Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: February 2026

No Point In Prosecution Multiplying Witnesses On One & Same Issue, Says Supreme Court While Granting Bail Due To Trial Delay

Case Details: Chintan Rajubhai Panseriya v. State of Maharashtra | Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 439/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 99

The Supreme Court released a petitioner on bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(NDPS Act), after finding that he had spent more than three years in undertrial custody, with 159 witnesses left to be examined.

The petitioner has been arrested by the Anti-Narcotic Cell, Worli Unit, under Sections 8(b), 22(c), 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, for possessing 2428 kg of Mephedrone.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, in the order passed on January 28, stated that despite the seriousness of the alleged offence, the Court had to exercise discretion in granting bail in an NDPS case because the Trial Court took more than three and a half years to frame charges.

IBC | Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Corporate Entities Which Are Intricately Linked : Supreme Court

Case Details: Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col. Gautam Mullick & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 100

In a relief to homebuyers, the Supreme Court (February 2) held that in real estate projects, a single insolvency petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code is maintainable against more than one corporate entity if they are intrinsically connected in the execution and marketing of the project.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran upheld the NCLAT's ruling, which has permitted a joint Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against two corporate entities that were intrinsically connected to the real estate project.

The insolvency proceedings arose from the failure of the developers to hand over possession of commercial units to homebuyers despite long delays. The NCLT admitted the petition filed by the allottees, a decision later affirmed by the NCLAT. The developers and their directors approached the Supreme Court, contending that the insolvency proceedings were legally unsustainable as initiating a joint CIRP is impermissible under the IBC.

When Arbitration Agreement Is Alleged To Be Forged, Dispute Is Not Arbitrable : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee (With Connected Appeal)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 101

The Supreme Court (February 2) observed that the parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate when the very existence of the contract containing the arbitration clause was alleged to be fake.

“…in a case where plea is taken with regard to non-existence of an arbitration clause or agreement, the same would amount to serious allegation of fraud and would render the subject matter of an agreement non-arbitrable.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, pointing that the allegations of fraud going to the very existence of the contract containing the arbitration clause must be first decided by the civil court.

“when an allegation of fraud is made with regard to arbitration agreement itself, such a dispute is generally recognised as a dispute, which is in the realm of non-arbitrability and the court will examine it, as a jurisdictional issue only to enquire whether the dispute has become non-arbitrable due to one or the other reason.”, the court said.

Temple Trust Not An 'Industry' As Per Industrial Disputes Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Indravadan N. Adhvaryu Pipala Fali Modhvada v. Laxminarayan Dev Trust

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 102

Holding that a temple trust does not qualify as an “industry”, the Supreme Court upheld the termination of an accountant employed by the trust, despite the absence of a formal inquiry and after more than twelve years of service.

“the respondent-Trust is a temple and as such, it would not fall within the four corners of the expression “industry”.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale.

However, acknowledging the uninterrupted and continuous service rendered by the Appellant and he was terminated without holding any inquiry, followed by a transfer to a far-off location, the Court directed the Respondent-trust to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs).

Armed Forces Tribunal Can Hear Appeal Against Findings Of ICC Under POSH Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: 42605-B Cdr Yogesh Mahla v. Union of India & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 103

The Supreme Court ruled that an army personnel aggrieved by the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act can file an appeal before the Armed Forces Tribunal.

“Section 14 of the AFT Act, 2007 when read in juxtaposition with Section 18 of the POSH Act, we find that the appellant herein had rightly approached the Tribunal so as to assail the report as well as the recommendations of the ICC. The Tribunal ought to have considered the correctness of the said report in accordance with law.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan while setting aside the Delhi High Court's decision, which held that the army personnel has no right under Section 18 of the POSH Act to approach the AFT against ICC's findings.

The case arose from a complaint of sexual harassment made against the appellant, pursuant to which an ICC was constituted under the POSH Act. After conducting an inquiry, the ICC submitted a report recommending disciplinary action. Relying on this report, the Naval authorities issued a show cause notice dated March 5, 2025, under Regulation 216 of the Navy Regulations read with Section 15(2) of the Navy Act, 1957, proposing termination of his services.

Litigants Who Approach Court After Long Delay Noticing Others' Success Can't Claim Similar Relief As Right : Supreme Court

Case Details: Damor Nanabhai Manabhai & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors (With Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 104

The Supreme Court held that parity-based relief cannot be claimed after prolonged delay merely because similarly situated employees have succeeded, as such claims would reopen settled issues.

“Those who seek to claim the benefit after long delay, merely upon noticing that others have succeeded, cannot as a matter of course demand similar relief.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

This was the case where the tribunal's direction for the reinstatement of the petitioners was set aside by the State Government in exercise of its review power under Section 24(4) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. The state government's decision was upheld by the High Court and remained undisturbed by the Supreme Court in 2014.

Award Passed After Arbitrator's Mandate Expiry Not Void If Court Extends Time: Supreme Court

Case Details: C. Velusamy v. K Indhera

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 105

In a notable development, the Supreme Court (February 3) held that where an arbitral award is rendered beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 29A, such an award, though rendered after the tribunal's mandate has technically terminated, can be given effect if an application is filed before the competent court under Section 29A seeking extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate.

“…we are of the opinion that provisions of the Act, particularly Section 29A, must not be interpreted to infer a threshold bar for an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator even when an award is passed, though after the expiry of the mandate.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar.

The dispute stemmed from three sale agreements, leading to the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Madras High Court on April 19, 2022. After pleadings concluded on August 20, 2022, the 12-month period under Section 29A commenced and was extended by six months with the parties' consent, fixing February 20, 2024 as the deadline.

Supreme Court Directs Centre To Constitute Tribunal To Decide Pennaiyar River Dispute Between Tamil Nadu And Karnataka

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka and Anr., Orgnl.Suit No. 1/2018

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 106

The Supreme Court directed constitution of a Tribunal for resolving disputes pending between the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over sharing of Pennaiyar river water resources.

The Court ordered the constitution of a Water Disputes Tribunal by the Central Government within 1 month.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and NV Anjaria delivered the judgment, after having reserved its decision in December last year. In September, 2025, the Court was informedthat a Tribunal was required to be constituted for resolution of the dispute.

S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act Won't Apply To Cases Of Demand Of Illegal Gratification : Supreme Court

Case Details: Anil Daima Etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 108

The Supreme Court has held that the protection under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be extended to cases involving demand of illegal gratification by public servants, holding that the provision is confined to decisions or recommendations taken in the discharge of official duties.

“Section 17-A came to be enacted with a particular object. Section 17-A talks about enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. Section 17-A by any stretch of imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice SC Sharma.

Section 17A mandates that prior sanction from the Government is required to launch an investigation against the public servant "where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties."

Party Who Accepted S.11 Order For Arbitrator Appointment Can't Later Question Validity Of Arbitration Clause Under Pre-2015 Regime: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 109.

The Supreme Court (February 4) reiterated that under the pre-2015 amendment regime, once a party consents to a court order appointing an arbitrator, they cannot subsequently challenge the existence or validity of the arbitration clause before the arbitral tribunal or in proceedings under Section 34.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan heard an appeal arising from an arbitration dispute under the pre-2015 amendment regime.

Under the Pre-2015 Amendment regime, the Chief Justice or designated judge under Section 11 performed a judicial function and was obliged to decide on jurisdictional issues, including the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. This decision was final and binding on the parties under Section 11(7). It was impermissible to challenge the existence and validity of the arbitration clause before the arbitral tribunal or a court under Section 34, after having accepted a Section 11 order appointing an arbitrator, as held in SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Limited & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 618.

Paying Primary Teachers Rs 7000 Monthly For Ten Years Is Bonded Labour: Supreme Court Asks UP Govt To Pay 17K

Case Details: U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh,State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Anurag and Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 110

The Supreme Court (February 4) criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for engaging in “unfair practices,” subjecting the state's primary school teachers/instructors to a form of 'begar' by paying them a meager fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,000 per month for over a decade.

Finding that the wages received by teachers were stagnant and low, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale directed the state government to pay an honorarium of Rs. 17,000 per month to all such teachers, effective from the financial year 2017-18, with arrears to be cleared within six months.

“…part time contractual instructors/teachers appointed in the Upper Primary School in the State of U.P. are entitled to revision of their honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month which was initially fixed for the contract period of eleven months in the year 2013 and that the said revision has to take place, if not annually then periodically as per the discretion of the PAB. Since the PAB for the year 2017-18 had determined the said honorarium to be Rs.17,000/- per month, all instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme are entitled for the payment of the same at the above rate of Rs.17,000/- per month with effect from 2017-18 till further revision takes place.”, the court said.

RTE Act | State Can't Justify Low Pay To Teachers Citing Centre's Failure To Release Funds : Supreme Court

Case Details: U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh,State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Anurag and Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 110

The Supreme Court has held that a State Government cannot justify paying meagre honorarium to teachers by citing the Central Government's failure to release its share of funds, ruling that the primary responsibility to implement the Right to Education Act rests with the State, which must pay teachers first and may recover the Centre's contribution later.

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, while directing the Uttar Pradesh Government to pay Rs.17,000 per month as honorarium to part-time instructors engaged under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and Samagra Shiksha schemes, relied on Section 7(5) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which casts an overriding duty on States to fund implementation of the Act.

The Court said that “the initial burden to pay honorarium to the instructors/teachers is upon the State Government who is free to recover the contribution of the Central Government from the Union of India on the principle of “pay & recover.”

Husband's Duty To Maintain Ex-Wife After Divorce Won't End Merely Because She Is Educated Or Has Parental Support : Supreme Court

Case Details: Y v. X

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 111

The Supreme Court observed that a husband cannot evade from his duty to maintain his ex-wife after divorce, on the ground that she is educated or has parental support.

"Marriage, as an institution in our society, is founded on emotional bonding, companionship, and mutual support, which cannot be evaluated in purely monetary terms. A woman often enters matrimony with legitimate aspirations of a stable and dignified life

When such a marriage breaks down, the obligation of the husband to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity does not come to an end merely on the ground that she is educated or has parental support. Post-divorce, the wife is entitled to live a life consistent with the standard of living she was accustomed to during the subsistence of the marriage.”, observed a bench of Justices SVN Bhatti and R Mahadevan, while allowing the wife's plea against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which refused to entertain her plea against the quantum of maintenance amounting to Rs. 15,000/- per month decided by the Family Court.

Arbitration Act | S.37 Court Cannot Recalculate Damages Awarded By S. 34 Court Without Finding Arbitrariness Or Perversity : Supreme Court

Case Details No. – Civil Appeal Nos. 12892-12893 of 2024 With Civil Appeal Nos. 12894-12895 of 2024

Case Details – M/S Saisudhir Energy Ltd. v. M/S Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. With M/S Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. v. M/S Saisudhir Energy Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 112

The Supreme Court held that a court exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot re-calculate or substitute its own assessment of compensation once a Section 34 court has fixed a reasonable award within the terms of the contract.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar restored a Delhi High Court single judge order awarding ₹27.06 crore as liquidated damages to NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited for delay in commissioning a 20 MW solar power project by Saisudhir Energy Limited under a power purchase agreement executed in 2012.

“In our view, the Division Bench exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 when it proceeded to re-work and re-calculate the amount of reasonable compensation to which NVVNL was entitled. The learned Single Judge having determined the amount of reasonable compensation by relying upon Clause 4.6 of the PPA and thereafter awarding 50% of the amount so determined, in the absence of this determination being shown to be beyond the terms of Clause 4.6 of the PPA or arbitrary or perverse, no interference with such determination was called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act of 1996. In fact, the Division Bench has not recorded any finding that such determination of reasonable compensation by the learned Single Judge suffered from arbitrariness or that it travelled beyond what was provided by Clause 4.6 of the PPA”, the Court held.

'No Mechanical FIRs For Harsh Political Posts' : Supreme Court Upholds Telangana HC Guidelines For Cases Over Social Media Posts

Case Details – State of Telangana v. Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 113

The Supreme Court upheld the guidelines framed by the Telangana High Court regulating registration of FIRs in cases arising out of social media posts and directing the police not to mechanically register FIRs over "harsh, offensive, or critical political speeches".

The High Court had held that in case of social media posts FIR for promotion of enmity, threat to public order, or sedition can be registered only if there exists a prima facie case.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a batch of pleas by the State of Telangana challenging the judgment of the High Court which had quashed three FIRs and laid down detailed guidelines for police and Magistrates while dealing with criminal cases arising out of social media posts.

BNSS | Arrest Under S. 35(6) Must Be Based On Fresh Material, Not On Grounds In S.35(3) Notice : Supreme Court

Case Details: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 114

While affirming that issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is mandatoryfor offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the Supreme Court clarified that an arrest under Section 35(6) can be made even after such notice only based on fresh materials that were not available to the police officer at the time the Section 35(3) notice was issued.

"While making an arrest under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, after the stage of issuing a notice seeking presence under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, the circumstances and factors that were in existence at the time of issuing the said notice shall not be taken into consideration by a police officer while making an arrest subsequently. In other words,for effecting an arrest under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, it must be based upon materials and factors which were not available with the police officer at the time of issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023,” the Court clarified.

Section 35(3) of BNSS mandates the police official to send a notice to an accused to appear before the police. Section 35(6) BNSS empowers the police to arrest a person who fails to comply with Section 35(3) BNSS notice, i.e., to appear before the police officer or fails to identify himself to the police.

Arrest Exception, Not Rule For Offences Punishable Up To 7 Yrs; S.35(3) BNSS Notice Mandatory In Such Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 114

The Supreme Court held that serving of notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is mandatory by the police to accused persons alleged to have committed an offence punishable up to seven years of imprisonment.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said that no arrest could be made for offences which are punishable with less than 7 years' imprisonment unless the mandatory requirement of serving a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS is complied with.

The Court was considering the seminal issue - Whether notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are to be mandatorily issued in all cases, qua an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years?.

Welfare Of Child Paramount But Not Sole Consideration In Custody Disputes: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mohtashem Billah Malik v. Sana Aftab

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 115

Emphasising that child custody decisions cannot rest on welfare alone, the Supreme Court held that courts must also take into account a range of other relevant factors, including the conduct of parents, their financial capacity, standard of living, and the comfort and education of the children.

Setting aside a Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment that restored the custody of two minor children to their mother, a Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti observed that while the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, it is not the sole factor governing custody adjudication.

"...there is no dispute with the proposition that in matters of custody, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the children but nonetheless there are a host of other factors which weigh before the court while passing the final order of custody. These host of factors may include the conduct of the parties, their financial capacity, their standard of living, as well as the comfort and education of the children. Therefore, it may not be entirely correct on the part of the High Court in holding that such factors are not very relevant and that the custody of the minors has to depend upon their welfare alone," the Court observed.

High Court Cannot Reject Plaint Under Article 227 : Supreme Court

Case Details: P.Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 116

The Supreme Court has ruled that the High Court cannot reject a plaint in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

“…once the specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is available, the High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off the plaint.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria.

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant seeking a permanent injunction, claiming ownership over the suit property by way of inheritance. The defendants contested the claim, alleging that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff was fabricated and that the suit itself was fraudulent.

Mere Leasing Of Apartment Does Not Bar Flat Buyer's Consumer Complaint Against Builder: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vinit Bahri and Another v. M/S Mgf Developers Ltd. and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 117

The Supreme Court has observed that mere leasing or renting of a residential flat does not automatically exclude the owner from the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, unless it is proved that the dominant intention at the time of flat purchase was commercial.

The Court clarified that the burden lies on the builder or service provider to prove that the dominant intention behind the purchase was commercial.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria delivered the judgment.

Difficult To Believe Married Woman Was Induced Into Sex With False Marriage Promise : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

Case Details: P N v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 118

The Supreme Court (February 5) quashed criminal proceedings against a Chhattisgarh advocate accused of repeatedly raping a married woman colleague on the false promise of marriage.

“It has been time and again settled by this Court, that the mere fact that the parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case. An offence under Section 375 of the IPC could only be made out, if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's order that refused to quash the rape case against the Appellant.

The complainant, also a 33-year-old advocate and a married mother with a pending divorce petition, had alleged that the Appellant established a physical relationship with her starting in September 2022 on the assurance of marriage. She claimed the relationship continued until January 2025, during which she became pregnant and was forced to undergo an abortion. After a confrontation with his family turned hostile, she lodged an FIR in February 2025 under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, which prescribes enhanced punishment for rape committed "repeatedly on the same woman."

Properties Acquired By 'Karta' Presumed To Be Joint Hindu Family Assets Unless Contrary Proved: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 119

The Supreme Court (February 5) observed that once the existence of an ancestral, income-yielding property is established, any subsequent acquisition made by the Karta during the subsistence of a joint Hindu family is presumed to be joint family property, unless the person claiming self-acquisition discharges the burden of proof with cogent evidence.

“Where acquisitions are made during the subsistence of the joint family, and where ancestral properties yielding income are shown to exist, properties acquired in the name of the Karta are ordinarily regarded as joint family properties unless the contrary is proved.”, the court said.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the case where a dispute arose between two brothers regarding the partition of a joint Hindu family property.

DA Must Be As Per Formula In Rules : Supreme Court Directs To Refix Dearness Allowance Of Bengal Employees For 2008-19

Case Details –State of West Bengal v. Confederation of State Government Employees, West Bengal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 120

The Supreme Court held that West Bengal government employees are entitled to Dearness Allowance as per the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 2009 for the period of 2008-2019, calculated using the All-India Consumer Price Index.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that once DA is defined by linking it to the All-India Consumer Price Index as in the statutory rules, the State could not modify the manner of calculating DA through later office memoranda.

“DA, by its very nature, is non static, fluid and subject to change. How that change is to be carried out is through the AICPI. The first memorandum as also subsequent memoranda fall prey to the fatal flaw that they do not make reference to the AICPI which is absolutely essential to the determination the DA which, in turn is indispensable to the computation of the total amount of existing emoluments. As a necessary follow up thereto, it would be observed that the incorporation of AICPI cannot be termed as a one-time measure, and once DA was defined using it, to take a different path would be impermissible in law”, the Court held.

State Govt Employees Can't Claim Dearness Allowance Twice A Year Unless Rules Permit : Supreme Court

Case Details –State of West Bengal v. Confederation of State Government Employees, West Bengal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 120

While deciding the State of West Bengal's challenge to directions on payment of Dearness Allowance under the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 2009, the Supreme Court held that state government employees are not entitled, as a matter of right, to payment of DA twice a year.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held –

The issue of twice-yearly payment of DA arose after the Tribunal directed the State to evolve norms for payment of DA under the ROPA Rules, 2009 and observed that DA can be paid at least twice in a year. When the State challenged that decision, the Calcutta High Court upheld the Tribunal's direction observing that once the State had adopted a pattern of ascertaining and paying DA twice a year, abrupt deviation could not be sustained.

Trial Courts Must Record Offer Of Free Legal Aid To Accused Before Examination Of Witnesses : Supreme Court

Case Details: Reginamary Chellamani v. State Rep By Superintendent of Customs

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 121

The Supreme Court (February 5) passed an important order directing the High Courts to pass on an instruction to the trial courts within their state to inform the accused of their right to legal aid in the event they cannot afford a counsel. The response of the accused to the offer of free legal aid must be recorded.

“It is incumbent upon the trial Courts dealing with criminal proceedings, faced with such situations, to inform the accused of their right to legal representation and their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel in the event they cannot afford a counsel. The trial Courts shall record the offer made to the accused in this regard, the response of the accused to such offer and also the action taken thereupon in their orders, before commencing examination of the witnesses.”, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran ordered.

Background

Supreme Court Rejects TN Cadre IPS Officer's Claim For Rajasthan Cadre Vacancy Of 2004

Case Details – Rupesh Kumar Meena v. Union of India & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 122

The Supreme Court rejected a 2004 batch Tamil Nadu Cadre IPS officer's plea seeking appointment against an insider vacancy for the same year in the Rajasthan Cadre after two senior candidates declined to join.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar noted that appellant Rupesh Kumar Meena raised the claim six years later in 2010, and observed that interfering after more than 20 years since the vacancy year would render the cadre allocation process fluid indefinitely.

“In our view, such a process cannot be adopted. It will result in the process of allocation or change of cadres fluid for all times to come. The result thereof may be, that after shifting of the appellant from Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan, in terms of the merit list for the 2004 Selection, a candidate below the appellant may claim change of cadre, who otherwise may have been allocated to some other State. This may also have effect on appointment against any 'insider' vacancy. Finality has to be attached to the process of selection. Before us, no material has been produced to show that the aforesaid 'insider' vacancy for the year 2004 was still lying vacant for the period of more than 20 years that have passed.”

Statutory Authorities Can Intervene If Housing Society Delays Membership Decisions : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shashin Patel and Anr. v. Uday Dalal and Ors. (With Connected Case Details)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 125

The Supreme Court has observed that the statutory authority can step into the affairs of the co-operative housing societies' matters when the society refuses to decide or keeps the matter pending for a long time.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter that relates to the delay in granting of the membership to the flat owners in one Malboro House Co-operative Housing Society Limited of Mumbai, despite they being residing peacefully in their flat for the past several years.

The flat owners have approached the co-operative society; however, upon noting a delay in the grant of the membership benefit, they approached the Divisional Joint Registrar under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, who in turn, ordered that membership should be granted.

Quasi-Judicial Authorities Lack Review Power Unless Statutorily Empowered : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 126

The Supreme Court (February 6) held that the quasi-judicial authorities aren't empowered to exercise review jurisdiction unless statutorily empowered to do so.

A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh overturned the Calcutta High Court's decision that had sustained the Revenue Officer's exercise of review jurisdiction. The Court held that the vesting of the disputed land in favour of the respondent, done pursuant to the State Minister's instructions, was impermissible, particularly when the land had earlier stood vested with the State government.

“…we hold that the review undertaken by the Revenue Officer culminating in the fresh order dated 07.05.2008 was wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The WBEA Act, 1953, does not confer any power of substantive review upon the Revenue Officer, either expressly or by necessary implication.”, the court held.

PMLA | Special Court Can't Order Confiscation U/ S.8(7) When Appeal Against Attachment Confirmation U/S 8(3) Is Pending : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 127

In an important judgment interpreting Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court (February 6) ruled that once an appeal against the confirmation of the attachment order is pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the Special Court cannot decide upon the confiscation proceedings.

“…once an order under Section 8(3) of the PMLA is challenged before a higher forum (under Section 26 of PMLA), a deemed embargo operates on the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 8(7) of the PMLA. Hence, the Special Court cannot go into the issues which the higher forums have been entrusted with. When an appeal is provided for under the statute, it gives a vested right to any aggrieved person to exhaust the same.” observed a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh.

The bench stated that "there is a deemed stay on the proceedings under Section 8(7) of the PMLA until the confirmation order attains finality."

Photocopy Of Document No Evidence Unless Conditions To Produce Secondary Evidence Proved : Supreme Court

Case Details: Tharammel Peethambaran and Another v. T. Ushakrishnan and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 128

The Supreme Court has set aside the sale undertaken on the strength of a photocopied Power of Attorney, noting that a photocopy of a document, being secondary evidence, is not evidence unless it falls under the conditions set out in Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

Section 65 of the Evidence Act permits the production of secondary evidence (copies, oral accounts) when the original document cannot be produced under Section 64. This applies if the original document/evidence is lost, destroyed, rests in possession of an adverse party, or is a public document.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti heard the case where the core controversy centred on the nature and scope of authority granted under a PoA executed by the plaintiff in 1998.

₹2 Crore Compensation For Faulty Haircut Unjustified : Supreme Court Asks ITC Maurya To Pay 25 Lakhs To Model

Case Details: ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 129

The Supreme Court set aside the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) order, which had directed the ITC Maurya Hotel, New Delhi, to pay Rs. 2 Crore compensation to a Model for a faulty haircut.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan noted that the NCDRC failed to assess how the respondent suffered a loss to the tune of ₹2 Crore. The Court pointed out that a general discussion on the loss, without sufficient proof of the loss, cannot justify payment of compensation, having a huge value.

It may be recalled that in 2023, the Supreme Court had set aside the compensation awarded by the NCDRC, holding that the respondent–model had failed to place material on record to substantiate her claim, and had remitted the matter to the NCDRC for fresh determination of the quantum of compensation.

Delay In Filing Appeals Under S. 74 Of 2013 Land Acquisition Act Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court

Case Details: Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/S S.V. Global Mill Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 130

The Supreme Court (February 9) held that a delay in filing an appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

“Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not bar the application of Section 5 of the 1963 Act.”, the court held.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SC Sharma heard the batch of pleas where the controversy arose due to conflicting interpretations by various High Courts on whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, which provides 60 days to file an appeal, extendable by another 60 days, impliedly excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which empowers courts to condone delay on showing sufficient cause.

Grant Of Bail Should Not Be Subject To Deposit Of Money : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Details: Prantik Kumar & Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.4297/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 131

The Supreme Court reiterated that when Courts grant regular or anticipatory bail, it should not be subject to the deposit of any amount. In this case, the Court set aside the conditional bail orders passed by the Jharkhand High Court and ordered that, in the event of arrest, the accused persons shall be released on bail. It also asked the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the place before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.

As per the brief facts, the two accused persons, father and son, were denied anticipatory bail by the High Court in a cheating case. The complaint alleged that the accused persons failed to make a payment of Rs. 9,00,000 after purchasing craft papers from him. A first information report was lodged, and anticipating arrest, the accused persons applied to the Sessions Court for bail but were denied. Pursuant to which, they approached the High Court, which passed two orders directing them to file a supplementary affidavit showing that a payment of Rs. 9,12,926.84 has been made to the complainant. Subsequently, the accused persons sought time, and the High Court passed another order granting them time.

In both orders, dated January 13, 2025, and November 14, 2025, the High Court observed that if the affidavit showing payment is not filed, the anticipatory bail application will be dismissed without further reference.

Supreme Court Expresses Reservations About CB Judgment That 'Loss Of Love & Affection' Can't Be Separately Compensated In Motor Accident Claims

Case Details: v. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 132

The Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the Constitution Bench ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which excludes non-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation of “love and affection” as a separate head while determining compensation in motor accident cases.

A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma observed that while it remains bound by the Constitution Bench decision, it harbours unease with that aspect of the ruling which holds that the loss suffered due to deprivation of love and affection in fatal road accident cases cannot be awarded separately while computing compensation.

In Pranay Sethi, it was held that non-pecuniary damages should be awarded only under three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It disapproved the grant of damages for "loss of love and affection" under a separate head.

High Courts Cannot Nullify Arbitral Proceedings While Appointing Substitute Arbitrator : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 133

The Supreme Court observed that it is impermissible for the High Courts to interfere with an arbitration proceeding while deciding an application seeking a substitution of an arbitrator.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan set aside a Bombay High Court order that had declared arbitral proceedings a nullity while considering an application for substitution of an arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court said that “the proper and legal course for the High Court acting under Section 15(2) of the Act, 1996, should have been to appoint a substitute arbitrator to continue from the existing stage of the proceedings.”, and not to assume and exercise power which has clearly not been conferred by the Act, 1996, more particularly, wherein the statute itself envisages minimal judicial intervention.

Supreme Court Approves Assam Govt Mechanism To Evict Encroachers From Forest Lands

Case Details: Abdul Khalek v. State of Assam | SLP(C) No. 23647-23648/2025 and Connected Matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 134

The Supreme Court, on February 10, modified the order of the Gauhati High Court in terms of the latest affidavit filed by the State of Assam on the mechanism adopted in carrying out large-scale encroachment drives in Doyang, South Nambar, Jamuna Madunga, Barpani, Lutumai and Gola Ghat reserved forests in Assam.

As per the affidavit, after eviction notices are issued, it goes before a Joint Committee of forest and revenue officials. The committee is authorised to give a hearing to the occupants in order to adduce evidence. The action for removal is taken only once it is established that there has been an encroachment. A period of 15 days' notice is given through speaking orders to vacate the unauthorised occupation.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe has directed that the status quo be maintained till speaking orders are passed and till expiry of 15 days.

Civil Suit Alleging Coercion, Undue Influence Cannot Be Rejected At Threshold Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC : Supreme Court

Case Details: J. Muthurajan & Anr. v. S. Vaikundarajan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 135

The Supreme Court (February 10) observed that a civil suit cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC merely because it contains a ground of coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the concurrent findings of the Madras High Court and the Trial Court, which rejected the Appellant's civil suit at the threshold terming it to be an abuse of process of law merely because the suit alleged inequitable partition of the immovable property on the grounds of coercion, undue influence, and misrepresentation.

“The grounds of coercion, undue influence and more importantly misrepresentation, resulting in an inequitable partition, cannot be peremptorily rejected while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Quashes Charges Under SC/ST Act Against Vyapam Whistleblower Dr Anand Rai

Case Details – Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 136

The Supreme Court quashed the charges framed against Dr.Anand Rai, whistleblower in the Madhya Pradesh VYAPAM examination scam, in a case over alleged caste-based violence.

"We have discussed the scope of the SC/ST Act and the action is not in accordance with law. Appeal allowed," the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh allowed Dr. Rai's appeal against the MP High Court order upholding framing of charges in a caste-based atrocities case arising out of alleged violence and abuse against an MP, MLA and government officials during a rally. Dr. Rai is an ophthalmologist from Madhya Pradesh who is one of the whistleblowers in the VYAPAM examination scam.

CrPC Jurisprudence On Discharge & Framing Of Charges Continues Under BNSS : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 136

The Supreme Court has observed that the substantive legal standards governing discharge and framing of charges at the pre-trial stage under the Code of Criminal Procedure continue unchanged under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS). However, the BNSS introduces regulatory discipline by prescribing sixty-day timelines for filing discharge applications and for courts to frame charges.

“What the BNSS does is to change the procedural setting within which this discretion is exercised. The new statute introduces express timelines for the filing of discharge applications and for the framing of charges, and it expressly recognises the possibility of the accused being heard or examined through electronic means. These changes are regulatory in nature. They are aimed at structuring the process and reducing delay, not at transforming the judicial task itself. The Court's obligation to apply its mind to the record, to hear both sides, and to record reasons where discharge is ordered remains exactly as before, as does the caution against weighing evidence or conducting a mini trial at these preliminary stages.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh.

The observation came while hearing an appeal against the MP High Court's decision which, while hearing a statutory appeal under Section 14A of SC/ST Act, had upheld the framing of charges under SC/ST Act, despite the basic ingredients of intentional caste-based insult or intimidation remaining absent.

High Court Must Independently Apply Its Mind On SC/ST Act Charges In Appeal Under Section 14A : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 136

The Supreme Court has criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court's handling of a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act)( SC/ST Act), noting that despite the absence of the basic ingredients of the offence being met, i.e., intentional caste-based insult or intimidation, the High Court proceeded with the criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court held that while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, a High Court does not sit as a revisional or supervisory court but functions as a first appellate court. A mechanical affirmation of a Special Court's order, without independent scrutiny of the material on record, would amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction, the Court said.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh was hearing an appeal that arose from a November 15, 2022 incident during the unveiling of a statue of Bhagwan Birsa Munda at Bachhadapara in Madhya Pradesh. According to the prosecution, a large group allegedly associated with the JAYS organisation intercepted officials, pelted stones at vehicles, and assaulted personnel, resulting in injuries to a security official. Appellant-Dr. Rai was named as one of the accused.

Central Govt Employees Governed By CCS Rules Excluded From Payment Of Gratuity Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: N. Manoharan v. Administrative Officer & Anr. (With Connected Cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 137

The Supreme Court (February 11) held that the retired employees of the Heavy Water Plant (HWP), Tuticorin, functioning under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), are not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (PG Act), as they are Central Government servants governed by the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.

A Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti heard the matter, in which the appellants, retired employees of the Heavy Water Plant, challenged the computation of their gratuity under the CCS (Pension) Rules, contending that they would have been entitled to a higher amount had their gratuity been determined in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act. Thus, they demanded the payment of the differential amount.

The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority ruled in favour of the employees, holding that HWP qualified as an “industry” and therefore fell within the ambit of the PG Act. A Single Judge of the Madras High Court upheld this view.

Not For High Court To Re-Examine Answer Keys Even In Judicial Service Exams : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jharkhand Public Service Commisison v. State of Jharkhand | C.A. No. 001455 / 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 138

The Supreme Court directed the Jharkhand High Court to constitute an expert committee to re-examine the correctness of 3 questions that appeared in the State Civil Judges (Junior Division) Exams. The Court partly set aside the impugned High Court order which found the answers to some of the questions to be incorrect.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria was hearing a plea by Jharkhand Public Services Commission (JPSC).

The JPSC has challenged the High Court's order, which allowed a writ petition challenging the correctness of answers to 3 questions in the exams for the appointment of Civil Judges (Junior Division).

Supreme Court Issues Directions To HCs To Ensure Disclosure Of Necessary Information In Bail Applications

Case Details –Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 139

The Supreme Court issued directions to the High Courts to ensure that bail applications disclose certain necessary details.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal Of Telangana Court Staff Over Forgery Charge, Orders Reinstatement

Case Details: K. Rajaiah v. High Court For The State of Telangana | SLP(C) No. 11965/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 140

The Supreme Court (February 11) passed an order for the reinstatement of a Subordinate Officer in the  Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, who was dismissed from service on charges of forgery. Reinstatement must be with all consequential benefits, including all arrears of salary and ammoluments within three weeks.

The appellant had submitted a medical certificate to justify his unauthorised absence from service for a few days, but the doctor who had apparently issued it claimed it was fabricated. Upon departmental inquiry, the charges of misconduct and unbecoming of a government servant were proven, and the appellant was dismissed from service.

