petition stated that seats had fallen vacant on February 28, 2026, due to non-joining, non-reporting, or refusal by allotted candidates.

'Not New Practice' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging ECI Transfer Of Bengal IAS/IPS Officers Amid Elections

Case Title: ARKA KUMAR NAG Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 12775/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by Advocate Arka Kumar Nag against the Calcutta High Court's dismissalof his PIL challenging Election Commission's large-scale transfer of IAS and IPS officers, in West Bengal and elsewhere, after the March 15 election announcement.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi refused to interfere with the High Court's order. The Court however kept the question of law regarding the need for State concurrence open.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, for the petitioner, submitted that the ECI was acting contrary to the rules.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Plea Challenging Muslim Inheritance Law As Discriminatory Against Women

Case: POULOMI PAVINI SHUKLA Vs UNION OF INDIA | D No. 67256/2025

The Supreme Court (April 16) issued notice to the Union Government on a writ petition challenging Muslim personal law provisions as discriminatory against women.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Advocate Poulomi Pavani Shukla, along with an organisation Nyaya Naari Foundation, represented by Aisha Jawaid.

On March 10, when the petition was previously heard, the bench had expressed concerns about judicial interference, saying that it might create a vaccum regarding Muslim personal law, since the Indian Succession Act is not applicable to followers of the Islam faith. The bench had also orally commented that the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code can resolve the issue. The Court had then adjourned the matter, suggesting that the petition be amended to include suggestions as regards the relief.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking 50% Women Representation In Judicial Services, Govt Panels

Case Title: MANI MUNJAL AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 400/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking earmarking of upto 50 percent vacancies for women in judicial services as well as government panels. It however gave liberty to the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation to the concerned stakeholders.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi heard the matter and noted that it would not be expedient to take up the issue on judicial side, except when intervention is warranted in peculiar facts and circumstances.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain appeared for the petitioners.

West Bengal SIR : Supreme Court Allows Excluded Persons To Vote If Appeals Allowed Before April 21/27

Case : Mostari Banu v The Election Commission of India | WP(c) 1089/2025 and connected cases.

The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to issue a supplementary revised electoral roll to include voters whose appeals against deletion of their names are allowed by the Appellate Tribunals before specified cut-off dates, so that they can exercise their franchise in the upcoming phases of polling in West Bengal.

The Court has directed that the appellants, whose appeals against exclusion from the rolls are allowed by Appellate Tribunals before April 21 (for the first phase) or April 27 (for the second phase), should be included in the supplementary rolls, so that they can cast their vote on the respective polling dates - April 23 (for first phase) and April 29(for second phase).

The Court observed that if an appeal is allowed by the Appellate Tribunal and a conclusive direction for inclusion or exclusion is issued, such directions shall be duly effectuated before the State of West Bengal proceeds to polling on April 23 or April 29.

Uniform Civil Code Has Nothing To Do With Religion, It's A Constitutional Ambition: CJI Surya Kant

Case Title: POULOMI PAVINI SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA | Diary No. 67256/2025

During the hearing of a matter relating to Muslim women's inheritance rights, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that Uniform Civil Code is a constitutional ambition having "nothing to do with religion".

"Uniform civil code is a constitutional ambition...it has nothing to do with religion", the CJI said.

The remark came in response to a submission by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioner, that ideally there should be a uniform civil law that governs inheritance rights across all religions, but the current fear in the minds of Muslim persons is that the proposed Uniform Civil Code may result in the imposition of a Hindu Civil Code.

Kerala v. Tamil Nadu: Supreme Court Stays NGT Proceedings Against Kerala's Check Dam Construction In Border Village

Case Title: THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ORS. Versus TAMIL NADU WATER RESOURCES ORGANIZATION AND ORS., Diary No. 18144-2026

The Supreme Court stayed proceedings in a case before the National Green Tribunal, Chennai pertaining to construction of a 'check dam' by the Kerala government, which is alleged to have a potential impact on irrigation in Tamil Nadu.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta (for Kerala government). Notice has been issued to the State of Tamil Nadu.

The petition is filed by the Kerala government, stating that on 24.05.2024, NGT Chennai took suo motu cognizance of a news report, which alleged that Kerala government is constructing a check dam across the Silandhiyar stream, a tributary of the Amaravathi River, which could potentially affect irrigation in Tamil Nadu.

Supreme Court Declines Congress Leader Pawan Khera's Plea To Extend Transit Anticipatory Bail In Assam FIR

Case Details: THE STATE OF ASSAM v. PAWAN KHERA | Diary No. - 22236/2026

The Supreme Court (April 17) declined Congress leader Pawan Khera's plea to vacate the stay imposed by it on the transit anticipatory bail granted to him by the Telangana High Court in the forgery and criminal conspiracy case lodged by the Assam Police on Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.

The Court also turned down Khera's plea to extend the transit bail till next Tuesday so that he can approach the Assam Court. The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar observed that if the concerned Court is not functioning, a request can be made to take up the matter, which be considered in accordance with the prevailing practice.

The bench also clarified that neither the observations in the High Court's order nor the Supreme Court's stay order should influence the concerned Court while considering Khera's application for anticipatory bail.

Women In South Avoid Temples During Menstruation As Matter Of Belief : Lawyer Tells Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Senior Advocate MR Venkatesh, appearing for Atman Trust, told the nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court that the practice of women voluntarily refraining from entering temples or puja rooms during menstruation is rooted in discipline and belief, and not in notions of discrimination.

Addressing the Constitution Bench hearing the reference arising out of the Sabarimala judgment, Venkatesh submitted that across South India, women traditionally observe self-imposed restrictions during menstruation as part of religious discipline.

He stated:

Supreme Court Issues Notice On CBI's Appeal Against Acquittal Of 4 Kerala Policemen In Udayakumar Custodial Death Case

Case Title – Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jitha Kumar K

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging a judgment of the Kerala High Court which set aside the convictions and acquitted all accused in the 2005 Udayakumar custodial death case.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice returnable on 19th May on CBI's SLP against four former police personnel who were tried in the case – Jitha Kumar K, T Ajith Kumar, EK Sabu and TK Haridas.

The case concerns the death of Udayakumar, a 28-year-old man, who was picked up by police personnel from Sreekandeshwaram Park, Thiruvananthapuram, at around 2:15 a.m. on September 27, 2005 and taken to the Fort Police Station.

Supreme Court Approves Environment Compensation Charge Hike For Commercial Vehicles Entering Delhi, Mandates 5% Annual Increase

Cause Title: M.C. MEHTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS., Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).13029/1985

The Supreme Court has approved a proposal to enhance the Environment Compensation Charge (ECC) on commercial vehicles entering Delhi, while mandating a 5% annual increase to maintain its deterrent effect against pollution.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, by order passed on 12/03/2026, but uploaded, approved the recommendations submitted by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to revise ECC rates with effect from April 1, 2026, observing that the recommendations were “reasonable, just, and fair.”

“We have considered the proposal submitted by the CAQM and find the same to be reasonable, just, and fair.”, the court said.

Supreme Court To Examine Validity Of Gangster Acts & Laws Against Organised Crimes

Case Title: IRFAN SOLANKI Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, W.P.(Crl.) No. 84/2026

The Supreme Court placed before a 3-judge bench a plea challenging certain provisions of the UP Gangster Act and Rules. Considering that the decision will have an impact on similar laws in States likes Gujarat, Maharashtra, NCT of Delhi and Karnataka, the Court decided to hear their Advocate Generals as well.

The Court also added the Union of India as a party, considering that an argument is rasied that the Gansgter Act is repugnant to Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita which defines 'organised crime'.

It also directed listing of other cases challenging vires of similar laws on organized crimes alongwith the plea.

Sabarimala Reference | Correct Test Is If Religious Belief Is Bona Fide, Not If It's Essential : Rajeev Dhavan To Supreme Court

In the Sabarimala Reference hearing, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued that the doctrine of essential religious practice is dangerous because Courts are asked to decide whether a religious practice is essential or not at the very threshold.

He clarified that he is not against judicial review of religious freedoms. Instead, he suggested that the correct test under Articles 25 and 26 should be whether a belief is bona fide or not, instead of whether it's essential. He cited the Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), where the Court protected the children following Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to sing the National Anthem.

Dhavan made this argument before a nine-judge bench hearing the Sabarimala reference, which raises larger issues having an impact on other religious faiths.

