Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: July 2026

Remission Policy Issued Under Article 161 Overrides Statutory Policy Framed Under CrPC: Supreme Court

Cause Title: PARVEEN KUMAR@ PARVEEN CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 648

The Supreme Court (July 1) held that a remission policy framed by a State Government in exercise of the Governor's constitutional powers under Article 161 of the Constitution cannot be overridden by a subsequent statutory remission policy issued under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Holding that Haryana's 2002 remission policy continued to remain operative despite the State's 2008 statutory policy, the Court also declared its 2021 judgment inState of Haryana v. Raj Kumar to be per incuriam for being contrary to the larger Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh passed the judgment while allowing the appeal of a life convict whose application for premature release had been rejected on the ground that he was governed by Haryana's 2008 remission policy instead of the more liberal 2002 policy.

The appellant was convicted in 2009 for the murder of a 12-year-old child. After completing over 14 years of actual imprisonment, he sought remission under the 2002 policy. The State rejected his request, holding that since the 2008 policy was in force on the date of conviction, he would become eligible for consideration only after completing 20 years of actual imprisonment and 25 years of total imprisonment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the State's decision.

When Can A Judgment Be Declared 'Per Incuriam'? Supreme Court Explains

Cause Title: PARVEEN KUMAR@ PARVEEN CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 648

The Supreme Court reiterated that the doctrine of per incuriam is an exception to the rule of stare decisis and can be invoked only in limited circumstances, holding that a judgment may be declared per incuriam if its ratio is irreconcilable with an earlier decision rendered by a Bench of equal or larger strength or if it was delivered without considering a relevant statutory provision.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh laid down the principles while holding that the Court's 2021 judgment in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar was per incuriam for being inconsistent with the earlier three-judge Bench ruling in State of Haryana v. Jagdish.

The Court observed that the doctrine of per incuriam is an exception to the principle of precedent and "must be applied sparingly." Summarising the settled law from earlier decisions, the Bench identified the principles governing the doctrine.

S. 187(3) BNSS | Non-Supply Of Charge Sheet To Accused Not Ground For Default Bail : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SHAURYA SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 649

The Supreme Court (July 1) held that the non-supply of a charge sheet copy to an accused cannot be a ground for a default bail under Section 187(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh upheld the Bombay High Court's decision, which had rejected the accused's plea for a default bail on the ground of non-supply of a charge sheet copy to him.

The Appellant-accused was arrested in connection with a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) for an alleged large-scale cyber fraud case involving approximately Rs 3.81 crores, involving offences punishable under Sections 61(2) read with 318, 336 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 66 and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Representation Of People Act Doesn't Apply To Municipal Elections : Supreme Court

Cause Title: CHANDRIKABEN KISHOR DAFDA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 650

The Supreme Court has held that the penal provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) do not apply to municipal elections, clarifying that candidates accused of filing false affidavits in local body polls can instead be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code where the applicable municipal law does not provide a penal provision.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh made the observation while deciding an appeal filed by Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, who challenged criminal proceedings alleging that she had suppressed details of immovable properties owned by her husband while contesting the 2015 municipal elections in Gujarat.

The appellant had been summoned by a Magistrate under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, which penalises furnishing false information or concealing material particulars in election affidavits. The Gujarat High Court had refused to quash the proceedings.

S. 465 CrPC | Taking Cognizance Under Wrong Provision Curable Defect If Magistrate Otherwise Has Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

Cause Title: CHANDRIKABEN KISHOR DAFDA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 650

The Supreme Court (July 1) held that a Magistrate's error in taking cognizance of an offence under an incorrect statutory provision is a curable defect and, this mistake, by itself, does not warrant quashing the cognizance order, provided the Magistrate otherwise has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

“The well-settled position of law is that the error in taking cognizance under the wrong Section is, in fact a curable defect so long as the Court that has taken cognizance has the power to take cognizance of the other Sections also.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

The bench made the aforesaid observation while deciding a case where the Appellant, who won the election of a councillor in the 2015 Bhuj Civic Body Election, was aggrieved by the Gujarat High Court's order, refusing to interfere with the magistrate's order taking a cognizance for the offence punishable under the Representation of People's Act, 1951, relating to the allegation of filing a false asset declaration affidavit.

Magistrate Must Not Record Prosecution Evidence In Cases Exclusively Triable By Sessions Court : Supreme Court

Cause Title: NEERAJ GUPTA Versus PARDEEP KUMAR BANSAL & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 651

The Supreme Court (July 1) held that a Magistrate is not required to record pre-charge evidence under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before committing a complaint case involving offences exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had directed such an exercise

“…the only requirement from the Magistrate is to see whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and in doing so, no evidence need be taken.”, the Court cited the observation made in Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Ashutosh Ghosh, (1979) 4 SCC 381.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard the case where the magistrate had committed the complaint case to the Court of Sessions without recording the prosecution's evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., as the alleged offence of murder (Section 302 IPC) was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

'Advocate Cannot Compromise Without Client's Authorisation', Supreme Court Explains Law On Compromise Decree

Cause Title: KRISHNA KUMAR OJHA &ORS. Versus JITENDRA CHAUDHARY & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 652

The Supreme Court (July 1) observed that unless there is an express authorisation by the client, an advocate is not empowered to enter into a compromise on behalf of his client. The Court added that the essential prerequisite of a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC is that, a compromise must be signed by each party.

Referring to precedents, the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh laid down the law regarding the aspects of a compromise decree:

(a) Prior to the 1976 Amendment to the CPC, a compromise could be either oral or written, and the Court could decide the same on the basis of general evidence by the parties, Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel

Citing AI-Generated Fake Precedents Is Advocate Misconduct; Judgments Based On Them Are Void : Supreme Court

Cause Title: POOJA RAMESH SINGH VERSUS JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 653

The Supreme Court (July 2) called for a "zero-tolerance" approach towards AI-generated fake or hallucinated judicial precedents, holding that it is professional misconduct for advocates to cite such judgments without verification and a serious lapse on the part of judges to rely on such non-existent precedents while deciding cases.

The Court declared that a decision based on such fake precedents are void as they cannot be treated as a "decision in the eyes of the law."

Setting aside the judgments of the NCLAT and the NCLT after finding that they had relied on AI-generated fake citations, a Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that any decision tainted by fabricated or hallucinated precedents is "no decision in the eyes of law" and must be set aside to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLT Judgment For Using AI-Hallucinated Citations, Asks BCI To Examine Issue

Cause Title: POOJA RAMESH SINGH VERSUS JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 653

In a significant development, the Supreme Court (July 2) has set aside orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) after finding that both forums had relied on non-existent, AI-generated "hallucinated" judicial precedents while deciding an insolvency dispute.

To address the growing challenges posed by AI in legal practice, a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee of experts to examine the issues arising from the use of artificial intelligence in adjudication.

"We have therefore directed the Bar Council of India also to constitute a committee and examine these issues in detail.", the Court said. The Bar Council must take up this issue with utmost seriousness, deliberate earnestly, and prescribe a guiding principle to prevent such occurrences, along with the disciplinary action that will follow a violation of the norms.

Motor Accident Claims | Supreme Court Lays Down Law On Using ITRs To Assess Victim's Income

Cause Title: RASHMIREKHA TRIPATHY AND ANR. VERSUS THE BRANCH MANAGER (LEGAL CLAIMS), SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 654

For bringing in a consistency in the mode of calculation of a deceased's annual income for determining the motor accident compensation claims, the Supreme Court has laid down comprehensive guidelines for assessing the annual income of victims in motor accident compensation cases, drawing a clear distinction between salaried employees and self-employed persons.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the Income Tax Return (ITR) of the immediately preceding assessment year should ordinarily be considered for salaried individuals, whereas for self-employed persons or business owners, tribunals should ordinarily take the average income reflected in the previous three years' ITRs, subject to the surrounding circumstances of each case.

The main issue before the Court was about the method for determining the annual income of a deceased person where income tax returns were available.

Proof Of Attestation Not Proof Of Will's Genuineness When There Are Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 655

The Supreme Court (July 6) held that where a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, mere examination of an attesting witness(es) is not enough. The Court added that, in such circumstances, the propounder bears the additional burden of dispelling those doubts and satisfying the judicial conscience that the document truly represents the free and informed wishes of the testator.

Overturning the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment, a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan set aside the bequeathing of the subject property based on a 1974 Will executed by a testator, who was an illiterate agriculturist and could just thumbmark a document. The Court found that the Will was disputed and the Respondent-defendants failed to dispel several legitimate doubts surrounding the Will.

The High Court held that when attestation of the Will is duly proved by the attesting witness, the execution of the Will would stand proved, and the Will, being a registered document, ought not to have been discarded.

Banks Cannot Blacklist Lawyers By Putting Them In Caution List : Supreme Court

Case Title – Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 656

The Supreme Court held that the Indian Banks' Association cannot blacklist panel lawyers by putting their names in a 'caution list' prepared as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India to alert banks about fraudulent borrowers.

The Court held that while a bank can remove an advocate from its panel if there was negligence, there cannot be a public declaration of such action. It clarified that disciplinary power over advocates for professional misconduct solely remained with the Bar Council.

The Court held that the RBI-mandated caution list is intended to cover only unscrupulous borrowers and not negligent professionals. The judgment authored observed :

Continuing Legal Education For Advocates Necessary : Supreme Court Urges BCI To Establish National Legal Academy

Case Title – Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 656

The Supreme Court underscored the urgent need to institutionalise Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for advocates, observing that lifelong professional learning is essential to maintain competence, ethical standards and public confidence in the justice delivery system. The Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to initiate and institutionalise CLE programmes and to constitute a team to examine the establishment of a National Legal Academy (NLA) for lawyers on the lines of the National Judicial Academy for judges.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued the directions while allowing an appeal filed by advocate Ajay Vijh, whose name had been included in the Indian Banks' Association's (IBA) Caution List over an allegedly negligent legal opinion. While setting aside the inclusion of his name in the list, the Court used the occasion to make wide-ranging observations on strengthening professional standards and accountability within the legal profession.

The Bench observed that maintaining professional competence required much more than prescribing rules of professional conduct and disciplinary procedures.

Supreme Court Directs Bar Council Of India To Audit Disciplinary System For Advocates, Stresses Accountability In Legal Profession

Cause Title – Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 656

The Supreme Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to undertake a comprehensive performance audit of the disciplinary mechanisms administered by it and the State Bar Councils, emphasising that the legal profession's privilege of self-regulation must be matched by transparency, accountability and institutional effectiveness.

While emphasizing the need for Continuing Legal Education for advocates, the Court also asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to undertake a comprehensive performance audit of the disciplinary mechanisms administered by it and the State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961, to determine the existing mechanisms regarding the progress and outcome of disciplinary proceedings against advocates.

“…having regard to the importance of maintaining public confidence in the institution of lawyers, it is desirable that the Bar Council of India undertakes a comprehensive performance audit of the disciplinary mechanisms administered by it and the State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. We direct the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee and seek an objective assessment of its duties of self-regulation of professional conduct and discipline, consider the report and file an affidavit of the action proposed/taken.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.

Uncle-In-Law Can't Adopt Niece's Husband As 'Ghar damad' Under Oraon Tribe Custom : Supreme Court

Cause Title: BEJLA ORAON VERSUS KALI DAS ORAON & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 657

In an important development concerning the customary inheritance practice of the Oraon tribal community, the Supreme Court (July 9) held that an uncle-in-law cannot validly induct his niece's husband as a ghar damad (resident son-in-law) under the recognized customary law.

“It is nowhere established that an uncle-in-law can adopt his niece's husband as his ghardamad within the prevalent customary law.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while setting aside the concurrent findings of the trial court, first appellate court, and the Jharkhand High Court ruling which had approved the ghardamad arrangement by an uncle-in-law.

The dispute arose from ancestral property belonging to Sukhu Oraon, who had three sons, i.e., Dhungru, Ledura, and Bhoula. While Ledura died without children, Bhoula died leaving behind a daughter, Budhain. The plaintiff, Bejla Oraon, son of Dhungru, claimed that as the nearest male agnate, he inherited the property after the deaths of Ledura and Bhoula.

Commercial Courts Act | Documents Being Voluminous No Excuse For Their Belated Production : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S. LEVITATE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 658

The Supreme Court (July 9) held that a mere 'voluminous nature' of the evidence does not constitute a "reasonable cause" for their belated production under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

“…it is well established that the plaintiff when leading evidence, is expected to not only produce all documents but also properly anticipate the questions that may be put to its witnesses by the other side. What cannot be countenanced is a stop and go or a piecemeal approach. Voluminous evidence too, is entirely an uninspiring ground.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

The Court dismissed an appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's decision, which had disallowed the Appellant's plea seeking to place on record additional evidences/documents after the conclusion of the cross-examination of the main witness.

Supreme Court Revives POCSO Case Against School Headmistress For Not Reporting Child Sex Abuse, Says Doing Own Verification No Excuse

Cause Title: AAA VERSUS LINDA SEMA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 659

The Supreme Court (July 9) ruled that a school official who receives a direct complaint of sexual assault from a child cannot avoid criminal liability of reporting the incident to authorities by conducting a private "verification" and concluding that "nothing had happened."

The Court said that failure to report the incident under Section 19 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”) would attract a criminal liability under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, involving punishment with imprisonment up to six months or fine or with both.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan set aside the discharge of a school headmistress who allegedly suppressed an 8-year-old student's complaint of rape by a senior student, observing that the phrase "has knowledge that such an offence has been committed" under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act must be interpreted purposively to include awareness based on credible information received directly from the victim.

Delhi Rent Act | Tenancy Transfer Without Landlord's Consent Attracts Eviction : Supreme Court Orders Eviction Of Merged Bank

Cause Title: BRITISH MOTOR CAR COMPANY (1939) LTD. Versus M/S HINDUSTAN COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. SINCE HAS BEEN MERGED INTO PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 660

The Supreme Court (July 9) held that the amalgamation of a tenant bank with another bank amounts to a transfer of tenancy, and if such a transfer takes place without the landlord's written consent, it attracts eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh restored the eviction order of the Punjab National Bank from the rented premise, holding that the tenancy rights of the original tenant, Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., stood transferred to PNB upon its amalgamation without obtaining the landlord's written consent, thereby attracting eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

“Once the possession of the tenanted premises, together with the accompanying rights, passes to an entity other than the original tenant without the written consent of the landlord, and the tenant losing its identity and control of possession of the tenanted premises, Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act stands automatically attracted. Therefore, what is material is that – (a) there is a transfer of tenancy rights and possession of the tenanted premises; and (b) such transfer is done without the written consent of the landlord…we hold that the amalgamation of the original tenant HCB with PNB rendered PNB liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act.”, the Court observed.

Suitability For Promotion Must Be Left To Domain Experts, Courts Cannot Introduce New Methodology: Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH & ORS. VERSUS ANIL EARNEST

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 661

The Supreme Court has reiterated that when the Statute provides a specific methodology for determining whether a candidate is suitable for promotion or not, then it is impermissible for the Courts to substitute their views to introduce a different methodology or read words that are not there in the provision.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan set aside the concurrent findings of the Karnataka High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had conferred a promotion of a Respondent-scientist, to the Senior Scientist post based on the methodology which was never intended or provided under the CSIR Scientists Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2001 (“2001 Rules”).

The Court held that where the determination of a candidate's suitability for promotion is entrusted to domain experts, courts cannot, in the absence of any statutory rule or administrative instruction, mandate an averaging of the Annual Performance Reports (APRs)/Performance Mapping Scheme (PMS) scores earned during the prescribed residency period with the Work Report scores for assessing the 85% benchmark. According to the Court, adopting such an averaging formula would amount to reading into the 2001 Rules words and a methodology that the rule-making authority had never prescribed.

'Investors Got Profit' No Defence For Breach: Supreme Court Upholds SEBI Penalty On Kotak AMC In Mutual Funds Case

Case : Mr Nilesh Shah and others v Securities and Exchange Board of India, Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company v Securities and Exchange Board of India, Kotak Mahindra Trustee Company v Securities and Exchange Board of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 662

Holding that gains made by investors cannot excuse violations of securities regulations, the Supreme Court upheld SEBI's action against Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company (Kotak AMC), its trustee company and senior executives over their handling of six Fixed Maturity Plan (FMP) schemes, observing that "market integrity" takes precedence over the financial outcome of a regulatory breach.

Rejecting Kotak AMC's contention that its decision ultimately benefited investors by preventing larger losses, a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said that profit or loss to investors is irrelevant in determining whether securities regulations have been violated.

"Market integrity being the paramount consideration, profit or loss to investors is immaterial to determine whether a regulatory infraction has occurred. A wrongdoer cannot be allowed to use the plea of the investors having gained, notwithstanding the violation, as a shield for evading penalty," the Court held.

Plaintiff's Reply To Counterclaim In Commercial Suits Subject To Same Time Limit As Written Statement: Supreme Court

Case : AK Ghosh & Company and others v Biman Bose and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 663

The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in commercial suits are also bound by the mandatory 120-day time limit for filing a written statement in response to a defendant's counterclaim, ruling that the stringent timeline under the Commercial Courts Act applies equally to such pleadings to ensure expeditious disposal of commercial disputes.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed appeals filed by A.K. Ghosh & Company and others against orders of the Calcutta High Court, which had refused to permit them to file a written statement to the defendants' counterclaim after a delay of 238 days.

The principal question before the Court was whether the mandatory outer limit of 120 days prescribed under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, applies to a plaintiff's written statement to a counterclaim raised by a defendant.

Supreme Court Upholds Rule Allowing Inclusion Of Royalty In Iron Ore's Average Sale Price To Determine Royalty

Cause Title: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. and Anr. Versus Union of India & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 664

The Supreme Court (July 13) upheld the government's method of calculating royalty on iron ore, ruling that the practice of not deducting royalty payments towards District Mineral Foundation (“DMF”) and National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET”) while computing the sale price is a valid measure to prevent mining companies from evading their liability to pay royalty to the government.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan upheld the constitutional validity of the Explanation appended to Rule 38 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45(8)(a) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, which provided for the inclusion of royalty and payments made towards DMF and NMET in the sale value for computing the average sale price for determination of royalty.

“…we hold that the Explanations to Rule 38 of the 2016 Rules and Rule 45(8)(a) of the 2017 Rules, insofar as they provide for inclusion of royalty and payments made towards DMF and NMET in the sale value for computing the average sale price for determination of royalty, is constitutional and valid. We hold that the impugned Rules are not violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.”, the Court held.

Pre-2016 DRT Recovery Certificates Cannot Form Basis For Insolvency Notice Under Presidency Towns Insolvency Act: Supreme Court

Cause Title: H.D.F.C. BANK LIMITED VERSUS KISHORE K. MEHTA (DEAD) THR. LRS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 665

The Supreme Court (July 13) held that a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) before the 2016 amendment to the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (RDB Act) could not be treated as a "decree or order" for initiating insolvency proceedings under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909.

“A claim which was untenable on the date the suitor entered the portals of the Court cannot become tenable simply because a fortuitous event during the pendency of the trial has made it so. The lis must be decided based on rights and liabilities as they stood on the date of institution, unless the statute or equity of the case otherwise requires.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while dismissing the HDFC Bank's appeal against the Bombay High Court's 2007 judgment which endorsed the position that a “decree or order” would not include a recovery certificate issued by a DRT under the pre-amended RDB Act.

The dispute arose from credit facilities extended by a consortium of 15 banks, including HDFC Bank, to Beautiful Diamonds Ltd. The loans were secured by mortgages and personal guarantees executed by the company's directors.

S. 19 JJ Act | Children's Court Must Pass Reasoned Order Before Trying Child As Adult: Supreme Court

Cause Title: SAGAR VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 666

In an important direction for the Children Courts across the country, the Supreme Court (July 13) has held that a Children's Court cannot proceed to try a child in conflict with law as an adult without first passing a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Holding that this requirement is mandatory, a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale set aside the murder conviction of a man who was 16½ years old at the time of the alleged offence, observing that the entire trial stood vitiated due to non-compliance with the statutory procedure.

“…we deem it appropriate to issue a word of caution and a direction to Children's Courts across the country that upon receipt of records pursuant to transfer/committal under Section 18(3) of the Act by the Juvenile Justice Board, the first duty of the Children's Court, after taking cognizance of the matter, is to pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Act upon due assessment of the 'child in conflict with law' before it proceeds further in the matter.”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Rejects Regularisation Claims Of 350+ West Bengal Madrasah Staff Appointed When State Law Was Struck Down

Case Details: NAJMA KHATUN AND ORS.v THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 566/2024

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 667

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of 49 writ petitions filed by more than 350 teachers and non-teaching staff of aided madrasahs in West Bengal, holding that none of them could establish that their appointments were made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih upheld the findings of a three-member committee constituted by the Court in 2023 to verify the legality of appointments made during the period when provisions of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 had been struck down by the Calcutta High Court but before the Supreme Court restored its validity in 2020.

The Court held that the committee had undertaken a detailed factual exercise and found that "not a single claim met the threshold of a valid appointment." Although the Court independently examined 13 cases projected by the petitioners as the strongest examples of injustice, it concluded that each appointment suffered from serious legal defects

Know The Law | When Can High Courts Grant Relief Under Article 226 Beyond Pleadings? Supreme Court Explains

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS BALI RAM

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 668

The Supreme Court clarified that although High Courts are ordinarily expected to remain confined to the pleadings and reliefs sought by parties, the rule is flexible while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In exceptional cases, where the record clearly establishes a legal entitlement and denying relief on technical grounds would perpetuate injustice, High Courts may mould relief beyond the specific prayers in a writ petition.

“…the rule that requires the parties to be strictly confined to the pleadings and the prayer clauses is not an inflexible rule insofar as exercise of writ jurisdiction is concerned…Ex facie, Article 226, which is couched in comprehensive phraseology, confers wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. Apart from writs, the High Courts may issue orders or directions in the nature of writs enabling them to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih.

