Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: January 2026

Judgments

'Ideological Drivers Of Alleged Conspiracy' : Why Supreme Court Denied Bail To Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam

Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1

The Supreme Court, while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case held that their roles were not episodic but “architectural”, placing them at the top of the chain of command of the alleged conspiracy.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria made a distinction between the roles attributed to them and the other co-accused. It stated that while the allegations against Khalid and Imam indicate a "central and directive role" in "conceptualising, planning and coordinating" the alleged larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots of February 2020, the roles of co-accused Gulfisha, Haider and others are merely subsidiary or facilitative in nature.

As per the judgment authored by Justice Kumar, the Imam and Khalid are the alleged masterminds of the larger conspiracy and the materials by the prosecution in this regard are "direct, corroborative and contemporaneous".

Delay In Trial Not A 'Trump Card' For Automatic Grant Of Bail In UAPA Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1

The Supreme Court while dismissing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, observed that the ground of delay in trial would not operate as a trump card to automatically grant bail for offences punishable under Unlawful (Activities) Prevention Act, 1967.

“In prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint. Rather, delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, stating that the outcome of the bail pleas in UAPA offences must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally relevant considerations.

Delhi Riots UAPA Case : Supreme Court's Bail Conditions Bar Accused From Sharing Posts Digitally & Attending Gatherings

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1

While granting bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, the Supreme Court imposed a stringent set of conditions, including prohibitions on attending rallies or public meetings and on circulating posters, banners or other campaign material in any form.

The Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria specifically barred the accused from participating in any public meetings or gatherings and from circulating posts, handbills, posters or banners, whether physically or through electronic or digital platforms.

The Bench also deniedbail to co-accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

In UAPA Bail Hearing, Defence Not To Be Considered; Only See If Prosecution Has Shown Prima Facie Case : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1

The Supreme Court, in denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, held that a bail hearing under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is not a forum for evaluating defences or weighing evidence. The Court's role, it ruled, is limited to determining whether the prosecution's material, taken at face value, prima facie discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria laid down certain propositions governing the application of Section 43D (5) of UAPA while considering bail pleas:

"First, the provision embodies a deliberate legislative departure from ordinary bail jurisprudence, premised upon the distinctive nature of offences under Chapters IV and VI of the Act.

Supreme Court Denies Bail To Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam; Grants Bail To 5 Others In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1

The Supreme Court (January 5) denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, observing that the materials showed a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

At the same time, the Court granted bail to some of the other accused in the case - Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.

As regards Khalid and Imam, the Court said that they can renew their bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from today. The Court observed that the prosecution materials prima facie disclosed "a central and formative role" and "involvement in the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction extending beyond episodic and localised acts."

UAPA | 'Terrorist Act' Not Confined To Conventional Violence; Includes Conspiracy To Disrupt Essential Supplies Through Any Means : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1

The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy on the grounds that prima facie, they were the architects of the alleged conspiracy. It granted bail to the other five accused persons-Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad, reasoning that their roles were merely facilitative in nature.

In its judgment delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, the Court interpreted Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, to encompass forms of violence that threaten the sovereignty and security of the nation, even where such acts destabilise civic life and societal functioning without immediate physical violence.

The judgment authored by Justice Kumar reasoned that Section 15 is not restricted to only a conventional form of violence that intends to threaten or be likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, including economic security or sovereignty of India, or with the intent to strike terror in people or any section thereof.

Supreme Court Flags Reluctance Of Trial Judges To Grant Bail Due To Fear Of Disciplinary Action

Case Details – Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 2

The Supreme Court flagged that trial court judges are increasingly reluctant to exercise discretion in granting bail due to a lurking fear of disciplinary action, warning that such an atmosphere undermines judicial independence and burdens higher courts with bail matters.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan observed that initiation of departmental proceedings against judicial officers on mere suspicion or for alleged wrong exercise of discretion is one of the primary reasons why judges at the district level hesitate to grant bail even in deserving cases.

“Initiation of departmental proceedings on mere suspicion is one of the primary causes why trial court judges are reluctant when it comes to exercising discretion for the purpose of grant of bail. It should not happen that because of the lurking fear in the mind of a trial court judge of some administrative action being taken that even in deserving cases well within the principles of law, bail is declined. This is one reason why the High Courts are flooded with bail applications. The same is the scenario in the Supreme Court”, he said.

'No Disciplinary Action Against Judge For Mere Error In Judgment' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal Of Judicial Officer

Case Details – Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 2

The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of a Madhya Pradesh judicial officer, holding that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against members of the district judiciary merely for passing allegedly incorrect or erroneous judicial orders.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan allowed the appeal filed by Nirbhay Singh Suliya, who had been removed from service in 2014 while serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge on allegations of corruption and adopting a “double standard” in deciding bail applications under the Excise Act.

The action followed a departmental inquiry initiated by the High Court after allegations that he had adopted a double standard while deciding bail applications in cases registered under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act. It was alleged that he granted bail in certain cases involving seizure of more than 50 bulk litres of liquor, while rejecting bail in several other similar cases on the ground that bail cannot be granted as the seized quantity is more than 50 bulk litres.

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Curb False And Frivolous Complaints Against Judicial Officers

Case Details – Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 2

The Supreme Court issued directions on how High Courts should deal with complaints made against judicial officers of the district judiciary, drawing a distinction between false and frivolous complaints and those found to be prima facie true.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan held that strict action must be taken against persons found to be filing or engineering false and frivolous complaints against members of the district judiciary. The Court said that such action should include, in appropriate cases, initiation of proceedings for contempt of court.

The Court further directed that where the person filing or engineering a false complaint is a member of the Bar, the High Court should, apart from initiating contempt proceedings, make a reference to the Bar Council concerned for disciplinary action.

Law Cannot Change With Change Of Bench; Coordinate Bench's Decision Binding : Supreme Court

Case Details: Adani Power Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Whilegranting customs dutyexemption to Adani Power for electricity from a Gujarat SEZ, the Supreme Court faulted the Gujarat High Court for violating the principle of stare decisis, holding that it wrongly ignored a binding coordinate bench ruling and reiterating that the law cannot change with a change in Bench.

“The discipline of precedent is not a matter of personal predilection; it is an institutional necessity. Stare decisis et non quieta movere which means to stand by what is decided and not to disturb what is settled, is a working rule which secures stability, predictability and respect for judicial outcomes. The law cannot change with the change of the Bench.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, while allowing the Adani Power Ltd.'s appeal against the Gujarat High Court's 2019 order which failed to follow binding precedent laid down by a High Court's coordinate bench in 2015 on the legality of customs duty levied on electricity supplied from a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA).

Briefly put, in 2015, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court had struck down the levy of customs duty on electricity supplied from an SEZ to the DTA, holding the levy to be ultra vires and unconstitutional. That judgment was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, thereby attaining finality.

Supreme Court Allows Customs Duty Exemption To Adani Power For Electricity Taken From Gujarat SEZ

Case Details: Adani Power Ltd. and Anr.V Union of India and Ors | SLP(C) No. 24729/2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 3

The Supreme Court (January 5) allowed an appeal preferred by Adani Power Limited against the Gujarat High Court's 2019 order, which refused to exempt the company from payment of the customs duty on electrical energy removed from the Special Economic Zone(SEZ) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) by its coal-based thermal power plant situated in Mundra Port.

The petitioner(Adani Power) is engaged in the activity of generating, transmitting and selling electrical energy from the SEZ to the DTA. In 2010, the Government levied custody duty with retrospective effect from 26.6.2009, which the Gujarat High Court in 2015 held to be arbitrary and illegal.

It held that the petitioner was exempted from the levy of customs duty for the period 26.6.2009 to 15.9. 2019 as the levy of customs duty on electrical energy can only be levied prospectively through a substantive law. The High Court also stated that it amounted to double taxation as the petitioners had paid duty on raw materials.

Mere Participation In Arbitration Won't Bar Challenge To Arbitrator's Eligibility, Waiver Must Be "Express & In Writing" : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Airports Authority of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 4

The Supreme Court has ruled that a party's involvement in arbitral proceedings does not, in itself, constitute a waiver of its right to object to an arbitrator's eligibility. The Court clarified that the right to object can only be waived by an express written agreement, rejecting any notion of a "deemed waiver" arising from conduct alone under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

“The words “an express agreement in writing” in the proviso to Section 12(5) means that the right to object to the appointment of an ineligible arbitrator cannot be taken away by mere implication. The agreement referred to in the proviso must be a clear, unequivocal written agreement.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan.

The Court endorsed the Delhi High Court's decision in Govind Singh v. Satya Group Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 37, where it was held that “it is not necessary to even examine whether the appellant had raised an objection. Even if the appellant had participated in the proceedings without raising any objection, it cannot be said that he had waived his right under Section 12(5) of the Act, 1996.”

O 1 R 10 CPC | Plaintiff Is 'Dominus Litis', Can't Be Compelled To Add A Defendant In Suit : Supreme Court

Case Details: Nak Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 5

The Supreme Court (January 5) dismissed a litigant's plea to be included as a defendant in the suit, stating that the plaintiff, being master of the suit, cannot be compelled to sue a party against whom no relief is claimed.

“This apart, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) who have instituted the suit are dominus litis and it is for them to choose their adversaries. If they do not array the proper and necessary parties to the suit, they do it at their own risk. However, they cannot be compelled to add a party to defend a suit against their wishes.”, observed a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, while upholding the Bombay High Court's decision which set aside the trial court's order impleading the Appellant as defendant in a money recovery suit despite neither being a necessary party nor a proper party.

This was a case where the original suit was instituted by the legal heirs of the property owner against M/s Kishore Engineering Company, a partnership firm, seeking recovery of unpaid service charges for furniture and fixtures in a commercial premise in Mumbai. The firm was occupying the premises as a sub-tenant.

Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Given For Sale Agreement Impermissible When Buyer & Seller Are At Fault : Supreme Court

Case Details: Subhash Aggarwal v. Mahender Pal Chhabra & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 6

The Supreme Court observed that when both the buyer and seller were at fault in performance of a contract, it would be impermissible to order forfeiture of the earnest money deposited by the buyer, as it would unjustly enrich the seller.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the buyer's appeal against a Delhi High Court ruling which, while setting aside the trial court's decree of specific performance for lack of readiness and willingness, permitted forfeiture of the earnest money.

The dispute stemmed from a January 22, 2008 agreement to sell a 300 sq. yard property in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, for ₹6.11 crore. The buyer paid ₹60 lakh as earnest money and ₹30 lakh subsequently. Although the trial court in February 2021 decreed specific performance, the High Court in September 2025 reversed the decision, holding that the buyer failed to prove financial capacity to pay the balance ₹5.21 crore, allowing forfeiture of the earnest money but ordering refund of the additional ₹30 lakh with interest.

Right To Speedy Trial Not Defeated By Gravity Of Offence; Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Becomes Punishment: Supreme Court

Case Details: Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 7

The right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence, the Supreme Court held, observing that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, effectively converts pre-trial detention into a form of punishment. The Court made these observations while granting bail to former Amtek Auto promoter Arvind Dham in a money-laundering case.

The Court, relying on the judgment in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, underscored that if the State, any prosecuting agency, or even the court concerned has no wherewithal to secure or protect an accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, then the State or such agency cannot oppose a plea for bail merely on the ground that the alleged crime is serious.

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the Delhi High Court's order denying bail, a Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sanjay Kumar ordered the release of Dham on bail in proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Amtek Group Promoter Arvind Dham In Money Laundering Case

Case Details: Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 7

The Supreme Court granted bail to Arvind Dham, promoter of the Amtek Group, in a money laundering case arising out of alleged bank fraud running into about Rs. 27,000 crores.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed Dham's plea challenging the Delhi High Court's order refusing to grant him regular bail. The Court granted him bail on the ground of long incarceration of almost 17 months, observing -

The case against Dham arises from two ECIRs registered by the Enforcement Directorate on the basis of FIRs lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation in December 2022. The FIRs were registered on complaints by the Bank of Maharashtra and IDBI Bank, alleging diversion and misuse of loan funds by group companies of the Amtek Group.

Reserved Category Candidate Who Availed Relaxation In Prelims Can't Seek Unreserved Seat Based On Final Rank : Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors. (And Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 8

The Supreme Court (January 6) refused to consider the appointment of a Schedule Caste category candidate in the unreserved cadre of the Indian Forest Service because the candidate had availed relaxation at the stage of preliminary examination.

“once relaxation has been taken by a reserved category candidate, they cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies.”, observed a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, while allowing the Union of India's plea against the Karnataka High Court's decision which had allowed the appointment of the Respondent-SC category candidate to the unreserved category merely because he had secured higher final rank than the General category candidate, while ignoring the fact that the Respondent had availed the relaxation.

The dispute arose from the 2013 IFS examination, conducted in two stages, the Preliminary Examination and the Main Examination with an interview. In the prelims, the general cut-off was 267 marks, while the relaxed cut-off for SC candidates was 233. G. Kiran (SC) qualified with 247.18 marks by availing the relaxed cut-off, whereas Antony S. Mariyappa (General) qualified on the general cut-off with 270.68 marks. However, in the final merit list, Kiran ranked 19, and Antony ranked 37. However, during cadre allocation, Karnataka had only one General Insider vacancy and no SC Insider vacancy. The Union allotted the General Insider post to Antony and allocated Kiran to the Tamil Nadu cadre. Kiran challenged this before the CAT and the Karnataka High Court, both of which ruled in his favour on the ground that he had secured a higher final rank.

Supreme Court Allows West Bengal Part-Time Teachers Seeking Equal Pay As Full-Time Teachers To Make Fresh Representation

Case Details: Gurupada Bera and Ors. v. Binod Kumar and Ors., Diary No. 18826-2025 ()

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Disposing of a contempt petition, the Supreme Court allowed certain part-time teachers in the State of West Bengal to make a fresh representation before the School Education Department Secretary for pay parity with full-time teachers teaching in non-government aided higher secondary schools. It ordered that the competent authority shall pass a reasoned order on the representations within 4 months.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment.

Reading the operative part in open Court, Justice Mehta said,

Public Sector Enterprise Can't Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Retired Employee If Rules Don't Expressly Enable It : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 10

The Supreme Court (January 6) ruled that a public-sector corporation cannot initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings against an employee after retirement in the absence of an express enabling provision in its service regulations.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi quashed the post-retirement disciplinary action taken against a former employee of the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation nearly eleven months after his retirement.

Noting that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ('1982 Pension Rules') and Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 don't include an enabling provision to launch disciplinary proceedings against the retired employee, the Court allowed the ex-employee's appeal, holding that “the Corporation had no jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings against the appellant for the alleged misconduct and to direct recovery against him applying 1982 Pension Rules.”

Single FIR Permissible In Mass Cheating Cases Arising From One Conspiracy : Supreme Court

Case Details: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 11

The Supreme Court has held that in cases alleging a single criminal conspiracy resulting in cheating of a large number of investors, the registration of one FIR and treatment of other complaints as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is legally permissible. The Court set aside the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court in 2019, which had mandated separate FIRs for each individual investor.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the appeal filed by the State (NCT of Delhi) and held that the High Court's answers in the criminal reference were unsustainable.

Background

Sports Quota Admissions To MBBS/BDS: Supreme Court Quashes Midstream Policy Change In Punjab 2024 Session

Case Details: Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 12

The Supreme Court has set aside the midstream expansion of the zone of consideration for sports quota admissions to MBBS and BDS courses in Punjab, holding that altering admission criteria after the process has commenced violates settled principles of fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed a batch of civil appeals arising from orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed challenges to the inclusion of sports achievements from Classes IX and X, in addition to Classes XI and XII, for admissions during the 2024 session.

Background

S. 138 NI Act | Cognizance Can't Be Taken Of Time-Barred Cheque Dishonour Complaint Without First Condoning Delay : Supreme Court

Case Details: S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Cognizance can't be taken on a cheque dishonor complaint filed belatedly unless the delay is condoned by the Court, observed the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision, which upheld the trial court's decision to take cognizance of a cheque dishonor complaint filed belatedly, even without condoning the delay.

“we have no hesitation in holding that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognisance of the respondent's complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, even before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned.”, the court held.

'Rules Of Game Can't Be Changed Midway' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Midway Criteria Change In BPSC Asst. Engineer Recruitment

Case Details: Abhay Kumar Patel & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (And Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Reaffirming that the “rules of the game cannot be changed midway”, the Supreme Court (January 6) set aside the Patna High Court's decision which had upheld the State Government's mid-process amendment of recruitment rules, a move that adversely affected candidates who had qualified under the written examination.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi allowed the batch of appeals filed by the candidates, who appeared in the BPSC examination conducted for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers, where the sole criterion for selection was the written examination. However, after the written examination was conducted and the provisional merit list was released, the state government amended the recruitment rules by granting weightage for contractual experience, along with age relaxation, and gave effect to the amendment retrospectively.

Candidates selected under the original criteria challenged the move, but the Patna High Court dismissed the challenge, treating the amendment as a policy decision and holding that no vested right flowed from a provisional merit list, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Exoneration In Disciplinary Proceedings Doesn't Bar Criminal Prosecution On Same Charge In All Situations : Supreme Court

Case Details: Karnataka Lokayukta Bagalkote District v. Chandrashekar and Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 15

The Supreme Court has held that exoneration of a public servant in departmental disciplinary proceedings does not automatically warrant quashing of a criminal prosecution, particularly in corruption cases arising from trap proceedings, reiterating that the two processes operate independently and on different standards of proof.

A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed an appeal filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta and set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment which had quashed criminal proceedings against an Executive Engineer accused of demanding and accepting a bribe.

Background

Judge Can't Be Presumed To Be Biased Merely Because Litigant's Relative Is Police Constable Or Court Staff: Supreme Court

Case Details: Prasanna Kasini v. State of Telangana

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 16

In a significant ruling on transfer petitions grounded on allegations of bias, the Supreme Court on January 6 set aside an order of the Telangana High Court transferring a criminal case from Sangareddy to Hyderabad, holding that such allegations cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the official positions held by relatives of a litigant.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed an appeal filed by the wife, against an ex parte order by which proceedings in a criminal case initiated on her complaint were shifted from the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy, to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, at the instance of her husband.

The Court noted that the transfer was ordered without hearing the wife, who was impleaded as a respondent in the transfer petition but had not appeared. It took exception to the High Court's approach, particularly given the personal circumstances highlighted by the appellant, including the difficulty faced by a woman with two children in prosecuting proceedings far from her hometown.

Customs Act | Statutory Tariff Headings And HSN Notes Prevail Over Common Parlance In Customs Classification : Supreme Court

Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. M/S Welkin Foods

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 17

The Supreme Court (January 6) observed that the 'Aluminum Shelves' imported for mushroom cultivation cannot be classified as 'parts of agricultural machinery' but are liable to be classified as 'aluminium structures', attracting a customs duty.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan resolved the long-standing dispute over the classification of aluminium shelving systems used in mushroom farms for the purpose of attracting custom duty on the import of aluminium shelving. Moreover, the bench fundamentally restructures how goods are classified for customs duty and laid down seven-point mandatory framework by downgrading the routine reliance on the “common parlance” or “trade parlance” test and affirmed the primacy of express or implied statutory guidance flowing from tariff headings, section and chapter notes, HSN Explanatory Notes, and technical expressions used in the tariff entries.

The dispute was that the respondent-importer had imported the aluminium shelving to be used in mushroom cultivation and had claimed classification of the imported item under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 84369900, covering “parts of agricultural machinery”, which attracts nil customs duty.

State Must Abandon Colonial Mindset : Supreme Court Criticises Governments Retracting Assurances To Industries

Case Details: Ifgl Refractories Ltd. v. Orissa State Financial Corporation & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 18

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the States for moving back on its promises to investors, holding that industrial incentive policies must be interpreted liberally and purposively, and that the State cannot evade its commitments through technicalities or retrospective amendments, as such conduct erodes investor confidence and defeats the very purpose of industrial policies.

“Where the Government has offered an incentive of exemption to a new industry, and where an industry has been established in reliance on such representation in order to avail the benefit, that new industry may legitimately contend that the exemption cannot thereafter be withdrawn.”, observed a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, while allowing an industry's appeal against the Odisha High Court's decision that had upheld the Odisha State Financial Corporation's withdrawal of its assurance to grant subsidies after the appellant set up the industrial unit.

The dispute dates back to 1992, when the Appellant set up a Magneco Metrel Plant under the 1989 Industrial Policy with fresh registration, separate infrastructure and new machinery, commencing production on 21 November 1992. Subsidy applications were filed in 1993, the unit was recognised as a new industrial unit in 1998, and subsidies were sanctioned in 2003. However, the amounts were never released and were ultimately rejected in 2008 on the basis of a 1994 executive instruction and a 2008 retrospective amendment imposing an overall subsidy cap. The Odisha High Court upheld the rejection in 2018, leading IFGL to approach the Supreme Court.

Power To Condone Delay Lies Only With Courts, Not Tribunals Unless Statute Expressly Permits: Supreme Court

Case Details: Property Company (P) Ltd. v. Rohinten Daddy Mazda

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 19

The Supreme Court (January 7) reiterated that the Company Law Board or Tribunal cannot condone delays in filing appeals unless the law expressly grants them such power, clarifying that the authority to condone delay lies with courts and not with quasi-judicial bodies unless specifically provided under their governing framework.

“The provisions of the (Limitation) Act, 1963…would only apply to suits, applications or appeals, as the case may be, which are made under any law to 'courts' and not to those made before quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals, unless such quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals are specifically empowered in that regard.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while setting aside order of the Calcutta High Court which upheld the Company Law Board's decision to condone a 249-day delay in filing an appeal under the Companies Act, 2013.

The dispute arose when the company refused to register the transmission of shares claimed by the respondent under his mother's will. Although probate was granted in 1990, the respondent sought transmission only in March 2013, which the company rejected in April 2013.

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act | Service Of Notice under S. 10(5) On Person In Actual Possession Is Mandatory : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia v. State of Gujarat & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 20

The Supreme Court of India has held that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 would abate under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 if the State failed to take actual physical possession of the excess land in accordance with law, including by serving mandatory notice on the persons in possession under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed a civil appeal filed by sub-plot holders from Surat, Gujarat, and set aside a 2014 judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had branded them as “illegal occupants” and denied them relief.

Background

Arbitral Proceedings Commence On Respondent Receiving Notice Invoking Arbitration Clause, Not On Arbitrator's Appointment : Supreme Court

Case Details: Regenta Hotels Private Limited v. M/S Hotel Grand Centre Point and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 21

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the arbitral proceedings are set to commence on the date of receipt of notice invoking the arbitration clause by the respondent.

“...the date on which the respondent receives a notice or request invoking arbitration is the moment at which the arbitral proceedings commence under Section 21 of the Act. It further clarified that a valid invocation requires the notice to articulate the dispute sought to be referred but once such notice is received, commencement is complete and effective for all legal purposes including limitation, maintainability of the Section 11 Petition and the legal efficacy of any pre-arbitral measures.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, while setting aside the Karnataka High Court's order which considered the date of commencement of arbitration from the date of appointment of an arbitrator.

The dispute arose out of a franchise agreement executed in March 2019 between Appellant and a partnership firm operating a hotel in Srinagar. Following internal disputes among the partners of the firm, one of the partners allegedly interfered with the hotel's operations, prompting Appellant to seek interim protection.

Validly Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Seek Higher Bids Later: Supreme Court

Case Details: Golden Food Products India v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.18095-18096 of 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 22

The Supreme Court held that once a person is declared the highest bidder in an auction for a plot, it crystalises the future rights and obligations between the parties.

The bidding authority then has a duty to issue the allotment letter, and expectation of a higher bid in a subsequent auction can't be a reason to cancel an auction held in accordance with law, as it would amount to cancelling the auction based on irrelevant considerations and therefore, arbitrary, whimsical and irrational.

"In our view, there cannot be any imprimatur of the Court to such arbitrary cancellation of auction by an instrumentality or agency of the State in the absence of there being any fraud, collusion, suppression etc. Merely because the smaller plots measuring 123 to 132 square metres were auctioned and sold at a higher price as compared to the subject plot measuring 3150 square metres which is a large sized plot, could not have been the basis for cancelling theauction insofar as the subject plot is concerned."

Supreme Court Explains Test For Grant Of Bail To Accused Added During Trial Under Section 319 CrPC

Case Details: Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. State of Jharkhand (And Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 23

The Supreme Court has laid down a rule for granting bail to a person added as an additional accused in the middle of the trial, stating that bail shouldn't be denied unless there's strong and convincing evidence showing serious involvement.

“…the court must be satisfied that there is strong and cogent evidence of the person's complicity at the threshold i.e. much higher than that required for framing charges against the original accused.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, while setting aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision which denied bail to the appellant, who was arrayed in the middle of the trial.

"When a person is added as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that person is ultimately arrested and prays for bail, the relevant consideration at the end of the court while considering his plea for bail should be the strong and cogent evidence than mere probability of his complicity,” the Court observed.

Fresh Notification Of Vijayawada ACB As 'Police Station' Not Required After Andhra Pradesh Bifurcation : Supreme Court

Case Details: Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Anti-Corruption Bureau, A.P. & Anr. Etc. v. Dayam Peda Ranga Rao Etc.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 24

The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had quashed a batch of FIRs registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, holding that the High Court adopted an impermissibly hyper-technical approach that resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the appeals filed by the Joint Director, Rayalaseema, ACB and others, restoring the FIRs relating to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and permitting continuation of investigations across the State.

The Court held that the High Court erred in concluding that the ACB's Central Investigation Unit at Vijayawada was not a “police station” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, merely because a specific notification had not been issued post-bifurcation of the State.

Supreme Court Asks High Courts To Prioritise Disposal Of Matters Which Stayed Trials In Heinous Offences

Case Details: Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 25

Expressing concern over a criminal revision remaining pending for more than 23 years due to the operation of an interim order, the Supreme Court (January 8) asked all the High Courts to promptly take up cases where trials in heinous offences such as murder, rape, and dowry death have been stayed because of interim orders passed by the High Courts.

“If criminal trials in such serious offences remain pending for years together on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Courts, it would lead to nothing but mockery of justice. Justice has to be done with all the parties. Justice cannot be done only with the accused persons. Justice has to be done even with the victim and the family members of the victim. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan.

The bench requested “the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to ensure that the petitions wherein interim orders are passed holding up the trials should be immediately taken up for hearing, more particularly in sensitive and serious matters like murder, dowry death, rape etc.”

Studying In Govt Institute Doesn't Give Automatic Right To Govt Job : Supreme Court Rejects 'Legitimate Expectation' Claim

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Bhawana Mishra (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 26

The Supreme Court has held that mere admission to and completion of a course in a government institution does not create a legitimate expectation of automatic appointment to a government post, particularly when there is a change in policy and recruitment framework.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan allowed the State of Uttar Pradesh's plea against the Allahabad High Court's decision to grant appointment to the Respondents just because they had a legitimate expectation to be employed after getting admission to the training course. In essence, the court ruled that candidates admitted to a government training course acquire no vested right to merely because of past practice, especially when a subsequent policy change and a massive increase in the number of eligible candidates fundamentally alters the recruitment landscape.