"For the reasons stated above, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 12-02-2024 and the petition 40486 of 2021, and allow the appeal. Consequently, the order of dismissal from service dated 13-11-2018 and the order of the appellant authority dismissing the appeal dated 8-1-2021 will all stand set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, including all arrears of salary and ammoluments since the non-employment was not due to the appellant's fault."

'Most Shocking & Disappointing', Supreme Court Raps Allahabad High Court For Unreasoned Bail In Dowry Death Case

Case Details: Chetram Verma v. State of U.P.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 141

The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Allahabad High Court for passing an unreasoned bail order in a dowry death case without advertence to the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding bail applications.

The High Court had granted bail to the husband of the deceased victim by merely recording in the order sheet his period of incarceration, and absence of a criminal history, which the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan described as one of the "most shocking and disappointing orders that it has come across over a period of time."

“We fail to understand on plain reading of the impugned order as to what the High Court is trying to convey. What weighed with the High Court in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused for the purpose of grant of bail in a very serious crime like dowry death. What did the High Court do? All that the High Court did, was to record the submission of the defense counsel and thereafter proceeded to observe that the accused was in jail since 27.07.2025 and there being no criminal history, he was entitled to bail. Accordingly, bail came to be granted.”, the court noted.

Supreme Court Upholds NCLAT Order Directing NBCC To Complete Stalled Supertech Housing Projects

Case Details: Apex Heights Pvt. Ltd. v. Ram Kishor Arora C.A. No. 2626/2025 and Connected Cases.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 142

The Supreme Court upheld the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal directing State-owned NBCC to expeditiously complete 16 stalled housing projects of debt-ridden real estate developer Supertech Limited.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi affirmed the NCLAT's December 12, 2024 order, which had brought NBCC on record for completion of the projects in the interest of homebuyers.

“We find that the order passed by the NCLAT on December 12, 2024, in bringing the NBCC on record for the completion of the pending housing projects is neither unfair nor contrary to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC),” the Court noted in its order. In February 2025, the Court had stayed the NCLAT order.

Supreme Court Lifts Ban On Anurag Thakur From BCCI

Case Details: Board of Control For Cricket In India v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors. | C.A. No. 4235/2014

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 143

The Supreme Court lifted the ban imposed on BJP Leader Anurag Thakur from holding office in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application by BJP MP Anurag Thakur seeking the lifting of the ban which was imposed as per paragraph 25 (ii) of the 2017 Supreme Court Order.

In 2017, the bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur removed BCCI President Anurag Thakur and Secretary Ajay Shirke for continued defiance regarding the implementation of the Lodha panel reforms. Direction (ii) of the Court's 2017 order said : BCCI President Anurag Thakur and Secretary Ajay Shirke shall forthwith cease and desist from any work of the BCCI

Noting that Thakur has already tendered an unconditional apology, the bench observed that the ban was not intended to be life long ban. Applying the principle of proportionality, the bench has recalled the said direction.

UPSC Can Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against States Failing To Give Timely Proposals For DGP Appointments: Supreme Court

Case Details: Union Public Service Commission v. T Dhangopal Rao | SLP(C) No. 004668 - / 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 144

The Supreme Court emphasised that State Governments should not delay sending proposals to the Union Public Service Commission for the appointment of Director General of Police.

Disapproving of the trend of appointment of 'Acting DGPs' in some states, the Court authorised the UPSC to send reminders to the States for sending proposals for DGP appointments. If there is a default by the States, the UPSC will be at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings.

Substitution Of Arbitrator Is Not Mandatory On Termination Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Under S. 29A : Supreme Court

Case Details: Viva Highways Ltd v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 145

The Supreme Court clarified that there cannot be an automatic substitution of an arbitrator upon termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandate.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling, which had proceeded for a substitution of an arbitrator under Section 29A (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, upon termination of the mandate of an arbitrator under Section 29A (4) of the Act.

The controversy arose from the High Court's reliance on Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textiles, where the Supreme Court had observed that Section 29A(6) “empowers and obligates” the Court to substitute an arbitrator.

Not Answering Investigating Officer's Questions Doesn't Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation To Deny Bail : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shally Mahant @ Sandeep v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 146

The Supreme Court observed that bail cannot be refused solely on the ground that the accused declined to answer questions posed by the investigating officer, as such conduct cannot automatically be construed as non-cooperation.

“Not answering to the questions of the IO, would not ipso facto mean there is non-cooperation.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale.

The bench set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which declined to grant an anticipatory bail to the accused on parity, while granting bail to other co-accused in a case arising out of the same FIR alleging an offence of trespass, merely because the accused had not fully cooperated with the investigation.

Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Restricted Till Filing Of Chargesheet Ordinarily: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sumit v. State of Up and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 147

The Supreme Court has held that anticipatory bail cannot be mechanically restricted till the filing of the chargesheet and ordinarily continues without a fixed time limit unless special reasons are recorded.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court which had rejected a second anticipatory bail plea after earlier limiting protection only till the filing of the police report.

"The position of law is well settled: once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily continues without fixed expiry. The filing of a charge-sheet, taking of cognizance, or issuance of summons does not terminate protection unless special reasons are recorded," the Court observed.

Court's Permission Needed To Arrest Accused For Offence Added After Grant Of Bail : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sumit v. State of U P & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 147

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that an accused who is already on bail cannot be automatically re-arrested by the investigating agency merely because a new cognizable and non-bailable offence has been added in the charge sheet.

The Court clarified that the agency must first obtain an appropriate order from the court that granted bail before proceeding with the arrest in respect of the newly added offence.

“In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan.

Arrears Of Disability Pension Broad-Banding In Armed Forces Cannot Be Restricted To 3 Years Before Claim: Supreme Court

Case Details – Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 148

The Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal which had held that arrears of broad-banding of disability pension have to be paid from January 1, 1996 or date of retirement without restricting the claim to three years prior to filing of the application before AFT.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India against a Larger Bench decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The Larger Bench had held that under normal circumstances, arrears of broad-banding of disability pension are payable from January 1, 1996 or from the date of retirement or grant of disability pension, whichever is later, without restricting the claim to three years prior to filing of proceedings.

Supreme Court Laments Tribunal Writing Orders By Hand Despite E-Courts Project, Asks HC If Computer Wasn't Given

Case Details: National Insurance Company Ltd v. Rathlavath Chandulal and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 149

In a significant observation on judicial digitisation, the Supreme Court has expressed dismay that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal continued to write its orders by hand, despite the nationwide rollout of the e-Courts project.

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi noted that the entire order sheets of one MACT at Hyderabad were handwritten and in parts illegible. Notably, the award was passed in 2024.

“We are constrained to notice that on a perusal of the records sent by the Tribuna,we found that the entire order sheets were handwritten. This is despite the fact that the Government of India has spent thousands of crores of rupees in computerization of the Courts throughout the country. The e-Courts project was started way back in the year 2007 and we are running into third phase thereof. In that situation, we do not find any justification for the orders of the Tribunal to be handwritten, which otherwise are also not legible,” the Court said while deciding a claims appeal.

Supreme Court Permits Visually Impaired Candidates To Engage Scribes With More Than 10+2 Qualification For AIBE, CLAT Exams

Case Details: Yash Dodani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 150

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has permitted visually impaired candidates appearing for the AIBE and CLAT examinations to engage scribes possessing qualifications higher than 10+2, provided that such scribes are not law graduates.

Endorsing the suggestions put up by the petitioners, the bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria directed the Bar Council of India and Consortium of National Law Universities to implement the suggestions as early as possible, and notify them formally, well before the next examination is held.

“specially-abled candidates having visual impairment, who are appearing for the All India Bar Examination, are entitled to have the assistance of a scribe, who is undergraduate and is not pursuing the study of law or any other humanities course. This would necessarily mean that there is no bar on candidates for using a scribe who is possessing qualifications of more than 10+2 schooling.”, the petitioner's suggestion endorsed by the Court.

Post-Award Property Purchasers Have No Right To Resist Execution Of Arbitral Award : Supreme Court

Case Details: R. Savithri Naidu v. M/S Cotton Corporation of India Limited and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 151

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a transferee who purchases property from a judgment-debtor during the pendency of proceedings has no locus to resist or object to the decree passed in favour of the judgment-creditor.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti considered the matter, where the appellant, having purchased the property from Respondent No. 2 (the judgment-debtor) after an arbitral award had been passed in favour of Respondent No. 1, sought to resist the enforcement of that award.

The dispute traces back to a 1998 cotton supply agreement between Respondent No. 1, The Cotton Corporation of India Limited (CCI), and Respondent No.2-M/s Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles Limited. After non-payment of dues, CCI initiated arbitration proceedings in 1999. An arbitral award passed on June 11, 2001, directed the textile company to pay over ₹26 lakh with interest.

Telecom Spectrum Community Resource, IBC Can't Determine Its Ownership & Control : Supreme Court

Case Details – State Bank of India v. Union of India & Ors. With Connected Cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 152

The Supreme Court held that the ownership and control of telecom spectrum cannot be determined by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), since it is a common good.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar held that the spectrum is a material resource of the community in the Constitutional sense. Hence, the spectrum must benefit the common good, so its control has to be secured for the citizens.

"IBC cannot be the guiding principle for restructuring the ownership and control of spectrum," Justice Narasimha observed during the pronouncement.

Successive FIRs After Bail Only To Prolong Custody Abuse Of Process; Fit Case To Invoke Article 32 : Supreme Court

Case Details: Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 153

The Supreme Court has held that successive registration of FIRs to keep an accused in custody, despite the grant of bail, amounts to an abuse of process and warrants intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, alleging that the State had repeatedly invoked the criminal process to ensure that Petitioner No. 1 continued to “languish behind the bars,” even after bail was granted.

The controversy traces back to an FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi, on May 20, 2025, under provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the petitioner was being questioned in the First FIR, another FIR was registered by ACB Hazaribagh relating to the alleged mutation of forest land in 2010, i.e., after 15 years of the alleged time of the incident.

District Cricket Associations Must Voluntarily Adopt Good Governance, Not Bound By BCCI Constitution : Supreme Court

Case Details: Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association v. Anna Nagar Cricket Club & Anr. Etc.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 154

The Supreme Court encouraged district cricket associations to voluntarily adopt principles of good governance, including transparency in player selection, professionalism in administration, and elimination of conflicts of interest.

“it is open, rather necessary, for the State Association to initiate reforms to ensure that District Associations operate as professional, transparent, and in the best interests of the sport.”, observed the Court, emphasizing that “District Associations must volunteer to adopt reformative measures such as good governance, refined management, transparency, and the exclusion of conflicts of interest.”

A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made these observations while hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Madras High Court, which had extended the ratio of S. Nithya v. Union of India (2022), mandating, inter alia, compulsory inclusion of eminent sportspersons in athletics federations, to district-level cricket associations as well.

Supreme Court Doubts Judgment Allowing Cheque Case Complainant To File Appeal As 'Victim' u/s 372 CrPC; Refers To Larger Bench

Case Details: M/S Everest Automobiles v. M/S Rajit Enterprises

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 155

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether a complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[ Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita] without obtaining special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Everest Automobiles against M/s Rajit Enterprises, challenging a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated April 10, 2024.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), where a co-ordinate Bench held that a complainant in a Section 138 case is a “victim” and is therefore entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Court in that case further held that such an appeal against acquittal could be filed without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.

Bank's Internal Classification Of Debt As NPA Won't Determine Limitation Under IBC: Supreme Court

Case Details: B Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 156

The Supreme Court clarified that a bank's internal classification of a loan as a non-performing asset for accounting or provisioning purposes does not by itself determine the commencement of limitation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, especially where the debt has subsequently been restructured and acknowledged through fresh agreements.

The Court observed that the manner in which a bank reflects a debt in its balance sheet is not decisive for computing limitation. Where restructuring takes place and fresh working capital consortium agreements are executed acknowledging subsisting liabilities, such agreements effectively give the debt a “fresh lease of life”. In such circumstances, the later NPA dates arising from restructuring become relevant for calculating limitation.

A Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed an appeal filed by the suspended Managing Director of Metal Closure Pvt Ltd and upheld the maintainability of insolvency proceedings initiated by a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India.

Police Failure To Apply IPC Provisions Results In Acquittal Of Contractor for Stockpiling Decontrolled Cement : Supreme Court

Case Details: Manoj v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 157

The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a contractor accused of stockpiling cement meant for a public works project, holding that investigative lapses in failing to invoke IPC provisions against the contractor resulted in an untenable conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, since no statutory or regulatory control over cement existed at the relevant time.

“…in the absence of any subsisting statutory order under Section 3 of the E.C. Act on the date of the alleged occurrence, a conviction under Section 7 thereof is legally impermissible. That said, this was a case where the investigating agency ought to have invoked appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the evidence collected.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench order which upheld the trial court's decision to convict Appellants under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for alleged stockpiling the cement.

Absconding Accused Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail On Sole Ground Of Co-Accused' Acquittal : Supreme Court

Case Details: Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 158

The Supreme Court has held that the principle of parity cannot be invoked by an absconder who deliberately evades trial, to seek an anticipatory bail merely because a co-accused has been acquitted in a trial.

The Court observed that "granting the relief of anticipatory bail to an absconding accused person sets a bad precedent and sends a message that the law-abiding co-accused persons who stood trial, were wrong to diligently attend the process of trial and further, incentivises people to evade the process of law with impunity."

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi heard the case where the complainant was aggrieved by the MP High Court's Indore Bench order granting an anticipatory bail to the Respondent No.2-accused, who was declared an absconder, merely because the co-accused persons in the subject FIR were acquitted by the trial court.

Post-Bail Conduct Not Valid Consideration In Appeal Against Grant Of Bail : Supreme Court

Case Details: Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 158

The Supreme Court observed that the conduct of an accused after a grant of bail cannot be a valid consideration while deciding an appeal against a grant of bail.

“…post-bail conduct is never a valid consideration while dealing with an appeal against grant of bail, and such conduct is only relevant in an application for cancellation of bail.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, while setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which granted an anticipatory bail to an absconding accused.

Against the High Court's order, the complainant moved to the Supreme Court.

Regularisation Can't Be Denied To Casual Workers If Other Similarly Situated Daily Wagers Were Regularised : Supreme Court

Case Details: Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Applying the principle of parity, the Supreme Court has regularized the services of four sweepers, noting that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently once regularisation has been granted to others who are similarly situated.

A Bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, holding that it had erred in declining to interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's refusal to regularise the appellants' services, despite the appellants having performed work of a perennial nature for more than a decade

Briefly put, the appellants were engaged between 1993 and 1998 as sweepers and a cook in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior. Their engagement followed Employment Exchange sponsorship and interviews, and they continued working for several years on a daily-wage basis.

'Court Cannot Compel Any Woman To Complete Pregnancy': Supreme Court Allows Termination Of Minor's 30-Week Pregnancy

Case Details: A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra | SLP(C) No. 4774/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 160

Observing that a Court cannot compel a woman, much less a minor, to continue an unwanted pregnancy, the Supreme Court permitted the medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a girl who had become pregnant while she was a minor.

A Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that reproductive autonomy of the pregnant girl must be given due weight, particularly in circumstances where she has clearly expressed her unwillingness to continue the pregnancy.

In its order, the Court observed that what required consideration was the right of the minor child to continue the pregnancy, which, on the face of it, was “illegitimate” as she herself was a minor and was facing the pregnancy due to an unfortunate situation arising from a relationship. The Bench clarified that the issue was not whether the relationship was consensual or the result of sexual assault.

"what has to be considered in the instant case is the right of the minor child to continue a pregnancy which is ex facie illegitimate in as much as she is a minor and has to face this unfortunate situation of having the pregnancy owing to a relationship that she had.

Condonation Of Delay Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right; Entirely Court's Discretion : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 161

The Supreme Court has reiterated that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it was entirely the discretion of the Court.

The Court made this observation while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Odisha as time-barred.

In the judgment, the Court pulled up the State of Odisha for its lethargic approach in filing a time-barred appeal with a substantial delay of four months, rejecting the State's plea for condonation that was founded on a weak and routine excuse of procedural delay in securing approval from higher authorities.

Punjab Regional Town Planning Act | Illegal 'Change Of Land Use' Permission Can't Be Post Facto Legalised : Supreme Court

Case Details: Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 162

The Supreme Court has observed that the 'Change Of Land Use' permission granted under the Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act without legal authority on the date of its issuance, cannot be rendered lawful by a later, ex post facto approval, unless the statute expressly provides for such retrospective validation.

A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling that had validated an ex post facto approval issued by the Town and Country Planning Department, which permitted conversion of land in Sangrur district, Punjab, from a rural agricultural zone to an industrial zone for the establishment of a cement industry.

The case arose from the proposed establishment of a cement grinding unit in Sangrur district, Punjab, by Shree Cement North Private Limited on land classified as a rural agricultural zone under the operative Master Plan. Despite this, a Change of Land Use (CLU) permitting industrial use was granted on December 13, 2021, followed by environmental consent on December 14, 2021.

'No Disability Pension For Brain Stroke Caused By Smoking' : Supreme Court Rejects Ex-Army Officer's Claim

Case Details: Sarevesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 163

The Supreme Court has dismissed the disability compensation claim of a former Army personnel, holding that a disability attributed to his habit of smoking around ten beedis a day could not be linked to military service.

Referring to Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and paragraph 6 of the Guide to Medical Officers, 2002, the Court observed that “compensation cannot be awarded for any disablement or death arising from intemperance in the use of alcohol, 'tobacco' or drugs or sexually transmitted disease, as these are the matters within the member's own control.”

The bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, noting that the medical records clearly indicated the appellant was in the habit of smoking ten bidis per day.

S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Made Outside Police Custody Not Admissible : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 164

The Supreme Court (February 17) acquitted a man convicted of murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter, ruling that a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of evidence is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act only if the accused was in police custody at the time of making the statement.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran noted that the discovery of the deceased bone remnants based on the accused's disclosure statements can't be admitted in evidence, as the accused was not in custody while making such disclosure statements.

"Section 27 of the Evidence Act clearly speaks of information received from a person accused of any offence while in the custody of the police leading to a discovery of a fact being enabled of proof in the trial. The accused at the time of the statement was not in the custody of the police and hence it is removed from the ambit of Section 27."

'National Security Paramount': Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of BSF Officer For Cattle Smuggling Across Indo-Bangladesh Border

Case Details – Bhagirath Choudhary v. Border Security Force

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 165

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the dismissal of a Border Security Force Sub-Inspector convicted by a General Security Force Court for facilitating illegal cattle smuggling at the Indo-Bangladesh border.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that when national security is paramount, infractions by officers manning the borders cannot be viewed lightly.

“When the national security is paramount, any infraction thereof that too by the officers or the concerned who would be manning the Borders cannot be viewed lightly and it is for this reason, the punishment permissible under Section 48(1)(c) of the BSF Act, 1968 has been imposed on the appellant”, the Court stated.

Actress Prathyusha's Death : Supreme Court Rules Out Murder; Convicts Siddhartha Reddy For Abetment Of Suicide

Case Details: Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy v. State C.B.I. | Crl.A. No. 457/2012 and P Sarojini Devi V.Cbi | Crl A 894-895/2012

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 166

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea filed by Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy, who challenged his conviction on the charge of abetment to suicide in 23 years old case of the suicide of Telugu/Tamil actress Prathyushya.

A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan pronounced the judgment. The bench also dimissed the plea by Prathyushya's mother Sarojini Devi who alleged that death was due to murder.

It ruled out murder by strangulation and observed that the overwhelming ocular and medical evidence proves death due to poisoning.

Surviving Partner In Mutual Suicide Pact Liable For Abetment :Supreme Court

Case Details: Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy v. State C.B.I. | Crl.A. No. 457/2012 and P Sarojini Devi V.Cbi | Crl A 894-895/2012

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 166

The Supreme Court has held that a surviving partner in a suicide pact can be held guilty of abetment of suicide, ruling that mutual commitment to die together provides the psychological impetus necessary to attract liability under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC.

The Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan affirmed the conviction of Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy for abetement of suicide of famous Tamil/Telugu actress Prathyusha in 2002.

The case arose from the 2002 death of actress Pratyusha, who died after consuming organophosphate pesticide along with the accused amid opposition to their proposed marriage.

Is There 'Deemed Sanction' To Prosecute If Decision Delayed? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Details: State v. M. Muneer Ahmed and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 167

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether sanction to prosecute a public servant can be “deemed” to have been granted if the competent authority fails to take a decision within a stipulated time. The Court stayed a direction issued by the Madras High Court which had provided for such deemed sanction.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against a November 22, 2024 order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court

High Court's Direction On Deemed Sanction

'No Foreign Expressions ' : Supreme Court Calls For Guidelines Rooted In Indian Social Fabric To Sensitise Judges On Sexual Offences

Case Details: In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By The High Court of Judicature At Allahabad In Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 168

The Supreme Court has directed the National Judicial Academy to frame comprehensive draft guidelines to inculcate sensitivity and compassion in judicial handling of sexual offence cases, stressing that such norms must reflect India's social fabric and not be borrowed from foreign jurisdictions.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the suo motu case taken by the Supreme Court in 2025 over a controversial order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had held that grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama and trying to drag her beneath a culvert would not come under the offence of attempt to rape. The High Court had observed that the acts would prima facie constitute the offence of 'aggravated sexual assault' under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which carries a lesser punishment.

While setting aside the High Court's order as erroneous, the Supreme Court considered the broader issue of laying down guidelines to ensure that Judges deal with sexual offences in a sensitive manner, without social prejudices and patriarchal notions.

'Erroneous': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Verdict That Grabbing Minor's Breasts, Loosening Pyjama String Wasn't Rape Attempt

Case Details: In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By The High Court of Judicature At Allahabad In Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 168

The Supreme Court has set aside the controversial judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had held that allegations of grabbing a minor girl's breast and loosening the string of her pyjama did not amount to an attempt to commit rape, but only to “preparation”.

Holding that the High Court misapplied settled criminal law principles, the Supreme Court restored the original summons issued by the Special Judge under Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

Noting that it was only due to the interference of third persons that the accused did not commit rape, the Court held that the acts were not mere 'preparation' but 'attempt'.

Compensation To Victim Not Substitute For Punishment In Grave Offences : Supreme Court

Case Details: Parameshwari v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 169

The Supreme Court has deprecated the trend amongst certain High Courts to reduce the sentence of imprisonment in heinous offences by increasing the amount of compensation payable to the victim.

The Court said that such a practice will give a wrong message that accused can get away from punishment by paying a monetary compensation.

"Compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature, and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment," the Court said. The Court set aside a Madras High Court order that had reduced the sentence of two attempt to murder convicts to the two months they had already served, in exchange for an enhanced fine of ₹1 lakh.

Principles For Bail In Heinous Crimes Must Apply To Serious Economic Offences : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta, Alias Sonu Chaudhary & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 170

The Supreme Court has observed that the principles governing bail in heinous offences apply with equal force to serious economic offences, as such crimes directly undermine the economic well-being and quality of life of citizens.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench order, which granted bail to an accused, who is a habitual offender in committing financial crimes. The bench noted that the High Court erred in granting bail solely based on a principle of parity without necessarily weighing the relevant factors, such as his active role in the commission of the crime, and his indulgence in the same activities time and again.

The Court said although earlier precedents such as Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2014) 16 SCC 508 and Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 4 SCC 781, which put restrains on a grant of bail owing to the factors such as potential threat to witnesses and disturbance of law and order, arose from heinous and violent crimes, the underlying principles enshrined therein equally apply to the present case involving offences of financial fraud.

'Nepotism Anathema To Democracy' : Supreme Court Cancels Deluxe Flat Allotments To Haryana Officials

Case Details: Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Highlighting nepotism in the allotment of the flats in a Haryana government housing society, the Supreme Court (February 17) cancelled the allotment of flats, holding that governing body members abused their positions to benefit themselves and their subordinates.

“Nepotism and self-aggrandizement are anathema to a democratic system, more so when it happens within a society comprising members of the government service…”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran, while set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which had refused to intervene in the allotment process.

The case arose from a challenge by one Dinesh Kumar, a member of the HUDA, Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organization (HEWO), against the allotment of two high-end super deluxe flats that became available after earlier memberships were cancelled. Instead of following a transparent draw of lots, the governing body decided to give preferntial allotment. In this process, one flat was effectively allotted by a senior officer to himself despite his ineligibility on the cut-off date, and the second was allotted to his subordinate, whose application was incomplete and outside the prescribed pay-band criteria.

Interest Act | Interest Can't Be Claimed On Delayed Payment If Contract Bars It : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kerala Water Authority & Ors. v. T I Raju & Ors. (With Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 172

The Supreme Court has observed that when the contract doesn't stipulate for payment of interest on a delayed payment, a party is not entitled to the same.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh set aside the Kerala High Court's decision, which had upheld the award of interest on delayed payments in favor of the Respondent.

The case arose from a contract executed in April 2013 between the Kerala Water Authority and the Respondent-contractor for the construction of a sewage treatment plant at the Government Medical College, Calicut. The work was completed in July 2014, but the principal amount of ₹86.64 lakh was released only in March 2016 following a writ petition.

Degrees Obtained Before University Was Declared Defunct Remain Valid : Supreme Court

Case Details: Priyanka Kumari and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 173

In a significant relief to Bihar-based librarians whose services were terminated solely because the university from which they obtained their degrees was later declared defunct, the Supreme Court (February 18) ordered their reinstatement, holding that degrees earned when the governing law was in force and recognized cannot be invalidated due to subsequent legal developments.

A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Patna High Court's decision, which upheld the termination of the Appellants.

The controversy traces back to the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 (2002 Act), under which several private universities were established, including the University of Technology and Science, Raipur. The appellants completed their B.Lib degrees in 2004, at a time when the university was functioning under a State statute, and its courses had received Central recognition.

S.7 IBC | Corporate Debtor's Ability To Pay Debt Not To Be Considered Before Admitting Insolvency Petition : Supreme Court

Case Details: Power Trust (Promoter of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd.) v. Bhuvan Madan (Interim Resolution Professional of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd.) & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 174

The Supreme Court (February 18) reaffirmed that the remedy under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is not discretionary but mandatory, leaving the adjudicating authority with no option but to admit the application once the existence of a debt and a default is established.

"The Adjudicating Authority is not required to go into the inability of a corporate debtor to pay its debt. This is a clear departure from the scheme of winding up envisaged under Section 433(e) of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 which required the Adjudicating Authority to come to a finding with regard to the inability of the company to pay the debt and thereby arrive at a requisite satisfaction whether it is just and equitable to wind up the company. The Code restricts the scope of enquiry for admission of an insolvency process by a financial creditor merely to the existence of default of a debt due and payable and nothing more," the Court observed.

The Court reiterated that "when the financial creditor initiates the insolvency process for the purposes of admission, the Adjudicating Authority is only to ascertain the existence of a default from the records of the information utility or the evidence furnished by the financial creditor within fourteen days from the receipt of such application."

Motor Accident | Insurer Be Asked To 'Pay & Recover' If Deceased Was Gratuitous Passenger In Goods Vehicle : Supreme Court

Case Details – Kaminiben & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 174

The Supreme Court held that even if an insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in an accident involving a passenger in a goods vehicle, it can be directed to first pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the amount from the vehicle owner, if the vehicle was hired for carrying goods and travel was only incidental.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria restored a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order requiring an insurer to first pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, in a case arising out of a fatal accident involving a goods vehicle hired for Ganesh idol immersion.

“In the present case, the deceased was travelling in the subject tempo along with Ganesh Idol, which was taken for immersion in Narmada River. Thus, the dominant purpose for hiring the vehicle was not for travelling but for carrying the Ganesh idol for immersion. Travelling in the vehicle was only incidental, therefore, at best, the deceased can be treated as gratuitous passenger travelling with his goods (Ganesh idol)”, the Court observed.

Limitation To Execute Mandatory Injunction 3 Years From Decree Date If No Performance Date Fixed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Babu Singh (D) Thr. Lrs & Anr. v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 175

The Supreme Court observed that when a decree for a mandatory injunction does not specify a date for performance, the limitation period for enforcement is three years from the date of the decree.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan heard the case where a mandatory injunction was issued in favour of the petitioners by the First Appellate Court vide order dated 06.01.2005; however, the order doesn't stipulate the date of enforcement of the mandatory injunction.

The petitioners approached the Executing Court on 12.08.2010 seeking implementation of the mandatory injunction part of the decree, which resulted in dismissal of their execution application. The Executing Court dismissed their application to be time barred, as it was filed beyond the limitation period of three years, stipulated under Article 135 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

'Travesty Of Justice To Keep Convict In Jail For Years Pending Appeal' : Supreme Court Quotes 1977 Judgment, Suspends Murder Sentence

Case Details: Muna Bisoi v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Observing that excessive delay in hearing an appeal against the conviction entitles a convict to the benefit of a suspension of a sentence, the Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Odisha High Court, which refused to suspend the life sentence of a murder convict, whose appeal against the conviction filed in 2016 is yet to be disposed of by the Odisha High Court.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma clarified that even though an individual is convicted for committing a heinous offence like murder, their entitlement to seek a suspension of sentence cannot be discarded, especially when there's a huge delay in hearing an appeal against the conviction, and no cogent grounds being brought to decide otherwise.

The appellant, Muna Bisoi, was convicted by a Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Murder), and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Courts Must Ideally Answer Every Issue Raised, Instead Of Focusing On A Single Decisive Point : Supreme Court

Case Details: Hemlata Eknath Pise v. Shubham Bahu Uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 177

The Supreme Court has observed that it is incumbent upon the Courts to decide on all issues that arise in a matter and must not confine its enquiry to a single decisive issue.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench order, which had “faltered” by focusing on only one issue and ignoring several others that went to the root of the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant.

The appellant was dismissed from service by the respondent-management following disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2017. Challenging her dismissal, she approached the School Tribunal, Nagpur, which in August 2019 set aside the termination and ordered her reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Homebuyer Can't Be Compelled To Accept Possession Without Occupancy Certificate Obtained By Builder : Supreme Court

Case Details: Parsvnath Developers Ltd. v. Mohit Khirbat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 178

The Supreme Court (February 20) reiterated that homebuyers cannot be compelled to accept possession of a property in the absence of an Occupancy Certificate. Such a failure by the developer, the Court held, constitutes a statutory deficiency in service, entitling consumers to receive compensation from the developers.

“Obtaining such certificate is a statutory pre-condition integral to lawful delivery of possession.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while dismissing a real estate developer's appeal who had delayed in obtaining an occupancy certificate and possession of the flat to the Respondents' home buyers.

The Court rejected the developer's attempt to offer possession on an “as is where is” basis without securing the Occupancy Certificate.

S. 27 Evidence Act | Discovery Based On Accused's Statement Forms "Formidable Link" In Circumstantial Evidence Chain : Supreme Court

Case Details: Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 179

The Supreme Court (February 20) upheld the conviction in a ransom murder case, relying on the convict's disclosure statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi heard the case that rested purely on circumstantial evidence, however, the Appellant-convict's disclosure statements under Section 27 played a decisive role in completing the chain of circumstances to connect the Appellant to the crime.

The case dates back to July 2009, when the deceased victim went missing in Indore. Shortly after, her husband received ransom calls demanding ₹5 lakh from her mobile number. The police investigation led them to the appellant, who had sold the victim's mobile phone to a third party. Following his arrest, Appellant's disclosure statement led the police to recover the victim's Scooty from a parking lot, and tragically, her body from a well near the Indore Bypass Road.

Cooperation With Investigation Doesn't Mean Self Incrimination: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite Refusal To Surrender Mobile

Case Details – Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 180

The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to one Vinay Kumar Gupta in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, despite not surrendering his mobile phone to police.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed that cooperation with investigation does not extend to violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

“It is for the State to complete the investigation in accordance with due procedure but, in that regard, it cannot insist upon the appellant incriminating himself. Cooperating with the investigation does not extend to violation of the Constitutional right against self-incrimination”, the Court held.

Offences Under Chapter IV Of Drugs And Cosmetics Act Triable Only By Sessions Court, Not Magistrate: Supreme Court

Case Details – M/S SBS Biotech & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 181

The Supreme Court held that offences relating to manufacture and sale of drugs under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 cannot be tried by a Magistrate and must be tried by a Court not inferior to a Sessions Court.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed –

“Now, Section 32(2) specifically provides that no Court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under this Chapter (Chapter IV). Thus, it can be said that for the offences punishable under Chapter IV, the Court inferior to the Court of Session shall not try such offences”, the Court held.

Supreme Court Issues Directions For Proper Enforcement Of Solid Waste Management Rules 2026

Case Details: Bhopal Municipal Corporation v. Dr Subhash C. Pandey & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 6174/2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 182

The Supreme Court issued a comprehensive set of directions across the country for the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules(SWM Rules), 2026, which is set to come into force from April 1, 2026. It flagged the lack of compliance with the 2016 rules, particularly segregation of waste into wet, dry, and hazardous waste, in urban and rural areas and active massive dumpsites across metropolitan cities.

While issuing the directions, the Supreme Court orally remarked that India, as a country, has many tourist places that are 2000 years old, but due to poor waste management, people are discouraged from visiting those places.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti passed the order on February 19, in a civil appeal preferred by the Bhopal Municipal Corporation against the National Green Tribunal's order, levying environmental compensation of Rs. 1.80 crores and Rs. 121, respectively, for alleged lapses in compliance with waste management norms.

UGC Appropriate Authority To Consider Consequences Of Its Orders For Annulment Of Illegal Degrees : Superme Court

Case Details: University Grants Commission & Anr v. Annamalai University & Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 15406 15427/2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 183

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the University Grants Commission(UGC) is the appropriate authority to take a decision on consequences of the UGC's decision to annul a degree. In other words, it is for the UGC, and not the Courts to decide if the students who had studied the course before its annulment should get the benefit of the degree.