“Although in exercise of writ jurisdiction the high courts are guided by the principles flowing from the CPC, they are not bound by it.”, the Court added.

Supreme Court Criticises CRPF For Removing Driver Who Developed Disability, Awards Him Rs 1.25 Crore

Case Details: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. BALI RAM NO.850808321|CIVIL APPEAL No.13783/2015

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 668

The Supreme Court(July 13) criticised the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) for medically invalidating a driver after he developed a visual disability during service instead of accommodating him in an alternative post as required by law.

Holding that the force had failed in its duty as a "model employer", the Court awarded the former constable Rs. 1.25 crore as a composite amount towards back wages, interest and costs, modifying the High Court's direction for reinstatement since he has already attained the age of superannuation.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the Union government's appeal against a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment which had held that the CRPF violated Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, by medically invalidating the respondent instead of retaining him in service. It found that the CRPF failed to grant him an alternative post, a duty cast on government establishments under Section 47(non-discrimination in government employment) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

'Mere Telephone Records Can't Prove Illicit Affair' : Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of Woman & 2 Men In Husband's Murder Case

Cause Title: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS MONIKA KIRAN SURYAWANSHI & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 669

Mere production of telephone records cannot substitute substantive proof of an illicit affair leading to murder, the Supreme Court has held while upholding the acquittal of a woman accused of murdering her husband along with her alleged lover and another co-accused in 2007.

The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances necessary to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The Court observed that the investigation suffered from "fatal lapses," including the failure to seal recovered articles.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra against a 2010 Bombay High Court judgment that had acquitted Monika Kiran Suryawanshi(accused no.1), Prakash Nagraj Patil(A2) and Dnyaneshwar Gangaram Mahale(A3) of charges under Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

If Closure Report Is Filed, Magistrate Can't Direct Police To File Chargesheet : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Brajesh Kumar @ Birjesh Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 670

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that upon receipt of a closure report from the police, a Magistrate cannot direct the investigating agency to file a charge-sheet against its opinion.

The Court reiterated that the formation of opinion as to whether a case for trial is made out lies exclusively with the Investigating Officer. While the Magistrate retains the discretion to accept the report, reject it and take cognizance, or order further investigation, it cannot direct the police to file a charge sheet.

“…the formation of opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is exclusively with the officer in charge of the investigation. If a closure report is filed; finding no case made out, it is not open to the Magistrate to direct the police to file a charge sheet", observed the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran.

Supreme Court Acquits Husband In Dowry Death Case, Criticises Mechanical Trial Of 17 In-Laws

Cause Title: Brajesh Kumar @ Birjesh Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 670

The Supreme Court (July 13) described as a "clear travesty of justice" the prosecution of 17 members of a family in a dowry death case, observing that they appeared to have been arraigned merely because they were related to the deceased by marriage, even though the evidence suggested that she had, in all probability, suffered fatal burn injuries in an accidental fire.

“Before leaving the matter, we are constrained to notice the clear travesty of justice which has occurred in the above case, putting on the dock seventeen persons for reason only of having marital ties with the victim who, in all probability, sustained burn injuries in an accidental fire at her matrimonial home.", observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while acquitting a husband in connection with an offence of dowry death of his deceased wife in the year 2000.

Offences under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act) were invoked in the case.

Contract Denying Interest On Security Deposit Not Against Public Policy: Supreme Court

Cause Title: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. VERSUS M/S. JAI DURGAA FINVEST P. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 671

The Supreme Court (July 13) observed that a clause in a commercial contract cannot be declared against the law and public policy merely because it does not stipulate payment of interest on a security deposit.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which declared the clause in a commercial contract to be contrary to public policy as it doesn't stipulate payment of interest on the security deposit.

The issue was “whether the amount of security deposit given by the Respondent-contractor will carry interest despite there being a contract to the contrary between the Appellant and the Respondent.”

Can A Person Be Declared Foreigner Solely For Non-Appearance Before Foreigners Tribunal? Supreme Court Explains

Case: Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India C.A. No. 2820/2024 and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 672

The Supreme Court held that although Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 places the burden of proving Indian citizenship on the person facing proceedings before a Foreigners Tribunal, that statutory burden does not relieve the Tribunal of its duty to conduct a lawful, fair and reasoned adjudication before declaring a person a foreigner.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observation while setting aside ex parte opinions passed against several alleged foreigners in Assam and remanding the matters to the concerned Foreigners Tribunals for fresh adjudication.

The common question before the Court was whether proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 can culminate in an ex parte declaration that a person is a foreigner without a meaningful examination of service of notice, opportunity of hearing, the material forming the basis of the reference and the evidence produced by the State.

'Citizenship Status Must Be Determined Through Fair Process': Supreme Court Sets Aside 27 Foreigner Declarations By Assam Tribunals

Case : SABITRI DEY @ SWASTHI DEY Vs UNION OF INDIA C.A. No. 2820/2024 Diary No. 28741 / 2020 and connected cases

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 672

The Supreme Court underscored that the determination of citizenship and foreigner status must be carried out through a "fair, lawful and reasonable" process, while setting aside judgments of the Gauhati High Court that had upheld declarations of 27 appellants as foreigners.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed 27 appeals and remanded the cases to the concerned Foreigners Tribunals for fresh adjudication, holding that the issue of citizenship carries profound constitutional significance and must be decided in accordance with the requirements of fairness.

"Citizenship and foreigner status occupy a field of high constitutional and legal significance," the Court observed.

MMDR Act | Govt Can Revise Royalty Rate Though Lease Deed Was Silent About Royalty Revision : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. VERSUS M/S FARIDABAD GURGAON MINERALS & ANR. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 673

The Supreme Court (July 13) held that a mere silence in the lease deed with regard to the revision of royalty on mining of minerals would not take away the government's power to revise the rate of royalty at a periodic interval under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

“While a mining lease is a statutory grant, royalty is a statutory levy. Power to revise royalty at periodic intervals flows from section 15 of the MMDR Act and the rules framed thereunder [in particular, proviso to Rule 21(1)(i)(a) of the 1964 Rules]. Mere silence in the lease deed with regard to revision of royalty cannot denude the State of a statutory power and/or operate as a bar to the exercise of power under section 15 of the MMDR Act and the rules framed thereunder; hence, a lessee cannot claim any vested right to static royalty for the entire lease period.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The Haryana Government auctioned mining leases for minor minerals in 2001, and the successful bidders, including Respondent, were granted seven-year mining leases. In 2005, the State issued a notification increasing the rates of royalty and dead rent payable under the leases.

Arms Act | Mere Recovery Of Weapon Without Proof Of Conscious Possession Can't Establish Guilt : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND VERSUS JAGDISH LAKRA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 674

The Supreme Court (July 13) observed that a mere recovery of arms from someone's house is not sufficient to hold a person guilty under the Arms Act, unless the conscious possession as well as dominion was not proved.

“The High Court was justified in observing that mere recovery of certain articles including the weapons from the house of the respondent/accused is not sufficient enough to hold the respondent/accused guilty for commission of offence unless the prosecution establishes that the articles were in the conscious possession of the accused and the accused had dominion over these articles.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale while upholding the acquittal of a tribal man who was convicted by the trial court under the Arms Act for recovery of a country-made stein gun from his house.

In August 2001, police and CRPF personnel conducted a raid in village Dora, Jharkhand, based on intelligence about the presence of extremists in the area. Four alleged extremists were in the house of respondent Jagdish Lakra at 4:00 a.m. When police arrived at 6:00 a.m., three fled, while one was apprehended. A search of the house revealed a country-made stein gun, cartridges, medicines, and extremist literature.

Hindu Succession Act | Class-I Heirs' Preferential Right Under Section 22 Extends To Agricultural Land : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MAHINDER & ORS. VERSUS PURAN SINGH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 675

The Supreme Court (July 14) ruled that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which grants Class-I heirs a preferential right to purchase property proposed to be transferred by another co-heir, applies equally to agricultural land.

Dismissing an appeal challenging the applicability of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act to agricultural land, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which, relying onBabu Ram v. Santokh Singh, (2019) 14 SCC 162, had held that the preferential right under Section 22 extends to agricultural land as well.

The Court ruled that Section 22 of HSA is fundamentally a law governing succession and not a standalone pre-emption law to deny the competence of the Parliament to legislate under List III of the Constitution on matters related to intestacy and succession without excluding agricultural land.

Registered Sale Deed Does Not Require Proof Of Attestation As Per Section 68 Evidence Act : Supreme Court

Cause Title: R. VERONICA & ANR. VERSUS RUDRAYANI DEVAKI(D) THROUGH LRS. S. SATHA KUMAR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 676

The Supreme Court (July 14) has ruled that the proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has no application to a registered sale deed, since the law does not mandatorily require a sale deed to be attested by witnesses.

“The proviso to Section 68 stipulates that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. A sale deed being not required by law to be attested, the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act on the face of it is not applicable,” observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, while setting aside a Kerala High Court judgment that had erroneously applied the proviso to Section 68 to a sale deed transaction.

The Bench clarified the limited scope of the proviso to Section 68, noting that the provision applies only to those documents that require a mandatory attestation.

Arbitration | Article 227 Can't Be Ordinarily Invoked To Challenge Rejection Of S.16 Application By Arbitral Tribunal : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MANASH KAMAL BEZBORUAH VERSUS M/S BOKAHOLA TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 677

The Supreme Court (July 14) held that it is impermissible for the High Court to ordinarily interfere with, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the decision of an Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

“…we hold that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution and staying the arbitral proceedings. The remedy against the rejection of a Section 16 of the Act application strictly lies under Section 34 of the Act after the pronouncement of the final award. Hence, we deem it appropriate to set aside both the impugned orders of the High Court and dismiss the revision petition before the High Court.”, observed a bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while setting aside the order of the Gauhati High Court, which had entertained a revision petition challenging an Arbitral Tribunal's rejection of a Section 16 application filed by non-signatory parties.

The dispute stems from a partnership firm constituted in 1948 by the Bezboruah family. A partnership deed executed on November 16, 1976, contained an arbitration clause.

Land Acquisition Act | Landowners Who Failed To Avail Hearing Cannot Later Allege Denial Of Hearing : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Alok Kotahwala & Ors. v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 678

The Supreme Court (July 13) dismissed the appeals filed by the landowners challenging the land acquisition proceedings for the Jaipur Metro Rail Project, holding that the landowners had abandoned their right of hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by failing to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter remaining silent.

“Absence of the appellants (landowners) on 9th April, 2012 coupled with their subsequent silence, appears to have goaded the LAO to proceed on the footing that the appellants had nothing further to submit beyond the written objections. We see no infirmity in the approach…We, thus, hold that the mandate of Section 5A was not ignored by the LAO and that there was substantial compliance; also, no fault can be attributed to the LAO in forwarding the recommendation without the appellants being personally heard. Appellants, by their own conduct, abandoned their right of hearing; they cannot now be heard to complain of denial of hearing when they themselves failed to avail the same.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

The landowners, whose land in Jaipur was sought to be acquired for the construction of a metro car depot for Phase II of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project, had challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground of denial of the opportunity of hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Property Conveyed In Sale Deed Cannot Be Changed Through Rectification Deed Without Original Transferor's Consent: Supreme Court

Cause Title: VENKATESHA AND ANR. VS. K.M. VENKATAMUNIYAPPA (D) THR. LRS. & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 679

The Supreme Court has ruled that a rectification deed cannot change the identity of a property unless the original seller agrees, and that courts cannot give judgments based on arguments that parties never made.

"A rectification deed cannot, in the guise of correcting an error, substitute the very subject matter of a prior conveyance without participation of the original transferor.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Vipul M Pancholi.

One-Thimmadasappa owned property in Survey No. 1/4, which he sold in 1971. The property changed hands twice and was finally purchased by K.M. Venkatamuniyappa (the plaintiff) in 1973. Meanwhile, in 1982, the government re-granted a different property, Survey No. 162, to Thimmadasappa.

Supreme Court Acquits 3 Men In 1979 Murder Case, Cites Glaring Infirmities In Prosecution

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 680

The Supreme Court acquitted three men convicted in a 1977 murder case from Uttar Pradesh, holding that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found serious infirmities in the prosecution case, including unexplained delays in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, inconsistencies regarding the registration of the FIR, and circumstances casting doubt on the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeals filed by Subedar, Hira Lal and Raj Bux, setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the Allahabad High Court which had convicted them under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The appeals against two other accused had earlier abated owing to their deaths. One accused had died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court.

The case arose from the murder of Harihar Saran in Gonda district on June 28, 1977. According to the prosecution, the deceased was attacked by six accused armed with spears, lathis and other weapons while returning from a cattle fair. The trial court convicted the accused in 1981 and the High Court affirmed the conviction in 2011.

Supreme Court Disapproves HC Direction To Send Sub Judge For Training, Says Appellate Courts Must Act As 'Friend, Philosopher & Guide'

Cause Title: LAKSHMI VERSUS GOPI & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 681

The Supreme Court has set aside a Kerala High Court direction requiring a Principal Sub Judge to undergo training after the High Court criticised the trial judge's understanding of a will dispute, observing that appellate courts should guide subordinate courts through reasoned judgments rather than wield "the heavy-handed baton of superior authority."

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held that the High Court's remarks against the Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur, were unwarranted and contrary to settled principles governing judicial restraint while making adverse observations against judicial officers.

The case arose from a family dispute over the validity of an alleged will. While the trial court refused to accept the will as duly proved and passed a preliminary decree for partition, the Kerala High Court reversed that decision in a brief judgment. Besides setting aside the trial court's decree, the High Court observed that the trial judge had failed to understand the controversy, termed the judgment illustrative of deficiencies in the system, and directed that the officer be sent for training by the Kerala Judicial Academy.

Appellate Courts Must Give Independent Reasons, Can't Simply Overturn Trial Court Verdict As Erroneous: Supreme Court

Cause Title: LAKSHMI VERSUS GOPI & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 681

The Supreme Court has held that a first appellate court cannot overturn a trial court's judgment merely by declaring it erroneous without independently evaluating the evidence and recording its own reasons. Stressing the duty cast upon appellate courts while reversing findings of fact, the Court observed that they must act as "a friend, philosopher and a guide" to subordinate courts rather than adopting a superior approach of merely pointing out errors.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi made the observation while setting aside a Kerala High Court judgment that had not only reversed a trial court decree in a partition suit but had also directed that the Principal Sub Judge who delivered the original judgment be sent for training.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach in reversing the trial court's findings was legally unsustainable as it failed to give adequate reasons while overturning findings of fact. It also expunged the adverse remarks made against the trial judge and restored the first appeal to the High Court for fresh consideration

Refund Clause In Agreement To Sell Doesn't Bar Purchaser's Right To Seek Specific Performance : Supreme Court

Cause Title: JASPAL SINGH VERSUS ASHWANI KUMAR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 682

The Supreme Court has observed that a contractual clause providing for refund of earnest money in the event of default does not, by itself, prevent a court from granting specific performance of an agreement to sell.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe held that a mere inclusion of a clause in an agreement to sell to return the earnest money in case of non-execution of an agreement to sell, would not by itself discharge the seller from its obligation to perform the contract.

“…the clause in question does no more than provide that, in case the Sale Deed could not be executed for any reason, the respondent would be bound to refund the earnest money. There is neither any language of election, nor any stipulation entitling the respondent to discharge the bargain, at his option, by payment of any sum in lieu of executing the Sale Deed. The clause records no more than bare consequence flowing from non-execution of the Sale Deed; the stipulation for refund operates as a deterrent reinforcing the obligation to perform, and not as a substitute for it. It protects the purchaser's minimum entitlement in the event of default, without in any manner curtailing his right to insist upon performance.”, the Court Observed.

Is Application For Probate Of Will Time-Barred If Not Filed Within 3 Years Of Testator's Death? Supreme Court Answers

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 683

The Supreme Court has held the probate of Will need not be necessarily filed within three years of the testator's death. The Court added that right to apply for probate accrues when it becomes necessary to do so i.e., when an action hostile to the position established by the Will was taken.

“The right to apply would therefore accrue from the date that it becomes necessary to apply. This obviously need not be within three years from the death of the testator.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M Pancholi.

The bench set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and Jharkhand High Court which had rejected the probate application merely because it was filed beyond the period of three years from the death of the testator.

Supreme Court Orders States/UTs To Frame Policy For Early Release Of Elderly And Terminally Ill Prisoners

Case Title – National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 684

The Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to prepare and notify, within three months, a policy governing the early or premature release of elderly and terminally ill prisoners, while also prescribing a technology-based framework to process such cases.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued the directions in a PIL filed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), which sought uniform guidelines across the country for the compassionate release of terminally ill, sick, infirm and elderly prisoners, particularly those above 70 years of age.

The petition stated that the number of elderly and infirm prisoners has been increasing and that many continue to remain in prison despite serious medical conditions and inadequate access to healthcare. It argued that their continued incarceration violates the guarantees of equality and life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, apart from being inconsistent with internationally recognised human rights standards.

Railways Not Liable For Short Delivery Of Consignment Booked At Owner's Risk Unless It Counted Or Weighed Goods: Supreme Court

Case : M/s Bajaj Trading Company v. Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 685

The Supreme Court has held that the Railways cannot be held liable for the short delivery of a consignment booked at the "owner's risk" rate unless it had itself counted or weighed the goods before transportation, thereby assuming a duty of care over the quantity entrusted to it.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Bajaj Trading Company, which sought compensation for the alleged shortage of 1,742 bags of salt transported from Gujarat to Assam. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court rejecting the claim.

The dispute arose after the appellant booked 40,444 bags of salt from Chirai Junction in Gujarat to Dharmanagar in Assam in November 2009. On arrival, only 38,702 bags were allegedly delivered. Although the Railways issued a shortage certificate, it disputed liability on the ground that the consignment had been booked at the owner's risk rate and carried a "said to contain" endorsement, indicating that railway staff had not verified the quantity loaded.

Nominated Town Panchayat Members Cannot Vote In Legislative Council Polls : Supreme Court

Case :Pranesh M.K. v. A.V. Gayathri & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 686

The Supreme Court has held that nominated members of Town Panchayats are not entitled to vote in elections to the Karnataka Legislative Council from Local Authorities' Constituencies, ruling that their inclusion in the electoral roll is contrary to the constitutional scheme.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed a batch of appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court's orders, which had held that nominated members could not participate in the electoral process and had directed exclusion of their votes from the recount.

The dispute arose from the 2021 election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities' Constituency. The returned candidate had won by a margin of six votes. However, 12 nominated members of four Town Panchayats had been included in the electoral roll and had cast their votes, leading to a challenge by the defeated candidate. The High Court had subsequently held that nominated members were ineligible to vote, directed segregation of their ballots and ordered a recount.

Mere Swear Words & Vulgar Expletives Not Obscenity : Supreme Court Explains Scope Of S.294(b) IPC

Case : Mani @ Subramaniyam v State

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 687

Holding that "use of mere swear words, profanities and vulgar expletives, however distasteful or uncivil they may be, cannot be equated with obscenity", the Supreme Court has ruled that abusive or vulgar language by itself does not constitute the offence of obscenity under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court clarified that obscenity in law is distinct from vulgarity, abuse or profanity and requires proof that the words are lascivious, appeal to prurient interests and have a tendency to deprave and corrupt susceptible minds.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by a 70-year-old Tamil Nadu man convicted in a case arising out of a land dispute.

The Court set aside his conviction under Sections 294(b) (uttering obscene words in a public place) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) IPC, while affirming his conviction under Section 326 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon. Considering the appellant's age, health condition and the fact that the incident stemmed from a land dispute, the Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and directed him to pay a fine of ₹50,000.

When Accused Is In Jail, Court & Prosecution Have Duty To Expedite Trial: Supreme Court

Case : Liakat Ali v State of Jammu and Kashmir

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 688

Observing that when an accused is in custody, it is the duty of both the court and the prosecuting agency to ensure an expeditious trial, the Supreme Court granted bail to a murder accused who has remained incarcerated for more than nine years, saying the prolonged delay had "shocked our judicial conscience."

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale invoked its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution to grant bail to Liakat Ali, who had been in custody for over nine years and two months while facing trial for offences under Sections 302, 382, 201 read with Section 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code.

The Court noted that despite the petitioner's earlier bail application attaining finality in 2024, the trial had made little progress thereafter, with only 12 of the 30 prosecution witnesses examined.

Supreme Court Urges Railways To Prevent Overcrowding In Trains, Suggests Dropping 'Second Class Passenger' Term

Case : Lata v Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 689

The Supreme Court urged the Indian Railways to take effective measures to curb overcrowding in trains, observing that such incidents frequently lead to passengers falling from moving trains and losing their lives. The Court also suggested that the Railways discontinue the use of the expression "second class passenger" in its manuals, stating that the class distinction should be attached to the coach and not to the passenger, in keeping with the constitutional ethos.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh made these observations while allowing an appeal filed by the widow of a man who died after falling from a running train in 2015. The Court awarded her compensation of ₹8 lakh after holding that the absence of the deceased's ticket could not by itself defeat a genuine claim under the Railway Act.

Observing that deaths due to passengers falling from overcrowded trains are "not a rare occurrence", the Bench said that although such incidents may appear statistically insignificant in the context of the Railways' vast operations, they are life-altering tragedies for affected families.

Art. 226 | High Courts Cannot Reweigh Evidence Or Interfere With Factual Findings In Certiorari Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

Cause Title: BASAMMA & ANR. Versus GOPARAPPA AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 690

The Supreme Court has held that the Writ of Certiorari cannot be issued by the High Court to review or reweigh the evidence based on which subordinate courts decided a matter. The Court reiterated that such a jurisdiction is issued only to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by Courts or Tribunals, but not for reappreciation of evidence or acting as a Court of appeal.