Highway Safety | No Parking Of Heavy Vehicles, No Unauthorised Dhabas : Supreme Court Issues Directions

Case Title: IN RE: PHALODI ACCIDENT Versus, SMW(C) No. 9/2025

Recognizing the "safety of a commuter" as an integral facet of "right to live with dignity" under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court passed a slew of directions to address systemic and infrastructural issues plaguing national highways and expressways in the country.

It ordered inter-alia immediate removal of all unauthorized encroachments such as dhabas, eateries, etc. falling in the Right of Way of any national highway. It further directed provision of basic life support ambulances and truck lay-bye facilities at regular intervals on highways.

"A road, particularly a high-speed Expressway, must not become a corridor of peril due to administrative lethargy or infrastructural gaps. The loss of even a single life to avoidable hazards like illegal parking or blackspots etc., represents a failure of the State's protective umbrella. The 'Right to Life' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not merely a guarantee against the unlawful taking of life, but a positive mandate upon the State to ensure a safe environment where human life is preserved and valued", the Court noted.

West Bengal SIR : Supreme Court To Seek Calcutta HC CJ's Report On Appellate Tribunals' Functioning

The Supreme Court said that it will seek a report from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court itself on the functioning of the appellate tribunals, which are constituted to hear the appeals filed against exclusions/inclusions in the electoral rolls of West Bengal after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

In an oral mention before the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat submitted that the appellate tribunals are not functioning despite the orders of the Supreme Court. He claimed that the appellate tribunals are not allowing lawyers to represent parties, and was not accepting physical applications.

Last week, the Court had ordered thatpersons whose appeals against deletions are allowed by the appellate tribunals within two days before the date of polling (April 23 is the voting date for the first phase and April 29 for the second phase) must be allowed to vote.

Shocking That Well Educated People Are Falling Prey To Digital Arrest Scams : CJI Surya Kant

The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, expressed shock that well-educated people continue to fall prey to digital arrest scams, where fraudsters impersonate police officers or judges and extort money through video calls.

CJI Surya Kant also revealed that he got a complaint from a lady, who is known to him in an official capacity, that she lost all her post-retirement benefits in a digital arrest scam. "She was crying, she lost all her savings," CJI said.

The Chief Justice made this revelation when Attorney General for India R Venkataramani mentioned the suo motu case taken on the issue, seeking adjournment from the listed date on the ground that inter-departmental meetings are going on.

'Supreme Court Mein Entry Band Kar Denge': SC Warns Petitioner For Repeated PILs To Declare Netaji Won Indian Independence

Case : PINAKPANI MOHANTY v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 295/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by one Pinakpani Mohanty seeking a declaration that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's Indian National Army (INA) secured India's independence.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the petition appeared to be an attempt to gain publicity and noted that a similar public interest litigation filed earlier by the same petitioner had already been rejected.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice orally remarked, "Supreme Court mein entry band kar denge," warning the petitioner who appeared in person.

West Bengal SIR : Supreme Court Declines Oral Plea Against Addition Of 7 Lakh New Voters Using Form 6

The Supreme Court refused to entertain an oral plea made against the addition of nearly 7 lakh new voters in West Bengal using Form 6 after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

Making an oral mention before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioners challenging the WB SIR process,  referred topress reportsregarding the addition of new voters by the Election Commission of India (ECI). She contended that the ECI's action was in violation of the Supreme Court's April 13 order, which allowed the addition of voters only if their appeals against exclusions are allowed by appellate tribunals. She claimed that the addition of voters through Form 6 was not permissible after the cut-off date in terms of the April 13 order.

She added that Justice Bagchi, during the hearing of the West Bengal SIR matter,had orally expressed that Form 6 New Voters added after the qualifying date cannot have voting rights for the present election. "This court's order is being used to file these Form 6 in bulk! This will have an outsized impact on the elections," she said.

Contempt Against BJP MLA For Calling MP HC Judge: Supreme Court Allows Whistleblower To Approach HC For Being Heard

Case: Ashutosh Dixit vs State of Madhya Pradesh | SLP(C) No. 13674/2026

The Supreme Court permitted a whistleblower to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to be heard in suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated against a BJP MLA accused of contacting a High Court judge.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed petitioner Ashutosh Dixit to withdraw his plea with liberty to move the High Court to assist in the contempt proceedings.

Background

Supreme Court Sets 3 Month Deadline For Trial Of Cleric In UAPA Case Over Alleged Al Qaeda Link

Case Title: MD. ABDUR RAHEMAN @ MD. ABDUR RAHEMAN ALLI KHAN Versus STATE OF ODISHA, SLP(Crl) No. 1727/2026

While refusing to entertain his bail plea on merits, the Supreme Court directed a time-bound trial in the case of Islamic cleric Md. Abdur Raheman, facing trial in Odisha for offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, over allegations of teaching anti-national ideas and aiding the recruitment of youth to Al-Qaeda.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, directing that the trial court in Cuttack, Odisha, hear Raheman's case at least twice a week and complete the trial in 3 months.

Further, the Court ordered the prosecution to ensure that sufficient witnesses remain present for examination on all dates. It also directed suitable adjustment of other matters pending before the trial judge to ensure that Raheman's case can be timely heard and decided. "Presiding officer of trial court will not list any other case on any date when trial of this case is to be taken up", the Court said.

Supreme Court Seeks BCI's View On SCBA Plea That SC Lawyers Should Get Exclusive Benefit Of Advocates' Welfare Stamps In SC Vakalats

Case Title – Supreme Court Bar Association v. Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court sought the Bar Council of India's response to the Supreme Court Bar Association's plea that money collected from welfare stamps on vakalatnamas filed in the Supreme Court should not be transferred to the Advocates Welfare Trust under the Bar Council of Delhi.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a plea by SCBA seeking the creation of a dedicated welfare fund for advocates practising before the Supreme Court. The plea seeks that the proceeds from welfare stamps be deposited into a dedicated welfare fund for the Supreme Court Bar Association.

During the hearing, Advocate Radhika Gautam, appearing for the Bar Council of India, sought two weeks' time to file an affidavit.

West Bengal SIR: Supreme Court Asks Appellate Tribunal To Give Out-Of-Turn Hearing For Person Claiming To Possess Aadhaar & Passport

Case Title: MONOWARA KHATUN Versus THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 496/2026

The Supreme Court requested an Appellate Tribunal constituted in West Bengal to give out-of-turn hearing to a woman excluded from electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision exercise.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat (for petitioner).

Assailing a rejection order of 27 March passed against the petitioner by a judicial officer, the senior counsel told the Court that the petitioner possesses a passport, was part of the 2002 electoral roll and has been voting ever since. Farasat also submitted that the petitioner was seeking a limited relief of out-of-turn hearing, as the list will close on April 27.

Supreme Court Dismisses Umar Khalid's Plea To Review Judgment Denying Bail In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

Case Details: UMAR KHALID v STATE OF NCT Delhi|Review Petition 14473/2026

The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition filed by Umar Khalid, seeking to review theJanuary 5 order,which denied him bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

It may be recalled that a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria had denied bail to Khalid and another co-accused, Sharjeel Imam, observing that the materials showed a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

It stated that prosecution materials prima facie disclosed "a central and formative role" and "involvement in the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction extending beyond episodic and localised acts."

Supreme Court Suggests Union Funding For Exclusive Courts Be Extended To UAPA Cases Handled By State Agencies

Case Title: IN RE: CREATION OF SPECIAL EXCLUSIVE COURTS Versus, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026

In the suo motu case concerning the creation of exclusive courts to tackle cases under special statutes like UAPA, etc., the Supreme Court proposed that the Union's decision to provide funding for the establishment of exclusive NIA Courts in States be extended to the UAPA cases being handled by the State agencies as well.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised the question to Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati (for Union), who sought some time to come back with instructions. ASG SG Sanjay also represented the Union.

The Court noted that in a State like Jharkhand, while the NIA cases are fewer than twenty, there are 700 odd UAPA cases being handled by the State police. While the State UAPA cases go to Principal Sessions Courts, which are designated as Special Courts, only the NIA cases go to the exclusive NIA Court, which will get the Central funding. The Court proposed that the funding be expanded to cover State cases as well.

Supreme Court Allows Chhattisgarh Court Employee To Appear In LL.B. 3rd Year Exams As Interim Measure

Case Details: AJIT CHOUBELAL GOHRA v. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9672/2026

As an interim measure, the Supreme Court allowed a Chhattisgarh Court employee, seekingto pursue LL.B. course as a regular student, to appear in the exams for 3rd year of the course.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order in the petitioner-employee's challenge to the Chhattisgarh High Court order, which held that permitting a probationary employee of the Principal District and Session Court to attend his third-year of LLB course as a regular student is not permissible under the Service Rules.