Following this view, the Supreme Court modified an order of the Madras High Court, which held that students of technical degrees awarded through distance learning will not be affected by the annulment of the courses if they had undergone the course on the basis of the interim orders of the Court.

The Supreme Court asked UGC to take decision in respect of those students.

2G Case : Supreme Court Asks Telecom Operator To Pay Spectrum Usage Charges From Date Of Judgment Quashing License

Case Details: Union of India v. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 184click Here To Download Judgment

The Supreme Court has held a telecom operator, Sistema Shyam Teleservices Limited, liable to pay the reserve price fixed for the November 2012 spectrum auction from February 2, 2012, the date on which the Court quashed the 2G licences, rejecting the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal's (TDSAT) interpretation that the liability arose only from February 15, 2013.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the Union Government's appeal challenging the TDSAT order dated May 10, 2018.

The Bench clarified that spectrum usage charges for a telecom operator continuing operations after its licence is quashed are payable from the date of licence cancellation itself, and not from the later date on which the Court formally imposes a levy for such post-quashing use of spectrum.

Landowners Not Liable For Construction Delay By Developer : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sriganesh Chandrasekaran & Others v. M/S Unishire Homes LLP & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Merely because the landowner authorizes the developer to construct the flats, obtain sanctions, and sell the flats, it would not make them liable for the delay caused in the construction of the flats by the developer, observed the Supreme Court.

A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed an appeal filed by a homebuyer, while affirming the NCDRC's decision, which had absolved the landowners of the delay caused in the construction of the flat.

The case arose from a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) executed in February 2012 between landowners and Unishire Homes, under which the developer was tasked with obtaining sanctions, constructing the project, and selling flats for which a General Power of Attorney (GPA) was also executed by the landowners in the developer's favor.

Illegality In Search Doesn't Render Collected Evidence Invalid : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 186

The Supreme Court (February 23) held that illegality in search for want of proper authorization cannot render the materials or evidence gathered during the search invalid.

“While the search may be illegal, the materials or evidence gathered or collected in the course of such search can still be acted or relied upon subject to the rule of relevancy and the test of admissibility.” observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The case arose from a raid conducted on September 17, 2015, following a complaint alleging illegal sex determination. Acting on the directions of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority, a decoy operation was carried out, leading to allegations that Appellant-Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg conducted an ultrasound examination without maintaining statutory records, such as Form F, or obtaining the patient's signature.

Employees' Compensation Act | Insurer Not Liable To Bear Penalty Imposed On Employer For Delayed Compensation Payment : Supreme Court

Case Details: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha Chaudhary and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 187

The Supreme Court (February 23) observed that an employer's liability to pay a penalty for delaying payment of compensation to its employee cannot be fastened upon the insurance company.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale set aside that part of the Delhi High Court's order which had fastened the liability of the employer to pay a penalty to the employee for the delayed payment of the compensation upon the Appellant-New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

The case arose from the death of a commercial driver who collapsed while driving his employer's vehicle. His legal heirs approached the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act seeking compensation. The Commissioner awarded compensation of ₹7.36 lakh with 12% interest and issued a show-cause notice to the employer for the delay in payment. When the employer failed to respond, a penalty of 35% was imposed under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, which empowers the Commissioner to impose a penalty on employers who default on compensation payments for more than one month.

Detailed Appreciation Of Evidence Impermissible At Bail Stage: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 188

The Supreme Court has reiterated that at the stage of considering a bail application, a detailed appreciation of the evidence is impermissible.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench order granting bail to the accused in a murder case involving offences under the SC/ST Act, holding that the High Court had erred in ascertaining the authenticity of medical evidence at the pre-trial stage.

“observation made by the High Court regarding the time gap between the date of the incident and the date of death of the deceased…is concerned, the said aspect would have to be gone into by the trial Court at the time of appreciating the medical evidence.”, the Court observed, while setting aside the impugned bail order.

S. 149 IPC | Once Unlawful Assembly Established, Individual Attribution Of Fatal Injury Irrelevant: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sitaram Kuchhbedia v. Vimal Rana and Others (And Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 189

The Supreme Court has observed that once an unlawful assembly is established, the failure to identify the specific individual who inflicted the fatal injury is irrelevant, and every person forming a part of an unlawful assembly becomes vicariously liable.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision, which had reduced the punishment of the convicts in an unlawful assembly case from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC), merely because the prosecution failed to identify the convict who has inflicted deadly injury on the deceased.

“Once it is established that an unlawful assembly existed and the accused-respondents intended to commit murder…in furtherance of the common object of such assembly, the individual attribution of the fatal injury fades into insignificance. It is trite law that Section 149 IPC embodies the principle of vicarious liability and renders every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of the common object.”, the court observed.

Voluntary Confession Substantive Evidence Under Customs Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 190

The Supreme Court has observed that a person can be held liable under the Customs Act based on the voluntary confessional statements given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal filed by two persons, convicted for smuggling 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 wrist watch straps, with an estimated value of Rs. 2 lacs in Gujarat's Mandvi in 1985. Although the conscious possession of the smuggled goods was not attributed to the appellants, their conviction was upheld by the High Court solely based on their confessional statements.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellants primarily questioned whether convictions could rest on confessional statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108, especially when allegations of coercion were raised. The appellants argued that the prosecution relied largely on such statements and pointed to claims of custodial torture involving a co-accused whose statement led to further discoveries.

IBC | Defunct Scheme Of Arrangement Under Companies Act Cannot Stall Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process : Supreme Court

Case Details: Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited. v. Amit Chaturvedi and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 191

The Supreme Court (February 24) held that a defunct Scheme of Arrangement under the Companies Act cannot stall the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the NCLAT's decision, which had kept in abeyance the CIRP initiated under Section 7 of IBC against the corporate debtor, merely because the Scheme of Arrangement was pending before the High Court.

“…we find no reason to stall the proceedings for initiation of the CIRP by resorting to the provisions of the IBC, as has been now attempted by the appellant herein, which would ensure rehabilitation of the Company.”, the court observed, while allowing the financial creditor's appeal, pointing out that “Section 7 was held to be an independent proceeding, which stands by itself as reiterated in a catena of judgments of this Court, which had to be tried on its own merits.”

IBC | Mere Pendency Of Restructuring Arrangements Cannot Stall CIRP : Supreme Court

Case Details: Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. v. Ecstasy Realty Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 192

The Supreme Court (February 24) has observed that merely because an arrangement of restructuring a debt-laden corporate debtor is in place, would not bar initiation of a CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the NCLAT's decision, which had rejected a Section 7 IBC application on the premise that a restructuring arrangement was in place.

“for admission of an application under Section 7 of the Code, the adjudicating authority is only required to examine and satisfy itself that a financial debt exists and there is default in relation thereto.”, the court said, pointing out that internal communication regarding the restructuring would have no significance to resist CIRP, when the debt and default are established.

No One Can Denigrate Any Community By Speeches Or Art; Ministers Must Not Target Any Community: Supreme Court

Case Details: Atul Mishra v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 193

The Supreme Court has observed that it is constitutionally impermissible for anyone, including State and non-State actors, to vilify or denigrate any community through speeches, memes, cartoons or visual art.

The Court stressed that public figures holding high constitutional offices, such as ministers, must not target any community on the basis of religion, caste, language or region, as it would violate the Constitution. The remarks assume relevance particularly in the context of recent controversy regarding the speeches made by the Assam Chief Minister. A bench led by the Chief Justice of India had refused to entertain Article 32 pleas seeking hate speech FIR against the Assam CM, and relegated the parties to the High Court.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations in his separate judgment in the case petition challenging the Netflix film's title “Ghooskhor Pandat.” A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyanclosed the case after the makers agreed to change the title.

Supreme Court Deprecates High Courts Granting Interim Relief While Declining Writ Petitions To Avail Alternate Remedies

Case Details: Mangal Rajendra Kamthe v. Tahsildar, Purandhar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 194

The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of High Courts granting interim stay orders after declining to entertain the writ petitions to enable the party to avail alternative remedy, calling it a self-contradictory approach that defeats the purpose of judicial discipline.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made a parting observation while hearing a matter arising from a Bombay High Court order, which had declined to entertain a writ petition on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy, yet proceeded to grant an interim stay on the impugned order to enable the petitioner to approach the alternate forum.

Deprecating this move by the High Court, the bench observed that once the High Court declines a writ petition, nothing survives, and it would be impermissible for the High Court to stay the operation of the order that is under challenge, to enable the petitioner to move to the appropriate alternative forum.

'If Relief Deserved, Grant It Then & There' : Supreme Court Deprecates 'Consider Jurisprudence' Of Remanding Matters To Authorities

Case Details: Mahendra Prasad Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 195

The Supreme Court has deprecated the growing tendency of courts to repeatedly remand matters to authorities for reconsideration without finally adjudicating rights, leading to endless cycles of litigation.

A Bench comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe underscored that where a case merits relief, it must be granted immediately, rather than being left to languish amid procedural formalities. Moreover, when the Courts wish to remand the matter to the authorities to consider the litigant's case, there should be “a clear and categorical direction about existence of a right, its violation and what exactly the government authority is to comply.”

“When a claim of a right is legal and justified, relief must follow.”, the Court observed, while deprecating the tendency of the Courts adopting a 'consider jurisprudence', while failing to act on the relief sought by a litigant when a right claimed is legal and justified.

Compassionate Assistance To Govt Employee's Family Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kanika & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 196

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the compassionate assistance received by a dependent of a deceased employee would be liable to be deductible from the compensation received under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Referring to Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (“Rules”), a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih allowed the Reliance General Insurance's appeal, while setting aside the High Court's decision holding that the compassionate assistance would not be deductible from the motor accident compensation.

The case arose from a road accident on November 2, 2009, in which a Haryana government employee, posted as a Multi-Purpose Health Worker, lost her life. Her dependents filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. While the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded ₹8.8 lakh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced the compensation to ₹29.09 lakh in September 2019, while directing that amounts received under the 2006 Rules be deducted.

Rooh Afza To Be Classified As Fruit Drink/Processed Fruit Product And Taxed At 4% Under UP VAT Act : Supreme Court

Case Details – M/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 197

The Supreme Court held that “Sharbat Rooh Afza” is classifiable as a “fruit drink / processed fruit product” under Entry 103 of Schedule II, Part A of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and is taxable at 4 percent.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan set aside Allahabad High Court's judgment that had held that Rooh Afza has to be classified under the residuary entry and taxed at 12.5 percent.

"Accordingly, it is held that “Sharbat Rooh Afza” is classifiable under Entry 103 of Schedule II, Part A of the UPVAT Act as a fruit drink / processed fruit product and is exigible to VAT at the concessional rate of 4% during the relevant assessment years. The impugned judgment(s) affirming classification under the residuary entry and levy at 12.5% are set aside", the Court held.

'Marketing Labels Not Decisive For Tax Classification', Supreme Court Holds Rooh Afza Taxable As Fruit Drink

Case Details: M/S Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Commercial (And Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Observing that marketing labels cannot dictate a product's tax category, the Supreme Court (February 25) held 'Rooh Afza' to be a fruit-based beverage preparation intended for dilution, qualifying for a concessional tax rate of 4%, despite it being marketed as a 'Sharbat', which attracts a higher tax rate of 12.5%.

“…once it is demonstrated that the product is a fruit-based beverage preparation intended for dilution and consumption, it bears a reasonable and substantial claim to classification as a “fruit drink” within Entry 103. It cannot be relegated to the residuary entry merely because it is marketed as a “sharbat””, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan.

The bench allowed the Hamdard Laboratories appeal, setting aside the Allahabad High Court judgments that had placed the Rooh Afza under a residuary VAT entry at 12.5%.

Supreme Court Decides Century Old Hereditary Pujari Right Dispute In Karnataka Temple

Case Details: Ogeppa (D) Through Lrs. and Others v. Sahebgouda (D) Through Lrs. and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 198

The Supreme Court on February 25 dismissed civil appeals in a century-old dispute over hereditary pujari rights at the Amogasidda temple in Karnataka, upholding concurrent findings that the respondents are the hereditary wahiwatdar pujaris entitled to perform puja and conduct temple rituals.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K. Vinod Chandran affirmed the Karnataka High Court judgment recognising the respondents' hereditary rights to perform puja at the Samadhi temple of saint Amogasidda at Mamatti Gudda in Jalgeri village. The dispute between two families over pujari rights and offerings from devotees has been ongoing for over a century.

The bench dismissed the appeals filed by the defendants, who claimed the right to perform puja of the deity Amogasidda in Karnataka based on a 1901 decree. The Court noted that while the defendants relied on this century-old decree, their names found no mention in the revenue records, which instead reflected the names of the respondents/plaintiffs' ancestors in connection with lands granted by the British Government for service rendered to the Amogasidda temple.

S. 464 IPC | Document Can't Be Termed Forged Merely Because It Is Not Traceable In Records Of Public Office : Supreme Court

Case Details: Vandana Jain & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 200

The Supreme Court has observed that a document cannot be termed as 'forged' merely because it is not traceable in the records.

“…merely because a document is not traceable in the records after several years of its issuance, it cannot be said that the document is forged.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, adding that “a document would be considered forged document only when the allegations are to the effect that it is a false document within the meaning of section 464 of the I.P.C.”

As per Section 464 IPC, which defines 'making a false document', a person creates a false document if they, with dishonest or fraudulent intent, create, sign, or alter a document/record to falsely represent that it was made by another person or with their authority.

Non-Recovery Of Murder Weapon Not Fatal To Prosecution's Case When Other Credible Evidence Exists : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ghanshyam Mandal and Ors. v. State of Bihar Respondent (Now Jharkhand)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 201

The Supreme Court has upheld a murder conviction, observing that the existence of credible and consistent ocular evidence is sufficient for conviction, despite failure to produce the weapon used in the crime.

"…the absence of recovery of the weapons of assault would not weaken the case of the prosecution in the presence of other evidence on record that is found reliable.”, observed a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar, while dismissing a convict's appeal, who sought acquittal contenting prosecution's case to be fatal on account of failure to produce the murder weapon.

The prosecution case arose from a daylight attack in which the deceased persons were allegedly assaulted with sharp-edged weapons and firearms by multiple accused, following an earlier altercation over the grazing of crops. Four eyewitnesses, all related to the deceased, deposed that the accused dragged the victims out of their house and assaulted them repeatedly until they died on the spot.

Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Rules | Failure To Pay Balance Amount In 15 Days Renders Auction A Nullity: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Adishakti Developers v. State of Maharastra & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 202

The Supreme Court has held that an auction sale conducted under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies framework becomes void ab initio if the full purchase price is not deposited within the statutorily prescribed time.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra partly allowed the Bombay High Court's ruling, while allowing that part of the ruling which had set aside the auction sale due to non-deposit of the purchase price on time, but directed refund of the entire bid amount with interest to the auction purchaser, holding that the purchaser should not suffer for lapses attributable to the Recovery Officer.

“…the view taken by the High Court that confirmation of the auction sale was void as the remainder payment was not made within the period prescribed (15 days) by the 1961 Rules cannot be faulted… The Bank shall refund the amount deposited by M/s Adishakti Developers (Appellant) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of repayment.”, the court held.

IBC Permits Parallel CIRP Against Debtor & Guarantor For Same Debt : Supreme Court

Case Details: Icici Bank Limited v. Era Infrastructure (India) Limited (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 203

The Supreme Court (February 26) observed that there's no bar under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to initiate simultaneous CIRP against the corporate debtor and guarantor for the same debt.

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih endorsed the findings of BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. v. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. & Anr that "consistent with the basic principles of the Contract Act that the liability of the principal borrower and surety is coextensive, the IBC permits separate or simultaneous proceedings to be initiated under Section 7 by a financial creditor against the corporate debtor and the corporate guarantor.”,

The bench observed that “the question, whether simultaneous proceedings against the corporate debtor and/or the guarantor(s) can be maintained or not, is no longer res integra,” after BRS Ventures Investments Ltd (supra).

Deed Cannot Be Reinterpreted Based On Parties' Later Conduct When Terms Are Clear & Unambiguous: Supreme Court

Case Details: General Secretary, Vivekananda Kendra v. Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 204

The Supreme Court has cautioned against reliance on the ex-post facto conduct of parties to reinterpret a lease deed when the terms of the document are clear and unambiguous, holding that a lease validly established on the face of the deed cannot be altered or diluted by reference to the parties' subsequent conduct.

“…courts must exercise far greater restraint when inferring the parties' intention from circumstances arising after the creation of the terms. For, the conduct may not be in tandem with either the literal expression or the purpose of the document.”, the court observed.

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti was hearing a matter in which the Orissa High Court, relying on the subsequent conduct of the parties, particularly statements made during cross-examination suggesting that the lessor retained effective control and possession over the property, had concluded that the registered lease deed was in fact a licence.

Supreme Court Issues Nationwide Directions To Expand And Reform Open Prisons

Case Details – Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 205

The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions to ensure the effective utilisation and expansion of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) across the country, holding that they must function as meaningful institutions of reform and rehabilitation.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the directions are issued to ensure that the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 21 are realised in prison administration and to give effect to the reformative philosophy underlying the criminal justice system.

It also took note of the economic advantage of OCIs over closed prisons, noting data from Rajasthan that the State spends nearly ₹3,000 per month on a prisoner in a closed prison, whereas expenditure on a prisoner in an OCI is about ₹50 per month.

Orders and Other Developments

Pune Porsche Case : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Three Accused Of Swapping Blood Samples Of Juvenile Passengers

Case Details – Ashish Satish Mittal v. State of Maharashtra Along With Aditya Avinash Sood v. State of Maharashtra and Connected Case Details.

The Supreme Court granted bail to three accused alleged to have conspired to swap blood samples, following the 2024 Pune Porsche accident that killed two persons.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ordered the release of Ashish Satish Mittal, Aditya Avinash Sood and Amar Santhosh Gaikwad, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court, noting their prolonged incarceration of 18 months.

They were accused of swapping the blood samples of two minor occupants of the car (other than the alleged minor driver), who were allegedly under the influence of alcohol, with their own blood samples. They are booked under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act for forgery, evidence tampering, and bribery.

'Relevant Issue' : Supreme Court Asks Centre To Examine Concerns Over Self-Verification Of Caste In Census 2027

Case Details: Aakash Goel v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 77/2026

The Supreme Court directed the Union Government and the Census Operations Directorate to consider the suggestion raised by a petitioner that caste enumeration in the forthcoming Census 2027 should be done based on a verifiable mechanism instead of mere self-declaration.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, acknowledging that the petitioner has raised a "relevant issue", refrained from considering the matter judicially, observing that it was to be looked at by the authorities under the Census Act 1958.

The Public Interest Litigation was filed by Aakash Goel, raising concerns over the proposed caste enumeration in the forthcoming Census 2027, particularly the reliance on self-declaration without a verifiable mechanism.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Against Appointment Of Temple Priests From State-Recognised Thanthra Vidyalayas In Kerala

The Supreme Court issued notice in petitions challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment which held that temple shanthis (priests) need not be appointed from any particular caste or lineage, and that those who have studied from the 'Thanthra Vidyalayas' recognised by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB) can be appointed to such posts.

The Court was considering the petitions filed by Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and Agnisarman Vasudevan Bhattathirippad challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment, which dismissed their challenge to 'Thanthra Vidyalayas' recognised by the State agencies.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while issuing notice on the petitions, ordered that any appointments done in the meantime will be subject to the outcome of the petition.

Private School Fee Regulation Law Won't Be Enforced In 2025-26 : Delhi Govt Tells Supreme Court

Case Details – Rohini Educational Society v. Directorate of Education and Connected Cases

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the Delhi Government, informed the Court that the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixing and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, which was notified in December last year, would not be enforced in the current academic year.

The Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by various private school managements challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to stay the implementation of the Act.

Last month, the Supreme Court had raised concerns about the enforcement of the Act in the middle of the academic year, even while acknowledging that private school fee has gone to exorbitant levels.

West Bengal Govt Questions Maintainability Of ED's Petition In Supreme Court Over I-PAC Raid

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026

In the Enforcement Directorate's pleaassailing West Bengal authorities' interference with its raid at IPAC office, the state government has filed a counter affidavit contesting maintainability of the ED's writ in view of the pendency of similar proceedings before the Calcutta High Court.

The State has contended that ED does not have fundamental rights enabling it to file a writ petition before the Supreme Court. It further claims that there has been a violation of right to privacy under Article 21. The State also questioned the "parallel proceedings" before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.

The counter affidavit argues that ED does not have the power to conduct omnibus search and seizure, and that no effective notice was given before the IPAC search. It further raises averments regarding ED's violation of privileged communications.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Punjab Minister Bikram Singh Majithia In Corruption Case

Case Details: Bikram Singh Majithia v. State of Punjab, SLP(Crl) No. 20469/2025

The Supreme Court granted bail to Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia in a corruption case involving alleged accumulation of over Rs.540 crores in disproportionate assets.

On the last date, Majithia had prayedfor interim bail citing an apprehension of threat to life.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar (for Majithia) and Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for the State).

Supreme Court Declines To Entertain Sakshi TV's Plea Alleging Blocking By Andhra Pradesh Authorities; Leaves Issues Open Before TDSAT

Case Details – M/S. Indira Television Limited & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a writ petition filed by news channel Sakshi TV alleging that its broadcast was blocked across Andhra Pradesh, after noting that the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) will hear the matter on 12th February.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe stated in the order, “The Tribunal has taken up the matter for hearing. In this view of the matter we are not inclined to entertain the Article 32 petition at this stage. We would however keep all questions open to the petitioner for being raised and contested before the Tribunal.”

Justice Narasimha said that it would not be proper to continue the proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution once the Tribunal's jurisdiction has been invoked.

Supreme Court Stays Cancellation Of Arunachal Pradesh IAS Officer Talo Potom's Bail In Suicide Case

Case Details: Talo Potom v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 1699/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the Gauhati High Court order which cancelled the bail granted to Arunachal Pradesh IAS officer Talo Potom in the suicide case of 19-year old Gomchu Yekar.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra (for Talo Potom). It directed that Potom shall cooperate with the investigation.

To recap, the case arises out of the tragic demise of 19-year old Gomchu Yekar, who is stated to have died by suicide at his rented house in Lekhi village on 23.10.2025. As per claims, the deceased left behind suicide notes disclosing systematic mental harassment, sexual exploitation, corruption-related activities, and exposure to HIV/AIDS by the accused persons.

'Parents To Be Blamed For Drunken Driving Accidents Caused By Kids' : Justice BV Nagarathna

Case Details – Ashish Satish Mittal v. State of Maharashtra and Connected Cases

Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court made strong oral observations on parental responsibility, while hearing bail pleas connected to the 2024 Pune Porsche accident in which two persons were killed.

After dictating an order granting bail to three accused alleged to have conspired to swap blood samples in the case, Justice Nagarathna squarely placed the spotlight on parents who hand over cars and money to their children without exercising control.

Noting the seriousness of the incident and the subsequent attempt to cover up, she remarked that the accused got bail only on the ground of liberty, as there was long incarceration. “We have much to say on this. Two innocent lives were lost and then all these machinations. But the only thing in your favour is that there is a long incarceration. So liberty versus all that, ultimately,” Justice Nagarathna said.

National Council Of Churches In India Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Anti-Conversion Laws Of 12 States

Case Details: National Council of Churches In India v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 98/2026

The National Council of Churches of India has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the anti-conversion laws enacted by twelve states :  Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana, and Rajasthan.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi tagged the matter with other similar petitiions related to religious conversion laws. The petitions will be heard by a three-judge bench.

The NCCI stated that it is made up of 32 Member Churches, 17 Regional Christian Councils, 18 All India Organisations and 7 Related Agencies and that it represented about  14 million people in India.

Sonam Wangchuk Was Instigating Nepal-Like Gen-Z Protest, Gandhian References Just Facade : Centre To Supreme Court

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The Union Government argued that Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk instigated the younger generation of Ladakhis to get inspired by Gen-Z movements in neighbouring countries of Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka if the demand of the Sixth Schedule is denied to Ladakh. Wangchuk was detained under the National Security Act on September 26, 2025, after the Ladakh protest for statehood turned violent.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale continued hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk's wife Dr Gitangli Angmo. Angmo has challenged Wangchuk's detention under the National Security Act, 1980, as illegal.

At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta(for the Union) submitted that Wangchuk's speech, in which he refers to Gandhian principles here and there, is deliberate to cover its inflammatory contents, where he is seen to have instigated the younger generation towards protests, including violent methods including self-immolation.

'You Can't Play With Data Of Indians': Supreme Court Questions Meta & WhatsApp Over Privacy Policy

Case Details: Meta Platforms, Inc v. Competition Commission of India and Ors. | C.A. No. 301-302/2026 & Whatsapp Llc v. Cci C.A. No. 366-367/2026

The Supreme Court made strong critical remarks against Meta Platforms and WhatsApp LLC regarding their privacy policy and said that the Court will not allow them to exploit the personal data of Indians.

The Court was hearing the appeals filed by Meta Platforms and WhatsApp LLC challenging the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)which had upheld the ₹213.14 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) over WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy.

There was also a cross-appeal filed by the Competition Commission of India challenging the NCLAT's order to the extent it allowed Meta and WhatsApp to share users' data for advertising purposes after finding that there was no abuse of dominance by them.

'Only 7 Witnesses Examined In 7 Years' : Supreme Court Slams J&K UT For Delay In Trial; Seeks Details Of Pending Criminal Cases

Case Details: Anoop Singh v. U.T. of J and K | SLP(Crl) No. 1398/2026

The Supreme Court (February 3) came down heavily on the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir for keeping an undertrial prisoner in custody for seven years. It called out the prosecuting agency for examining only 7 witnesses in the past 7 years. Considering the facts and circumstances, it granted bail to the undertrial.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan has also directed the Home Secretary, Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, to appear online on the next date of hearing. It has also asked the Secretary to place on record the pending criminal trials where the accused has been under custody for more than 5 years.

The petitioner, accused of the offence of murder, approached the Supreme Court for the grant of bail. When the matter was heard on January 29, the bench called for an explanation from the Trial Court and the prosecuting agency on the flagrant delay. The bench went through the report, which showed a sorry state of the prosecuting agency.

Supreme Court Questions UP Police For Not Invoking Hate Crime Offences In FIR Over Attack On Muslim Cleric In Noida

Case Details: Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 391/2021

In a Noida-based Muslim cleric's pleaconcerning an alleged hate crime, the Supreme Court questioned the State of Uttar Pradesh as to why provisions such as Section 153B and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were not invoked in the FIR lodged by police authorities in 2023.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with the plea of one Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, who claims to have been attacked by a group over his Muslim identity. The petitioner approached the Court seeking a fair investigation and action against police officials who refused to pursue his complaint.

Sr Adv Vivek Tankha Agrees To Withdraw Defamation Case Against Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan

Case Details – Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Vivek Krishna Tankha

The Supreme Court disposed of Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan's plea seeking quashing of the criminal defamation case filed against him by Congress MP and senior advocate Vivek Tankha in view of a settlement between the parties.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh recorded the withdrawal of the proceedings by Tankha and closed the case pending before the Court.

“My client and Mr Tankha met at the Parliament and settled the matter amicably. Mr. Tankha will withdraw the civil suit for defamation against my client and the criminal defamation complaint”, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani for Chouhan informed the Court.

'You Bring As Members Who Can't Even Hold A Bat?': Supreme Court Asks Maharashtra Cricket Association

Case Details: Maharashtra Cricket Association v. Kedar Mahadeo Jadhav | SLP(C) No. 001833 - 001840 / 2026

The Supreme Court, while hearing the issue of Maharashtra Cricket Association elections, observed the need for retired cricketers to be part of such Associations to ensure expert inputs.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing a challenge against the Bombay High Court, which stayed the proposedelections of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA), which were scheduled to take place on January 6 till further orders.

The High Court bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad opined that it was 'necessary' for the court to intervene in the election process of the MCA, which is marred by controversy of 'nepotism' and 'favouritism.'

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Former Chhattisgarh Excise Minister Kawasi Lakhma In Liquor Scam Cases

Case Details: Kawasi Lakhma v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 16980/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to former Chhattisgarh excise minister and present Congress MLA Kawasi Lakhma in two cases connected with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam.

The Court granted him relief in the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act being handled by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau as well as the connected money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.

As part of the bail conditions, Lakhma is prevented from entering the State of Chhattisgarh, except to attend the Court proceedings. When the Court was told that he was a sitting MLA and that he is required to attend the Assembly meeting, the Court said that the Speaker can take a decision on that after chargesheet/prosecution complaint is filed or after the Court has taken cognizance.

Supreme Court Asks NCLAT To Take Fresh Decision On Whether Probe Needed Against Flipkart Under Competition Act

The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the National Company Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in 2020 directing a probe by the Director General on whether there was any violation of the Competition Act 2000 by Flipkart.

The Court remanded the matter to the NCLAT for fresh consideration, after considering Flipkart's argument that the NCLAT passed the order relying on the observations made by an Assessment Officer in income tax proceedings which were set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

The Court clarified that it has left open all issues for fresh consideration by the NCLAT.

Accused Cannot Be Said To Be Delaying Trial By Legally Challenging Trial Court Orders : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kawasi Lakhma v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 16980/2025

The Supreme Court orally commented that an accused cannot be said to be delaying trial by taking steps to legally challenge an order passed by the trial court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the petition filed former Chhattisgarh Excise Minister Kawasi Lakhma in relation to the liquor scam case.

When the bench expressed inclination to grant interim bail, considering the incarceration of the petitioner for over one year and the delay in the commencement of trial, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the Enforcement Directorate, submitted, "so far as the dealy is concerned, it is because of the accused. They have challenged the cognizance order."

'Are Eyewitnesses Supposed To Measure Injuries?': Supreme Court On Bombay HC Order Granting Bail In Murder Case

Case Details: Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 12440/2023

The Supreme Court deprecated a Bombay High Court order granting bail to 2 persons accused of assaulting and causing death of a Scheduled Caste member over a land dispute.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a plea filed by the deceased man's wife, assailing the grant of bail to the respondent-accused. After hearing the counsels for the parties, the bench reserved its orders.

"What's the reason given by High Court? Specific allegations not there? How can bail be granted in such a case? There are 8 injuries and 6 assailants. Indiscriminate beating in the middle of the market. How does it expect? Eyewitnesses have photographic memory? They are suppose to measure the injuries?" remarked Justice Mehta.

'Must Be Cured' : CJI Surya Kant On Delay In Pronouncing Judgments, To Raise Issue At High Court Chief Justices' Conference

Case Details: Pila Pahan@ Peela Pahan v. State of Jharkhand | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000169 / 2025

The Chief Justice of India repeated his concerns about the delay on the part of certain High Court Judges in delivering judgments after reserving them for several months.

CJI Surya Kant said that he will address the issue in the upcoming conference of High Court Chief Justices scheduled to take place on February 7-8. "This is also one of the agenda which we have already flagged and would like to discuss," CJI Surya Kant said.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing a writ petition filed by four convicts aggrieved by the delay on the part of the Jharkhand High Court in delivering verdict in their appeals for over three years. Earlier, after the Court's intervention, the High Court delivered the judgments. The Court also had expanded the scope of the case to address the issue across all High Courts, andhad called for reports from all High Courts regarding pending judgments. In a hearing held in last November, the Court had proposed that the High Courts publish the information regarding the number of judgments reserved.

Supreme Court Directs States/Union Territories To Release Pending Compensation To Acid Attack Victims By March 10

Case Details – Acid Survivors Saahas Foundation (Ngo) v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed states and Union Territories to release funds for payment of compensation to acid attack victims whose applications have already been approved, after being informed that court orders allowing compensation were remaining ineffective due to non-release of funds by governments.

“Wherever approval has been granted for payment of victim compensation to the victims of the acid attack and communication has been made by the District/State Legal Services Authority or the Union Territory Legal Services Authority to the respective departments of the state government, steps shall be taken for releasing the outstanding amounts to the victims whose applications have been cleared on or before 10th March 2026, and an affidavit in that regard shall be filed”, the Court ordered.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while hearing a PIL seeking strict implementation of the guidelines laid down in Laxmi v. Union of India and adequate compensation and rehabilitation for acid attack survivors.

Wife Files Writ Petition In Supreme Court To Restrain Husband's Divorce Proceedings In USA

An Indian woman has approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging divorce proceedings initiated by her husband before a Family Court in the State of Rhode Island in the United States, alleging that the foreign proceedings are without jurisdiction and violate her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.

“The foreign divorce proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction, oppressive, and constitutionally impermissible. They are being employed as an instrument of coercion, extortion, and-economic abuse, directly violating the law laid down by this Honble Court in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451, which mandates that matrimonial disputes must be adjudicated by courts of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the governing personal law and domicile of the parties”, the plea states.

The writ petition has been filed by a resident of Kanniyakumari district in Tamil Nadu though Advocate on Record Subhasish Bhowmick. She has arrayed the Union of India, her husband, and the Embassy of the United States of America in India as respondents.

SC Collegium Approves Appointment Of 5 Retired Judges As Ad Hoc Judges Of Allahabad High Court Under Article 224A

In a significant development, the Supreme Court Collegium approved the appointment of retired Judges as ad hoc Judges of the Allahabad High Court in terms of Article 224A of the Constitution, a rarely invoked provision.

The approval is given for appointment for a period of two years.

The following are the retired Judges who have been recommended for appointment as ad hoc Judges :

Supreme Court Criticises ED & CBI Probe In ADAG Bank Fraud Case; Anil Ambani Undertakes Not To Leave India

Case Details: Eas Sarma v. Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025

The Supreme Court criticised the "unexplained delay" on the part of the Enforcement Directorate in investigating the alleged bank loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) companies.