It was argued by the Respondent-candidates that when the past practice offered automatic employment to the erstwhile candidates who were admitted to the Ayurvedic Nursing training course, then there arose a legitimate expectation that they would also be offered employment as staff nurses pursuant to their admission to the training course.

Motor Vehicle Act | Excavators, Dumpers, Etc Used Inside Factories Are Not Motor Vehicles To Attract Road Tax : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 27

The Supreme Court has ruled that Heavy Earth Moving Machinery (HEMM) and construction equipment like Excavators, Dumpers, Loaders, and Dozers used exclusively within a factory or enclosed premises are not "motor vehicles" under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicle Act and hence not liable to pay road tax.

Allowing the Ultratech Cement Ltd. plea, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale set aside the Gujarat High Court's decision that had upheld the state's demand for crores in road tax on such machinery, despite these HEMM's being used in the enclosed premises to facilitate an operation of the Ultratech's plant sites.

“we are of the conclusive opinion that the vehicles used by the appellants are vehicles of special types, precisely construction equipment vehicles which are suitable and are meant for use for operation and use within the industrial area/factory premises/ defined enclosed premises and are not meant for use on roads or public roads. They are off-road equipments and as such stand excluded not only from the purview of the “motor vehicle” as defined under Section 2 (28) of the Act but also from tax as Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution only authorizes taxation of vehicles suitable for use on roads only. They are not even chargeable to road tax in view of Schedule I to Section 3 (1) of the Gujarat Tax Act which do not prescribes any tax for such kind of vehicles i.e., construction equipment vehicles.”, the court held.

Companies Act | Private Complaint Not Maintainable Against Fraud; Can Be Filed Only By SFIO : Supreme Court

Case Details: Yerram Vijay Kumar v. State of Telangana & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 28

The Supreme Court (January 9) held that complaints alleging fraud under the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be initiated through private complaints, as cognizance can be taken by a Special Court only on a complaint filed by the Director of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) or an officer authorised by the Central Government under Section 212(6) of the Act.

The Court, however, clarified that an individual is not remediless, and can approach the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 213 of the Act to demand an investigation by Serious Fraud Investigation Office in to the allegations of fraud, upon satisfying the eligibility to register the complaint.

“As such, the offence under Section 448 of the Companies Act is an 'offence covered under Section 447' as mentioned in Section 212(6) of the Companies Act and therefore, the bar against taking cognizance under the second proviso of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, unless specific conditions are met, is attracted in the present case. Cognizance, therefore, in such a case, cannot be taken merely by filing of a private complaint by the Complainant. However, it is not to say that the Complainant is left absolutely remediless. The right recourse for a person, who makes an allegation of fraud in the affairs of a company is to file an application under Section 213 of the Companies Act before the NCLT upon satisfying the eligibility under Section 213(a) and 213(b) of the Companies Act.”, observed a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and K Vinod Chandran, while quashing criminal proceedings against former directors of a company for offenses under Sections 448 (false statement) and 451 (repeated default) of the Companies Act.

Supreme Court Urges Union To Bring 'Romeo-Juliet' Clause In POCSO Act To Shield Consensual Adolescent Relationships From Prosecution

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 29

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has suggested that the Union Government consider introducing a “Romeo-Juliet” clause in the POCSO Act to exempt adolescents who engage in consensual relationships from criminal prosecution, despite being below the age of consent (18 years) and having only a minor age difference.

“Considering the fact that repeated judicial notice has been taken of the misuse of these laws, let a copy of this judgment be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this menace inter alia, the introduction of a Romeo – Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle scores etc.”, ordered a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh, as a post-script in a judgment delivered in a matter arising out of a Allahabad High Court's decision, which while granting bail to the juvenile had issued sweeping directions to the investigative agencies to conduct medical tests, such as ossification tests, at the very outset of investigation to determine the age of victims.

Setting aside the High Court's sweeping directions, the Top Court found it to be against the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which prescribes a mandatory procedure under Section 94 to determine the age of the victim. The provision says that age is to be determined first on the basis of a matriculation or equivalent certificate, failing which a birth certificate issued by a municipal authority or panchayat is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of these documents can medical tests such as ossification tests be ordered.

Preventive Detention Can't Be Used To Override Bail, Must Prove 'Public Order' Threat : Supreme Court

Case Details: Roshini Devi v. State of Telangana and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 30

The Supreme Court quashed the preventive detention under the Telangana 'Goonda Act', ruling that simply declaring the detenu a 'habitual drug offender' was not sufficient for preventive detention unless shown how detenu's actions specifically threatened public order.

“Mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order unless there is material to show that the narcotic drug dealt with by the detenu was in fact dangerous to public health under the Act of 1986. This material is found to be missing in the order of detention.”, observed a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, while setting aside the Telangana High Court's decision which upheld the District Magistrate's detention order detaining Appellant.

Since the Appellant was granted bail in NDPS cases, the State invoked the provisions of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, known as 'Goonda Act', to not let her free.

Arbitration | Lack Of S. 21 Notice Not Fatal If Claim Is Otherwise Valid & Arbitrable : Supreme Court

Case Details – M/S Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 31

The Supreme Court set aside a Kerala High Court judgment which had held that an arbitral tribunal cannot decide disputes beyond a specific issue referred to it and that a party cannot raise additional disputes without issuing a separate notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court set aside a judgment of the Kerala High Court and restored an arbitral award in favour of M/s Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd in a contractual dispute with the State of Kerala arising out of road maintenance works under the Kerala State Transport Project.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan held that the High Court had erred in concluding that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide disputes beyond one specific issue and in holding that the contractor was barred from raising other issues for want of a separate notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Bombay HC's 'Central Warehousing' Judgment Does Not Bar Arbitration Clauses In Leave & License Agreements : Supreme Court

Case Details – Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited v. Santosh Cordeiro and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 32

The Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court order appointing an arbitrator in a dispute arising from a leave and licence agreement for office premises of Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited at Malad, Mumbai, holding that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the High Court was right in allowing the application filed by the licensor and appointing a sole arbitrator, as the court's jurisdiction at that stage was confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court rejected the licensor's objections based on Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 at the stage of appointment of arbitrator.

S.126 Indian Contract Act | Promoter's Undertaking To Infuse Funds Won't Amount To 'Guarantee' : Supreme Court

Case Details: UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Electrosteel Castings Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9701/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 33

The Supreme Court has held that a contractual clause obligating a promoter to arrange infusion of funds into a borrower to meet financial covenants does not amount to a contract of guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. At the same time, the Court clarified that approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not automatically extinguish unsustainable debt against third-party security providers unless the plan expressly provides so.

Interpreting Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, the Court held that for an obligation to be construed as a guarantee, there must be a direct and unambiguous obligation of the surety to discharge the obligation of the principal debtor to the creditor.

“A 'See to it' guarantee in English Common Law refers to an obligation upon the guarantor to ensure that principal debtor itself, performs its own obligation and the guarantor, therefore, is in breach as soon as principal debtor fails to perform. However, a 'See to it' guarantee does not include an obligation to enable the principal debtor to perform its own obligation. Such an arrangement would not be a guarantee under Section 126 of the Act”, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe observed.

S.138 NI Act | Multiple Complaints Can Be Filed Over Dishonour Of Several Cheques From Same Transaction : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sumit Bansal v. M/S Mgi Developers and Promoters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 34

The Supreme Court has held that the dishonour of multiple cheques arising from the same underlying transaction can give rise to separate causes of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that such prosecutions cannot be quashed at the threshold merely on the ground of multiplicity.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside a judgment of the Delhi High Court which had quashed the cheque bounce complaints on the reasoning that parallel prosecution for the same liability was impermissible.

Disagreeing with the High Court's view, the Supreme Court observed :

'Harsh To Send Him To Jail At This Age' : Supreme Court Reduces Sentence Of 80-Year-Old Convicted For Homicide

Case Details: Shrikrishna v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 35

The Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of a man convicted for causing the death of another person during a village clash in 1992 to the period already undergone, citing his advanced age of over 80 years.

A Bench of Justices N. V. Anjaria and K. Vinod Chandran upheld the conviction of Shrikrishna under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, but modified the sentence imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Background

While Bail Is Not To Be Refused Mechanically, It Must Not Be Granted On Irrelevant Considerations: Supreme Court

Case Details: X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 36

The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to a man in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly committing rape and sexual assault on a minor girl. The Court noted that the bail order was perverse, unreasonable, and ignored the relevant material.

“It is settled law that the mere filing of a chargesheet does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an application for bail. However, while assessing such an application, the Court is duty-bound to have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation. The offences alleged in the present case are heinous and grave involving repeated penetrative sexual assault upon a minor victim committed under armed intimidation and accompanied by recording of the acts for the purpose of blackmail. Such conduct has a devastating impact on the life of the victim and shakes the collective conscience of society.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while allowing the appeal of the complainant/victim against the bail order.

The prosecution's case was that the accused, known to the victim, along with his friends, had sexually assaulted the minor repeatedly over six months. The assaults were allegedly committed under the threat of a country-made pistol (katta), and the acts were recorded on a mobile phone to blackmail the victim. The FIR was registered on December 02, 2024, after initial police reluctance.

When Can Shares Received After Company Amalgamation Be Taxed As Business Income : Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: M/S Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi – Ii, New Delhi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 37

The Supreme Court has ruled that shares received in a corporate amalgamation are immediately taxable as business income under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act if they represent a "real, commercially realizable benefit."

“where the shares of an amalgamating company, held as stock-in-trade, are substituted by shares of the amalgamated company pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, and such shares are realisable in money and capable of definite valuation, the substitution gives rise to taxable business income within the meaning of Section 28 of the I.T. Act.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.

The dispute arose from a scheme of amalgamation under which Jindal Ferro Alloys Limited (JFAL) merged into Jindal Strips Limited (JSL). The assesses had held shares of JFAL and, upon amalgamation, were allotted shares of JSL in substitution. The controversy centred on whether this allotment constituted a taxable event when the original shares were held not as investments (capital assets), but as trading assets (stock-in-trade).

Workers Hired Through Contractors Can't Claim Equal Status As Regular Employees : Supreme Court

Case Details: Municipal Council v. K. Jayaram and Others Etc.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 38

The Supreme Court held that contractual workers engaged through third-party service providers are not entitled to equivalent employment benefits as regular employees, observing that such parity would undermine the foundational principles of public recruitment and transparent hiring processes.

“If the persons who are employed through a contractor, and have come to work, are given equal benefit and status as a regular employee, it would amount to giving premium and sanction to a process which is totally arbitrary as there is no mode prescribed in any contract as to how the contractor would employ or choose the persons who are to be sent, except for the basic qualification, i.e., knowledge in the field for which they are required.”, the Court observed.

The court observed that regular employment under a State entity is a public asset and cannot be equated with contractual engagement through contractors. It held that if distinctions between regular and contractual employees are blurred, the very purpose of different modes of hiring would be defeated. While regular appointments are governed by transparent procedures ensuring equal opportunity to all eligible candidates, engagement through contractors is left to the contractor's discretion, making the two categories fundamentally distinct in law.

Appeal Won't Abate For Not Adding Legal Heirs If Interest Of Deceased Is Sufficiently Represented By Others : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kishorilal (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. v. Gopal & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 39

The Supreme Court (January 12) ruled that mere non-substitution of one of the legal heirs of a deceased party wouldn't render the suit abated if the deceased party's interest is adequately represented by other legal heirs.

A bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which declared the appeal against the specific performance decree as abated, merely because one of the legal heirs of the deceased vendor was not substituted, although his interest was adequately represented by other legal heirs.

The Court took reference from the recent case of Shivashankara vs HP Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261 where it was observed that “where the estate of a deceased party is sufficiently represented by his legal heirs on record, proceedings would not abate if some of the heirs are left out.”

Vendor Is Necessary Party In Specific Performance Suits Even If He Has Transferred Property To Third Party: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kishorilal (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. v. Gopal & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 39

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled legal position that the vendor is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, even if he has transferred his interest in the property to a third party.

“The law is thus settled that the vendor is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, notwithstanding that vendor has transferred his interest in the subject matter of the agreement to a third party.”, observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan.

"In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immovable property, vendor is a necessary party notwithstanding he has transferred his interest in the property to a third party. As a sequitur, a suit or an appeal emanating from such a suit would abate if, upon death of the vendor, his legal heirs/ representatives are not substituted," the Court added.

NCDRC Decree Against Builder Company Can't Be Executed Against Directors/Promoters Without Personal Liability Fixed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) v. M/S Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 40

The Supreme Court (January 12) observed that the homebuyers cannot execute a decree, obtained solely against a builder company, against its directors or promoters personally, unless a specific finding of liability was made against them in the original proceedings.

“It is trite that a decree cannot, by process of execution, be employed to shift or enlarge liability so as to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, while dismissing the homebuyer's plea, who sought enforcement of the decree against the directors and promoters of the building company.

The appeals stemmed from the long-pending grievance of flat buyers in the 'Ansal Crown Heights' project in Gurugram. The builder, M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. (ACIPL), failed to deliver possession. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in 2022 passed an order directing only ACIPL to either complete the project or refund the invested amounts with interest.

Hindu Daughter-in-Law Who Becomes Widow After Father-in-Law's Death Entitled To Maintenance From His Estate : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 41

The Supreme Court has held that a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from his estate under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, while dismissing a batch of civil appeals, ruled that the expression “any widow of his son” under Section 21(vii) of the Act is unambiguous and includes all widowed daughters-in-law, irrespective of whether the son died before or after the father-in-law.

Background

General Provident Fund | Succession Certificate Not Necessary For Nominee To Collect PF Amount Above ₹5,000 : Supreme Court

Case Details – Union of India & Anr. v. Paresh Chandra Mondal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 42

The Supreme Court held that even where the General Provident Fund balance exceeds ₹5,000, a valid nominee is entitled to receive the amount without being required to first produce a succession certificate, probate, or letters of administration, and that insisting on such documents would render the concept of nomination otiose.

“Consequently, this Court is of the view that in cases of a valid nomination, the amount in the provident fund account of the deceased depositor or subscriber is required to be released to the nominee”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan dismissed a plea filed by the Union of India against a Calcutta High Court judgment which had upheld the release of General Provident Fund amounts to a nominee without insisting on a succession certificate, even where the amount exceeded the threshold of ₹5,000 provided in the Provident Fund Act, 1925.

'Protects Dishonest Public Servants' : Why Justice Nagarathna Struck Down S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act

Case Details – Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 43

Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is unconstitutional, concluding that the requirement of prior approval before even initiating an inquiry or investigation is contrary to the object of the anti-corruption law and effectively shields corrupt public servants.

“While the patent purpose of the provision is for the purpose of protecting honest public servants and preventing them from being subject to unjustified, frivolous and vexatious investigations, the latent object is that Section 17A should function as a shield that, in fact, protects the dishonest public servants. Blockading any form of enquiry or investigation at the very outset by making the same conditional on grant of approval results in corrupt officers receiving undue protection and finding ways to scuttle the investigation and the criminal justice process”, she held.

In her separate opinion delivered in a split verdict by a bench comprising herself and Justice KV Viswanathan, Justice Nagarathna said the core issue was not who should grant approval under Section 17A, but whether such prior approval was required at all.

Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Validity Of S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act Mandating Prior Sanction For Investigation

Case Details – Centre For Public

Interest Litigation v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 43

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, inserted by the 2018 amendment, which mandates that there should be a prior sanction from the Government to launch an investigation against a public servant under the Act.

While Justice BV Nagarathna held that Section 17A is unconstitutional, Justice KV Viswanathan refused to do so and instead read it down to hold that the question of sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or the Lok Ayukta. In view of the divergence of opinion in the bench, the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate bench to decide the issue.

Justice Nagarathna observed that the provision was an attempt to "protect the corrupt."

Section 19(b) Specific Relief Act Cannot Override Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Once Suit Is Filed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 44

The Supreme Court ruled that where a property is transferred during the pendency of a suit, the protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act is no longer available, since such a transaction is governed by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The Court clarified that Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act protects only a bona fide purchaser who buys the property in good faith and without notice of any prior contract between the vendor and the original purchaser. However, where a party acquires the property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance, with knowledge of such proceedings, the benefit of Section 19(b) is no longer available. In such circumstances, the transaction becomes subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

“Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act would be available to a party to a contract who suffers a subsequent transfer of property…the moment a suit or proceeding is instituted by a party to the contract where after there is transfer of the suit property, Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act would have to give way to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act in which event the doctrine of lis pendens would come into force.”, observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan while dismissing the appeal filed by the subsequent purchaser, who sought resistance to specific performance decree under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, claiming her to be a bonafide purchaser.

Order XXI Rule 102 CPC | Transferee Pendente Lite Has No Right To Obstruct Execution Of Decree : Supreme Court

Case Details: Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 44

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a purchaser who acquires property during the pendency of litigation, as a transferee pendente lite, has no right to obstruct the execution of the decree and remains bound by the outcome of the proceedings, holding the transfer strictly subservient to the decree.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the Bombay High Court's ruling dismissing the appeal filed by a transferee pendente lite, who had challenged the rejection of his objections to the execution of a decree for specific performance under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Court held that a transfer made during the pendency of a suit is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and remains subject to the litigation's outcome. Since the appellant bought the property during the pendency of specific performance suit, the decree in favour of the buyer prevailed, leaving the appellant with no independent rights over the property, as well as to resist the execution of the decree due to the specific bar contained under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC. (See Tahir V. Isani vs. Madan Waman Chodankar)

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Effectively Implement 25% RTE Quota In Pvt Schools, Directs States To Frame Rules

Case Details: Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 10105/2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 45

The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions for the effective implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which mandates that private unaided schools must admit 25% of their strength from students belonging to economically weaker sections for free education.

The Court observed that the concept of "neighbourhood schools" are envisaged to break barriers of class, caste and gender.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar pronounced the judgment, underscoring that the effective implementation of Section 12 of the RTE Act can truly be transformative.

RTE Act Envisages Children Of Judges & Street Vendors Studying Together; Advances Fraternity & Equality: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 10105/2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 45

The Supreme Court has held thateffective implementation of the 25 percent admission mandate for children from weaker and disadvantaged sections in neighbourhood unaided schools under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, has the potential to transform India's social structure and must be treated as a national mission.

The Court said that the statutory mandate of Section 12 of the RTE Act is normatively ambitious in the sense that it envisages a common school system whereby all children, irrespective of their class, caste and gender, would attend the same neighbourhood school and learn together in an integrated, non-segregated environment.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chadurkar observed :

Right To Education Act | Ensure Admission Of Poor Students For Free Education In Private Schools : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 10105/2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 45

The Supreme Court (January 13) interpreted Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, to state that appropriate State governments and local authorities are obligated to ensure that there is no denial of admissions in the neighbourhood schools to students belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections of the society.

It also said that the neighbourhood schools are equally obligated to ensure that they admit such students to the extent of 25% as mandated in the RTE Act, read with Article 21A(right to education) of the Constitution.

Consequently, the Court has issued a slew of directions and has kept the matter pending for compliance. It has also impleaded the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights as a party and has asked it to file an affidavit.

Supreme Court Bats For Including Disability Rights In Corporate Social Responsibility

Case Details: Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited | C.A. No. 120/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 46

The Supreme Court has said that the rights of persons with disabilities have to be viewed through the prism of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to protect the human rights of individuals belonging to such groups. It is through this that true equality at the workplace can be achieved.

These observations were made by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan while hearing the case of an appellant who was denied the right to employment by Coal India Limited (CIL) just because she suffered from multiple disabilities.

While directingthat the CIL must create a supernumerary post for her, the bench emphasised the importance of reading CSR with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to further the rights of persons with disabilities. It relied on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011, on the aspect of corporate responsibility to respect human rights.

Supreme Court Directs Coal India To Appoint Candidate With Multiple Disabilities

Case Details: Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited | C.A. No. 120/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 46

The Supreme Court (January 13) directed the Chairman of Coal India Limited to create a supernumerary post for one person, who was denied employment after having qualified for the interview in 2016 because she suffered from multiple disabilities. The vacancy advertisement did not mention multiple disabilities, and therefore, she had applied as a visually handicapped candidate.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, however, clarified that the order was passed in peculiar facts and circumstances and must not be treated as a precedent.

The appellant, Sujata Bora, is to be given a desk job with a separate computer and keyboard as per the universal standards of disability rights and must be posted at NorthEastern Coal Fields, Coal India Limited, having an office at Margherita, Tinsukia, State of Assam.

Arbitration | Arbitral Award Can't Be Interfered With Just Because Another Interpretation Of Contract Is Possible : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 47

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that an arbitral award cannot be set aside under Section 34, nor can it be interfered with in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, merely because the arbitrator has not adopted an alternative or second possible interpretation of the substantive contract.

A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal set aside the Madras High Court Division Bench judgment, which had allowed the appeal against the Single Judge's order refusing to set aside the arbitral award. The Division Bench had justified its intervention on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal failed to adopt what it considered to be a “better” interpretation of the contract, treating this as a ground for interference on the premise that the award was contrary to the substantive provisions of law.

Disagreeing with the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal stated that a different interpretation of the contract by in itself cannot be a ground to interfere with an award.

Motive Insignificant When Direct Evidence In Form Of Dying Declaration Exists : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaman Lal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 48

The Supreme Court (January 15) restored the conviction of a man for committing murder of her wife, observing that absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution when there is clear and credible direct evidence, such as a dying declaration.

“Motive assumes significance, primarily in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Where there is direct evidence in the form of a credible and trustworthy dying declaration, the absence of strong proof of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while setting aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision which, while acquitting accused in 2014, had questioned the prosecution case on the ground that motive was not established.

It was the prosecution's case that the Respondent No.1, husband had set ablaze her wife leading to her death. The wife has recorded the dying declaration in the presence of the executive magistrate, taking name of his husband, accusing him for setting her ablaze.

AP Stamp Act | Stamp Duty Leviable On Agreement To Sell Only When Possession Follows It : Supreme Court

Case Details: Vayyaeti Srinivasarao v. Gaineedi Jagajyothi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 49

The Supreme Court (January 15) ruled that a stamp duty, as per the Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act, is not payable on an 'agreement to sell' which doesn't stipulates delivery of possession.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan delivered a ruling in the context of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act (“Act”), while setting aside the High Court's decision, which held that an agreement to sell amounted to a conveyance and required payment of stamp duty and penalty under Explanation I to Article 47A of Schedule I-A of the Act.

The case arose from a long-standing landlord-tenant relationship. The appellant had been a tenant in the suit property for over fifty years. In 2009, the respondent-landlady entered into an agreement to sell the property to him for ₹9 lakhs, of which ₹6.5 lakhs was paid as an advance. When disputes arose and the landlady denied the agreement, the tenant filed a suit for specific performance.

'Transaction Designed For Tax Avoidance' : Supreme Court Denies Income Tax Relief To Tiger Global In Flipkart-Walmart Deal

Case Details – Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and Others v. Tiger Global International II Holdings and Connected Cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 50

The Supreme Court ruled on a tax dispute arising from the 2018 sale of Flipkart's Singapore holding company to Walmart, in which Mauritius-based Tiger Global entities had earned substantial capital gains from the transaction.

The Court held that the Authority for Advance Rulings was justified in rejecting, at the threshold, Tiger Global's applications seeking a ruling on the taxability of those gains, after finding that the transaction was prima facie designed for tax avoidance. The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment which had set aside the AAR decision.

The appeals before the Supreme Court were filed by the Authority for Advance Rulings against Tiger Global International II Holdings, Tiger Global International III Holdings and Tiger Global International IV Holdings - private companies incorporated under the laws of Mauritius.

In Tiger Global Case, Supreme Court Explains Distinction Between 'Tax Planning' & 'Tax Evasion'

Case Details – Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and Others v. Tiger Global International II Holdings

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 50

The Supreme Court has held that while an assessee is permitted in law to plan transactions to avoid tax, such planning must strictly conform to the framework of the Income Tax Act, the applicable rules, and notifications.

The Court said that once a transaction structure is found to be illegal, sham, or lacking commercial substance, it ceases to be permissible tax avoidance and becomes impermissible avoidance or tax evasion, entitling the Revenue to closely examine and tax the transaction.

“Though it is permissible in law for an assessee to plan his transaction so as to avoid the levy of tax, the mechanism must be permissible and in conformity with the parameters contemplated under the provisions of the Act, rules, or notifications. Once the mechanism is found to be illegal or sham, it ceases to be “a permissible avoidance” and becomes “an impermissible avoidance” or “evasion”. The Revenue is, therefore, entitled to enquire into the transaction to determine whether the claim of the assessees for exemption is lawful”, the Court held.

'Tax Sovereignty Must Not Be Compromised' : Supreme Court Suggests Safeguards While Entering Into International Tax Treaties

Case Details – Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and Others v. Tiger Global International II Holdings

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 50

In his concurring opinion in the Tiger Global–Flipkart tax dispute, Justice JB Pardiwala stressed that tax sovereignty is an essential facet of India's economic independence and warned against ceding taxing rights through international treaties or external pressures.

Justice Pardiwala fully agreed with the reasoning and conclusions reached by Justice R Mahadevan, who authored the main judgment deciding the issues raised in the appeals, while adding a few observations focusing on the concept of tax sovereignty.

Justice Pardiwala said tax sovereignty has assumed particular importance in the present global economic climate fraught with trade wars, tariff conflicts, and international economic uncertainty. He outlined a detailed set of safeguards that India should adopt while entering into international tax treaties to protect its tax sovereignty, including anti-abuse provisions, preservation of source-based taxation rights, flexibility to renegotiate or exit treaties, and alignment with domestic law and constitutional principles.

Residents Welfare Association Or Homebuyers' Society Can't Intervene In Insolvency Petition Against Builder : Supreme Court

Case Details: Elegna Co-Op. Housing and Commercial Society Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 51

The Supreme Court (January 15) held that Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) representing homebuyers cannot intervene in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process unless the RWA itself has disbursed funds or is directly a party to the financial transaction, as only then can it claim the status of a financial creditor.

“A society or Resident Welfare Association, not being a creditor in its own right and not recognised as an authorised representative of allottees under the IBC, has no locus standi to intervene in proceedings arising out a Section 7 petition.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while dismissing a homebuyer's association plea who sought intervene in the Section 7 IBC proceedings.

The case arose from an attempt by the Appellant-Elegna Co-operative Housing and Commercial Society Ltd., representing 189-unit holders of a completed tower in the “Takshashila Elegna” project situated in Ahmedabad, to intervene in Section 7 IBC proceedings initiated by Edelweiss ARC against the corporate debtor, Takshashila Heights India Pvt. Ltd.

'To Safeguard Homebuyers' Interests' : Supreme Court Issues Directions For CoC In Insolvency Cases Against Builders

Case Details: Elegna Co-Op. Housing and Commercial Society Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 51

The Supreme Court (January 15) issued a set of directions regarding the functioning of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, noting that while the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount, such power must be exercised with responsibility, transparency and proper application of mind, particularly in real estate insolvencies where homebuyers' interests are deeply involved.

“While the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is paramount and is not ordinarily amenable to judicial review, the width of powers vested in the CoC carries with it a corresponding duty of responsibility. Any extraordinary or non-routine decision taken by the CoC must, therefore, be supported by cogent reasons duly recorded in writing.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.