As the exam for one subject was held and the petitioner missed it due to lack of permission, the top Court said that he be allowed to appear in the remaining papers and orders in relation to the exam will be passed subsequently.

Accountability Important For Liquor License : Supreme Court Allows UP To Reopen Action Against Country Liquor Trader

Case Title – Special Leave Petition (C) (@ Diary No.60095/2025

The Supreme Court allowed the Uttar Pradesh government to restart action against a wholesale country liquor licence holder for alleged licence violations, while holding that the earlier cancellation of his licence was not legally sustainable due to procedural violations.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that accountability in liquor licensing is necessary for effective regulation of the trade and distribution of liquor.

The Court held that the Allahabad High Court was right in setting aside the cancellation of the liquor licence of respondent Mayoor Ahuja. However, it modified the High Court's directions to allow the State to take action in accordance with law after following due procedure and principles of natural justice.

Sabarimala Reference | If Believer Prevented From Touching Deity Only Due To Birth, Can't Constitution Intervene? Supreme Court Asks

On the sixth day of the hearing in the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court orally asked if the Constitution can intervene if a believer is prevented from touching the deity only on account of his birth identity.

Justice Ahasanuddin Amanullah, member of the 9-judge bench, posed this query to Senior Advocate V Giri, who argued that the right of a believer under Article 25 to enter a place of worship must be in sync with the characteristics of the deity.

Giri is appearing for the Thanthri (Chief Priest) of the Sabarimala Temple, who is the lead review petitioner seeking review of the 2018 judgment which allowed the entry of women of all age groups to the Lord Ayyappa Temple.

Can Appeal Against Fixed Term Sentence Exceeding 14 Yrs Be Heard By Single Bench Of High Court? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Title: BARKATH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, Diary No. 19195/2026

In a convict's challenge to his 20-year jail sentence, the Supreme Court is set to consider the issue of coram required to hear and decide appeals filed in Karnataka High Court against fixed term sentences exceeding 14 years.

A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Vipul M Pancholi issued notice on a plea filed by convict-Barkath against an order passed by a Single Bench of the High Court. Vide this order, the Single Bench modifying the provision under which the convict was sentenced, imposed a sentence of 20 years, the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 376AB IPC. The trial court had also sentence him to 20 years imprisonment, but under a different provision, Section 6 POCSO Act.

Senior Advocate A Sirajudeen appeared for the petitioner. Relying on Sections 5 and 10 of the Karnataka High Court Act of 1961, he contended that as the accused was sentenced to a fixed term of 20 years, the case should have been heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. He further highlighted that for life appeals, Section 5 prescribes that the case ought to be heard by a Division Bench, but no express coram has been provided for cases involving fixed-term sentences.

Samagra Shiksha Funds Released To Kerala Despite Non-Implementation Of NEP: Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India

The Union Government has told the Supreme Court that funds under the Samagra Shiksha scheme were released to Kerala even though the State has not implemented the National Education Policy, 2020. The Centre has stated that ₹99.27 crore was released for RTE entitlements for the financial year 2025–26 notwithstanding such non-implementation.

“It is pertinent to mention that for FY 2025-26 releases specifically towards RTE entitlements were made, amounting to Rs. 99.27 Crores, notwithstanding the State of Kerala's non-implementation of NEP, 2020”, the affidavit states.

The affidavit was filed by the Ministry of Education in a pending writ petition concerning implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and appointment of Special Educators for children with special needs.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Constitutionality Of NIA Act

Case Title: MOHAMMED MUBARAK AI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 320/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 as arbitrary, lacking in legislative competence and an encroachment on state power.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for petitioner). Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati represented the Union.

During the hearing, Dave contended that no Central agency has 'police' power, except the NCB (as provided in Tofan Singh case). However, the NIA Act vests complete powers of a police officer in officers of the NIA. In this regard, he referred to Section 3 (Constitution of NIA) and 6(5) of the Act, highlighting that Section 6(5) allows the Central government to direct suo motu investigation by the NIA if it is of the opinion that a scheduled offense has been committed. He emphasized that in such a situation, the state's power to investigate is complete ousted.

Supreme Court Warns To Suspend Bar Associations Failing To Implement 30% Women Representation

Case Title – Deeksha N Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

The Supreme Court warned that Bar Associations which fail to comply with its direction mandating 30% representation of women in their governing bodies will face suspension and fresh elections.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order while hearing a batch of special leave petitions to ensure 30% representation for women lawyers as Office Bearers or Executive Members in every Bar Association, including at Taluka or District levels and specialised bodies like Tax and RERA, as well as High Court Bar Associations.

“We also deem it necessary to issue a word of caution and a stern warning that wherever the Bar Associations have failed to comply with, or shall be found to have defied, the directions issued hereinabove, such Bar Associations shall be liable to be suspended through a judicial order and fresh elections shall be directed to be conducted”, the Court stated.

Sabarimala Reference | Supreme Court Debates Essential Religious Practice Test, Denominational Rights vs State Reform Power

What came out from an obiter dictum of the Supreme Court in the Durgah Committee judgment (1961) continues to pose an overwhelming task before a nine-judge bench hearing the Sabarimala reference.

While the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt judgment (1954) made a distinction between secular and religious practice, the Dargah Committee's judgment said that only practices which are "essential and integral" should be given protection under Article 26. Now, this has come to be known as the Essential Religious Practice(ERP) test.

Today, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanuallah and Justice BV Nagarathna of the nine-judge bench orally made certain remarks on this. This was in the context of arguments made by Senior Advocate V Giri, stating that the individual rights to worship under Article 25(1)(a) have to be exercised in consonance with the essential characteristics and essential practices of the religion protected under Article 26.

'Look-Out Circular Not Confidential, Why Can't Accused Be Intimated?': Supreme Court Asks CBI; Calls For Standard Operating Procedure

Case Title: NIMESH NAVINCHANDRA SHAH Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 3288/2026

The Supreme Court on April 21 called on the Central Bureau of Investigation to come up with a Standard Operating Procedure regarding issuance of Look-Out Circulars (LOCs) against accused persons.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the CBI over the stopping of an accused - the petitioner - at the airport, due to an LOC opened against him, despite the jurisdictional Court having granted permission to travel abroad.

From a larger perspective, the bench wondered why the LOC could not be served upon the accused and/or the accused intimated about issuance of such LOC. "LOC is not a confidential document" remarked Justice Nath, noting that as per CBI's own office memorandum, reasons have to be given, and if they are not given, an LOC cannot be acted upon.

Law Clerk Exam Result Discrepancy To Be Rectified Within 72 Hours: Supreme Court Recruitment Cell

After candidates flagged discrepancies in Part-I marks of the Law Clerk-cum-Research Associate examination, the Supreme Court said that the evaluating agency has admitted an error in evaluation of the Part-I paper and has sought 72 hours to rectify it.

The notice issued by the Recruitment Cell states, “The Agency entrusted with the conduct of the Law Clerks' Examination has admitted its mistake in evaluation of Part-I paper. Hence, the Agency has sought for 72 hours to rectify the mistakes.”

Under the 2026 Law Clerk recruitment process, the Supreme Court is engaging around 90 Law Clerk-cum-Research Associates on a contractual basis for the 2026–2027 term. The written examination for the recruitment was held on March 07, 2026 as part of a multi-stage selection process that includes objective and subjective papers followed by an interview.

When CM Walks Into ED Inquiry, It's Not Centre v State Dispute: Supreme Court On ED Plea Against Mamata Banerjee

Case Title – Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

The Supreme Court orally commented that when a Chief Minister interferes with an ongoing investigation by a central agency, it cannot be described as a dispute between the Central Government and the State Government.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the writ petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate seeking registration of a CBI FIR against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the State Police Officials for allegedly obstructing the ED raid of I-PAC, the political consultant of the Trinamool Congress. There was a connected writ petition filed by ED officers challenging the FIR registered by the West Bengal Police against them.

The State has questioned the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the ED under Article 32 of the Constitution. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for the State officials, argued that the matter was essentially a dispute between the State and the Union, and hence a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India should be filed instead of a writ petition under Article 32.

Can't Lay Down Blanket Rules On State Interference In Religion For Social Reform : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

On the seventh day of hearing in the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court observed that it would be difficult to lay down any universal or prospective guidelines on when the State can intervene in religious practices in the name of social reform, emphasizing that such questions would necessarily depend on the facts of each case.