The Court also criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for registering only a single FIR with respect to the complaints received from various banks. The Court noted that one FIR was registered in 2025 on the basis of a complaint from the State Bank of India, and the subsequent complaints from other banks and financial institutions are also being investigated by enlarging the scope of the first FIR. The Court commented that the "said approach adopted by the CBI does not seem to be in conformity with the procedural law" as each complaint is a separate transaction, warranting a separate FIR.

The Court directed the CBI to investigate the possibility of collusion on the part of bank officers as well.

NEET-PG 2025 : Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Against Reduction In NEET Cut-Off Percentile

Case Details – Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging the decision of the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences to reduce the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025-26.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe will hear the matter.

The petition assails the notice dated January 13 issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences reducing the qualifying cut-off. The petitioners contend the cut-off has been lowered to abnormally low levels, including zero and negative percentiles.

Consumer Protection Act | Can Legal Heirs Be Held Liable After Death Of Person Found Negligent? Supreme Court Reserves Verdict

Case Details: Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Thr Lrs & Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (C) Nos. 33646-33647/2018

The Supreme Court on February 3 reserved for judgment the issue of whether, for the negligence by a person, the estate of such person should be held liable for compensation through legal heirs.

It said that the Court will deal with the limited issue of whether the cause of action against the legal heirs survives or not, and not whether they would be entitled to compensation. It may be noted that Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant was appointed as the amicus curiaeto address this issue.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a special leave petition filed by a consumer, who alleged negligence by the doctor under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. His complaint was allowed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum but was set aside by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. When he approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(NCDRC), the doctor died. Subsequently, the consumer also died.

Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over High Courts Delaying Decision In Bail Pleas,Asks HCs To Submit Details Of Pending Matters

Case Details: Sunny Chauhan v. State of Haryana | SLP(Crl) No. 1613/2026

Taking a serious view of the long pendency of bail petitions in the High Courts, the Supreme Court on Wedesday called for reports from all High Courts regarding the pendency of such matters.

The Registrar Generals of all High Courts have been directed to give the details of all bail applications, both regular and anticipatory, filed after January 1, 2025, including the date of filing, the date of decision (if any) or the date of next hearing. If petitions filed before January 2025 are pending, those details are also to be given. The details of pending petitions seeking suspension of sentence are also to be included.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the direction while hearing a petition filed over the long adjournments in a bail petition filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

'Bengal Is Targeted, We Aren't Getting Justice' : Mamata Banerjee Argues In Supreme Court Against SIR

Case Details: Mamata Banerjee v. Election Commission of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 129/2026

Dramatic events unfolded in the Supreme Court, with West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee making submissions in the writ petition filed by her challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in the State.

This is the first time a sitting Chief Minister has personally appeared before the Supreme Court to make oral submissions.

Although Senior Advocate Shyam Divan represented the West Bengal CM and addressed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi on legal issues, Banerjee also made brief submissions.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras High Court's Stay Of Tamil Nadu University Law Amendments, Directs Fresh Hearing

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. K Venkatachalapthy Kutty. SLP(C) No. 17220/2025, T.P.(C) No. 1511/2025

The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's order passed in May 2025which stayed the operation of the 10 amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly to remove the Governor as the Chancellor of certain State Universities.

The Court asked why a vacation bench of the Court acted in a "tearing hurry" to stay the laws.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the High Court's stay order. The State also filed a transfer petition seeking to transfer the matter from the High Court.

'Sonam Wangchuk's Health Not Good' : Supreme Court Urges Centre To Rethink His Detention On Medical Grounds

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The Supreme Court (February 4) orally asked the Union Government to rethink continuing detention of Ladakhi social activist Sonam Wangchuk, considering his deteriorating health.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk's wife Dr Gitanjali Angmo, challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980, as illegal. Wangchuk was detained on September 26 and brought to Jodhpur after the protests in Ladakh demanding statehood turned violent.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Justice Varale asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj if the Union could rethink whether Wangchuk's preventive detention needs to be continued. It may be noted that Angmo had moved an application that Wangchuk may be examinedby a specialist doctor after he complained of frequent stomach aches. The Court had allowed the application pursuant to which a medical report was submitted to the Court on last hearing.

West Bengal SIR | Supreme Court Asks ECI To Be 'More Sensitive' In Issuing Notices Over Name Spelling Mismatches

Case Details:

While hearing the West Bengal SIR matter, the Supreme Court told the Election Commission of India to instruct its officers to be more "sensitive" while issuing notices to persons citing "logical discrepancy" due to minor mismatches in name-spellings.

CJI Surya Kant conveyed this to ECI following the submissionsby CM Mamata Banerjee, who appeared in person, on the inconvenience caused to electors in West Bengal due to ECI's notices over "logical discrepancies" as well as on considering the plea of renowned poet Joy Goswami, who was reportedly characterized as "umapped" in the SIR process.

Insofar as CM Banerjee's claim about micro-observers taking over the process and deleting voters, while leaving no power with EROs, the CJI also assured the State that if necessary, the bench will pass directions for every document to be signed by the Booth Level Officers, who are actually authorized.

'Why You Didn't Go For Auction When NCR Property Prices Rising?' : Supreme Court Questions Banks' OTS Of 5 Star Hotel's Dues

Case Details: Infrastructure Watchdog v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 001659 - / 2026

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the plea seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Central Vigilance Commission into the One Time Settlement (OTS) between Asian Hotels(North), Bank of Maharashtra and Punjab National Bank.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the challenge to the Delhi High Court order which dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for a CBI & CVC investigation into the One Time Settlement (OTS) deals entered into by Respondent No.6, Asian Hotels (North) Pvt Ltd with Bank of Maharashtra (BoM), and Punjab National Bank or PNB.

It is the case of the petitioner, NGO Infrastructure Watchdog, that the OTS between the two banks and Asian Hotels to settle pending dues was against the existing laws.

IBC Being Misused, Companies' Assets Undervalued & Sold To Family Or Friends : CJI Surya Kant

Case Details: Eas Sarma v. Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025

During the hearing of the ADAG Bank Fraud Case, the Chief Justice of India expressed serious concerns over the increasing instances of misuse of the IBC process by bankrupt companies. The CJI flagged the issue of companies auctioning their assets to family members/ friends at undervalued rates.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by EAS Sarma, former Union Government Secretary, seeking a Court-monitored investigation into the matter.

The plea seeks a probe into bank collusions in the alleged bank loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) companies.

Court's Permission Necessary For Further Investigation After Filing Final Report : Supreme Court

Case Details: Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

The Supreme Court has held that the police can't proceed with further investigation on their own, and it is mandatory to obtain a leave of the court before doing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC/Section 193(9) of BNSS.

A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi allowed an appeal filed by the accused persons, setting aside a 2023 Allahabad High Court judgment that had permitted the continuation of a "further investigation" by police authorities in a decade-old rape case.

The issue before the court was whether after submitting a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC, the police/investigating agency can conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC without obtaining the leave of the Magistrate/Court concerned?

Supreme Court Orders Inquiry Against 6 Gujarat Ayurved Colleges For Admitting Students Who Didn't Qualify NEET

Case Details: Surpalsinh Bharatsinh Khant & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 27252-27256/2023

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Gujarat High Court's judgment, which denied relief to students who were granted conditional admissions to the courses of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery(BAMS) and the Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery(BHMS) courses by colleges in Gujarat.

The students, who appeared in NEET-UG 2019-20, did not qualify the minimum NEET percentile prescribed by the amended 2018 AYUSH Regulations, but were given conditional admissions by colleges on the presumption that the Central Government might reduce the cut-off later, as had happened in some cases previously. As per the Regulations, in order to secure admission to the BAMS/BHMS courses, a minimum cut-off percentile in the unreserved category is 50%.

The matter first went to the Single Judge, who said that the admissions of students could not be sustained as they had not challenged the amended AYUSH Regulations. The Judge also stated that the conditional admission clearly mentioned that the admission is subject to AYUSH's approval of a reduction in cut off-marks.

Jamiat Flags Assam CM's Speech On 'Miyas', Seeks Supreme Court Directions To Regulate Comments By Constitutional Office Holders

Citing the speeches made by the Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, Islamic clerics' group Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind has urged Supreme Court to issue directions to restrain persons holding Constitutional posts from making divisive comments.

In the written submission filed in the petition filed by Jamiat in 2021 seeking directions to regulate hate speeches, Jamiat referred to the speech made by Sarma, on January 27, that "four to five lakh Miya voters would be removed" after the Special Revision Exercise in Assam. According to Jamiat, Miya is a derogatory term to address Muslims in Assam.

The petitioner said that it was not the solitary instance of the Assam CM making such speeches.

Jan Suraaj Party Moves Supreme Court Challenging Bihar Elections, Questions Direct Transfer Of Rs 10K To Women

Case Details: Jan Suraaj Party v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 107/2026

The Jan Suraaj Party floated by Prashant Kishore has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Bihar Assembly Elections, 2025 on account of illegal practices and seeking fresh elections. The party particularly challenges direct transfers of Rs.10,000 to women voters in the state while the Model Code of Conduct was allegedly in force.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will hear the matter tomorrow.

Briefly put, the writ petition filed under Article 32 seeks a declaration that the addition of fresh beneficiaries in the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana, and payments made to them during subsistence of the Model Code of Conduct, was illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21, 112, 202 and 324 of the Constitution.

After Supreme Court Order, Samay Raina & 4 Other Comedians Organize Shows To Raise Funds For Persons Affected By Spinal Muscular Atrophy

Case Details: M/S. Cure Sma Foundation of India v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 460/2025

Following Supreme Court's directions, Samay Raina and other comedians have filed affidavits before the Court stating that they organized events in Mumbai to generate public awareness about Spinal Muscular Atrophy and raise funds for supporting those inflicted by it.

It may be recalled that while dealing with Cure SMA Foundation's plea against insensitive jokes made by some comedians against the disabled, a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had directed last year that comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagadish Tanwar telecast programs in their shows about the success stories of persons with disabilities to generate funds for the treatment of disabled persons, especially those suffering from SMA.

The Court had ordered that such programs be held at least twice a month. It was further said that the comedians can invite specially abled persons on their platforms to promote the cause of generating funds to provide timely treatment to those suffering from rare diseases. The comedians were asked to do so as a reparation for their insensitive jokes about the disabled.

Supreme Court Upholds 2023 Election Of Karnataka Congress MLA K Y Nanjegowda, Notes He's Winner Even After Recount

Case Details: K.Y.Nanje Gowda v. K.S Manjunath Gowda and Ors. | C.A. No. 12371/2025

The Supreme Court upheld the election of Congress member K Y Nanjegowda as Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the Malur constituency (Kolar district) in the Karnataka assembly elections of 2023.

Noting that even after the recount of the votes, Nanjegowda secured 250 more votes than his opponent KS Manjunath Gowda from BJP,  the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment of Septemer 2025 which annulled his election.

During the 2023 assembly election, Nanjegowda won by a margin of 248 votes against BJP candidate KS Manjunath Gowda. The BJP candiate later filed the election petition in the High Court seeking recount of the votes, alleging irregularities. The High Court, while setting aside the election, ordered a recount of the votes and a fresh declaration of results.

Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of Free Land Allotment For International Arbitration & Mediation Centre

Case Details – International Arbitration and Mediation Centre v. Koti Raghunatha Rao & Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld a Telangana High Court judgment that quashed the free allotment of government land in Hyderabad to the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC).

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SVN Bhatti rejected the special leave petitions filed by IAMC against the judgment.

“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court; hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed”, the Court held.

Supreme Court Approves BCI's Nomination Fee, Asks HCs Not To Interfere With State Bar Council Elections On Fee Challenge

Case Details: Bar Council of India v. Prahlad Sharma and Ors. T.P.(C) No. 3577-3590/2025

The Supreme Court approved the nomination fee of Rs 1.25 lakhs fixed by the Bar Council of India for contesting elections to the State Bar Councils.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also directed that no High Court should interfere with the ongoing Bar Council Elections on account of any challenge to the prescription of the election fee. The bench declared that all writ petitions pending in the High Courts on this issue will be deemed to have been dismissed.

The bench observed that the Bar Council of India is incurring expenses for elections, and it needed to raise funds.

Supreme Court Refers Plea Challenging Chhattisgarh Bar Council Elections To Justice Dhulia Committee

Case Details: Bar Council of India and Anr. v. Chandra Prakash Jangade and Ors. T.P.(C) No. 100-101/2026

The Supreme Court requested the High Powered Committee headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia to inquire into the alleged malpractices in the Chhattisgarh State Bar Council elections that took place in September 2025.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymaly Bagchi was hearing a transfer petition by BCI seeking transfer of a pending writ petition challenging the Chhattisgarh Bar Council elections to the Top Court.

The writ petition before the High Court was filed by candidates aggrieved of alleged corrupt practises and horse trading in the election to the post of office bearers of the Chhattigarh Bar Council. Sr Advocate Hufeza Ahmadi, assisted by AoR Pranjal Kishore, appeared for the respondents, while BCI was represented by its Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.

Supreme Court To Examine If Pupil -Teacher Ratio Fixed In Maharashtra Is Contrary To RTE Act

Case Details: Sindhuduurg Zilla Shikshan Sanstha Chalak Mandal, Pandur (Registered) v. State of Maharashtra and Others | SLP (C) No. 2479/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition challenging a 2024 Government Resolution(GR) issued by the State of Maharashtra under the Right of the Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009(RTE Act). As per the GR, the State has modified the criteria for sanctioning the teachers' posts based on the number of students in primary, upper primary, and secondary schools in the State of Maharashtra.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice on January 23 to the State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Education.

The petitioner, that is, an association of private educational institutions, has challenged the GR dated March 15, 2024, as defeating the purpose of the RTE Act.

'If People Reject, You Approach Judicial Forum' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Of Prashant Kishor's Party Against Bihar Elections

Case Details: Jan Suraaj Party v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 107/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the writ petition filed by Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj Party challenging the Bihar Assembly Elections, 2025  and seeking fresh elections.

When the Court expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, the petitioner chose to withdraw it, with liberty to approach the High Court. Granting such liberty, the bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

In the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the party particularly challenged direct transfers of Rs.10,000 to women voters in the state while the Model Code of Conduct was in force.

'Court Cannot Compel Any Woman To Complete Pregnancy': Supreme Court Allows Termination Of Minor's 30-Week Pregnancy

Case Details: A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra | SLP(C) No. 4774/2026

Observing that a Court cannot compel a woman, much less a minor, to continue an unwanted pregnancy, the Supreme Court permitted the medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a girl who had become pregnant while she was a minor.

A Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that reproductive autonomy of the pregnant girl must be given due weight, particularly in circumstances where she has clearly expressed her unwillingness to continue the pregnancy.

In its order, the Court observed that what required consideration was the right of the minor child to continue the pregnancy, which, on the face of it, was “illegitimate” as she herself was a minor and was facing the pregnancy due to an unfortunate situation arising from a relationship. The Bench clarified that the issue was not whether the relationship was consensual or the result of sexual assault.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Questioning Madras HC Collegium Resolution For Not Including Justice Nisha Banu

Case Details: A. Prem Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 135/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the recommendations stated to have been made by the Madras High Court in November 2025,  observing that the issue was not justiciable.

The writ petition was filed A. Prem Kumar, contending that the High Court Collegium's recommendation was void, as the then second senior judge of the High Court, Justice Nisha Banu, was not included in the meeting. It may be noted that on October 14, 2025, the Centre had notified the transfer of Justice Banu from Madras High Court to Kerala High Court. However, despite the transfer order, she continued in the Madras High Court andjoinedthe Kerala High Court only on December 19, 2025, after a reminder by the President. The issue was, whether, during the time she continued in Madras High Court even after the transfer order, she had to be included in the Collegium meeting in view of her seniority position.

Senior Advocate Rachna Srivastava, for the petitioner, submitted before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the collegium composition was wrong, as Justice Banu was then a judge of the High Court. "The composition of the collegium itself was...she continued to be a judge, she had not joined the transferee High Court," she submitted.

Decide Remaining Disqualification Petitions In Three Weeks Or Face Contempt : Supreme Court Warns Telangana Speaker

Case Details: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court(February 6) issued another last warning to the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly, directing him to "positively" decide the remaining disqualification petitions within three weeks in connection with the defection of ten MLAs from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi to the Indian National Congress.

It added that if the decision is not taken this time, the Court will be compelled to issue contempt orders. After the order was pronounced, the Court orally asked the petitioner not make reels on this matter.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice AG Masih was hearing the compliance pursuant to the Court'sJuly 31, 2025 order, wherein the Court had granted three months for the Speaker to decide on petitions seeking the disqualification of 10 BRS MLAs, who had allegedly crossed over to the Congress.

NEET-PG 2025 | 'Our Conscience Must Be Satisfied' : Supreme Court Asks NBEMS To Explain Reasons To Reduce Qualifying Percentile

Case Details – Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India and Connected Matters

The Supreme Court asked the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to file an affidavit explaining the reason behind the reduction of qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025-26.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing pleas challenging the notice dated January 13 issued by the NBEMS reducing the qualifying cut-off percentiles.

During the hearing, Justice Narasimha observed that the issue involves competing considerations which are required to be balanced. “On the one hand we have this competing value to protect that seats should not go to waste. At the same time there is a pressure that candidates are not coming so please reduce the cut off,” he said. He added, “Then argument will be that the standards are being lowered and the counter argument is that seats are going waste. So somewhere there has to be a balance.”

West Bengal SIR | CM Giving Provocative Speeches, EC Officials Facing Threats : Election Commission To Supreme Court

Case Details: Sanatani Sangsad v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 1216/2025

The Election Commission has filed a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court raising concerns about alleged incidents of violence, intimidation and obstruction of election officials performing duties in the Special Intensive Revision process for West Bengal.

The ECI has alleged reluctance on the part of state machinery to address threats against election officials and/or register FIRs on complaint of Booth Level Officers (BLOs). It has further claimed that West Bengal is the only state where election officials performing SIR duty are facing such obstruction, while the process is going on fairly smoothly in other states.

Pertinently, the ECI has also accused West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of making fear-mongering, provocative speeches. It says that the speeches have had the effect of creating an intimidating environment among election officials so much so that some have written to the CEO to withdraw from SIR duties.

Supreme Court Dismisses Advocate's Writ Petition Seeking Intra-Court Appeal Against His Contempt Conviction

Case Details: Mathews J Nedumpara v. Supreme Court of India | WP(C) No. 592/2025

The Supreme Court refused to hear a writ petition by Advocate Mathew J Nedumpara seeking directions to allow an intra-court appeal against his 2019 conviction in a criminal contempt case. The Court noted that a writ petition could not be maintainable for challenging a coordinate bench's decision.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition under Article 32.

Notably, in 2019, a bench led by Justice RF Nariman held Nedumpara guilty of committing contempt.

Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh Bar Council Elections By April 30

Case Details: M Varadhan v. Union of India WP(C) 1319/2023

The Supreme Court has directed that elections to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh be conducted by April 30, 2026, noting that the elected body's original term had already expired in October 2025.

A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recorded the submission of the Bar Council of India that a six-month extension had been granted to the State Bar Council under Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961, to enable the holding of elections. Taking note of this, the Court ordered that the electoral process must be completed within the extended period.

To ensure free and fair elections, the Court directed that the polls be monitored and conducted by a High-Powered Election Committee headed by former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha.

Should News Reports Be Deleted On Discharge Of Accused? Supreme Court To Examine Scope Of 'Right To Be Forgotten'

Case Details – IE Online Media Services Private Limited v. N B

The Supreme Court held that a Delhi High Court order directing the digital platform of Indian Express to remove certain news reports concerning the arrest of a former banker in a money laundering case would not operate as a precedent in other cases.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a plea filed by IE Online Media Services Private Limited challenging the Delhi High Court judgment directing removal and de-indexing of certain articles, after the banker was discharged from the offence.

The Court issued notice on the plea and granted interim relief to Indian Express holding that that the impugned judgment shall not operate as precedent in subsequent cases.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges BNSS Provisions Allowing Judicial Officers To Head Directorate Of Prosecution

Case Details – Subeesh P. S. v. Union Of India

A practicing lawyer has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which allow judicial officers to be appointed as Director of Prosecution, Deputy Director of Prosecution or Assistant Director of Prosecution.

The plea contends that the impugned provisions blur the constitutionally mandated separation between the judiciary and the executive, and erode prosecutorial autonomy.

“By permitting serving or retired Judicial Officers to occupy prosecutorial leadership roles, the provision erodes prosecutorial autonomy and revives an impermissible fusion of powers. These features weaken institutional safeguards, compromise prosecutorial independence, and undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system”, the plea further states.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Gujarat High Court Order For Recovery Of 108 Hectares Gauchar Land Allotted To Adani Ports For SEZ

Case Details – Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court set aside a Gujarat High Court order directing the state to take back 108-22-35 hectares of land in Kachchh that had been allotted to Adani Ports for the purpose of development of a Special Economic Zone.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar remanded the matter back to the Gujarat High Court for fresh consideration.

The proceedings arose from a PIL filed in 2011 challenging the allotment of lands which had earlier been allocated to Gram Panchayats for gauchar in the villages of Goyarsama, Navinal and Luni in Kutch to Adani Ports for development of a Special Economic Zone. The grievance raised was that the Panchayats had limited gauchar land and further reduction would affect residents in a scarcity-hit region.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Duping Builders By Impersonating As SC Lawyer

Case Details: Poonam Charandas Khanna v. State of Maharashtra SLP (Crl) No. 21380/2025

The Supreme Court granted bail to a nearly 60-year-old woman accused of cheating multiple persons by falsely projecting herself as a lawyer practising before the Supreme Court and collecting money from them on that representation.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the Special Leave Petition filed by Poonam Charandas Khanna, setting aside a Bombay High Court order that had refused her regular bail.

The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 34 of 2020 registered at Kherwadi Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that she misrepresented herself as a qualified advocate and duped several persons into paying large sums of money by assuring legal relief.

Supreme Court To Examine If Kerala Joint Family Abolition Act Repugnant To Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005

Case Details: Radha Nambidi Parambath v. N.P. Rajani | Diary No. - 2622/2026

The Supreme Court (February 6) issued notice returnable four weeks in a plea challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment, which held that the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System(Abolition) Act, 1975 was repugnant to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti considered the matter. Notice has also been issued on an interim prayer seeking a stay of the High Court's judgment.

Following the declaration of repugnancy, the High Court had held that the daughter of a Hindu who died after December 20, 2004 (the date on which the Hindu Sucession Amendment Act took effect), would be entitled to an equal share in the Hindu Undivided Family(HUF) property in Kerala.

Can Third Party To Decree File Order IX Rule 13 CPC Application? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Details: N. Rajaram v. R. Murali & Ors.

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question whether a third party to a civil decree can maintain an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to set aside an ex parte decree.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran took note of conflicting decisions rendered earlier by coordinate Benches of the Court on the issue.

While a 2004 judgment in Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal & Ors. had held that a third party to a decree could maintain such an application, a later judgment in Ram Prakash Agarwal & Anr. vs Gopi Krishan (Dead) through Lrs. (2013) took a contrary view, without referring to the earlier ruling.

Acquittal Rate Of HCs In Death Penalty Case Four Times Confirmation Rate : Square Circle Clinic report

On February 4, the Square Circle Clinic at NALSAR released its latest Annual Death Penalty Statistics Report(2016-2025). The report confirms the global trend towards avoiding the granting of the death penalty due to varied reasons, including subjective discretion and non-adherence to sentencing guidelines.

As per the report, in the past decade, the acquittal rate of High Courts has been four times the confirmation rate. The Supreme Court's acquittal rate was twice the confirmation rate. For the third consecutive year, the Supreme Court did not confirm any death sentences. Moreover, the court acquitted 10 people in 2025, the highest number since 2016.

In the last 10 years, the Sessions Courts imposed 1,310 death sentences on 1,279 persons in 822 cases. Of these, the High Courts have decided 842 death sentences, and a staggering low of only 70(8.31%) were upheld. It resulted in 30.64% acquittals(258), 48% commutations(515) and only 8% confirmations.

'Constitutionally Improper' : Plea In Supreme Court Questions CM Mamata Banerjee Personally Arguing West Bengal SIR Case

Case Details: Mamata Banerjee v. Election Commission of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 129/2026

An application has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's personal appearance in the West Bengal SIR matter. Last week, Mamata Banerjeehad personally appeared in the Court and made submissions in the petition filed by her challenging the West Bengal SIR process.

The application is moved by Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha Vice-President Satish Kumar Aggarwal seeking intervention in the matter to assist the Court on the said aspect. A bench led by CJI Surya Kant will hear the West Bengal SIR matter tomorrow.

"That the present Intervention Application is filed exclusively to assist this Hon'ble Court on an issue of grave constitutional and institutional importance, namely, the impermissibility, impropriety, and adverse constitutional consequences of permitting the personal appearance of a sitting Chief Minister in proceedings invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India", the plea says.

Supreme Court Upholds NCLAT Order Directing NBCC To Complete Stalled Supertech Housing Projects

Case Details: Apex Heights Pvt. Ltd. v. Ram Kishor Arora C.A. No. 2626/2025 and Connected Cases.

The Supreme Court upheldthe order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) directing State-owned NBCC to expeditiously complete 16 stalled housing projects of debt-ridden real estate developer Supertech Limited.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi affirmed the NCLAT's December 12, 2024 order, which had brought NBCC on record for completion of the projects in the interest of homebuyers.

“We find that the order passed by the NCLAT on December 12, 2024, in bringing the NBCC on record for the completion of the pending housing projects is neither unfair nor contrary to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC),” the Court noted in its order.  In February 2025, the Court had stayedthe NCLAT order.

Supreme Court Lifts Ban On Anurag Thakur To Hold BCCI Office

Case Details: Board of Control For Cricket In India v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors. | C.A. No. 4235/2014

The Supreme Court lifted the ban imposed on BJP Leader Anurag Thakur from holding office in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application by BJP MP Anurag Thakur seeking the lifting of the ban which was imposed as per paragraph 25 (ii) of the 2017 Supreme Court Order.

In 2017, the bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur removed BCCI President Anurag Thakur and Secretary Ajay Shirke for continued defiance regarding the implementation of the Lodha panel reforms. Direction (ii) of the Court's 2017 order said : BCCI President Anurag Thakur and Secretary Ajay Shirke shall forthwith cease and desist from any work of the BCCI

UPSC Can Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against States Failing To Give Timely Proposals For DGP Appointments: Supreme Court

Case Details: Union Public Service Commission v. T Dhangopal Rao | SLP(C) No. 004668 - / 2026

The Supreme Court emphasised that State Governments should not delay sending proposals to the Union Public Service Commission for the appointment of Director General of Police.

Disapproving of the trend of appointment of 'Acting DGPs' in some states, the Court authorised the UPSC to send reminders to the States for sending proposals for DGP appointments. If there is a default by the States, the UPSC will be at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings.

According to the 2006 direction in the Prakash Singh case, the Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three seniormost officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission.

Lawyer Alleges Attack By Goons In Tis Hazari Court Before Judge; CJI Assures Action, 'Won't Accept Gunda Raj'

A lawyer mentioned before the Chief Justice of India that he was beaten up in a Courtroom in Tis Hazari Courts in Delhi last Saturday.

The lawyer said that while he was appearing in the Court of Additional District Judge Harjeet Singh Pal, on behalf of one accused, the complainant's advocate along with many goons entered the Courtroom, and in front of the Judge assaulted him and the other accused. The lawyer said that they locked the door of Courtroom from inside and unleashed violence right in front of the judge.

CJI Surya Kant asked why the lawyer was making an oral mention instead of making a written complaint to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. "Have you brought it to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justifce of the Delhi High Court? Why not make the mention before the head of the Delhi Judiciary? You want to mention before me so that media can catch up?" CJI Surya Kant asked.

'Balanced Order' : Supreme Court Affirms Madras HC Order Limiting Muslims' Worship At Thirupparankundram Hills In Tamil Nadu

Case Details: M. Imam Hussain v. Secretary To Government and Ors. | Diary No. 73933-2025

The Supreme Court (February 9) refused to interfere with the judgment passed by the Madras High Court, holding that Muslims have no right to conduct any prayers except during Ramzan and Bakri-Id at the Nellithoppu area, the 33 cent of which is owned by the Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah atop the Thiruparankundram hills in Madurai District in Tamil Nadu.

The High Court, in its judgment delivered in October 2025, had also ruled that animal sacrifice cannot be permitted in the area.

Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Bail Of Cardiologist Accused Of Performing Forced Angioplasties To Claim Govt Funds

Case Details: State of Gujarat v. Prashant Prakash Vazirani, SLP(Crl) No. 2133/2026

The Supreme Court refused to cancel the bail granted to a cardiologist accused of performing angioplasty upon healthy persons in a bid to get funds from the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) scheme for a private hospital.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar declined the Gujarat government's plea to cancel the bail of Prashant Prakash Vazirani, noting that he had already undergone pre-trial detention of 1 year.

Standing Counsel Swati Ghildiyal, for Gujarat, drew the Court's attention to the severity of the allegations, highlighting that 2 persons had died and the respondent was the main accused. "Now we will let him go...he is a doctor, a cardiologist, let them serve...you can keep a watch. If he's doing something, you can take recourse", responded Justice Maheshwari.

Kuldeep Sengar's Appeal In Unnao Victim's Father's Death Case Be Heard Out Of Turn : Supreme Court To Delhi High Court

Case Details: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 2204/2026

The Supreme Court requested the Delhi High Court to afford "out-of-turn" hearing to former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar's appeal challenging his conviction and 10-year sentence in the case related to the custodial death of Unnao rape victim's father. The Court observed that the appeal be decided within three months.

The Court also directed that the appeal filed by the victim seeking enhancement of sentence be also heard along with Sengar's appeal. The appeals by co-accused also have to be heard alongwith these matters.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the petition filed by Sengar challenging the Delhi High Court's order passed on January 19 refusing to suspend his sentence in the death case.

Sonam Wangchuk's Health Is Fine, Getting Best Treatment : Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The Supreme Court (February 9) was orally informed by the Union Government that no progress has been made in reviewing the detention of Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk, as he is in a "perfectly good" condition and is getting the best of the treatment in AIIMS Jodhpur, which he could not have gotten had he been in Ladakh. The Court, seemingly disappointed with the answer, reiterated the concern of Wangchuk's deteriorating health.

It may be recalled that the Court is hearing a habeas corpus petition, filed by Dr Gitanjali Angmo seeking to declare the detention of her husband, Sonam Wangchuk, under the National Security Act, 1980, as illegal.

Before a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale was to rise for lunch, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj sought an adjournment as he is engaged in another matter to be taken up post lunch. The bench was supposed to hear the matter at 2 pm.

Digital Arrest Scams | Banks Need To Alert Customers About Suspicious Transactions, Says Supreme Court During Hearing

Case Details: In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related To Forged Documents, Smw (Crl.) 3/20

The Supreme Court observed that the banks have the responsibility to develop mechanisms to alert the customers to stop large-scale transactions being undertaken by them after being duped by "digital arrest scams."

When a retiree, who withdraws only amounts in the range of 10,000 or 20,000, suddenly undertakes transactions in the range of 25 lakhs or 50 lakhs, the banks should issue an alert, the Court remarked.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the suo motu case taken on the issue of digital arrest scams.

Supreme Court Allows Shifting Of Himachal Pradesh Backward Classes Commission From Shimla To Dharamshala

Case Details: State of H P v. Ram Lal Sharma | SLP(C) No. 005202 - / 2026

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria was hearing the State Government's challenge to the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order, which stayed the State Government's decision to shift the office of the H.P. State Commission for Backwards Classes from Shimla to Dharamshala.

The High Court bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, while hearing a public interest litigation, passed an interim order. The bench observed that the decision required closer examination in light of administrative and financial implications.

Sr Advocate Madhavi Divan appeared for the state of Himachal Pradesh, and submitted that the decision to shift the commission was due to logistics, considering that Dharmashala has a larger complex to offer and also houses other important commissions.

Supreme Court Directs Extension Of West Bengal SIR Deadline, Clarifies Micro-Observers Can't Pass Orders

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025

The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions in relation to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in West Bengal.

The Court directed the State to make available to the Election Commission of India Group B officers for SIR duties, who can replace the micro-observers deployed by the Election Commission of India. The Court also clarified that final orders on claims and objections can be passed only by the Electoral Registration Officers (ERO), and that the micro-observers can only assist them.

The Court also directed the Director General of Police of the State to file a personal affidavit responding to the concerns raised by the ECI regarding failure to stop threats and violence against SIR officials.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Guidelines To Curb 'Constitutionally Unbecoming' Speeches By Ministers, Constitutional Functionaries

A group of twelve citizens, including former civil servants, diplomats, academicians, researchers, entrepreneurs, and members of civil society, have approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, flagging the speeches by the Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, and other constitutional functionaries as "derogatory and exclusionary."

The petitioners have referred to the comments of Assam CM on 'Miya Muslims'.

It is stated that the CM has previously termed citizens belonging to one community as responsible for rising prices of vegetables, causing "love jihad' and even 'flood jihad'. The petitioners allege that CM also went to the extent of saying that he wanted to remove four to five lakh voters belonging to that religious group from the electoral rolls.

'Won't Allow Any Impediment In Completion Of SIR, All States Must Understand ': CJI Surya Kant

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025

While hearing the West Bengal SIR matter, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant categorically said that the Court will not allow any impediment to be created in completion of ECI's special intensive revision of electoral rolls in any state.