Supreme Court Flags Prolonged Service Litigations Blocking Appointments, Calls For Judicial Introspection

Case Details: Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yati Jain and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Warning that prolonged and recurring service litigation is pushing public recruitment into a state of “perpetual flux”, the Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered on January 15, underscored the need for courts to interpret service rules in a manner that ensures timely completion of selection processes and appointment of the most suitable candidates.

The Court observed that a substantial number of service-related disputes across the country are aggravated by repeated rounds of litigation, leaving candidates trapped in uncertainty for years. The judiciary, it said, must remain alive to these practical realities while deciding service matters, and avoid interpretations that prevent recruitment processes from attaining finality.

Supreme Court Rejects Justice Yashwant Varma's Challenge To Lok Sabha Speaker's Formation Of Inquiry Committee In Impeachment Motion

Case Details: X v. O/O Speaker of the House of the People | W.P.(C) No. 1233/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 53

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to form an inquiry committee as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, in the impeachment motion moved against him in relation to the discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma pronounced the judgment. Judgment was reservedon January 8 after hearing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Verma, and Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

The main point raised in the petition is that despite impeachment notices being moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day (July 21), Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla proceeded to constitute the committee on his own, without awaiting the Rajya Sabha Chairman's decision on admission of the motion or holding the mandatory joint consultation prescribed by law. It is argued that this procedure is contrary to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Supreme Court Criticises Rajya Sabha Secretary General For Commenting On Merits Of Impeachment Motion Against Justice Varma

Case Details: X v. O/O Speaker of the House of the People | W.P.(C) No. 1233/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 53

The Supreme Court (January 16) criticised the procedure adopted by the Secretary General of Rajya Sabha, which became the basis on which the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha rejected the impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court. Statedly, the Secretary General made a substantive assessment of the notice of motion, whereas the law only contemplates that administrative formalities must be met.

This observation was made by the Court while rejecting Justice Varma's plea seeking to declare the Lok Sabha's three-member Inquiry Committee as illegal on grounds of procedural irregularities. It may be recalled that Justice Varma was involved in a controversy after burnt cash was found at his official residence during a fire incident. Subsequent to the in-house procedure adopted by the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Varma had refused to resign, and an impeachment motion was moved in both Houses of the Parliament.

Justice Varma filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the Lok Sabha's Inquiry Committee constituted as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, on the grounds that since the motion was 'given' in both Houses simultaneously, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha were to constitute the Inquiry Committee jointly.

Specific Relief Act | Suit For Mandatory Injunction Simpliciter Not Maintainable When Plaintiff's Title Is Disputed : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sanjay Paliwal and Another v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Through Its Executive Director

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 54

The Supreme Court held that a suit for mandatory injunction simpliciter is not maintainable where there are serious disputes relating to title, possession, and identity of the property. The Court held that in such circumstances, the plaintiff must seek a comprehensive remedy by filing a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, rather than attempting to secure relief through a standalone injunction.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N. Kotiswar Singh upheld the Uttarakhand High Court's dismissal of the Appellant's Second Appeal, holding that a suit seeking a mandatory injunction simpliciter cannot be maintained without first exploring remedies for declaration of title and recovery of possession, particularly when the plaintiff's title to the property is disputed.

A suit seeking mandatory injunction simpliciter was instituted by the Appellants against Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), seeking demolition of a boundary wall allegedly constructed by BHEL on their land. According to the Appellants, the wall obstructed their access to a public road from their property.

Contract To Hire Global Speakers For Media Summit Not Subject To Service Tax As 'Event Management' : Supreme Court

Case Details: HT Media Limited v. Principal Commissioner Delhi South Goods and Service Tax

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 55

In a major relief for the media and event organizers, the Supreme Court (January 16) held that the fees paid to high-profile speakers through international booking agencies do not attract Service Tax under the category of "Event Management Service".

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan set aside the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order which upheld the tax demand of over ₹60 lakhs on Hindustan Times Media Ltd. for its annual Leadership Summit, where it called international speakers including former UK PM Tony Blair, Former US Vice President Al Gore, and renowned astronaut Jerry Linenger through international booking agencies.

The Court held that HT Media's contract with the international booking agencies was solely for securing speakers for their event and did not constitute 'event management' services. Since service tax applies only to event management services, booking a speaker through an agent does not attract service tax.

Report Student Suicides Immediately; None Should Be Barred From Classes, Exams For Delay In Scholarship Disbursal : Supreme Court

Case Details: Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 56

The Supreme Court saidthat it is deeply saddened and disturbed to acknowledge the increasing number of unfortunate incidents of suicides in higher educational institutions(HEIs) across the country. To prevent such incidents, it has issued some interim directions, which include that all HEIs must report incidents of suicide irrespective of whether it takes place in the hostel, paying guest accommodation or happens to an online student, and they must have round-the-clock access to qualified medical help.

It has also been directed that no institution can prevent a student from appearing in an examination, or be barred from attending classes or have their documents withheld, just because the student hasn't been able to pay the fees due to the delays in disbursal of scholarships. Consequently, it has strictly directed that all pending scholarship disbursements must be cleared within four months by the relevant central or State authorities.

These observations were made by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan in follow-up to its March 24, 2025, orderwherein the Court constituted a National Task Force (NTF) address mental health concerns of students and to prevent the rising suicides in higher educational institutions. Its mandate is to investigate and prevent the increasing suicide rates in college students. Chaired by former Supreme Court Judge Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, the NFT monitored suicide cases in various educational institutions across the country.

Fill All VC, Faculty & Staff Vacancies In Higher Educational Institutions : Supreme Court

Case Details: Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 56

Holding that chronic faculty shortages and prolonged vacancies in institutional leadership directly contribute to academic pressure, poor mentorship and student distress, the Supreme Court has issued a firm direction that all vacant teaching and non-teaching posts in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) be filled within four months, and that key administrative posts such as Vice-Chancellors and Registrars be filled within one month of arising.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan made it clear that retirement dates are known well in advance and that leadership and faculty voids cannot be allowed to persist at the cost of student well-being. The Court further directed that priority be given to filling posts reserved for marginalised and underrepresented communities, including persons with disabilities, and permitted special recruitment drives to clear long-standing backlogs.

The directions were issued after considering an interim report submitted by a National Task Force constituted by the Court to examine the alarming rise in student suicides across the country.

Govt Can Exclude Candidates With Higher Qualification From Post Requiring Lower Qualification: Supreme Court

Case Details: Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 57

Observing that the States are empowered to decide the minimum eligibility requirement for a public post, the Supreme Court (January 16) upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014, which prescribes 'Diploma in pharmacy' as the minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of 'Pharmacists' in the State.

Affirming the Patna High Court's decision, a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the plea filed by the B.Pharma/M. Pharma degree holders, who challenged their exclusion from the recruitment drive for 2,473 posts of Pharmacists in the State, merely because of not holding the essential eligibility requirement, i.e., Diploma in Pharmacy.

The Appellants argued that Rule 6(1) was repugnant to the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, which recognize both Diploma and Degree holders as qualified pharmacists. Moreover, they challenged the constitutional validity of the Rule, arguing it to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16, creating an irrational "micro-classification" among equally registered professionals.

States Cannot Prescribe Qualifications Beyond Those Laid Down In Union Law: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Haryana & Ors. v. Krishan Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 58

When a field prescribing a qualification for a public post is occupied by the Union, then it is impermissible for the States to impose additional qualifications, observed the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard the batch of appeals concerning the challenge to the power of the State Government to prescribe the essential qualifications for the position of Drug Inspector, different from the qualifications prescribed by the Union Government under Rule 49 of the Drug Rules, 1945 (“Rules”).

Invoking the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the States of Haryana and Karnataka have prescribed different qualifications from those already prescribed by the Union Government under the Rules framed under the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Alone Not Enough For Conviction Unless Chain Of Evidence Is Complete : Supreme Court

Case Details: Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (And Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 59

The Supreme Court (January 16) set aside the conviction in a murder case, noting that a conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of “so-called confessional statements” made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the police and an alleged discovery arising from such confessional statements, especially when the chain of circumstantial evidence remains incomplete.

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi overturned the Karnataka High Court's judgment, holding that it erred in reversing the Trial Court's acquittal solely on the basis of disclosure statements recorded under Section 27 to connect the accused with the offence, without doing an exercise to find out whether the prosecution was successful in completing the entire chain of circumstances to establish the Appellants connection with the crime.

“We are of the view that simply relying upon the so-called confessional statements of the accused, and discovery of dead body which is also not duly proved, conviction cannot be recorded. Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case the sole so-called eyewitness, PW-5, cannot be said to be reliable and the other circumstances upon which the prosecution has placed reliance are insufficient to conclude that the accused have committed the alleged offences. The prosecution has failed to complete the entire chain of circumstances from which it can be established that the accused had committed the alleged offences.”, the court observed.

Asking Accused To Appear In Every Appeal Hearing Unwarranted When Sentence Has Been Suspended : Supreme Court

Case Details: Meenakshi v. State of Haryana, SLP(Crl) No. 19050/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Flagging a practice prevailing in Haryana, the Supreme Court observed that asking an accused to regularly appear in appellate proceedings is unwarranted if his sentence has already been suspended and bail granted.

"The appeal before the Appellate Court many a times would be pending for months or years together and many a times after being posted before the Court for hearing it would be adjourned for myriad reasons namely either at the instance of the appellant - accused or the State or the complainant etc. However, in such circumstances, to call upon the accused to be present on every date of hearing before the Revisional Court or the Appellate Court would be burdensome to such accused and same is not warranted at all and it would serve no purpose", said a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale.

The Court noted that if the convict's appeal or revision is dismissed, necessary consequences would automatically follow and the jurisdictional magistrate would be fully empowered to secure the presence of the accused in accordance with law.

Staff Records Bail 'Rejected' As 'Allowed' : Supreme Court Says Not 'Clerical Error' To Recall Signed Order

Case Details: Rambali Sahni v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 61

The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court's order recalling its earlier order, which had granted bail to the accused, noting that it is impermissible to recall the judgment or order once it is signed except to correct clerical or arithmetical error.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale came across a case where the High Court reversed/recalled the order granting bail on the premise that the Court Master, though he had recorded as a petition having been rejected in the operative portion, had mistakenly written as “allowed”.

The Court Master, when served with the show cause notice, responded that it was an inadvertent error which was on account of being in deep grief due to the sudden demise of his maternal uncle.

For SC/ST Act Offence, Insult Must Be On Account Of Victim Belonging To SC/ST Community : Supreme Court

Case Details: Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 62

The Supreme Court held that abusive language alone is not an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless it is used with the intent to humiliate a person by their caste, and mere insult, even with knowledge of caste, is not punishable without such specific intent.

A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe set aside the criminal proceedings against the appellant, holding that both the trial court and the High Court erred in proceeding under the SC/ST Act when neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet even remotely alleged any act of caste-based insult or intimidation attributable to him.

The Court reproduced the relevant provisions from the SC/ST Act, which prescribes the punishment for offences and atrocities:

Reserved Category Candidate Scoring Higher Than General Category Cut Off Must Be Included In Open Post : Supreme Court

Case Details: Airport Authority of India & Ors. v. Sham Krishna B & Ors., SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 63

The Supreme Court observed that a reserved-category candidate who scores higher than the cut-off marks for General Category shall be eligible to hold an unreserved vacant post.

"It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate belonging to reserve category who has scored marks higher than the cut off marks for the General Category is to be treated as having qualified against an open or unreserved vacant post" a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SC Sharma said.

In the facts of the case, the Court noted that no concession or relaxation was extended to the reserve category candidates. They were appointed against posts earmarked for General Category candidates on the basis of merit as they scored more marks.

AICTE Regulations Don't Apply To Direct Recruitment Of Engineering Professors Conducted By State PSCs: Supreme Court

Case Details: Gujarat Public Service Commission v. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 64

The Supreme Court (January 19) held that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Regulations do not apply in matters of direct recruitment for the post of professors in Engineering colleges conducted by the State's Public Service Commissions.

“To apply AICTE Regulations to a candidate participating in recruitment for the post of Professors in the Engineering Colleges in the State conducted by the Commission under State Rules framed by the State, would be to stretch the AICTE Regulations beyond its text, context, and purpose. The law does not permit a regulation crafted as a ladder to be used as a gate. Thus, the AICTE Regulations do not apply to the process of direct recruitment under the State Rules.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while setting the Gujarat High Court's decision which gave primacy to AICTE Regulations over State Recruitment rules in matters of recruitment of the Professor in State's Engineering Colleges.

Supreme Court Flags Disparity In National Highways Act Acquisitions Compared To Other Land Acquisitions, Urges Centre To Examine

Case Details: M/S Riar Builders Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 65

The Supreme Court has raised concerns over the deep structural flaws in determining the land acquisition compensation acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Court said that land owners whose lands were acquired under the 1956 Act faces significant disadvantage when compared to land owners whose lands were acquired under different laws.

The Court noted that under the National Highways Act, compensation disputes are decided by government officers like Collectors or Commissioners, not judicial authorities, who are often burdened with administrative duties and lack judicial training to decide complex valuation issues. The land aquisition matters are statutorily referred to arbitration as per the NH Act.

"The Collectors or Commissioners of the Revenue Districts/Divisions are notified to act as arbitrators.These officers are generally pre-occupied with their multiple administrative responsibilities and they also do not have the desired experience of a judicially trained mind to adjudicate the complex issues like determination of market value of the land or other statutory benefits to which the affected parties are now entitled to.."

Ensure Compensation Mechanism For National Highways Acquisitions Is At Par With Other Acquisition Laws : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Riar Builders Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | Diary No(S).26933/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 65

The Supreme Court suggested that there is a disparity in terms of the assessment of compensation and other additional statutory benefits for the acquired land under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

It suggested that the Attorney General for India and the Union of India look into this matter and see if the legislative scheme could be revisited to bring parity for the determination of the market value of the acquired land with reference to Article 300A of the Indian Constitution.Article 300A protects the right to property as a constitutional right.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed this order on January 13 while hearing an application moved by one Anand Prakash Verma. Varma moved an application on behalf of 21 landowners, whose lands were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, but they were not given proper compensation.

High Court Required To Dispose Of Application Filed Under Article 226(3) Within 2 Weeks : Supreme Court

Case Details: Giriraj and Others v. Mohd. Amir and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 66

The Supreme Court disposed of a Special Leave Petition challenging an interim status quo order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, while reminding the High Court of its constitutional obligation under Article 226(3) to decide applications seeking vacation of interim orders within two weeks.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale noted the submission of the petitioners that their application for vacating the interim order of status quo had been pending before the High Court since January 2025. The Court observed that Article 226(3) of the Constitution mandates that once such an application is filed, the High Court is required to dispose of it within a period of two weeks.

"At this stage it would be apt and appropriate to note Sub- Article (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India which mandates that upon such an application being filed, the High Court would be required to dispose of the same within a period of two weeks."

Supreme Court Allows Two Judicial Officers In Uttarakhand To Join Delhi Judicial Service, Says HC's Denial Of Permission Violates Rights

Case Details: Anubhuti Goel & Anr. v. High Court of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 67

The Supreme Court held that permission cannot be denied to a judicial officer to join the service of another State merely on the ground that migration will give rise to vacancies in the first State.

A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan granted relief to two judicial officers from Uttarakhand, who were denied permission by the Uttarakhand High Court to join the Delhi Judicial Service despite having cleared its recruitment process.

The appellants were selected in the Uttarakhand Civil Judge examination. In the interregnum, they also appeared for the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) Examination and successfully qualified for the viva-voce stage. They sought permission from the Uttarakhand High Court to participate in the DJS interview, but their request was refused. Aggrieved by this denial, theyapproached the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, contending that the fundamental rights to movement, residence, settlement, and to practise a profession had been infringed.

State Agency Can Investigate Corruption Cases Against Central Govt Officers : Supreme Court

Case Details: Nawal Kishore Meena @ N.K Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 68

The Supreme Court (January 19) held that police authorities are competent to investigate and file a chargesheet in cases relating to offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act committed by Central Government employees.

The Court clarified that no prior permission of the CBI is required before registering the case against the central government employee by the State police, and  the chargesheet filed by the State's investigative agencies can't be held invalid for lacking CBI's sanction.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision, which refused to quash the corruption case against the Central Govt. employee, noting that the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the State of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to register the criminal case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) despite the fact that the accused is an employee of the Central Government.

Authorities Conducting Public Auctions Must Disclose All Known Encumbrances And Litigation Relating To Property: Supreme Court

Case Details: Viney Kumar Sharma v. Improvement Trust and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 69

Holding that non-disclosure of pending litigation and encumbrances vitiates a public auction, the Supreme Court directed the Ludhiana Improvement Trust to refund ₹1.57 crore with interest to an auction purchaser, after finding that the Trust had auctioned a plot without informing bidders that it was already the subject matter of a civil suit.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed the purchaser's writ petition and declined relief.

The appellant had purchased one plot at Ludhiana in a public auction conducted by the Improvement Trust in May 2021 and deposited ₹1,57,04,580 towards the sale consideration. Before issuance of the sale certificate, the Trust refused to execute the conveyance deed, citing a civil suit pending since 2020 concerning the same property.

Compensatory Allowances Must Be Considered While Computing Overtime Wages Under Section 59 Factories Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India v. Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees Union and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 70

The Supreme Court held that compensatory allowances such as House Rent Allowance (HRA), Transport Allowance (TA), Clothing and Washing Allowance (CWA) and Small Family Allowance (SFA) form part of the “ordinary rate of wages” for the purpose of calculating overtime wages under Section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948.

A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan dismissed a batch of civil appeals filed by the Union of India, thereby affirming the Madras High Court's judgment which had set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) excluding such allowances from overtime wage calculations.

As per Section 59(1), where a worker works in a factory for more than nine hours in any day or for more than forty-eight hours in any week, he shall, in respect of overtime work, be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages.

Building & Construction Workers' Cesss Can't Be Collected From Developers If Welfare Boards Not Established : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S National Highways Authority of India v. M/S Gammon Atlanta (Jv) (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 71

In a major relief to the infrastructural developers, the Supreme Court (January 20) held that no cess can be collected from the developers under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 until the establishment of the Welfare Boards for the construction workers under Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996.

“…the constitution of Welfare Boards is the sine qua non for giving effect to the BOCW Act and the Cess Act and the cess in connection therewith could not have been levied or collected before the constitution of such Welfare Boards.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, while dismissing the appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India against the Delhi High Court's judgment, which had upheld the arbitral award directing NHAI to reimburse the cess deducted from the contractors' bills, even though the Welfare Boards under the BOCW Act had not yet been constituted.

The bench was dealing with a batch of civil appeals arising out of arbitral awards passed in favour of contractors executing highway projects for NHAI. The dispute centred on whether cess deducted by NHAI from contractors' bills could be justified under the contracts and whether the contractors were entitled to reimbursement.

NGT Cannot Decide Disputes Relating To Building Plan Violations : Supreme Court

Case Details: Raj Singh Gehlot & Ors. v. Amitabha Sen & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 72

The Supreme Court (January 20) held that NGT cannot adjudicate disputes which are essentially related to land use, zoning regulations, and town-planning compliance, even if such disputes are projected as environmental concerns.

“The dispute relating to the non-adherence of the building plans qua the open and green spaces... the issue of environment was not a substantial question before the NGT thereby justifying its invocation of jurisdiction by the NGT in this matter. Rather, the present matter involved disputed claims of the parties in relation to irregularities in utilisation of the land belonging to the appellant-Ambience Developers in developing the residential colony.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, reaffirming that where the dispute essentially concerns land use, zoning, building plan approvals, and town-planning compliance, it falls outside the NGT's jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010.

The bench heard the batch of SLPs involved allegations that commercial constructions had been raised on land originally licensed for residential use in Gurugram's Ambience Lagoon Island project and that such development had environmental implications. Acting on these claims, the NGT had passed interim orders imposing environmental compensation and constituted expert committees to assess alleged violations. One such committee even recommended massive penalties and demolition of certain structures.

Evidence Fabricated Often Using AI In Matrimonial Cases; False Allegations Rampant : Supreme Court

Case Details: Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 73

The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the use of fabricated and AI-generated evidence in matrimonial disputes, observing that parties, driven by a desire to 'teach the other side a lesson' at any cost, are increasingly misusing technology to construct cases founded on false allegations.

“Whenever the parties in matrimonial dispute have differences, the preparation starts as to how to teach lesson to the other side. Evidence is collected and, in some cases, even created, which is more often in the era of artificial intelligence. False allegations are rampant.”, remarked a bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, while dissolving the marriage of a couple on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The Court also suggested a few steps to be taken at first and foremost whenever a matrimonial dispute arises, while criticising the tendency to rush to the police in every matrimonial disagreement:

'Warring Couples Can't Make Courts Their Battlefield' : Supreme Court Flags Growing Matrimonial Litigation, Bats For Mediation

Case Details: Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 73

The Supreme Court (January 20) expressed concerns over the growing matrimonial litigation and advised that family members should make earnest efforts to resolve disputes before launching of the proceedings.

“In the changing times, the matrimonial litigation has increased manifolds. Even this Court is flooded with transfer petitions, mainly filed by the wives, seeking transfer of the proceedings initiated by their husbands, may be at the first instance or as a counter blast. In such situations, it is the duty of all concerned including the family members of the parties to make their earnest effort to resolve the disputes before any civil or criminal proceedings are launched.”, observed a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, while dissolving a marriage where couples cohabited barely lasted for 65 days, and had lodged 40 legal cases against each other.

The Court suggested a few steps to be taken at first and foremost whenever a matrimonial dispute arises, while criticising the tendency to rush to the police in every matrimonial disagreement:

While Declining To Quash FIR, HC Should Not Direct Police To Follow S.41A CrPC Procedure : Supreme Court

Case Details: Practical Solutions Inc. (Thr. Authorized Representative) v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 74

The Supreme Court has ruled that High Courts cannot, while rejecting a plea to quash FIR, direct the police to ensure compliance with Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. The Court explained that once an accused regularly appears in response to a notice under Section 41A, arrest is barred, and such a protection, being in the nature of interim relief, cannot be granted at the stage of considering quashing.

“In a petition where quashing of the FIR is prayed for, the High Court should not have passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.PC) because it indirectly amounts to granting a relief which High Court could have considered only if a prima facie case for quashing of the FIR is made out.”, observed a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Satish Chandra Sharma.

Section 41A Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 35 BNSS) requires police to issue a written notice for appearance instead of arresting individuals for cognizable offenses where arrest isn't immediately necessary, preventing arbitrary arrests by mandating compliance and ensuring due process.

DDA Should Have Litigation Policy To Screen Cases To Avoid Unnecessary Filings : Supreme Court

Case Details: Delhi Development Authority v. Shilya & Ors | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 74139/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 75

The Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) after noting that there is a consistent delay on the part of the DDA in assailing the orders in the present matter. It also noted that it is expected of the DDA to have a litigation policy where screening of cases can take place, so that such belated filing of cases can be avoided to save judicial time.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case pertaining to the allotment of the MIG plot under the Rohini Residential Scheme, where the DDA filed a special leave petition after a delay of 235 days. It noted that even the Delhi High Court dismissedits latent patent appeal after noting a delay of 685 days in preferring the same and a delay of 577 days in filing the review petition before the single judge.

The bench noted that the explanation offered by the DDA for the condonation of the delay is neither "satisfactory" nor "sufficient in law" to condone the delay.

Subordinate Legislation Becomes Effective Only From Date Of Publication In Official Gazette : Supreme Court

Case Details: Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 76

The Supreme Court (January 21) ruled that subordinate legislation does not become binding unless it is published in the Official Gazette, and it is the date of such Gazette publication, not the mere date of issuance of the notification, which renders it binding

“Once the legislature has prescribed the specified mode of promulgation, the executive cannot introduce an alternative mode and attribute legal consequences to it. A Notification cannot operate in a fragmented manner. In law, it is born only upon publication in the Official Gazette, and it is from that date alone that rights may be curtailed or obligations imposed. To hold otherwise, would permit unpublished delegated legislation to burden citizens, a proposition expressly rejected by this Court in long line of decisions...”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe.

The Court explained the importance of publication in the Official Gazette as follows :

Supreme Court Asks States To Frame Policy On Police Media Briefing In Terms Of Amicus Suggestions

Case Details: Peoples Union For Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No. 1255/1999

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 77

The Supreme Court directed all States to formulate a policy for police media briefing, taking into account a "Police Manual for Media Briefing" furnished before it by amicus curiae.

The Court has given 3 months' time to the states to do the needful.

"We deem it appropriate to direct the States to evolve an appropriate policy for Media Briefing by taking into consideration the Police Manual for Media Briefing furnished by the learned Amicus Curiae. The needful will have to be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order", said a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh.

Release On Probation In Criminal Case No Ground To Reduce Punishment In Departmental Proceedings : Supreme Court

Case Details: Superintending Engineer v. Labour Court Madurai & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 78

Observing that release on probation does not wipe out the stigma of conviction, the Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's decision that reduced a workman's punishment merely because he was granted the benefit of probation in criminal proceedings.

“…the High Court has fell into error by observing that the conviction of the workman herein shall not be a disqualification and this conviction alone is not a ground to remove the workman from service.”, observed a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria.

The case concerned a workman who had been appointed by impersonating his brother and using a forged educational certificate. After a domestic inquiry, he was dismissed from service. The Labour Court substituted dismissal with a reduction of pay and an increment cut for three years. The High Court later modified the punishment to compulsory retirement, relying heavily on the fact that the workman had been granted the benefit of probation in criminal proceedings.

Digitize Land Records Using Tamper-Proof Technology Like Blockchain : Supreme Court Suggests To Govts

Case Details: Hemalatha (D) By Lrs. v. Tukaram (D) By Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 79

The Supreme Court (January 22) urged the Union and State Governments to adopt secure, tamper-proof technologies such as Blockchain for digitising land records, to prevent forgery, and minimise prolonged litigation arising from disputes over the authenticity of property documents.

“this Court deems it necessary to suggest to the Union and State Governments the urgent need for the digitization of registered documents and land records using secure, tamper-proof technologies such as Blockchain. Many experts believe that Blockchain, a shared, digital record book (ledger) system would ensure that once a transaction of a sale or mortgage or like nature is recorded, it becomes immutable and cryptographically secured.”, observed a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, stressing that due to country's weak land record system, a large number of litigation clogs the judicial system over the authenticity of the property documents such as registered sale deed.

“Registered documents must inspire absolute confidence to ensure the ease of doing business and to uphold the sanctity of property titles in a modern economy.”, the court remarked.

Registered Sale Deed Has Strong Presumption Of Genuineness, Cannot Be Lightly Called 'Sham': Supreme Court

Case Details: Hemalatha (D) By Lrs. v. Tukaram (D) By Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 79

The Supreme Court held that a registered sale deed carries a greater presumption of validity and genuineness, and therefore cannot be lightly declared as 'sham' to oppose the sale transaction.

“It is a settled position of law that a registered Sale Deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document. Consequently, a Court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a “sham”, observed a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, while allowing the buyer's plea where the registered sale deed executed in her favour was disputed later on by the seller, terming it to be 'sham', without credible evidence.