The 9-judge bench engaged in an extensive discussion on the scope of the State's power under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, which permits legislation for social welfare and reform affecting religious practices.

The bench comprises Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

'Extra Ordinary Situation In Bengal' : Supreme Court Refers To Judges' Gherao, Asks How ED Can Avail Regular Remedies Against CM

Case Title – Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Pointing to the recent incident where judicial officers were gheraoed while performing official SIR duties in West Bengal, the Supreme Court questioned the State's contention that the Enforcement Directorate should be relegated to ordinary statutory remedies for alleged obstruction of its search at I-PAC office by CM Mamata Banerjee.

“This is an extraordinary situation. Before the other bench the SIR in under debate. We have seen the situation that several judicial officers have been kept hostage. And now you want that the petitioner(ED) should go to the magistrate. We cannot shut our eyes from the reality. As a Counsel you may argue abstract legal principles before us, but we cannot lose sight of the practical situation which is occurring and which is present in the state”, Justice Mishra said.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N V Anjaria was hearing the writ petition filed by the ED seeking registration of a CBI FIR against Banerjee and State police officials for allegedly obstructing its search at the office of I-PAC, the political consultant of the Trinamool Congress. Writ petitions have also been filed by ED officers challenging FIRs registered against them by the West Bengal Police.

Sabarimala Reference | How Can Judgment Be Challenged In Writ? Supreme Court Questions Plea Against Dawoodi Bohra Practice

During the Sabarimala reference hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the maintainability of a writ petition which was filed challenging the practice of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community.

Noting that the writ petition was essentially challenging the 1962 judgment in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb vs The State Of Bombay, Justice BV Nagarathna asked how a writ petition could be filed challenging a judgment.

In the 1962 judgment, the Supreme Court had struck down the Bombay Prevention of Ex-Communication Act by allowing a writ petition filed by the head of the community.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Action Against PM Narendra Modi For Alleged MCC Violation By April 18 Speech

Case Title – T.N. Prathapan v. Election Commission of India & Anr.

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to take action against the televised address by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on April 18, 2026, a day after the Constitutional (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 was defeated in the Lok Sabha.

“The broadcast constituted a misuse of state machinery and official media for electoral gain, targeted at specific opposition political parties by name, and was delivered without any sanction, authority, or justification under the Constitution or any law. The Petitioner contends that such inaction on the part of the ECI is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and constitutes an abdication of its solemn constitutional mandate”, the plea states.

The petition was been filed by former Congress MP TN Prathapan from Kerala.

'Drug Peddlers Using Students As Sellers': Supreme Court Raises Concerns About Drug Trafficking In Educational Institutes

While dealing with a narcotics case involving a 21-year old law student, the Supreme Court raised concerns about drug trafficking and abuse across educational institutions in the country.

It lamented that drug peddlers often target students as consumers as well as agents, thereby transforming schools and colleges into target zones for illicit substance networks.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi was dealing with the accused-student's plea, when it directed interim protection from coercive action, noting that the case would have to be handled delicately to avoid damaging her career.

'Vital Issue For Nation': Supreme Court Questions NIA's Power To Register Suo Motu Case

Case Title: SADIK A P @ SADIQ AHMED AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 3658/2024 (and connected case)

In a case related to the National Investigation Agency Act, the Supreme Court questioned the NIA's power to suo motu register a case in terms of Section 6(5) of the Act.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. It was seized of two special leave petitions, filed by accused persons challenging the Central government's orders under the Act for investigation by NIA, and one writ petition, challenging the vires of the Act.

While the bench issued notice on the writ petition, it posed some questions to the Union, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, in the SLPs and ultimately adjourned the matter giving her time to file additional documents.

Supreme Court Show Cause Notice To Korba SP For Not Complying With Direction To Produce Accused

Cause Title: CHATT KUNWAR SARTHI VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

The Supreme Court has criticized the State of Chhattisgarh for failing to comply with its direction to produce a man acquitted in a criminal matter, terming the lapse a “blatant and deliberate violation” of its orders.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan issued a show cause notice to the Superintendent of Police, Korba, to explain why action should not be taken for failure to comply with the Court's directions to bring in effect the presence of Respondent No.2 before the Court on April 20, 2026.

The matter stems from a Special Leave Petition challenging a High Court judgment which had acquitted the Respondent No.2 in connection with an alleged offence of rape under Section 376 IPC and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. During earlier proceedings, the Supreme Court had directed the State to produce Respondent No. 2 in person before the Court.

Supreme Court Identifies 45K Cases As Suitable For Settlement Under 'Samadhan Samaroh' Initiative; Seeks Lawyers' Cooperation

The Supreme Court has identified 45,098 pending cases across various categories as suitable for amicable resolution through mediation and Lok Adalat mechanisms under its nationwide dispute resolution initiative titled Samadhan Samaroh, and has called upon lawyers to actively cooperate in facilitating settlements.

A circular dated April 22, 2026, issued by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), stated that the initiative has been undertaken under the guidance of the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, with the objective of ensuring “doorstep delivery of justice” through mediated settlement of suitable pending cases.

The Samadhan Samaroh (Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Dispute Harmonization Across Nation) programme is scheduled to be held on August 21, 22 and 23, 2026, and is aimed at facilitating amicable resolution of pending disputes on a large scale.

Can't Take Information From 'WhatsApp University': Justice Nagarathna

The eighth day of the Sabarimala reference hearing witnessed a light-hearted exchange in the Supreme Court, with Justice BV Nagarathna remarking that information cannot be accepted from "WhatsApp University".

The comment came in response to a submission by Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, who argued that there was no harm in accepting knowledge and wisdom regardless of the source. Kaul was referring to a newspaper article authored by Dr. Shashi Tharoor that called for judicial restraint in matters relating to religious relief.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that while the Court respected eminent authors and thinkers, the article ultimately reflected a personal opinion, and that "personal opinion is personal opinion", indicating that such views cannot carry binding value for the Court.

Supreme Court Stays HC Judgment Convicting & Sentencing Ex-Chhattisgarh CM' Son Amit Jogi In 2003 Ram Avtar Jaggi Murder Case

Case Title: AMIT JOGI Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS., Diary No. 22717-2026

The Supreme Court stayed the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment ex-Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Ajit Jogi's son Amit Jogi in the 2003 murder case of Nationalist Congress Party leader Ram Avtar Jaggi.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi passed the order, while issuing notice on Amit Jogi's appeal against the Chhattisgarh High Court judgmentwhich convicted and sentenced him to life.

The Court observed in the order that the effect and operation of the impugned judgment has been stayed.

Not Arguing That There's Breakdown Of Constitutional Machinery In West Bengal : ED Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

The Enforcement Directorate told the Supreme Court (April 23) that it was not arguing that there was a complete breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State of West Bengal.

The Solicitor General clarified that the ED's argument was that there was a breach of the rule of law in the I-PAC case, and it should not be understood as a failure of constitutional machinery.

The Court commented that an argument of breakdown of constitutional machinery will have "far-reaching consequences", as it can lead to Presidential rule.

Supreme Court Proposes To Quash Trial Against Police Officer On Ground Of 35-Year Old Delay Alone

Case Title: KAILASH CHANDRA KAPRI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, SLP (Crl.) No(s).6564/2026

The Supreme Court stayed criminal proceedings against a police officer after taking note of a 35-year delay in the trial proceedings. It observed that it was inclined to quash the proceedings against the officer on the ground of delay alone, but would like to hear the State authorities before passing an order.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter and issued notice on the police officer's plea challenging an Allahabad High Court order which refused to quash the criminal proceedings.

The bench observed in its order:

No Restriction On Women To Enter Mosque For Namaz; ERP Tests Wrongly Applied To Islam : AIMPLB Tells Supreme Court

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board told the Supreme Court that there was no restriction on women to enter mosques to offer namaz.

Senior Advocate MR Shamsahd made this submission on behalf of the AIMPLB before the 9-judge bench, which is hearing the Sabarimala reference.

The writ petitions seeking women's entry in mosques are also tagged along with the Sabarimala reference, since the Constitutional questions relating to the scope of Articles 25 and 26 arise there also.

West Bengal SIR : Supreme Court Asks Election Duty Officers Excluded From Voter Roll To Approach Appellate Tribunal

Case :  MD TOHIDUL ISLAM Vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 516/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain writ petitions filed by persons aggreived by the deletion of their names from the electoral roll in the West Bengal after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), although they are enlisted as electoral officers in the ongoing assembly elections.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi asked the petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunals which have been formed to hear appeals against exclusions from the electoral roll in the SIR adjudication process.