Holding so, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment passed in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, which had returned the findings of the First Appellate Court, which was arrived after due consideration of evidence on record.

“…once the First Appellate Court, being fully competent to adjudicate the appeal, had returned findings after due consideration of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that such findings were tendered without jurisdiction or in excess of it. Thus, in our considered opinion, the High Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not have set aside the findings returned in Paragraph 24.”, the Court observed.

Recovery Of Dead Body Not Necessary For Murder Conviction : Supreme Court

Cause Title: DEBOJIT PANKIKA CHARAIDEO SONARI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 691

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man for the murder of a 10-year-old girl and for causing the disappearance of evidence, reiterating that the non-recovery of a dead body is not fatal to a murder prosecution when the prosecution establishes a complete chain of reliable circumstantial evidence.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale rejected the accused's contention that non-recovery of the deceased's body proved fatal to the prosecution's case, noting that if the accused's contention is accepted, then in every case where the body remained untraceable, the accused would be let go without any penal consequences. The Court relied on Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N., (1991) 3 SCC 471 where it was held that “…to base a conviction for an offence of murder is that there should be reliable and acceptable evidence that the offence of murder, like any other factum of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, although the dead body may not be traced.”

“The 'corpus delicti' in murder has two components - death as the result, and criminal agency of another as the means. Where there is direct proof of the one, the other may be established by circumstantial evidence. 'Corpus delicti' means that the offence has been committed and not that the dead body of the murdered person has been recovered. A person can be convicted of murdering another even if the later's body has not been recovered.”, the Court added.

How Can Dead Witness's Testimony Be Used Against Accused Who Absconded? Supreme Court Explains S.299 CrPC

Cause Title: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VERSUS KADER KHAN

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 692

The Supreme Court has clarified that the earlier testimony of a witness who has since died can be used against an accused who had absconded during the original trial, provided the conditions under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) are satisfied.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held that Section 299 CrPC is an exception to the general rule that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused and that testimony given in one trial cannot ordinarily be used in another. The provision preserves prosecution evidence where an accused deliberately evades the trial by absconding.

The Court, in a judgment delivered on July 17, held that a formal order under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not a prerequisite for recording the evidence of a deceased witness against an accused.

Employer Can't Defeat Compassionate Appointment Claim By Delaying Processing: Supreme Court

Cause Title: RAHUL S/o. RAMNARAYAN MADANKAR & ANR. VERSUS THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 693

The Supreme Court has held that an employer cannot keep an employee's application for voluntary retirement on medical grounds pending until the employee crosses the prescribed age limit and then use that delay to deny compassionate appointment to the employee's dependent. The Court ruled that such an interpretation would allow an employer to "control eligibility through delayed processing" and defeat the purpose of a beneficial scheme.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh directed the New India Assurance Company Limited to grant compassionate appointment to the son of an employee who had sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds before attaining the age of 55 years. The Court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had upheld the rejection of the claim.

Supreme Court Recommends IBC Amendment To Protect MSMEs, Says Small Operational Creditors Need Fairer Repayment Mechanism

Cause Title: M/S TATA STEEL LTD. VERSUS VARSHA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 694

While reaffirming the "clean slate" principle under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Supreme Court has called upon the Law Commission and the Legislature to examine amendments to the insolvency framework to better protect Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and other small operational creditors, observing that they are significantly disadvantaged under the existing repayment structure.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan made the recommendation in a judgment allowing Tata Steel's appeals and holding that operational creditors whose claims had not crystallised before approval of a resolution plan cannot continue civil suits or arbitration proceedings thereafter. The Court held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not forming part of the plan stand extinguished, enabling the successful resolution applicant to take over the corporate debtor on a "clean slate."

However, before concluding the judgment, the Court flagged the adverse consequences of the present IBC framework on small operational creditors.

Prescribing Minimum Viva Voce Cut-Off For Judicial Appointments Is Reasonable: Supreme Court

Case Details: MANOJ GOYAL v. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS|CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8142 OF 2018

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 695

The Supreme Court dismissed a civil appeal by a judicial aspirant challenging a proviso to Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, on the grounds that he had participated in the whole process without raising any issue. The proviso prescribed a minimum of 25% marks in the interview for the appointment of Additional District Judges from the advocates' quota before it was expressly removed by the State government in 2017.

The Court upheld the validity of prescribing a minimum qualifying benchmark in the viva voce for appointments to the higher judicial service, holding that such a requirement is rationally connected to the objective of selecting suitable judicial officers and cannot be termed arbitrary merely because it results in the exclusion of candidates with higher aggregate marks.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice PB Varale held that the appellant's claim was entirely barred by the doctrine of estoppel since he participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the prevailing rules.

Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Quality Of MACT Judgments, Calls For Clear And Reasoned Findings

Cause Title: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS DURG ROADWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 696

The Supreme Court (July 20) expressed displeasure with the lack of legal reasoning in the Motor Accident Claim Tribunals' decisions. The Court observed that many tribunal orders merely reproduce pleadings and evidence without adequately explaining how the facts lead to the ultimate conclusion.

“The Tribunals are bodies that people approach, seeking compensation as a consequence of either accidents or deaths, both being entirely unwelcome scenarios. Then, it is only to be expected of the Tribunals that whatever their conclusion be, the same must be supported by adequate and clear reasoning.”, the Court observed.

The Court noted that it had encountered several cases where the nature and quality of tribunal orders had caused it "considerable disturbance."

'Was Aged Only 25 Yrs, Reformation Possible' : Supreme Court Reduces Life Term Of Gang Rape Convict To 20 Yrs

Cause Title: EHSAAN VERSUS STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 697

The Supreme Court (July 20) modified the sentence of a life convict in a gang rape case to a minimum sentence of twenty years, after noting that the convict is young, has no criminal antecedents, and there's a possibility of reformation.

“When a sentence is imposed on an offender, it is done so with trifold purpose i.e. punitive, deterrent and protective. The overall objective is to rid the society of criminal proclivity. The same is done by ensuring that the sentence imposed is proportional to the offence or in other words not overly influenced by the possibility of reformation and instead, striking a judicious balance between the interest of the victim, society and the accused, after following the due process of law.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while also laying down the aspects which needs to be looked into while imposing sentence.

The following aspects must be considered, it must:

Know The Law | Factors To Be Considered While Sentencing A Convict? Supreme Court Explains

Cause Title: EHSAAN VERSUS STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 697

The Supreme Court laid down the set of principles which must necessarily guide the decision on sentencing.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih laid down the following aspects which must be considered while deciding on sentencing:

“(a) Be in accordance with the nature and gravity of the crime;

Supreme Court Revives Over ₹16 Crore Service Tax Demand Against BPCL & HPCL For Facilitating CNG Sales For Mahanagar Gas

Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX MUMBAI VERSUS M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. ETC.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 698

The Supreme Court (July 20) restored the service tax demands exceeding ₹16 Crore against the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), who acted as 'commission agents' of the Mahanagar Gas Limited (MGL) while selling Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) through their retail outlets.

Referring to the agreement, a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria noted that since the two oil companies acted as a marketing agents and promoters of sale of CNG for MGL, and, no buying and selling of CNG took place between the parties under the Agreement, thereby, qualifying them as a 'commission agent' within the definition of "Business Auxiliary Service" under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act.

“The respondent Corporations are the commission agents rendering the services to the appellant in distributing CNG acting on the basis of terms and conditions of the Agreement, of course, they are free to perform the task which they are entrusted with by the appellant-principal as per the terms of the Agreements. They do the business as facilitator and promote to sell CNG for the appellant. The respondent Corporations may be enjoying certain “powers” but they do not have the authority to override the principal–appellant and to hold the goods with any titular authority… The commission is paid to the respondent Corporations for rendering such services. The respondent Corporations are covered within the ambit of “commission agent” as per Explanation (a) of the definition. The services rendered by the respondent Corporations are “taxable services” as defined and understood in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act.”, the Court held.

Supreme Court Upholds Husband's Conviction For Wife's Murder, Finds Extra Marital Affair Motive Established

Cause Title: PIYUSH SHYAMDASANI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 699

The Supreme Court (July 20) upheld the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife, holding that the substantial number of call exchanges with his lover constituted valid circumstantial evidence establishing both the existence of an affair and the motive to remove the wife as a barrier to their relationship.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the appeals filed by Piyush Shyamdasani (A1, husband), Renu @ Akhilesh Kanaujiya and Sonu Kashyap against their conviction, while also rejecting the State of Uttar Pradesh's appeal challenging the acquittal of Manisha Makhija(A2, alleged lover of A1).

The court noted that the longstanding marital discord between the Appellant and deceased-wife, and the deceased's opposition to the illicit relationship between A1 and A2 formed a motive for the Appellant to kill the deceased wife.

'Even In Terror Cases, Constitutional Safeguards And Right To Fair Trial Cannot Be Diluted': Supreme Court

Case Title – Abdul Hameed v. State of Rajasthan

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 700

The Supreme Court reiterated that the constitutional safeguards and the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence cannot be compromised even in cases involving terrorist violence and offences that shock the collective conscience of society.

The Court acknowledged that bomb blasts directed against innocent civilians generate fear, grief and public outrage. However, it stressed that such cases require greater adherence to constitutional principles rather than dilution of constitutional standards.

The Court observed, “These principles assume even greater significance when Courts are confronted with offences that shock the collective conscience of society. Acts of violence directed against innocent civilians, particularly those involving the use of explosives in public spaces, strike at the very foundations of social order and generate understandable feelings of fear, grief, and outrage. Yet, it is precisely in such cases that Courts must remain steadfast in their adherence to constitutional values. The gravity of the allegation cannot be permitted to dilute the standard of proof, nor can the enormity of the crime justify a departure from the settled principles governing criminal adjudication. The greater the public outcry, the greater becomes the responsibility of the Court to ensure that the determination of guilt is based solely upon law and evidence.”

FERA Complaint Cognisance Vitiated If There Was No Notice To Accused : Supreme Court

Cause Title : STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ANR. VERSUS ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 701

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot validly take cognizance of a criminal complaint under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) if the mandatory "opportunity notice" required under Section 61(2) of the Act was not served upon the proposed accused.

“…the service of an opportunity notice under the proviso to Section 61(2) of FERA is a mandatory requirement, without compliance of which no complaint under Section 56 or 57 of FERA respectively, can validly be instituted, and no Magistrate can validly take cognizance of the offence alleged therein.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, while quashing the complaints and summoning orders against the Standard Chartered Bank and its officer in charge in an alleged FERA violation case for unlawfully depositing about Rs. 30 lakhs for the benefit of a person resident outside India.

The Court set aside the Bombay High Court decision which refused to entertain the Appellant's quashing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. merely because of the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. i.e., filing of a revision application.

How Juvenile Justice Boards Should Conduct Preliminary Assessment Under S.15? Supreme Court Issues Guidelines

Case Title:X v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 702

The Supreme Court has issued guidelines as to what factors should be considered by the Juvenile Justice Board while conducting preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued these guidelines while dismissing an appeal challenging the Patna High Court's ruling which upheld the Appellate Court's order that set aside the Juvenile Justice Board finding that the appellant be tried as an adult.

The case arose from an alleged murder of a boy in Bihar in May 2022. The appellant, who was 16 years and four months old at the time of the incident, was accused of slitting the victim's throat with a knife. The appellant was apprehended while he was attempting to flee. While the Juvenile Justice Board held that he lacked mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and decided to try him as a juvenile, the Sessions Court set aside the order and directed that the juvenile be tried as an adult on an appeal filed by the complainant. The Patna High Court affirmed that ruling.

JJ Act - Murder Is 'Heinous Offence', Not 'Serious Offence'; S 302 IPC Implies Minimum Life Sentence: Supreme Court

Case Title: X v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 702

The Supreme Court has held that the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) is a "heinous offence" under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, ruling that imprisonment for life constitutes its implied minimum punishment even though the provision does not expressly prescribe a minimum sentence.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the appeal of a juvenile accused in a Bihar murder case, upholding the Patna High Court's decision affirming that he should be tried as an adult before the Children's Court. The Court also clarified that while an appellate court has the power under Section 101(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act to seek assistance from psychologists or medical experts, such assistance is discretionary and not mandatory in every case.

The case arose from the alleged murder of a boy in Bihar in May 2022. The appellant, who was 16 years and four months old at the time of the incident, was accused of slitting the victim's throat with a knife. While the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), by majority, initially held that he lacked the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and decided to retain the matter before itself, the complainant's appeal succeeded before the Sessions Court, which directed that the juvenile be tried as an adult. The Patna High Court upheld that decision.

'Wrong Statement' In Pleadings Not Necessarily A 'False Statement' : Supreme Court Quashes Perjury Case

Cause Title: PRABHAKAR YESHWANT MASRAM AND ANOTHER VERSUS SOU TULA NAMDEORAO JAIPURKAR AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 703

The Supreme Court (July 21) set aside the perjury proceedings against a litigant and his counsel for allegedly making 'typographical errors' in a memorandum of an appeal, noting that every instance of wrong statements cannot be treated as a 'false statement' unless a deliberate falsehood is shown.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench order which had upheld the Additional Sessions Court decision to initiate the perjury proceedings against the Appellants without forming any opinion as mandated under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.

“…holding of an inquiry is in fact expedient in the interests of justice is also a must. Ordering an inquiry without formation of any opinion as required by Section 340 (1) of the Cr.P.C. would render the order bad in law being not in accordance with the mandate of Section 340 (1).”, the Court observed.

S. 115 CPC | Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Correct Factual Errors, Even If Facts Are Allegedly Concealed : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MADAN MOHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VERSUS THAKAR DASS (DEAD) THR. LRS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 704

Observing that revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to correct mere errors of fact or law unless they relate to a jurisdictional error, the Supreme Court (July 21) set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had overturned concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the High Court exceeded the limited scope of its revisional powers by reappreciating facts and interfering solely on the ground that certain facts had allegedly been concealed.

“The primary reason why the High Court overturned the decision of the Courts below was that the landlady (Kamla Devi) had not come to the Court with clean hands and had concealed the availability of the third shop. It was observed that the said shop was used to store garbage. If the shop that is alleged to be an alternate accommodation was being used for storing waste material as has been held by both the RA and the AA, then that being the finding of fact, what occasioned the High Court to take a different view in civil revisional jurisdiction?”, the Court said.

S. 50 NDPS Act Applies Only To Personal Search, Not When Recovery Is From Articles Carried By Accused : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MEHBOOB SHAH Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 705

The Supreme Court (July 21) observed that the protection under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, would be available during the personal search of an accused and doesn't extend to searches when the accused was carrying a bag, container, or any other object.

“The protection under Section 50 is confined to cases where the recovery is sought to be effected through the personal search of the accused. It has no application where the search is of an article, such as a bag, container, suitcase or any other object, which the accused may be carrying.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while upholding the conviction of a man who was carrying a narcotic substance (smack) concealed in a water bottle.

The Appellant challenged his conviction relying on Section 50 of the NDPS Act, contending that failure to hold a search in the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer was an illegality warranting acquittal. Also, he complained about the non-compliance of Section 52A, arguing that failure to draw the collected sample in the presence of a magistrate proved fatal to the prosecution's case.

Article 142 Cannot Be Used To Supplant Concluded & Acted-Upon Settlement Between Parties : Supreme Court

Cause Title: VIJAYALAKSHMI R. VERSUS C. L. BALAJI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 706

The Supreme Court has observed that its inherent jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to supplant or amend the terms of the consensual arrangements between the parties.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed a wife's plea, which sought to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to recast the divorce settlement agreement arrived at between herself and her husband. The Court refused to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to accede to the Appellant-Wife's demand for creation of an additional corpus of approximately Rupees Six Crore to Rupees Six Crore Fifty Lakh towards higher education of the son as a one-time measure.

“As a necessary corollary, the prayer for creation of a corpus towards higher education of the son in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be acceded to. Issuance of such a direction would, in substance, amount to recasting a settlement which stands performed and discharged, and undertaking, in execution, a fresh determination of the quantum of maintenance, a course not open in the present proceedings. The jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, wide as it is, cannot be employed to supplant the concluded and acted upon terms of a consensual arrangement between the parties.”, the Court observed.

Offence Under Section 66 Information Technology Act Is Bailable : Supreme Court Overrules HC View

Cause Title: MAHARAJ SARAN VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 707

The Supreme Court has clarified that a computer-related offence punishable under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is a bailable offence.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment, which had treated a Section 66 offence as a non-bailable offence.

“…the view expressed by High Court that Section 66 of the IT Act has not been defined as a bailable offence under the IT Act, stands set aside.”, observed a bench, while emphasizing that the High Court erred in not taking into consideration Section 77B of the IT Act, which treats offences punishable up to three years imprisonment as a bailable offence.

Matrimonial Dispute Cannot Be Heard By MP/MLA Courts Just Because One Party Is A Legislator : Supreme Court's Prima Facie View

Cause Title: RAGHURAJ PRATAP SINGH PETITIONER VERSUS BHANVI KUMARI SINGH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 708

The Supreme Court has made a prima facie observation that MP/MLA courts specially designated to expedite criminal cases against the legislators lack jurisdiction to try matrimonial disputes.

“We are not convinced that a matrimonial dispute can be agitated before such a special Court merely for reason of one of the parties being a legislator.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while hearing a plea of MLA Raghuraj Pratap Singh (popularly known as Raja Bhaiya) against the Delhi High Court's decision upholding the issuance of a summon by a Rouse Avenue MP/MLA court against him in a case filed by his wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act).

The High Court said that the MP/MLA Court continues to remain a Court of Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Cr.P.C./BNSS, and therefore, proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act could validly continue before them.

No Motor Accident Compensation For Murder Inside Vehicle : Supreme Court

Cause Title: DILIP AGARWAL Versus RAJSHRI AGARWAL & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 709

The Supreme Court (July 22) held that a mere involvement of a motor vehicle in a chain of events leading to a person's death is not sufficient to hold the vehicle owner liable to compensate the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act unless there is a clear proximate relationship between the use of the vehicle and the death.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the concurrent findings of the Chhattisgarh High Court and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal holding the Appellant-vehicle owner liable to compensate the widow for the loss of life of the deceased husband while travelling in the Appellant's car. The Court noted that the Courts below have wrongly presumed that the injury suffered by the deceased while he was inside the car with the Appellant.

“A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below in a sense assume that the injuries suffered by the deceased took place while Dilip and Anand were in the car. How such a conclusion came about, is best known to them.”, the Court observed.

Delay In Granting Sanction Can't Be Reason To Curtail Liberty : Supreme Court Grants Bail In PC Act Case

Case Details: RAVINDER MEHTA v STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH|SLP(Crl.) No.9005/2026]

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 710

The Supreme Court granted regular bail to a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after it found that, despite the case being registered in 2025, sanction was not granted to prosecute him.

To briefly state, a first information report was lodged against the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was arrested on December 9, 2025, and the Allahabad High Court rejected his regular bail plea on March 20. This was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave(for the appellant) pointed out that the chargesheet was filed on February 7 and the prosecution intends to examine 19 witnesses. However, a sanction by the State government, which is required for cases against a public servant, is yet to be granted. Therefore, the Trial Court can't take cognisance till then.

Supreme Court Directs Bihar Govt To Clear Encroachments Along Banks Of Ganga In Patna Within Six Weeks

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Sinha v. Union of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No.3367/2020

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 711

The Supreme Court granted the Bihar government six weeks to remove all unauthorised structures, constructions and encroachments between Nauzar Ghat and Nurpur Ghat in Patna along the banks of the Ganga, directing that its order be complied with irrespective of any interim orders passed by the High Court or district courts.

“We grant six weeks' time to the State of Bihar to ensure that each and every unauthorized structures/ construction and the encroachments are removed between Nauzar Ghat to Nurpur Ghat in Patna. We direct that a compliance report in this regard by way of an affidavit shall be filed by a competent authority by the next date of hearing. Any laxity in this regard will be viewed strictly…We are informed that various courts have passed some interim orders, restraining the authorities from proceeding further with removal of encroachments. Irrespective of any order that may be in operation, our directions shall be fully complied with”, the Court ordered.

The Court also gave all States a final opportunity to furnish information on Ganga encroachments, warning that it would summon the Chief Secretaries of defaulting States if they failed to do so.

Promotion Does Not Cease To Be Promotion Just Because Employee's Grade Pay Doesn't Change : Supreme Court

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VERSUS HARBANS LAL VERMA (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 712

The Supreme Court held that promotions earned by Railway Guards within the Guard cadre must be counted while determining entitlement under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), ruling that employees who have reached the post of Mail/Express Guard are not entitled to further financial upgradations to higher Grade Pays under the scheme.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed appeals filed by the Union of India and set aside Rajasthan High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) orders which had directed grant of second and third MACP financial upgradations to retired Mail/Express Guard Harbans Lal Verma.

The Court restored the Railway administration's decision rejecting the employee's claim for Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600 and Rs. 4,800 under the MACPS.

MHADA Can Enforce Developer's Promise To Rehabilitate Occupants In Redeveloped Building: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mrs. Mahabanoo Contractor and Anr. Versus M/s. Kalikund Developers and Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 713

The Supreme Court has held that the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) is empowered to enforce a developer's obligation to provide permanent alternate accommodation to occupants of cessed buildings undergoing redevelopment and directed a Mumbai developer to execute a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) and hand over possession of three flats to the legal heirs of an occupant within two months.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by Mrs. Mahabanoo Contractor and another, setting aside a Bombay High Court judgment which had restrained MHADA from taking coercive steps against the developer for failing to honour the rehabilitation agreement.

The dispute arose from the redevelopment of a cessed building in Mumbai undertaken under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The appellants claimed entitlement to permanent alternate accommodation under a PAAA executed in 2019 after they vacated the old premises for redevelopment. MHADA had subsequently directed the developer to execute and register the agreement and hand over possession of the promised flats, besides issuing a show-cause notice for non-compliance.