It was the case where the Respondent mortgaged his house with the Appellant to pay off his debt. When the Respondent failed to redeem the mortgage on the Appellant's demand, a registered sale agreement was entered, making the Appellant an exclusive owner of the house. However, the Respondent, already being in possession of the property, became the tenant of the Appellan,t and a rent agreement was executed.

S. 60(5)(c) IBC | NCLT Cannot Decide Trademark Ownership Dispute Which Isn't Related To Insolvency Proceedings: Supreme Court

Case Details: Gloster Cables Ltd. Through Its: Authorised Representative Mr. Shyam Sunder Kalya v. Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. (With Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 80

The Supreme Court has held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), while exercising jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title to intellectual property if such determination goes beyond the scope of the approved resolution plan.

The Court held that NCLT cannot decide title disputes over assets, including intellectual property rights such as trademarks unless the dispute has a direct and proximate nexus with the insolvency resolution process.

“This Court examined the scope of Section 60(5). This Court held that under 60(5)(c) the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes, which arise solely from or which relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtors. Administrating a note of caution, this Court observed that in doing so the authorities under IBC should ensure that they do not usurp the legitimate jurisdiction of other Courts, Tribunals and fora when the dispute is one which does not arise solely from or relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, referring to precedent in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Amit Gupta and others.

Bail Hearing Can't Be Deferred Citing Failure Of Accused To Comply With Undertaking To Deposit Amount : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rakesh Jain v. State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 81

The Supreme Court observed that the hearing on the bail pleas cannot be deferred merely because the accused has failed to comply with an undertaking to deposit the amount.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan set aside the Delhi High Court's order that had kept the bail application of a company director accused under Section 409 IPC pending solely on the ground that he failed to honour an undertaking to deposit further amounts, despite a substantial portion of the allegedly diverted funds having already been deposited with the Court.

“In our view, the appropriate course for the court was to decide the bail application on its own merits rather than to keep the matter pending by extending the interim bail and insisting on the upfront deposit.”, the court observed.

Registry Cannot Make Inroads Into Judiciary's Exclusive Domain & Ask Why A Party Is Impleaded : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sri Mukund Maheswar & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 82

The Supreme Court observed that the Registry cannot question or object to a petitioner's decision to implead a particular party as a respondent, nor can it demand an explanation for joining any specific party in the proceedings.

“Registry cannot make inroads into areas within the exclusive domain of the judiciary and seek clarification as to why a particular party has been joined as a respondent.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, while setting aside the Telangana High Court's order which accepted the Registry's objection regarding the impleadment of a particular Respondent by the Appellant in the petition.

The case arose from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in a SARFAESI dispute, where the petitioner alleged fraudulent and collusive conduct by a court-appointed Commissioner in taking possession of a secured asset in violation of the Act and rules. The High Court Registry objected to the prayer clause and the array of parties, and the Division Bench, agreeing with these objections, rejected the writ petition and directed the return of the papers.

Excessive Land Acquisition Compensation To Some Landowners Cannot Invalidate Others' Compensation : Supreme Court

Case Details: Niraj Jain v. Competent Authority-Cum-Additional Collector, Jagdalpur & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 83

The Supreme Court (January 27) observed that an excessive disbursement of compensation to some beneficiaries in collusion with officials would not invalidate the compensation awarded to other beneficiaries.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran heard the case arising out of the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision that had set aside the land acquisition compensation awarded in favour of the Appellant, merely because excessive compensation was disbursed to a handful of people.

The case arose from the acquisition of land for the Rowghat–Jagdalpur railway line, notified in August 2017. Compensation awards were passed on February 12, 2018, in favour of around 550 landowners. Following an inquiry by the Collector, it was alleged that a handful of landowners had received compensation far in excess of market value in collusion with revenue officials. FIRs were lodged against those officials and specific beneficiaries.

Confession Without Corroboration Cannot Be Basis For Conviction : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 84

The Supreme Court (January 27) set aside the conviction in a murder case, upon finding that the conviction was based on the uncorroborated confessional statements made by the accused, in absence of a legal aid, before the magistrate.

“…a confession can form a legal basis of a conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. However, it was also held that a Court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the Meghalaya High Court's judgment that reversed the Trial Court's acquittal, despite the fact that the accused were not represented by any counsel when their confessional statements were recorded.

The case arose from the alleged murder of a man in Meghalaya, in which the Appellants were charged under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. While the Trial Court had acquitted them, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused, placing considerable reliance on their retracted confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

S.175(4) BNSS | Superior's Report Must If Offence Was During Public Servant's Duties : Supreme Court Advises Magistrates

Case Details: Xxx v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 85

The Supreme Court (January 27) prescribed the procedure for Magistrates to order an investigation against a public servant under Section 175 (4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) when the alleged offense arises "in the course of the discharge of his official duties."

Unlike Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which does not require a Magistrate to seek a report from the superior officer when the accused is a public servant before directing an investigation, Section 175(4) of the BNSS provides such a procedure.

The Court noted that the provision uses the word 'may' and it has to be read as 'may' itself and not "shall".

Complaint Under S.175(4) BNSS Against Public Servant Must Comply With Conditions Under S.175(3) : Supreme Court

Case Details: Xxx v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 85

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot entertain a complaint against a public servant under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) unless the complainant first complies with Section 175(3), which requires the Magistrate to be satisfied that the complainant has already approached the Superintendent of Police with a written complaint supported by an affidavit.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan considered the issue of whether Section 175(4) operates independently, allowing a Magistrate to act even on an oral complaint, or whether it is a procedural extension of Section 175(3), thereby importing the safeguards recognised in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.(2015), which mandate a written complaint accompanied by an affidavit.

The Court held that Section 175 BNSS sub-clause (4) is not a standalone provision and must be read harmoniously with preceding sub-clause (3). This means no direct complaint can be filed against a public servant before the magistrate under Section 175(4) to seek an investigation, unless the threshold requirement for a sworn affidavit supporting the complaint (as established in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.) under Section 175(3) is fulfilled.

Prior Written Demand Not Necessary For 'Industrial Dispute' To Exist; Apprehended Dispute Can Be Referred : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Premium Transmission Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 86

The Supreme Court (January 27) observed that a trade union is not obliged to serve a formal “charter of demands” on the management before approaching the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Court observed that the Industrial Disputes Act is both preventive and remedial in character, and therefore a trade union or a worker is entitled to invoke its machinery as soon as a dispute exists or is apprehended, without being compelled to first place their demands before the management. It held that insisting on such a requirement would defeat the very object of the Act, particularly in situations where approaching the employer directly may expose workers to the risk of victimisation or termination.

The statute expressly empowers the appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute that exists or is apprehended. Reading a mandatory requirement of prior demand would render the word 'apprehended' otiose, the Bench observed.

Industrial Court Proper Forum To Decide Issues Regarding Contract Labour : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Premium Transmission Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 86

The Supreme Court observed that the Industrial Court established under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the proper forum for adjudication of the dispute concerning the employment and termination of employment of the contract labour.

“…the proper forum is the Industrial Court/Court for adjudicating issues concerning the employment and termination of employment of contract labour.”, observed a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Steel Authority of India Limited and others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others (2001) 7 SCC 1.

The Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's judgment, which had upheld the Labour Commissioner's decision to refer the dispute, concerning the alleged sham nature of the contract, to the Industrial Court for adjudication. It emphasized that the adjudication of the dispute between the parties, i.e., whether the contract between the management and the labour contractor is genuine or a sham, is a judicial function, which must be decided by the Industrial Court.

Ex-Contract Workers Must Get Preference When Principal Employer Replaces Contract Labourers With Regular Workmen : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Premium Transmission Private Limited v. Kishan Subhash Rathod and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 87

The Supreme Court held that when an employer intends to employ regular workers in place of contract labour, then the employer must give first preference to the erstwhile contract workers.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti outlined the modes and methods of re-employment if discontinuation of the labour contract is valid:

"a. If the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen for the work previously done by contract labour, they must give preference to the erstwhile contract labourers.

Waqf Tribunal Can't Entertain Claims Over Properties Not Specified In 'List Of Auquf' Or Not Registered Under Waqf Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 88

The Supreme Court (January 28) ruled that Waqf Tribunals have jurisdiction only over properties notified in the “list of auqaf” or registered under the Waqf Act, and not over disputes concerning unregistered properties.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Telangana High Court's judgment, which affirmed the grant of an injunction by the Waqf Tribunal in relation to the property unregistered under the Waqf Act.

Disagreeing with the impugned judgment, the Court observed:

Only Civil Court Of Original Jurisdiction Can Extend Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate, Not Referral Courts : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 89

The Supreme Court (January 29) held that applications for extending an arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed exclusively before the 'Court' as defined in Section 2(1)(e) i.e., the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, regardless of which authority appointed the arbitrators.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan set aside the Bombay High Court's decision which invalidated the Commercial Court's decision to extend the time limit under Section 29A (4). The High Court held that the application seeking an extension of the time limit needs to be filed before the 'Court', which had appointed the arbitrator.

Disagreeing with the High Court's approach, the Court observed:

Demolition Of Private Property Must Be Based On Clear Statutory Grounds & Consideration Of All Factors : Supreme Court

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Holding that a demolition order affecting property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution must be founded on clear, cogent, and site-specific evidence of illegality, the Supreme Court (January 29) set aside the Calcutta High Court's direction to demolish a fully constructed residential building in Santiniketan, after finding that no material had been placed on record to establish that the construction stood on “khoai” land.

“Any interference with privately owned property, including by way of demolition or deprivation of its beneficial use, must therefore rest on a clear statutory foundation and be preceded by due consideration of all relevant factual and legal circumstances, which exercise, appears not to have been undertaken in the present case.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, adding that the public interest litigation cannot be filed on mere conjectures, and surmises, rather a cogent scientific evidence is necessitated to seek demolition of an illegal structure.

“The District Magistrate's report is based merely on conjectures and surmises and was submitted without the concerned official even bothering to undertake a proper site inspection or getting a spot verification done through an expert. Hence, in the absence of reliable scientific material establishing the “khoai” character of the subject plot, the foundational premise on which the High Court proceeded to issue the directions (for demolition) cannot be said to be conclusively borne out from the record…In the absence of clear, specific, and contemporaneous scientific evidence establishing that the subject plot was of “khoai” nature, the invocation of public interest jurisdiction to assail the construction undertaken by Aarsuday Projects cannot be sustained, particularly where similarly situated constructions within the same tract of land were left unchallenged.”, the court observed.

After Client Withdrew Complaint, BCI Disciplinary Committee Couldn't Have Imposed Penalty On Advocate : Supreme Court

Case Details: Monty Goyal v. Navrang Singh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 91

The Supreme Court (January 29) set aside the Bar Council of India Disciplinary Committee's order holding an advocate guilty of professional misconduct, holding that disciplinary proceedings could not be sustained after the complainant-client had unequivocally withdrawn his complaint and expressed satisfaction with the advocate's conduct.

“Once the respondent complainant himself expressed complete satisfaction with the professional services rendered by the appellant-advocate and categorically sought to withdraw the complaint, the very substratum of the disciplinary proceedings ceased to exist. In these circumstances, the order holding appellant-advocate guilty of professional misconduct is considered wholly unsustainable in facts as well as in law.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, while allowing the Advocate's appeal.

The appellant-advocate was engaged to file a quashing petition, which the High Court allowed subject to costs. Delay in depositing the amount led to dismissal and revival of criminal proceedings, though the order was later recalled on an application filed by the advocate, with enhanced costs. Alleging negligence, the client approached the State Bar Council, but the dispute was subsequently settled: the High Court waived the costs and finally quashed the FIR.

Mere Presence Of Advocate In Professional Capacity Of Giving Advice Can't Amount To Criminal Intimidation : Supreme Court

Case Details: Beri Manoj v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 92

The Supreme Court quashed a criminal intimidation case against an advocate, holding that advice or suggestions given to a client in the course of professional duties cannot be construed as criminal intimidation.

“…the mere presence of a lawyer (appellant in the instant case) in his capacity of discharging professional duty of either giving advice or suggestion cannot amount to intimidation.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale.

It was the case where the complainant, a victim in a sexual offence case, had alleged that the Appellant-advocate had threatened and criminally intimidated her. The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix, in her Section 164 statement, alleged that the uncle of accused No. 1 along with two aunts had threatened her to falsely support the main accused in the sexual assault case.

Stem Cell Therapy Can't Be Used As Treatment For Autism; Can Be Used Only For Clinical Trial : Supreme Court

Case Details: Yash Charitable Trust and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 369/2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 93

The Supreme Court (January 30) held that offering Stem Cell Treatment(SCT) therapy as a clinical service for curing Autism Spectrum Disorder(ASD) amounts to malpractice. This is because the SCT as a treatment for ASD lacks scientific support and has not been recognised as a sound medical practice backed by empirical evidence.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, however, added that SCT can still be approved for monitored clinical research trials.

Unproven Treatment Cannot Be Demanded By Patient As A Matter Of Right : Supreme Court

Case Details: Yash Charitable Trust and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 369/2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 93

The Supreme Court observed that to seek Stem Cell Treatment(SCT) as a cure for Autism Spectrum Disorder(AST) cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the patients.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan disapproved the use of SCT for ASD as regular clinical treatment. It stated that medical practitioners and clinics engaging in such unscientific treatment amount to malpractice.

While holding so, the Court also answered whether patients can exercise autonomy in stating that they would still like to choose a particular treatment and give consent for the same. On this, the Court categorically stated that this treatment can't be demanded as a matter of right by the patient because there is no adequate information about it.

Menstrual Health Fundamental Right Under Article 21; Ensure Girls Get Free Sanitary Pads In Schools : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1000/2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Declaring that the right to menstrual health is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions to ensure that every school provides biodegradable sanitary napkins free of cost to adolescent girls.

The Court also issued directions to ensure that schools are equipped with functional and hygienic gender-segregated toilets.

The Court directed the pan-India implementation of the Union's national policy, 'Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School-going Girls' in schools for adolescent girl children from Classes 6-12.

Menstruation Should Not Be Source Of Shame; School Boys Also Must Be Sensitised About It : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1000/2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 94

The Supreme Court (January 30) underscored the role of male teachers and staff in schools and men in general in ensuring that an ecosystem of stigma is not associated with menstruation so that adolescent girls can be equal participants in schools and have access to other opportunities.

It said that even if schools have gender-segregated toilets and access to menstrual hygiene management, unless menstruation is not treated as a taboo by the school and its ecosystem, infrastructural efforts would remain underutilised.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, while observing that the right to menstrual hygiene is a part of Article 21, has held that menstruation as a topic should not only be shared in hushed whispers. Young boys must be educated about the biological realities.

State Cannot Deny Regularisation Of Long-Serving Contract Staff Appointed On Sanctioned Post By Due Process : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 95

The Supreme Court (January 30) observed that the State, being a modal employer, cannot deny regularization to the contract workers just because they were appointed on a contractual basis. The Court said that the workers who have been granted repeated yearly extensions for a couple of years are entitled to seek regularization in terms of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

“…we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State's contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants' engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants' services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

The Court allowed the the appeal of contractual workers, whose tenure was extended for ten years,  and “deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions.”

UGC Regulations Override State Law On Search Committee For University VC Appointment: Supreme Court

Case Details – Dr. S. Mohan v. Secretary To Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University, Puducherry & Ors Etc.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 96

The Supreme Court held that the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of a University Vice-Chancellor is part of the standards governing higher education falling within Parliament's exclusive legislative domain under the Union List, and any deviation from the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018, renders the appointment process illegal.

With this reasoning, the Court upheld the Madras High Court's judgment striking down Section 14(5) of the Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019 and holding that the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Puducherry Technological University as per the Act was illegal.

“Section 14(5) of the PTU Act, to the extent it prescribes a composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee contrary to the mandate of the UGC Regulations, 2018, has to be declared ultra vires the UGC Regulations, 2018, which have been framed under a Central enactment traceable to Entry 66 of List I, which occupies the field and therefore, possess overriding effect.”

'Targeted Vendetta' : Supreme Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On Union Govt For Blocking IRS Official's ITAT Appointment For A Decade

Case Details: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 97

The Supreme Court imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the Union Government for what it described as "rank procrastination" and deliberate obstruction in the appointment of a former Indian Revenue Service officer as Member (Accountant) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), despite his selection being recommended as far back as 2014.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the petitioner, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, was subjected to “grave injustice, rank high-handedness ”, and directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to reconstitute the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) within four weeks after excluding an "officer" who had earlier faced contempt proceedings at the petitioner's instance.

The bench expressed dismay over government's “sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala fide actions and protracted persecution” to deny appointment to the petitioner, noting that “at every stage of proceedings, the respondents have deliberately created hurdles in the path of the petitioner by either putting up cooked-up charges or failing to ensure compliance with the orders passed by various fora.”

Polluting Company's Turnover Can Be Relevant Factor To Determine Environment Damage Compensation : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde & Ors. (With Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 98

The Supreme Court (January 30) observed that the company's scale of operation (like turnover, production volume, or revenue generation) can be a decisive factor in determining the environmental damage compensation.

“If a company has a high turnover, it reflects the sheer scale of its operations. Such a company, if found to contribute generously to environmental damage, its turnover can have a direct co-relation with the extent of damage that is caused. Thus, in our considered opinion, to contend that turnover can never form a relevant factor in quantifying compensation to match the magnitude of harm is fallacious.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi, while upholding the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) decision to impose heavy penalties on the real estate developers for the environment damage caused due to their illegal and unauthorized construction.

The appeals arose from separate orders of the NGT imposing compensation of ₹5 crore on Rhythm County and approximately ₹4.47 crore on Key Stone Properties for violations of environmental laws during the execution of large residential projects in Pune. The NGT took into consideration the developer's scale of operation to determine the compensation.

Orders and Other Developments

Bar Council Elections : Supreme Court Reduces Nomination Fee For Specially Abled Advocates, Asks BCI To Ensure Their Representation

Case Details: Pankaj Sinha v. Bar Council of India and Ors W.P.(C) No. 1261/2025 and S. M. Vetrivel v. Secretary, Bar Council of India | SLP(C) No. 036061 - / 2025

Taking note of the fact that the election process to various State Bar Councils has already commenced, the Supreme Court refrained from passing directions mandating reservation for specially abled advocates in Bar Councils at this stage. However, the Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to initiate steps to amend the relevant provisions to ensure that specially abled lawyers have adequate representation in future elections.

The Court also ordered a substantial reduction in the nomination fee for specially abled advocates, lowering it from Rs. 1.25 lakh to Rs. 15,000 for contesting Bar Council elections.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The Bench underlined that the objective of the Court was to ensure that advocates belonging to the specially abled category have an effective and meaningful presence in the decision-making bodies of the BCI.

Supreme Court Onboards Bhutanese Law Clerks Under MoU With Supreme Court Of Bhutan

The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, welcomed two law clerks from Bhutan who would be working at the Supreme Court, pursuant to an MoU between the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of Bhutan.

While introducing the law clerks, the CJI mentioned that they would be paid at par with the other law clerks of the Supreme Court and would be part of the Court's functioning for 3 months.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Practice Of Prime Minister Offering Chadar At Ajmer Sharif Dargah

Case Details: Jitender Singh v. Union of India, Diary No. 74179/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the extension of State-sponsored ceremonial honour and symbolic recognition to Islamic scholar and mystic Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti and to the Ajmer Dargah by the Union and its instrumentalities. The petitioner had also sought to bar the Prime Minister from offering chadar at the Ajmer Dargah.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition, saying that the "the relief sought is not justiciable."

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the custom of offering chadar started only in 1947. CJI Surya Kant said that the bench will not make any comment as the issue is not justiciable.

Slain BSP Leader Armstrong's Wife Seeks Transfer Of Her CBI Probe Plea From Madras High Court To Supreme Court

Case Details: Porkodi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., T.P.(Crl.) No. 1121/2025

Wife of BSP leader and prominent Dalit activist K Armstrong, who died following an attack by armed assailants in 2024, has approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer from Madras High Court of her petition praying for CBI probe in her husband's murder case.

The transfer is sought on the ground that similar issue (that is, transfer of investigation to CBI) is pendingbefore the Supreme Court in the State's appeal against the High Court order transferring probe to CBI. Therefore, the High Court cannot pass any orders in the petitioner's case.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar, which tagged it with the State's plea against transfer of investigation to the CBI. The cases are next likely to be listed on January 13.

Supreme Court Questions Maintainability Of Telangana's Writ Petition Challenging Andhra's Polavaram Irrigation Project

Case Details: State of Telangana v. Union of India and Ors W.P.(C) No. 1258/2025

The Supreme Court questioned the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the State of Telangana against the Union and Andhra Pradesh Government, challenging the expansion of the Polavaram Multipurpose irrigation project.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by the State of Telangana against the Union's extension of financial assistance to Andhra Pradesh to expand the Polavaram Project, also known as Polavaram –Banakacherla” Link Project.

The writ petition also challenges the grant of environmental clearance for the project and alleges that the Detailed Project Report (DPR) violated the Central Water Commission's recommendations.

Plea In Supreme Court Alleges Paper Leak In CLAT 2026; Seeks Probe

Case Details: Lalit Pratap Singh v. Consortium of National Law Universities, Diary No. 407/2026

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking a Court-monitored, time-bound probe into alleged leak of the 2026 Common Law Admission Test question paper and answer key ahead of the exam (held on December 7).

The petitioners seek a re-examination in case the allegations are found to be true.

Filed by a ground of CLAT aspirants from Scheduled Caste, Other Backward Class and economically weaker sections categories, apprehending prejudice, the plea is triggered by videos, images, etc. circulating on social media platforms, prima facie indicating that the question paper got leaked ahead of the exam.

'First Show Us Compliance With Afforestation Directions': Supreme Court To DDA On Plea To Fell Trees In Delhi Ridge

Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda, Dairy No. 21171-2024

The Supreme Court asserted that it will allow the Delhi Development Authority to cut further trees in the ridge area only after it is satisfied thatprevious directionson aforestation and restoration have been complied with.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application filed by the DDA seeking permission to cut 473 trees to complete the road widening project that links to CAPFIMS Hospital. The DDA also seeks directions for translocating 2519 saplings of trees and shrubs and the diversion of 2.97 hectares of Forest Land for road construction.

Notably, on May 28, 2025, the Court had directed that every notification or order regarding afforestation, road construction, tree felling or any activity with potential ecological effect must explicitly mention the pendency of the relevant proceedings before this Court. The Court had also passed other directions regarding afforestation.

Is S.17A PC Act Sanction Needed When FIR Initially Mentioned Only IPC Offences? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: State of Karnataka By Wilson Garden P.S. v. D.S. Veeraiah and Anr., Diary No. 64940-2025

The Supreme Court is set to examine whether prior approval in terms of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory in a case registered invoking only IPC offenses against unknown persons, who are later found to include public servants.

The development comes as a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice on Karnataka government's challenge to an orderthat quashed a criminal case against former-MLC DS Veeraiah over alleged misappropriation of Rs 47.1 crores from the D Devaraj Urs Truck Terminal Limited (DDUTLL) during his term as its Chairman in 2021.

Briefly put, the case was initially lodged against unknown persons invoking only IPC offenses. Later, finding involvement of public servants, the prosecution invoked offenses under the PC Act. It was claimed that due sanction was obtained subsequently, but the High Court quashed the case against Veeraiah noting that offenses under the two statutes [Section 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(a) of PC Act] were same in essence and the prosecution attempted to avoid rigors of Section 17A of the PC Act. It was held that registration of an FIR under IPC for acts relatable to a public servant's duty required prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.

Supreme Court Asks Haryana Govt If Case Against Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad Can Be Closed

Case Details: Mohammad Amir Ahmad @ Ali Khan Mahmudabad v. State of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025

The Supreme Court suggested that the State of Haryana take a lenient view and deny sanction to prosecute Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in the criminal case over his social media posts in the context of Operation Sindoor, as a one-time magnanimity.

The Court also said that if the state is willing to show such leniency, it was crucial that Mahmudabad also 'behave responsibly' in future.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the matter.

TMC MP Derek O Brien Moves Supreme Court For Extension Of West Bengal SIR Deadline; Alleges Procedural Irregularities By ECI

Case Details: Derek O Brien v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 737/2025

Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Derek O'Brien has filed an application before the Supreme Court assailing procedural actions of the Election Commission during its Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

Among other things, he alleges that the ECI has been issuing instructions to Booth Level Officers and others through informal channels, like WhatsApp, thereby making impossible any audit trail of a process striking at the fundamental democratic rights of citizens.

"The ECI has, in effect, substituted its formal system of statutory communication with what is being informally described at the field level as a “WhatsApp Commission”, wherein critical instructions, warnings and consequences of alleged non-compliance are communicated exclusively through messaging platforms...This will in fact have the effect of absolving decision-makers of accountability...several of the aforesaid informal instructions are not only inconsistent with the formal instructions issued by the ECI, but are also wholly dehors the Constitution and the statutory scheme governing electoral roll revision."

Delhi-NCR Air Pollution : Supreme Court Slams CAQM For Lax Approach, Seeks Report On Causes & Long Term Solutions

Case Details – MC Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) for what it termed an "unserious" approach towards addressing the persistent air pollution crisis in Delhi NCR, and directed the statutory body to urgently convene a coordinated meeting of domain experts and place a comprehensive report on record and in the public domain.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that expert bodies were at variance on the identification of sources and the proportionate contribution of various factors leading to deterioration in air quality.

The Bench observed in its order that different expert institutions, including technical bodies such as the Indian Institute of Technology, had attributed widely varying percentages to emission sectors. As an illustration,the Bench noted that the contribution of the transport and emission sector to worsening AQI in the NCR ranged anywhere between 12 percent and 41 percent, depending on the expert body.

Supreme Court Frowns Upon Practice Of Rich Accused Raising Constitutional Challenges To Avoid Trial

Case Details: Gautam Khaitan v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000516 / 2025

The Supreme Court frowned upon the plea by a lawyer challenging S. 44(1)(c) of the PMLA and observed it to be an attempt to 'bypass the system' by 'affluent persons' facing trial in relation to the AugustaWestland Scam.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by lawyer Gautam Khaitan challenging the validity of S. 44(1)(c) of the PMLA. 

Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA mandates that when a money-laundering offence is connected with a scheduled offence, both cases should, as far as practicable, be tried together by the same Special Court.

Supreme Court Seeks Report From HCs On Formation Of Committees Across Courts/ Tribunals & Bar Bodies To Address Sexual Harassment

Case Details: Geeta Rani v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 001245 / 2025

The Supreme Court sought status reports from the Registrars General of various High Courts on whether gender sensitisation committees and Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) have been constituted in High Courts, District Courts and Bar Associations to address complaints of sexual harassment against women and transgender persons.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition seeking directions for effective implementation of the Vishaka Guidelines, including the setting up of Internal Complaints Committees across High Courts and District Courts in the country.

Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, appearing for the petitioners, placed before the Court a chart indicating significant gaps in compliance. She submitted that as many as seven High Courts had neither framed guidelines nor constituted Internal Complaints Committees. It was further pointed out that no mechanism had been implemented in Patna, while in Jharkhand, an ICC existed only at the High Court level, with district courts remaining outside its ambit. Similar deficiencies were highlighted in the district courts of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi.