Senior Advocate MR Shamshad, for the petitioners, submitted that 65 petitioners are on election duty.  He submitted that the situation was ironic as, "Person who is conducting the election can't vote."  He stated that the their duty orders mentioned EPIC numbers, which are now deleted.

10 Indians In Russia Died Fighting Ukraine War, Many Went Voluntarily : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case : DIVYA vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 000451 / 2026

The Central Government told the Supreme Court that 10 Indian citizens, who went to Russia, have died while fighting the war against Ukraine. The Centre also told the Court that most of them fought the Ukraine war as part of the Russian forces on the basis of voluntary contracts.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a writ petition filedby the family members of 26 Indians, who were allegedly forced into the Russian-Ukrainian war, after they went to Russia in search of job opportunities.

Earlier, the Court had sought the responseof the Union Government in the matter.

West Bengal SIR | Appellate Tribunals May Give Out-of-Turn Hearing If Urgency Shown : Supreme Court

Case Title: MOSTARI BANU Versus THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (and connected cases)

For any grievances remaining with regard to West Bengal electoral roll inclusion/exclusion, the Supreme Court granted liberty to aggrieved persons to approach the Calcutta High Court and/or the Appellate Tribunals constituted in the state for appropriate redressal.

The Court further said that if persons who have filed appeals against exclusion from the electoral roll make out a case of urgency, they shall be accorded out-of-turn hearings by the Appellate Tribunals. Moreover, if judicial intervention is required, such persons may approach the High Court on administrative or judicial side.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order, stating,

Supreme Court Forms SIT To Probe 4-Yr Old's Rape-Murder In Ghaziabad; 2nd SIT In A Month To Investigate Minor's Rape

Case Title : XXX v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, W.P.(Crl.) No. 139/2026

The Supreme Court directed constitution of a Special Investigation Team to probe the rape and murder caseof a 4-year-old girl in Ghaziabad.

This is the case where the Court had earlier flagged failure of UP authorities to invoke sexual assault provisions and refusal of two private hospitals to treat the child when she was still alive.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order, directing as follows:

Supreme Court Lauds 92% Voter Turnout & Lack Of Violence In West Bengal Elections

Case Title: MOSTARI BANU Versus THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (and connected cases)

During the hearing of the West Bengal SIR matter, the Supreme Court voiced appreciation for the 92 percent voter turnout and the lack of violent incidents in the State's Assembly elections.

"As a citizen of India, I was very happy to see the percentage of voting. In this country, people need to participate in elections. If people realize their power in a democracy, power of vote, and they follow rule of law, the democratic process and values, like 90% or so went for voting, then they don't indulge in violence. Because then they know that strength lies in democratic setup", the CJI stated.

The remarks came when Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee pointed out that West Bengal witnessed a historic 92% voter turnout (in its first phase of Assembly elections) and even migrant workers from across the country came back to the state to exercise their franchise.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Christian Michel James' Plea Against Extradition Treaty Clause

Case Title: CHRISTIAN MICHEL JAMES v. UNION OF INDIA, SLP(Crl) No. 7103/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused Christian Michel James against the Delhi High Court's dismissalof his petition challenging Article 17 of the 1999 India-UAE extradition treaty.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order after hearing Advocate Aljo K Joseph. The matter has been listed before a bench led by Justice Vikram Nath.

To recap, Michel was extradited to India from Dubai under the India-UAE treaty in December 2018. He argued before the High Court that ordinarily, a requesting State (in this case India) can only prosecute an extradited person for offences for which extradition is sought. However, Article 17 enables the Indian government to prosecute him even for offences "connected therewith".

Supreme Court Directs States To Prepare Action Plans To Implement Minimum Standards For Intensive Care Units

Case Title – Asit Baran Mondal & Anr. v. Dr. Rita Sinha MBBS MS (Obst. Gynae) & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to immediately prepare action plans for implementing minimum standards for Intensive Care Units, and fixed a three-week deadline to complete a national blueprint based on a common framework.

“Moving further, as an immediate measure, let all the Additional Chief Secretaries/Secretaries, as the case may be, heading the Department of Health and Medical Education in the States and the UTs, convene a meeting of all experts involved in this exercise for the purpose of preparing an action plan for implementation of the guidelines. Such plan shall be realistic and practical. At the first instance, five basic issues shall be identified and prioritised”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan issued detailed directions on how the exercise will proceed, after taking on record a consensus document titled “Guidelines for Organization and Delivery of Intensive Care Services”, which sets out the minimum standards for ICUs.

'Rats Ate Bribe Money' : Supreme Court Expresses Surprise, Says Huge Revenue Loss For State

Case Title – Aruna Kumari v. Economic Offences Unit

The Supreme Court granted bail to a woman convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and suspended her sentence, while expressing surprise over the Patna High Court's observation that seized bribe money in the case was destroyed by rodents.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K V Viswanathan observed –

“We are taken by surprise that the currency notes got destroyed by rodents. We wonder how many such currency notes recovered in this type of offences get destroyed as they are not kept at a safe place. Its a huge revenue loss for the State.  Besides, the explanation offered for the destruction of the currency notes also does not inspire any confidence.”

Supreme Court Appoints Justice Hrishikesh Roy As Bihar Cricket Association Ombudsman After Justice AS Oka Declines

Cause Title: SECRETARY, BIHAR CRICKET ASSOCIATION VERSUS BIHAR CRICKET ASSOCIATION & ORS.

The Supreme Court has appointed Justice (Retd.) Hrishikesh Roy as the Ombudsman of the Bihar Cricket Association after Justice (Retd.) Abhay S. Oka expressed his inability to accept the role, citing its adjudicatory nature.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed the order while dealing with miscellaneous applications arising out of pending special leave petitions concerning the affairs of the Bihar Cricket Association.

The Court noted that by its earlier order dated March 20, 2026, it had appointed Justice Oka as Ombudsman. However, he declined the assignment on the grounds that the position “involves some adjudicatory function,” indicating that the role was not merely advisory but carried quasi-judicial responsibilities.

Can High Court Exempt Convict From Surrendering Before Entertaining Revision/Appeal? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Title – Sudhir Khaitan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The Supreme Court referred to a larger bench the issue of whether High Court can exempt a convict sentenced to imprisonment from surrendering before entertaining a criminal revision or appeal.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe referred the issue to a larger bench in light of conflicting positions taken by coordinate benches.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one Sudhir Khaitan against an order of the Rajasthan High Court refusing to hear his revision petitions and the application for suspension of sentence on the ground that he had not surrendered.

Supreme Court Seeks Assam Govt Response On Plea For CBI Probe Into Alleged Custodial Torture

Case Details: RIMLY GOGOI SAIKIA v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.|SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No. 17597/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Assam Government and five accused police officers in a plea filed challenging the Gauhati High Court's order refusing an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the alleged custodial torture of one Dipankar Gogoi.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran issued notice on April 24 and allowed the petitioner, the sister of the deceased, to implead CBI as a party. It has also stayed the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate for the time being.

As per the brief facts, the petitioner has challenged the High Court's order dated September 19, 2025, wherein it refused her prayer for transfer of the investigation to CBI, a court-monitored investigation, along with a grant of compensation.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Exclusion Of New AORs From SCAORA Voter List For April 29 Election

Case Title – Ritu Rajkumari v. Election Committee

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the exclusion of newly registered Advocates-on-Record from the voter list for the upcoming Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association elections scheduled to be held on April 29, 2026.

“The exclusion of Petitioner and other similarly situated newly registered Advocates-on-Record persists despite the fact that Petitioner and similarly situated Advocates-on-Record fully satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed under sub-rule (ii) of Rule 5, Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Denying the Petitioner the right to vote in the upcoming SCAORA elections due to the non-allotment of AOR code, an administrative formality beyond our control, results in arbitrary treatment among other Members of SCAORA”, the plea states.

The petition has been filed by newly registered Advocate-on-Record Ritu Rajkumari, who has sought a direction to include her name and those of similarly placed Advocates-on-Record in the voter list for the upcoming SCAORA elections. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that the non-inclusion of newly registered Advocates-on-Record in the voter list, despite fulfilling all eligibility criteria under the SCAORA Rules and Regulations, is arbitrary.

Congress Leader Pawan Khera Moves Supreme Court Against Gauhati HC's Rejection Of Anticipatory Bail In FIR By Assam CM's Wife

Case Title : PAWAN KHERA v. STATE OF ASSAM, Diary No. - 25523/2026

Congress leader Pawan Khera has approached the Supreme Court against Gauhati HC's rejectionof his anticipatory bail plea in connection with an FIR filed by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, over his allegations related to her holding multiple passports.