When Alteration Of Cheque Is Patently Clear, Further Evidence Not Necessary : Supreme Court Sets Aside S.138NI Act Conviction

Case Title: Rajasab v Hulagappa

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 714

The Supreme Court has set aside a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), after finding that the cheque had been visibly and materially altered from Rs 10,000 to Rs. 1,10,000.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed the appeal filed by the accused, holding that the High Court and the Trial Court have erred in calling for additional proof of the alteration.

“When the alteration of the cheque is patently clear on the face of it, the Courts below ought not to have insisted on any further evidence in that regard.”, the bench observed.

Non-Mentioning Of Specific POCSO Provision Wasn't Material : Supreme Court Affirms Conviction

Cause Title: SUPTAN MARAK VERSUS STATE OF TRIPURA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 715

The Supreme Court has held that the failure of a trial court or a High Court to specifically mention sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act while convicting an accused did not vitiate the conviction or sentence, as the facts of the case clearly attract that provision..

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar refused to interfere with the conviction of a man under Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, for committing an offence of penetrative sexual assault against a child.

Section 4(2) of POCSO mandates strict punishment for penetrative sexual assault committed against a child. The provision is attracted once the child's age is proved to be below 16 years and imposes a minimum sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, which can be extended till the remainder of life.

Mere Transfer Of Defrauded Amount To Accused's Account Doesn't Establish Same Transaction To Club FIRs : Supreme Court

Cause Title: RUTVIJ BHAGAT SINGH WAKHARE Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC 716

The Supreme Court (July 24) refused to grant relief of clubbing of FIRs to a person accused of cyber fraud, noting that mere involvement of the accused bank account for the purpose of transferring the defrauded amounts would not be sufficient to hold that the incidents form the part of the same transaction to justify clubbing of FIRs.

The Court noted that each FIR had been lodged by a different complainant who was allegedly induced to part with money on different occasions. The mere fact that part of the defrauded amounts allegedly reached the petitioner's bank account did not establish a "live link or connectivity" between the separate incidents, it held.

“The mere fact that a part of the defrauded amounts is alleged to have been transferred in the bank account of petitioner's proprietary concern does not, by itself, establish that all the incidents form part of the same transaction. Though the alleged modus operandi appears to be similar, the victims, the amounts involved, the transactions complained of and the consequences suffered are distinct. Prima facie, therefore, the subject FIRs relate to separate transactions disclosing distinct offences and cannot be said to arise out of the same transaction.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

Stamp Duty On Mining Leases Based On Anticipated Royalty, Not Dead Rent : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 717

The Supreme Court (July 23) ruled that stamp duty payable on mining leases must be calculated based on anticipated royalty and not dead rent.

Relying on the proviso to Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to uphold the levy of stamp duty by the District Collector on the anticipated royalty, instead of dead rent.

“As reproduced supra, the Section deals with payment of stamp duty in cases where at the time of the execution of the agreement, the value of the subject matter is indeterminate. The proviso (proviso to Section 26) thereto, deals specifically with mining leases and provides that in such cases the estimated royalty or value of the share thereof shall be sufficient for the purposes of determining stamp duty. It further clarifies that in cases where the government is the lessor, the estimation is to be carried out by the Collector.”, the Court observed.

TRAI's Direction To Comply With Regulations Is Not 'Adjudication' : Supreme Court

Cause Title: TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VERSUS M/S POLIMER CABLE NETWORK AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 718

The Supreme Court (July 24) held that a direction of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to comply with the provisions of the Act cannot be termed as 'adjudication' under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.

“A direction to obey a regulation operates upon the regulated entity in the discharge of TRAI's regulatory function under Section 11(1)(b) read with Section 13; it is not a determination of a lis inter se…Accordingly, neither the direction nor the Show Cause Notice bears the essential attributes of “adjudication”, and TRAI has not trespassed upon the exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction of the TDSAT.”, observed a bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria, while setting aside the TDSAT findings, which held against the TRAI's regulatory power to issue direction under the Act.

The case relates to the issuance of a show cause notice by the TRAI to the Multi-System Operator (“MSO”) based on the Local Cable Operators' complaint to TRAI that the MSO had abruptly disconnected the cable television signals for which the LCOs had contracted.

Supreme Court Directs Centre, CBSE To Amend APAAR Consent Form To Give Opt-Out/Refuse Option; Restricts Third-Party Sharing Of Data

Case Details : ABHISHEK BAXI Vs UNION OF INDIA|WP.(C) No. 832/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 719

The Supreme Court directedthe Union Government and the Central Board of Secondary Education to amend the model consent form prescribed under the Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (APAAR) Scheme to expressly provide an option enabling parents or guardians to withhold or refuse consent.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the directions contained in paragraph 19 of an Orissa High Court judgment in Rohit Anand Das v State of Odisha(2025) should be given effect to on a pan-India basis by the authorities implementing the APAAR scheme.

In paragraph 19, the High Court had directed: "Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis made hereinbefore, this Court finds that the Petitioners have made out a good case for interference by this Court. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The opposite party-authorities are directed to consider amendment of the model consent form to include an opt out/refusal of consent option therein. The model consent form incorporating such changes as provided by learned counsel for the Petitioners to the learned DSGI may also be considered. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within two months from today."

Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Case Lodged By Wife Against Husband's Sister, Flags Trend Of Dragging In-Laws Into Family Dispute

Case : AS v State of Maharashtra

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 720

The Supreme Court observed that it has become customary for in-laws to be dragged into criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes and children are often used to vilify each other.

“It is commonplace, nay customary that in-laws are dragged in to settle scores in cases arising out of marital discord and often children are used to vilify each other”, the Court observed.

The Court made this observation while quashing a POCSO case against a woman accused of sexually assaulting her five-year-old nephew, highlighting that the case was allegedly a counterblast to another case against the complainant-mother's brother.

Art. 311(2) | Confirmed Public Servant Can't Be Terminated Over Alleged Illegal Appointment Without Inquiry: Supreme Court

Cause Title: DEBASHISH MOHAPATRA & ORS. VS. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, JAGATSINGHPUR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 721

The Supreme Court has ruled that a public servant whose service is confirmed cannot be terminated from the office merely because there was an alleged illegality in appointment. The Court said that a termination without holding a departmental inquiry would be violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

“Confirmation in service is not a mere administrative formality but it confers upon an employee a substantive status carrying with it enhanced security of tenure and the protection of constitutional safeguards available to a civil servant. Once the appellants had attained the status of confirmed employees, their services could not have been terminated by a simpliciter administrative order founded upon allegations touching the validity of their appointments. Whether the appointments suffered from illegality, whether the appellants had any role to play therein, and whether such illegality warranted termination were all matters requiring adjudication in accordance with the procedure contemplated by Article 311(2).”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while reinstating a service of a Copyist in a office of District & Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, Orissa who was terminated from the service in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

What Does Article 311(2) of the Constitution Say on Termination of a Public Servant?

S. 38 BNSS | Advocate Of Accused Cannot Remain Present Throughout Police Interrogation : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Clarifying the scope of Section 38 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Supreme Court (July 27) held that the provision entitles an arrested person to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation but does not contemplate continuous physical presence throughout the interrogation.

“A plain reading of the provision makes it clear that the right guaranteed thereunder is the right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation. It does not, by any means, contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session, whatever be the visual or audible distance maintained.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the High Court's decision to put a mandatory condition of nominating two advocates to be present at the prison during the respondent-accused's police custody. Moreover, one advocate was permitted to remain present 'at any given point of time during the accused's interrogation'.

New Criminal Law Allows Police Custody Beyond First 15 Days : Supreme Court Explains S.187(2) BNSS

Cause Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Observing that police custody under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not confined to the initial fifteen days of remand and may be sought in parts within the statutory period, the Supreme Court (July 27) set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's condition prohibiting extension of the accused's police custody beyond the first fifteen days of remand.

“Section 187(2) and (3) BNSS, unlike the erstwhile Section 167 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enlarges the window during which police custody, in the aggregate not exceeding fifteen days, may be sought by the investigating agency, such custody being available in parts, during the first forty or sixty days of the total permissible period of detention, rather than being confined to the first fifteen days of remand alone.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The case arises from the alleged custodial death of one-Gade Sai Krishna, who was apprehended by police personnel on May 6, 2026, and allegedly brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada. According to the prosecution, the victim was never produced before a Magistrate and subsequently went missing. His body remains untraced.

IBC Moratorium Against Company Doesn't Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters, Directors : Supreme Court

Cause Title: TEJAS J. SHAH & AMISHA T. SHAH & ORS. VERSUS MANTRI TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT.LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS BUOYANT TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT.LTD.) & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 723

The Supreme Court (July 27) observed that an operation of a moratorium under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against a residential project development company would not be a ground to reject the consumer complaints against its promoters/directors.

“In the present case, Respondent No.1 alone is the corporate debtor against whom the CIRP has been initiated. No independent moratorium or independent protection operates in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 7. In the absence of any legal bar against continuation of proceedings qua the said respondents, the NCDRC was not justified in rejecting appellants' prayer to proceed with the complaint against the rest of the respondents.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while setting aside the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) order which rejected the Appellant's application seeking the continuance of the consumer complaint proceedings against the other respondents.

The Court said that since the moratorium was in operation against the Respondent no. 1-company, it would not bar the continuation of a consumer complaint against other respondents. [See Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 284]

S.457 CrPC | Registration Certificate Alone Not Sole Factor For Interim Release Of Seized Vehicles: Supreme Court

Cause Title: KRISHNAN NARAYANA VERSUS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 724

The Supreme Court (July 27) held that registration certificate alone are not determinative of entitlement to interim custody of vehicles under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC.

“Registration is a relevant factor, but it is evidentiary and not conclusive of entitlement to interim possession.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while dismissing an appeal of a company's director who challenged the interim release of vehicles in favour of the Respondents.

The appellant was a director of M/s Pure Minerals and also an 80% shareholder of the respondent company, M/s Earth Stein Private Limited. The subject vehicles one Bolero City Pick-up, three Excavators, and one Ashok Leyland Tipper were purchased in the name of M/s Pure Minerals between 2014 and 2022.

GST | 'ITC Available To Buyer Only If Supplier Paid Tax', Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of S. 16(2)(c) Of CGST Act

Cause Title: Bhandari Scrap Traders v. Union of India & Ors. (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 725

The Supreme Court has affirmed the Gujarat High Court's judgment, which held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) can be availed only if the supplier has actually paid the tax to the government.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva dismissed a batch of petitions filed against the Gujarat High Court's judgment, which had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which requires that a buyer cannot claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) unless the seller has actually paid the collected tax to the government.

“…the High Court was fully justified in holding that no grounds were made out to declare Section 16(2) (c) of the CGST Act as unconstitutional or read down the provisions thereof. We find ourselves in complete and respectful agreement with the views expressed by the High Court of Gujarat and affirm and uphold the impugned judgment.”, the Court said.

Res Judicata Applies To Successive Impleadment Applications Under Different CPC Provisions: Supreme Court

Cause Title: SANJIV KUMAR VERSUS SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 726

The Supreme Court (July 27) held that where an application for impleadment has been rejected on merits under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, a subsequent application seeking the same relief under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, provided it is based on the same cause, between the same parties litigating under the same title, and is decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

"Where the Order I Rule 10 application was considered and rejected on its merits i.e., the court actually examined the transferee's claim, the genuineness/bona fides of the transfer, and the nature of the interest, and that order was not appealed or reviewed, a second application under Order XXII Rule 10 raising the claim based on the same transfer, same interest, same facts would ordinarily be barred by the principles of res judicata as issue has been decided on merits and attained finality.”, the Court observed.

The Court, however, clarified the bar of res judicata would not be applicable on a subsequent application for an impleadment, when the rejection of an earlier application “…was on a technical or procedural ground without an adjudication on the merits of the transferee's interest, or there is a fresh devolution or assignment after the rejection of an application under Order I Rule 10, giving rise to a distinct cause not earlier considered, or when the earlier order is itself under challenge and has not attained finality.”

Evidence Act | Section 27 Recoveries Alone Can't Sustain Conviction : Supreme Court Restores Acquittal In 1988 Murder Case

Cause Title: Khalil Pasha & Ors. Versus Abdul Rasheed & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 727

The Supreme Court (July 28) restored the acquittal of six men in a 1988 murder case, observing that recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 23 BSA) cannot, by itself, form the basis of a conviction unless the recovered material is clearly connected with the offence through independent evidence.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the prosecution had relied on the recovery of a weapon at the instance of Accused No. 4 and the seizure of clothes belonging to Accused No. 2. Although forensic examination detected human blood on these articles, the prosecution failed to establish that the blood was that of the deceased or otherwise connect the recovered articles with the murder.

The case related to the murder of one Qavi on February 14, 1988. The deceased's brother had challenged the acquittal before the Bombay High Court through a criminal revision petition. After an earlier remand by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds, the High Court had again directed the trial court to reconsider the evidence of eyewitnesses, recoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the chemical analysis report, while upholding the trial court's rejection of the alleged dying declarations.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Mechanism For Urgent Hearings Beyond Regular Hours, Says E-Filing Allows Anytime Access

Case Title: MAHERAVISH REIN v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 376/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 728

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking an institutional mechanism for urgent hearing of cases involving life and personal liberty (outside regular court hours).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted that the grievance of the petitioner stood adequately addressed in view of the existing institutional and procedural framework governing access to constitutional courts.

The Court however left it open for the petitioner, or any other stakeholder, to make a representation before the Registrar General of the concerned High Court, or the Chief Justice of India/Chief Justice of High Court (as the case may be) in case of individual grievances experienced in practice, which shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

National Scheduled Castes Commission Has No Adjudicatory Role; Only Advisory : Supreme Court Quashes Order In Service Dispute

Cause Title: MUMBAI PORT AUTHORITY VERSUS NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Observing that the National Commission for Schedule Caste (NCSC) is a recommendatory and advisory body having no authority to pass an adjudicatory order, the Supreme Court (July 28) declared the NCSC order to be non-binding, in which the NCSC had ordered payment of arrears and other reliefs in a service-related matter.

“The powers entrusted to NCSC are limited in nature. Clearly NCSC and its other compatriots under Articles 338A and 338B are Constitutional Bodies with a socially beneficent purpose but quite apparently, the Legislature has prescribed a role that is recommendatory and advisory, but certainly not adjudicatory. They are not meant to be bodies taking over adjudicatory functions.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, which had upheld the NCSC order passed while adjudicating a service-related dispute.

This was the case where the Respondent No. 3, a Scheduled Caste employee of Mumbai Port Authority, was promoted under a 2002 Office Memorandum (OM). However, the 2002 OM superseded the 1997 OM on seniority.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Two UAPA Accused In Jail For 12 Years, Says Slow Trial Violated Article 21

Cause Title: MOHD. SAQUIB ANSARI VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 730

The Supreme Court has granted bail to two accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), observing that their continued incarceration for nearly 12 years with no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial amounted to a violation of their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the release of Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar on bail in connection with FIR No. 54 of 2011 registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court and provided they are not required in any other case.

The petitioners had challenged a common judgment of the Delhi High Court dated April 24, 2026, which upheld the trial court's rejection of their bail applications under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

MRTP Act | Denying Refund Of Unused Additional FSI Premium For Housing Projects Arbitrary : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Prasad Pandurang Tapkir and another versus The Assistant Director of Town Planning, Pune District, Pune and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 731

The Supreme Court has held that housing project owners cannot be denied a refund of the premium paid for unutilised additional Floor Space Index (FSI) merely because there is no specific legal provision permitting such a refund. The Court said that when the benefit of refund is extended to educational institutions, medical institutions and star-category hotels, not extending the same to the housing projects is against the principle of right to equality.

The FSI Regulations were framed in exercise of powers under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

The Court directed the Maharashtra government to refund the premium paid by landowners for additional Floor Space Index (FSI) that was never utilized, holding that the State cannot unjustly retain such amounts merely because the statutory regulations do not expressly provide for a refund. The Court ruled that such a distinction was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

O VII 7 CPC | Lesser Relief Can Be Decreed, But Not Totally Different Claim : Supreme Court Declines To Allow Partition In Title Suit

Cause Title: Maragadham versus Periyaraja and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 732

Declining to grant the relief of partition in a suit seeking a declaration of title, the Supreme Court clarified that while Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the grant of a lesser or alternative relief flowing from the facts already pleaded and proved, it cannot be invoked to award a relief such as partition, which is based on a distinct cause of action and requires a separate factual foundation.

“…we may note that Order VII Rule 7 CPC authorizes the Court to grant a smaller relief than the larger relief claimed, if entitlement therefor is made out on facts. However, such discretion would not be available when a plaintiff sets up an altogether different case from the one ultimately found established on facts and in law by the Court.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.

The Appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession based on the gift deed executed in her favor by her grandfather. The trial court decreed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the same, whose decision was upheld by the High Court.

Service Benefits Can't Be Denied Citing Absence Of ACRs Not Attributable To Employee: Supreme Court

Case : High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v Abhay Jain

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 733

The Supreme Court has held that a judicial officer who was wrongfully discharged from service cannot be denied Selection Scale and Super Time Scale merely because Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were unavailable for the period when he was under wrongful discharge.   Holding that an employer cannot take advantage of its own wrong, the Court ruled that where the absence of ACRs is attributable to the employer, the officer's entitlement must be assessed on the basis of the remaining valid ACRs.

"We hold that where the non-availability of the requisite ACRs is attributable to the employer, the employee's entitlement to the promotion/pay in question is required to be assessed on the basis of the remaining valid ACRs," the Court stated.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed the ruling while deciding an application filed by the Rajasthan High Court seeking clarification of the Supreme Court's March 15, 2022 judgment, which had quashed the discharge of Additional District Judge Abhay Jain and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service, seniority, all consequential benefits and 50% back wages.

Supreme Court Holds OTIS Liable For RAW Officer's Death Due To Lift Malfunction, Says Elevator Makers Have High Duty Of Care

Cause Title: M/S OTIS ELEVATOR CO. (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS RASHMI HANDA & ORS. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 734

The Supreme Court (July 29) upheld the liability of OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd. for the death of a Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) officer who was crushed to death in a lift malfunction at the RAW headquarters in New Delhi in 2003.

Dismissing OTIS's appeal against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held OTIS, being a manufacturer as well as comprehensive maintenance contractor, liable for the officer's death due to malfunction of the lift caused by fluctuation in the voltage, which remained unaddressed by the Elevator company for about eight months.

“A party that undertakes the comprehensive maintenance of a machine, which is in the nature of a vehicle, owes a heightened duty of care towards its users. OTIS was not a stranger to the defect that culminated in the accident. It was cognizant of the problem, and it had itself proposed the remedy. Having done so, its failure to ensure that the remedy was implemented, or, alternatively, to render the lift safe by other means pending its installation constitutes deficiency of service.”, the Court held.

Centre Can Allow Post-Facto Environmental Clearance Only By Statutory Notification : Supreme Court Quashes 2021 OM Prospectively

Case: Vanashakti v. Union of India

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1394/2023 (Diary No. 50009/2023)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 735

The Supreme Court held that while the Central Government has the power to provide for the grant of post-facto environmental clearances (ECs) through valid statutory notifications issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, it cannot do so through a mere administrative office memorandum.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi accordingly quashed the Union government's 2021 Office Memorandum (OM), which created a mechanism for granting environmental clearance to projects that had commenced operations without obtaining prior EC. However, the Court gave the ruling prospective effect and protected clearances already granted under the impugned regime.

The Bench held that the 2021 OM was ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 because it sought to alter the existing environmental clearance framework through an administrative order rather than a statutory notification.

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Sentences Of Imprisonment For Remainder Of Natural Life Without Remission

Cause Title: RAMASREY @ FAKKAD VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 736

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of sentences directing imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's natural life, dismissing a batch of writ petitions that challenged such punishments as unconstitutional and contrary to the statutory remission framework.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih rejected petitions filed by four sets of convicts, including death row prisoners whose sentences had either been commuted by constitutional authorities or modified by courts to imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives.

The petitioners argued that the Indian Penal Code (IPC) recognized only two punishments for murder under Section 302 - death and life imprisonment - and did not contemplate a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission. They also contended that such sentences defeated the statutory remission powers available under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Supreme Court Criticises High Court Judge For Dealing With Case Of Former Client

Cause Title: PRATEEK RESORTS AND BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS PUNEET AGRAWAL & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 737

Observing that judges should not entertain proceedings either for or against their former clients, the Supreme Court disapproved the conduct of a single judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, who, while hearing a writ petition on an unrelated issue, expanded the scope of the proceedings to examine matters concerning land owned by his former client.

The Court noted that the Judge had earlier represented Prateek Resorts & Builders Private Limited, and the land involved in that previous case was the very same land which is the subject matter of enquiry before the said Judge in the present proceedings. The Bench also noted that the company had moved an impleadment application before the High Court, which was still pending consideration.

Disapproving the conduct of the Judge, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed : “…in the interest of judicial propriety, the learned Judge ought not to have entertained and passed orders in the matter. Trite to state, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Passing orders either in favour of or against a former client, a private entity, does not further that cause.”

Supreme Court Deprecates Political Pressure Dictating Prosecution Sanction, Raps Rajasthan Govt

Case Details: State of Rajasthan & Ors v Dev Kant Meena|Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2951 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 738

The Supreme Court criticised the State of Rajasthan for changing its stance, under the influence of political dictate, on granting prosecution sanction which was earlier declined. It remarked that prosecution sanctions are meant to safeguard innocent public servants from frivolous harassment and can't resemble the dilemma in Hamlet's Soliloquy: to be or not to be.

"The decision-making process under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot resemble the dilemma in 'Hamlet's Soliloquy': 'to be or not to be', though expressed in a different context. If there is ambivalence, it could be presumed that extraneous considerations weighed and here is a case where political dictate is blatantly displayed."