OBC Youth Forced To Wash Another's Feet | Supreme Court Orders Release Of Accused Detained Under National Security Act

Case Details: Anuj Pandey v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 20650/2025

In the casepertaining to a young man from the OBC community, who was allegedly forced to wash another's feet due to caste discrimination, the Supreme Court directed immediate release of one of the accused who was detained by invoking the National Security Act.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order in the petitioner-accused's challenge to a High Court suo motu order which directed the State police to proceed against all present at the time of the incident under the NSA.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the ingredients of Section 3 of the NSA were not made out in the case. He also contended that even before the order issuing mandamus for invocation of NSA was uploaded on the High Court website, a preventive detention order was passed and the petitioner detained.

We Have Constitutional Duty To Ensure Electoral Rolls Don't Have Foreigners; SIR Isn't NRC : ECI To Supreme Court

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 and Connected Matters

In the challenge to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out across states, the Election Commission of India yesterday told the Supreme Court the Indian Constitution was 'Citizen-centric', and it is the constitutional duty of the ECI to ensure that no foreigners remain on the electoral rolls. The ECI also said that it was not concerned with 'rhetorics' run by political parties on the issue.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the batch of pleas challenging the validity of SIR.

Sr Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, commenced his arguments yesterday.

Pune Porsche Hit & Run Case | Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Pleas Of Two Businessmen Accused Of Replacing Blood Samples

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

The Supreme Court issued notice on bail pleas of businessmenn Ashish Mittal and Aditya Sood, accused in the 2024 Pune Porsche hit and run case in which two persons were killed after being hit by a unregistered Porsche Taycan car allegedly being driven by a minor under the influence of alcohol.

Mittal and Sood are 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 Prevention of Corruption Act for forgery, evidence tampering, and bribery.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice in their pleas against the Bombay High Court order rejecting bail.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Court-Monitored Probe Into Alleged CLAT 2026 Question Paper Leak

Case Details – Lalit Pratap Singh v. Consortium of National Law Universities

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking a court-monitored, time-bound probe into the alleged leak of the 2026 Common Law Admission Test question paper and answer key ahead of the examination held on December 7.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe declined to entertain the petition, noting that the examination process had already concluded.

As per the plea, on December 6, about 15 hours before the exam, images carrying date and time stamps began circulating online. These images allegedly contained admissions from students who had been able to illegally obtain the paper and messages from a person offering the paper in exchange for payment.

Supreme Court Notes 'Some Infirmity' In Forming Inquiry Committee On Justice Yashwant Varma; Will See If It's Grave Enough

Case Details: X v. O/O Speaker of the House of the People | W.P.(C) No. 1233/2025

The Supreme Court orally observed that there is "some infirmity" in the Lok Sabha Speaker's constitution of the Inquiry committee to probe the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, and that it will consider whether the infirmity is so grave so as to warrant the termination of the proceedings.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court challenging the legality of the Parliamentary Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, for inquiry against him over the discovery of unaccountedcash currencies at his official residence. On December 16, 2025, the Court had issued notice to the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker in the writ petition

The main point raised in the petition is that despite impeachment notices being moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla proceeded to constitute the committee on his own, without awaiting the Rajya Sabha Chairman's decision on admission of the motion or holding the mandatory joint consultation prescribed by law. It is argued that this procedure is contrary to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Singer Neha Rathore In Case Over Posts On PM Modi, Pahalgam Attack

Case Details: Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 21174/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest to folk singer Neha Singh Rathore in connection with an FIR lodged against her for allegedly making objectionable posts on social media regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pahalgam terror attack.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order saying that no coercive steps shall be taken, while issuing notice on Rathore's plea challenging the Allahabad High Court order which denied her anticipatory bail.

The Court however added that Rathore shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called, firstly on January 19. Non-appearance, if any, would be viewed seriously.

Manipur Violence | Supreme Court Orders Forensic Examination Of Entire Audio Clip & Admitted Voice Recordings Of Ex-CM Biren Singh

Case Details – Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed that the entire 48-minute audio recording allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh in the 2023 ethnic violence, along with his admitted voice samples, be forwarded to the National Forensic Science University, Gandhinagar, for forensic examination.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the direction in a plea seeking a court-monitored investigation into the audio recordings. The Court also asked the NFSU to expedite the process and submit its report to the Court in a sealed cover.

“The entire 48 minutes of the conversation in question along with the admitted voice recordings of the former Manipur CM are available…All the voice recordings furnished to the respondents by the learned counsel for the petitioner shall also be included therewith and forwarded to the National Forensic Science University Gandhinagar…NFSU to expedite the process and submit the report to this court in sealed cover”, the Court directed.

'Why Stray Dogs Needed In Institutions? Can Anyone Identify Which Dog Is In A Mood To Bite?' Supreme Court Asks

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 ()

The Supreme Court heard the stray dog matter extensively, primarily examining the issue of stray dogs in institutional premises, with the Bench questioning whether spaces such as courts, schools and hospitals should have canine presence at all.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, heard the matter for the entire first half of the day. The hearing saw submissions from victims of dog attacks, animal welfare organisations, senior law officers and representatives of educational institutions.

On November 7, the Court had directed the removal of stray dogs from institutional premises including schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and railway stations. The Court had ordered that such dogs be relocated to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination and specifically directed that dogs picked up from institutional areas should not be released back at the same location.

EPF Wage Ceiling Limit Revision Requires Active Consideration : Supreme Court Asks Union To Decide In 4 Months

Case Details: Naveen Prakash Nautiyal v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1134/2025

Dealing with a public interest litigation, the Supreme Court allowed a litigant to approach the Union government with a representation for revision of wage ceiling limit under the Employees Provident Fund scheme.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chadurkar heard the matter and ordered that the respondent-government(s) take a decision within 4 months. The petitioner can file the representation within 2 weeks, whereafter the government(s) shall take a call in the stipulated time.

"we find that issue requires active consideration by the Union of India to address the grievance as posed in the grounds mentioned in this petition. However, at this stage, we are not entertaining the petition and relegate the petitioner to file a representation before the appropriate authority within a period of two weeks and place the order of this Court passed before the said authority. On receiving such representation, the authority shall place the matter at appropriate level and take a decision in accordance with law within a period of four months."

Sonam Wangchuk's Speech Appealing For Peace Suppressed From Detaining Authority : Sibal Tells Supreme Court; Plays Video Of Speech

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

The Supreme Court heard in detail the habeas corpus petition filed by Dr. Gitanjali Angmo challenging the detention of her husband and Ladakh-based social activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, 1980, following recent protests in Ladakh that allegedly turned violent.

A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna Varale heard the matter for the entire second half of the day. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioner.

Sibal submitted that the detention order dated September 26, 2025, was founded primarily on four videos relied upon by the detaining authority. According to him, the videos were dated September 10, September 11, and two videos dated September 24. However, while the grounds of detention were supplied on September 29, the four videos were not furnished to the detenue.

Stray Dogs Case: PETA, Animal Welfare Groups Urge Supreme Court To Permit Release Of Dogs At Place Of Capture

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 ()

In the Stray Dogs case, the Supreme Court commented on the municipal authorities' failure to tackle threat of stray dogs. It further voiced concern that dogs can smell fear and attack someone who is afraid or has been bitten before.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. The hearing will continue tomorrow, for which Justice Mehta has asked all parties to come prepared after reading a report published by a news portal on December 29 titled "On the roof of the world, feral dogs hunt down Ladakh's rare species".

The Court is considering applications seeking modification of the order passed in November last year, as per which strays found in the premises of public institutions, bus stations, schools, hospitals, campuses etc., must be captured and should not be released at the same location after vaccination/sterilisation.

Supreme Court Asks Women Dog Feeders Alleging Harassment And Assault By 'Vigilantes' To Lodge FIRs, Approach High Courts

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 ()

While hearing the Stray Dogs case, the Supreme Court orally asked women dog feeders levelling allegations of harassment and assault by "anti-feeder vigilantes" to lodge FIRs and move jurisdictional High Courts for relief.

The bench highlighted that the acts amount to a criminal offense and asked the aggrieved individuals to approach the authorities for registration of FIR. It reasoned that the Supreme Court cannot sit over all individual cases.

A bench of Justices Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. It refused to address the claim of violence against women dog feeders and care-givers at the top Court level, saying it's a law and order problem and remedies are available to the aggrieved under penal law.

Supreme Court Restrains Declaration Of Result For J&K Cricket Association Elections Over Alleged Fraud, Electoral Roll Manipulation By BCCI Sub-Committee

Case Details: Youth Cricket Club and Ors. v. Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 17/2026

The Supreme Court yesterday restrained declaration of election results for the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA), pursuant to allegations of fraud and manipulation of electoral roll levelled against members of Sub-Committee of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria passed the order, while issuing notice on a plea filed by 19 out of 25 Cricket Clubs. The Court said that the elections may be held on the stipulated date, but the results shall not be declared (until further orders).

It may be recalled that on October, 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a special leave petition, directed that elections of JKCA be conducted within 12 weeks “in terms of the approved constitution of JKCA”.

ED Moves Supreme Court Alleging Interference By WB CM Mamata Banerjee In I-PAC Probe

The Enforcement Directorate has moved the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging interference by the West Bengal government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in its investigation into the I-PAC coal scam.

The plea follows events from last week when ED officials were conducting searches at the office of Indian Political Action Committee or I-PAC in Kolkata in connection with the probe. During the operation, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee allegedly reached the I-PAC office along with senior party leaders and confronted ED officials. The ED has also alleged that the Chief Minister took away certain files from the premises during the raid, which it claims further impeded the investigation.

According to the ED, the Chief Minister's presence at the search site and the alleged removal of documents had an intimidating effect on officers and seriously compromised the agency's ability to discharge its statutory functions independently. The agency has alleged repeated obstruction and non-cooperation by the state administration.

Producer Of Vijay-Starrer “Jana Nayagan” Moves Supreme Court Against Madras High Court Stay on CBFC Certification

Case Details: KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification Diary No. 1894/2026

The producer of the Tamil film "Jana Nayagan", starring actor Vijay, has approached the Supreme Court challenging an interim order passed by the Madras High Court that stayed the direction passed by a single bench of the High Court for the grant of CBFC certification for the film.

KVN Productions LLP, the film's producer, filed a Special Leave Petition this morning against the order passed by a division bench of the High Court last Friday.

The film, touted to be the last film of actor Vijay, who has now plunged into electoral politics by floating his own party TVK, and announced as a Pongal release on January 9, ran into trouble as the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Chairperson decided on January 6 to refer the film to the Revising Committee. This was after the Examining Committee of the CBFC's Chennai Regional Office agreed to give U/A 16+ certification for the film, subject to certain edits.

Supreme Court Directs Completion Of Bengaluru Municipal Corporation Elections By June 30

Case Details: State of Karnataka v. M. Shivaraju and Ors., SLP(C) No. 15181-15183/2020

The Supreme Court set a deadline of June 30, 2026, for the completion of the election process for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the State of Karnataka to publish the final ward-wise reservation by February 20, 2026.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the State of Karnataka, submitted that the work of notifying reservations will be completed within a month. The bench clarified in its order that no further time extension will be granted.

'Disgusting': Supreme Court Slams Judicial Officer Accused Of Urinating In Train Coach & Creating Ruckus, Stays His Reinstatement

Case Details: High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Navneet Singh Yadav and Anr., Diary No. 62653-2025

The Supreme Court stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which set aside the termination and directed reinstatement of a judicial officer who allegedly caused nuisance onboard a train, flashed a woman passenger and urinated in the compartment.

The Court orally remarked that the judicial officer's conduct amounted to "grossest grave misconduct" and that he should have been dismissed. The Court found the case to be shocking and remarked that the officer's conduct was "disgusting".

"He urinated in compartment! There was a lady present", noted Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Supreme Court Seeks ECI Response On TMC MPs' Plea Against SIR Process In West Bengal

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors. & Connected Matters | W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025

The Supreme Court sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) on the applications filed by MPs from the Trinamool Congress challenging the procedural actions taken in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process of the electoral rolls in West Bengal.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the applications filed by MPs Derek O Brien and Dola Sen.

Sr Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for TMC MP Derek O Brien, stressed that instructions relating to the SIR are being issued through social communication platforms like WhatsApp, making BLOs act without any formally issued orders. He also pointed at the ECI has introduced a 'logical discrepancy' category of voters, who may be issued notice for a quasi-judicial hearing on their eligibility over errors or anomalies in the voter details.

Supreme Court To Examine If NCLT President Has Power To Transfer Cases Across States

Case Details: Anitha Rayapati v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Private Limited, SLP(C) No. 848/2026

The Supreme Court is set to examine the scope of National Company Law Tribunal President's power to transfer a case across states by way of an administrative order.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on a plea challenging the Gujarat High Court orderwhich held that the NCLT President has no authority to transfer cases from one State to another through administrative orders.

Issuing notice, the CJI's bench expressed prima facie doubt on the correctness of the High Court view. The issue that the Court has expressed inclination to examine was framed by the High Court thus:

Telangana Withdraws Writ Petition Filed Against Andhra's Polavaram Project; Supreme Court Allows Filing Of Suit

Case Details: State of Telangana v. Union of India and Ors W.P.(C) No. 1258/2025

The Supreme Court allowed the State of Telangana to withdraw its writ petition against the Union and Andhra Pradesh Government, challenging the expansion of the Polavaram Multipurpose irrigation project.

The Court allowed the State Government to raise the challenge in the form of a civil suit under Article 131 jurisdiction. 

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by the State of Telangana under Article 32 of the Constitution against the Union's extension of financial assistance to Andhra Pradesh to expand the Polavaram Project, also known as Polavaram –Banakacherla” Link Project.

Mumbai Coastal Road Land Given To Reliance For Development Should Ordinarily Remain Open To Public : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jipnesh Narendra Jain v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1166/2025

The Supreme Court emphasised that the reclaimed land near Mumbai Coastal Road (South), which has been given to Reliance Industries for landscape development, should ordinarily remain open to public.

With this observation, the Court disposed of a public interest litigation challenging the Expression of Interest (EoI) issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) inviting private agencies for landscaping work on reclaimed lands along the Mumbai Coastal Road.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandrakar heard the matter. It noted that the Court's 2022 order, which permitted development works related to the coastal road project (like landscaping of seaside promenade and road-median), took care of the concerns of the petitioner.

Sonam Wangchuk's Detention : Detaining Authority Didn't Apply Mind, Copy-Pasted SSP's Recommendation, Sibal Tells Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court (January 12) continued to hear arguments of petitioner Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, who has challenged the detention of the Ladakh social activist and her husband Sonam Wangchuk's under the National Security Act, 1980(NSA), as illegal. Wangchuk has been detained after the Ladakh protests for statehood turned violent since September 2025.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale has been hearing the matter.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Angmo) reiterated that the four videos which has been relied upon by the detaining authority have not furnished to him. This violates his right to effective representation, not just via the Advisory Board under the NSA but also via the government. He referred to Article 22(1) and 22(5) and stated that clause (1) ensures that no person is detained without being informed and that he cannot be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner. He added that the Courts have interpreted that 'legal practitioner' is not limited to a legal counsel and can include a friend, which in this case is his wife.

Can TADA Convict Seek Remission? Supreme Court To Consider In Abu Salem's Plea For Premature Release

Case Details: Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., Diary No. 60531-2025

The Supreme Court asked terrorist Abu Salem, who seeks pre-mature release in terms of an Extradition Treaty entered between the Indian and Portugal governments, to produce Maharashtra State Rules to ascertain if it allows remission to a convict under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (TADA) Act.

For context, Salem, who has been convicted in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case, claims the benefit of 3 yrs and 16 days jail-earned remission (for good conduct) in computation of a 25 year jail sentence, upon completion of which he shall be eligible for pre-mature release. He cites 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.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. It asked Salem to produce any rules prevailing in Maharashtra, as per which remission can be granted to someone convicted under the TADA.

Supreme Court Appoints New Judge For Trial Of Coal Blocks Allocation Scam Cases

Case Details: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000120 / 2012

The Supreme Court appointed judicial officer Ms Sunena Sharma to take over charge as the presiding Special Court Judge in the ongoing trials pertaining to the Coal block scam.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application by the Delhi High Court seeking directions to relieve the presiding judge, Mr Sanjay Bansal, who has conducted the trial for over four and half years.

Justice SC Sharma Recuses From International Arbitration & Mediation Centre's Plea Challenging Cancellation Of Free Land Allotment

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

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma of the Supreme Court recused from hearing a plea filed by the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC) against a Telangana High Court judgment that quashed the free allotment of government land in Hyderabad to the IAMC.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma directed that the special leave petition may be listed before a Bench of which Justice Sharma is not a member.

"The special leave petitions may be listed before a Bench of which one of us (Satish Chandra Sharma, J.) is not a member", the Court ordered.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Exclusion Of Creamy Layer From SC/ST Reservations

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 001276 / 2025

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider the issue of whether reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be implemented excluding the creamy layer.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition seeking exclusion of the creamy layer from SC/ST reservations in the country.

The bench agreed to consider the matter and issued notice in the petition to the Union Government. The plea was tagged with another pending petition titled Ramashankar Prajapati And Anr. Versus Union Of India And Ors.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Challenging Lifelong Immunity Given To Chief Election Commissioner & Election Commissioners

Case Details: Lok Prahari v. Union of India and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 1150/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in a PIL challenging the immunity granted to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner under the CEC Act 2023.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a PIL by Lok Prahari challenging S.16 of The Chief Election Commissioner And Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service And Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Notably, S.16 states: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against any person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for any act, thing or word, committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty or function.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea To Declare AYUSH Doctors As 'Medical Practitioners' Under Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Ads) Act

Case Details: Nitin Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1278/202

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking the reading down of key provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, on the ground that the law has become constitutionally obsolete and operates in an arbitrary and disproportionate manner.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi considered the matter.

The petition challenges Sections 2(cc) and 3(d) of the Act, contending that they impose a blanket prohibition on medical advertisements, without distinguishing between misleading claims by quacks and bona fide dissemination of information by duly qualified and statutorily recognised practitioners, including those practising under AYUSH systems of medicine.

'Frivolous Petition' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Remove Savarkar's Portrait From Parliament

Case Details: Balasundaram Balamurugan v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 001095 / 2025

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over a plea seeking the removal of portraits of VD Savarkar from the Parliament and other public institutions. The Court warned of imposing costs for filing such 'frivolous petitions'.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the PIL.

The plea was filed by a retired IRS Officer, Balasundaram Balamurugan, who appeared as the petitioner in person.

Will Hold Authorities & Dog Feeders Liable For Every Stray Dog Attack, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 ()

The Supreme Court indicated that it may impose liability on both civic authorities and dog feeders for any injury or death caused by stray dog attacks.

The Court remarked that persons who are concerned about stray dogs must take them to their homes instead of letting them "loiter around, bite and scare" the public.

The oral observation came while the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the suo motu case related to the stray dogs issue.

Youth Must Shun Wealth Generated By Their Parents Through Corruption: Justice BV Nagarathna

Case Details – Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India

To curb the evil of corruption, Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court appealed to the youth of the country to shun wealth generated by their parents through corrupt means.

“The youth and children of this country ought to shun anything acquired beyond the known sources of income by their parents and guardians, rather than being beneficiaries of the same, this would be of seminal service rendered by them, not only towards governance, but also to the nation”, she said.

She observed, “One's attitude of greed and envy ought to be curbed and erased from one's mind. Otherwise, corruption and bribery, resulting in acquisition of wealth beyond the known sources of income cannot be reduced, nor removed from our governance. One of the ways in which such tendencies could be curbed is to develop and enhance a spiritual bent of mind, resulting in detachment from materialistic possessions and thereby inter alia focusing on service to the nation.”

'He Appears To Be A Rogue' : Supreme Court Pulls Up MP Police Officer For Using Stock Witnesses, Takes Him Off Work

Case Details: Anwar Hussain v. State of Madhya Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 14087/2025

The Supreme Court (January 13) orally raised concerns about the practice of using stock witnesses by the Madhya Pradesh police.

It also remarked that the Station House Officer(SHO) in this case appears to be a "rogue" after the Court was informed that the SHO had used two common witnesses in "195 cases" and "215 cases" respectively, and continued to do that even after he was summoned by the Court in the present matter.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan passed a strong order against the SHO Indramani Patel, directing that he may not be assigned any work till further orders of the Court. In case of any breach, the Police Commissioner, Indore, will be fully responsible for that.

Supreme Court Asks NIA To Show 'Hard Evidence' To Justify Detention Of Kashmiri Separatist Shabir Shah In Terror Funding Case

Case Details: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 13399/2025

Upon extensively hearing the bail plea of Kashmiri separatist Shabir Ahmed Shah in a terror funding case, the Supreme Court expressed that it will take a call on his bail on February 10.

The Court questioned the National Investigation Agency about its reliance on the statements of a co-accused Vani, noting that he was acquitted on the same allegation on which the agency booked Shah.

"We understand the sensitivity of the matter. But we just can't shut our eyes to the facts available. Prima facie, we can tell you, no sympathies with people who indulge in these things, but then facts have to be there to support the allegations. Show us hard evidence to justify his detention beyond 6 years", remarked Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Stray Dogs Protect Orphan Children On Streets, Make One Feel Safe: Advocate Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 ()

In the Stray Dogs case, one of the intervenors argued before the Supreme Court that stray dogs protect orphan childrens as their "last line of defence on streets", and hence, they must not be taken away. Instead of constructing shelters for dogs, authorities should endeavour to provide shelter to orphans, the lawyer suggested.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. The hearing will continue on January 20 at 2 PM.

Advocate Pavani Shukla, espousing the cause of orphan and vulnerable children, argued that stray dogs are homeless children's "last line of defence" on streets and must not be taken away. The same would amount to these children getting abandoned a second time, she said.

Can Right To Vote Be Taken Away Till Centre Decides Citizenship Of Doubtful Voters? Supreme Court Asks ECI In SIR Hearing

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 000640 / 2025

While hearing petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls across states, the Supreme Court asked the Election Commission of India(ECI) if the right to vote of a person can be taken away till the Central Government determines the question of citizenship.

The query from the bench came in response to the ECI's argument that it was competent to conduct an 'inquisitorial inquiry' into citizenship. ECI also said that it was empowered to strike down names from the rolls even if a doubtful case is pending reference before the Central Government.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the matter.

'Trial Likely To Take Time To Conclude' : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Accused In Mahant Narendra Giri Murder Case

Case Details: Aadya Prasad Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Criminal Appeal No. 195/2026

The Supreme Court on January 12 granted bail to Aadya Prasad Tiwari, an accused in the case relating to the death of Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad president Mahant Narendra Giri.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the October 14, 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court which had rejected Tiwari's plea for bail.

Tiwari was arrested on September 22, 2021 in connection with FIR No. 322 of 2021 registered at George Town police station, Prayagraj, initially under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment to suicide. Subsequently, the charge sheet filed on November 18, 2021 also invoked Sections 120-B and 302 IPC, alleging criminal conspiracy and murder.

Supreme Court To Hear ED's Plea Against Mamata Banerjee Over I-PAC Raid Tomorrow

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

The Supreme Court will hear tomorrow the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for allegedly obstructing the ED's search of the office of I-PAC, the political consultant of the All India Trinamool Congress.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi will hear the writ petition filed by the ED under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The petition has been filed against the State of West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, WB DGP Rajeev Kumar, Kokata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma and South Kolkata Dy Commissioner Priyabatra Roy.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain 'Jana Nayagan' Film Producer's Plea For CBFC Clearance, Asks Madras HC To Decide On Jan 20

Case Details: KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification Diary No. 1894/2026

The Supreme Court (January 15) dismissed the petition filed by the producer of Tamil film "Jana Nayagan", starring actor-politician Vijay, seeking clearance by the Central Board of Film Certification(CBFC).

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih refused to entertain the matter noting that the Madras High Court's Division Bench is scheduled to hear the matter on January 20.

The petition was filed by the film's producer, KVN Productions LLP, against the Madras High Court Division Bench's order, which stayed the Single Bench's direction to the CBFC to certify the film immediately.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea To Withdraw Life Support For Man In Permanent Vegetative State

Case Details: Harish Rana v. Union of India | MA 2238/2025 In SLP(C) No. 18225/2024

The Supreme Court (January 15) reserved the decision on the plea to withdraw life support for a 32-year-old man, who has remained in an irreversible permanent vegetative state for the past 12 years after falling from a building.

Two medical boards constituted by the Court has reported that the man has no chance for recovery.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a miscellaneous application of the father seeking to remove all life-sustaining treatment from his son. As per the guidelines laid down in the 2018 constitution bench judgment in Common Cause , as modified in the January 2023 order, which recognised the right to die with dignity, the Court has to get the opinions of Primary and Secondary Medical Boards before allowing his plea.

Kerala SIR : Supreme Court Asks ECI To Consider Extending Deadline To File Objections, Directs To Publish Deleted Names

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1136/2025

The Supreme Court directed that the names of persons excluded from the draft electoral rolls published after the Special Intensive Revision in Kerala be published in public offices and on the official website. The Court also asked the ECI to consider extending the deadline for filing objections to deletion of names

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the batch of pleas challenging the SIR Process in the state of Kerala.

On the last hearing, the bench was informed by the Election Commission of India that the original deadline for submission of enumeration forms, December 4, was extended till December 11. Further, following the Court's last order, the deadline was again extended till December 18.

'State Agencies Interfering With Central Probe Serious Issue' : Supreme Court In ED v. Mamata Banerjee; Stays WB FIRs

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

The Supreme Court issued notice on the plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and certain state police officers, for allegedly obstructing ED's search of the office of I-PAC, the political consultant of All India Trinamool Congress.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed that it was a "very serious issue" which the Court needs to examine.

"We are of the prima facie opinion that the present petition has raised a serious issue relating to the investigation by the ED or other central agencies and its interference by State agencies. According to us, for furtherance of rule of law in the country, and to allow each organ to function independently, it is necesary to examine the issue so that the offenders are not allowed to be protected under the shield of the law enforcement agencies of a particular state. According to us, larger questions are invovled in the present manner, which if allowed to remain undecided, would further worsen the situation and there will be a situation of lawlessness prevailing in one or the other state, considering that different outfits are governing diffferent places. True that any central agency does not have any power to interfere with the election work of any party. But if the central agency is bona fide investigating any serious offence, the question arises whether in the guise of taking shield of party activities, agencies can be restricted from carrying out power?," the bench observed.

'Is Courtroom Jantar Mantar?' : Supreme Court 'Disturbed' By Commotion In Calcutta HC Preventing Hearing Of ED Plea

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

During the hearing of ED's plea against West Bengal government's alleged interference with a raid at the I-PAC office, the Supreme Court expressed concern about the commotion that prevented the Calcutta High Court from hearing the matter on January 9.

It may be recalled that on January 9, the High Court had to adjourn the hearing of the Enforcement Directorate's plea due to a commotion.

The ED told a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi that prior to the January 9 hearing before the High Court, legal cell of the TMC circulated WhatsApp messages asking the cadres to gather in the Court.