Vide the impugned order, the Gauhati High Court denied Khera anticipatory bail, observing that he dragged an 'innocent lady' into the controversy to gain political mileage.

Prior to that, the Telangana High Court, on April 10, grantedone week transit anticipatory bail to Khera and permitted him to move before the concerned court. The anticipatory bail was filed in Hyderabad, where Khera was stated to have a residence.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Gurugram Demolitions, Allows Petitioners To Approach HC Itself

Case:  Residents of Sector 31, Gurugram (Lane 635 to 957) v. Chief Administrator HSVP and others

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the demolition drive being undertaken in Gurugram, asking the petitioners to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The petitioners were granted liberty to make an urgent mention before the High Court itself, and the Chief Justice of the High Court was requested to entertain the matter at 1 PM or immediately after the lunch break.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan orally mentioned the matter this morning before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. He submitted that the demolitions are already underway, and claimed that the action was proceeding without the issuance of any mandatory show-cause notice.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Brutal Assault On Woman Advocate By Husband

Case : In Re- Brutal Assault On A Member Of Legal Fraternity & Need For Judicial Intervention, SMW(c) 4/2026.

The Supreme Court initiated a suo motu case over the brutal assault of a woman advocate who was allegedly stabbed multiple times by her husband, while also directing an inquiry into allegations that three hospitals refused to provide her emergency medical treatment.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice J Joymalya Bagchi heard the suo motu case, which was registered on the basis of letter sent by Advocate Sneha Kalita, who highlighted the brutal attack on her colleague, who practises at Karkadooma Courts.

The Court noted that the victim had suffered multiple injuries to vital organs and was undergoing treatment at AIIMS, prompting it to take immediate suo motu action.

Supreme Court Dismisses Former Kerala Minister Antony Raju's Plea To Suspend Conviction In Evidence Tampering Case

Case : Antony Raju v. State of Kerala. SLP(Crl) 7113/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed former Kerala minister Antony Raju's petition seeking suspension of his conviction in the evidence tampering case dating back to 1990.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma rejected the plea challenging theKerala High Court's judgment which had earlier refused to suspend his conviction.

The case relates to an incident in 1990, when Raju, then a junior lawyer, was accused of tampering with material evidence in a narcotics case involving an Australian national who had been apprehended for carrying drugs concealed in his underwear. The prosecution alleged that the underwear, which formed crucial material evidence, had been altered.

Supreme Court Allows Newly Qualified AORs To Vote In SCAORA Elections

Case Title – Ritu Rajkumari v. Election Committee

The Supreme Court provisionally allowed newly registered Advocates-on-Record (AORs) to vote in the upcoming elections for the office bearers of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA).

The Court passed the interim order while issuing notice on a writ petition challenging the exclusion of newly registered Advocates-on-Record from the voter list for the SCAORA elections.

"Issue Notice. Meanwhile, the Advocates-on-Record who were registered on April 16, 2026, shall be permitted to cast their vote provisionally. However, they shall not be entitled to contest the elections," the Court ordered. This order would allow nearly 205 new AORs, who cleared the 2025 AOR exams, of which the results were published in February this year, to vote.

'Why She Lived With Him Before Marriage?' : Supreme Court Questions Charge Of Sex On False Marriage Promise In Long-Term Relationship

Case Title – Prosecutrix of Crime No. 27/2025 v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court questioned how a criminal offence of sexual assault on false promise of marriage could be made out from a long-term live-in relationship where the parties lived together and had a child.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a woman's plea against Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to quash her FIR under Sections 69, 115(2) and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024, against her former live-in partner, accused of exploitation on the promise of marriage.

The woman alleged that the man lured her at a young age, concealing the fact that he was already married.

Supreme Court Earmarks SCBA Vice President Post For Women In 2026 Election

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik | Diary No. 13992 of 2023

In a progressive step towards inclusivity, the Supreme Court earmarked the post of Vice President in the 2026 Supreme Court Bar Association's Executive Committee elections for women advocates.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order, earmarking the post of VP, alongwith other EC posts, for women advocates in the impending 2026 elections of the SCBA.

It further directed that the incumbent SCBA EC shall notify the Election Committee for this year by 29 May. Thereafter, the Election Committee shall notify the election schedule by 13 July (when court will reopen).

Supreme Court Recalls Order Reserving Judgment On Validity Of Karnataka Law On Hindu Religious Institutions

Case Details : State of Karnataka v. Sahasra Lingesshwara Temple| C.A. No. 5924/2008

In the light of theongoing Sabarimala Reference,the  Supreme Court recalled its earlier order reserving judgment on the validity of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. The bench observed that the pending reference would have a direct bearing on the case and would await the decision of the 9-judge Constitution Bench.

The bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe had reserved its judgment on the matter on February 11. The matter in question a plea filed by the Karnataka Government challenging the 2006 decision of the Karnataka High Court which struck down the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.

The 1997 Act was enacted to consolidate and replace five earlier laws governing Hindu religious and charitable institutions in different regions of Karnataka.

Supreme Court Asks Centre To Clarify If SNDP Yogam Governed By Companies Act Or Kerala Law

Case Details: V VIJAYAKUMAR vs. ARUVIPURAM SNDP YOGAM|Diary No. - 8846/2026

The Supreme Court has asked the Union Government to clarify whether Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam would be governed by the Companies Act, 2013 or the Kerala Non-Trading Companies Act, 1961.

To briefly state, the special leave petition is filed against the Kerala High Court's judgment, which directed the Central Government to comply with a 2009 decision of the Delhi High Court and decide what law legislates the functioning of Yogam.

The division bench of the Kerala High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge Bench, which in turn had set aside a 1974 government order that granted an exemption to Yogam from Sections 172(2), 219 and Article 14 of Table C of Schedule I of the Companies Act, 1956. This meant every member of the Yogam would not have the right to cast their votes in its General Body meeting, and only their representatives would.

Umesh Pal Murder Case | Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Plea Of Atiq Ahmed's Driver

Case Title – Kaish Ahmad v. State of U.P.

The Supreme Court issued notice on a bail plea filed by Kaish Ahmad, an accused in the February 2023 murder of advocate Umesh Pal and two police personnel in Prayagraj.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice returnabe on May 25, 2025 against Ahmad's plea challenging the Allahabad High Court order dated November 07, 2025 refusing him bail.

The petitioner has stated that he was working as a driver for Shaista Parveen, the wife of deceased gangster and co-accused Atiq Ahmad, and has been falsely implicated only because of his employment.

'Sensitive Issue': Supreme Court On PIL Seeking DNA Verification Of Children Before Adoption & Rescue Measures For Missing Children

Case Title: REEPAK KANSAL Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 509/2026

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking reliefs related to rescue and rehabilitation of missing and trafficked children. Among other things, the petitioner prays for DNA verification of identity of children proposed to be adopted to prevent illegal adoptions and trafficking.

The matter was listed before a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, which asked the petitioner, Reepak Kansal, to offer solutions to the problems highlighted in the PIL.

"This is a very very sensitive issue and we appreciate that you have taken up this cause. But ask your juniors to do a little homework. Give us a framework...what should be the solution...problem we have understood. Instead of looking to the government machinery, or here and there, for solution, we would like for you to suggest the solution. Think how different kinds of institutions can be collaborated...how can they be brought on a common platform...", CJI conveyed to the petitioner's counsel.

'First Safeguard Duped Homebuyers, Then Only Bail' : Supreme Court To Ex-MLA In Money Laundering Case

Case Title: DHARAM SINGH CHHOKER Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SLP(Crl) No. 7383/2026

In a money laundering case pertaining to a housing project, the Supreme Court asked former MLA Dharam Singh Chhoker to show cause as to why his bail plea should be entertained without his first safeguarding the interest of homebuyers who were allegedly duped.

"Unless the petitioner safeguards the interest of homebuyers, who have been ex-facie duped, let the petitioner show cause as to why this Court should entertain the prayer in this petition", the Court ordered.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with Chhoker's challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court order which denied him regular bail in the money laundering case. The High Court had observed that the allegations, nature of transactions, and material collected during the investigation did not justify Chhoker's release at that stage.

'MP HC Hearing Appeals Of 2013-14' : Supreme Court Suspends Sentence Of Murder Convict Citing Unlikelihood Of Early Hearing

Cause Title: SHIVENDRA VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

In an exceptional circumstance, the Supreme Court has suspended the sentence of a murder convict, noting that his 2018 appeal remains pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and is unlikely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future since the High Court is currently hearing criminal appeals from 2013 and 2014.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard a case where the petitioner was tried and convicted by a Trial Court for the murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. Challenging the conviction, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2018, which remains pending. The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for eight years pending his criminal appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. However, the High Court declined to grant relief, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court.