"One thing, we would like to be very clear. Whatever orders, clarifications, interim directions may be required, we will have to issue. But we will not allow to create any impediment in completion of SIR. It must be very clearly understood by all the states," said the CJI.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was dealing with a bunch of petitions related to West Bengal SIR. After hearing a battery of lawyers, the bench passed a slew of directions and noted that micro-observers are there only to assist EROs/AEROs, and cannot take a final decision.

Supreme Court Declines To Entertain Plea Seeking Govt Approval For Institutions Imparting Religious Instruction To Children

Case Details – Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking direction to the Centre and States to register all schools and institutions imparting secular education and/or religious instruction to children up to the age of 14 years.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate authority.

“Before the court you have to show that you have approached the authority with the same prayer and the authority has either declined to consider or is sitting tight. You go to the authority, in the next round we will consider”, Justice Datta said.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Cancellation Of Land Allotment To Patanjali Foods In Telangana

Case Details – Patanjali Foods Limited v. Department of Horticulture

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by Patanjali Foods against the refusal of the Telangana High Court's Division Bench to stay a Single Judge order upholding the cancellation of its factory zone in Suryapet district.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan issued notice returnable in 4 weeks and directed the parties to maintain status quo in the meantime.

Patanjali Foods had been allotted areas in Nalgonda and Suryapet districts pursuant to the National Mission of Edible Oils – Oil Palm (NMEO-OP) scheme.

Supreme Court Bars High Courts From Hearing Cases Related To Tribunals On Issues Pending In SC

Case Details: Central Administrative Tribunal Bar Association Kolkata v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 662/2022

The Supreme Court (February 9) barred High Courts from hearing matters related to appointments and conditions of service of members of Tribunals, whether under State or Central laws, which are under consideration of the Supreme Court.

At the request of Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, the Court also transferred to itself petitions pending in the Kerala and Calcutta High Courts in relation to Tribuna appointments.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing an application against the Calcutta High Court's February 4 order which stayed the functioning of the CAT Circuit Bench, Port Blair. The High Court passed the order on the reasoning that the CAT Members ceased to hold office after theSupreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, last year.

West Bengal SIR | Justice Bagchi Expresses Reservations About ECI Software, Says Notice Sent Over Omission Of Middlename

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025

In the West Bengal SIR matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court noted that the software being used by the Election Commission in the SIR process is causing notices to be sent to many voters over minor mismatches in names.

He cited instances of people getting notices over omission of 'Kumar' from their names, which is often the middle name in case of Bengal residents.

"The tools that you have applied in the software appear to be very restrictive. They are eliminating natural differences. Surnames are of various forms – Roy, Ray…there is a common practice of Kumar being a middle name in Bengali households. Now the omission of Kumar – a notice is being given...There may be logical discrepancy. But also, due to application of the software, there may be a much wider net to which notices are going…" said Justice Bagchi.

Communist Parties Move Supreme Court Seeking Action Against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma For Hate Speech

Case Details: Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Union of India Diary No. 8641/2026 and Annie Raja v. Union of India Diary No.8461/2026

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Annie Raja,  a leader of the Communist Party of India (CPI), have approached the Supreme Court seeking action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over the comments made by him targeting a particular community.

Advocate Nizam Pasha mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant seeking urgent listing.

"We seek urgent intervention of this Court with respect to disturbing speeches made by the sitting CM of Assam, including a video posted where he is shown as shooting at members of a particular community. Complaints are filed, but no FIRs registered," Pasha submitted.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre, TN Govt On Plea For CBI Probe Into Universal Trading Multi-State Ponzi Scam

Case Details: Sureshkumar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition(S)(Criminal) No(S). 47/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu in a plea seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into an alleged Ponzi scheme run by the Universal Trading Solutions Private Limited, a Coimbatore-based company.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a writ petition filed by some depositors who lost their life-savings in the scheme. It is alleged that matter is an inter-State financial deposit scheme scam involving around 73,000 depositors who have lost over Rs.1000 crores.

According to the petitioners, the investigation being carried out by the Economic Offences Wing (EoW) of the Tamil Nadu police is contrary to Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act), as per which the investigation must be handled by the CBI.

Ensure Representation Of Marginalised Groups In Govt Advocates' Appointments : Supreme Court Requests MP Advocate General

Case Details: Obc Advocates Welfare Association v. State of Mp | SLP(C) No. 16512/2022

The Supreme Court disposed of a plea seeking reservation for advocates belonging to Other Backward Classes in appointments of government pleaders in Madhya Pradesh. While declining to issue binding directions in the absence of a statutory mandate, the Court through its order urged the Advocate General to ensure representation of lawyers from marginalised communities and women.

A Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing the petition, which alleged lack of adequate representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC advocates in appointments made by the Advocate General's office.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the recent round of appointments, not a single advocate from the Scheduled Tribe community had been selected, and only a limited number of Scheduled Caste candidates were accommodated. It was argued that the absence of representation in the Advocate General's office has long term implications for the legal profession, as government law officers often go on to be considered for elevation as judges.

Digital Arrests | MHA Proposes SOP Before Supreme Court, RBI To Consider Staff Accountability & Liability Framework

Case Details: In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related To Forged Documents, Smw (Crl.) 3/2025

In the suo motu case taken up by the Supreme Court over "digital arrest scams", the Ministry of Home Affairs has filed a status report proposing a Standard Operating Procedure to strengthen inter-agency coordination and ensure timely restoration of defrauded funds wherever possible.

It may be recalled that a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria is hearing the suo motu case. Pursuant to the Court's order, the MHA had constituted a High-level Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) to comprehensively examine all facets related to "digital arrests”.

Attorney General R Venkataramani informed that the 2nd meeting of the IDC took place on February 2, where various stakeholders informed about the key steps taken so far. As per the latest status report submitted before the Court, the following measures have been apprised by various agencies :

PIL In Supreme Court Challenges New Income Tax Law Allowing Search Of Digital Devices

Case Details: Vishwaprasad Alva v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 114/2026

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of powers conferred on Income Tax authorities under the Income Tax Act, 2025, which permit searches of “computer systems” and “virtual digital space”, including personal digital devices, cloud servers and electronic communications.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by entrepreneur Vishwaprasad Alva, assails Section 247 of the Income Tax Act, 2025, which is scheduled to come into force from April 1, 2026, along with corresponding provisions under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

The petitioner also challenges the clauses in Section 132 of the 1961 Act (Section 247 of the new Act) that permit search and seizure on the belief that a person “will not” or “would not” produce documents if summoned, or that assets “would not be disclosed” for tax purposes. According to the petitioner, these provisions create an “anticipatory search framework” where highly intrusive powers can be exercised without any existing violation of law.

Supreme Court Seeks Union & NMC Responses On Plea To Exclude Doctors From Consumer Protection Act

Case Details: Association of Healthcare Providers (India) v. Union of India and Ors.W.P.(C) No. 110/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and the National Medical Commission on a plea to declare that doctors  will not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a writ petition filed by Association of Healthcare Providers (India).

Supreme Court Refuses To Direct Disclosure Of Opposition Leader's Dissent Regarding CIC Appointments

Case Details: Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., Ma 1979/2019 In W.P.(C) No. 436/2018

The Supreme Court refused to direct the publication of the dissent note of the Leader of Opposition regarding the appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria did not accept the argument made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, on behalf of RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj, that the Opposition Leader's dissent must be published.

"We will not go into that part, there is no question of holding this kind of trial here," CJI Kant said. Bhushan asserted that the people have the right to know why the Opposition Leader dissented against the proposal(s) in the selection committee.

Supreme Court Asks ECI To Consider PIL Petitioner's Suggestions To Curb Election Expenses

Case Details: Prabhakar Deshpande v. Chief Election Commissioner of India | W.P.(C) No. 1290/2021

The Supreme Court urged the Election Commission of India to consider the suggestions put forth by a petitioner regarding measures to curb excessive election expenditures.

Observing that the suggestions given by the petitioner are "worth consideration", a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria disposed of a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Prabhakar Deshpande.

As soon as the matter was taken up, CJI Kant orally observed that the petitioner had raised a relevant issue. "The point is very interesting, but if we say something, it might be overreaching," CJI said. "It is for the Election Commission of India to lay down some guidelines. The petitioner has sought a comprehensive plan of action to curb excess election expenditure. Principally, we agree with that," CJI said.

Supreme Court Allows Provisional MBBS Seat To EWS Candidate, Rejects Contention That MP Govt Lacks EWS Quota Policy For Pvt Colleges

Case Details: Atharv Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 35993/2025

Invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directed the National Medical Commission and Madhya Pradesh government to grant provisional admission to a NEET-qualified candidate belonging to the Economically Weaker Section category.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria passed the order. It noted that the petitioner had qualified the NEET exam twice, but could not secure admission.

The petitioner Atharv Chaturvedi, appearing in person, approached the Court as he could not get EWS seat in private medical colleges since the State did not frame any policy to implement such reservation in private institutions. Earlier, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had declined his plea, noting that a similar petition was previously rejected, while giving 1 year's time to the State to enhance EWS seats in private medical colleges (which was not over).

Can Muslim Woman Invoke Khula & Terminate Marriage Without Husband's Consent? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details – X v. Y

The Supreme Court appointed Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam as amicus curiae in an appeal against a Kerala High Court judgment upholding a Muslim woman's right to pronounce khula and terminate marriage without the husband's consent.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran listed the case for hearing on April 22, 2026, noting that the case involves a question of Muslim Personal Law.

“List for hearing in the list of regular hearing matters on 22.04.2026. We request Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned senior counsel, to assist this Court in this matter, as it involves a question of Muslim personal law”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Seeks Responses From 17 States Over Delay In NIA Trials

Case Details: Md Heydaitullah v. National Investigation Agency | SLP(Crl) No. 8799/2025

The Supreme Court sought a response from the Chief Secretaries of 17 States/ UTs on the status of establishing Special NIA Courts, considering the increased pendency of NIA trials.

The bench CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria was hearing the issue of setting up a dedicated Special Courts for NIA trials, considering the backlog of cases before the district courts. Earlier, the Court had decided to examine the issue of pendency of trials under special statutes due to the lack of adequate special courts.

ASG Aishwarya Bhatti, appearing for the Union, informed the bench of the progress made with regard to designating special courts for NIA trials.

Supreme Court Orders Medical Stipend To Foreign Medical Graduates At Par With Indian Graduates

Case Details: Utkarsh Verma v. Aligarh Muslim University | W.P.(C) No. 000824 / 2025

The Supreme Court ordered that foreign medical graduates are liable to get a stipend at par with Indian medical graduates.

This order was passed by a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale, who were dealing with a writ petition filed by Indian citizens who have obtained foreign medical education from Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Russia and China.

They have completed their internship in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences in Jharkhand for the period June 2023 to June 2024.

Supreme Court Flags Insufficient Budgetary Allocation To Railways, Says Common Man's Safety Important

Case Details: Union of India v. Radha Yadav, Miscellaneous Application No.741-742/2019

The Supreme Court flagged insufficiency of budget allocation towards betterment of Railways in India and voiced its expectation for better budgetary allocation so that common man's safety is prioritized.

"Nothing is more important than the safety and security of the common man, who travels and reposes trust in the Railways and Railways is not an organization to make investment elsewhere", a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan observed.

Broadly, in the case concerned, the Court is considering the issue of safety in Railways under two heads - taking care of unmanned crossings and building of railway over-bridges and under-bridges, and 'Kavach', the automatic/automated safety system installed on rail tracks to prevent untoward incidents due to human error.

4 Assamese Individuals Approach Supreme Court Seeking FIR & SIT Probe Against CM Himanta Biswa Sarma For Hate Speech Offences

Case Details: Dr. Hiren Gohain and Others v. Union of India and Others.

Another writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking urgent intervention against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over a series of alleged hate speeches targeting a minority community in the State.

The petitioners include Dr Hiren Gohain, a retired professor and public intellectual; Harekrishna Deka, former Director General of Police of Assam; Paresh Chandra Malakar, Editor-in-Chief of Northeast Now; and senior advocate Santanu Borthakur. They contend that the Chief Minister has repeatedly made statements that incite discrimination, social and economic boycott and violence against Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam.

Advocate Rupali Samuel mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant seeking urgent listing. She requested that the petition be listed along with an earlier petition on the same issue, which the CJI agreed to list. Yesterday, thepetitions filed by CPI(M) and CPI seeking FIR and court-monitored SIT investigation against Sarma was mentioned before the CJI.

Beldanga Violence | Supreme Court Asks Calcutta HC To Examine If Invocation Of UAPA By NIA Is Justified

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Suvendu Adhikari | SLP(Crl) No. 2369/2026

The Supreme Court asked the Calcutta High Court to ascertain from the materials submitted by the National Investigation Agency(NIA) as to whether the invocation of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act(UAPA) was justified with respect to the Beldanga violence, which took place in January.

The Court directed the NIA to submit its materials before the Calcutta High Court in a sealed cover.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging an order passed by the Calcutta High Court on January 20 to the Centre to consider NIA probe invoking the power under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act.

'How Can A Woman Write Like This About Another Woman?' : Supreme Court Rebukes Lawyer For Post Against Rape Victim

Case Details: Deepa Joseph v. Home Secretary of State of Kerala | W.P.(Crl.) No. 50/2026

The Supreme Court came down heavily on a woman advocate for publishing a Facebook post targeting another woman, who is the complainant in one of the rape cases registered against Kerala Congress MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a writ petition filed by Advocate Deepa Joseph, apprehending arrest by the Kerala Police over her Facebook post.

At the very outset, the bench expressed its disappointment with the language and the tone of the post.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Safeguards Against Inadvertent TDS Default By Buyers In Property Purchases Above Rs. 50 Lakh

Case Details: Arun Singh v. Union of India

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking directions to introduce safeguards so that property buyers do not unknowingly default on their obligation to deduct and deposit tax at source while purchasing property valued at more than Rs. 50 lakhs.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.

Section 194IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requires a buyer of immovable property, other than agricultural land, where the sale consideration is Rs. 50 lakhs or more, to deduct tax at source at the rate of 1 per cent of the consideration payable to the seller.

Supreme Court Takes Note Of Fake MACT Claims With Insured Vehicles Planted In Accidents

Case Details: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tuni Pati & Ors.

The Supreme Court has raised concerns over what appears to be a “wide racket” involving alleged fraudulent motor accident claims, in which multiple stakeholders are suspected of colluding to use insured vehicles strategically to stage accidents and fabricate compensation claims.

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prasanna B. Varale heard a plea filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the Orissa High Court's order, challenging the award of compensation. The insurer contended that the claim was fraudulent, alleging that the same insured vehicle, already involved in four other accidents, had been deliberately projected as the offending vehicle to generate a claim.

The insurance company had argued that the vehicle in question was repeatedly being shown as the offending vehicle in multiple accident cases because it had valid insurance coverage. According to the insurer, such vehicles were allegedly being “planted” in claim petitions to ensure that compensation could be recovered from a solvent insurer.

Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case : Accused Tasleem Ahmed Moves Supreme Court Seeking Bail

Case Details: Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi | Diary No. 5434-2026

The Supreme Court (February 11) issued notice in a plea filed by Delhi riots larger conspiracy accused Tasleem Ahmed, challenging the Delhi High Court's order refusing to grant him bail.

As per the special leave petition, Ahmed has challenged the September 2, 2025, order passed by the Delhi High Court, which upheld the Trial Court's order denying him third regular bail.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale issued notice to the Delhi Police. In January, the Supreme Court had granted bail to five other accused in the case, while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

Sonam Wangchuk Can't Be Released On Medical Grounds, Nothing Alarming About His Health : Union To Supreme Court

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The Union Government told the Supreme Court that Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk cannot be released from detention on medical grounds.

Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, stated that the Union Government gave utmost consideration to the Court's request to review the detention of health grounds, but the Court's request could not be processed.

Before a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale, Mehta informed that Wangchuk has been examined 28 times as per the Jail Manual and he is "fit, hale and hearty". Mehta added that Wangchuk has developed some digestive issues, but he is being treated.

Supreme Court Stays Muslim Husband's Talaq-E-Hasan Divorce To Illiterate Wife; Couple To Remain Married Until Talaq Proven Valid

Case Details: Benazeer Heena v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 348/2022 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court stayed the operation of a talaq-e-hasan divorce given by a Muslim husband to his illiterate wife, noting that there were allegations of his obtaining her signatures on a blank paper and he did not appear to defend them.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order. When apprehensions were expressed by Senior Advocate MR Shamshad (appearing for respondents in a connected case), while pointing out that talaq-e-hasan is still a valid form of Muslim divorce, the CJI said that the Court was not rendering it invalid. The stay was necessitated in the case as the husband did not enter appearance and the wife had levelled serious allegations, the CJI said.

"As he (husband) has not come forward to deny the allegations, we stay operation of the alleged talaq-e-hasan resorted to by him for divorcing the petitioner. Having stayed that, we direct that parties shall be deemed to be a validly married couple unless husband comes forward and shows that valid talaq has been given. Concerned SHO to find out whereabouts of husband and ensure his presence before this court", the bench ordered.

Supreme Court Notifies New Senior Designation Guidelines; Point System & Interview Discarded

The Supreme Court has notified the “Guidelines for Designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India, 2026”, replacing the 2023 Guidelines in terms of the Court's decision dated May 13, 2025 in Jitender @ Kalla vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2025 INSC 667).

In Jitender@Kalla, the Supreme Court had disapproved of designating senior advocates on the basis of point-system and interviews, holding that it was unworkable. The point-system, based on parameters like years of practice, reported judgments, publications etc., were evolved to make the system more objective in terms of the directions in the Indira Jaising I and Indira Jaising II cases.

The new Guidelines were approved in a Full Court Meeting held on February 10, 2026 by the Chief Justice of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court.

'You Are Reading Too Much Into Sonam Wangchuk's Speeches' : Supreme Court To Centre, Questions Nexus With Ladakh Violence

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The Supreme Court continued hearing the habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, with the Bench remarking that the Union Government appeared to be “reading too much” into his speeches.

The matter is being heard by a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale on a petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo seeking to declare Wangchuk's detention illegal. The Court had urged the Centre to review the detention in view of Wangchuk's reported deteriorating health.

Centre: Health “Fine”, Grounds Sustain

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Karnataka's Appeal Against 2006 HC Verdict Striking Down Law To Regulate Hindu Religious Institutions

Case Details – State of Karnataka v. Sahasra Lingesshwara Temple

The Supreme Court reserved judgment in an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against a 2006 Karnataka High Court judgment which had struck down a 1997 law regulating Hindu religious institutions and charitable endowments across the State.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe reserved judgment.

The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 was enacted to consolidate and replace five earlier laws governing Hindu religious and charitable institutions in different regions of Karnataka.

Air India Plane Crash | 'Don't Go By Media Reports': Supreme Court Calls For Restraint On Comments Against Particular Brand Of Aircrafts

Case Details: Safety Matters Foundation v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No.53715/2025 (And Connected Cases)

In the Air India Plane Crash matter, the Supreme Court called on the Union of India to file within 3 weeks a report on the procedural protocol followed to enquire into the tragic accident, which claimed 260 lives.

During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant also suggested that the parties not be swayed by media reports on technical glitches in aircrafts, and further, exercise restraint in commenting on any particular brand of aircrafts.

"This very unfortunate accident...261 innocent lives [lost]...it's not a small tragedy for any nation. For a parent losing a pilot son like this, we can understand...we have fully sympathy with the father and we really do not know how he will be able to come out of such a shock and void created. But let us also be very very conservative in making observations against any particular brand of aircraft. There was a time Dreamliner was treated as one of the best and safest aircraft", the CJI orally opined.

Supreme Court Asks Tamil Nadu Govt To Give Details Of FIRs In Illegal Sand Mining Cases

Case Details: M. Lakshmanan v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 25765/2025

The Supreme Court called on the Tamil Nadu government to furnish details of all FIRs registered in relation to the alleged Rs.4730 cr worth of illegal sand mining/theft of mineral in the state.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi called for the data, after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioner), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari (for State).

The data to be produced by the state shall include details of all FIRs registered in relation to illegal sand mining/theft of minerals. As orally conveyed by CJI Kant, it shall also include details of those FIRs which have been closed on finding allegations to be false.

Can Civil Judge (Senior Division) Acting As Commercial Court Entertain Trade Mark Passing Off Suit? Supreme Court To Decide

Case Details – I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/S Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether a Civil Judge (Senior Division), functioning as a Commercial Court, can entertain a suit for passing off under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bars institution of such suits in a court inferior to a District Court.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Atul Chandurkar issued notice on an SLP challenging Jharkhand High Court's view that the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, being a Commercial Court, could entertain a suit for passing off.

“The short point that falls for our consideration is with regard to Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short, “the Act, 1999”)…What meaning should be ascribed to the expression “in Court inferior to a District Court”? The High Court seems to have taken the view that the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, being a Commercial Court, the suit instituted by the plaintiffs for passing off is maintainable. Issue notice, returnable on 24.2.2026”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Jairam Ramesh's Writ Petition Against Post Facto Environmental Clearances

Case Details: Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000190 / 2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh against the grant of ex-post facto Environmental Clearances(EC).

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked when the Supreme Court, in the Vanashakti review judgment, has approved the Union's Office Memorandums on ex-post facto ECs, how can a writ petition be filed.

"For what purpose this has been filed? You are very well aware that now a 3-judge bench has taken a view," Chief Justice of India Surya Kant told the petitioner's counsel at the outset. In November last year, a 3-judge bench of the Court had recalledthe earlier judgment delivered in May 2025 which restrained the Union from granting post-facto ECs. The counsel replied that the petition was challenging the 2017 and 2021 OMs.

Supreme Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Karnataka BJP MLA BA Basavaraja In Bikla Siva Murder Case

Case Details: B.A. Basavaraja v. State of Karnataka | SLP(Crl) No. 002619 - / 2026

The Supreme Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to Karnataka BJP MLA BA Basavaraja (Byrathi Basavaraja) in the Bikla Shiva Murder Case.

After the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the petitioner, chose to withdraw the matter with liberty to seek regular bail after surrendering.

The case relates to the murder of V G Shivaprakash alias Bikla Shiva in Bengaluru on July 15 last year. Basavaraja, who represents the KR Pura constituency, is alleged to be the conspirator behind the murder.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Restrain Judicial Orders Allowing Pujas At Aland Dargah In Karnataka

Case Details: Khaleel Ansari v. State of Karnataka and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 197/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking to restrain the passing of judicial orders allowing the performance of pujas associated with Hinduism at Karnataka's Aland Dargah. The Court dismissed the plea as withdrawn, noting that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in this matter.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma was hearing a writ petition filed by one Khaleel Ansari, who is stated to be the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Dargah Hazrath Malikul Mashaikh Makdoom Ladle Ansari (Sunni).

According to the petitioner, although the property was already declared as a Waqf property by the Waqf Tribunal, there was a pattern of various third parties filing writ petitions and other applications before the High Court seeking permission to conduct pujas on specific occasions. The High Court has passed orders allowing ad-hoc arrangements for the performance of rituals from time to time, including the upcoming Shivratri on February 15.

Better To Abolish RERA, Benefits Only Defaulting Builders : CJI Surya Kant

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Naresh Sharma | SLP(C) No. 005835 - / 2026

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed disappointment with the functioning of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) in many States, saying that it was high time the States revisited the decision to constitute them.

"It is high time that all the states should revisit and rethink constituting this authority," CJI Surya Kant said.

The CJI further remarked that the RERA was not doing any other services except to facilitate builders in default.

'Why Denigrate A Section?' : Supreme Court Objects To 'Ghooskhor Pandat' Name For Netflix Series, Asks Makers To Inform New Title

Case Details – Atul Mishra v. Union of India

The Supreme Court asked the makers of the Netflix series 'Ghooskhor Pandat' to file an affidavit confirming that the title has been withdrawn and stating the new title. The Court said that unless a new name is placed on record, it will not permit the release of the series.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to the respondents (Union of India, Central Board of Film Certification and director Neeraj Pandey) in a PIL filed by one Atul Mishra, who objected to the title of the series as defaming the entire Brahmin community.

The Court observed that while it respects the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, that right is subject to restrictions. The Court questioned the film title, remarking, “Why should you denigrate a section of society by this kind of title?”

Supreme Court Allows Shifting Of Himachal Pradesh RERA Office From Shimla To Dharamshala

Case Details:Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Naresh Sharma | SLP(C) No. 005835 - / 2026

The Supreme Court stayed the Himachal Pradesh High Court order, which restrained the State Government from shifting the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) office from Shimla to Dharamshala.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the plea by the state of Himachal Pradesh against the orderof the HP High Court, staying the decision of the State Government to shift the RERA office.

Sr Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh, informed that the PIL in question has been filed by a property dealer.

Supreme Court Asks Centre If Sonam Wangchuk Had Opportunity To Watch Videos Cited In Detention Order

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The Supreme Court (February 12) asked the Union Government if there is any endorsement made by Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk that he has seen the four videos on which the detention order is primarily based.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Dr Gitanjali Angmo, Wangchuk's wife, seeking to declare Wangchuk's detention under the National Security Act, 1980, illegal.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that Wangchuk is making an allegation before the highest Court of the country that he was not given the materials on which the detention order is based, when his own acknowledgement receipt is there that he had seen those four videos.

Supreme Court Allows Tamil Nadu To Substitute Acting DGP In UPSC DGP Selection Committee

The Supreme Court allowed the State of Tamil Nadu to recommend another member's name in place of the acting DGP for representing the State in the UPSC DGP selection committee.

The Tamil Nadu government has filed the application mainly seeking directions for ensuring that the panel of officers prepared by the Empanelment Committee for the appointment of Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, is in strict conformity with the Revised Guidelines issued through circular dated September 26, 2023 and the directions in the 2018 order in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.

The main contention of the state was that in the present selection committee, the representatives were the Chief Secretary and the acting DGP. The state has objected to having the present DGP for selecting the incoming DGP, as he also aspires to be considered for the selection. Thus another nomination has been sought. Sr Advocate P Wilson appeared for Tamil Nadu.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Film Director Vikram Bhatt's Wife In Cheating Case

Case Details: Shwetambari Bhatt and Another v. State of Rajasthan | SLP(Crl) 2647/2026

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Shwetambari Bhatt, wife of film director Vikram Bhatt, who is lodged in Central jail in Udaipur in connection with a multi-crore fraud case.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order while issuing notice on the petition filed by Shwetambari Bhatt and Vikram Bhatt challenging the Rajasthan High Court's order denying them bail.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Rajasthan police came to their Mumbai residence and arrested both of them from there. Rohatgi pressed for interim bail at least for the wife at the present stage.

'Not Yielding Desired Result', Supreme Court Flags Lapses In Enforcing Solid Waste Management Rules

Case Details: Bhopal Municipal Corporation v. Dr Subhash C. Pandey & Ors.

The Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, noting that despite successive regulatory changes, no desired results are being yielded at the ground level.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti was hearing the Bhopal Municipal Corporation's appeal against the National Green Tribunal's order levying environmental compensation of Rs.1.80 crores and Rs.121 crores, respectively, for alleged lapses in compliance with waste management norms.

While considering the appeals, the Court took note of the evolving statutory framework governing municipal waste. The earlier Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 were replaced by the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The Bench recorded that even these have now been superseded by the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, which are set to come into force from April 1, 2026.

Supreme Court Dismisses P&H High Court's Petition Challenging HC Decision Quashing Compulsory Retirement Of District Judge

Case Details: High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Shiva Sharma and Another | Diary No. 446-2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the High Court's decision to set aside the compulsory retirement of a District Judge.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, observing that the High Court's view was a possible one, refused to interfere with the judgment which granted relief to the judicial officer.

The issue was with respect to the 2011 order passed by the State of Haryana ordering the compulsory retirement of District Judge Dr. Shiva Sharma at the age of 58 years. The State's order was pusruant to a Full Court decision of the P&H High Court.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Rehabilitation Plan For Children With Disabilities Leaving Institutional Care After Majority

Case Details: Bal Mitra Through Its Secretary v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 53922-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking formulation of a comprehensive transition plan for rehabilitation and social re-integration of children with disabilities who leave institutional care on attaining majority.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, stating that it was not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32.

Briefly put, the petition highlighted that as per an RTI response, approximately 3957 children with disability are living in Child Care institutions across the country. Under Rule 25 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016 they would be aging out of institutional care, however, under the Juvenile Justice Act, there is no specific transition plan for their rehabilitation and social re-integration.

Acknowledge Dagar Brothers' Performance In 'Veera Raja Veera' Song : Supreme Court Urges AR Rahman

Case Details: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 4742/2026

The Supreme Court urged music composer AR Rahman and the producers of Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan II to acknowledge that the music of the "Veera Raja Veera" song was drawn from the 'Sihva Stuti' originally performed by the Junior Dagar Brothers in the Dagarvani tradition.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea by Dhrupad singer Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar challenging the Delhi High Court order, which set aside the injunction order against music composer AR Rahman with respect to the composition 'Veera Raja Veera' in the Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan II.

Noting that Rahman acknowledged that the song was from the Dagarwani tradition, the bench asked if it could be further acknowledged that the song was first performed by the predecessors of the petitioner.

Supreme Court Raps Rajasthan Authorities Over Illegal Sand Mining; Says Official Inaction Pushed Villagers To Violence

Case Details: Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, SLP(Crl) No. 18005/2025

The Supreme Court yesterday granted bail to a man sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment in a case over vandalization of a house by a mob. It was noted that the authorities' failure to act on complaints made by some villagers regarding illegal mining/stone crushing in the area led to the incident.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan expressed its "anguish" at the authorities' inaction and proposed further action. Accordingly, it called on the State to furnish the names and designation of all officers who were there at the time of the incident.

"Before parting, we notice that this case requires further action. The Court puts it anguish on record. Clearly the present incident is the direct result of total inaction by the concerned Authorities, who were repeatedly approached to stop/check the illegal mining and Stone crushing units, that too, by the villagers concerned which were being operated by the complainant and other people" the Court noted.

District Cricket Associations Must Voluntarily Adopt Good Governance, Not Bound By BCCI Constitution : Supreme Court

Case Details: Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association v. Anna Nagar Cricket Club & Anr. Etc.

The Supreme Court (February 13) encouraged district cricket associations to voluntarily adopt principles of good governance, including transparency in player selection, professionalism in administration, and elimination of conflicts of interest.

“it is open, rather necessary, for the State Association to initiate reforms to ensure that District Associations operate as professional, transparent, and in the best interests of the sport.”, observed the Court, emphasizing that “District Associations must volunteer to adopt reformative measures such as good governance, refined management, transparency, and the exclusion of conflicts of interest.”

A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made these observations while hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Madras High Court, which had extended the ratio of S. Nithya v. Union of India (2022), mandating, inter alia, compulsory inclusion of eminent sportspersons in athletics federations, to district-level cricket associations as well.

Manipur Violence| Supreme Court Seeks CBI's Status Report On Sexual Violence Cases; Proposes To Ask HC To Monitor Trials

Case Details: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei | Diary No. - 19206/2023

In the matter relating to the sexual violence cases during the Manipur crisis, the Supreme Court sought the status report from the CBI on the investigation so far. The Court also hinted at the possibility of re-assigning the case monitoring task from the Justice Gita Mittal Committee to the Manipur High Court.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the issue of the trial of sexual violence cases that occurred during the Manipur ethnic crisis.

At the outset, the CJI pointed out that the present 3-member committee, headed by Justice Gita Mittal, was tasked with ensuring a fair and time-bound investigation into the cases, as per the directions dated October 7, 2023.

Lawyer Has Duty To Cross-Verify : Supreme Court On Petition Citing Fake Judgments

The Supreme Court emphasised that it is the duty of members of the Bar to verify judgments before placing reliance on them in petitions, after it was informed that a special leave petition cited certain fake judgments judgment.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the SLP, orally cautioning all lawyers to exercise due dillignece while citing authorities.

The counsel for the respondent submitted that one of the cited judgments in the petition did not exist, while some others existed, but did not contain the quotations attributed to them in the petition.

Supreme Court To Consider Amicus Suggestion For Professional Bail Bondsmen

Case Details: Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara | SLP(Crl) No. 014185 - / 2025

The Supreme Court is set to explore whether bond surety can be outsourced to professional bail bondsmen, who will be operating under strict regulatory framework.

In a case dealing with a Nigerian national named Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, who absconded after he was granted bail in an NDPS case and furnished a fake surety, the Supreme Court had appointed Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra as amicus to explore how such cases can be avoided.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and AG Masih is hearing the Union's challenge to the bail granted to Nawchara by the Bombay High Court. The allegation against him is that 4.9kg of heroin was recovered from his possession. The Union challenged the bail order, stating that the High Court failed to consider that for the same nature of crime, he was earlier convicted. The bench issued notice on May 5, 2025, and stayed the operation of the bail order in a subsequent hearing.

Is Man Liable Under S.498A IPC For Cruelty To Live-In Partner? Supreme Court To Examine

Case Details: Lokesh B.H and Others v. State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court is set to examine a significant legal question: whether a man in a live-in relationship, described as a “relationship in the nature of marriage”, can be prosecuted for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or the corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 85).

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing a Special Leave Petitioniled by Lokesh B.H. and others, challenging a November 18, 2025 judgment of the Karnataka High Court in criminal revision petitions.

Reporters Collective & RTI Forum Move Supreme Court Challenging Digital Personal Data Protection Act

Case Details: Reporters Collective and Another v. Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 177 / 2026

Digital news platform The Reporters' Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi have approached the Supreme Court of India, assailing key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

The petitioners also challenge the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025 notified in November last year.

The petition contends that the DPDP Act substantially weakens the transparency framework under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by creating what it describes as a blanket exemption for disclosure of personal information.

Police Failure To Apply IPC Provisions Results In Acquittal Of Contractor for Stockpiling Decontrolled Cement : Supreme Court

Case Details: Manoj v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a contractor accused of stockpiling cement meant for a public works project, holding that investigative lapses in failing to invoke IPC provisions against the contractor resulted in an untenable conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, since no statutory or regulatory control over cement existed at the relevant time.