'They Give Education' : Supreme Court Stays SASTRA University's Eviction From Thanjavur Public Land

Case Details: Shanmugha Arts Science Technology and Research Academy (SASTRA) v. State of Tamil Nadu | SLP(C) No. 002359 - 002360 / 2026

The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Madras High Court, which allowed the eviction of Shanmugha Arts, Science, Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA) from public land in Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu. The Court stated that due consideration has to be given to the fact that land was being used for the cause of education.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing the challenge to the Madras High Court order which dismissed a petition filed by Shanmugha Arts, Science Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA), a deemed university, challenging a government order that refused an alternate land offered by the University for setting up a prison and a subsequent eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur.

Sr Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and CS Vaidyanathan (assisted by Advocate Ronak Shankar Agarwal), appearing for SASTRA, mainly stressed that the petitioners had made 3 offers of alternative land to the State for executing its open-air prison project. The petitioners also stressed that the State tried to take possession when the campus houses over 5000 female students, and was concerned about their safety.

Solicitor General Objects To Lawyers Discussing Cases Handled By Them On Public Platforms

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

During the hearing of ED's plea concerning the I-PAC raid in West Bengal, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected to lawyers speaking on public platforms about cases handled by them.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who hosts a show on YouTube and has given press conferences on some important matters, countered the SG saying that Court judgments, once pronounced, are public property and can be discussed.

The exchange took place when Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra referred to the Court's newly introduced Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), which prescribes strict timelines for oral arguments in all post-notice and regular hearing matters. The judge was suggesting that the same ought to apply to the case at hand as well.

Should Candidates With Disabilities Be Exempted From 3-Year Practice Rule For Judicial Service? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 001110 / 2025

The Supreme Court asked all the High Courts and National Law Universities to file their suggestions on the issue of exempting Persons with Disabilities from the 3- year practice rule for entering judicial service.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vijay Bishnoi, was hearing a plea seeking exemption of the PwD lawyers from the 3-year practice rule to appear for judicial exams.

In May 2025, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran restored the condition that a minimum practice of three years as an advocate is necessary for a candidate to apply for entry-level posts in judicial service.

Justice SC Sharma Reveals He Was Targeted By Fake Traffic Challan SMS, Flags Cyber Fraud Menace

Case Details: Mukesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan | SLP(Crl) No. 767/2026

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma of the Supreme Court revealed that an attempt was made to defraud him by sending him a fake traffic challan through SMS. When he clicked the link, he was taken to a website which looked exactly like the official website.

Adding that he was able to detect the fraud, Justice Sharma remarked that if even judges are targeted by such well-organised frauds, it would be extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to protect themselves.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was dealing with a matter where the accused had deposited some money in the accounts of two police officers and then tried to commit fraud on them.

Supreme Court Signals Intention To Monitor Protection Of Neglected Heritage Sites In Delhi

Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 12213/2019

The Supreme Court expressed its intention to monitor the maintenance and upkeep of Delhi's heritage archaeological sites, which have suffered neglect from the authorities.

The Court was hearing a matter concerning the illegal encroachment on the Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500-year-old tomb of archaeological importance. The Gumti was illegally occupied by the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA), Delhi, and where the Municipal Corporation of Delhi(MCD) operated an unauthorised office and parking.

Last year, the Supreme Court passed a series orders for the removal of illegal encroachment and has also been monitoring the restoration of the monument.

Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Judgment Disqualifying Mukul Roy As Member Of West Bengal Legislative Assembly

Case Details: Subhranshu Roy v. Hon'ble Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly | Diary No. 72372/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the Calcutta High Court's judgmentwhich disqualified Mukul Roy from the West Bengal Legislative Assembly under the anti-defection law.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order while issuing notice on a petition filed by Subhranshu Roy, the son of Mukul Roy, challenging the High Court's order. The bench ordered that the operation of the High Court's judgment will be kept in abeyance.

Roy, who had won the 2021 Krishnanagar North seat on a BJP ticket, had allegedly joined the Trinamool Congress after the elections. The disqualification petitions were filed by BJP Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari and MLA Ambika Roy. After the Speaker refused to disqualify Roy, Adhikari approached the High Court.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Waqf Muttawalli's Plea Against Umeed Portal; Allows To Raise Grievances Before Authority

Case Details: Hashmat Ali v. Union of India and Ors | Diary No. 70413 / 2025

The Supreme Court (January 16) refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Waqf Muttawalli alleging that there were technical glitches in the UMEED Portal of the Central Government for the uploading of the details of the Waqf properties.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi however, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities to raise grievances. "We see no ground to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner may be well advised to approach the prescribed authority for clarification or addressing of grievances for which liberty is granted," the bench observed in the order.

Supreme Court Asks Telangana Speaker To Decide Remaining Disqualification Petitions In Two Weeks

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

The Supreme Court of India (January 16) issued a last warning to the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly, directing him to decide the remaining disqualification petitions within two weeks in connection with the defection of ten MLAs from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi to the Indian National Congress.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice AG Masih was hearing the compliance pursuant to the Court's July 31 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.

Since the Speaker refused to act within the timeline, contempt petitions were filed. After a stern warning from the Court, the Speaker, in last December, decided seven petitions, by rejecting them. However, three others are still pending.

NEET-PG : Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Lowering Of NEET-PG 2025-26 Qualifying Cut-Off Percentile

Case Details: Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India, Diary No. 3085/2026

A public interest litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the notice dated January 13 issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences which reduced the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025-26.

The PIL, filed by social worker Harisharan Devgan, neurosurgeon Saurav Kumar, Dr Lakshya Mittal (President, United Doctors Front) and Dr Akash Soni (Member, World Medical Association) points out that vide the impugned notice, the qualifying cut-off was reduced to abnormally low levels (even zero and negative).

Invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners raise a constitutional challenge, contending that reduction of the qualifying standards for PG medical education is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They claim that the lowering of the standards poses a risk to patient safety, public health and integrity of the medical profession.

Supreme Court To Consider Priya Kapur's Plea Seeking Certified Copies Of Divorce Settlement Between Sunjay Kapur & Karishma Kapoor

Case Details: Sunjay Kapur v. Karisma Kapur | MA 2691/2025 In T.P.(C) No. 214/2016

The Supreme Court (January 16) dealt with the application of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur's wife, Priya Kapur, seeking access to certified copies of the 2016 divorce proceedings between Sunjay Kapur and Karisma Kapoor. She has sought certified copies of the divorce settlement and custody arrangements between both parties.

The application was considered by Justice AS Chandurkar in chambers. Priya Kapur's counsel, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, stated that access to these documents would be necessary for the present estate litigation, where issues concerning financial provision, child support, and post-divorce obligations have been repeatedly raised before the Delhi High Court. It was opposed by Karishma Kapoor's counsel.

The Delhi High Court is currently hearing asuit filed by Karisma Kapoor's children, Samaira Kapur and Kiaan Raj Kapur, against their father's second wife, Priya Kapur and their son, as well as the deceased's mother, Rani Kapur and Shradha Suri Marwah, purported executor of a Will dated March 21, 2025. Sunjay Kapur passed away on June 12, 2025.

'Article 32 Is For Citizens, Those Around Delhi Misusing Article 32 Petitions' : Supreme Court

Case Details – Adil Ali Khalil Sulaiman v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court strongly deprecated the growing tendency of litigants to directly invoke Article 32 of the Constitution even when proceedings on the same issue are already pending before High Courts, terming such practice a “gross misuse” of the Court's jurisdiction.

A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 32, noting that a plea on the same subject was pending before the Bombay High Court.

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna expressed concern over what she described as the rampant misuse of Article 32, observing that the number of such petitions had “exponentially increased”. She remarked that for even routine grievances, including adjournments, litigants were approaching the Supreme Court directly.

Supreme Court Applies 30% Women Reservation Rule To Punjab & Haryana Bar Council Elections

Case Details: Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 581/2024

The Supreme Court directed to extend the 30% women reservations for the upcoming bar council elections in the state of Punjab & Haryana, which was earlier exempted for this year.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Baghchi was hearing application seeking directions for ensuring that adequate women representation is there before the onset of State Bar Elections across the country in a phased format. The application is filed by Advocate Yogamaya in her writ petition.

Previously, the Court directed that 30% of the seats in the State Bar Councils - where elections are yet to be notified- must be represented by women advocates.

Supreme Court To Examine Citizenship Claim Of Woman Deported To Bangladesh

Case Details: Musstt Aheda Khatun @ Musstt Aheda Khatoon v. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 2598/2026

The Supreme Court is set to examine the plea of a woman deported to Bangladesh after the Foreigners Tribunal declared her as a "foreigner of post-1971 stream".

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the woman's plea, limited to the purpose of examining genuineness of certain documents relied upon by her brother to prove Indian citizenship.

The petitioner is 44-year-old Musstt Aheda Khatun, a widow, who challenges the Gauhati High Court order of August, 2025, which dismissed her plea against the Foreigners Tribunal declaration that she was a "foreigner of post-1971 stream".

Case Details: Rachita Francis Xavier v. Union of India & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.61432/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in a special leave petition to examine whether "persons of Indian origin" could include children who are born in India to parents who were not citizens of India at the time of birth but were legally Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) cardholders.

The SLP is filed against the order of the division bench of the Delhi High Court, which set aside the single judge's order declaring that the Appellant is qualified to be a person of "Indian Origin".

The Appellant, Rachita Francis Xavier, is an 18-year-old girl who was born and raised in Andhra Pradesh to parents who were originally from India but then acquired citizenship of the United States. At the time of her birth, the parents were residing in India as OCI cardholders. She is now raised by her father as her mother has passed away.

'Place IT Returns Of Last 5 Years Before Us, Show Income Source' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Petitioner In 'Frivolous' PIL

Case Details: Sabu Steephen v. Union of India WP(C) 1209/2025

The Supreme Court asked a petitioner, who filed a Public Interest Litigation, to place on record his Income-Tax Returns for the last five years, along with an affidavit of the source of his income.

This was after the Court formed a view that the petition was "frivolous" and was filed as a "publicity stunt."

"Before we impose exemplary cost on the petitioner-in- person for filing a frivolous petition purportedly in public interest, which is nothing more than a publicity stunt, we direct the petitioner to place on record his Income-Tax Returns for the last five years, along with an affidavit of the source of his income," observed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.

Are UGC Guidelines Binding On University Not Receiving Govt Grants? Supreme Court To Decide

Case Details: Madurai Kamaraj University & Anr. v. A.R. Nagarajan & Anr. | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S).7130/2025

The Supreme Court asked the petitioner Madurai Kamaraj University and the Madurai Kamaraj University Constituent College and the respondent University Grant Commission(UGC) to file affidavit as to whether the petitioner University is receiving funds from the UGC or the State/Central Government.

It has also asked the parties to specify whether the UGC Guidelines are mandatory or merely directly in nature, as also binding on the petitioner University.

To briefly state, the petitioner University has challenged the Madras High Court's order dated November 22, 2024, whereby the High Court held that the petitioner is bound by the UGC Guidelines.

Bikram Singh Majithia Seeks Interim Bail Citing Threat To Life; Supreme Court Seeks Punjab Govt's Response

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

On Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia's plea for interim bail and apprehension of threat to life, the Supreme Court suggested that he can be shifted to a jail in Chandigarh.

"We are saying shift him to Chandigarh jail, what is the problem?" remarked Justice Sandeep Mehta.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. On Majithia's apprehension of threat to life, Justice Mehta questioned as to how many attempts had been made against him since he was taken into custody.

Supreme Court Asks MP Govt To Decide On Sanction To Prosecute Minister Vijay Shah Over Remarks Against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi

Case Details: Kunwar Vijay Shah v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., Diary No. 27093-2025 (And Connected Case Details)

The Supreme Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to take a decision within two weeks on granting sanction to prosecute Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah in the case over his objectionable remarks targeting Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Deepankar Datta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the Special Investigation Team consttitued by the Court has completed its investigation and filed the final report, and was awaiting the sanction of the State Government, which is necessary for the Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 196 (promotion of communal hatred, ill-will) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The bench also noted that the SIT report has referred to certain other instances, where Shah has made alleged objectionable remarks. The Court asked the SIT to submit a report on the action proposed to be taken with respect to such instances as well.

WB SIR | Supreme Court Issues Directions To ECI To Ensure Transparent Verification Of Persons In 'Logical Discrepency' List

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 and Connected Cases.

In relation to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in West Bengal, the Supreme Court issued a set of directons to the Election Commission of India(ECI) to ensure that the verification of the persons put in the 'logical discrepancies' category is conducted in a transparent manner, without causing stress and inconvenience to the persons.

The Court directed the Election Commission of India to publish the list of persons to whom notices have been sent citing "logical discrepancies" in the enumeration forms submitted by them. The lists have to be published in the Panchayat/Block offices.

The Court noted that about 1.25 crores of notices have been sent to various persons, citing discrepancies such as mismatch in parents' names, low age-gap with parents, number of progeny of the cited parents more than six etc.

Supreme Court Stays Rajasthan High Court Order To Remove Liquor Vends Within 500 Mtrs Of Highways

Case Details: Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., Diary No. 2149-2026

The Supreme Court stayed the Rajasthan High Court order which directed removal or relocation of all liquor shops falling within 500 metres of a state or national highway.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for petitioner) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for State). Notably, the SG was supporting the petitioner in this case.

During the hearing, Rohatgi argued that the issue before the High Court pertained to village Sujangarh, but the order was passed qua the entire state without hearing anybody.

West Bengal SIR | Class 10 Admit Card Will Have To Be Accepted : Supreme Court Tells Election Commission

In relation to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in West Bengal, the Supreme Court observed that the Class 10 admit card issued by the State Board must be accepted as a document for enumeration.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petitions concerning the WB SIR.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, representing certain petitioners from the Trinamool Congress, submitted that the ECI was not accepting the Class 10 (madhyamik) admit card. Justice Bagchi asked how the ECI can refuse it, when it is mentioned in the SIR press release as one of the documents which can be given for enumeration.

'Private School Fee High, But Hurried Regulation Not Good' : Supreme Court Questions Midyear Enforcement Of Delhi School Fee Law

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

The Supreme Court raised concerns over the manner in which the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, a law enacted last month to regulate fees of private schools in Delhi, and a subsequent government circular were being implemented for the ongoing academic year.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe noted that while the object of the legislation was for public welfare, hurried and retrospective implementation could create practical and financial difficulties for schools.

“We are completely in favour of the legislation, this is not the final word or anything, but what we are saying is, hurry may end up not properly constituting the committees… This year has already started. This is completely convoluted. The approval should have been done by July and that has also passed. What is the over anxiety here? Of course the fees are phenomenally high, it's a legislation for public welfare. But in your anxiety you will end up creating institutions which are not viable”, Justice Narasimha said.

Supreme Court Seeks Justice Gita Mittal Committee Report On Manipur Relief Camp Conditions

Case Details: Anthony Naulak v. District Commissioner, Churachandpur | SLP(C) No. 001458 - / 2026

The Supreme Court asked the three-member committee headed by Justice Gita Mittal to submit a report on the issue of deficiencies in facilities at 14 relief camps for the internally displaced persons who fled the ethnic violence in Manipur.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the challenge to the order of the Manipur High Court, which refused to entertain a plea seeking a probe into the living conditions of 14 relief camps in Churachandpur, Manipur.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner informed the bench that the High Court refused to interfere in the PIL, as the Apex Court is already seized of the matter.

West Bengal SSC : Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Order Allowing Age Relaxation For Unappointed Candidate Of 2016 Selection Process

Case Details: West Bengal Central School Service Commission v. Jakir Hossain, SLP(C) No. 497/2026

The Supreme Court stayed a Calcutta High Court order which gave the benefit of age relaxation to a candidate who was unsuccessful in the 2016 SSC recruitment process for the post of Assistant Teacher to Classes 9 to 12.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay (for West Bengal Central School Service Commission).

Put briefly, the WBCSSC challenged the High Court's order of last December, whereby the respondent-candidate was allowed to participate in the 2025 selection process with interim benefit of age relaxation.

Private Universities Regulation: Supreme Court Displeased With Union Not Filing Affidavit Through Cabinet Secretary

Case Details: Ayesha Jain v. Amity University, Noida & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No.531/2025

In the matter relating to the regulation of private univeristies, the Supreme Court (January 8) expressed displeasure over the Union of India filing a compliance affidavit through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, despite a categorical direction that the affidavit must be sworn by the Cabinet Secretary to the Government of India.

The Court was monitoring compliance in a matter concerningthe regulation of private and deemed-to-be universities across the country, in which States and Union Territories had been directed to furnish comprehensive details regarding their creation, functioning and regulatory oversight.

Before a bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N. V. Anjaria, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for Union and the University Grant Commission) submitted that, unlike the administration in the States, where the Chief Secretary heads the bureaucratic set-up, at the Union level, the Cabinet Secretary, in terms of the working hierarchy, is not in control of the departments. Therefore, the affidavit was filed by the Higher Education Secretary.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief To 'Punjab Kesari' Newspaper, Bars Punjab State Action Against Printing Press

The Supreme Court directed the State of Punjab not to take any coercive steps against the publication of the 'Punjab Kesari' newspaper, while the judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the petition filed by the management against the State's actions is awaited.

The Court ordered that the printing press of the newspaper shall function uninterruptedly, subject to the judgment of the High Court. The interim order will continue till the pronouncement of the judgment of the High Court and for a week thereafter, to enable the parties to seek appellate remedies.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order after Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi made an oral mention this morning on behalf of the newspaper.

Can Enforcement Directorate Invoke Article 226? Supreme Court To Examine In Kerala, Tamil Nadu Petitions Against ED

Case Details: State of Kerala and Ors. v. Enforcement Directorate and Anr | SLP(C) No. 1479/2026

The Supreme Court (January 20) issued notice on the pleas filed by the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, questioning whether the Enforcement Directorate has the power to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. Notice is issued returnable within four weeks; no stay has been granted.

Both the States have filed separate petitions against theKerala High Court's order holding that ED is a statutory authority and therefore has the power to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the State of Kerala, and another counsel appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Tamil YouTuber Savukku Shankar's Plea To Unseal Office, Asks Him To Approach Magistrate

Case Details: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. Inspector of Police | SLP(Crl) No. 807-809/2026

The Supreme Court (January 20) refused to entertain a plea filed by YouTuber and Journalist Shankar @Savukku Shankar seeking to unseal his office in Chennai and also to direct the Tamil Nadu Police to return his devices seized during the investigation in connection with the allegations of assault and extortion by a film producer.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

At the outset, Justice Datta questioned: "Who is this gentleman? On Friday, we passed an order, and he is again before us!"

Supreme Court To Close Hate Speech Matters; Reserves Order

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 943/2021 and Connected Cases.

The Supreme Court reserved orders on a batch of writ petitions concerning the issue of hate speeches.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said that all the matters will be closed, reserving the right of the parties to pursue other remedies. The bench has decided to keep one matter(Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani Versus The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors) alive, which relates to a 2021 alleged hate crime committed against a Muslim cleric in Noida, to ascertain the progress in trial and related steps.

Most of the petitions were filed in 2020, in the context of the 'Corona Jihad' slander campaign in social media, as well as the 'UPSC Jihad' show ran by Sudarshan TV. In 2020, the Courthad passed orders to stop the telecast of the UPSC Jihad show.

'Airfares During Kumbh Were Exploitative, We Will Interfere': Supreme Court Flags Surge In Air Ticket Prices During Festivals

Case Details: S. Laxminarayanan v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1124/2025

The Supreme Court expressed a concern about rampant surges in air ticket prices during festivals and high-demand situations.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a PILfiled by social activist S Laxminarayanan seeking regulatory control over airfare practices and ancillary charges in India's civil aviation sector. The petition challenges algorithm-driven dynamic pricing, day-of-travel surcharges, and the reduction of complimentary check-in baggage allowance from 25 kg to 15 kg.

Pointing to exorbitant airfares during festivals, etc., the Court indicated that it would intervene and pass necessary orders.

AIBE Will Be Held Twice A Year; Rules Framed To Allow Final Semester Students To Take Exam : BCI Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Nilay Rai & Ors v. Bar Council of India | W.P.(C)No 577 of 2024

The Bar Council of India told the Supreme Court that it has framed rules enabling final year law students to take the All India Bar Exam and the same will be conducted twice a year.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a writ petition which was filed in 2024 seeking directions to allow final semester students to appear in the AIBE. In 2024, the Court had passed interim orders allowing final year students to appear in the AIBE held that year. In 2023, the Court had directedthe BCI to frame rules to this effect.

The counsel for the Bar Council of India informed the Court that it has framed BCI Rules 2026 to this effect.

'Contempt Of Court' : Supreme Court Flays Maneka Gandhi For Remarks On Stray Dog Case Order

During the hearing of the suo motu case on the stray dog issue, the Supreme Court pulled up former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi, observing that she has committed "contempt of court" through her comments against the judges.

However, the Court said that it was not taking any action because of its "maganimity".

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria was on the 5th day of the hearing of the case. As soon as the hearing started, Advocate Prashant Bhushan took objection to some oral comments made by the bench during the previous hearing, saying "I want to say, your lordships have been making remarks during hearing, some of them get misinterpreted."

NCR Builder-Bank Loan Fraud Nexus | Supreme Court Asks Delhi Magistrate To Proceed After Considering CBI Chargesheets

Case Details: Himanshu Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7649/2023 and Other Connected Matters

The Supreme Court ordered the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi, to proceed with the trial in the charge sheets filed by the CBI in the cases related to builder-banks fraud nexusexploiting homebuyers in the National Capital Region.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing grievances of homebuyers in the National Capital Region, who claimed that banks were forcing them to pay EMIs without having obtained possession of flats due to the delay by the builders/developers.

The issue related to deep-rooted nexus between builders and banks in the National Capital Region (NCR) in cases involving loan subvention schemes, in which homebuyers were trapped through collusive arrangements. Under these schemes, banks disbursed substantial housing loans directly to builders on the assurance that the latter would service EMIs during the construction period. However, when builders defaulted or projects stalled, banks proceeded against unsuspecting homebuyers, even though possession was never handed over.

Stray Dog Case : Supreme Court Hears Parents Of 6-Year Old Whose Death Triggered Suo Motu Case

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', Smw(C) No. 5/2025 (And Connected Cases)

In the Stray Dogs case, parents of the minor victim whose death led the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognizance, made arguments.

A newspaper article in the Times of India about the 6-year old's death, “In a city hounded by strays, kids pay the price”, led the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognizance of the issue last August.

They informed the Court that hospitals were guilty of negligence in the matter as they refused timely treatment.

Supreme Court Rejects Union's Plea To Modify Direction To Fill 50% JAG Posts From Women

Case Details: W.P.(C) No. 772/2023 Arshnoor Kaur and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors | Ma 1896/2025

The Supreme Court rejected a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Union Government seeking modification of the last year's judgment which directed that at least 50% vacancies of Judge Advocate General(JAG) posts in the Indian Army must be allotted to women.

It may be recalled that last year in August, the Supreme Court in Arshnoor Kaur v UOI struck down the policy of the Indian Army to reserve a higher number of posts in the JAG branch for men and restrict the number of women who can be appointed to the JAG post. To compensate the sidelining of women candidates in the past, the Court directed that 50% vacancies must be allotted to them in the future.

The Union later filed an MA seeking modification of paragraph 114, which says: "Moreover, as held hereinabove, male and female JAG officers do not have distinct cadres with different conditions of service and the true meaning of concept of 'genderneutrality' and 2023 recruitment policy is that Union of India shall recruit the most meritorious candidates in JAG branch irrespective of their sex/gender as the primary job of this branch is to give legal advice and conduct cases. To 'correct the past' and to 'compensate the women for their previous non-enrolment', the Union of India shall allocate not less than 50% of the vacancies to women candidates."

SIR| Verification Of Citizenship Only For Electoral Purposes; The Method Is 'Liberal, Soft-Touch': ECI Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 000640 / 2025

In the challenge to the SIR across states, the ECI told the Supreme Court that the verification of the citizenship of the voters was being done only for electoral purposes and not with the intent to deport non-citizens. The ECI also argued that the process of verification was a 'liberal, soft-touch' approach and did not involve a rigorous investigation per se.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the matter.

Aravalli Hills : Supreme Court Records Rajasthan's Assurance To Ensure No Illegal Mining; Proposes To Form Expert Committee

Case Details – In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues

The Supreme Court recorded an assurance on behalf of the Rajasthan Government that no illegal mining activities would be permitted in the Aravalli region.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, hearing the suo motu case taken on the issue of definition of Aravalli hills, continuedthe interim orderpassed earlier, under which the Court had kept its previous directions on the changed definition of Aravalli Hills in abeyance.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice observed that some illegal activities were continuing in the region and cautioned that illegal mining could lead to irreversible consequences.

Delhi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Directs NCR States To Act On CAQM's Recommendation For Long Term Measures

Case Details – Mc Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985

The Supreme Court directed the Delhi Government, the Delhi municipal bodies and other agencies of the NCR states to submit their 'action taken plan' report on the CAQM's recommendations for long-term measures to resolve the air pollution crisis in the National Capital Region.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the matter.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti, appearing for the Commission for Air Quality Management, informed that the Committee has submitted detailed long-term measures, including phasing out polluting vehicles from Delhi-NCR; strengthening of PUC regime; augmentation of rail transport and metro models; revised electric vehicle policy; and higher incentives to be given to owners for scrapping their old vehicles. Detailed report on CAQM recommendations can be read here.

'No Judge Or Prosecutor In NIA Court, 7 Yrs Custody Without Trial': Surendra Gadling To Supreme Court In Bail Plea

Case Details: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No. 3742/2023

The Supreme Court adjourned lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling's bail plea in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case by a month, while granting time for document inspection.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter and said that it would ascertain from the Bombay High Court Chief Justice whether any judge is posted in the concerned NIA court.

For context, on the last date, Senior Advocate Anand Grover (for Gadling) had argued that the principal evidence in the case is electronic and overlaps with the Bhima Koregaon case, yet the State has not furnished Gadling copies of the electronic material. He added that the case has been proceeding without a permanent Public Prosecutor.

Supreme Court Dismisses UCM Coal Company's Challenge To Rs.126 Cr Arbitral Award In Favor Of Adani Enterprises

Case Details: Ucm Coal Company Ltd. v. Adani Enterprises Ltd., SLP(C) No. 2954/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Allahabad High Court order which upheld an arbitral award of Rs.126 crores in favor of Adani Enterprises.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order in a petition filed by UCM Coal Company Ltd., a joint venture of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Chhatisgarh Mineral Development Corporation and Maharashtra State Power Generation Corporation Limited incorporated for development, exploration and mining of coal blocks allotted to them.

To recap, UCM Coal floated tenders for mine developer and operator, and Adani Enterprises was the successful bidder. At the clearance stage, a PIL was filed before the Supreme Court, which cancelled the allocation of coal blocks to UCM.

Supreme Court To Formulate SOP For Timely Investigation Of Child Missing Cases

Case Details: G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu | Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No(S). 11263/2025

The Supreme Court expressed its intention to formulate a common Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) for the recovery of missing children, a problem which is rampant across the country, as noted by the Court.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing a matter concerning the recovery of a child who had gone missing in 2011 when she was 1 year and 10 months in Tamil Nadu. When the matter was heard on January 16, the Court noted that the State of Tamil Nadu had finally woken up from slumber and had taken some steps.