'Don't Argue Like This' : Supreme Court Rebukes Lawyer In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

The Supreme Court rebuked an advocate for making irrelevant and extraneous submissions in the Sabarimala reference hearing.

The 9-judge bench asked Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay several times to confine his arguments to the issues under consideration.

During his submissions, Upadhyay argued that 'Dharma' is greater than religion, as the latter is a source of conflicts. He contended that "Bharat was divided into 25 pieces in the last 2000 years due to denominational conflicts, and in the last 200 years, Bharat was divided into 7 countries."

Supreme Court Seeks MHA's Response On Power To Issue Look-Out Circulars Against Accused

Case Title: NIMESH NAVINCHANDRA SHAH Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 3288/2026

While suspending the look-out circular opened by CBI against one Nimesh Navinchandra Shah, the Supreme Court called for the Ministry of Home Affairs' response on the power to issue look-out circulars.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal (for petitioner) and ASG DP Singh (for CBI).

This is the case where the Court questioned CBI over the stopping of an accused - the petitioner - at the airport, due to an LOC opened against him, despite the jurisdictional Court having granted permission to travel abroad.

Supreme Court Asks AIIMS To Constitute Expert Committee For Exploring Alternatives To 'Brain Death' Verification

Case Title: DR. S. GANAPATHY Versus THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 29395/2017

The Supreme Court called for the constitution of a medical experts Committee by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences to consider and report on a doctor's suggestions regarding scientific methods to ascertain 'brain death'.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing petitioner-Dr. S Ganapathy, a Kerala-based doctor, who alleged inter-alia that doctors certify a patient as 'brain dead' without even looking at them and/or on the basis of apnea test, which is subjective and not foolproof.

During the hearing, Dr Ganapathy referred to a case where the patient was declared brain dead without any physical examination and the hospitals offered to transfer his body home without his family having to pay a hefty bill if there was agreement to donate his organs.

WhatsApp Banned 9400 Accounts Linked To Digital Arrest Scams : MHA Tells Supreme Court

Case title – In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents

WhatsApp banned 9,400 accounts linked to digital arrest scams and impersonation of law enforcement agencies during an investigation launched in January 2026, as per a status report filed by the Union government in suo motu proceedings in Supreme Court on digital arrest frauds.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has told the Supreme Court that telecom operators, digital platforms and financial regulators have begun implementing a series of measures to tackle “digital arrest” scams, including faster SIM blocking, biometric verification systems and platform-level safeguards by WhatsApp.

The status report was filed by Attorney General for India R Venkatramani on behalf of the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) in a suo motu case concerning victims of digital arrest scams involving forged documents. It places on record steps taken following the Court's directions on February 09, 2026.

Supreme Court To Examine If State PSC Rules Prevail Over RTI Act On Disclosure Of Answer Sheets

Case Title – Uttarakhand Public Service Commission v. Ruchi Rana & Ors.

The Supreme Court is set to examine whether a State Public Service Commission can fix the stage at which information relating to a recruitment examination is disclosed, and whether candidates can invoke the Right to Information Act, 2005 to seek such information before that stage.

“The question that falls for our consideration in these petition(s) is: “Whether a State Public Service Commission, which is a Constitutional Body, could have its own Rules 2 governing the stage at which Information relating to a public examination conducted by it is to be provided? If yes, then whether a candidate could take recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to seek information even prior to that stage?””, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan stayed an Uttarakhand High Court judgment which had allowed candidates to inspect their answer sheets during the ongoing recruitment process.

Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Judgment Releasing 193-Acre Thane Land From Acquisition As Private Forest

Case Title – Thane Municipal Corporation v. D. Dahyabhai and Co. Pvt Ltd. & Ors.

The Supreme Court has stayed a Bombay High Court judgment which had upheld the release of about 193 acres of land at Manpada, Thane from acquisition as “private forest” and had cleared the way for the landowner's claim for development rights.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice in a special leave petition filed by the Thane Municipal Corporation and directed that the operation of the High Court judgment will remain stayed till the next hearing on July 20, 2026.

"Issue notice, returnable on 20.07.2026...Operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed till the next hearing", the Court said.

Sabarimala Reference | Art 25(2)(b) Mentions Throwing Open Of Only Temples Since Caste System Is Not In Other Religions : Justice Nagarathna

During the ninth day of the Sabarimala reference, the Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court orally commented that Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, which allows the making of laws to throw open Hindu public temples to all classes of Hindus, was consciously enacted to address the caste-based exclusion prevalent in the society then.

The Judge commented that the provision did not mention other religions since such exclusion was prevalent only in Hinduism.

She made this comment in the context of an argument raised by a lawyer that allowing Article 25(2)(b) to prevail over Article 26 (which guarantees denomniational rights) would lead to discrimination, as laws can be made concerning only Hindu denominations. The lawyer pointed out that as per the Explanation to Article 25, the definition of Hinduism includes Buddhism and Jainism. This would mean that such laws would cover only Hindu, Buddhist and Jain denominations, while excluded Muslim, Christian and Parsi denominations.

PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Removal Of UP IPS Officer Ajay Pal Sharma As Election Observer In West Bengal Polls

Case : Aditya Das v. Election Commission | Diary No. 26135/2026

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Election Commission of India to appoint Uttar Pradesh cadre IPS officer Ajay Pal Sharma as an Election Observer for the West Bengal Assembly elections.

The petitioner has alleged that the officer is "highly partisan" and was threatening political candidates.

Referring to Section 20B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the petitioner points out that an Observer is supposed to "watch the conduct of the elections", and is envisaged as a "neutral institutional safeguard, whose presence is meant to reinforce public confidence in the conduct of elections." The petitioner contends that the conduct of Ajay Pal Sharma "stands in stark violation of the functions of the observer."

Black Sheep In Legal Profession Must Be Dealt With Immediately : Supreme Court Questions Bar Council Disciplinary Mechanism

Case Title – Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association

The Supreme Court raised concerns over the lack of effective remedies for clients against errant lawyers and questioned the efficiency of the Bar Council of India as well as State Bar Councils in deciding complaints filed by clients aggrieved by their lawyers' misconduct.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a case involving a lawyer who was blacklisted by a bank for alleged fraud. The bank had also communicated to other banks that the lawyer was not trustworthy.

The lawyer has challenged a caution list issued by the Indian Banks' Association, in which he was included on allegations of fraud. The concerned bank has alleged that the lawyer helped a borrower defraud the bank while preparing a search and title report for a loan.

'We Can't Be Part Of Annihilation Of Religion; Let's Not Open Age Old Customs' : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court orally observed that it cannot annihilate religion in the name of reform and that matters of belief and conscience cannot be subjected to judicial debate.

On the tenth day of the hearing, the nine-judge Bench posed a series of questions to Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who represents two women who entered the Sabarimala temple pursuant to the 2018 judgment that set aside the ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years.

Jaising argued that the religious freedom guaranteed to individuals under Article 25(1) of the Constitution would prevail over the rights of religious denominations under Article 26. She emphasised that courts cannot adopt a complete "hands-off" approach in religious matters, as judicial review is an inherent constitutional power. According to her, the Constitution is a living document, and fundamental rights cannot be interpreted in isolation. She added that religions evolve and reform over time and are not static.

'Situation Is Grim' : Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Case On NCLT Delays In Approving Resolution Plans

Cause Title: AVJ HEIGHTSS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION VERSUS IIFL FINANCE LIMITED & ANR.

The Supreme Court (April 29) took suo motu cognizance of systemic delays in approval of resolution plans by the National Company Law Tribunals, particularly at its Principal Bench in New Delhi. Also, the Court took note of the shortage of judicial and technical members across all NCLT benches.

Taking note of a report submitted by the Registrar of the NCLT Principal Bench, as directed on the previous date of hearing, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan described the situation as “grim and dismal.”

The Court recorded that 383 applications for approval of resolution plans are currently pending, with delays ranging from 48 days to 738 days, and in some cases extending up to four years. It observed that such prolonged delays defeat the very purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, as they undermine its core objective of ensuring time-bound resolution, preserving asset value, and maintaining economic efficiency.

Women Who Are True Devotees Of Lord Ayyappa Won't Go To Sabarimala Till They Attain 50 Years : Supreme Court

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court orally commented that women, who are true devotees of Lord Ayyappa, would not go to the Sabarimala temple till they attain the age of 50 years.