The observations were made in a case concerning an accusation of bribery against a government doctor. Initially, the State declined sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, under "extraneous considerations", the State changed its position and granted sanction for prosecution.

PC Act | Decision To Refuse Prosecution Sanction Can't Be Reviewed On Same Materials : Supreme Court

Cause Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Dev Kant Meena

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 738

The Supreme Court observed that an order denying sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be reviewed by the appropriate authority unless fresh material emerges which was not available at the earlier instance.

"A mere change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for review or reconsideration of an earlier order, refusing to grant sanction.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while affirming the Rajasthan High Court's decision to quash the reviewed sanction order granted against the Respondent Doctor.

The Court cited various precedents, including State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti (2009) 17 SCC 92 where it was held that "when a decision is taken to decline sanction by the appropriate authority, reviewing such order on the very same material would not be appropriate or permissible."

Supreme Court Grants Uttarakhand Deputy Collectors Seniority Benefit From Initial Ad Hoc Promotion

Cause Title: THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VERSUS JAGDISH CHANDRA KANDPAL & ORS., JAGDISH CHANDRA KANDPAL & ORS. V. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.,

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 739

The Supreme Court has held that Deputy Collectors in Uttarakhand who were promoted on an ad hoc basis in 2007 are entitled to count their continuous officiating service towards seniority, ruling that the State Government cannot deny them the benefit because of its own failure to consult the Public Service Commission as required under the rules.

A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe allowed the appeal filed by the promotee officers while dismissing the appeals preferred by the State Government and direct recruits. The Court directed the State Government to grant the promotees regular appointment to the post of Deputy Collector with effect from October 1, 2007 and issue a revised seniority list within three months.

The dispute arose after a batch of Tehsildars was promoted as Deputy Collectors on an ad hoc basis on October 1, 2007 due to an acute shortage of Civil Service officers in the State. They continued in the post until their regular promotion in May 2012. Direct recruits appointed in 2009 challenged the claim of the promotees to count their ad hoc service for seniority, contending that the initial appointments were merely stop-gap arrangements made dehors the statutory rules.

Reach Stacker Is Not A 'Motor Vehicle' Under MV Act, Accident Victim Can't Approach MACT: Supreme Court

Case : Container Corporation of India Ltd v Rishi Ranjan Mishra

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 740

The Supreme Court has held that a Reach Stacker, a heavy container-handling machine used within Inland Container Depots (ICDs), is not a "motor vehicle" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and therefore a compensation claim arising from an accident involving such a machine is not maintainable before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed an appeal filed by the Container Corporation of India Limited (CONCOR) and restored the MACT's order dismissing a compensation claim filed by an accident victim.

The case arose from an accident at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, where the claimant was run over by a Reach Stacker in September 2013, resulting in severe injuries and amputation of his right leg. He sought compensation of ₹75 lakh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. While the MACT held that the claim was not maintainable, the Delhi High Court reversed that decision, holding that a Reach Stacker was a motor vehicle. The Supreme Court has now set aside the High Court's ruling.

Indian Succession Act | How Does Wife's Property Devolve After Death? Supreme Court Explains Christian Inheritance

Cause Title: SHAKUNTALA & ORS. VERSUS ROBERT ANTHONY & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 741

The Supreme Court (July 30) clarified that under Christian succession law, a property purchased by a husband in the name of his wife remains the wife's exclusive property. Consequently, upon her death, succession to such property must be determined based on her ownership and cannot be treated as the husband's estate for the purpose of applying Section 33 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard an appeal filed against a Chhattisgarh High Court judgment which treated property standing in the name of a deceased wife as part of her husband's estate and applied Section 33 of the Indian Succession Act.

Section 33 of the ISA provides that where a male intestate leaves a widow and lineal descendants, one-third of his property goes to the widow and two-thirds to lineal descendants.

Supreme Court Highlights Consequences Of Driving With Expired License, Urges Centre To Spread Awareness

Cause Title: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VERSUS OM PARKASH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 742

Observing that the insurer would not be held liable when the driver did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident, the Supreme Court (July 30) urged the Union Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to undertake nationwide awareness campaigns to emphasize the importance of valid driving licenses and streamline the process of issuance and renewal.

“The Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India, as also the respective counterparts of the States should, we may suggest, undertake campaigns through all mediums such as awareness drives, social media, etc. to drive home this importance; introduce measures to ensure strict compliance; and also streamline the process of issuance/renewal of licenses. Other issues such as regulation of driving schools, the affordability thereof, and accessibility in terms of regional languages, when it comes to applications and tests, etc. also need urgent attention.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

The aforesaid observation of the bench came while hearing an appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment, which held the insurer liable to pay compensation to the claimants despite the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle whose driver lacked a valid driving license.

Administrative Action Cannot Be Struck Down Merely Because It Was Not Issued As A Formal Order : Supreme Court

Cause Title: S. P. CHANDRAKAR VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 743

The Supreme Court (July 30) held that when an authority possesses a power under a relevant statute to take an action, the mere fact that the action is styled as a "circular" or "communication" rather than a formal "order" does not invalidate it.

“Once the power exists and it is clear that this particular power has been exercised, the style under which it was exercised would not denude or weaken the authority enabling it to exercise such power.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

In this case, the Appellant, a district cooperative bank employee holding a technical post of Assistant Engineer, was promoted to the post of Additional Manager, following a circular issued by the Registrar deleting the Rule 5(3)(a) of the Chhattisgarh District Cooperative Central Bank Employee Service (Employment, Terms and their Working Conditions) Rules, 1982 that created a bar on the promotion of a technical post holder to the post of Additional Manager.

Appeal Won't Lie Under S.374 CrPC/415 BNSS Against Sessions Court's Reversal Of Acquittal : Supreme Court

Cause Title: VISHNU KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 744

The Supreme Court (July 30) held that no statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC would be maintainable before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, overturning the trial court's decision of acquittal. The Court said that the only remedy would be to file a revision petition before the High Court against the Sessions Court decision of reversing an acquittal.

“…an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is not maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court. The only remedy which is available, is that of filing a revision under Section 397 r/w 401 (corresponding to Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).”, observed a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

The Court reasoned that since the decision of the Sessions Court to reverse the trial court's decision of acquittal was not passed 'on a trial' but by exercising an Appellate jurisdiction, a remedy of a statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC cannot be invoked to file a statutory appeal against the Sessions Court order of reversing an acquittal.

Compassionate Appointment Policy Can't Exclude Married Daughters : Supreme Court

Case: Sayara Khatoon @ Shajara Khatoon & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11623 of 2026.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 745

The Supreme Court has held that a compassionate appointment policy cannot restrict eligibility to only divorced or deserted daughters while excluding other married daughters, ruling that such a classification is unconstitutional and violative of the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale struck down the relevant condition in the Bihar Government's policy dated December 10, 2014, while allowing the appeal filed by a woman whose claim for compassionate appointment following the death of her father had been rejected on the ground that she was neither divorced nor deserted.

The Court observed that it has consistently held that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is unconstitutional.

Supreme Court Flags Stray Cattle Menace On Roads, Says States Must Compensate Victims

Case : Nisha v. Municipal Council Sangrur

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 746

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the growing number of road accidents involving stray cattle and urged the Centre and State Governments to strengthen enforcement of existing laws while introducing a comprehensive mechanism to prevent such incidents and compensate victims.

Observing that bovine-related accidents are "not few and far between", the Court said stray cattle wandering on roads and highways pose a serious threat to both human and animal life.

"They are not meant to be natural speed breakers, placed willy-nilly on the National Highways, roads and streets," a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh remarked while deciding an appeal arising from the death of a man who was attacked by a stray bull in Punjab.

Witness Testimony Recorded Without S.299 CrPC Order Can't Be Later Used Against Accused Who Absconded : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mahendra Singh Versus The State of Chhattisgarh

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 747

The Supreme Court (July 31) observed that evidence recorded in a trial against one accused cannot be used against an absconding accused in a subsequent trial unless an order under Section 299 Cr.P.C. / Section 335 BNSS was passed establishing the two jurisdictional facts, i.e., the accused was absconding and that there was no immediate prospect of arresting him.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the murder conviction of the appellant, who had absconded during the trial against his co-accused in 1999 and was later convicted in a separate trial. His conviction was based on the testimony of a deceased witness whch was recorded in the previous trial against the co-accused.

The Court held that since no formal order under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. was passed to establish the jurisdictional facts, namely, that the accused was absconding and that there was no immediate prospect of his arrest, the testimony of the deceased witness recorded in the earlier trial could not be used in a trial against the appellant, following his arrest in 2017.

S. 125 CrPC | Wife Can Be Denied Interim Maintenance If Husband Ex Facie Shows Her Adulterous Relationship : Supreme Court

Cause Title: HIMANSHU CHORDIA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 748

The Supreme Court (July 31) held that an interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. can be denied to the wife once the husband ex facie establishes the wife's adulterous relation at the stage of an interim maintenance.

“…we are of the view that if a husband files an application under Section 125(4) and is, at the first instance, able to establish the charge through evidence ex facie, then only, there can be said to be a bar to interim maintenance.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, while allowing the appeal filed by a husband whose application under Section 125(4) alleging adultery was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the issue could only be decided at the stage of final adjudication.

The appellant, husband, married to the Respondent No. 2, wife, in 2014. Due to strained relations, the wife left the matrimonial home in 2020, along with the child and valuables. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance.

Supreme Court Suggests Making Of Law To Regulate Private Detectives

Cause Title: HIMANSHU CHORDIA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 748

The Supreme Court (July 31) urged the Union Government and the Law Commission of India to consider framing a legal framework to regulate the functioning of private detective agencies, observing that the absence of statutory safeguards raises concerns over privacy violations and misuse of investigative powers.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi said there is an urgent need for a mechanism that lays down professional standards for private investigators while also providing remedies for individuals whose rights may be infringed.

“Checks and measures are perhaps required, drawn from the areas of the law, law enforcement, privacy experts, etc., that can deal with issues arising out of such endeavours, including acting as a grievance redressal forum for any individual who may be aggrieved by the actions of the private investigator having overstepped professional bounds and gone into violating the rights of the individual… the need to develop our mechanism for dealing with these scenarios cannot be underscored enough. The legislature would obviously need to undertake its own examination of all relevant issues and frame rules/regulations in accordance with the prevalent norms and conditions, but can also make reference to other jurisdictions where laws of similar nature exist, for example, the State of Queensland in Australia, the Province of Ontario and Canada, the Netherlands, Singapore, etc.”, observed the Court.

Orders and Other Developments

Tamil Nadu Govt Moves Supreme Court Against Madras High Court Order Banning Cow Slaughter

Case : The Secretary to the Government v. K Surya alias K Surya Prasanth | Diary No.36054/2026

The Tamil Nadu Government has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's order which imposed a blanket ban on the slaughter of cows and calves in the State.

The State has argued that the High Court's order was contrary to the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958, which permits the slaughter of cows aged over 10 years that are unfit for work and breeding, on the basis of a certificate issued by the competent authority. Apart from the said law, other applicable statutes such as Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023 regulate the conditions under which animals may be slaughtered but do not impose a total prohibition. By directing a complete ban, the High Court has, according to the State, substituted judicial legislation for statutory law.

The High Court bench comprising Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan passed the order on May 27, on the eve of Bakrid, on a Public Interest Litigation filed by K Surya Prasanth, the General Secretary of Hindu Makkal Katchi. Though the petitioner's prayer was for directions to ensure that slaughter takes place only in designated places, the High Court passed a blanket order banning the slaughter of cows and calves anywhere on any day.

'Rs.370 Biryani' Row : Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Regulation Of Stand-Up Comedy, Social Media Misinformation

Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No.38757/2026

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a comprehensive regulatory framework for stand-up comedy, podcasts, live streaming platforms and other user-generated digital content, citing the viral "Rs 370 Biryani" controversy as one of the instances demonstrating the need for constitutional safeguards in the digital age.

The petition, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari under Article 32 of the Constitution, contends that while the "Rs 370 Biryani" episode should not invite penal action against any individual comedian or content creator, it shows how algorithm-driven social media platforms can amplify controversial remarks to millions of users, influencing public attitudes towards women, consent and dignity.

According to the plea, the controversy, which arose from a stand-up comedy show hosted by Pranit More,  where a man in the audience shared an experience from a date where he expressed entitlement for sex because he spent Rs 370 for a biryani for the woman, demonstrates that "the digital architecture of amplification demands a corresponding framework of responsibility." The petitioner clarifies that the constitutional issue is not whether humour, satire or artistic liberty should be curtailed, but whether viral amplification of such content requires institutional safeguards consistent with Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Honeymoon Murder Case : Meghalaya Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Sonam Raghuvanshi's Bail

The State of Meghalaya has approached the Supreme Court challenging theMeghalaya High Court's order upholding the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime suspect in the chilling May 2025 "honeymoon murder" of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta mentioned the State's petition before a partial working days bench led by Justice MM Sundresh for urgent listing.

SG Mehta submitted that bail was granted solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not fully supplied to her at the time of arrest. The SG said that the non-supply concerned a provision that was wrongly cited due to a typographical error. Saying that there was a chance of the accused absconding, the SG sought urgent listing.

Is Habeas Plea Maintainable Against Detention Due To Successive Arrests After Bail Rejection? Supreme Court To Decide

Case Title: HAJI ABDUL RAZZAK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 11812/2026

The Supreme Court is set to consider whether a habeas corpus petition challenging the continued detention of a person due to successive arrests is maintainable after bail has been denied to him.

A partial Court working days bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu on July 1 issued notice on the plea of one Haji Abdul Razzak, who is stated to be in custody since August 2021 despite not having been supplied written grounds of arrest (as mandated by law).

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, for Razzak, referred to the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and highlighted that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to Razzak in writing. He further assailed the High Court's dismissal of Razzak's habeas corpus petition solely on the ground that his bail had been rejected.

Supreme Court Declines Urgent Listing Of Plea Against Madras High Court Order Setting Aside Recruitment Of 17 PAs To Judges

Case Title: K Vedhambika and Ors. v. The Registrar General Madras High Court, Diary No.38911/2026

The Supreme Court declined urgent listing of a plea challenging the Madras High Courtorderwhich set aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants to its Judges. In the impugned order, the High Court had held that the entire selection process was arbitrary and without consideration of merit.

The matter was mentioned before a partial Court working days bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu by Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu. The senior counsel sought listing of the matter, contending that High Court is likely to suffer due to the setting aside of appointments of 23 PAs.

"Not tomorrow", Justice Sundresh said in response.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Manipur High Court's Extension Of Panchayat Election Deadline To October 16

Cause Title: PHEIROIJAM HERAMANI AND ORS. Versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS., Diary No. 35434-2026

The Supreme Court (July 2) declined to entertain a plea challenging the extension of the deadline for conducting Panchayat elections in the State of Manipur until October 16, 2026, observing that the High Court had already issued a specific direction requiring the State Election Commission to complete the electoral process within the stipulated period.

A partial court working days bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice NV Anjaria heard a plea seeking a modification of the High Court's earlier directions, which permitted the State and the State Election Commission to conduct Panchayat elections on or before October 16, 2026.

The petitioner submitted that representatives had demitted office in 2022 and that the democratic mandate had expired nearly four years ago, moreover, despite repeated assurances before the courts, the State had failed to conduct elections within the timelines previously indicated.

Justice BV Nagarathna Appointed Chairperson Of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

The Chief Justice of India has nominated Supreme Court Judge Justice Bangalore Venkataramiah (BV) Nagarathna as the Chairperson of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) with effect from June 29, 2026.

This follows the retirement of Justice JK Maheshwari, who was heading the SCLSC earlier. As per convention, the third senior judge of the Supreme Court heads the SCLSC.

The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee functions under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and is responsible for providing free legal services to eligible persons in matters before the Supreme Court. It also processes applications for legal aid and appoints legal services counsel for beneficiaries in deserving cases.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Sonam Raghuvanshi's Bail In Honeymoon Murder Case

Case : STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SONAM RAGHUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU | SLP(Crl) No. 11944/2026

The Supreme Court (July 3) refused to stay the bail grantedto Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime suspect in the chilling May 2025 "honeymoon murder" of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, even though it prima facie expressed reservations with the High Court's judgment upholding the bail granted to her only on the ground of a typographical error in quoting a section in the arrest memo.

Nevertheless, noting that the woman has already been released, the Court declined to stay the order, although it agreed to consider the petition filed by the State of Meghalaya challenging the bail order.

A partial working days bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu issued notice to the respondent seeking their response.

DMK Moves Supreme Court Against TN Minister's Statements On Karur Stampede, Objects To CM Vijay Meeting Families

The Organising Secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), R.S. Bharathi, has moved the Supreme Court seeking to be impleaded in the pending proceedings relating to the Karur stampede case, urging the Court to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, TN Minister Aadhav Arjuna and other accused persons from making public statements on the ongoing CBI investigation and to regulate their interaction with victims' families during the pendency of the probe.

The application has been filed in the Special Leave Petition in which the Supreme Court had,by its order dated October 13, 2025, transferred the investigation into the September 27, 2025 Karur stampede to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the supervision of a committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi.

The stampede occurred during a public meeting organised by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), resulting in the death of 41 persons and injuries to 142 others. According to the impleadment application, the State's preliminary investigation attributed the tragedy to several factors, including alleged under-declaration of the expected crowd, mobilisation of cadres beyond the declared numbers, delayed arrival of TVK leader Vijay, failure to provide basic amenities, disregard of police safety instructions, and movement of the campaign vehicle into an already overcrowded venue.

'Such Instances Rising': Solicitor General Cites Ketan Agarwal Death While Opposing Bail In Meghalaya Honeymoon Murder Case

Case Title: STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SONAM RAGHUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU | SLP(Crl) No. 11944/2026

During thehearing of the Meghalaya State's challengeto the bail of Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime suspect in the chilling 'honeymoon murder' of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta cited Ketan Agarwal death case before the Supreme Court.

The SG, appearing for the State of Meghalaya, stated that facts of the Raja Raghuvanshi case would shock the Court's conscience and the same were "really painful". Referring to the recent Lohagad Fort case related to the death of 26 year old Ketan Agarwal, who is alleged to have been killed by his fiancé Siya Goyal and her "lover" Chetan Chaudhary, the SG lamented that "such incidents are increasing".

Responding to the submission on Raja Raghuvanshi's death case, Justice MM Sundresh said that some introspection is required by different stakeholders. The judge also drew the SG's attention to a judgment by the Court in a "sensational case from Bengaluru", while refusing to comment any further.

23 Opposition Parties Write To CJI Alleging Electoral Malpractices Under BJP Rule; Say ED, CBI Used To Topple Elected Govts

Few opposition parties have written a letter to the Supreme Court expressing concern about manipulation of the electoral process in the country, saying that in many instances, the results of the elections did not reflect the will of the people.

The letter is addressed to all the Supreme Court judges, through CJI Surya Kant, and has been signed by "like-minded" parties "opposed to the BJP", such as the Indian National Congress, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the Samajwadi Party, RJD, the Trinamool Congress, NCP(Sharad Pawar), Aam Aadmi Party, JMM, Communist Parties(CPIM, CPI, CPIML), IUML, JKNC, PDP, Forward Block etc.

They said that investigating agencies like the ED, the CBI and the NIA have become tools in the hands of the central government and are used to target opposition parties as well as to topple elected governments.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Audit Of Delhi's Electricity Distribution Companies

Case Title: DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION v. FORUM OF REGULATORS, C.A. No. 8732 -8733/2026

The Supreme Court directed status quo on the audit of Delhi's electricity distribution companies (discoms) by a CAG-appointed independent Chartered Accountant.

A partial Court working days bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar passed the order, while issuing notice on a plea filed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in April.

This order held that it was impermissible for the DERC to entrust the DISCOMs' audit to the CAG and directed appointment of an independent CA to conduct the audit. Assailing this order, DERC filed the present petition.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Pharmacy Council For Not Adhering To Timeline For Approval & Admissions

Cause Title: PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST Versus ALL INDIA COUNCIAL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ORS., MA 1976/2026 in MA 1409/2025 in C.A. No. 9048/2012

The Supreme Court (July 3) came down heavily on the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) for repeatedly seeking extensions for the approval and admission schedule of pharmacy institutions, observing that regulatory authorities themselves were responsible for the deterioration in educational standards by failing to adhere to court-prescribed timelines.

Expressing serious dissatisfaction over the repeated deviations from the admission calendar fixed by the Supreme Court in 2012, a partial court working days bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice K Vinod Chandran questioned the regulator's motives behind the recurring delays.

“See, the problem today is... I don't know how you are running the administration. And this is not proper…And it is mostly because you are hand in glove with those private colleges.”, the bench orally remarked.

Ram Mandir Donation Theft : RJD MP Moves Supreme Court Seeking Audit Of Ayodhya Trust Finances, CBI Probe

Case : Sudhakar Singh v. Union of India and others | Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 39221/2026,

Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP from Buxar, Sudhakar Singh has moved the Supreme Court seeking an independent probe into the finances of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, citing allegations of financial irregularities, an ongoing Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe, and the reported recovery of a cash trail amounting to ₹77 lakh.

The Public Interest Litigation, filed on July 3 , states that it does not seek any interference with religious practices or temple rituals. Instead, it seeks judicial intervention to ensure transparency and accountability in the Trust's secular financial administration.

According to the petition, the reliefs sought are confined to the management of the Trust's financial affairs and are aimed at safeguarding public donations and ensuring an independent investigation into the allegations.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi HC Order Allowing Wife To Seek Husband's Hotel, CDR Records To Prove Adultery

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 400 of 2024

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with theDelhi High Court ruling permitting a wife to summon hotel records and the call detail records (CDRs) of her husband in matrimonial proceedings to substantiate allegations of adultery.