It expressed concern that despite such incidents being rampant across the country, the States are not giving such matters due attention and priority.

“Socialism In Its Extreme”: Supreme Court On Giving Kerala Land Reforms Act Protection To Commercial Establishment

Case Details – Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. P.C. Sathiyadevan (D) By Lrs. and Another

The Supreme Court criticised the grant of land reform protection to Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) in a dispute that has kept the landowner out of possession for more than three decades.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Alok Aradhe directed Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) to hand back vacant possession of leased land in Ernakulam to the heirs of the original landowner, holding that the company was not entitled to protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

Section 106 grants protection from eviction to lessees of land leased for commercial or industrial purposes if they had constructed buildings on the land before May 20, 1967.

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Case Over Grey Routing Of International Calls

Case Details: Pinky Rani Etc v. State of Maharashtra | SLP(Crl.) Nos.16470-16471 of 2025

The Supreme Court made the interim anticipatory bail granted to accused absolute in a case of "grey routing" where they were accused of illegally routing international calls as regular Indian local calls using special internet phone lines from Jio's enterprise networks.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale made the earlier interim protection absolute after noting they had appeared before the Investigating Officer (IO) and had accordingly furnished their statements, a fact not disputed by the Respondent-State of Maharashtra. The Appellants, Pinky Rani and Amit Kumar, are directors of the M/s Srivansh Consulting Private Limited, against whom the allegation is that of hosting infrastructure and technical setup to host such calls.

The Appellants are accused of committing offences under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023; Sections 3, 6 and 4 of the Indian Wireless Act, 1933 and Sections 20, 20A, 21 and 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and they were denied bail by the trial Court and then by the Bombay High Court.

Delhi AQI Crisis : CAQM Submits Report In Supreme Court Recommending Long Term Measures To Combat NCR Air Pollution

Case Details – Mc Mehta v. Union of India

The Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas has recommended the continued levy of Environment Compensation Charge, installation of barrier-free toll systems at Delhi's border points, and a series of long-term sector-wise measures to address worsening air quality in Delhi-NCR.

The recommendations were placed before the Supreme Court in a status report filed in the long-running MC Mehta case concerning air pollution in Delhi NCR.

The status report states that based on a meta-analysis of studies from 2015 to 2025, the experts attribute PM2.5 pollution in Delhi to a mix of transport, industry including thermal power plants, road and soil dust, biomass burning, and secondary particulate formation, with varying seasonal contributions.

Does ED Have Power For Further Investigation? Supreme Court To Examine In IAS Officer Saumya Chaurasia's Plea

Case Details: Saumya Chaurasia v. Union of India & Anr.

The Supreme Court agreed to consider a writ petition filed by IAS officer Saumya Chaurasia challenging her arrest done by ED under the wider interpretation of 'further investigation' under the PMLA Act 2002.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi issued notice in the matter.

The writ petition is filed by civil servant Saumya Chaurasia, who has been allegedly involved in the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam and was arrested in December 2025 by the ED and still remains in custody.

Consumer Protection Act |Supreme Court To Examine If Legal Heirs Can Be Held Liable After Death Of Person Found To Be Negligent

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

The Supreme Court appointed Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant as the amicus curiae to address the issue of whether, for the negligence by a person, the estate of such person should be held liable for compensation through legal heirs.

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.

The consumer's legal heirs approached the Supreme Court, and the bench stayedthe proceedings before the NCDRC. On January 13, when the matter was taken up, the bench addressed the issue of whether, under the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complaint survives and whether compensation can be provided to the consumer through the legal heirs of the doctor.

Supreme Court Seeks Reports From HCs On Compliance With 30% Women Representation In Bar Associations

Case Details: Deeksha N Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(C) No. 1404/2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court has directed the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka, as well as Registrars General of all High Courts, to verify and report compliance with its earlier mandate requiring 30 percent representation of women lawyers as office bearers or executive members in Bar Associations.

The direction was passed while hearing a batch of special leave petitions arising from a Karnataka High Court judgment. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted submissions by senior counsel that several Bar Associations in Karnataka had either not complied or only partially complied with the Supreme Court's order dated March 24, 2025.

By that earlier order, the Supreme Court had mandated that all District, Taluka and other Bar Associations ensure at least 30 percent representation of women lawyers in their office bearers and executive committees. Registrars General of all High Courts had been directed to ensure implementation of the directive.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Against BCCI Representing Indian Cricket Team

Case Details: Reepak Kansal v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 1589/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed to stop the projection of the Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) as the representative of the official national cricket team of India.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi dismissed a petition filed by Reepak Kansal challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to entertain his PIL.

"Can BCCI become the owner of indian cricket?" the petitioner's counsel at the outset.

2000 Red Fort Attack | Supreme Court Issues Notice On Curative Petition Filed By LeT Militant Against Death Penalty

Case Details – Mohd Arif@Ashfaq v. State (Nct of Delhi)

The Supreme Court issued notice on a curative petition filed by Lashkar-e-Taiba militant Mohd. Arif, who was sentenced to death in the 2000 Red Fort attack case.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice JK Maheshwari issued notice on the curative petition challenging the November 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court which had affirmed the death penalty awarded to Arif and dismissed his review petition.

In the November 2022 judgment, the Court had held that acts of terrorism which challenge the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India constitute the most aggravating circumstances and outweigh any mitigating factors.

Bhoj Shala-Kamal Maula Mosque Dispute : Supreme Court Passes Orders For Peaceful Conduct Of Basant Panchami Puja & Friday Namaz

Case Details: Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society Dhar v. Hindu Front For Justice (Regd. Trust No. 976) and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7023/2024

The Supreme Court issued directions to ensure that Basant Panchami poojas and Friday Juma Namaz are both held peacefully in the Bhoj Shala-Kamal Maula complex in Dhar in Madhya Pradesh, over which a dispute exists between both the communities regarding the religious character of the structure.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing an application filed by Hindu Front for Justice seeking permission to allow day-long rituals of Basant Panchami, which falls on January 23.

Bhojshala, a 11th-century monument protected by the Archaeological Survey of India, is viewed differently by Hindus and Muslims. Hindus consider it a temple dedicated to Vagdevi (Goddess Saraswati), while Muslims regard it as the Kamal Maula Mosque. As per a 2003 agreement, Hindus perform puja at the Bhojshala complex on Tuesdays, while Muslims offer namaz there on Fridays.

'Difficult For Court To Frame Pan-India SOP For Rallies' : Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Approach MHA & ECI

Case Details: Tumbalam Gooty Venkatesh v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 40/2026

The Supreme Court disposed of a PIL seeking a Standard Operating Procedure for rallies, gatherings and demonstrations to avert stampede incidents, by allowing the petitioner to pursue the representation submitted by him before the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Court also gave liberty to the petitioner to submit the representation before the Election Commission of India for a Standard Operating Procedure for political rallies and roadshows.

Observing that "it is very difficult" for the Court to issue blanket and pan-India directions, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi declined interference. However, the Court directed that the Union of India may consider a representation sent by the petition in this regard.

West Bengal Govt, Governor Agree On 8 VC Appointments; Supreme Court Leaves Rest To Justice Lalit Committee

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

In the matterpertaining to the appointment of Vice Chancellors for West Bengal Universities, the State government and the Governor agreed on the recommendations of 6 more candidates as VCs.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed of the development by Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta (for West Bengal government) and Attorney General R Venkataramani (for Governor).

The 8 universities in relation to which consensus was reached between the State Chief Minister and the Governor were: Sanskrit College & University, Cooch Behar Panchanan Barma University, Harichand Guruchand University, Raiganj University, Diamond Harbour Women's University, Baba Saheb Ambedkar Education University, Uttar Banga Krishi Vishwavidyalay University, and West Bengal State University.

Can Special Intensive Revision Deviate From Rules? Procedure Must Be Transparent : Supreme Court To Election Commission

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 000640 / 2025

In the challenge to the SIRacross various states, the Supreme Court observed that the ECI cannot have untrammelled and unregulated powers under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which empowers the Commission to carryout an intensive revision "in such manner as it may think fit".The Court opined that such a 'manner' has to be within the constitutional framework and principles of natural justice.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the Election Commission of India(ECI).

Justice Bagchi posed whether the ECI had the power to deviate from the pre-existing rules on revision of electoral rolls, especially Form 6 under Rule 13 of Registration of Electors Rules 1960, which details the process for raising objections and claims. And could the ECI stipulate its own set of documents which it allows for SIR, beyond those listed in Form 6?

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Seeking Alternatives To Hanging For Death Penalty Execution

Case Details: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No. 145/2017

The Supreme Court reserved orders in a public interest litigation seeking abolishment of death-by-hanging.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reserved the order after hearing Attorney General R Venkataramani, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora (for Project 39A) and Advocate Rishi Malhotra (petitioner-in-person).

During the hearing, Malhotra relied on a Law Commission of India report to support the prayers, which provides a comparative chart on what can be a better mode of execution. The Court asked him to place on record a brief note on the Report and relevant case laws.

Supreme Court Rejects Taekwondo Federation Of India's Plea Against Delhi HC Bar On Acting As National Sports Federation

Case Details: Taekwondo Federation of India v. Union of India and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 2920-2921/2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Delhi High Court, which held that until the Union Government decides on the recognition of the Taekwondo Federation of India as a National Sports Federation (NSF), neither the Taekwondo Federation of India nor Taekwondo India will act as the NSF.

To briefly state, the issue pertains to the recognition of 'Taekwondo India' as the NSF for the sport of taekwondo since the Taekwondo Federation of India was unable to obtain the required recognition from the World Taekwondo, which is the International Governing Body for the sport as recognised by the International Olympic Committee.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the matter.

Bhojshala Temple - Kamal Maula Dispute : Supreme Court Directs MP High Court To Unseal ASI Survey Report

Case Details – Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society Dhar v. Hindu Front For Justice (Regd. Trust No. 976) and Ors.

The Supreme Court disposed of an appeal arising from theMadhya Pradesh High Court's order directing the Archaeological Survey of India to carry out a scientific survey at the disputed Bhojshala Temple cum Kamal Maula Mosque complex to determine the real and true character of the site.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi laid down a time-bound process for the High Court to unseal the survey report, supply copies to parties, and consider their objections at final hearing.

“The division bench is requested to unseal the report in open court and supply copies to both sides. If such a part of the report which cannot be opened the parties may be permitted to inspect such part of the report in the presence of their experts and advocates. Thereafter the parties will be granted two weeks' time to file their respective objections, suggestions, opinions or recommendations. High Court may thereafter take up the case for final hearing and all the objections, suggestions, opinions or recommendations may be duly considered at the time of the final hearing”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Declines Plea Seeking Reservation For Advocates From Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes In Bar Councils

Case Details – Universal Dr. Ambedkar Advocates Association v. Union of India

The Supreme Court declined to issue directions for reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe advocates in elections of State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India, holding that such a measure can be provided only through a statutory amendment.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi stated, “It is not in dispute that such a reservation can be provided only through amendment in the statute for which State Bar Council of Telangana, as well as the Bar Council of India, took a categorical stand before the High Court that the matter has been taken up With the competent authorities and is under active consideration. That being so, we find it difficult to issue a mandamus to provide any reservation to SC ST in the absence of an express provision.”

The Court was hearing a writ petition by Universal Dr. Ambedkar Advocates Association seeking a declaration that “proportional representation” under Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 includes proportional representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other marginalized communities in State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India.

Plea Challenging Stalin's 2011 Election : Supreme Court To Consider Extent Of Proof Of Video Evidence Authenticated By S.65B Certificate

Case Details: Saidai Sa. Duraisamy v. Stalin M.K., C.A. No. 10259/2017

In a plea challenging election of former Deputy CM and DMK leader MK Stalin (now Tamil Nadu Chief Minister) as an MLA from Kolathur constituency in 2011, the Supreme Court is set to consider as to what extent the contents of a video evidence need to be proved after it has been duly authenticated by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi is hearing the matter. The case arises out of AIADMK leader Saidai S Duraisamy's challenge to the Madras High Court order, which dismissed his election petition against Stalin's election from Kolathur in the 2011 assembly polls over alleged corrupt practices.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Amit Anand Tiwari appeared for CM MK Stalin and Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu for SS Duraisamy.

SIR Notification Doesn't Cite Illegal Cross-Border Migration As A Reason : Supreme Court Tells ECI

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 000640 / 2025

The Supreme Court, while hearing thechallenge to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls across various states, asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) if it defended the SIR for detecting 'illegal transborder migrants', which is expressly different from its reason of 'migration' given under the official announcement.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the Election Commission of India(ECI).

Dwivedi reiterated that under Article 326, the Commission can examine the citizenship from an electoral point of view.

Supreme Court Stays HC Order Barring Private Unaided Veterinary Colleges In Punjab From Charging Tuition Fee During Internship

Case Details: Khalsa College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences v. State of Punjab & Ors | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S).733/2026

The Supreme Court issued a notice and stayed the operation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which held that private, unaided veterinary colleges cannot charge tuition fees from students during the mandatory internship period for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry (B.V.Sc. & A.H.) programme.

By an order dated December 12, 2025, the High Court had held that charging a tuition fee during the internship period would be exploitative and contrary to the Veterinary Council of India's Regulations, as the very object of payment of internship allowance would be defeated.

The judgment was passed by a bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor on a petition by students of the private unaided college affiliated with Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (GADVASU), Ludhiana.

Thirupparankundram Hill : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Hindu Dharma Parishad's Plea For Daily Lamp Lighting & ASI Take Over

Case Details: Hindu Dharma Parishad v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1280/2025

The Supreme Court (January 23) issued notice in a writ petition filed by the Hindu Dharma Parishad seeking directions that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and other central authorities take over the control of the entire Thirupparankundram Lord Murugan Subramaniya Swamy Temple and to light the lamp on the top of the Deepathoon(stone pillar) permanently for 24 hours daily.

Parishad has also sought that on the day of Karthigai, the entire Thirupparankundram Hill should be lit with lamps and Muruga devotees should be allowed to worship.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi issued the notice to the Union Government, the ASI, the State of Tamil Nadu, HR&CE Department, Madurai District Collector, Madurai Police Commissioner, and the Executive Officer of the Subramaniya Swamy Temple.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Registry For Listing Petitions From Same Impugned Order Before Different Benches

Case Details: Arsheel @ Amaan v. State of U.P & Anr.

The Supreme Court indicated an action against the Registry official, who has listed a petition arising out of the same impugned order in the same FIR before different benches of the Court.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Atul S Chandurkar came across a matter arising out of Allahabad High Court's decision, where two petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by different accused, where one petition was listed before the bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna and another one was listed before this bench.

Noting that since another bench was already seized of the matter, where notice had already been issued, and the operation of the impugned order was stayed, the bench led by Justice Bindal expressed displeasure over the listing of another petition arising out of the same impugned order before its bench.

Supreme Court Criticises Allahabad HC's Casual Order Granting Bail To Child Trafficking Accused; Questions UP Govt For Not Challenging It

Case Details: Guriya Swayam Sevi Sansthan v. State of Uttar Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 17118/2025

The Supreme Court (January 23) cancelled the bail granted to a child trafficking accused by the Allahabad High Court. It noted that the Allahabad High Court passed mechnical bail order without due consideration to the seriousness and the gravity of the allegations involved. It questioned why the State of Uttar Pradesh is not serious in seeking cancellation of such bail orders.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Vinod K Chandran passed the order after a brief submission by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat(appearing for the NGO).

At the outset, Bhat submitted that the allegation against the Respondent 2, Tulsi, is under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. But the High Court passed the order in a cursory manner, only considering Respondent had suffered incarceration for five years, and on grounds of parity with other co-accused.

Supreme Court Seeks CBI, ED Status Reports On Probe Of Alleged Bank Fraud By Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group Companies

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

The Supreme Court called for status reports from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) with respect to their ongoing investigation into the alleged bank frauds perpetauted by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group companies and their promoter Anil Ambani.

The reports have to be submitted in a sealed cover.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by EAS Sarma, former Union Government Secretary.

'Why Can't They Check Your Mobile?' Supreme Court Refuses To Stay ED's Examination Of Seized Phone

Case Details – Jitendra Kumar Mehta v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.

The Supreme Court declined to grant interim protection to Kolkata businessman Jitendra Mehta from the Enforcement Directorate examining the contents of his seized mobile phone, rejecting his plea that unrestricted forensic examination of the device would violate his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi issued notice on Mehta's plea against the seizure and summons issued to him by the ED.

“Where is the violation of privacy? Once the investigation is lawfully being done, an agency is entitled to hold an investigation. Why can't they find out from your mobile that what is information? Barring that some information lying in that mobile suppose, which has nothing to do with the with the alleged crime attributed to you, that data can't be disclosed to the public, can't be brought in public domain, cannot form part of the any report. So to that extent, you have privacy right”, Chief Justice Kant said.

Senior Citizen Who Lost Rs 22.92 Crores In Digital Arrest Scam Moves Supreme Court Seeking Preventive Guidelines & Restitution

Case Details: Naresh Malhotra v. Union of India& Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 15/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government, Reserve Bank of India, CBI and seven private banks in a writ petition by 82 year old man who was defrauded of ₹22.92 crores in a digital arrest scam. This is possibly the largest individual digital scam in the country.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice in the matter.

Sr Adv K Parameshwar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the incident happened when the petitioner's children were abroad. He stressed that this was a case of 'gross negligence' by the banks involved, and that the petitioner was contemplating approaching the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the banks.

Supreme Court Declines To Order Reduction Of NEET UG Cutoff For BAMS Admissions 2025–26

Case Details – NRI Institute of Ayurvedic Medical Sciences v. Union of India

The Supreme Court refused to order reduction of the NEET UG qualifying cutoff for admission to BAMS courses for the academic year 2025–26, observing that the academic year is about to end.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to grant interim relief to ayurvedic colleges seeking reduction in cutoff in order to ensure no seat remains vacant.

“We have perused the affidavit on vacant seats as well as NCIMS opinion on reduction of cutoff. We are of the opinion that the academic year 2025-26 would now come to an end. We are not inclined to pass any interim order”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Requests Jharkhand High Court To Sympathetically Consider Apology Of Advocate In Contempt Case

Case Details: Mahesh Tiwari v. Registrar General of High Court of Jharkhand At Ranchi

The Supreme Court requested the Jharkhand High Court to sympathetically consider the apology tendered by a lawyer who is facing the High Court's suo motu contemp proceedings over a heated exchange with a judge.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the plea by advocate Mahesh Tiwari challenging suo-motu criminal contemptagainst him who was seen in a video clip involved in a heated exchange with a single judge during court proceedings.

A five judge bench of Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Rajesh Shankar heard the suo motu contempt case.

Mandating Prior Approval For Investigation Not Appropriate : Justice Ujjal Bhuyan On S 17A Prevention Of Corruption Act

Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made critical remarks against Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates that there must be prior approval from the concerned authority of the Government before initiating investigation against a public servant for an offence of corrption.

Justice Bhuyan said that mandating such prior approval "may not be appropriate" as it would amount to a veto of an impending investigation.

Justice Bhuyan was speaking at a panel discussion on the topic "The Changing Landscape of White-Collar Crime Investigations" as part of the International Legal Conference organised by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association at Panjim, Goa, on January 25.

Supreme Court Dismisses JioStar's Challenge To CCI Probe On Alleged Abuse Of Dominance In Kerala Cable TV Market

Case Details: Jiostar India Private Limited v. Competition Commission of India and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 2867/2026

The Supreme Court (January 27) dismissed a challenge made by Jiostar Private Limited against the Kerala High Court's order holding that the allegations of abusing dominance in the Kerala television industry must be looked into by the Competition Commission of India.

Asianet Digital Network Limited(ADNPL) has accused Jiostar of abusing its dominance in the television broadcasting space in Kerala in contravention of the Competition Act, 2002, by providing discriminatory discounting payments and preferential treatment to Kerala Communicators Cable Limited (KCCL).

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere, stating that the investigation is at the preliminary stage.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges UGC Regulation Defining 'Caste Discrimination', Seeks Caste Neutral Provision

Case Details: Vineet Jindal v. Union of India and Anr. | Diary No. 5196 of 2026

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging Regulation 3(c) of the newly enacted University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 on the ground that the protection accorded by it against caste-discrimination is non-inclusionary.

As per Regulation 3(c) of the UGC Regulations, "caste-based discrimination" means "discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes".

The petitioner, Advocate Vineet Jindal, avers that the provision, in its present "exclusionary form", denies grievance redressal and institutional protection to persons belonging to non-SC/ST/OBC categories.

'Do They Have Their Own Aircraft?' : Supreme Court Questions BCI Over Denying Travel Allowances To Ex-Judges Monitoring Elections

The Supreme Court questioned the Bar Council of India for not paying adequate honorarium and travel allowances to the retired High Court Judges who are part of the High-Powered Election Committees monitoring the conduct of State Bar Council elections.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took up the matter on an oral mentioning by Senior Advocate V Giri, a member of the High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee.

Giri submitted that the honorarium must be befitting the status of the members of the Election Committee, who were previously High Court Chief Justices or Judges. "When this was suggested to the Bar Council of India, we got a reply that it was too much and it may not be possible for them to do that," Giri submitted.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against 'VIP Dharshan' At Ujjain Mahakaleshwar Temple

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the practice of 'VIP Dharshan' at the Shri Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain, observing that it is not a matter for the Court to decide.

After the Court expressed disinclination to entertain the petition, the petitioner chose to withdraw it, with liberty to file a representation before the concerned authorities.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by Darpan Awasthi challenging the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing his petition challenging the preferntial treatment given to VIPs to enter the Garbhagriha (innermost sanctum) to offer water to the deity, while denying access to the general public.

Supreme Court To Examine If UP Gangsters Act Is Repugnant To Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Case Details: Siraj Ahmad Khan & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No.452/2024

The Supreme Court asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to respond to the issue of repugnancy between various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (UP Gangster Act), and Section 111(organised crime) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a writ petition filed by various persons accused under the UP Gangster Act. On January 22, when the matter was heard for the first time, Senior Advocates Amit Anand Tiwari, Siddhartha Dave, Vinay Navare, Amit Kumar and Sanjai Kumar Pathak both raised the issue of repugnancy between the State Act and the central law.

These writ petitions have challenged Sections 3(penalty), 12(trial by special courts to have precedence) and 14(attachment of property), 15, (release of property), 16(inquiry into the character of acquisition of property by court), and 17(order after inquiry) of the UP Gangster Act and Rules 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3) and 40 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. In arguendo, it has also been argued that these provisions are violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Indian Constitution.

Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Reduce Loan Dues Of Widow

Case Details: Sumaiya Parveen v. Branch Manager Central Bank of India & Anr. SLP (Civil) No(S). 29289-29290 of 2024

The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to reduce a loan sum in a case where the woman was unable to pay the loan amount after her husband died during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order considering the unusual and unfortunate circumstances which prompted the Court to invoke its powers to do complete justice on equitable consideration. However, it clarified that the order was passed in peculiar circumstances and shall not be treated as precedent.

To briefly state, the wife has challenged the Madras High Court's order, which disallowed her to repay the loan amount after the expired one-time settlement offer. Her husband had taken a loan of Rs. 50 lakhs against which he had mortgaged a residential house.

BCI Rule Disqualifying Advocates With Two Or More Pending Criminal Cases From Elections Challenged In Supreme Court

Case Details: Srinivas G v. Bar Council of India & Ors. | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S).32/2026

The Supreme Court has sought responses from the BCI and the Bar Council of Telangana in a plea challenging the BCI Rule of 2023, which disqualifies advocates from contesting Bar Council Elections if they have two or more serious criminal cases pending against them.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed to consider the matter.

The plea challenges the constitutionality of Rule 4 of Bar Council of India Rules (for Qualification/Disqualification and procedure for election and code of conduct for the elections of S.B.C/B.C.I.), 2023

Acid Attack : Supreme Court Suggests More Stringent Punishment, Asks Why Can't Assets Of Convict Be Attached

Case Details: Shaheen Malik v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025

The Supreme Court suggested that legislative intervention by the Union Government may be necessary to introduce more stringent punishment and a reversal of the burden of proof in acid attack cases, on the lines of provisions applicable to dowry death offences.

The oral observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik, seeking recognition and statutory protection for victims who were compelled to consume acid.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel informed the Court that all accused persons in Malik's case had been acquitted and that she had filed a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal. Taking note of her circumstances, the Bench offered legal aid assistance.

'Social Media Must Not Treat Courtroom Exchanges As Final Decisions', Justice Manmohan

Supreme Court Judge Justice Manmohan expressed concern over the rise of “social media justice”, where judicial decisions are shaped by viral narratives instead of being sustained through reasoned judgments.

Speaking at a panel discussion at a legal conference, he spoke about the transformational shift taken place in recent years regarding courtroom reporting, stating that “there is hunger for court news” and “everyone wants to be the first person to know what is happening in court.”

Justice Manmohan was speaking on the topic "Justice in the age of Social Media" at the International Legal Conference organised by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association at Goa on January 24.

UAPA | Can Remand Report Satisfy Mandate To Supply Grounds of Arrest In Writing? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: Union of India and Ors. v. Thokchom Shyamjai Singh and Ors., Diary No. 64391-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on the Union's challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment which ordered release of self-styled Army Chief of the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and his two associates in a UAPA case.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Additional Solicitor General SV Raju. The ASG argued that there cannot be blanket order to immediately supply grounds of arrest in writing, as in some situations, it may not be practical.

Notably, the case raises a question as to whether the constitutional mandate of supplying grounds of arrest "in writing" to an accused [Article 22(1)] is duly satisfied if all relevant facts and specific roles are specified in the remand application filed before a court?

NEET-PG | 'No Logic' : Supreme Court Questions NBE's Policy On Non-Disclosure Of Question Papers And Answer Keys

Case Details – Aditi v. National Board of Examination In Medical Sciences and Connected Cases

The Supreme Court expressed doubt about the logic behind policy of non-disclosure of NEET PG question papers and answer keys followed by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences.

A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing a batch of pleas seeking disclosure of answer keys and question papers of NEET-PG. While the NBE has published question IDs and the correct answers, the questions have not been published.

Last week, the Court had sought the report of the expert committee which had opined that no one except examinees should read the contents of the test.

Supreme Court Requests Jharkhand HC CJ To Consider Plea To Enhance Retirement Age Of Judicial Officers

Case Details: Ranjeet Kumar v. State of Jharkhand | W.P.(C) No. 000034 / 2026

The Supreme Court , while refusing to entertain a plea seeking enhancement of superannuation age of Jharkhand District Judges from 60 to 61 years, asked the Chief Justice of the High Court to consider the issue on the administrative side.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan was hearing plea filed by District Magistrate Mr Ranjeet Kumar.

As per the Jharkhand Service Rules, the age of retirement of the judicial officers is 60 years.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Increase Judge To Population Ratio

Case Details: Forum For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 48/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking to ehance the judge to population ratio to 50 judges per million to curb case pendency across the country.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan was hearing the PIL filed by Forum for Fast Justice.