On the tenth day of the hearing of the reference, the 9-judge bench was hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who represented two women, who had entered the Sabarimala temple pursuant to the 2018 judgment which declared the right of women of all age groups to enter the hill shrine.

Jaising, who argued that the exclusion of women was a form of 'untouchability', which is proscribed by Article 17, told the bench that after the women entered the temple, a purification ceremony was done. The concept that the entry of women caused pollution and defilement of the shrine is a form of untouchability, she argued.

Supreme Court Declines To Release Teesta Setalvad's Passport Since No Definite Foreign Travel Plan Given

Case No. – MA 1233/2026 in Crl.A. No. 2022/2023

Case Title – Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court disposed of a plea filed by Teesta Setalvad seeking release of her passport, which has been surrendered as part of her bail conditions while permitting her to approach the Court again whenever she intends to travel abroad.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Alok Aradhe disposed of the matter without passing any directions on the release of the passport, granting liberty to Setalvad to file a fresh application whenever she seeks to travel abroad.

The Court orally observed that the passport would not be released unless the petitioner provided details of her proposed travel.

Supreme Court Questions UP Police For Not Arresting Satinder Singh Bhasin Despite His Non-Surrender After Bail Cancellation

Case Title: SATINDER SINGH BHASIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI | MA 1391/2026 in MA 239/2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2019

While passing an order for immediate surrender by businessman Satinder Singh Bhasin, the Supreme Court questioned the Uttar Pradesh police authorities over their failure to arrest him when he failed to surrender after cancellationof bail.

Statedly, the Court expressed that the police seemed to be colluding with Bhasin. Considering the authorities' request for time to make the arrest, the matter was however posted to Monday.

During the hearing, the Court drew the authorities' attention to Article 144 of the Constitution, which requires every authority in India to act in aid of the Supreme Court.

Can Banks' Association Blacklist Advocates Through Caution Lists? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Title – Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association

'AIIMS Cannot Decide For The Girl' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Hospital's Curative Plea Against Termination Of Minor's Pregnancy

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a curative petition filed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, against an order of a two-judge benchallowing the termination of the pregnancy, presently at 30 weeks, of a minor girl aged 15 years.

At the same time, the Court allowed the AIIMS doctors an opportunity to counsel the minor and her family, and share the medical reports and information with them to enable them to take an informed decision on whether to keep the child or go for abortion.

The Court said that AIIMS cannot impose its decision (that pregnancy should not be terminated) on the woman, and that she should have the option of taking an informed decision. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made it clear during the hearing that a curative petition at the instance of the AIIMS will not be entertained.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Congress Leader Pawan Khera's Plea For Anticipatory Bail In Assam Police FIR

Case Title - Pawan Khera v. State of Assam

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the petition filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR registered by Assam Police on the complaint by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, over Khera's allegation that she held multiple passports.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar heard the Congress leader Pawan Khera's plea against the Gauhati HC's rejectionof his anticipatory bail plea.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for Khera, started by saying that it was "an unprecedented case", as there were statements by the "boss of the boss of the boss of the Prosecutor", referring to certain public statements made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

'What's Wrong With Allahabad High Court?': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted In Dowry Death Case

The Supreme Court questioned the Allahabad High Court for granting bail to a man against whom there are prima facie allegations of dowry death. It cancelled the bail of the accused husband and directed him to surrender within a week. The Court also passed orders for the completion of the trial within a year.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing a special leave petition filed by the deceased's father challenging the bail granted to the husband by the Allahabad High Court. At the outset, the Court perused the postmortem report, which stated that there were injuries around her neck. When the Court asked the counsel for the accused, he replied that he would file a counter-affidavit.

Justice Pardiwala said: "With these types of allegations and with the death within seven years, why should you be granted bail? Argue to the point, counsel, don't make flimsy arguments, or we will cancel here and now. You have been charged with an offence of dowry death, and your wife was found dead under suspicious circumstances in your house. There were external injuries on her body. How do you explain the death of your wife?"

Supreme Court Urges HC To Give Out-Of-Turn Hearing To 77-Yr Old Cancer Patient Fighting For Retirement Benefits For 9 Yrs

Case Title: RAM SHANKER Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 522/2026

The Supreme Court asked the Allahabad High Court to grant out-of-turn hearing to a 77-year old man, suffering from cancer, whose plea for pension and post-retiral benefits has been pending for the last 9 years.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, asking the High Court to consider the petitioner's case on sympathetic basis and accord out-of-turn hearing.

Briefly put, the petitioner is a senior citizen, who rendered services under the State of Uttar Pradesh from 01.06.1970 to 28.05.1985. He subsequently resigned and joined the Gas Authority of India Ltd.

Amend Law To Remove Time Limit For Termination Of Pregnancy Of Minor Rape Victim : Supreme Court To Centre

The Supreme Court orally commented that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act must be amended to remove the time limits for the legal termination of pregnancies arising out of rape of minor girls.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a curative petition filed by All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, against a direction of a two-judge benchto terminate the pregnancy, presently at 30 weeks, of a 15-year-old girl.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati stressed that the pregnancy has crossed the 24-week upper limit.

Lawyers' Strike : Supreme Court Orders Allahabad High Court Committee To Take Action Against Gautam Budh Nagar Bar Association

Case Title: VIRENDRA SINGH Versus MANOJ KUMAR BHATI, Diary No. 16535-2026

The Supreme Court directed the an Allahabad High Court Committee of 3 judges to take action against a district Bar Association in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, which passed repeated resolutions for abstention from work in violation of the Supreme Court's orders.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after being told that in less than 4 months' tenure (of the Office Bearers of the Bar Association), there have been strikes for over 15 days.

The petitioner alleged that despite the Court's directions against abstention from court work during working days and/or strikes, the District Civil and Criminal Bar Association, Gautam Budh Nagar passed repeated resolutions for abstaining from court work.

No AOR Exam In 2026; Next Exam Likely In 2027 : Supreme Court

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has decided not to hold exams for Advocates-on-Record in 2026. The next examination will be announced likely in 2027.

The decision is taken in view of the overall strength of the Advocates-on-Record. Every year, the Supreme Court conducts AOR exams, and only those who clear the exam are entitled to file cases in the Supreme Court.

A notificationissued by the Registrar & Secretary of the Supreme Court's Board of Examiner, uploaded on the Supreme Court's website, stated  :

Supreme Court Warns Centre, AIIMS Of Contempt Charges If Order On Minor's Pregnancy Termination Not Implemented By May 4

Case No. – Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 233/2026 In C.A. No. 6667/2026 Diary No. 26229 / 2026

Case Title – S [Mother of N] v. Punya Salila Srivastava

The Supreme Court issued notice on a contempt petition alleging non-compliance by AIIMS, New Delhi with its recent order permitting medical termination of 30-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old girl.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the alleged contemnors - Principal Secretary of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Secretary of Department of Health and Family Welfare, and Director of AIIMS, New Delhi to remain present in the Court through video conferencing, May 4.

The Court indicated that if the order is not complied with by then, it will proceed to frame charges. The order was passed in a contempt petition filed by the mother of the minor girl.

'Why Anil Ambani Not Arrested?' Asks Petitioner ; 'Can't Respond Why X Or Y Not Arrested', Says SG

Case Title: EAS Sarma v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025

During the hearing of a plea seeking investigation into an alleged fraud by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group of companies, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that he cannot respond to the petitioner's question as to why Ambani has not been arrested.

"I will not be able to respond why some X is not arrested or Y is not arrested...it's not..." the SG said, while informing that 2 fresh FIRs have been registered by the agencies on discovery of some more material.

The remark came in response to a contention by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioner, that the Enforcement Directorate has arrested a few subordinate employees in connection with the case, but not Anil Ambani, who was "identified as the kingpin of the fraud" by SEBI in its report.

Manipur Violence : Supreme Court Asks Whistleblower To Give First Generation Copy Of Alleged Recording Of Biren Singh For Forensic Analysis

Case Details: KUKI ORGANIZATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS TRUST Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 702/2024

The Supreme Court was informed that the whistleblower has agreed to submit the original audio clips allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh in the State's ethnic violence.

It may be recalled that a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran has passed several orders to verify the authenticity of the audio and compare it with the voice of Biren Singh.

In Februarylast year, the Court had passed an order seeking production of the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati, in a sealed cover. In May, a bench after expressing dissatisfaction with the report submitted by the Central FSL, had asked for a fresh FSL report.