“…in the absence of any subsisting statutory order under Section 3 of the E.C. Act on the date of the alleged occurrence, a conviction under Section 7 thereof is legally impermissible. That said, this was a case where the investigating agency ought to have invoked appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the evidence collected.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench order which upheld the trial court's decision to convict Appellants under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for alleged stockpiling the cement.

The Appellants were prosecuted for allegedly possessing and black-marketing cement supplied under a government road construction project. Acting on a tip-off, the police conducted raids on March 24, 1994, seizing 365 bags of cement from premises linked to the appellants, with an additional 25 bags recovered later. The prosecution alleged that the cement formed part of a “government quota” diverted for sale in the black market.

Supreme Court Allows High Courts To Hear Consumer Appeals In States Where State Commission Not Formed

Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Ensure Functioning Of Consumer Commissions In Smaller States, Seeks SG's Assistance

Invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court empowered High Court Judges to hear consumer appeals in States where State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Many States found it “not viable” to constitute full-fledged State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions owing to low pendency.

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the suo motu case In Re: Pay and Allowance of the Members of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Seeking FIR Against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma On Feb 16

Case Details: Annie Raja v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 72/2026

The Supreme Court will hear (February 16) a batch of petitions seeking the lodging of a first information report and constitution of a Special Investigation Team(SIT) probe against Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, for the offences relating to hate speech over his comments on 'Miya Muslims' and the 'point blank' video.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will hear the matter.

A video was posted on 'X' by the official handle of the BJP Assam showing the Assam CM shooting persons who appear to belong to the Muslim community. After the video attracted severe backlash from social media users, it was deleted.

Supreme Court Unsatisfied With FSSAI, Asks It To Consider Front-of-Pack Labels Warning Of High Sugar, Fat & Sodium In Food

Case Details: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India

The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the compliance affidavit filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India in a public interest litigation seeking mandatory front-of-package warning labels on packaged food products.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a miscellaneous application in a PIL filed by 3S and Our Health Society, which had sought directions to the Union of India to introduce clear front-of-package warning labels indicating levels of sugar, salt and saturated fats in packaged foods.

The main writ petition was disposed of on April 9, 2025, after the Court was informed that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India had already initiated steps towards implementing Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling through proposed amendments to the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020.

Supreme Court Allows Three NGT Judicial Members To Continue Beyond Retirement Till Next Appointments

Case Details: NGT Bar Association (Western Zone) v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed three judicial members of the National Green Tribunal to continue to function as a stopgap arrangement, noting that imminent retirements would otherwise leave at least three vacancies and adversely affect the functioning of the Tribunal at five locations across the country.

“In the circumstances, pending further appointments to be made and assumption of office to happen vis-a-vis the judicial members of the NGT or until further orders, as a stopgap arrangement, we direct that (i) Hon'ble Sri Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, (ii) Hon'ble Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, and (iii) Hon'ble Sri Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, shall continue to function as judicial members of the NGT”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that the direction was issued bearing in mind that vacancies of judicial members would hamper the working of the NGT and adversely affect litigants seeking justice before the Tribunal.

Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench To Hear Reference Over 'Industry' Definition On March 17

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

The Supreme Court will hear the 9-judge bench reference on the definition of 'industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on March 17.

The reference is against the 7-judge bench judgment rendered in 1978 in the Bangalore Water Supply v. A Rajappa case, which laid down an expansive definition of 'industry' so as to include government undertakings, public utilities, hospitals, educational and research institutions, professions and clubs.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that the following broad issues emerge

Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench To Hear Sabarimala Reference Issues From April 7

Case Details: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. 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 9-judge bench will commence hearing of the issues referred in the Sabarimala review on April 7, 2026. The hearing is proposed to be concluded on April 22.

The composition of the 9-judge bench will be notified by the Chief Justice of India separately through an administrative order.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the orders for the listing of the reference before the 9-judge bench.

'Why Should Youngsters Suffer?': Supreme Court Dismisses Delhi Govt Challenge To Retrospective Pay Hike For HC Law Researchers

Case Details: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Rushant Malhotra and Ors. | Diary No. 6259-2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Delhi Government challenging the Delhi High Court directions issued in October 2025 to increase the Law Researchers' honorarium retrospectively.

The High Court ordered retrospective payment of enhanced remuneration of Rs. 80,000 per month to its law researchers with effect from October 01, 2022.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi refused to entertain the matter in the "peculiar facts and circumstances". The bench however left the question of law open.

Supreme Court Rejects Abu Salem's Plea For Release On Claim Of Completing 25 Years' Imprisonment

Case Details: Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., Diary No. 60531-2025

The Supreme Court (February 16) dismissed an application filed by convicted terrorist Abu Salem, who had sought premature release in terms of an Extradition Treaty entered into between the Indian and Portuguese governments. Saleem was convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (TADA) Act for the 1993 Bombay Blast case. The Court has, however, granted him liberty to approach the High Court.

Salem filed an application claiming the benefit of 3 yrs and 16 days jail-earned remission (for good conduct) in the computation of a 25-year jail sentence, upon completion of which he shall be eligible for pre-mature release. He cited the Supreme Court's decision of July 2002, which relied on the treaty with Portugal and held that Salem will have to be released on completion of 25 years in jail. However, the State of Maharashtra has maintained that Salem has not completed 25 years.

Earlier, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta had asked Salem to produce any rules prevailing in Maharashtra, as per which remission can be granted to someone convicted under the TADA.

'Some Creases To Be Ironed Out,' Supreme Court Refers Pleas Challenging DPDP Act Amendment To RTI Act To Larger Bench

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on the pleaschallenging certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025 over their amendment of the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

Agreeing that the issue required consideration, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi referred the matter to a larger bench.

The bench was dealing with three writ petitions - one filed by Venkatesh Nayak, another by digital news platform The Reporters Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi, and the third one filed by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI). The petitioners have essentially challenged to the Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amending Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act giving a blanket exemption to the disclosure of personal information. Before the amendment, personal information could have been disclosed if there was an overriding public interest.

Supreme Court Asks Petitioners Seeking Hate Speech FIR Against Assam CM To Approach High Court, Requests HC To Expedite Hearing

Case Details: Annie Raja v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 72/2026 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court asked petitioners, who approached it under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for offences related to hate speech, to approach the Gauhati High Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi expressed reluctance to invoke Article 32, and said that the petitioners should first approach the jurisdictional High Courts.

The Chief Justice expressed strong disapproval of the trend of parties directly approaching the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Courts.

'Don't Trust Anyone' : Supreme Court Advises Caution In Physical Relations Before Marriage

Case Details – Y K V. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

The Supreme Court orally remarked that before marriage, a boy and a girl are strangers and hence there should be circumspection before indulging in pre-marital physical relationship before marriage. The Court was hearing the bail plea of a man accused of rape on a false promise of marriage.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with the bail plea of a man who is alleged to have lured the complainant by assuring her that he would marry her, even though he was already married and later married another woman.

“Maybe we are old fashion but before marriage a boy and a girl are strangers. Whatever may be the thick and thin of their relationship. We fail to understand how they can be indulging in physical relationship before marriage. Maybe we are old fashioned…You must be very careful, nobody should believe anybody before marriage”, Justice Nagarathna said.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Chhattisgarh Gram Sabha's Hoardings Banning Entry Of Pastors, Converts Into Tribal Village

Case Details: Digbal Tandi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., Diary No. 64814-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment which upheld a Gram Sabha's action of erecting 'hoardings/notice boards' at certain village entry points, whereby the entry of Christian Pastors and converted Christians was barred.

Apparently, the Gram Sabha action was intended to prevent religious conversion of villagers through coercion or inducement.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves (for petitioner) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Why Rules Under Shariat Application Act Not Framed? Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Union, UP Govt

Case Details: Smt. Gohar Sultan v. Sheikh Anis Ahmad & Anr.

The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Union Government and the State of Uttar Pradesh on why rules under Section 4 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 have not been framed.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice to the Union of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh, calling for clarification on whether Section 4 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 has been effectively implemented in Uttar Pradesh.

The Court noted that in the absence of such rules, a Muslim would be unable to file the declaration contemplated under Section 3 effectively. As per Section 3, a Mulsim can file a declaration before the prescribed authority that he/she wished to be governed by the Shariat law in matters related to marriage, maintenance, inheritance, guardianship etc. Once such a declaration is filed, and the prescribed authority accepts it, the person and his/her descendants would be governed by the Shariat law.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 'Logical Discrepancy' Category Applied By ECI In West Bengal SIR

Case Details: Md Zimfarhad Nowaj v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 000161 / 2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the writ petition challenging the 'logical discrepancy' category in the West Bengal SIR.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the plea.

At the outset, the CJI declined to entertain the plea on the basis of the limitation of Article 32 jurisdiction. The CJI asked :  "In Article 32, you want us to decide who is your father, your mother, your brother?"

Supreme Court Directs Production Of Pendrive Given To Sonam Wangchuk In Custody, Doubts Accuracy Of Union's Transcript Of Speeches

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The Supreme Court (February 16) directed the Jodhpur Jail Superintendent to produce before it in a sealed cover the pen drive given by the Union authorities to Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk, while he was in detention on September 29, 2025.

This was after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, Wangchuk's wife who has challenged his detention under the National Security Act, argued that the four videos of his speeches, which were cited by the detaining authority in the detention order, were not present in the pendrive which was handed over to Wangchuk in custody. Sibal therefore argued that the detention order was vitiated due to the non-supply of the relevant materials.

The Court ordered: "Heard Kapil Sibal, learned counsel. For further arguments, listed on Thursday. The learned senior counsel would submit that the pendrive furnished to detenue on 29th September, 2025, is in his custody. As such, we direct the same pen drive in his custody shall be obtained in a sealed box by the jail authorities, which shall be sealed in his presence and be forwarded to this court in a sealed box by the superintendent of jail, and Additional Advocate General, appearing for Rajasthan, shall ensure compliance with the same."

Most Union SLPs Come With 100 Days Of Delay, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(A)(2) v. Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) Pvt Ltd | Diary No. 4194 / 2026

While hearing a matter, the Supreme Court orally remarked that the Union Government continues to file belated special leave petitions. It said that there is a minimum delay of at least 100 days in SLPs preferred by the Union without any explanation.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a matter in which Additional Solicitor General of India appeared for the Union. Although the Court dismissed the matter, Justice Datta noticed 251 days of delay after the first initial 90-day period for filing the special leave petition.

The SLP is filed against the February 12, 2025, order passed by the Karnataka High Court.

Supreme Court Extends Tenure Of DRAT Allahabad Chairman, Seeks Union's Action Plan On Tribunals

Case Details: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India | Diary No. 4420-2026

The Supreme Court extended the tenure of the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal(DRAT), Allahabad. The Court also asked the Union to submit a proposal in compliance with the directions in the Madras Bar Association case in 4 weeks.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the application filed by the  President of the DRAT Bar Association, Allahabad, Mr Shalinder Kumar Pandey.

The President of the DRAT Bar Association, Allahabad, had filed the application seeking the extension of the Chairperson's tenure, which is due to expire on February 17, 2026.  Presently, Justice Rajesh Dayal Khare is serving as the DRAT Chairman.

2-Judge Bench Created Unnecessary Uncertainty : CJI Surya Kant On Judgment Against Post-Facto Environmental Clearances

Case Details: Vanashakti v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1394/2023 and Connected Cases.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed displeasure with the May 2025 judgment of the Supreme Court in the 'Vanashakti' case which barred the grant of post-facto Environmental Clearances, saying that the verdict unnecessarily created uncertainty.

Observing that the Supreme Court itself was leading to unpredictability, the CJI said that the 2-judge bench ought to have considered the entire case law before taking a view.

In November 2025, a 3-judge bench (by 2:1 majority), in review, had recalled the May 2025 judgment and restored the matters to the file. The matters were listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi.

Supreme Court Allows Karnataka High Court To Notify Civil Judge Appointments

Case Details: Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary and Ors | C.A. No. 1867/2006

The Supreme Court allowed the Karnataka High Court to notify the appointments of Judicial Officers (Civil Judge) in the State.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the Malik Mazhar Sultan vs UP Public Service Commission case, in which it has been passing various orders from time to time regarding the filling up of judicial vacancies in trial courts.

The bench was informed that the selection process for the Karnataka Civil Judges was complete and only the result has to be declared.

'We Understand Political Battles' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Quashing Of SC/ST Case Against Telangana CM Revanth Reddy

Case Details: N Peddi Raju v. State of Telangana and Anr. Diary No. 61734-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging theTelangana High Court's judgment which quashed a 2016 case against the present Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that the High Court has rightly quashed the case since no prima facie case was found to proceed against Reddy. The bench orally commented that it appeared to be a case of using the Courts for a "political battle."

The allegation was that upon alleged instigation by Reddy,  other accused broke into the Razole Constituency S.C. Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and vandalised the society property with JCB trucks, and hurled casteist remarks at the complainant N Peddi Raju when he tried to stop the attack.

2007 CRPF Camp Attack Case : Supreme Court To Hear UP Govt's Appeal Against Acquittal Of 4 Death Row Convicts

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @ Anwar @ Ali Etc. Etc., SLP(Crl.) No(S).1206-1209/2026

The Supreme Court is set to consider Uttar Pradesh government's challenge to the acquittal of 4 death row convicts in the 2007 CRPF camp terror attack case. Eight personnel had lost their lives in the said attack.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta granted leave in the four Special Leave Petitions filed by the State in the matter.

By the impugned judgment, the Allahabad High Court had set aside the 2019 death sentence of four men - Mohd Sharif, Imran Shahjad, Mohd Farooq and Sabauddin. The Court had also set aside the life term of another accused-Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba convicted under Section 302 IPC.

NEET-PG 2025 Cut-Off Reduction Made 95,913 More Candidates Eligible, NBEMS Informs Supreme Court

Case Details – Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India and Connected Matters

The National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences told the Supreme Court that it had no role to play in the reduction of the qualifying percentile of the NEET-PG 2025.

In the counter-affidavit filed in response to petitions challenging the lowering of the NEET-PG cut-off, the NBEMS the decision fell within the exclusive domain of the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission ('NMC').

The NBEMS said that its role is limited to conducting the NEET-PG exam, evaluating the results and handling over the results to the NMC. On January 9, 2026, the Ministry informed the NBEMS of the decision to reduce the qualifying percentile for the third round of NEET-PG counselling. In compliance with the Ministry's decision, the NBEMS revised the cut-off and published the revised results on January 13.

Political Leaders Must Foster Fraternity In Country; Elections Must Be Fought On Mutual Respect : Supreme Court

Case Details: Roop Rekha Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 199/2026

The Supreme Court orally observed that political parties must foster fraternity in the country, and that all political parties must follow constitutional morality and fight elections on the basis of mutual respect.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by nine individuals seeking guidelines to prevent 'Constitutionally unbecoming' speech by persons who hold Constitutional offices. The petition was filed in the wake of speeches of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and a video posted by BJP Assam which sparked controversies after they were precieved as targeting a specific community.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioners, submitted, "We need to do something. Only your lordships can do something. This is becoming very toxic. This petition is not qua any individual."

All High Courts Equal, Can't Encourage Practice Of Transferring Matters From Other HCs To One HC : Supreme Court

Case Details: Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. Union of India | D No. 30664/2024

The Supreme Court orally expressed that it cannot encourage the practice of transferring petitions from High Courts to one particular High Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the transfer petitions filed by turf clubs seeking to consolidate the petitions pending in High Courts against the levy of Goods and Services Tax to any one High Court.

Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, for the petitioners, submitted that the GST Act has been amended to make horse racing and any supplier of actionable claims liable to tax. Hence, any provider of a platform for actionable claim is deemed to be supplier and made liable to pay duty. He explained that petitions are pending in four High Courts challenging the validity of the GST levy. He requested that the petitions be transferred to one High Court.

Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Lawyers Using AI-Generated Fake Citations

The Supreme Court flagged the issue of lawyers submitting AI-drafted petitions that contain fake case citations.

The exchange happened before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice BV Nagarathna.

"We are alarmed to reflect now- some of the lawyers have started AI to draft. It is absolutely uncalled for," said Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Justice Nagarathna added that she came across a citation "Mercy v. Mankind", which never existed.

Fodder Scam | Supreme Court To Hear CBI's Appeal Against Suspension Of Lalu Prasad Yadav's Sentence On April 22

Case Details – State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav

The Supreme Court will hear in April a batch of appeals against the order of the Jharkhand High Court suspending the sentence of former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and other convicts in the fodder scam case.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh kept the matters for final disposal on April 22, 2026.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted that the case involves a question of law and the High Court violated settled principles governing post-conviction suspension of sentence. He argued that the sentence could not have been suspended and Lalu Yadav and other accused persons were illegally out.

Supreme Court Asks UP DIG To Go Before Hyderabad Forensic Lab For Voice Comparison With Hate Speech Clip

Case Details: Islamuddin Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crl) No. 14997/2025

The Supreme Court directed the Telangana Forensic Sciences Laboratory to submit before it in a sealed cover the report on the forensic analysis of the voice sample and the alleged audio clip of an Uttar Pradesh Police officer who is accused of making anti-Muslim remarks.

The Court directed Uttar Pradesh DIG Sanjeev Tyagi (earlier Superintendent of Police, Bijnor) to be present before the Director, TGFSL, Hyderabad, on 09.03.2026 at 11.00 a.m to give his voice sample.

The Court also allowed petitioner Islamuddin Ansari, whose phone contained the alleged audio clip of Sanjeev Tyagi with the problematic remarks, to be present at the TGFSL on the same day to help the forensic officials in locating the audio clip.

'Classic Case Of Suicidal Hanging' : Supreme Court On Alleged Political Murder During 2018 West Bengal Post-Poll Violence

Case Details: Gaurav Bhatia v. State of West Bengasl | W.P.(Crl.) No. 185/2018

The Supreme Court (February 17) heard a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia as petitioner in person, alleging political murders by the members of the ruling Trinamool Congress in the State of West Bengal after the 2018 Panchayat elections. He has sought an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI). The Court has allowed him to file a rejoinder within two weeks.

The petitioner alleged that three ghastly murders had taken place in West Bengal, and it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by him. The Court had earlier issued notice to the West Bengal State Government and sought their reply. As per their reply, the investigation was transferred to the CID, and a closure report has been filed.

At the outset, Bhatia(now representing the deceased's brother) submitted before a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta: "...what had happened was, a 32-year-old[Dulal Kumar], he was going with his brother.  The brother gives a complaint, after much resistance from the police station, that my brother has been abducted by five or six persons of a particular party, which is the ruling party of the state. And therefore, he registered an FIR. They don't register an FIR, your Lordship. And the next morning, the body was found hanging from a high-tension wire."

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Affidavit On TET Requirement For Special Educators To Secondary Classes

Case Details: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 132/2016

The Supreme Court asked the Union of India to file an affidavit on the requirement for a special educator to qualify the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) in order to teach students of secondary classes (Classes 9 to 12).

The Court further called on all States/Union Territories to ensure compliance within 1 month of its earlier directions regarding pay parity and service conditions of contractual teachers.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, after hearing Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, Amicus Curiae-Rishi Malhotra and Senior Advocates Ramkrishna Viraraghavan and Manish Singhvi.

'We Understand Political Battles' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Quashing Of SC/ST Case Against Telangana CM Revanth Reddy

Case Details: N Peddi Raju v. State of Telangana and Anr. Diary No. 61734-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging theTelangana High Court's judgment which quashed a 2016 case against the present Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that the High Court has rightly quashed the case since no prima facie case was found to proceed against Reddy. The bench orally commented that it appeared to be a case of using the Courts for a "political battle."

The allegation was that upon alleged instigation by Reddy,  other accused broke into the Razole Constituency S.C. Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and vandalised the society property with JCB trucks, and hurled casteist remarks at the complainant N Peddi Raju when he tried to stop the attack.

2007 CRPF Camp Attack Case : Supreme Court To Hear UP Govt's Appeal Against Acquittal Of 4 Death Row Convicts

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @ Anwar @ Ali Etc. Etc., SLP(Crl.) No(S).1206-1209/2026

The Supreme Court is set to consider Uttar Pradesh government's challenge to the acquittal of 4 death row convicts in the 2007 CRPF camp terror attack case. Eight personnel had lost their lives in the said attack.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta granted leave in the four Special Leave Petitions filed by the State in the matter.

By the impugned judgment, the Allahabad High Court had set aside the 2019 death sentence of four men - Mohd Sharif, Imran Shahjad, Mohd Farooq and Sabauddin. The Court had also set aside the life term of another accused-Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba convicted under Section 302 IPC.

NEET-PG 2025 Cut-Off Reduction Made 95,913 More Candidates Eligible, NBEMS Informs Supreme Court

Case Details – Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India and Connected Matters

The National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences told the Supreme Court that it had no role to play in the reduction of the qualifying percentile of the NEET-PG 2025.

In the counter-affidavit filed in response to petitions challenging the lowering of the NEET-PG cut-off, the NBEMS the decision fell within the exclusive domain of the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission ('NMC').

The NBEMS said that its role is limited to conducting the NEET-PG exam, evaluating the results and handling over the results to the NMC. On January 9, 2026, the Ministry informed the NBEMS of the decision to reduce the qualifying percentile for the third round of NEET-PG counselling. In compliance with the Ministry's decision, the NBEMS revised the cut-off and published the revised results on January 13.

Political Leaders Must Foster Fraternity In Country; Elections Must Be Fought On Mutual Respect : Supreme Court

Case Details: Roop Rekha Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 199/2026

The Supreme Court orally observed that political parties must foster fraternity in the country, and that all political parties must follow constitutional morality and fight elections on the basis of mutual respect.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by nine individuals seeking guidelines to prevent 'Constitutionally unbecoming' speech by persons who hold Constitutional offices. The petition was filed in the wake of speeches of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and a video posted by BJP Assam which sparked controversies after they were precieved as targeting a specific community.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioners, submitted, "We need to do something. Only your lordships can do something. This is becoming very toxic. This petition is not qua any individual."

All High Courts Equal, Can't Encourage Practice Of Transferring Matters From Other HCs To One HC : Supreme Court

Case Details: Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. Union of India | D No. 30664/2024

The Supreme Court orally expressed that it cannot encourage the practice of transferring petitions from High Courts to one particular High Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the transfer petitions filed by turf clubs seeking to consolidate the petitions pending in High Courts against the levy of Goods and Services Tax to any one High Court.

Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, for the petitioners, submitted that the GST Act has been amended to make horse racing and any supplier of actionable claims liable to tax. Hence, any provider of a platform for actionable claim is deemed to be supplier and made liable to pay duty. He explained that petitions are pending in four High Courts challenging the validity of the GST levy. He requested that the petitions be transferred to one High Court.

Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Lawyers Using AI-Generated Fake Citations

The Supreme Court flagged the issue of lawyers submitting AI-drafted petitions that contain fake case citations.

The exchange happened before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice BV Nagarathna.

"We are alarmed to reflect now- some of the lawyers have started AI to draft. It is absolutely uncalled for," said Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Justice Nagarathna added that she came across a citation "Mercy v. Mankind", which never existed.

Fodder Scam | Supreme Court To Hear CBI's Appeal Against Suspension Of Lalu Prasad Yadav's Sentence On April 22

Case Details – State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav

The Supreme Court will hear in April a batch of appeals against the order of the Jharkhand High Court suspending the sentence of former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and other convicts in the fodder scam case.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh kept the matters for final disposal on April 22, 2026.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted that the case involves a question of law and the High Court violated settled principles governing post-conviction suspension of sentence. He argued that the sentence could not have been suspended and Lalu Yadav and other accused persons were illegally out.

Supreme Court Asks UP DIG To Go Before Hyderabad Forensic Lab For Voice Comparison With Hate Speech Clip

Case Details: Islamuddin Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crl) No. 14997/2025

The Supreme Court directed the Telangana Forensic Sciences Laboratory to submit before it in a sealed cover the report on the forensic analysis of the voice sample and the alleged audio clip of an Uttar Pradesh Police officer who is accused of making anti-Muslim remarks.

The Court directed Uttar Pradesh DIG Sanjeev Tyagi (earlier Superintendent of Police, Bijnor) to be present before the Director, TGFSL, Hyderabad, on 09.03.2026 at 11.00 a.m to give his voice sample.

The Court also allowed petitioner Islamuddin Ansari, whose phone contained the alleged audio clip of Sanjeev Tyagi with the problematic remarks, to be present at the TGFSL on the same day to help the forensic officials in locating the audio clip.

'Classic Case Of Suicidal Hanging' : Supreme Court On Alleged Political Murder During 2018 West Bengal Post-Poll Violence

Case Details: Gaurav Bhatia v. State of West Bengasl | W.P.(Crl.) No. 185/2018

The Supreme Court (February 17) heard a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia as petitioner in person, alleging political murders by the members of the ruling Trinamool Congress in the State of West Bengal after the 2018 Panchayat elections. He has sought an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI). The Court has allowed him to file a rejoinder within two weeks.

The petitioner alleged that three ghastly murders had taken place in West Bengal, and it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by him. The Court had earlier issued notice to the West Bengal State Government and sought their reply. As per their reply, the investigation was transferred to the CID, and a closure report has been filed.

At the outset, Bhatia(now representing the deceased's brother) submitted before a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta: "...what had happened was, a 32-year-old[Dulal Kumar], he was going with his brother.  The brother gives a complaint, after much resistance from the police station, that my brother has been abducted by five or six persons of a particular party, which is the ruling party of the state. And therefore, he registered an FIR. They don't register an FIR, your Lordship. And the next morning, the body was found hanging from a high-tension wire."

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Affidavit On TET Requirement For Special Educators To Secondary Classes

Case Details: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 132/2016

The Supreme Court asked the Union of India to file an affidavit on the requirement for a special educator to qualify the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) in order to teach students of secondary classes (Classes 9 to 12).

The Court further called on all States/Union Territories to ensure compliance within 1 month of its earlier directions regarding pay parity and service conditions of contractual teachers.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, after hearing Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, Amicus Curiae-Rishi Malhotra and Senior Advocates Ramkrishna Viraraghavan and Manish Singhvi.

No Conversion Angle In Suicide Of Tamil Nadu School Girl In 2022 : CBI Informs Supreme Court

Case Details: Director General of Police v. Muruganantham | SLP(Crl) No.1053-1056/2022 | Crl Appeal 5011/2025

The Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted before the Supreme Court the chargesheet filed by it in the case relating to the suicide of a school girl at a Christian missionary-run school in Thanjavur District in Tamil Nadu in 2022.

The death of the girl had hit the headlines nationwide following allegations that she resorted to suicide following pressure from the school to convert to Christianity. However, the CBI's chargesheet found no evidence to establish the allegations of forceful conversion bid.

"Allegation pertaining to the attempt of conversion by the Convent Sisters and Teachers of Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Michaelpatti, could not be established," the chargesheet filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchirappali, in December 2023, stated.

'ED Has Been Weaponised', 'No, ED Was Terrorised' : Exchange In Supreme Court Plea Against Mamata Banerjee

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., W.P. (Crl.) No. 16/2026

In ED's case against West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and others over the IPAC office search, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted before the Supreme Court that the agency has been "terrorized".

The remark was a response to a submission by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra that the agency must justify its "weaponization". "It [ED] has not been weaponized, it has been terrorized", said the ASG.

The Court posted the case to March 18.

Anjel Chakma Murder : Supreme Court Asks Attorney General To Examine Plea Seeking Guidelines Against Racial Violence

Case Details: Anoop Prakash Awasthi v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 2/2026

The Supreme Court disposed of a public interest litigation seeking guidelines to curb identity-based and racial violence against persons from the North-East, requesting the Attorney General for India to examine the issues raised.

The plea was filed in the wake of the alleged racially motivated murder of Tripura youth Anjel Chakma in Uttarakhand last December. The petitioner, Advocate Anoop Prakash Awasth, who appeared in person, highlighted incidents of racial discrimination and group-based violence faced by individuals from the North-Eastern states.

Before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, the petitioner pressed the relief seeking a nodal agency in States to deal with grievances regarding identity-based discrimination.

Supreme Court Restrains Exhumation Of Tribal Christians' Dead Bodies In Chhattisgarh For Re-Burial Away From Their Villages

Case Details: Chhattisgarh Association For Justice and Equality and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, Diary No. 54722-2025

The Supreme Court passed an interim order restraining forcible exhumation and re-location of tribal Christians' dead bodies away from their village grounds in Chhattisgarh.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria passed the order, while issuing notice on a public interest litigation assailing the forcible exhumation and re-location of tribal Christians' dead bodies in the state.

"In the meantime, it is provided that no further exhumation of buried bodies shall be permitted", the bench ordered, after Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, for petitioners, pressed for interim relief while alleging that the State was supporting the removal of the corpses.

Rs 1270 Crores Contracts Given To Arunachal CM's Kin, Alleges Petitioner Seeking Probe; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Details: Save Mon Region Federation and Anr v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 54/2024

The Supreme Court on February 17 reserved judgment in a public interest litigation seeking a probe by a Special Investigation Team(SIT) into the alleged irregular allotment of public contracts to companies owned by relatives of Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu.

The petitioners have alleged that contracts and tenders of the State have been awarded to firms associated with the Chief Minister, his spouse, mother, and nephew.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta reserved the judgment after brief arguments by Advocate Prashant Bhushan. Bhushan referred  argued that in the last 11 years, contracts have been awarded to 'Brand Eagles' owned by the Chief Minister's wife and 'Frontier Associates' owned by the Chief Minister himself. As per the petitioners' claims, around 15 firms are closely associated with the CM and need to be investigated. He argued that all this reeks of corruption and should be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case : Supreme Court To Hear Khalid Saifi's Bail Plea, Rejects Claim For Parity With Co-Accused Given Bail

Case Details: Abdul Khalid Saifi @ Khalid Saifi v. State (NCT of Delhi) | Diary No. 7493 / 2026

The Supreme Court (February 18) issued notice in a plea filed by United Against Hate member Khalid Saifi, challenging the denial of bail by the Delhi High Court in connection with a case of a larger conspiracy into the Delhi riots of 2020, involving charges under the Indian Penal Code and UAPA.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale however orally said that Saifi cannot claim parity with the Supreme Court's January judgment which granted bail to five co-accused.

Saifi has come against the September 2, 2025, order of the Delhi High Court denying bail to him. In January, the Supreme Court granted bail to five other accused in the case, while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

Cricketer Md Shami's Wife Approaches Supreme Court To Transfer DV Act, Maintenance Cases From Kolkata To Delhi

Case Details:

The Supreme Court issued notice on pleas filed by cricketer Mohammed Shami's wife seeking transfer from Kolkata to Delhi of the cases filed by her under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the CrPC.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan passed the order.

To recap, the petitioner, Hasin Jahan, married Md. Shami on 7 April 2014 in accordance with Islamic rituals and customs. A daughter was born to the couple on 17 July 2015.

Allowing Famous Person Like Elvish Yadav To Use A Voiceless Victim Gives Bad Message : Supreme Court In Snake Venom Case

Case Details – Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth v. State of Up and Anr.

The Supreme Court said it will examine whether there is adequate material to implicate YouTuber Elvish Yadav in the snake venom case under the Wildlife Protection Act, observing that it gives a very bad message that a popular person used a voiceless snake for publicity.

“There are 2 things we will consider. What is your role and is there anything to implicate you on the alleged offence. At the same time, we have to see what is the action that is required to be taken under the Wildlife Protection Act. We could have disposed even today itself. It will send a very bad message outside if a person like you know who is otherwise a person who is popular is allowed to use a hapless victim which is voiceless. It gives a very, very bad message”

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing Yadav's plea challenging the Allahabad High Court's order dated May 12, 2025, which had dismissed his petition against the chargesheet and summoning order issued in a case under various provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, IPC, and NDPS Act.

Supreme Court Asks 'Baba Khatarnak' To Approach Authorities With Plea To Protect Ganga From Sewage

Case Details: Badaravada Venugopal @ Baba Khatarnak v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S).171/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to curb the sewage waste disposal into the Ganga River and around Manikarnika Ghat. The court has allowed the petitioner to approach the authorities or the High Court.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the writ petition filed by a monk named 'Baba Khatarnak' who appeared in person.

The main grievance of the petitioner was related to the real-time discharge of untreated raw human excreta and sewage, resulting in sanitation failure within Manikarnika Kshetra, Manikarnika Tīrtha, Manikarnika Mahāśmaśāna, and the adjoining reaches of the River Ganga.

Anil Ambani Files Affidavit In Supreme Court, Undertakes Not To Leave India & To Cooperate With ED-CBI Probe

Case Details: Eas Sarma v. Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025

Industrialist Anil Ambani has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court undertaking that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court and will fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement and the Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with the Anil Dhirubai Ambani Group companies.

The affidavit has been filed in response to the writ petition filed by EAS Sarma seeking a Court-monitored investigation into the alleged loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by ADAG companies.

In his affidavit, Ambani adopted the undertaking given on his behalf by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi to the Court on February 4.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Filmmaker Vikram Bhatt & Wife In Cheating Case Over Movie Deal, Sends Parties To Mediation

Case Details: Shwetambari Bhatt and Another v. State of Rajasthan | SLP(Crl) 2647/2026

The Supreme Court granted bail to film director Vikram Bhatt and his wife Shwetambari Bhatt in an alleged multi-crore cheating case over a dispute regarding the making of the biopic of the late wife of Ajay Murdia, owner of Indira IVF.