At the outset, the CJI, seemingly disinclined to entertain the plea, pointed out that the matter to be considered by the administrative side of the Court.

'Promotes Discrimination Against General Classes' : Lawyer Seeks Urgent Hearing Of Plea In Supreme Court Against UGC Regulations

A petition filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing.

Orally mentioning the matter for urgent listing, the counsel submitted, "The urgency is, there are certain provisions in the regulations that have the effect of promoting discrimination against people belonging to the general classes."

"We are also aware of what is happening," CJI Surya Kant said.

Manipur Violence| Supreme Court Extends Tenure Of Justice Gita Mittal Committee Till July 2026

The Supreme Court extended the tenure ofthe 3-member committee headed by Justice Gita Mittal, which was constituted to oversee the humanitarian aspects of the Manipur ethnic violence incident, till July 2026.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed to grant the extension.

Sr Advocate Vibha Makhija, the appearing for the Committee, informed the bench that the tenure of the committee had expired in July 2025. She added that so far, 42 reports on various aspects have been submitted by the committee from time to time, and more would be submitted soon.

'Fraud' : Supreme Court On General Candidates Seeking Medical Admission As Buddhist Converts, Asks How Minority Certificates Given

Case Details: Nikhil Kumar Punia and Anr V.Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 21/2026

The Supreme Court of India expressed serious doubts over the conversion of two upper-caste candidates to Buddhism, observing that the move appeared to be an attempt to secure admission under the minority quota for postgraduate medical courses.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by two persons from Haryana seeking directions to admit them in medical Post Graudate course under the Buddhist minority quota in the Subharti Medical College, in Uttar Pradesh, which is declared to be a Buddhist minority educational institution.

The petitioners claimed that they had converted to Buddhism, and produced certificates issued by a Sub Divisional Officer stating that they belonged to Buddhist minority community.

Supreme Court Seeks TN Govt Response On Plea Seeking Action Against Protests Targeting Justice GR Swaminathan

Case Details: G.S. Mani v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors | WP(C) 536/2025

The Supreme Court (January 28) issued notice in a public interest litigation seeking actionsagainst the protestors who allegedly spread defamatory remarks against Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Judge of the Madras High Court, subsequent to his order to light the Karthigai Deepam on the Deepa Thoon (lamp pillar) at the Thiruparankundram Subramaniya Swamy Hill Temple, Madurai.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale heard the matter. Notices have been issued to the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, Home Secretary, Director General of Police, and the Commissioner of Police, Chennai.

The PIL has been filed by Advocate G.S. Mani, belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party, alleging that caste- and religion-based defamatory remarks have been made against Justice Swaminathan, with an intention to disturb social harmony and provoke law and order and communal unrest.

Supreme Court Appoints Justice Kaul As Mediator In Devarajaswamy Temple Dispute

Case Details: S. Narayanan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. | SLP(C) No. 2855/2026 & Connected Matters

The Supreme Court appointed Former Judge, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul as Principal Mediator to decide 120 years old dispute between two sects over performing rituals at the Sri Devarajaswamy Temple, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a challenge to the Madras High Court's decision dismissing a writ petition seeking permission for the Vadakalai sect of Sr Vaishnavas to recite prayers in the sanctum sanctorum of Sri Devarajaswamy Temple, Kanchipuram.

Sr Advocates CS Vaidyanathan ( assisted by Adv. Ronak Shankar Agarwal) with Satish Parasaran and Arvind P. Datar, S.R. Rajagopal, Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the petitioners.

Supreme Court Seeks ECI Response On Plea To Extend Directions Issued For West Bengal SIR To Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court sought the response of the Election Commission of India on an application seeking extension of the Court's earlier directions on publication of the 'logical discrepancy' list to the State of Tamil Nadu.

The application urges thatthe directions issued by the Court in the contextof the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal be made applicable to Tamil Nadu as well, particularly with respect to disclosure of the list of persons who were issued notices citing logical discrepancies during the revision exercise.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application filed by RS Bharati, Secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal. Sibal submitted that the last date for filing of claims and objections in Tamil Nadu is January 30.

'Passport Issuance Also Outsourced To Private Agencies', Supreme Court Tells Petitioner Opposing Aadhaar Use In SIR

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 634/2025

The Supreme Court questioned objections to the use of Aadhaar as a verification document in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, observing that even the issuance of passports has been outsourced to private agencies.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions challenging the ongoing SIR exercise, including a plea filed by Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a nationwide revision of electoral rolls in all States.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, opposed the Court permitting Aadhaar to be used as a document for verification in the SIR process. Last year, the Supreme Court had directed the ECI to include Aadhaar also as a document which can be submitted for SIR enumeration.

'How Can HC Set Up Enquiry Commission In Bail Application?' Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order

Case Details: Chidambaram Palaniappan v. Thannermalai and Ors | Diary No. 1797-2026

The Supreme Court (January 28) issued notice on a plea challenging an anticipatory bail order in which the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court set up an enquiry commission to inquire into the allegations.

A bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria stayed the operation of the order to the extent that the High Court directed the setting up of an enquiry commission. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal appeared for the petitioner.

The petitioners are said to be trustees and are alleged to have swindled Rs. 1.75 crores and 17.5 kgs of gold. Vide an order dated December 15, 2025, the High Court ordered: "This Court intended to investigate by appointing a Commission. After consultation with all the parties, this Court is constituting a Commission by appointing Mr.Rajarajeshwaran, who is a Chartered Accountant to verify the accounts and Hon'ble.Mr.Justice.V.Sivagnanam (Retired) as a Judge Commissioner to verify the following:.."

SIR | Lack Of Formal Appeals Doesn't Mean There Were No Wrongful Deletions : Yogendra Yadav To Supreme Court

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India

Political activist Yogendra Yadav told the Supreme Court that the lack of formal appeals against deletions during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls does not mean that there were no wrongful exclusions. Yadav said that in Bihar, many wrongfully excluded voters had to include their names as new voters on the rolls by filing Form 6 applications.

Yadav, who is one of the petitioners challenging the Bihar SIR, said the absence of formal appeals under Section 24(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 did not mean there were no attempts by wrongly excluded voters to seek inclusion. He described the Commission's claim as a play on language.

He said that many people had approached officials to get their names back on the rolls through available mechanisms rather than filing formal appeals. Yadav said many people used the only mechanism available to them – often re-registration through Form 6 with booth level officers – to return to the final rolls.

'Politically Backward Classes Not Same As OBCs' : Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Maharashtra's Banthia Commission Report

Case Details: Youth For Equality Foundation v. State of Maharashtra | W.P.(C) No. 000078 / 2026

The Supreme Court agreed to consider a plea challenging the findings of the Banthia Commission and seeking the constitution of a fresh committee to determine 'Politically Backward Classes' for purposes of reservations in Maharashtra's local body elections.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan issued notice in the matter. Sr Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan appeared for the petitioners.

The writ petition is filed by the NGO named Youth for Equality Foundation which seeks directions for fresh evaluation of 'political backwardness' in all local bodies in Maharashtra.

'Stray Dog Attacks On Beaches Affect Tourism' : Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', Smw(C) No. 5/2025 (And Connected Cases)

During the hearing of the stray dogs case, the Supreme Court took note of incidents of dog attacks against tourists on beaches in Goa and Kerala.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. Justice Sandeep Mehta commented that dogs are attracted to beaches due to the presence of carcasses of fish and flagged the impact of dog attacks on tourism. "That(stray dog problem) affects tourism also," Justice Mehta said.

The bench expressed agreement with the suggestion made by Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal (Amicus Curiae) that stray dogs picked up from beaches cannot be released back there.

Supreme Court Seeks Union, ECI Response On Plea Seeking Postal Ballot For Students Away From Home

Case Details: Jayasudhagar J v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 52/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and the Election Commission of India on a public interest litigation seeking a holiday or postal ballot facility to enable students living away from home constituencies to cast their votes in elections.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (for petitioner). The senior counsel argued before the Court that unless a person is a member of defense force, or a Union government employee stationed outside the country, or a person under preventive detention, etc., they are not entitled to postal ballot facility. Therefore, students who earned voting right after lowering of age of adult suffrage from 21 to 18 years, stand excluded.

Briefly put, the petition has been filed by one Jayasudhagar J, impleading the Union of India, the Election Commission, and the University Grants Commission. He contends that the present framework disables students from exercising their constitutional right to vote and this omission is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21.

NEET-PG : Supreme Court Directs NMC To Include 49 Seats Of HIMSR In 2025-26 Counselling Amid Jamia Hamdard Affiliation Dispute

Case Details – Asad Mueed & Ors. v. Jamia Hamdard Deemed To Be University & Ors.

The Supreme Court permitted counselling for 49 postgraduate medical seats at the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research for the current academic year (2025–2026), despite the consent of affiliation not having been issued by Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that counselling for postgraduate students who had appeared in NEET-PG and secured ranks was scheduled to open from January 29, 2026.

“The NMC/respondent No.6 is directed to include these forty-nine seats in the seat matrix of the petitioner No.3-Institute so that the counselling of the eligible candidates could take place. We have passed the aforesaid order bearing in mind the interest of the eligible candidates or otherwise, as many as forty-nine PG seats in petitioner No.3/Institute will go waste if unfilled during the academic year 2025-2026”, the Court stated.

Rs 30 Lakhs Compensation For Manual Sewer Cleaning Deaths Before To 'Balram' Judgment If Unpaid : Supreme Court Clarifies

Case Details: Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 324/2020

The Supreme Court clarified that its judgment, in which compensation for death caused due to manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning was enhanced to Rs. 30 lakhs, would apply to cases in which deaths had occurred before the judgment, if compensation not been determined and paid. The Supreme Court in Balram's judgment, passed in October 2023, enhanced the compensation for manual scavening and sewer cleaning deaths from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 30 lakhs.

The clarification came in an application filed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), which argued that divergent views have been expressed by different High Courts on the quantum of compensation to be paid. While the Madras High Court in one case ordered a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs, the Delhi High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30 lakhs.

As per NALSA, two possible interpretations could arise- first, if death occurred prior to October 20, 2023(date of Balram judgment), and those who have already been paid compensation would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs 20 lakhs in terms of Balram's judgment. Second, if the death occurred prior to October 20, 2023, and has already been paid, they shall not be entitled to additional compensation.

Trade Unions Largely Responsible For Stopping Country's Industrial Growth; Many Units Closed Due To Them : CJI Surya Kant

Case Details: Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 42/2026

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that trade unionism was largely responsible for stopping the industrial growth in the country.

"How many industrial units in the country have been closed thanks to trade unions? Let us know the realities. All traditional industries in the country, all because of these jhanda unions have been closed, all throughout the country. They don't want to work. These trade union leaders, they are largely responsible for stopping industrial growth in the country. Of course exploitation is there, but there are means to address exploitation. People should have been made more aware of their individual rights, people should have been made more skilled, there were several other reforms which should have been done" CJI Kant observed.

A bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a PIL filed by Penn Thozhilargal Sangam and other unions seeking welfare measures for domestic workers. The petitioners, among other things, sought to bring domestic workers under the minimum wages notification.

'Capable Of Misuse, Vague': Supreme Court Stays UGC Equity Regulations 2026

The Supreme Court ordered that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, be kept in abeyance.

The Court expressed certain reservations about the Regulations, which are being challenged as discriminatory towards "general classes".

The Court suggested that the Regulations must be revisited by a committee comprising eminent jurists. The Regulations are prima facie "vague" and are "capable of misuse", the Court observed during the hearing.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC Order Disqualifying Ex-MLA KM Shaji From Elections For 6 Years

Case Details – Km Shaji v. Mv Nikesh Kumar

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's 2018 direction disqualifying former MLA KM Shaji from contesting elections for six years, holding that the power to impose such disqualification rests with the President of India and not with the High Court.

“On a consideration of the respective submissions, we find that, having regard to the specific provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the power to pass an order of disqualification, rests with the President and not with the High Court, which has set aside the election of a successful candidate. On that short ground alone, Clause 2 of the operative portion of the order is set aside”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan partly allowed Shaji's appeal against the judgment of the High Court that had declared his election from the Azhikode Assembly Constituency in the 2016 Kerala Assembly elections void on the ground of corrupt practices and disqualified him for six years.

Tamil Nadu SIR | Supreme Court Directs Publication Of 1.16 Crore Names Served Notices Citing 'Logical Discrepancy'

Case Details: Rs Bharathi v. Election Commission of India W.P.(C) No. 1072/2025

The Supreme Court passed directions to ensure transparency in the verification of 'logical discrepancy' list published during the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that approximately 1.16 crores persons, who were included in the draft voter roll, have been served with notices by the officials of the Election Commission of India (ECI), citing logical discrepancies and seeking verification.

Essentially, the bench applied the order passed last week, in relation to the West Bengal SIR, to Tamil Nadu. The key directions are :

'Will US Authorities Cooperate If Indians Seek Information?' : Supreme Court Asks Pfizer On Plea To Access Indian Company's Docs

Case Details: Pfizer Inc and Ors. v. Softgel Healthcare Private Limited | SLP(C) No. 2868-2869/2026

The Supreme Court , while hearing a plea by US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, asked whether foreign courts and Western Authorities would cooperate in providing information to India, when it comes to abiding by the principle of reciprocity.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the challenge to the Madras High Court order, which refused Pfizer to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by a United States court to obtain documents and testimony from Chennai-based Softgel Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

During the hearing, the CJI flagged concerns over Indian sovereignty and remarked, "When you want to have information, you want to hijack information from any part of the globe. When the question comes of getting information, then you impose your superiority."

UGC Equity Regulations 2026 Can Divide Society; India's Unity Must Be Reflected In Educational Institutions : Supreme Court

Case Details:

While keeping in abeyancethe University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, the Supreme Court expressed that the Regulations can have a very dangerous impact and divide society.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. It called for the Union's response, noting that there are 4-5 questions involved insofar as constitutionality and validity of the Regulations are concerned.

When Senior Advocate Indira Jaising (who appears for petitioners in the 2019 PIL which led to notification of the UGC's 2026 Regulations) opposed the stay of the Regulations without proper chance of hearing to the other side, the CJI said,

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas Questioning Legality Of SIR

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 000640 / 2025

The Supreme Court reserved the decision on a batch of petitions challenging the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls done by the Election Commission of India across several states.

The Court is examining whether the ECI has the powers under Article 326 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Rules made thereunder to carry out the SIR in the present form.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi reserved the matter after a long-standing period of hearings since November 2025.

'Mere Installation Of CCTVs In Police Stations Not Enough, They Should Also Work Properly': Supreme Court In Suo Motu Case

Case Details:

In the suo-motu casetaken up over lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across Rajasthan, Justice Vikram Nath of the Supreme Court said that mere installation of CCTVs is not enough - the same should also work perfectly.

During the hearing, the Rajasthan government also apprised the Court that an additional budget of Rs.75 crores was sanctioned and each police station in the state will have 16 CCTVs, instead of 12, by March 31.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. It highlighted issues like connectivity, maintenance, data storage, oversight, etc. as key concerns. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (Amicus Curiae) on the other hand emphasized the importance of having a centralized dashboard.

Supreme Court Paid Rs 40,000 To Agency, Workers Got Only Rs 19K; Service Agencies Biggest Exploiters: CJI Surya Kant

Case Details: Penn Thozhilargal Sangam v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 42 of 2026.

The Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, strongly criticised service provider agencies for exploiting domestic workers, revealing that even the Supreme Court had paid Rs 40,000 per worker to an agency, the workers themselves received only Rs 19,000.

“I have personally and officially seen this. The Supreme Court paid to an agency for hiring a particular set of skilled employees, paying Rs 40,000, and actually those poor girls were getting only Rs 19,000,” the CJI said, adding that such agencies had emerged as the “real exploiters” in urban centres.

"In all major cities, service provider agencies have taken over. Now you only use the services of these entities, there is a word for them, which I cannot use in open court. In all major cities, these big entities are there, who are exploiting these people. They are the real exploiters," CJI Kant said.

Did Sonam Wangchuk Say Ladakh People Won't Help Army? Asks Supreme Court; Sibal Denies

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

The Supreme Court (January 29) passed an order allowing Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk to get examined by a specialist from a government hospital after he complained of frequent stomach aches. The Court has asked that a report of his medical examination be filed on or before Monday.

The order was passed by a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale in a habeas corpus petition filed by Dr Gitanjali Angmo. She has challenged the detention of her husband under the National Security Act, 1980(NSA), as illegal. Wangchuk has been detained after the Ladakh protests for statehood turned violent in September 2025.

Supreme Court Urges State Govts To Consider Plea Seeking Minimum Wages For Domestic Workers

Case Details: Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 42/2026

The Supreme Court urged all State Governments to consider the issue of notifying minimum wages for domestic workers, while considering a Public Interest Litigation seeking to include domestic workers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 which is now replaced by the Code of Wages,2019.

The Court refrained from passing a direction for the petitioners' relief, citing the principle of non-interference with the executive and legislative domains. It disposed of the PIL by expressing the hope that the Governments will evolve a suitable mechanism.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a writ petition filed by ten associations of domestic workers from various states. The Union Government and all State Governments/Union Terrirotories were added as respondents.

SIR Ordered In Chhattisgarh With Polls In 2028; Why Other 2028 Election States Left Out? Petitioners In Supreme Court

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India

In the pleas before Supreme Court challenging the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in various states, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran questioned the urgency in conducting SIR in some states while excluding others.

He pointed out that Chhattisgarh goes to polls only in 2028 and asked what the urgency was there, and why other states also scheduled to go to the polls in 2028 were excluded from the exercise.

“They said Bihar is imminent so we are starting from Bihar. That is used for many states. Chhattisgarh goes to the poll in 2028 so what is the urgency there? And what is the reason for excluding other states that also going to poll in 2028?”, Ramachandran said.

Supreme Court Reserves Orders In Stray Dogs Case; Asks AWBI To Expedite Centres' Applications For Recognition

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', Smw(C) No. 5/2025 (And Connected Cases)

"The only request to AWBI is whatever applications are pending, you must process them with expedience. Either you reject them within a specified time or grant them", the Court conveyed to AWBI.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. It may be recalled that a suo motu case on the stray dogs issue was taken up by the Supreme Court last year, following a news report regarding the tragic death of 6-year old Chavi Sharma following a dog bite incident. Following the same, many intervenors joined in to make submissions, including dog lovers, dog feeders, animal welfare organizations, NGOs, etc. as well as dog bite victims. Separate petitions were also filed and tagged alongwith the suo motu case.

On November 7, the Court orderedremoval of stray dogs from institutional premises and highways, and directed that they must not be released back in places from where they are picked up. Many intervenors argued for modification of these directions, while victims and other stakeholders prayed for extension of the directions to gated communities and housing societies.

Supreme Court Extends Deadline For Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh Election Till February 2

Case Details: M. Varadhan v. Union of India & Anr., WP(C) No. 1319/2023 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court extended the deadline for conducting the elections of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for the Prayagraj district till February 2, 2026.

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after an interlocutory application seeking extension of time was orally mentioned before the Court.

The application was filed on behalf of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, in a pending writ petition.

Supreme Court Protects Rank And Pay Of Rajasthan Principal District Judge Who Was Transferred 7 Times In 4 Years

Case Details – Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur & Anr.

The Supreme Court protected the substantive rank, pay, and administrative status of a Rajasthan Principal District Judge who has faced seven transfers since 2021 and has now been posted as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi granted the relief to Dinesh Kumar Gupta, a Principal District Judge in Rajasthan, who had approached the Court last year alleging that he was being targeted and repeatedly transferred in violation of the applicable transfer policy.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court's order requesting the HC to consider his representation, he had been posted as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Jaipur Metropolitan-cum-Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner, however, expressed apprehension that the posting was not commensurate with his rank, status, and stature as a Principal District Judge.

Supreme Court Raises 4 Questions On UGC Equity Regulations 2026, Asks Why Caste-Based Discrimination Separately Defined

The Supreme Court has framed four substantial questions of law in the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the University Grants Commisison (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the Regulations suffered from "certain ambiguities" and that the "the possibility of their misuse cannot be ruled out."

Supreme Court Orders Personal Presence Of Narcotics Control Bureau Director & Guwahati NCB IG Over Casual Handling Of NDPS Case

Case Details: Union of India v. Abid Pervez @ Azad Pervez

Voicing serious concern over the delay in a matter involving a commercial quantity of narcotics, the Supreme Court directed the personal appearance of the Director, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and the Inspector General, NCB, Guwahati on the next date of hearing.

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed the order while hearing the NCB's challenge to the Gauhati High Court's decision granting bail to an accused allegedly found in possession of 1.045 kg of heroin. The bail was granted on the ground that the trial had been unduly delayed, as the case dated back to 2021 and none of the eight prosecution witnesses had been examined.

After the first date of hearing held on Dec. 17, 2025, the Court prima facie held the High Court's decision to grant bail to be in violation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and directed the Respondent-accused to surrender forthwith. It also directed the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police to affect the service to the Respondent.

After Supreme Court Raised Concerns, UP Govt Proposes To Amend Law To Abate Trials For Motor Vehicle Offences

Case Details:S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. & Ors. | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S). 295/2012

After the Supreme Court expressed concerns over the Uttar Pradesh law, which proposed to abate the trials for offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, pending till 2021, the Government proposed an amendment to the provision.

As per the proposed amendment, offences which are non-compoundable, or have mandatory imprisonment, or which are subsequent offences, will not be abated.

The issue is with respect to the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) Act as per which the MV Act cases pending as on 31.12.2021 would stand abated.

Supreme Court Expresses Dismay At Delay In Appointment Of National Safai Karamchari Commission Members

Case Details: Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 324/2020 and Connected Cases

The Supreme Court, on January 27, expressed its dismay over the lack of progress in the appointment of the Chairman and members of the National Safai Karamchari Commission. It noted that despite repeated assurances, there has been no compliance.

The National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (NCSK) is a statutory body of the Government of India set up to safeguard the rights, dignity, and welfare of Safai Karamcharis, particularly those engaged in sanitation work such as manual scavenging. It is constituted as per National Commission for Safai Karamcharis Act, 1993.

Noting that the appointments are moving at a "snail's pace," a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale gave one last opportunity of four weeks for such appointments to take place. Failing which, the Court will be forced to appoint an ad hoc Committee to take over the work of the Safai Karamchari Commission.

'Kerala HC Far Ahead, Developed Own Software Without Outsourcing': Supreme Court Lauds Kerala High Court's Case Management System

The Supreme Court lauded the Case Management System introduced by the Kerala High Court with a goal to achieve complete automation and a paperless court.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the suo motu case taken up over lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across Rajasthan, when Justice Mehta expressed appreciation for the High Court's initiative.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (the Amicus) suggested to the Court that the Union may be asked to come up with a software for a centralized dashboard, which can then be adopted by states.

Can Employer Claim Income Tax Deduction On Delayed PF-ESI Deposits? Supreme Court To Settle Conflicting Decisions

Case Details: Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited Director v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The Supreme Court agreed to examine the contentious issue under the tax law of whether an employer is entitled to claim income tax deductions for employees' Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) contributions that are deposited after the prescribed due date.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta issued notice in an appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's decision, which held that employees' PF and ESI contributions deposited by the employer after the statutory due date under the respective welfare laws are not eligible for deduction, even if paid before filing the income tax return.

At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of Sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

'After Getting Out, You Start Making Reels' : Supreme Court Rejects Savukku Shankar's Plea Against Madras HC's Bail Conditions

Case Details: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors | Diary No. 5538-2026

The Supreme Court (January 30) refused to interfere with the bail conditions imposed by the Madras High Court while upholding the interim bailgranted to YouTuber and Journalist Shankar @Savukku Shankar in connection with allegations of assault and extortion by a film producer.

The Madras High Court, while refusing to cancel his bail, stated that Shankar must not make any statement, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the case, including comments against the conduct of the officers. It has also asked Shankar not to interact with or intimidate the co-accused or the witnesses in the case. It restricted Shankar's movement, adding that any movement should be for the purpose of availing medical facilities or in connection with seeking legal assistance in the case.

The High Court had made it clear that any violation of the conditions shall be viewed seriously, and strict action will be taken against Shankar.

TP Chandrashekharan Murder : Supreme Court Seeks Medical Report On Convict Geothi Babu's Interim Bail Plea

Case Details: Geothi Babu v. State of Kerala | Crl.A. No. 2761-2762/2024

The Supreme Court sought a medical report on the health condition of Geothi Babu, one of the convicts in the TP Chandrashekharan murder case, after he sought interim bail on the grounds of kidney ailments.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma adjourned the matter, seeking the report of a medical board constituted by the Kannur Medical College regarding Babu's condition. The matter will be considered after ten days.

Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu, for Geoti Babu, submitted that he was aged nearly 65 years and his condition was very precarious as he was undergoing dialysis, and was in urgent need of a kidney transplant.

Supreme Court Seeks UP Govt's Explanation For Reducing Minimum Distance Between Liquor Shops & Schools Fixed By SC Judgment

Case Details – State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Bishop Johnson School and College & Ors.

The Supreme Court observed that the Uttar Pradesh government's 2010 decision to reduce the minimum distance required between liquor shops and sensitive public places, appeared to overreach an earlier binding judgment of the Court fixing the minimum distance.

“We are prima facie of the view that the State of Uttar Pradesh has overreached the judgment of this Court and the High Court was in error in returning a contrary finding. We are conscious that such contra-finding is not subjected to challenge. This is because the respondent-institution's interest has been protected. However, we cannot stand by and allow any illegality to be continued. A binding judgment of this Court is sought to be made ineffective by a rule making authority without removing the basis thereof”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih issued a suo motu notice to the State asking why the amended Rule 5(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Number and Location of Excise Shops Rules, 1968, should not be struck down on the ground of legislative overreach.

Steps Taken To Remove Objectionable Social Media Posts Against Justice GR Swaminathan, FIRs Registered : TN DGP Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: G.S. Mani v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors | WP(C) 536/2025

The Tamil Nadu Police has filed a response in the Supreme Court, stating that it has taken action against those who had spread defamatory remarks against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court.

This comes after the Supreme Court, on January 28, askedthe State Police to file an affidavit in a public interest litigation seeking actionsagainst the protestors who allegedly spread defamatory remarks against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madurai bench, subsequent to his order to light the Karthigai Deepam on the Deepa Thoon (lamp pillar) at the Thiruparankundram Subramaniya Swamy Hill Temple, Madurai.

With respect to objectionable social media postes, it is stated that the Cyber Crime Cell of the Greater Chennai Police registered Crime No. 14 of 2026 on January 28, 2026, under Sections 196, 221, 267, 353(1)(c), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Mamata Banerjee Files Writ Petition In Supreme Court Against Election Commission Over West Bengal SIR Process

Case Details: Mamata Banerjee v. Election Commission of India | WP(C) No.129/2026

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Election Commission of India, challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process ongoing in the State.

The petition was filed on January 28, stating that the ongoing process will result in "large-scale disenfranchisement" caused by "the opaque, hasty, unconstitutional and illegal actions of the ECI."

“The entire SIR exercise is an effort at disenfranchising the existing voters on the Electoral Roll by forcing them to prove their citizenship with “documentary” evidence against an arbitrary cut-off date of 2002. This violates the Constitution, the Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951,” the petition stated.