A partial court working days bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the appeal filed by the husband, declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Family Court and High Court regarding the production of the hotel records and call detail records for consideration by the Family Court.

The High Court held that the right to privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against a spouse's right to prove allegations in matrimonial proceedings. Since the wife had no other effective means to establish her claim of adultery, it upheld the Family Court's direction to summon the husband's hotel records and CDRs in a sealed cover to protect confidentiality while enabling adjudication.

Supreme Court's Judgment Expanding UAPA To Make Speech 'Terrorist Act' Puts Political Dissent At Risk : Rebecca John

Senior Advocate Rebecca John raised concern over the Supreme Court's expansion of thedefinition of 'terrorist act' under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to include speech-related offences in the Gulfisha Fatima-Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

She said that the text of Section 15 is abundantly clear that the essential ingredient under this provision is the use of weapons to establish physical violence. But the judgment, which denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, makes a textual expansion in order to deny bail. This "alarming" expansion runs the risk of bringing under the prosecution's scanner all kinds of political dissent, she remarked.

She remarked: "The dangers of this expansion or scope cannot be overstated, making speech a terrorist act is opening the doors to making any and all political dissent, subject to prosecution under UAPA. "

Karur Stampede : Supreme Court To Hear Tomorrow DMK's Plea Against Tamil Nadu CM Vijay Meeting Victims' Families

The Supreme Court agreed to list an application filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam seeking to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, TN Minister Aadhav Arjuna and other accused persons from making public statements in relation to the Karur stampede, which is being investigated by the CBI, and to regulate their interaction with victims' families during the pendency of the probe.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, for DMK Secretary RS Bharati, mentioned the matter before a partial Court working days bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sheel Nagu.

Citing the urgency, Ahmadi submitted that Chief Minister Vijay was proposing to meet the families of the victims on July 10, and raised the apprehension that witnesses might be influenced.

'Go To Police, Have Faith In System': Supreme Court On Plea Seeking Action Over Comments Against Prophet

Case Title: MD ANAS CHAUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF HOME PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WP(Crl) Diary No. 39051/2026

The Supreme Court declined urgent listing of a public interest litigation assailing objectionable comments allegedly made by an influencer against Prophet Muhammad.

The Court asked the petitioner to first approach the police authorities and have faith in the system.

A partial Court working days bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu refused to urgently list the PIL filed by AoR Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary. The matter was mentioned before the bench by Advocate Rajat Kumar, who submitted that the comments could create communal disharmony.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against High Court Order For Removal Of Shivaji Maharaj Statue From Mormugao Port Land

Case Title: Rajendra Laxman Parab and Ors. v. Mormugao Port Authority and Ors., Diary No. 37696/2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court order which ordered removal of a Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj statue from the land owned by Mormugao Port Authority.

A partial Court working days bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu was dealing with a plea challenging the High Court order. The petitioners claimed that the High Court granted final relief at the interim stage.

However, considering the bench's disinclination, the petitioners chose to withdraw the case and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The bench however gave the petitioners liberty to move an appropriate application before the High Court to seek variance of its order.

'CM Vijay Not Accused In Karur Stampede FIR'' : Supreme Court Refuses DMK's Plea To Restrain TN Minister's Comments On Case

Case Title: TAMILAGA VETTRI KAZHAGAM Versus P.H. DINESH AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 16539/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain an application filed by the General Secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) seeking to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, TN Minister Aadhav Arjuna and other accused persons from making public statements in relation to the Karur Stampede, which is being investigated by the CBI, and to regulate their interaction with victims' families during the pendency of the probe.

As the partial Court working days bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, the applicant sought to withdraw it. Dismissing the application as withdrawn, the bench granted liberty to the applicant to pursue other remedies available under the law.

The application, filed in the case where the Supreme Court last year ordered CBI investigation regarding the Karur stampede, was urgently moved ahead of the proposed meeting of Chief Minister Vijay with the families of the stampede victims on July 10 to distribute the ex-gratia compensation and compassionate appointment orders for them.

Asian Games 2026: Supreme Court Allows Urgent Listing Of Plea Challenging Dressage Team Selection

Case Title: ANUSH AGARWALLA v. AD-HOC COMMITTEE FOR GOVERNANCE OF EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA, Diary No.39652/2026

The Supreme Court allowed urgent listing of a plea challenging the Delhi High Court orderwhich refused to interfere with the selection of the Indian Dressage team for the upcoming Asian Games 2026.

The matter was mentioned before a partial Court working days bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sheel Nagu. The bench directed listing of the matter on July 9.

To recap, initially, a Single Bench of the High Court dismissedtwo writ petitions filed by riders Sudipti Hajela and Anush Agarwalla challenging the selection list issued by EFI's Ad-hoc Committee on June 16, 2026, for the Dressage discipline at the Asian Games scheduled to be held in Japan from September 19 to October 4, 2026.

Supreme Court Dismisses CBSE Students' Challenge To Standardization Formula For Kerala Engineering, Architecture & Medical Admissions

Case Title: JOMON JAISON AND ORS. Versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 22685/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed certain CBSE students' challenge to the Kerala government's 2026 Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses with respect to the standardization formula for preparing rank list to Kerala Engineering, Architecture and Medical (KEAM) admissions.

A partial court working days bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Trideep Pais (for petitioner-students). The bench was of the view that the new scheme for standardization of marks was a policy matter in the domain of experts, not the Court.

"You have applied for admission. Before opening of the admissions, they have changed the criteria. Now if they change the criteria, it's a policy decision. What right is affected?", Justice Misra remarked during the hearing.

Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Against Madras High Court Quashing Backward Class Reservation For Islam Converts

Case : The Secretary to Government v Sameer Ahamed | Diary No. 39624/2026

The State of Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court challenging thejudgment of the Madras High Court, which held that a person converting to Islam was not entitled to backward class reservation.

The High Court had declared as unconstitutional a Government Order issued in 2024 which allowed a person who converted to Islam from Backwards Classes, Most Backwards Classes, Denotified Communities, or Scheduled Castes to be treated as BC (Muslim) and be issued with a community certificate as belonging to one of the 7 notified sects for availing reservation upon conversion.

The 7 sects of Muslims, which have been notified as Backwards Class Muslims as per The Tamil Nadu Backwards Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993, are – Ansar, Dekkani Muslims, Dubekula, Labbais including Rowthar and Marakayar, Mapilla, Sheik, and Syed.

CBSE Class XII : Supreme Court Seeks CBSE Response On Gulf Students' Plea Challenging Assessment Formula After Exam Cancellation

Cause Title: Adithian Rajmohan Nair & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court (July 8) issued notice in a plea filed by Class XII regular students from Gulf countries challenging the Central Board of Secondary Education's (CBSE) special assessment scheme adopted for the 2025–26 academic session following the cancellation of Board examinations in the West Asia/Gulf region due to geopolitical tensions.

A partial court working days bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the Writ Petition filed by 30 students studying in CBSE-affiliated schools across Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain, who challenged the CBSE's assessment scheme, contending that the adopted methodology resulted in significantly lower marks than they would ordinarily have secured in the final Board examinations.

The dispute arises from the cancellation of the 2025–26 CBSE Board examinations in several subjects due to the geopolitical conflict and security concerns in the Gulf region.

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Operational Creditor's Insolvency Plea Against Essar Power Gujarat

Cause Title: NARAYANI RESOURCES PVT LTD Versus ESSAR POWER GUJARAT LTD.

The Supreme Court (July 8) refused to interfere with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order rejecting an ₹85-crore insolvency petition against Essar Power Gujarat Ltd. on the ground that a pre-existing dispute exists between the parties.

A partial court working days bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the appeal against the NCLAT judgment, stressing that insolvency proceedings by an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) cannot be invoked as a debt recovery mechanism where a genuine pre-existing dispute exists between the parties.

The Appellant-operational creditor claimed that Essar Power Gujarat owed it approximately ₹85 crore towards the supply of coal and initiated corporate insolvency resolution proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Asian Games 2026: Supreme Court Adjourns Plea Challenging Indian Dressage Team Selection After Justice KV Viswanathan Recuses

Cause Title: ANUSH AGARWALLA v. AD-HOC COMMITTEE FOR GOVERNANCE OF EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA, Diary No.39652/2026 (And connected matter)

The Supreme Court (July 9) adjourned the plea against the Indian Dressage team selection for the Asian Games 2026, following Justice K.V. Viswanathan's recusal from the bench hearing the matter.

The matter was listed before a partial Court working days bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe.

When the matter was called on for a hearing today, Justice Viswanathan expressed that he had to recuse, and accordingly, the matter was directed to be re-listed before an appropriate bench under the direction of the Chief Justice of India.

IBC| 'Mere Settlement Talks Can't Defer CIRP Admission Once Debt & Default Is Established', Supreme Court Affirms Revival Of CIRP

Cause Title: SANJEEV KUMAR JAIN Versus ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED AND ANR. (and connected matter)

The Supreme Court (July 9) dismissed the appeals filed by the suspended director of Parsvnath Developers Ltd., upholding the revival of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings against the real estate group in a default case involving approximately ₹452 crore.

A partial court working days bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to interfere with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) order, which had upheld the NCLT's decision to revive the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor i.e., Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Parsvnath Developers-Corporate Debtor had availed loan facilities from Sammaan Capital Ltd. starting in 2018, with the total default claimed at approximately ₹942 crores. The debt was later assigned to Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL). In February 2025, the Section 7 petition was withdrawn after Parsvnath deposited ₹75 crores, with NCLT granting liberty to revive the petition if payments were not made as per the schedule.

Must Arrest Grounds Be Given In Writing? Supreme Court Says Judgments Are Conflicting, Mulls Larger Bench Reference

Case Title: STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SONAM RAGHUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU | SLP(Crl) No. 11944/2026

The Supreme Court indicated that it would consider referring to larger bench the issue as to whether grounds of arrest are mandatorily required to be supplied in writing to the accused at the time of arrest.

A partial working days bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar was hearing the petition filed by the State of Meghalaya challenging the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime suspect in the May 2025 "honeymoon murder" of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi,

The bench conveyed its inclination orally to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for Meghalaya).

'How Dare You?': Supreme Court Raps AIIMS' Acting Director For Filing 'Affidavit' Instead Of 'Explanation'

Case Title: PRATIBHA KASHYAP v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, Misc. Application No.16-17/2026

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the AIIMS' Acting Director over his filing of an "affidavit" instead of an "explanation" in a matter where the Court had ordered a DNA test but the same was not timely conducted.

A partial Court working days bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan initially ordered initiation of contempt proceedings against the Acting Director and withdrew an exemption granted to him from personal appearance. Around 12.30 PM, it even called on Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to ensure that the Acting Director entered appearance before the bench rose (around 1 PM), otherwise the order would stay as is.

However later, the observations/directions were withdrawn and the matter closed with an amendment to the "affidavit". The order further recorded the ASG's statement that appropriate steps would be taken to sort issues in the officers' understanding of Court orders/proceedings, so that no such further 'error' occurs.

MP Freedom Of Religion Act: Supreme Court Stays Criminal Proceedings Against Man Accused Of Forcing Family To Convert

Case Title: Hemraj Tailor v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, SLP(Crl) No. 12057/2026

The Supreme Court stayed further criminal proceedings against a man, stated to be professing Hinduism, who is accused of forcing a family in Madhya Pradesh to convert to Islam.

A partial Court working days bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar passed the order, while issuing notice on the man's plea challenging an MP High Court order which refused to quash an FIR under Sections 3 and 5 of the MP Freedom of Religion Act and Section 506 IPC.

As per the FIR, the complainant's husband converted to Islam 8 years back on the advise of the petitioner. For the past 1.5 years, she is also allegedly being pressurized to convert to the same religion. On one occasion, it is stated, the petitioner suggested her to convert to Islam.

Supreme Court Orders Survey Of Delhi's Malviya Nagar & Saket Areas To Tackle Unauthorized Constructions

Case Title: LOGANATHAN v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS., Diary No. - 17103/2026

While expressing concerns about the conduct of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the matter of unauthorized constructions and illegal land use, the Supreme Court ordered a survey of the capital's Malviya Nagar and Saket areas.

Further, the Court further took note of a news report stating that about 93% of establishments in the national capital region's Gurugram are lacking in fire safety measures and called for the personal presence of the Gurugram Development Authority Vice Chairman.

A partial Court working days bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sheel Nagu passed the order, indicating that 2 senior professors from IIT, Delhi should be part of the team the abovementioned areas. The team, also comprising officials of MCD and representative of the Amicus, shall file a report, which shall not exhibit any kind of "slackness".

Ayodhya Ram Mandir Donation Theft : Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Seeking CBI Probe On July 13

Cases : Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 790/2026; Ajay Kumar Rai and another v. Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust | WP(Crl) 241/2026; Sudhakar Singh v. Union of India and others | WP (crl) 256/2026

The Supreme Court will hear (July 13) a batch of petitions seeking an independent investigation into the Ayodhya Ram Mandir donation theft allegations.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana will hear three writ petitions filed in relation to the issue.

One of the petitions has been filed by Narendra Kumar Goswami, petitioner-in-person, seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the matter. He also seeks an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of the finances of the Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust, the trust which is managing the Ayodhya Ram temple.

Supreme Court Lets Off Litigant Who Created Ruckus By Throwing Papers, Hurling Abuse

Cause Title: PRABAL PRATAP AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., Diary No. 31367-2026

The Supreme Court (July 10) witnessed unusual scenes during the hearing of an appeal filed by a petitioner-in-person. The petitioner engaged in disorderly conduct, hurling case papers in the courtroom and using foul language against the Chief Justice of India

Before a partial court, working days bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe, one Prabal Pratap appeared in person against the dismissal of his Writ Petition by the Allahabad High Court. He approached the Supreme Court against the conversion of his application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into a private complaint case.

When the matter was called on for hearing, the petitioner had made an extraordinary remark to the bench, "Mr. judicial servant, I order you to order the registration of FIR against ACP Vikas Nagar, Lucknow."

'Double Standards' : Supreme Court Questions States For Opposing Bail Without Ensuring Speedy Trial

Case Title: KELVIN CHINDOZIE OKORO Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, SLP(Crl) No. 11928/2026

Within a span of two days, the Supreme Court has come down heavily on the States of Punjab and Maharashtra for opposing accused's bail pleas despite failing in their duty to conduct trials in a timely manner.

A partial Court working days bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sheel Nagu passed an order imposing Rs.50,000 personal cost on a Senior Superintendent of Police of Punjab. Apparently, the cost aspect was directed to be kept in abeyance, pending the State's reply in the matter.

Today, the bench rapped the Maharashtra government over a similar approach, noting that the accused in the subject case was languishing in jail since 4 years but only 2 witnesses (out of 45 mentioned in the chargesheet) had been examined.

Asian Games 2026 : Supreme Court To Hear Plea Against Dressage Team Selection Next Week

Case Title: ANUSH AGARWALLA v. AD-HOC COMMITTEE FOR GOVERNANCE OF EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA, Diary No.39652/2026 (and connected matter)

The Supreme Court deferred hearing of the pleas related to the Indian Dressage Team selection for Asian Games 2026.

A partial Court working days bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar deferred the matter to July 13, even as counsels for the petitioners raised apprehension that the matter would become infructuous by July 15.

To recap, initially, a Single Bench of the High Court dismissedtwo writ petitions filed by riders Sudipti Hajela and Anush Agarwalla challenging the selection list issued by EFI's Ad-hoc Committee on June 16, 2026, for the Dressage discipline at the Asian Games scheduled to be held in Japan from September 19 to October 4, 2026.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Challenging Navy Recruitment Rules For Non-Gazetted Group B Officers

Cause Title: ALL INDIA CLERKS ASSOCIATION & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Supreme Court (July 10) issued notice on a plea filed by the All India Clerks Association challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment upholding the validity of the Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'B' (Non-Gazetted) Ministerial Staff Posts Recruitment Rules, 2019, which had enhanced the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent from 8 years to 10 years.

Before a partial court working days bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice K Vinod Chandran, the petitioner-Association contends that the amended 2019 Rules adversely affected existing employees by increasing the qualifying service for promotion from eight years to ten years, allegedly in violation of the Department of Personnel and Training's (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated December 31, 2010, which protected the existing eligibility criteria for employees affected by changes to recruitment rules.

The dispute concerns the promotional eligibility of Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) serving in the Southern Naval Command of the Indian Navy.

Supreme Court Upholds Bombay HC Decision Refusing To Reopen Goa Mining E-Auction Over Alleged MSTC Glitch

Cause Title: AGRAVANSHI PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE STATE OF GOA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 22977/2026

The Supreme Court (July 10) declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court order refusing to reopen a Goa mining e-auction conducted by the Goa Government through the Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited (MSTC) platform for the Cavorem-Maina Mineral Block.

A partial court working days bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to interfere with the Goa Bench of Bombay High Court's order, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition questioning the outcome of an e-auction conducted by the State.

The petitioner had alleged that when the successful bidder enhanced its bid to 88.88%, the MSTC portal became unresponsive, preventing it from submitting a higher bid despite being ready to do so.

'You Can't Insult Students & Get Away' : Supreme Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Professor In Kerala Student Suicide Case

Case : M.KONDANDA RAM Vs STATE OF KERALA | SLP(Crl) No. 11871/2026 Diary No. 38315 / 2026

The Supreme Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a Kerala college Head of Department accused in the suicide of a dental student from Kerala, Nithin Raj, observing that a strong message must go that teachers cannot behave with students in a manner that humiliates them.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere with theKerala High Court's orderdenying pre-arrest bail to Dr. Kondanda Ram, Head of the Department at a dental college, who is facing allegations of abetment of suicide and uttering casteist slurs.

The offences alleged against him are those under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court's Order Banning Cow Slaughter In Tamil Nadu

Case : The Secretary to the Government v. K Surya alias K Surya Prasanth | Diary No.36054/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court's order directing a ban on the slaughter of cow or calf anywhere in the State of Tamil Nadu for Bakrid or on any other day.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the Madras High Court's order, which imposed a blanket ban on the slaughter of cows and calves in the State.

The bench observed that the last paragraph of the High Court's order (which imposed the state-wide ban), prima facie required "correction."

Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Against Madras High Court's Interim Protection To Former DMK Minister EV Velu

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Tamil Nadu, has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Madras High Court order that restrained the anti-corruption agency from taking coercive action against former DMK Minister E.V. Velu in connection with an alleged corruption case.

Senior Advocate PC Sen, Tamil Nadu Additional Advocate General, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing. Sen submitted that the High Court passed a blanket "no coercive steps order", and since the order was vague, there was no clarity as to what all steps the agency can take. The CJI orally observed that the State can approach the High Court itself seeking clarification. Ultimately, the CJI agreed to consider the matter for listing.

The High Court had passed the interim order on July 9 while hearing Velu's petition challenging the Look Out Circular (LoC) issued against him by the DVAC. While directing Velu to appear before the investigating agency on July 15 and cooperate with the probe, the High Court had ordered that no coercive action should be taken against him in the meantime.

Ayodhya Ram Mandir Donation Theft : Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union, UP & Temple Trust On Pleas Seeking CBI Probe

Cases : Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 790/2026; Ajay Kumar Rai and another v. Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust | WP(Crl) 241/2026; Sudhakar Singh v. Union of India and others | WP (crl) 256/2026; Hindu Dharma Parishad v. The Union Of India And Ors. | WP(C) No. 827/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and the Uttar Pradesh Governments on a bunch of petitions seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the allegations of embezzlement of donations received for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir.

Notice has also been issued to the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, which is managing the temple. The Court directed the Special Investigation Team constituted by the UP Government to file a status report on the developments so far. The report should also mention the composition of the SIT.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dealt with the petitions. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who entered appearance on behalf of the Centre and the State, said that the status report will be filed in a sealed cover.

'Homebuyers' 20 Year Plight!' : Supreme Court Issues Warrants To Haryana Builder's Directors; Flags State Inaction

Case : RITA TIKKU Vs STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY | W.P.(C) No. 640/2026

The Supreme Court passed a series of coercive directions against Haryana-based Parsvnath Developers over its failure to comply with orders of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA).

The Court directed the freezing of the bank accounts of the directors of Parsvnath Hessa Developers Ltd. and Parsvnath Developers Ltd., issuing warrants against them, and observing that Haryana authorities appeared to be either colluding with the builder or had failed to discharge their statutory duties.

The Court warned that non-bailable warrants will be issued if the directors failed to appear on the next date.

Supreme Court Orders SIT Probe Into 2023 Death Of Congress Candidate's Driver In Madhya Pradesh

Case Title: RAJIYA ALI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 364/2025

The Supreme Court directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a fresh investigation into the 2023 death of Salman Khan, the driver of former Congress MLA Vikram Singh in Madhya Pradesh, after expressing the view that the probe should be handled by senior officers "in the interest of justice and fair play."

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order while hearing a petition filed by the victim's widow, Reziya, seeking transfer of the investigation. The petition alleged that Salman Khan was deliberately run over by a car at the behest of rival BJP candidate and that the investigation had been compromised due to political influence.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the police had ignored crucial eyewitnesses despite their willingness to testify.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To HD Revanna In Karnataka's Challenge To His Discharge In Outraging Modesty Case

Case Details:  THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs REVANNA H.D.|Diary No. 25514 / 2026

The Supreme Court issued notice in the Karnataka Government's plea, challenging the Karnataka High Court's order setting aside the charge for outraging a woman's modesty, alleged against Janata Dal (S) leader HD Revanna by his former house help. The High Court discharged him under Section 354 but had retained the charges under Section 354A(sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code and asked the Trial Court to explore whether the limitation period to take cognisance can be extended.

It may be recalled that the High Court was hearing Revanna's plea for the quashing of the first information report filed under Sections 354, 354A, 506 and 509 of the IPC. During the pendency of the plea, the police filed a chargesheet, and the Trial Court took cognisance under Sections 354 and 354A IPC.