Bhatt and his wife were arrested from Mumbai by the Rajasthan Police last December and were lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail. Last week, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to Shwetambari Bhatt.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi set aside the Rajasthan High Court's order which denied bail to the Bhatts. Granting them regular bail, the bench said that it expected the parties to make earnest efforts to settle the dispute through mediation.

'Why Cash Transfer Schemes Just Before Elections?' Supreme Court Slams 'Freebies' Culture, Says Nation Building Hampered

Case Details:Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 158/2026

The Supreme Court made oral comments deprecating the trend of various State Governments announcing 'freebies' just ahead of elections.

The Court wondered how long this trend will go, and said that it would hamper the long term economic development of the country. The Court said that indiscriminately doling out State benefits to persons, without drawing any distinction between those who can afford and those who cannot, is nothing but appeasement, which is not conducive to the economic development of the country.

The Court said that it is aware of what happened in some states in the elections, where welfare schemes were suddenly announced just ahead of the elections. If direct cash transfer schemes are announced, will people work anymore, the Court asked.

Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Halting TN Waqf Board's Functioning For Not Including 2 Non-Muslims & 2 Other Members

Case Details – Tamil Nadu Waqf Board v. State of Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court (February 19) stayed the order of the Madras High Court which halted the functioning of the Tamil Nadu State Waqf Board on the ground that the mandate of including two non-Muslim members, nominating a Bar Council member, and a person with professional experience was not followed.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the interim order while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the TN Waqf Board against the Madras High Court's order.

The Supreme Court asked the Board to place before it a proposal for the constitution of the Board.

Can't Say Mamata Banerjee Took Away Only TMC's Confidential Files Amidst I-PAC Raid : ED Tells Supreme Court

In its pleaassailing West Bengal authorities' interference with its raid at IPAC office, the Enforcement Directorate has filed a rejoinder affidavit opposing West Bengal government's claim that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee took away material from the search premises without the agency's objection.

The affidavit further says that once the material were taken away from the premises being searched, it was difficult to determine whether the material taken away was only confidential material of Trinamool Congress or also pertained to the offence being investigated by ED.

On maintainability of its writ petition, the ED has said that its petition canvasses the fundamental rights of 2 categories of persons - (i) the general public (having fundamental right to public order and rule of law) and (ii) officers and functionaries of ED (having fundamental right to personal liberty and to move freely in discharge of their duties).

Supreme Court To Start Hearing Petitions Challenging Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 From May 5

Case Details: Indian Union of Muslim League v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1470/2019 and Connected Cases.

The Supreme Court on Thurdsay posted the petitions challenging the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 for hearing in the week commencing on May 5, 2026.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi were considering the petitions for procedural directions. The matter was last listed nearly two years ago, on March 19, 2024.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising requested that the petitions relating to Assam and the other North-Eastern states be considered separately, since there are issues arising out of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act and the interline permit. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed that as per the order passed in January 2020, the matters related to Assam and Tripura are to be separately categorised from the other matters.

Supreme Court Orders Inquiry Into Missing Record Of Proceedings From Case Paperbook; Notes There's A 'Trend'

Case Details: State of Goa Through Chief Secretary and Ors. v. Goa Foundation and Ors., SLP(C) No. 20683/2023

The Supreme Court ordered its Secretary General to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the issue of missing Record of Proceedings/Order Sheets from case paperbooks.

"This has become common everyday that we find all material ROPs from the paperbooks are missing. A trend which is being followed by the Registry. It seems to be a deliberate attempt for some obvious reasons. In the case at hand also, the order dated 8 September 2025 is the one which gives way forward but the same is conspicuously missing", noted a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi.

The bench directed the Secretary General to hold a fact finding inquiry and submit a report to the CJI on administrative side. The development came while the bench was dealing with a case pertaining to the proposed Goa Tiger Reserve.

'Infructuous': Supreme Court Disposes Of Plea Seeking SIR In Assam Instead Of Special Revision Of Electoral Rolls

Case Details: Mrinal Kumar Choudhury v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1191/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of as infructuous a writ petition challenging ECI's decision to conduct a “Special Revision” of electoral rolls in Assam instead of a “Special Intensive Revision” ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria (for petitioner) and Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu (for ECI).

During the hearing, Hansaria argued that the only reason given by ECI for not conducting SIR in Assam is that there is NRC (National Register of Citizens) in the state, which is being monitored by the Supreme Court. However, there is no case pending as such. Naidu, on the other hand, informed that the exercise of revision of the voter list in Assam is already complete and therefore the case has been rendered infructuous.

'Law Will Take Its Course If Anybody Tries To Mess With Court' : CJI On Rajasthan MLA Questioning SC Order

The Chief Justice of India took serious objection to a Rajasthan MLA criticising in the Legislative Assembly the order granting interim bail to filmmaker Vikram Bhatt's wife.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant warned that the "law will take its own course if anybody tries to mess with the Court." The CJI added that merely because somebody is speaking in the Assembly, it cannot be assumed that they won't face any consequence.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the petition of Vikram Bhatt and Shwetambari Bhatti seeking bail in a cheating case. After the bench dictated theorder granting them bail, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, for the petitioners, told the bench about the comments made in the Rajasthan assemblyabout the interim bail granted to Vikram Bhatt's wife last week.

Sonam Wangchuk Was Only Shown Thumbnails Of Folders, Never Got Chance To Watch Videos : Sibal Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued in the Supreme Court that Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk was only shown the thumbnail of the folders containing the materials on which his detention is based.

It may be recalled that the Union Government had submitted that Wangchuk is lying to the Court that he has not been furnished the materials on which the detention is based, particularly four videos containing his alleged inciteful speeches. It was told that the DIG had gone to meet Wangchuk and shown him the contents of the detention order and the materials relied upon by the detaining authority, and this whole exercise was videographed.

Responding to this, Sibal pointed out that this is the first time the other side has argued that there is a video of the DIG furnishing the materials to Wangchuk. Secondly, he denied that Wangchuk was shown the contents of those videos. In arguendo, he stated that the law requires that those materials be supplied to him. Showing him the contents is not enough.

Supreme Court Allows Open Court Hearing Of Review Petitions Against 3-Year Practice Rule For Judicial Service

Case Details: Chandrasen Yadav v. Union of India and Others | Diary No(S).33086/2025

The Supreme Court has allowed an open court hearing of the review petitions challenging its judgmentmandating a minimum of three years' practice at the Bar for entry-level posts in the judicial service.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the order on February 10 permitting the review petitions to be heard in open court.

Ordinarily, review petitions in the Supreme Court are decided in chambers without oral arguments. Open court hearings in review proceedings are allowed only in exceptional circumstances.

'No Justification In Barring Bar Association Officer Bearers From Bar Council Elections' : Supreme Court Asks BCI To Reconsider Rule

Case Details – Dhanya Kumar Jain v. Bar Council of India

The Supreme Court directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider its rule which bars office bearers of Bar Associations from contesting elections to State Bar Councils.

With this direction, a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi disposed of a writ petition challenging Chapter III of the Bar Council of India Uniform Rules (and Mandatory Guidelines) for the Elections of Bar Councils, 2016.

The impugned provision states that an advocate who is an office-bearer of any Bar Association, except the Supreme Court Bar Association, shall not be eligible to contest the election of a State Bar Council. It further provides that the Returning Officer shall reject the nomination papers of any such person who was or is an office-bearer of any Bar Association on the date of notification of elections of the concerned State Bar Council.

Supreme Court Relaxes Waiting Period To Reapply Senior Advocate Designation After Rejection/Deferment

The Supreme Court has relaxed certain conditions under the'Guidelines for Designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India, 2026', allowing advocates who were earlier unsuccessful or whose cases were deferred to reapply within a shorter timeframe.

Subsequently,considering representations made by the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, the Full Court, at its meeting held on February 19, 2026, resolved to grant a one-time relaxation of specific provisions of the 2026 Guidelines.

The relaxation pertains to paragraphs 9(iv), 21 and 22 of the Guidelines, which prescribe the eligibility conditions and cooling-off periods for reapplication.

Supreme Court Seeks Inputs In Suo Motu Case For Strengthening Bar Associations

Case Details: Re: Strengthening and Enhancing The Institutional Strength of Bar Associations v. The Registrar General & Ors.

The Supreme Court of India on February 11, 2026, directed stakeholders to place before it agreed terms of reference in the suo motu proceedings titled Re: Strengthening and Enhancing the Institutional Strength of Bar Associations, which were initiated by a coordinate bench in July 2024.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order after hearing senior advocates, representatives of bar bodies and the amicus curiae.

Background

'Cruelty Of The Highest Order': Supreme Court Raps Husband For Depriving Wife Access To 6-Month Old Twins

In a matrimonial dispute, the Supreme Court came down heavily on a man for depriving his wife access to their 6-month old twins and driving her out of the house.

"Cruelty of the highest order. Could the father take care of just born twins? She did not walk away - she was turned out of the house! The husband has acted extremely cruelly. Children aged 6 months deprived of the custody of the mother, sorry! Absolutely unacceptable. Big no. She has been turned out of the house. She is running here and there to get custody of her own children. That's the travesty" said Justice Sandeep Mehta.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter and called for the parties to appear in chamber on the next date, alongwith the children.

Supreme Court To Examine TN Power DisCom's Challenge Against Electricity Rule Mandating That Tariff Should Reflect Cost

Case Details – Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition filed by Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited challenging Rule 23 of the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi questioned State of Tamil Nadu's policy of absorbing electricity distribution losses.

The Court asked counsel for the parties to assist it in understanding the fiscal policy of other states regarding losses incurred in power distribution. “We are issuing notice. We would like you to help us in understanding that what is the fiscal policy of other states about this power distribution”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Ban Building Babri Masjids Or Any Mosque In Babur's Name

Case Details: Devkinandan @ Devki Nandan Pandey v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 63/2026

The Supreme Court rejected a public interest litigation seeking a nationwide restraint on the construction of, or naming of, any mosque or other religious structure after Babur or “Babri Masjid”.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta declined to entertain the plea.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that no mosque should be constructed or named after Babur, describing him as an “invader”. It was also submitted that Babur had referred to Hindus as slaves and that action ought to be taken against persons allegedly engaging in such activities.

'Police-Politician Nexus' : Supreme Court Raps Andhra Police For Lax Probe In Murder Case Against YSRCP MLC Udaya Bhaskar

Case Details: Anantha Satya Udaya Bhaskara Rao Anantha Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh | Crl.A. No. 2260/2022

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Andhra Pradesh police for its lethargic investigation in the 2022 murder case against YSRCP MLC Ananta Satya Udaya Bhaskar, terming that the police "were hobnobbing with the accused" and had made "all efforts to offer default bail to him on a platter."

The Court expressed serious disappointment over the fact that the investigation in the case has not so far been completed. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was considering the appeal filed by Bhaskar in 2022 seeking bail. In December 2022, the Supreme Court had granted him interim bail, and he has been enjoying it since then.

The bench pulled up the State Police for the manner in which the investigation was being carried out, saying that there was "complete connivance" by the investigating officers with the accused.

Increasing Green Cover Effective Solution For Delhi's Poor AQI, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court orally commented that planting of more trees can improve the Air Quality Index of Delhi-National Capital Region.

The Court made this observation while passing an order in relation to the constitution of the expert committee to oversee the afforestation program to compensate for the tree felling in Delhi's ridge.

Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, the amicus curiae in the case, mentioned the matter before the bench led by the Chief Justice of India, for the replacement of the expert committee member Mr.Ishwar Singh, who was appointed as a member of the National Green Tribunal. Kumar suggested two names, out of whom chose Mr MD Sinha, retired Indian Forest Service officer.

'Only To Embarrass State Govt Before Elections' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Flex Boards In Kerala

Case Details: Human Rights Foundations v. State of Kerala | D No. 57646/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking the regulation of the use of PVC flex boards in the State of Kerala. During the hearing, the Court orally commented that the petition seemed to be a "political battle" and the prayers sought seemed to "embarrass the State Government before the elections."

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi however granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies, including intervening in the other proceedings in the High Court in relation to flex boards.

The petition was filed by an NGO, Human Rights Foundation, challenging the High Court's refusal to entertain the petition seeking to address the issue of pollution caused by plastic products, particularly PVC flex boards.

AR Rahman Agrees In Supreme Court To Acknowledge Dagar Brothers' 'Shiv Stuti' Performance In 'Veera Raja' Song

Case Details: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 4742/2026

Music composer AR Rahman agreed before the Supreme Court to acknowledge the 'Shiva Stuti' performance of the Junior Dagar brothers in the 'Veera Raja Veera' song of Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan II.

Rahman and the makers of the film agreed to add the following line in the credits of the song :

"Composition inspired from the Dagarwani tradition Dhrupad, first recorded as 'Shiv Stuti' by late Ustad Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar and Ustad Nasir Zahiruddin Dagar, popularly known as Junior Dagar brothers. "

WB SIR : 'Trust Deficit' Between Bengal Govt & ECI Forces Supreme Court To Appoint Judicial Officers For SIR Duty

Given the "trust deficit" between the West Bengal Government and the Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court directed the appointment of judicial officers for the adjudication of claims and objections in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in the State.

The judicial officers are to perform the function of the Electoral Register Officers (ERO) in the process. The Court took this step in view of the dispute as to whether sufficient Group B officers in the rank of SDM have been provided by the State to the ECI to function as EROs. The State, on its part, objected to the ECI relying on the micro-observers and special roll observers appointed by it.

In the order, the bench observed that there was "an unfortunate blame game" and "allegations and counter-allegations", which indicated a "trust deficit between two Constitutional bodies, namely the democratically elected State Government and the Election Commission of India"

Supreme Court Asks Registry Not To Accept Petitions Relating To Bar Council Elections

Case Details: Shailaja Dhondiram Chavan v. Bar Council of India WP (C)203/2026 and Connected Matters

The Supreme Court expressly directed its Registry not to entertain any petitions relating to the ongoing State Bar Council Elections. The Court has asked all the aggrieved candidates or stakeholders to approach the High Powered Committee (HPC) headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing a writ petition challenging a communication issued by the Bar Council of India, mandating the adoption of a “single ballot system” for forthcoming Maharashtra Bar Council elections.

The petitioner also sought a direction that women candidates contesting under the reserved category should not be disadvantaged by any mid-process change in the ballot system that weakens the structural safeguards provided for their representation.

Delhi Ridge | Supreme Court Allows Felling Of 152 Trees, Diversion Of 2.97Ha Forest Land To Widen Road For Paramilitary Hospital

Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda and Ors., MA 1652/2025

In the Delhi Ridge tree felling contempt case, the Supreme Court yesterday permitted diversion of 2.97 hectares of forest land for construction of a road needed for "better operationalization" of the CAPFIMS paramilitary hospital.

It further granted permission for felling of 152 trees for the road widening project, while stipulating that atleast 5 times more saplings shall be planted as compensatory afforestation measure.

The Court also allowed translocation of 2519 saplings under direct supervision of the Expert Committee and at the instance of DDA. "Taking notice of the fact that mortality rate goes high in the case of translocation of saplings, the Expert Committee shall keep in mind as to how many additional saplings are required to be planted to ensure that eventually the morality rate remains zero", it added.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Bombay HC View That Magistrate Can't Order Takedown Of Online Content Under S. 69 IT Act

Case Details – Dhyan Foundation v. Google Llc & Anr.

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea against the Bombay High Court's prima facie observation that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct removal or blocking of online content under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

The High Court had made this observation while refusing to set aside revision proceedings initiated by Google in sessions court against a magistrate order directing it to remove alleged defamatory content against the petitioner.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi upheld the High Court order but clarified that the said observation will not affect any civil remedies the petitioner may want to seek.

Supreme Court Asks Madhya Pradesh High Court To Decide Challenge To 27% OBC Quota In 3 Months

Case Details: Yogesh Kumar Thakur v. Guru Ghasidas Sahitya Avam Sanskriti Academy and Ors | Civil Appeal No(S). 11442-11443/2025 and Other Connected Matters

The Supreme Court remanded a batch of appeals challenging the Madhya Pradesh Government's 27% reservation for the Other Backwards Classes(OBC) to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The petitions challenge the 2019 Act which raised the reservation for OBCs in services to 27% from 14%.

Since Scheduled Castes have 16% and Scheduled Tribes have 20% reservation in MP, raising the OBC reservation to 27% will take the reservation beyond the 50% ceiling. Along with the 10% EWS Quota, the total reservation will then become 73%.

Amicus Urges Supreme Court To Revise Draft Criminal Practice Rules In Light Of BNSS, BSA Changes

In the long-pending suo motu matter concerning deficiencies in criminal trials, the Supreme Court is set to consider a comprehensive compilation filed by Amicus Curiae Sidharth Luthra, seeking adoption of revised Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2026, in supersession of the 2021 framework.

The suo motu case, titled In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials, led to the 2021 judgment, where the Court framed Draft Rules of Criminal Practice and directed States and High Courts to implement them within six months.

With the coming into force of the new criminal codes, namely the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the amicus has urged the Court to recalibrate the 2021 Rules to align them with the new procedural and evidentiary architecture, particularly the technology-driven provisions introduced under the BNSS and BSA.

After Supreme Court's Criticism, UP Police Agree To Add Hate Crime Offences In Case Of Attack On Muslim Cleric

Case Details: Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 391/2021

After Supreme Court's critical observations in the case, the Uttar Pradesh Police has agreed to investigate hate crime offenses in the matter of Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, a Noida-based Muslim cleric, stated to have been attacked in 2021 by a group over his religious identity.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was informed of the development by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj.

Pursuant to the last hearing, the ASG conceded before the Court that on a perusal of the allegations in the complaint, necessary ingredients of Sections 153B and 295A of IPC were made out and the FIR in 2023 ought to have invoked the same. However, he added, as the chargesheet has already been filed, the Investigating Officer would be better advised to move the trial court for return of the original file so that further investigation can be made invoking the Sections 153B and 295A.

Supreme Court Dismisses Uttarakhand Forest Officer's Plea Against Prosecution Sanction In Corbett Park Tree Felling Case

Case Details: Rahul v. State of Uttarakhand | W.P.(Crl.) No. 62/2026

The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed a writ petition filed by an Indian Forest Officer serving in Uttarakhand, named Rahul, challenging the sanction granted for prosecuting him in the case related to illegal razing of trees in the Corbett Tiger Reserve.

The case is being investigated by the CBI under the Court's monitoring.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

Law Firms Generating Unnecessary Litigation By Drafting Confusing Arbitration Clauses Is Professional Misconduct : Supreme Court

Case Details – Himadri Speciality Chemicals Limited v. Jindal Coke Limited

The Supreme Court last week (February 20) strongly criticised law firms for drafting “confusing” arbitration clauses that generate avoidable litigation in courts which are already overburdened, and remarked that this practice amounts to professional misconduct.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a plea raising the issue of conflict between a jurisdiction clause and an arbitration clause in the same agreement.

“These are all deliberately, mischievously, designed kind of clauses. These law firms and the offices have started doing it. Why can't you simplify the clause when you enter into agreement that arbitration proceedings will be conducted at so and so place, in the event of dispute arising out of arbitration proceedings, so and so court will adjudicate it? One line you can resolve but deliberately with the youngsters sitting in so and so law firm they all... this is absurd. To my mind this is professional misconduct, misguiding your party. Creating, generating litigation is part of a serious professional misconduct on the part of the law professionals, those who indulge in this”, Justice Kant said.

Supreme Court Disposes Plea Against Netflix Film 'Ghooskhor Pandat' After Director Agrees To Change Name

Case Details: Atul Mishra v. Union of India

The Supreme Court disposed of a petition filed against the Netflix movie 'Ghooskhor Pandat' after its director, Neeraj Pandey, informed by way of an affidavit that the objectionable title will be changed.

The director further stated that the new title has not been finalised yet. The petition was filed on the ground that the film's title was derogatory towards the entire Brahmin community.

The Court had also expressed its reservationswith the film's title, asking why should a section of society be denigrated. The bench had asked the director to inform the stance on the new title.

Supreme Court Asks MHA Committee To Meet Once In 3 Months To Address Issues Faced By People From North East

Case Details: Alana Golmei v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 53/2015

The Supreme Court asked the Monitoring Committee, set up to address the issues of racial discrimination and other grievances faced by the North-Eastern community, to meet at least once in three months. It has also asked the committee to take cognisance of all issues, including those reported in any newspaper.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the order on February 17, in a 2015 writ petition seeking intervention of the Union Government for the protection of persons from the Northeast residing in various parts of the country, who have been subjected to racial attacks and insults. It sought the framing of guidelines for the safety and security of the Northeast community.

"In that regard, the Committee must take note of any newspaper report(s) relating to any issue or if a member of the Committee brings it to the notice of the Chairman of the Committee, and a meeting should immediately be called for to address the issue and take corrective measures, if necessary."

NEET-PG Cut Off Reduction Won't Affect Doctors' Competence As They Already Qualified MBBS : Centre To Supreme Court

Case Details – Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India and Connected Matters

Defending the cutoff reduction for NEET PG 2025, the Centre has submitted before the Supreme Court that NEET-PG does not certify minimum competence, which is established by the MBBS qualification, but is merely a filtering mechanism for allocation of limited postgraduate seats.

“NEET-PG is not to certify minimum competence which stands established by the MBBS qualification itself of the candidates but to generate an inter se merit list for allocation of limited postgraduate seats. The NEET PG scores are a function of relative performance and examination design which cannot be construed as determinative of clinical incompetence”, the affidavit filed by Union of India states.

Addressing concerns of patient safety, the affidavit states that during postgraduate training, candidates function under constant supervision of senior faculty and specialists, and final competence is assessed at the exit level through MD/MS examinations.

'Don't Misbehave In My Court, You've Seen Me In Chandigarh' : CJI Surya Kant Warns Advocate

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant rebuked Advocate Mathews Nedumpara for making reckless submissions and warned him that strict action will be taken if "he continued to misbehave."

During the mentioning round, Nedumpara mentioned a petition filed challenging the collegium system and seeking the restoration of the National Judicial Appointments Commission.

CJI Surya Kant said that there was no petition in the Registry. What Nedumpara said next displeased the bench. He said that when "Constitution Benches are being formed for Adani and Ambani, matters affecting the common man are not being heard."

Tirpuati Laddu : Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With AP Govt's One-Man Committee Inquiry Over Ghee Adulteration

Case Details Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh | WP(C) 234/2026

The Supreme Court (February 23) refused to restrain the one-man committee inquiry initiated by the Andhra Pradesh Government into the alleged lapses in relation to the adulteration of the ghee used in the Tirupati temple laddu.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymayla Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, who contended that the State's parallel inquiry will affect the criminal investigation being handled by the Special Investigation Team formed by the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, submitted that after the SIT investigation, the State has constituted a one-man committee, which will undermine the SIT investigation. Rao reminded the bench that previously, the Supreme Court had reprimanded the Chief Minister for making premature statements even when the matter was under investigation.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking OBC Reservation For Pasmanda Muslims

Case Details: Mohd. Waseem Saifi v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 230/2026

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking that 'Pasmanda Muslims' should be given reservations under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) Category.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi briefly considered the PIL, filed by one Mohd Waseem Saifi seeking 10% reservation for Pasmanda Muslims by sub-categorizing the OBCs in terms of the Ranganath Misra Commission report.

The CJI at the outset asked, "What about the other Muslim OBCs? ....OBC is not only a social status factor, but an economic  factor is also there."

Can FIR Be Quashed Partially Based On Compromise With Some Accused? Supreme Court Appoints Amicus To Consider

Case Details: Puneet Kumar @ Punit Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr | Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 17731/2024

The Supreme Court appointed Senior Advocate K Parameshwar as an Amicus Curiae to deliberate on the issue of whether a criminal case can be quashed as against one of the many accused under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS on the basis of a compromise arrived at by the parties.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh passed the order in a case where the informant and the accused had arrived at a compromise and sought partial quashing of the first information report as against him.

The FIR is lodged under Sections 120B, 380(theft in dwelling house), 411(receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had first approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

NEET-PG | 'Concerned About Adverse Effect On Quality' : Supreme Court To Examine NEET-PG 2025 Cut-Off Reduction

Case Details – Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India and Connected Matters

The Supreme Court said it would examine whether the sharp reduction in the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025-26 affects standards in postgraduate medical education.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing pleas challenging reduction in the percentile cut-off.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati referred to thereasoning set out in the Centre's affidavit and submitted that the decision was taken in view of vacancies. She added that the examination does not certify minimum clinical competence since candidates have already obtained MBBS degrees, and NEET-PG is meant to compare and filter out candidates in view of limited seats.

Moratorium On Starting New Law Colleges Withdrawn : BCI Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Jatin Sharma v. Bar Council of India & Ors. | WP(C) No. 799/2025

The Bar Council of India informed the Supreme Court that it has withdrawn the moratorium on the starting of new law colleges.

BCI's counsel, Advocate Radhika Gautam, informed about the decision to a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta during the hearing of a writ petition filed by Vocational Education Foundation Society challenging the 2025 notification which imposed a 3-year moratorium on the start of new law colleges.

Recording this submission, the bench disposed of the petition allowing the petitioner to apply for 2025-26 session. Advocate Vivek Jain represented the petitioner.

TP Chandrashekharan Murder Case : Supreme Court Suspends Geothi Babu's Sentence

Case Details: Geothi Babu v. State of Kerala | Crl.A. No. 2761-2762/2024

The Supreme Court suspended the sentence of Geothi Babu in the TP Chandrashekharan murder case from Kerala.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed bail to him. The bench also prima facie observed that the evidence against him appeared to be weak.

Earlier, the Court had called for a report from the Kannur medical college on the health of the 65-year-old convict.

Supreme Court Asks Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board To Halt Selection Process For Guruvayur Devaswom Posts

Case Details: Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board v. Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and Ors., SLP(C) No. 3789/2026

The Supreme Court orally asked the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board to halt the selection process for Guruvayur temple Devaswom posts.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta impressed the same upon the Board's counsels, who then agreed to advise the Board accordingly.

"Senior Advocate V Giri, for petitioner(KDRB), on instructions of the AoR, states that he would advise his clients not to proceed with the selection process. List on March 10 for final disposal. All intervenors shall be heard on the said date", the bench recorded.

Sabarimala Gold Theft Case : Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Former Devaswom Secretary S Jayasree

Supreme Court of India Grants Anticipatory Bail to S. Jayashree in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case

The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to former Devaswom Board Secretary S. Jayashree, the fourth accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case. She is the only accused in the case to have been granted anticipatory bail thus far.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on February 20.

Supreme Court To Re-Caption 40-Year-Old MC Mehta Cases To Avoid Impression Of Long Pendency

Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 13381/1984

The Supreme Court proposed to re-caption the MC Mehta cases, which have been pending since 1984-85. Although the grievances raised in these cases were addressed long back, the Court kept these matters pending to monitor issues related to air pollution and land ceiling in Delhi as well as the environment of the Taj Trapezium Zone.

The Court has been hearing various applications being filed in these matters from time to time, which deal with present day grievances different from the actual causes espoused in the original PILs filed by MC Mehta in forty years ago.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that the pendency of the MC Mehta cases gave a misleading impression that cases filed in 1984 are still left undecided in the Supreme Court.

UP SIR : Supreme Court Asks Lucknow DEO To Examine Grievances Of Relocated Akbar Nagar Residents

Case Details: Sana Parveen and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 191/2026

The Supreme Court asked the District Election Officer, Lucknow, to examine the grievances raised by the former residents of Akbar Nagar, who were relocated after demolition of their homes, that they were not given enumeration forms in the Special Intensive Revision(SIR) process in Uttar Pradesh and that they were asked by the Booth Level Officers to register as new voters by filing Form 6.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to entertain the writ petition filed by 91 former residents of Akbar Nagar and relegated them to the DEO. If their grievance is not redressed by the DEO, they can approach the High Court.

It was the case of the petitioners that they resided in Akbar Nagar prior to 1980 till 2024-2025, and afterthe demolition of their houses, were rehabilitated in the Vasant Kunj area, outside Lucknow City. Due to the relocation, the Petitioners' electoral constituency has changed. Only because of the change of constituency, pursuant to displacement from Akbar Nagar, the ECI completely ignored the Petitioners' status as existing electors/voters, they contended.

'Courts Shouldn't Issue Unmanageable General Directions' : Supreme Court Rejects Contempt Plea Over 2018 Judgment Against Mob Violence

Case Details: Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 754/2016

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a contempt petition alleging non-compliance by the States with the directions issued in the 2018 judgment in  Tehseen Poonawala v. Union of India in which directions were issued to curb mob lynching and hate crimes.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a contempt petition filed by Samastha Kerala Jamiat-ul-Ulema.

The CJI, disinclined to entertain the plea, remarked that the directions issued were general in nature and a contempt plea should be filed if an individual's rights were affected.

WB SIR | 'Will Take 80 Days With Only Bengal Judges' : Supreme Court Allows Deployment Of Judges From Odisha & Jharkhand

Case Details:

The Supreme Court allowed judicial officers from Odisha and Jharkhand also to be deployed to decide the claims and objections in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in West Bengal, in view of the insufficient number of judges in West Bengal to adjudicate matters in a time-bound manner.

The bench also allowed Civil Judges, both of Senior Division and Junior Division, having at least 3 years of experience, to be used for the SIR work, in addition to the judges in the rank of District Judges.

Last week, the Court had directed the deployment of judicial officers in West Bengal, either serving or retired, in the rank of District Judges/Addl District Judges, for the SIR work, in view of the 'trust deficit' between the State Government and the Election Commission of India.

Benami Act Attachment During CIRP Can't Be Challenged Before NCLT/NCLAT : Supreme Court

Case Details – S. Rajendran v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition)

The Supreme Court upheld an NCLAT judgment that held that attachment under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Benami Act) can be challenged only before authorities provided under that Act and not before the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar dismissed an appeal against NCLAT judgment which had upheld provisional attachment of certain properties of a company during pendency of corporate insolvency resolution proceedings against it.

“We have upheld the findings of NCLT and NCLAT”, Justice Narasimha said.

Supreme Court Rejects OCI Cardholder's Plea To Contest Bar Council Elections

Case Details: Chelabhai Karsanbhai Patel v. High Powered Election Supervisory Committee and Others | WP(C) 241/2026

The Supreme Court rejected the plea of an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) to contest the Bar Council elections.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi rejected the argument of the petitioner that as an OCI cardholder, he is entitled to be treated as a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), and hence he was eligible to contest Bar Council elections.

The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by one Chelabhai Karsanbhai Patel, who was not permitted to file a nomination to contest for the Gujarat State Bar Council election on the ground that he was not an Indian citizen.

Supreme Court Stays Kerala HC Judgment Stopping State Govt's 'Nava Kerala Citizen Response Program'

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Mubas Mh | SLP(C)7508-7509/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the Kerala High Court's decisionwhich restrained the State Government from carrying out the "Nava Kerala Citizens Response Program", which was a scheme envisaged to spread awareness about Government's schemes and get the feedback from the citizens.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order while issuing notice on the State's Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court's judgment.

The bench however directed that the State shall at an appropriate stage submit a report with respect to the expenditure incurred for the work.

'Approach Union To Get RP Act Amended' : Supreme Court To Petitioner Opposing Aadhaar Use In SIR

The Supreme Court orally told a petitioner, who opposed the use of the Aadhaar card to establish identity in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, that so long as the Representation of the People Act 1950 allowed the use of Aadhaar, the Court had to accept it.

If the petitioner is concerned about widespread use of fake Aadhaar cards, then he should approach the Union Government to get the RP Act amended, instead of repeatedly raising the issue before the Court, the bench stated.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing petitions related to the West Bengal SIR.

Supreme Court Closes 2021 Suo Motu Case On River Pollution, Revives NGT Proceedings

Case Details: In Re Remediation of Polluted Rivers | SMW(C) No. 1/2021

The Supreme Court closedsuo motu proceedings initiated in January 2021 on the issue of polluted rivers, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observing that little progress had been made since the Court took cognizance of the matter and that the responsibility should primarily rest with the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

Closing the proceedings, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the matter relating to river pollution should be pursued before the NGT and that parallel proceedings before multiple forums affected continuity and uniformity of directions.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice candidly remarked on the lack of progress in the case. “In 2021 after we took suo motu, this case did not proceed,” he observed.

Supreme Court Asks Dhulia Committee To Consider Plea To Postpone Kerala Bar Council Elections

The Supreme Court asked the High Powered Election Committee headed by Justice (retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia to consider the request to postpone the Kerala State Bar Council Elections.

The request for deferment has been made in the light of the High Court summer vacations, which start from April 10, as well as the Assembly elections, which are likely to be notified soon.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed Justice Dhulia committee to examine the matter.

After Housing Society Refuses Permission For EV Charger Installation, Owner Moves Supreme Court To Enforce Power Ministry Guidelines

Case Details: Rachit Katyal v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000186 / 2026

The Supreme Court issued notice in a PIL seeking proper and effective implementation of Guidelines for Installation and Operation of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure 2024 issued by the Ministry of Power.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Union Government, State of Uttar Pradesh and a Noida housing society. The matter is now listed for April 13.

The petition has been filed by Rachit Katyal, a resident of Nirala Estate Phase 3 in Greater Noida, who contends that despite clear guidelines issued by the Ministry of Power on September 17, 2024, housing societies and State authorities have failed to ensure access to EV charging infrastructure for residents.

Haldwani Evictions : Supreme Court Directs To Examine If Occupiers Are Eligible Under PMAY Scheme

Case Details: Abdul Mateen Siddiqui v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 289/2023 (And Connected Cases)

In the Haldwani eviction matter, the Supreme Court directed the Uttarakhand Legal Services Authorities to hold a camp to enable the families, who are facing eviction for occupying public land needed for railways, to apply for rehabilitation under the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana.

The Court ordered that the camp be held after March 15, on the suggestion of the petitioners that it be conducted after the month of Ramzan. The Court directed the Nainital district collector and other revenue authorities to give necessary assistance. The exercise has to be completed before March 31.

The Collector should determine the family-wise eligibility of the applicants under the PMAY and submit a report to the Court.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Denial Of Bail To Ex-J&K Bar Association President In UAPA Case, Seeks Report On His Health

Case Details – Mian Abdul Qayoom v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

The Supreme Court refused to interfere on merits with the Jammu and Kashmir High Court's order rejecting bail to former High Court Bar Association, Kashmir President Mian Abdul Qayoom in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, however, directed constitution of a special medical team at AIIMS Jammu to assess his medical condition, including the need for palliative care and whether a transfer to Delhi is required for treatment.

“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order on merits. The only issue for consideration is the medical condition of the petitioner. For that limited purpose, we are inclined to direct the Director, AIIMS Jammu, to constitute a special medical team to examine the petitioner, including assessing the need for palliative care. The report shall also indicate the facilities available in Jammu and whether there is any need to transfer the petitioner to Delhi for further treatment”, the Court ordered.

"Mushroom Growth" Of PILs Concerning, Some Read Newspaper & File Petition By Evening : CJI Surya Kant

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed concerns over the "mushroom growth" of Public Interest Litigation petitions. The CJI said that the agenda of some "prominent persons" seemed to be to read newspapers in the morning and file a petition by the evening.

"We are on the mushroom growth of PILs. Looks like there are some prominent faces now whose only agenda is to read the newspaper in the morning and file a petition by evening," CJI said during the hearing of a matter.

In a2022 judgmentas well, the Supreme Court had commented about the "mushroom growth of public interest litigations". "However, in many of such petitions, there is no public interest involved at all. The petitions are either publicity interest litigations or personal interest litigation. We highly deprecate practice of filing such frivolous petitions. They are nothing but abuse of process of law. They encroach upon a valuable judicial time which could be otherwise utilized for considering genuine issues. It is high time that such so­called public interest litigations are nipped in the bud so that the developmental activities in the larger public interest are not stalled," the Court had commented then.

Some Compulsory Mechanism Needed To Make People Vote, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: Vidhi Centre For Legal Policy v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 677/2024, Shiv Khera V.Union of India WP(C) No.252/2024

The Supreme Court (February 24) orally remarked that voting might be required to make compulsory, so that more people turn up in the poll booths to exercise the valuable right of franchise.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions seeking to allow the conduct of elections even if there is only one candidate, so that voters can exercise the right to choose 'None of The Above (NOTA) option.

During the hearing, the bench discussed whether NOTA has improved the quality of voting percentage and the quality of candidates.

CJI Surya Kant Takes Objection To NCERT Class 8 Book Chapter On 'Corruption In Judiciary'

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant took serious objection to the new NCERT Class 8 book containing portions regarding "corruption in judiciary."

CJI said that he will not allow anyone to defame or denigrate the institution and will take appropriate action.

The Indian Express had reported that the new NCERT Class 8 book on social sciences cited "corruption in judiciary" and "massive backlogs" as major challenges.

Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge To S.20(2)(a) BNSS Allowing Appointment Of Sessions Judge As Director Of Prosecution

Case Details – Subeesh P. S. v. Union of India

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition which challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which allowed judicial officers to be appointed as Director of Prosecution, Deputy Director of Prosecution or Assistant Director of Prosecution.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that there was no legal foundation in the challenge and that it was misconceived.

Advocate Suvidutt MS, for the petitioner, submitted that the provision violated Article 50 of the Constitution which mandated the separation of the judiciary and the executive. He submitted that by allowing judicial officers to head the prosecution, this separation was breached.

West Bengal SIR | Maadhyamik Admit Card Be Produced Along With Class X Pass Certificate For Verification : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court clarified that the Maadhyamik (Class 10) admit card issued by the West Bengal State Board be submitted along with the Maadhyamik pass card for the purpose of verification of age and parentage in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in the State of West Bengal.

The Court also directed that the documents, mentioned in para 3(iii) of the February 24 order, which have not been uploaded so far and which were received on or before February 14, shall be submitted or handed over to the presiding judicial officers by the concerned Electoral Register Officers/Asst Electoral Register Officers by tomorrow 5 PM.

"Similarly, para 3(iii)(c) of the February 24 order is further clarified to the effect that the Maadhyamik (Class X) admit card may be submitted along with the Maadhyamik pass certificate for the purpose of verifying the date of parents and parentage of the candidate," the Court added.

Supreme Court Stays Criminal Proceedings Against Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren Over Alleged Skipping Of ED Summons

Case Details: Hemant Soren v. Assistant Director, Through Deovrat Jha, Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 2079/2026

The Supreme Court (February 25) stayed the criminal proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against Chief Minister of Jharkhand Hemant Soren over alleged willful disobedience of summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stayed the proceedings (Complaint Case No.3952 of 2024) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, on the criminal complaint filed by the ED over alleged violation of summons.

The bench passed the interim order while issuing notice to the ED on the Special Leave Petition filed by Soren challenging the Jharkhand High Cour's refusal to quash the proceedings.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Union, States Over Implementation Of National Commission For Allied & Healthcare Professionals Act

Case Details: Joint Forum of Medical Technologists of India (Jfmti) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 983/2023 (And Connected Case Details)

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and States/Union Territories on a contempt plea alleging non-compliance with the Court's directions to implement the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) Act, 2021.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order in Joint Forum of Medical Technologists of India's (JFMTI) plea alleging non-compliance with the Court's order in a connected PIL, which directed timebound implementation of the NCAHP Act.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the NCAHP Act was passed in March 2021, but no action was taken towards its implementation. As such, the connected PIL was filed in 2023 and in August, 2024, the Court directed the Union and States to implement the Act by October 12, 2024 as well as to ensure that the institutions contemplated under it became functional. However, even in 2026, the composition of the National Commission itself has not been completed.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Bihar's Sikrahana River Dam Project

Case Details: Vishwanath Paswan and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. | Diary No. 8948-2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere in a plea challenging the decision of the Patna High Court, which dismissed a batch of petitions seeking directions not to widen the boundary of the Sikrahana River and Dam Project under construction. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners make a representation before the authorities.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a challenge to the Patna High Court order, which upheld the Bihar government's decision to construct an embankment along the Sikrahana River in the Western Champaran District of Bihar.

The High Court held that the issue of embankment requires expert opinion and would warrant no judicial interference.

PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Compulsory NAT Testing In All Blood Banks Across India

Case Details: Sarvesham Mangalam Foundation v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 184/2026

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider in March the issue of whether all blood banks should mandatorily conduct Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) for the identification of diseases.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a PIL seeking directions for the implementation of mandatory NAT testing across all blood banks in the country.

Notably, the Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) is a highly sensitive molecular technique that detects the genetic material (DNA or RNA) of viruses like HIV, Hepatitis B (HBV), and Hepatitis C (HCV) directly in the blood.

Supreme Court Registers Suo Motu Case Over NCERT Text Book On Judicial Corruption

Case Details: In Re: Social Science Textbook For Grade-8(Part 2) Published By Ncert and Ancillary Issues | SMW (C) 1/2026

The Supreme Court has registered a suo motu case over the NCERT Class 8 book chapter on 'corruption in the judiciary'.

The case titled "In Re : Social Science Textbook for Grade-8(Part 2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues" will be considered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi tomorrow.

Petitioners Seek Reference Of 'Vanashakti' Matter On Post Facto Environmental Clearances To Supreme Court's 5-Judge Bench

Case Details: Vanashakti v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1394/2023 and Connected Cases.

In the Vanashakti matter, the petitioners opposing the grant of post-facto environmental clearances argued before a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court that the matter should be referred to a 5-judge bench, since they questioned the findings of the 3-judge bench's review judgment given in November last year.

The petitioners argued that the review bench's findings exceeded the scope of review jurisdiction; also, its observations that the grant of post-facto clearance was not barred was per incurium.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was hearing the case, where the Court, in November 2025, by majority, had recalledtheMay 2025 Vanshakti judgment, which barred the grant of post-facto environmental clearance.

Supreme Court Orders Inquiry Into How Two Rape Case Files Went Missing From UP Court

Case Details: Xxxxxxx v. State of Uttar Pradesh | T.P.(Crl.) No. 892-899/2025

The Supreme Court (February 25) issued directions to the District & Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, to conduct an inquiry to ascertain whether the files relating to two alleged rape cases were deliberately made untraceable.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a bunch of transfer petitions concerning allegations of acid attack and gangrape. In these petitions, it has been alleged that the police had filed closure reports, but the documents were not provided to the alleged victims.

In two cases (Case Crime No. 740/2009 and Case Crime No. 489/2012), the Court had, in November 2025,  orderedthe Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rai Baraeili, to obtain an appropriate report from the Trial Court as to whether the case records are available. In January, it ordered the reconstructionof the records.

Supreme Court Bans NCERT Textbook With Chapter On Judicial Corruption, Issues Contempt Notice To NCERT Director & Ministry Official

Case Details: In Re: Social Science Textbook For Grade-8(Part 2) Published By Ncert and Ancillary Issues | SMW (C) 1/2026

Coming down heavily on the NCERT's publication of Class 8 social science textbook chapter with references to "corruption in judiciary", the Supreme Court issued show-cause notice to the Secretary of School Education, Ministry of Education and the NCERT Director, as to why action under the Contempt of Courts Act or any other law should not be taken against them.

The Court prima facie observed that the publication of the book is a serious misconduct, which can come within the purview of criminal contempt of court, if proved to be a deliberate act to scandalise the judiciary.

The Court said that it will examine whether the public regret expressed by the NCERT is genuine or an attempt to wriggle out of criminal liability.

Pune Porsche Case | Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Plea Of Father Of Minor Accused Of Driving

Case Details – Vishal Surendrakumar Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court issued notice on bail plea of Vishal Agarwal, father of the minor alleged to have been driving the Porsche car involved in the May 19, 2024 accident in Pune that led to the death of two persons. Vishal Agarwal is accused of hatching a conspiracy to swap blood samples and ensure that the occupants of the car get a Nil Alcohol report.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan kept the matter for hearing on March 3, 2026.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the petitioner submitted that he has been in custody for 21 months and sought interim bail. However, the Court refused to grant him interim bail today.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre, States On PIL Seeking Measures To Curb False Cases

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 209/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government, States and Union Territories on a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to curb false complaints, fabricated evidence and malicious prosecution.

A Bench comprising  Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pacholi was  hearing a petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.

The petition filed under Article 32 seeks directions to introduce administrative safeguards to prevent false complaints and protect the right to life, liberty and dignity of innocent citizens.

What Mess We Have Created By Tribunalisation, Tribunals A Liabiliy : CJI Surya Kant

Case Details: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India | D No. 10627/2026 and Connected Cases.

The Chief Justice of India expressed serious displeasure with the functioning of Tribunals in the country, going to the extent of terming them a "liability" and a "mess".

The CJI revealed that he got reliable information that the technical members of an important financial Tribunal in the country were not writing any judgment, and were even outsourcing the writing of judgments; something which was unheard of in the judiciary.

CJI Surya Kant commented that Tribunals are functioning in a "no-man's land" with accountability to none.

'Thankful To Media Friends' : CJI Lauds Media For Highlighting NCERT Textbook Issue

Case Details: In Re: Social Science Textbook For Grade-8(Part 2) Published By Ncert and Ancillary Issues | SMW (C) 1/2026

During the hearing of the suo motu case over an NCERT book's chapter on judicial corruption, CJI Surya Kant appreciated media organizations for bringing the issue to the limelight.

The CJI said that if it were not for timely reporting on the matter, the damage to judiciary's reputation could have been completely irreversible.

A bench of CJI Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the matter and imposed a complete, blanket ban on the dissemination of the NCERT book continaing the problematic chapter. The Court also ordered seizure and sealing of the copies of the book already in circulation and issued show-cause notice to Secretary of School Education, Ministry of Education and the NCERT Director, as to why action under the Contempt of Courts Act (or any other law) should not be taken against them.

Supreme Court Asks Isha Foundation To Explore Settlement In Coimbatore Crematorium Land Dispute

Case Details: S. N. Subramanian v. District Collector Cum Inspector and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 5840/2026

The Supreme Court asked the Isha Foundation to explore the possibility of amicably settling a land dispute in relation to the Foundation's Kayantha Sthanam (Crematorium) created on the outskirts of Coimbatore.

The bench CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi, Vipul Pancholi was hearing a plea filed by a resident of Coimbatore who is aggrieved by the creation of a crematorium next to his house by the Foundation.

At the outset, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as per the local rules, there cannot be a crematorium or burial ground near a place of dwelling or water body, unless a license is given by the Gram Panchayat.

Supreme Court Expresses Reservations About 3-Year Practice Rule To Join Judicial Service, Says Women Affected

The Supreme Court orally expressed certain reservations about the 3-year practice condition to join the judicial service at entry level posts, particularly highlighting the impact on women aspirants.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice AG Masih was hearing the review petitions filed against last year's judgment which restored the 3-year practice condition.

The CJI said that the rule has caused anxieties among women.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union, ECI On PIL To Curb Unregulated Election Expenditure By Political Parties

Case Details: Common Cause (A Registered Society) and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 223/2026

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi passed the order.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioners, submitted at the outset that existing law provides for limits on use of money power by candidates during elections, but the said limits are not enforced. He further highlighted that though someone spending money on behalf of a candidate is counted towards the candidate's election expenditure, expenses by a political party are not accounted for as such.

Besides, he added, there are no limits on spending by political parties.

Aravalli Hills : Supreme Court Seeks Expert Panel To Determine Scope Of Permissible Activity, Maintains Halt On Mining

Case Details – In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues

The Supreme Court said it will first seek the opinion of experts on whether mining can be permitted in the Aravalli region and, if so, to what extent, while continuing the status quo on all licensed mining activities for the time being.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the suo motu case initiated over concerns that the change in the definition of Aravalli Hills could open doors to unregulated mining and environmental damage.

On the issue of halt imposed by the Court on mining in the region, the Chief Justice said, “Let first experts tell us whether mining can be allowed or not. If it is to be allowed then to what extent it can be allowed, and who will monitor it. We will cross all bridges one by one.”

RTI Act Applies To Cochin International Airport Ltd : Supreme Court Upholds Kerala High Court Order

Case Details: M/S.Cochin International Airport Limited v. State Information Commission and Anr., SLP(C) No. 23330-23345/2025

The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court orderwhich held that the Cochin International Airport (CIAL) is a 'public authority' coming within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for CIAL). It was of the view that the impugned order furthered transparency and did not call for interference. At the same time, the Court waived the cost of Rs.1 lakh imposed on the Managing Director of CIAL by the High Court.

To briefly put facts of the case, in 2019, the State Information Commission held CIAL to be a 'public authority' under the RTI Act and directed it to disclose certain information. The decision was challenged by CIAL before the High Court, contending that Kerala government had no control over the decisions taken by the Board, and the ultimate decision maker as per the Articles of Association was CIAL's Board of Directors.

Registry's Functioning Requires Deeper Probe; Some Officials Think They Last In SC More Than Judges & Can Do Whatever : CJI

Case Details: Irfan Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000084 / 2026

The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, expressed concerns over the workings of the Registry and hinted at undertaking a 'deeper probe' as to how similar matters were being listed before different benches.

He said that he will take steps to reform the Registry during his term.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the writ petition challenging the UP Gangsters Act and raising the issue of it being repugnant to the definition of "organised crime" under the central law, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Supreme Court Dismisses ED Appeal Against Quashing Of Money Laundering Case Against Razorpay Over Illegal Loan App

Case Details – Union of India v. Razorpay Software Private Limited

The Supreme Court upheld a Karnataka High Court order quashing money laundering proceedings initiated against payment gateway company Razorpay in connection with an money transfer related to an alleged illegal loan app.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh dismissed ED's SLP against the HC order that had held that there was no material to show that Razorpay knowingly facilitated transfer of proceeds of crime.

The High Court had set aside the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate under Sections 3, 4 and 70 of the PMLA and had also quashed the summons issued to the company, holding that there was no material to show that the company had the intention to commit an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA.

Manipur Violence | Supreme Court Expresses Disappointment Over Non-Payment Of Expenses To Justice Gita Mittal Committee

Case Details – Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei

The three-member committee comprises Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, former judge of the Bombay High Court, and Justice Asha Menon, former judge of the Delhi High Court.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi directed release of Rs 12 lakhs to Justice Gita Mittal and Rs 10 lakhs each to Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi and Justice Asha Menon towards travelling and boarding expenses. It stated that the honorarium payable to them will be fixed separately.

“We are disappointed to know that no reimbursement towards their travelling or boarding expenditure has been made so far. We deem it appropriate to direct as an interim measure to release a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs to Justice Gita Mittal and Rs. 10 lakhs each to Justice Shalini Joshi and Asha Menon towards estimated expenditure incurred so far or likely to be incurred in future towards travelling boarding and lodging. As far as the honorarium is concerned we will fix it separately.”

Supreme Court Directs Supply Of Chargesheets To Manipur Violence Victims, Free Legal Aid Lawyers For Family

Case Details – Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei

The Supreme Court directed that victims and their families in 20 cases arising out of Manipur Violence be given copies of the chargesheets filed in their respective cases and be provided legal aid counsel to assist them in trial proceedings now pending in Guwahati.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a batch of pleas on the issue of the trial of sexual violence cases that occurred during the Manipur ethnic crisis.

On August 7, 2023, the Court entrusted investigation of certain cases to the CBI and constituted Special Investigation Teams in other cases where the Manipur Police is the investigating agency. It also appointed Dattatray Padsalgikar, former Director General of Police of Maharashtra, to monitor and supervise investigations by the CBI and the Manipur Police.

SC Collegium Recommends Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari As Madras High Court Chief Justice; Justice Lisa Gill For Andhra Pradesh HC

The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on February 26, 2026, has recommended the appointment of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, presently a Judge of the Kerala High Court (parent High Court: Madhya Pradesh), as the next Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. The recommendation has been made in view of the impending retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice on March 5, 2026.

The Collegium has also recommended the transfer of Justice Lisa Gill, Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to the Andhra Pradesh High Court for her appointment as Chief Justice. Her appointment will take effect from the date the vacancy arises.

The Collegium noted that it has taken a policy decision aimed at strengthening the efficiency and quality of judicial administration. Under this policy, a judge proposed to be appointed as Chief Justice may be transferred to the concerned High Court well in advance, preferably about two months before the vacancy arises. This is intended to enable the judge to become familiar with the functioning and administrative requirements of the High Court before assuming charge as Chief Justice.

Supreme Court Collegium Approves Appointment Of Nine Advocates As Patna High Court Judges

The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on February 26, 2026, approved the proposals for appointment of nine advocates as Judges of the Patna High Court.

The advocates whose names have been cleared for elevation are Md. Nadim Seraj, Ranjan Kumar Jha, Kumar Manish, Sanjeev Kumar, Girijish Kumar, Alok Kumar, Raj Kumar, Rana Vikram Singh and Vikash Kumar.

The recommendations have been made by the Collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India. The appointments will take effect after the Union Government processes the recommendations and issues the warrants of appointment.

All States/UTs Framed Rules To Implement Shariat Act? Supreme Court Seeks Report

Case Details: Smt. Gohar Sultan v. Sheikh Anis Ahmad & Anr. | Civil Appeal No.2637/2012

The Supreme Court noted that the provisions of Section 4 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 have not been implemented uniformly across States and Union Territories, and sought a comprehensive status report on the issue.

"It has been brought to our notice that the provisions of Section 4 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) 3 Application Act, 1937 (for short, 'the Act, 1937') have not been implemented by all States and Union Territories," noted a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih while hearing a civil appeal.

The bench requested the standing counsel appearing for all States and Union Territories to ascertain and communicate the factual position regarding the implementation of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937.

SC Collegium Adopts New Policy To Ensure Incoming HC Chief Justices Are Available Before Incumbent's Retirement

The Supreme Court Collegium has adopted a new policy aimed at ensuring that incoming Chief Justices of High Courts are available in advance of the retirement of incumbent Chief Justices, so as to improve administrative continuity and efficiency in High Courts.

In a statement issued after its meeting held on February 26, 2026, the Collegium said it has decided that a judge proposed to take over as Chief Justice of a High Court may be transferred well in advance, preferably two months before the vacancy arises, so that the recommendee becomes conversant with the affairs of the High Court and can assume charge immediately upon the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice.

The Collegium stated that the policy decision has been taken "to strengthen the efficiency and quality of administration of justice."

West Bengal SIR | Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Objection To ECI's Training To Judicial Officers

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the objections raised by the Trinamool Congress to the Election Commission of India imparting training to judicial officers who have been deployed for claims verification in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in the State of West Bengal.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the ECI's training module cannot override the Supreme Court's orders, and that the judicial officers must be trusted.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, accompanied by Sr Advs Kalyan Bandhopadhyay and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioners, orally mentioned the matter before the CJI this morning. "Something strange has happened, directions/ modalities to the judicial officers have been passed by the Election Commission behind your back after the order of the court," Sibal said. He said that the judicial officers have been given a training module by the ECI, specifying which all documents should be accepted.

Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC Judgment Nullifying Election Of Congress MLA SN Subbareddy

Case Details: S N Subbareddy Alias Chinnakayalapalli v. C Muniraju | C.A. No. 2419/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the Karnataka High Court's judgment which set aside the election of Congress MLA SN Subbareddy elected from the Bagepalli constituency in the 2023 legislative assembly polls.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order while issuing notice to the respondent on Subbareddy's petition challenging the High Court's order. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadatt Kamat appeared for him.

The bench directed that the petitioner be deemed to be a member of the assembly for all practical purposes. Asking the respondent C Muniraju, the rival candidate from BJP, to file the counter affidavit, the bench posted the appeal for hearing in September 2026.

Ex-Civil Servants Move Supreme Court Challenging SHANTI Act Capping Nuclear Liability

Case Details: Eas Sarma and Others v. Union of India and Others | WP(C) 240/2026

The Supreme Court briefly heard a  Public Interest Litigation challenging several provisions of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025, alleging that they violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi adjourned the matter for further consideration.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner submitted that the SHANTI Act replaced the Civil Liability for Nuclear Liability Act 2010, and a petition filed by Common Cause challenging the similar provisions of that law is also pending in the Court.

Centre's Undertaking To Reconsider Sedition Law Not Binding On Parliament, Says Supreme Court On BNS Challenge

Case Details: Azad Singh Kataria v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No. 461/2024

The Supreme Court orally commented that the undertaking given by the Union Government to reconsider the sedition law will not preclude the Parliament from enacting a similar provision.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing apetition challenging the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023, particularly Section 152(acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India), which is questioned as a restoration of Section 124A(sedition) of the Indian Penal Code.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy submitted that in 2022, the Union Government had given an undertaking that it would review the sedition law. She further said that the Supreme Court had in 2022 keptthe sedition law in abeyance by barring the registration of future cases under the provisions. "The Union gave an undertaking that we will be withdrawing the provision (S.124A), but it has been reintroduced. It cannot give an undertaking to this Court and then reintroduce," Guruswamy said.

Supreme Court Records Satisfaction At West Bengal University VCs' Appointments, Notes Only 3 Remain

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

The Supreme Court was informed on behalf of the West Bengal government and Governor CV Ananda Bose that appointments of Vice-Chancellors to only 3 West Bengal Universities remain to be settled. Appointments of VCs to the remaining universities have been made.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed of the development by Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta (for State) and Attorney General R Venkataramani (for WB Governor).

Accordingly, the bench recorded in its order:

Pune Porsche Case | Supreme Court Grants Bail To Sassoon Hospital Doctor Accused Of Swapping Blood Samples

Case Details – Ajay Aniruddha Taware v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court granted bail to Sassoon Hospital doctor Ajay Aniruddha Taware, booked for allegedly conspiring to swap blood samples of the minor occupants of the Porsche car involved in the May 19, 2024 accident in Pune that led to the death of two persons.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted bail on the basis of parity with Taware's co-accused Ashish Mittal, Aditya Sood, Amar Gaikwad, and Arunkumar Singhwho were granted bail earlier this month.

“The aforesaid observations and directions (in bail orders of the co-accused) apply squarely in the present case also. Ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms”, the Court stated.

Farmers Protest| Supreme Court Asks High-Powered Committee To Submit Final Recommendations In Sealed Cover

Case Details: State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh | SLP(C) No. 6950-6953/2024 Diary No. 11369 / 2024

The Supreme Court (February 27) asked the High Powered Committee, constituted in the backdrop of the farmers' protests demanding minimum support price for crops, to file a final report in a sealed cover. The Court has expressed its intention to close the matter after it.

It may be recalled that in early 2024, State of Haryana had blocked the Shambhu-Khanauri border in National Highway to restrict farmers from Punjab from carrying on their protest march to Delhi. Then, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had ordered the unblocking, against which the Haryana Government had approached the Supreme Court.

In September 2024, with a view to resolve the conflict through mediation, the Supreme Court constituted a High-Powered Committee headed by Justice Nawab Singh, former judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, to hold negotiations with the protesting farmers.

Revisit Coast Guard Rules On Different Retirement Ages : Supreme Court To Centre

Case Details: Union of India v. Cheeli J Ratnam | SLP(C) No. 007265 - 007267 / 2026

The Supreme Court asked the Union Government to form an expert panel to revisit the service rules of the Indian Coast Guard which prescribe different retirement ages for different ranks.

The Court also stayed the Delhi High Court order which struck down rules mandating that Indian Coast Guard Officers of the rank of Commandant and below would retire at 57, whereas officers above the rank of Commandant would retire at 60.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the Union's challenge to the Delhi High Court decision, which declared as unconstitutional Rule 20(1) and 20(2)1 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, which prescribe rank-based superannuation age.

"Filed Out Of Vendetta" : Supreme Court Dismisses Ex- Judicial Officer's Plea For FIR Against HC Judges Over His Compulsory Retirement

Case Details: P. Ranjan Kumar v. Superintendent of Police Jagtial District, SP Office | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000029 / 2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea by a former Telangana Judicial Officer who sought directions to register an FIR against former HC Judges in relation to his compulsory retirement order. The Court termed the petition as being filed out of 'frustation and vendetta'.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition by the petitioner in person, R Ranjan Kumar, who was previously serving as a judicial officer in Telangana and was given a compulsory retirement.

The petition was filed by the petitioner seeking direction to register FIR in terms of the law laid down by the Court in Lalita Kumari's Case against a few judicial functionaries

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Old NCERT Book Remark 'Judgments Tend To View Slumdwellers As Encroachers'

Case Details: Dr Pankaj Pushkar v. Union of India and Anr., Diary No.13060/2026

A former member of NCERT, Dr Pankaj Pushkar, has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging allegedly unconstitutional improper content in NCERT's old Social Science textbook for Class 8.

The petition, filed under Articles 32 and 129 of the Constitution, comes in the wake of the controversy surrounding NCERT's Class 8 Social Science textbook which contained a chapter with an excerpt on “Corruption in Judiciary”. Displeased with the “contemptuous” nature of this book, the Court took up a suo motu case and banned the book's circulation in any form.

In this backdrop, Dr Pankaj Pushkar has filed a petition impugning NCERT's textbook titled Social and Political Life – III (2015-2016 edition) prescribed for Class 8 students. The excerpt challenged by the petitioner states,

Supreme Court Reprimands Advocate Who Filed Petition Seeking FIR Against PM & HM For Enacting CAA

Case Details: Puran Chander Sen v. State of Rajasthan and Ors | SLP(Crl) No. 1445/2026

The Supreme Court reprimanded an advocate who filed a petition seeking an FIR against constitutional functionaries for passing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymaly Bagchi was hearing the challenge against the Rajasthan High Court order, which slapped a cost of ₹50,000 on the advocate for filing a 'frivolous' petition seeking an FIR against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah, MP Ravi Shankar Prasad and others over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.

At the outset, the bench asked how it was under the procedure to register an FIR against the constitutional functionaries for passing a law which may or may not be unconstitutional.

'Lalita Kumari' Judgment Misused A Lot, Says Supreme Court On Challenge To BNSS Allowing Preliminary Enquiry Before FIR

Case Details: Azad Singh Kataria v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No. 461/2024

The Supreme Court orally commented that the 2013 judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, which mandated that the police must register FIR if the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, except in certain specified categories, has been abused a lot.

The Lalita Kumari judgment ruled out preliminary inquiry by the police before the registration of FIR except in cases relating to matrimonial disputes, corruption cases, medical negligence, cases with inordinate delay etc. The Court remarked that this mandate to register FIR has led to the proliferation of frivolous FIRs, and burdening the Courts with petitions seeking quashing of FIRs.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition challenging various provisions of the new criminal laws, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. One of the provisions under challenge was Section 173 of the BNSS, which allows the police to conduct a preliminary inquiry in certain category of cases. As per Section 173(3), the officer in charge of the station house office may conduct a preliminary enquiry, with the permission of DySP, in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment between 3-7 years.

Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into Homebuyers' Grievances Against DLF Over Gurugram Primus Garden City Project

Case Details – Swarnpreet Kaur & Anr. v. DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct an inquiry into the development of DLF's “The Primus DLF Garden City” housing project in Sector 82A, Gurugram, observing that there appeared to be a gap between what was promised to homebuyers and what was delivered on the ground.

“it transpires that there is a huge mismatch between the requirement(s) of law and what actually may, or rather is alleged, to have happened on the ground. Yet, basis the material already on record, prima facie, it is clear that there were many issues, in respect of the representation made, on behalf of DLF to the prospective buyers. These representations may not have been fully translated into reality”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan further noted that the role of statutory and regulatory authorities also required examination, as many homebuyers put their entire life savings into purchasing a home.

IBC | Supreme Court Cautions Against Excessive Judicial Review, Criticises Trend Of Unsuccessful Bidders Seeking To Reopen CoC Decision

Case Details – Torrent Power Limited v. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi

The Supreme Court criticised growing trend of unsuccessful resolution applicants converting challenging almost every commercial decision of the Committee of Creditors under the guise of procedural impropriety and turning the insolvency process into a protracted adversarial contest.

“The appeals before us typify the growing strategic use of the judicial system by unsuccessful resolution applicants who seek to reopen almost every commercial decision under the guise of procedural impropriety. This converts the corporate resolution process into a protracted adversarial contest and erodes the value of the corporate debtor. Such an approach incentivises delay, rent seeking and strategic obstruction and is fundamentally inconsistent with the economic logic and statutory design of the IBC”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan cautioned against judicial review of CoC decisions beyond the narrow scope under IBC.

High Court's Contempt Jurisdiction Not Lost Just Because SC Affirmed Its Order : Supreme Court

Case Details: United Labour Federation v. Gagandeep Singh Bedi

The Supreme Court has held that a High Court can entertain a contempt petition alleging violation of its directions even if the original judgment has merged with a Supreme Court order affirming it. The Court clarified that the doctrine of merger does not extinguish the High Court's contempt jurisdiction where the Supreme Court has not issued fresh directions.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed an appeal filed by the United Labour Federation challenging a Madras High Court order which had dismissed its contempt petition as not maintainable.

"We are not convinced with the reasoning of the High Court that once the order passed by the High Court has merged with the order passed by the Supreme Court, the Contempt Petition would not be maintainable before the High Court, for the reason that the Contempt Jurisdiction is independent of the applicability of the Doctrine of Merger," the bench observed.

S.469 CrPC | Limitation Period Starts From Date When Offender's Identity Is Known & Not From Receipt Of Complaint : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Kerala & Anr. v. M/S. Panacea Biotec Ltd. & Anr.

The Supreme Court has observed that the period of limitation in criminal prosecutions begins from the date when the identity of all accused persons becomes known to the competent authority, and not from the date of the first complaint.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti set aside the Kerala High Court's decision to quash the criminal proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, on the ground of limitation.

The case arose from a complaint received in January 2006 alleging discrepancies in the labelling of a vaccine manufactured by Panacea Biotec Ltd. The Drugs Inspector conducted inquiries across the supply chain to identify the persons involved and completed this process in April 2006. A formal complaint was filed before the Magistrate on January 20, 2009.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Film “Yadav Ji Ki Love Story”, Says Title Does Not Portray Community Negatively

Case Details – Awdesh Kumar Yadav v. Union of India

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a stay on release of the film “Yadav Ji ki Love Story”, holding that the title of the movie does not portray the Yadav community in a negative manner.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the title did not contain any adjective or word that attached any negative meaning to the community.

“We fail to understand how the title of the film reflects the community in bad light. The title of the film does not have any adjective or any word that portrays the Yadav community in bad light. The apprehensions are wholly unfounded”, the Court said.

'Is This James Bond? Shoot First, Think Later?' : Supreme Court Slams Rajasthan Police For Hasty FIR On Zee Media Complaint

Case Details: Ashish Dave v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 19369/2025

Coming down heavily on the Rajasthan Police, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR over the offence of extortion registered against former Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan on a complaint filed by the Zee Media company.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the plea of Ashish Dave, the former Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan, and quashed the FIR. It passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal (for petitioner), ASG SD Sanjay (for State) and Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain (for complainant, Sanju Raju on behalf of Zee Media).

The bench expressed "shock" at the registration of the FIR based on allegations which amounted to a mere "story". "We are shocked at the manner in which the FIR was registered. Your Investigating Officer should have made an inquiry. He should have confirmed the allegations and then the FIR should have been registered. Lalita Kumari [case] is applicable to everyone. Which particular allegation of extortion, which particular offense of misuse of his position in the company was setout in the FIR and in the complaint, which required the police station concerned to immediately go for registration of FIR? Without there being any allegation at all! It's all story - all a fictional story", remarked Justice Mehta.