The JD(S) leader approached the High Court and argued that the cognisance could not be taken as the complaint was lodged after a delay of three years, the limitation prescribed under Section 468 CrPC for offences punishable with imprisonment of three years and below. Eventually, the Trial Court discharged him under Section 354A as well, citing delay.

Parties Oppose Supreme Court Move For Mediation In Gyanvapi, Mathura & Sambhal Temple-Mosque Disputes

In a significant move aimed at exploring an amicable resolution to some of the country's most contentious religious site disputes, the Supreme Court has referred the Gyanvapi mosque dispute in Varanasi, the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura, and the Sambhal Jama Masjid dispute to a special Lok Adalat, "Samadhan Samaroh", to be held in the Supreme Court premises from August 21 to 23.

The Supreme Court (administrative side) has written to the parties involved in the matter to explore amicable settlement of the three disputes under the 'Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Disputes Harmonisation Across Nation-Samadhan Samaroh 2026'. The "Samadhan Samaroh" is proposed as a forum for facilitating dialogue and negotiated resolution, though any settlement would depend entirely on the consent of the parties involved. It will begin from August 21 to August 23.

However, as per reports, both sides have opposed a mediated settlement, opting for a resolution of the matter on legal merits through adversarial litigation.

'Can't Direct Anyone's Arrest' : Supreme Court On Pleas Against Anil Ambani In ADAG Loan Fraud Case

Case Title: EAS Sarma v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025

In response to a submission that the investigating agencies have arrested only 'lowly officers' in connection with the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group loan fraud case, the Supreme Court said that it would not be fair for the Court to direct anyone's arrest.

The Court's comment was a response to a submission by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, that the CBI and ED have arrested only small-level officers, and not Anil Ambani, who has been identified by SEBI as the 'kingpin' in one of its reports.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a PIL filed by EAS Sarma seeking investigation into the alleged loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by companies of the ADAG.

'Issue Of Public Importance': Supreme Court Asks Authorities To Consider Suggestions On Pornography Ban For Minors

Case Title: B.L. JAIN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 722/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a PIL seeking prohibition on minors' access to pornographic content and restriction on the watching of such content in public places. It gave the petitioner liberty to place the plea before the competent authority as a representation.

Noting that the issue raised was of "paramount public importance", the Court impressed upon the concerned authorities to give due consideration to the issues/suggestions mentioned by the petitioner in his plea.

"The issue raised is undoubtedly of paramount public importance. However, it is not a question of law that needs to be determined by this Court. It essentially involves a policy primarily based upon views of technological advancement. Such issues ordinarily fall in the domain of experts and authorities especially Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

"Which Advocate Discloses True Income?" Supreme Court Questions Scrutiny Of Lawyer's Earnings In Civil Judge Recruitment Case

The Supreme Court questioned the relevance of scrutinising an advocate's income while considering his appointment to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service as a Civil Judge, observing that a candidate's earnings as a practising lawyer cannot ordinarily become a ground to reassess his suitability after he has already been selected.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing a plea filed by an advocate challenging the denial of his appointment despite his inclusion in the selection list.

Questioning the High Court's decision to undertake a fresh scrutiny after the selection process, Justice Nagarathna remarked, "After putting him on the selection list, how can there be a second scrutiny? If criminal antecedents are not disclosed, if there is suppression, you can. But his earnings as an advocate, how is it relevant?"

Advocate Moves Supreme Court Seeking Police Protection After Alleged Assault At Delhi Home

Case Title – Pankaj Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

An advocate practising before the Supreme Court has approached the Court seeking police protection, transfer of investigation and directions to invoke more serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in an FIR registered over an alleged assault on him at his Delhi residence.

The writ petition has been filed by advocate Pankaj Sharma through advocate Tarun Gupta. According to the petition, Sharma is a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and has been practising before the Supreme Court for over 20 years.

The plea alleges that the accused are politically influential and the police initially refused to register an FIR. The petition states that even after an FIR was lodged, it was registered only for simple assault despite the petitioner suffering grievous injuries to his head.

Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order Quashing Appointment Of 17 Personal Assistants To Judges

Case Title – K Vedhambika v. Registrar General

The Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court's July 1 judgment which had set aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to Judges after holding that the entire selection process was arbitrary and without consideration of merit.

The Madras High Court had found that the authorities relaxed the Madras High Court Service Rules to accommodate in-service candidates who did not possess the prescribed qualifications instead of resorting to direct recruitment.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta granted the interim relief in an SLP filed by 9 affected candidates challenging the HC judgment.

Supreme Court Appoints Justice L Nageswara Rao To Mediate Dispute Between Industrialist Babasaheb Kalyani, Sister Sugandha Hiremath

Case Title: SUGANDHA JAI HREMATH ACCOUNTANT v. BABASAHEB NEELKANTH KALYANI, SLP(C) No. 18036/2026

The Supreme Court referred for mediation a long-standing family dispute between industrialist Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani and his sister Sugandha Hiremath to former SC judge-Justice L Nageswara Rao.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana requested Justice Rao to take up the matter, to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, after hearing Senior Advocate Shyam Divan (for Sugandha and Jaidev Hiremath) and Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi and C Aryama Sundaram (for Kalyani side).

The Court further requested the Bombay High Court to defer hearing of an application filed by Baba Kalyani under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (for rejection of the Hiremath's suit) during the pendency of the mediation process. "Court proceedings must remain in abeyance during mediation", CJI Kant orally said. It was further indicated that if mediation fails, the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application may be requested to be decided in a timebound manner.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Case Over NCLT Appointment Delays & Infrastructure Issues

The Supreme Court has registered a suo motu case over the delays in the appointment of members in National Company Law Tribunals and infrastructure issues.

The suo motu case, titled "In Re : Appointment of Judicial and Technical Members and Inadequate Infrastructure in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Ancillary Issues" was registered on May 19, following the April 29 judgment in AVJ Heightss Apartment Onwers Association v. IIFL Finance  Ltd where a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan expressed concerns over the inordinate delays in approving resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Taking suo motu cognisance of the "grim situation", the said bench had referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for further action, following which the suo motu case was registered.

The bench had noted that 383 applications for approval of resolution plans are currently pending, with delays ranging from 48 days to 738 days, and in some cases extending up to four years. It observed that such prolonged delays defeat the very purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, as they undermine its core objective of ensuring time-bound resolution, preserving asset value, and maintaining economic efficiency. While the sanctioned strength of the NCLT benches stands at 63 members, only 28 judicial members and 26 technical members are currently in position. The Court noted that this deficit has led to frequent changes in bench composition, resulting in half-day sittings and further delays.

Supreme Court Upholds Lalu Prasad Yadav's Sentence Suspension In Deoghar Fodder Scam, Urges HC To Decide Appeal In 6 Months

Case: SLP(Crl) No. 1550/2020 THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Versus LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV and connected matters

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Jharkhand High Court's order suspending the sentence of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Deoghar fodder scam case, while requesting the High Court to decide his pending criminal appeal within 6 months.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging a July 12, 2019 order of the Jharkhand High Court suspending the sentence of RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Deoghar treasury fodder scam case.

"Upon hearing the learned counsels, we are not inclined to interfere with the order particularly since seven years have elapsed since then. The appeals are of the year 2018 and therefore it will only be appropriate to request the High Court to expedite the hearing," the Bench observed.The bench observed that it would be preferable to decide the appeals within 6 months.

Supreme Court Seeks Delhi Police Status Report On Probe Into Assault Of SC Advocate

Case Title – Pankaj Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

The Supreme Court sought a status report from the Delhi Police regarding the investigation into the alleged assault of a Supreme Court advocate in the national capital.

The Court directed that the status report, along with details of the action taken on the victim's second complaint alleging threats to withdraw the FIR, be filed by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police. The Bench also directed that adequate protection be ensured to the advocate.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order in a writ petition filed by advocate Pankaj Sharma.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging CRZ Clearance For Additional Floors At Shah Rukh Khan's Mumbai Home 'Mannat'

Case :  SANTOSH DAUNDKAR Vs SECRETARY | D No. 27598/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance granted for the addition of two floors to actor Shah Rukh Khan's Mumbai residence, Mannat, refusing to interfere withan order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that had rejected the challenge.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the NGT's Western Zone Bench, Pune, which had rejected the petition by Mumbai-based activist Santosh Daundkar alleging violations in the approvals granted for the proposed construction.

Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam argued that the matter should not be viewed differently merely because it concerned a prominent film star. He added that the petitioner had earlier exposed the Adarsh housing scam and was a respected activist.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Muslims' Appeals Against Bhojshala Temple Verdict, Declines To Allow Namaz There In Interim

Cases: QUAZI MOINUDDIN Versus HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE (REGD. TRUST NO. 976) AND ORS., Diary No. 32281-2026; MAULANA KAMALUDDIN WELFARE SOCIETY Versus HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE (REGD. TRUST NO. 976) AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 22119-22120/2026; JEBRAN ANSARI AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 33643-2026; HAJI MUNEER AHMAD AND ANR. Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 23490/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on petitions filed by various Muslim parties challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment, which declared that the historical Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex site in Madhya Pradesh's Dhar is a Temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati and prohibited the offering of namaz there.

However, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana declined the petitioners' request for an interim order restoring the status quo ante, under which Muslims were permitted to offer namaz on Fridays alongside Hindu worship on designated days.

"Let us not pass any order which can cause tension," the CJI commented.

Should District Judges' Retirement Age Be Raised From 60 To 61-62? Supreme Court Seeks Views Of Union, States & High Courts

Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

While dealing with the All India Judges Association case, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India, all States/Union Territories and the High Courts on the issue of increasing District Judges' retirement age from 60 to 61-62.

As an interim measure, the Court directed that the petitioner-judicial officers, who are due to retire having reached the age of 60 years, shall continue in service until the age of 61 (unless already relieved from service).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and Siddharth Bhatnagar (Amicus Curiae).

'Learning A Language Never Goes Waste' : Supreme Court Refuses To Stay CBSE's 3 Language Policy

Case : Amandeep Kaur and others v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 820/2026, Yashica Bhandari Jain and others v. Union of India and others. W.P.(C) No. 694/2026 and connected cases.

The Supreme Court (July 14) declined to stay the three-language policy of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) introduced from the current 2026-27 academic year, and deferred the hearing of the petitions challenging the Board's decision to next week.

The petitioners submitted before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that as per the new policy, the students have to study two Indian languages from Class 9. This would mean that they would have to drop the languages which they have been continuously studying since Class 5. The petitioners also flagged that English is treated as a non-native language as per the policy and raised concerns about the availability of teachers and textbooks for native languages.

The Court issued notice on the fresh petitions and fixed the matter for detailed hearing next Wednesday. No interim stay on the operation of the circulars was granted at this stage. In May, the Court had issued notice to the Union, NCERT and the CBSE on an earlier batch of petitons.

West Bengal Withdraws Appeal In Supreme Court Against Calcutta HC Verdict Striking Down OBC Status For 77 Communities

Case Details : THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. Versus AMAL CHANDRA DAS Diary No. - 27287/2024

The West Bengal government withdrew its appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court's judgmentthat had struck down the inclusion of 77 communities, mostly Muslim communities, in the State's Other Backward Classes (OBC) list.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana permitted the withdrawal after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State, informed the Court that the West Bengal Cabinet had taken a decision to withdraw the appeal. It is significant to note that the decision has taken after the government led by the BJP assumed power in the State in May after the 2026 assembly elections. The appeals were filed by the previous government led by the Trinamool Congress.

The State Backward Classes Commission also withdrew its separate appeal filed against the High Court's verdict.

'Taken Court For A Ride' : Supreme Court Raps Samay Raina, Imposes 3 Lakh Cost

Case Title: M/S. CURE SMA FOUNDATION OF INDIA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 460/2025

The Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs 3 lakhs on comedian Samay Raina, observing that he had "taken the Court for a ride" by failing to comply with the undertakings given in proceedings arising out of the India's Got Latent controversy over insensitive jokes targeting persons with disabilities.

The Court also imposed the same cost on four other comedians - Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagadish Tanwar.

Earlier, the Court had accepted their undertakings that they would make amends for their insensitive jokes by conducting special shows to showcase the achievements of persons with disabilities and generate funds for the treatment of those suffering from rare diseases.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Freeze On Lok Sabha Seat Allocation Based On 1971 Census

Case :NISHANT KHATRI Vs UNION OF INDIA  | W.P.(C) No. 737/2026

Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Plea Challenging Delimitation Amendments, Suggests Representation to Authorities

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the 84th and 87th Constitutional Amendments governing the delimitation of Parliamentary and State Assembly constituencies, while suggesting that the petitioner first make a representation to the competent authorities.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing the petition, which questioned the continued reliance on the 1971 and 2001 Census figures for delimitation. The petitioner also challenged Articles 55, 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution to the extent that they permit reliance on population figures from the 1971 and/or 2001 Census.

Patna High Court Ruling That 'Attempt To Remove Salwar, Pressing Chest' Is Not Attempt To Rape Flagged Before Supreme Court

Case Title: IN RE: ORDER DATED 17.03.2025 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1449/2024 AND ANCILLARY ISSUES | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta flagged before the Supreme Court a Patna High Court order which held that allegations of attempting to remove a woman's salwar and physically molesting by pressing her chest do not constitute 'attempt to rape'.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana were informed about the order during the hearing of the suo motu case taken up over the Allahabad High Court verdictthat grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama and trying to drag her beneath a culvert would not come under the offence of 'attempt to rape'.

The Allahabad High Court had observed in the said case that the acts would prima facie constitute the offence of 'aggravated sexual assault' under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which carries a lesser punishment.

Brinda Karat Seeks Review Of Supreme Court's Clean Chit To Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma In Hate Speech Case

CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat has moved the Supreme Court seeking a review of its April 29 judgment which held that no cognizable offence was made out against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over their alleged hate speeches during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign.

The review petition challenges the portion of the judgment in which the Court, after holding that prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not required for a Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3), nevertheless agreed with the conclusion that no cognizable offence was disclosed by the speeches.

Karat had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's order, which had upheld the Magistrate's refusal to direct the registration of a First Information Report against the BJP leaders under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Supreme Court Seeks BCI Response On Plea To Regulate Advocates' Use Of Social Media For Advertising And Solicitation

Case Title – Anil Pandey and Anr. v. Bar Council of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL seeking directions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to take action against advocates allegedly engaging in digital solicitation, social media advertisements, influencer collaborations and creation of promotional content in violation of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice returnable on 15th September.

“The Petitioners seek this Hon'ble Court's intervention against the rampant and unchecked proliferation of digital solicitation, the commercialisation of advocacy, and the flagrant misuse of judicial precincts by certain members of the Bar. These actions, manifested through social media platforms, represent a systematic subversion of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules, thereby threatening the very dignity and integrity of the administration of justice)”, the plea states.

Supreme Court Approves Guidelines On Judicial Sensitivity In Sexual Offence Cases; Directs All Courts To Follow

Case Title: IN RE: ORDER DATED 17.03.2025 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1449/2024 AND ANCILLARY ISSUES | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

The Supreme Court approved a report placed before it by the National Judicial Academy's Expert Committee containing guidelines on judicial sensitivity in sexual offense cases.

Further, it directed all Courts in the country to strictly follow the expressions used in the approved guidelines/handbook.

As per the order, the approved guidelines/handbook shall be uploaded on the websites of the Supreme Court, all High Courts as well as District Courts (where such websites exist). They shall also be circulated to the National and all State Judicial Academies, as well as National Law Universities and Law Departments of other Universities.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea To Consider Law Officers' Experience Towards 3 Year Practice For Judicial Service

Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider an application seeking that law officers' work experience in public sector undertakings (PSUs) be also counted towards the 3-year practice rule for entering judicial service.

The application was mentioned on July 13 before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana during the hearing of the All India Judges Association case. It was filed by AoR Anuja Pethia and argued by Advocate Vanshaja Shukla.

The CJI said that the application would be considered along with the pleas seeking review of the Court's 2025 judgment on the 3-year practice rule.

Supreme Court Questions Laws Barring Persons With More Than 2 Kids From Local Elections, Cites Declining Fertility Rates

Case Details:  MANGALA BHIMRAO INGLE PRATIK v  THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DIVISION AND ORS.|SLP(C) No. 30772/2025

The Supreme Court (July 15) questioned the rationale of the policy barring of persons having more than two children from contesting elections to the Panchayat and other local bodies in Maharashtra.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a matter regarding disqualification incurred by a former Sarpanch at the Kakoda Gram Panchayat, Mangala Bhimrao, under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, on the birth of her third child. The 1959 Act imposes a bar on having more than two children from September 13, 2000, when the amendment to the legislation was enforced.

The bench orally stated that the judgment upholding a similar State law in Haryana, the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, needs reconsideration. In Javed v State of Haryana(2003), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1994 Act, which disqualified candidates with more than two living children from contesting local elections.

'Tamil Nadu A Vibrant State, People Well Versed Even Without TV Channels': Supreme Court Refuses Plea For District Information Channels

Case: S. Vijayapandian v. The Principal CM Secretary and Ors., SLP (C) No. 15172/2026.

The Supreme Court (July 15) refused to entertain a plea seeking the establishment of District Revenue Information Channels across Tamil Nadu, observing that the issue lay squarely within the executive's policy domain. During the hearing, the Court orally remarked that Tamil Nadu was a "very vibrant State" whose people were well-informed even without dedicated television channels.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana dismissed the special leave petition filed against a Madras High Court order rejecting similar relief.

Responding to the petitioner's contention that the absence of District Revenue Information Channels deprived nearly seven crore people of their "Right to Know" about government schemes, the CJI said:

NEET UG 2026 | Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging NEET Retest As Infructuous

Case Details: MANGALA KOHLI v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 753/2026

The Supreme Court today(July 15) dismissed a writ petition challenging the National Testing Agency's (NTA) decision to cancel and re-conduct NEET-UG 2026 for nearly 22 lakh candidates as infructuous.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe told the counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the examination has already taken place, the issue doesn't survive. The counsel, however, mentioned that they have also sought institutional reforms within the NTA. She requested that the matter may be tagged with otherpending petitions raising larger issues on NEET examination.

Justice Narasimha orally told the counsel that the petitioner can intervene in the other batch of petitions (seeking NTA reforms).

Telugu Actor-Producer Bandla Ganesh Moves Supreme Court Against Bank Auction Of Property

Case : Bandla Ganesh Babu v Union Bank of India and others | SLP (Civil) Diary No. 41225 of 2026

Telugu film actor and producer Bandla Ganesh Babu has approached the Supreme Court challenging the auction of one of his mortgaged properties under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, raising significant questions on the interplay between the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

Ganesh has filed a Special Leave Petition challenging a common judgment dated July 3, 2026, passed by the Telangana High Court, which had set aside an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT), Hyderabad.

The dispute arises from credit facilities extended by Union Bank of India to M/s. Sri Parameswara Poultry Farm Private Limited, Hyderabad. Ganesh and his family had mortgaged their privately owned properties as collateral security for the loans. During the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and auctioned one of the mortgaged properties.

Supreme Court Dismisses Tamil Nadu Plea Challenging Madras HC's Interim Protection To Ex-Minister EV Velu

Case: SLP(Crl) No. 12472-12474/2026 Diary No. 40844 / 2026 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs E.V. VELU

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Madras High Court's interim order protecting former Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader E. Velu from coercive action in a corruption case relating to alleged irregularities in the execution of road infrastructure projects.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed a plea filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the High Court's order.

Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the interim order had effectively granted anticipatory bail in proceedings where no such relief had been sought.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Prevent Circulation Of Influencer's Videos Against Prophet Mohammed

Case Details: MD ANAS CHAUDHARY Vs UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF HOME PRINCIPAL SECRETARY | W.P.(Crl.) No. 255/2026

The Supreme Court today(July 15) dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to prevent the circulation of objectionable comments allegedly made by an influencer against Prophet Muhammad.

Rejecting the plea, a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe orally said that the purpose of filing such petitions seemed to be to sensationalise the matter.

At the outset, the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Pulkit Agarwal, submitted: "This is about certain remarks made in a podcast hurting a particular religious community. What we are currently seeking essentially is that there is no censorship on social media. Constitutional silence is there. This Court has to determine it at some stage. Pan-India people are making podcasts and reels."

Supreme Court Directs AIIMS To Assess IIT Kharagpur Student Seeking Transfer To IIT Roorkee On Medical Grounds

Case : XXX v. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and others | WP(C) 889/2025

The Supreme Court directed the Director of AIIMS, New Delhi, to constitute a medical board to assess a student of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur, who has sought transfer to IIT Roorkee on medical grounds.

The Court also directed IIT Roorkee to keep one seat vacant pending consideration of his plea. The petitioner, belonging to Scheduled Caste, has sought transfer for mental healthcare treatment, on the ground that he was suffering from depression, and therapy facilities were not available at Kharagpur.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan passed the interim directions after noting that the last date for admissions is July 17, 2026.

Oral Pronouncement Not Final, Judges Can Make Changes & Re-Hear Matter Until Judgment Is Signed: Supreme Court

Case Title: VIDYADAS BABAJI v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 789/2026

The Supreme Court orally said that oral pronouncement of a judgement in open Court does not make it final. Instead, changes can be made and matter re-listed for hearing until the same has been signed by the concerned judge(s).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the case of Sr Anjaneya Temple head priest - Vidyadas Babaji, who sought a direction to the Karnataka High Court to upload the judgment pronounced in open Court.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, for the petitioner, contended that the judgment was initially reserved by the High Court in November, 2025. However, the matter was listed for re-hearing on March 25. On this date, judgment was reserved again, which came to be pronounced in April. The case status showed that the writ petition had been allowed. The matter was then fixed for giving information about criminal cases pending against the petitioner, if any, which was statedly supplied by the State Advocate General. Yet, till date, the judgment has not been uploaded.

Graham Staines Murder | Decide Dara Singh's Premature Release By August 19 : Supreme Court To Odisha Govt

Case Details : RABINDRA KUMAR PAL @ DARA SINGH Versus STATE OF ODISHA | Diary No. 11407-2024

The Supreme Court asked the Odisha Government to take a decision on the premature release of Dara Singh, aka Rabindra Kumar Pal, who is serving life imprisonment in the murder case of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons, by August 19.

Before a bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, counsel for the State of Odisha sought adjournment for a short period of time. The adjournment was sought on grounds that the Odisha State Sentence Review Board(Committee), which was to decide on the remission, has called for remaining records. Stating that the Court expects the Committee to take a decision soon, the bench posted the matter to be heard on August 19.

"A request has been made on behalf of the State that the matter may be adjourned for a short period as the Committee which was to take a decision has called for the records and those records are yet to be made available to them. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to adjourn this matter to 19.08.2026. In the meantime, we expect that the Committee shall take its decision."

Air India Crash | AAIB Opposes Need For Supreme Court-Monitored Investigation, Says Its Probe As Per International Treaty

Case Title – W.P.(C) No. 1031/2025

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has told the Supreme Court that there is no need for a court-monitored investigation into tinto the June 12, 2025 Air India AI171 crash in Ahmedabad, which claimed 260 lives, stating that its inquiry is being carried out in compliance with India's obligations under international aviation treaties.

According to the AAIB, the remaining investigation activities are expected to be completed within approximately six weeks, subject to pending external dependencies. Thereafter, a draft final report is expected to be ready around October 2026.

Opposing pleas for an independent judicial probe, the Bureau has contended in its counter affidavit that petitioners' prayers relating to compensation, regulatory reforms and criminal prosecution fall outside the scope of an accident investigation under the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2025.

Supreme Court Paves Way For Shifting Of Uttarakhand High Court To Haldwani

Case Title: HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND., DIARY NO. - 22967/2024

The Supreme Court set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's 2024 order rejecting the State government's offer of alternate land in Haldwani for relocating the High Court, which is presently situated in Nainital.

The Supreme Court opined that these are issues to be determined on the administrative side, not judicial.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered that the possession of the land in Haldwani, stated to have been allocated for the new building of the High Court, be handed over to the High Court at the earliest.

Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking Access To Source Code Of Its Case Management Software

Case Title: SUNIL AHYA v. THE SECRETARY GENERAL, THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND ANR., Diary No. 17407-2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking citizens' access to study the Free and Open Source Software utilised in the Court's Case Management System.

Flagging security and privacy concerns, the Court said that if the petitioner has a proposal for sharing the source code without affecting the security aspect, he may share the same.

"We are not inclined the consider this petition under Article 32. However, if the petitioner has any valuable suggestion for improvement of internal functioning of the Supreme Court registry or the establishment, such suggestions are always welcome. An endeavor shall be made to incorporate the same suitably", the Court ordered.

'Should Country Remain Standstill'?: Supreme Court Approved UP Govt's Night Safari & Zoo Project In Kukrail Reserve Forest

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Sharma, Indian Forest Service (Retd.) & Ors. v. Union of India, WP(C) No.1164/2023

The Supreme Court approved the Uttar Pradesh government's night safari and zoological park project in the Kukrail Reserve Forest.

Slamming opposition to the same, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant questioned whether the country should remain standstill, even as zoos have turned "outdated".

A bench of CJI Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the UP government's application seeking approval for its ambitious project. The State informed that the Court had called for a report from the Centrally Empowered Committee, which accorded approval for some aspects of the project and denied permission for others. Accordingly, the Court ordered,

'Though Removed From Electoral Roll, You're Entitled To Certain Benefits' : Supreme Court Asks SIR-Excluded Person To Move HC For Ration

Case Title: MOHIBULLA MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 791/2026

The Supreme Court orally observed that persons excluded from electoral rolls after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal remain entitled to certain benefits (like ration).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the plea of one Mohibulla Mondal, who sought directions to prevent deletion/cancellation/suspension of his ration card following the order passed by the state's Department of Food and Supplies in June.

The petitioner further prayed that the supply of subsidized food grains to him be not disturbed, atleast until his appeal challenging exclusion from the electoral rolls is decided by the Appellate Tribunal.

'Mahaprabhu Jagannath' Movie Makers Approach Supreme Court Against Orissa High Court's Ban On Its Release

The makers of the animation movie 'Mahaprabhu Jagannath' approached the Supreme Court challenging the Orissa High Court's order banning the countrywide release of the film.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat made an urgent mention of the matter before the Chief Justice of India, requesting a hearing, as the film was slated for release the next day.

Kamat submitted that the film was an animation movie about Lord Jagannath meant for children, and the High Court banned its release, saying that the film was not made as per the 'Skanda Purana'. He added that the Central Board of Film Certification has already cleared the film by giving it a certificate as per Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act. He informed that the High Court's order was uploaded at 9 PM, and the ban order would result in immense prejudice and hardship for the producer, who has invested crores of rupees. Over 300 theatres were chartered for the screening of the film, the senior counsel stated, urging for a hearing.

Ashish Mishra & Ajay Mishra Not Involved In Witness Intimidation In Lakhimpur Kheri Case : UP Police To Supreme Court

Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022

The Uttar Pradesh Police informed the Supreme Court that its investigation has found no evidence to suggest that Ashish Mishra, or his father, former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, was involved in the alleged intimidation of witnesses in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing Mishra's plea seeking bail. He continues to be on bail granted by the Court, which is monitoring the progress of the trial.

The bench was informed about the status report filed by the State as per which the investigation into the FIR alleging witness intimidation had concluded and that nothing incriminating had been found against Mishra.

Don't Introduce Third Language In Class 9, It's Stressful To Students: Justice BV Nagarathna To Centre

Case: SLP(C) No. 33459/2017, State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumari Maha Sabha

Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna expressed concern over the introduction of a third language at the Class 9 level under the CBSE curriculum, observing that it places unnecessary stress on students preparing for board examinations.

The remarks were made during the hearing of the Tamil Nadu government's appeal against a Madras High Court direction to facilitate the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in every district of the State. Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed the setting up of JNVs, citing concerns over the three-language policy followed by the schools.

Although the validity of the CBSE language policy was not directly in issue in the case, Justice Nagarathna made a series of observations on the timing of introducing a third language. Notably, the CBSE three-language policy is presently under challenge in separate public interest petitions before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The CJI's benchhas refused to stay the implementation of the CBSE's policy, and has posted the matter for hearing next week.

Supreme Court Criticises Delhi Police For Not Invoking Attempt to Murder Charge In Attack On Advocate, Transfers Probe To Crime Branch

Case Title – Pankaj Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

The Supreme Court criticised the Delhi Police for failing to invoke the offence of attempt to murder in an FIR registered over an alleged attack on an advocate practising before the Court, and directed that the investigation be transferred to the Crime Branch.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that, considering the nature of the injuries allegedly inflicted on a vital part(head) of the victim's body, the offence of attempt to murder ought to have been included in the FIR.

"Taking into consideration the nature of injury on vital part of the body where it is inflicted, it seems to us that prima facie an offence like attempt to murder ought to have been included in the FIR, subject to final outcome of the investigation," the Bench observed.

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Contempt Pleas Alleging Violation Of 'Bulldozer' Judgment, Sends Matters To High Courts

The Supreme Court refused to entertain contempt petitions alleging that demolitions were carried out in violation of its landmarkNovember 2024 judgment laying down safeguards against "bulldozer justice", saying such grievances should be raised before the concerned High Courts.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, observing that there will be different factual disputes involved in each case, took the view that the Supreme Court cannot go on adjudicating each claim on facts.

The bench therefore passed an order relegating all the contempt petitions to the respective High Courts, leaving open all the issues. The Court had previously issued notice to the authorities in some of the contempt petitions.

Supreme Court Refuses Plea To Expedite Election Petitions' Hearings In Madras High Court

Case :  K. VENKATACHALAPATHY Vs HIGH COURT OF MADRAS | W.P.(C) No. 796/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking directions to the Madras High Court to expedite the hearings of election petitions and decide them within a timeline.

Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court for suitable directions, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu informed the bench that at least 54 election petitions have been filed in the High Court concerning the 2026 assembly polls. One petition concerns a victory by a margin of a single vote, Naidu highlighted.

'Everyone Does Naarebaazi In Democracy': Supreme Court Not Inclined To Revive Case Against Bhagwant Mann Over Protest March

Case Title: U.T CHANDIGARH v. BHAGWANT MANN AND ANR., Diary No. 21434-2026

The Supreme Court orally expressed that it is not inclined to entertain Chandigarh administration's pleaagainst quashingof a rioting case against AAP leaders, including Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann over holding a protest march in 2020 against electricity tariff hike.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the Chandigarh administration's challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court order which quashed the rioting case arising out of a 2020 protest.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for Chandigarh, urged that the administration is facing some technical objection to the 3 cases filed by it challenging separate orders. He prayed for some time to address the issue.

Troubled By View That Public Servant's Murder Isn't 'Rarest Of Rare' : Supreme Court On Anand Mohan's Remission, Reserves Judgment

Case Details:TELUGU UMADEVI KRISHNAIAH Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR|W.P.(Crl.) No. 204/2023 Diary No. 18261 / 2023

The Supreme Court today(July 16) orally remarked that the Patna High Court's observation that murder of a public servant doesn't fall in the 'rarest of the rare' category would actually encourage criminals to commit crimes against public servants.

The remarks were made while a bench comprising Justice Dipankar and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a petition challenging the decision of the Bihar Government to grant premature release to former Bihar MP Anand Mohan in the case for the mob lynching of Gopalganj District Magistrate G Krishnaiah in 1994. It also made serious remarks about the apparent concealment of pending cases against him, including the one allegedly committed while in custody in the present case. The bench has reserved the case for judgment.

The present petition was filed by Uma Krishnaiah, the widow of District Magistrate G Krishnaiah, who was killed after an attack by a mob led by Mohan. Mohan was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence. However, he walked out of jail on April 24, 2023 after serving 14 years of imprisonment in view of the remission of sentence granted by the Bihar Government.

Following Bihar SIR Judgment, Supreme Court Closes Tamil Nadu SIR Cases

Case Title: R. SIVA Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 1109/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a batch of petitions challenging Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, in the backdrop of the judgment in Bihar SIR batch of cases, where the Election Commission's power to conduct SIR was upheld.

The Court however granted the petitioners liberty to pursue any other remedy available under the law.

Supreme Court Unveils Plans For Faster Disposal Of Old Matters, Better Case Management

The judges of the Supreme Court have unveiled a series of measures aimed at expediting the disposal of long-pending cases, improving case management and streamlining court procedures, including a plan to prioritise the oldest pending matters after a special drive to clear over 9,000 cases.

The decisions were taken at a Full Court meeting held on July 15, where all the judges resolved to participate in the ongoing Samadhan Samaroh, an initiative that will culminate in a Special Lok Adalat on August 21, 22 and 23.

As part of the pendency reduction exercise, the Full Court resolved to take up around 100 bunch matters that are ready for final hearing. These matters will be listed before appropriate benches for out-of-turn disposal and are expected to result in the disposal of approximately 9,177 connected cases.

Supreme Court Deplores Wives' Practice Of Complaining To Husbands' Employers Over Matrimonial Disputes

The Supreme Court orally expressed concern over wives writing to husband's employers during matrimonial litigation, observing that such complaints could result in loss of employment and ultimately affect maintenance.

The observations came while a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a transfer petition filed by a woman seeking transfer of a defamation suit filed against her by her husband's friend (respondent) from Assam to Ghaziabad, UP. The wife sought transfer on the ground that she is already engaged in multiple litigations against her husband in Ghaziabad.

Justice Nagarathna observed that many wives were adopting this course of action by writing to their husband's employers, leading to termination of employment.

Supreme Court Asks Union To Consider Rail Fare Concessions, Emergency Quota For Acid Attack Survivors

Case Title: ATIJEEVAN SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 30/2026

The Supreme Court called on the Union of India to consider including acid-attack survivors in the category of Persons with Disability (PwD) who are granted concessions and/or emergency quotas by the Railways for treatment/periodical checkups.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana asked Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave to obtain instructions, after hearing Advocate Anandh Venkataramani (for petitioner-Atijeevan Society).

The present public interest litigation was filed seeking concessional fares and emergency quota in the Railways for acid attack survivors. During today's hearing, ASG Dave informed that the government is already deliberating on provision of emergency quotas to all persons with disabilities (including acid attack survivors).

After Courtroom Ruckus, Supreme Court To Ask Party-In-Persons To Forego Live-Streaming & Video Recording If Appearing Physically

In the wake of instances of litigants appearing in person allegedly indulging in unruly conduct, the Supreme Court has decided that parties-in-person who opt to appear physically before the Court will have to forgo live-streaming and video recording of their appearance.

The decision was taken by the Full Court in its meeting held on July 15 while approving an amendment to the procedure governing parties appearing without legal representation.

Under the existing framework, Order IV Rule 1(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 requires a party-in-person to interact with the Registrar and explain why they are not engaging an advocate before their petition is processed.

Supreme Court Asks Producer To Release 'Mahaprabhu Jagannath' Movie After Puri Rath Yatra

Case :  ELE ANIMATIONS PVT. LTD. Vs MAHESH KUMAR SAHU | SLP(C) No. 23905/2026 Diary No. 41972 / 2026

The Supreme Court declined to allow the release of the animation film Mahaprabhu Jagannath (the scheduled release date), directing the producers to postpone its release until after July 27, when the annual Lord Jagannath Rath Yatra in Puri concludes.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a petition filed by the producer of the film, Ele Animations Pvt. Ltd, challenging the order passed by the Orissa High Courton July 15 banning the countrywide release of the film.

The bench refused to stay the High Court's order, noting that the Lord Jagannath Rath Yatra commenced and will continue till July 27.

Kerala Wakf Board Moves Supreme Court Challenging HC Order Restraining It From Taking Major Decisions

The Kerala Wakf Board has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court's recent order restraining the Board from taking major policy decisions.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant agreed to list the matter after it was mentioned for urgent listing. Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh mentioned the matter, saying that through an interim order without notice to the other side, the Board has been made virtually defunct. The senior counsel pointed out that in a similar order concerning the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the Supreme Court had granted interim relief.

The High Court passed the restraint order after noting that the State Wakf Board was constituted without including two non-Muslim members and one Shia member as per the mandatory requirements introduced as per the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act.

Supreme Court Admits Somnath Bharti's Appeal Challenging Election Of Satish Upadhyay In 2025 Delhi Assembly Polls

Case Details: SOMNATH BHARTI Versus SATISH UPADHYAY | Diary No. 10053-2026

The Supreme Court today(July 17) has agreed to hear Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Somnath Bharti's plea challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party's Satish Upadhyay from Malviya Nagar Assembly constituency in the 2025 Delhi assembly elections.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta granted leave to appeal, after briefly hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal(for Bharti) and Senior Advocate Maninder Singh(for Upadhyay).

Sibal submitted that the Delhi High Court rejected Bharti's election petition on the erroneous grounds that he failed to make Congress candidate Jitender Kumar Kochar a necessary party.

Lok Sabha MP Moves Supreme Court Seeking Municipalities In Urban Places Falling In Scheduled Tribe Areas

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court for the effective implementation of the constitutional scheme governing democratic urban local self-goveranace in Scheduled Areas under Article Article 243ZC read with the Fifth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.

The petition filed by Rajkumar Roat, member of the Lok Sabha from Rajasthan, says that the Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, inserted Part IX-A into the Constitution with the objective of establishing democratic institutions of urban local self-government. However, Article 243ZC excludes Scheduled Areas from the automatic application of Part IX-A.

Roat points out that similar amendment Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992 inserted Part IX into the Constitution for local rural self-governance. Subsequently, the Parliament enacted the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 for extending Part IX to Scheduled Areas. However, more than three decades have passed since the 74th amendment but no corresponding legislation has been enacted for urban local governence.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Case On Access To Life-Saving Drugs, Flags Kerala HC's Delay In Deciding Similar Plea

Case - In Re : Access to Life Saving Medicines and Judicial Expediency in Article 21 matter | Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.19/2026

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the issue of access to life-saving medicines after noting the prolonged pendency of a petition before the Kerala High Court concerning the affordability of patented cancer drugs.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana considered the suo motu case -which was registered on July 16 - today. While issuing notice to the Union on the suo motu case, the bench also requested the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court to ensure the expeditious disposal of the writ petition (WP(c) 18999/2022), which has remained pending for over four years.

At the outset, the Chief Justice said that the bench will request the High Court to decide the matter. "Several times it(Kerala HC matter) has been adjourned."

Supreme Court Defers Bengaluru Municipal Corporation Elections To December In View Of Karnataka SIR Exercise

Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Versus M. SHIVARAJU AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 15181-15183/2020

The Supreme Court directed that elections to the five municipal corporations in Bengaluru be held in December 2026, taking note of the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Karnataka.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that since the SIR exercise is expected to conclude in November, the civic polls should be scheduled thereafter.

"In view of the fact that Karnataka is having SIR and process will be completed in November, it is directed that elections of all five corporations be held in December, 2026," the bench ordered.

SIR | Removal From Electoral Roll Doesn't Mean Loss Of Citizenship : Supreme Court

Case Title: PRASENJIT BOSE v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 819/2026

The Supreme Court orally reiterated that deletion from the electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise will not automatically result in the loss of the citizenship status.

The Court pointed out that it had made it clear in the Bihar SIR judgment that the ultimate authority to determine citizenship was not the Election Commission of India, and the removal from electoral rolls cannot, by itself, result in the deprivation of citizenship.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Prasenjit Bose, seeking various reliefs to streamline the hearing process in the appellate tribunals constituted to hear the appeals of SIR-excluded persons.

'Lack Of Funds No Excuse': Supreme Court Asks States/UTs To Ensure Availability Of Functional Washrooms In All Courts

Case : SARIKA TYAGI v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 770/2026

The Supreme Court called on all States/Union Territories to take steps for ensuring availability of washrooms in all Courts within their jurisdiction, including those at the district and taluqa level.

The Court said that access to washroom is a basic human right and revenue-deficit with any State/UT shall be no excuse for failure to provide the same.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana conveyed the aforesaid in attendance of Advocate Generals of all States/UTs. The States/UTs were directed to file affidavits within 6 weeks to the effect that the work has commenced.

Supreme Court Dismisses Rajkot Bar Association's Plea Seeking Transfer Of Its Plea From HC To SC

Case Details:  RAJKOT BAR ASSOCIATION Vs BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT|T.P.(C) No. 1658/2026 Diary No. 27752 / 2026

The Supreme Court (July 17) dismissed a petition filed by the Rajkot Bar Association seeking transfer to the Top Court of a petition pending before the Gujarat High Court concerning the suspension of the Association's Secretary and issues relating to the functioning and strengthening of the Bar Association.

Before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Senior Advocate Asim Pandya referred to aFebruary order passed by the Court in a suo moto reference, which arose out of a Madras High Court decision on dispute over membership to the Madras Bar Association.

Refering to the order, he submitted that the present plea raises a similar issue and therefore pleaded that the matter be transferred to it.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Separate Legal Identity, Protection For Intersex Persons

Case Title: SHAMSHRAVISH REIN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 764/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union on a public interest litigation seeking separate legal identity and protective safeguards for persons born with congenital variations in sex characteristics (intersex persons).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after hearing petitioner-in-person Shamshravish Rein.

The petitioner, a practicing advocate at the Supreme Court, filed the present PIL seeking a declaration that persons born with congenital variations in sex characteristics constitute a distinct and identifiable class "for the limited purpose of ensuring targeted constitutional protection and appropriate legal safeguards", without affecting the rights of transgender persons.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On SCBA Plea Seeking Representation Of Women Advocates In Govt Panels, Stipend For Juniors

Case Title: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 825/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association seeking adequate representation in government panels, retainership opportunities, and caregiving support for women advocates as well as minimum stipend support for junior advocates.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order and tagged the plea with a similar pending matter.

Briefly put, the petition has been filed by SCBA primarily seeking gender inclusive representation and equitable professional opportunities for women advocates across the country. It seeks a policy for ensuring adequate representation of women advocates in government panels as well as non-discriminatory mechanism for equitable allocation of government litigation work, briefing and retainership opportunities.

AgustaWestland Chopper Scam | UK-Based Businessman Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Against ED Warrants

Case: Shravan Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 66063/2025

The Supreme Court allowed former MGF Group chairman Shravan Gupta, who is accused in a money laundering related to the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, to withdraw his plea challenging non-bailable warrants (NBWs) issued against him by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

Gupta has been abroad since leaving India in November 2019. Earlier, the ED has said that it is pursuing extradition proceedings against him, and an Interpol Red Notice was issued against him in August 2023.

The ED has alleged that Gupta in received ₹24 crore in proceeds of crime laundered through foreign companies as part of the laundering of alleged kickbacks in the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal. It has further stated that Gupta failed to join the investigation despite repeated summonses after leaving India in 2019.

SCAORA Submits Recommendations On Supreme Court's Draft AI Regulations, Raises Concerns

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has submitted its comments and recommendations on the Draft Regulations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 to Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, who chairs the Supreme Court's Artificial Intelligence Committee, urging a cautious and phased deployment of AI in the judicial system.

The Association's Executive Committee presented the report to Justice P.S. Narasimha, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, along with Justice Alok Aradhe. Justice Narasimha appreciated the efforts undertaken by SCAORA and assured that the recommendations and the Draft AI Regulations would be deliberated upon extensively in the coming weeks.

In June, the Supreme Court's Artificial Intelligence Committee, comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, had released the Draft Regulations governing the use of AI in the Supreme Court and invited comments from stakeholders.

Ayodhya Donation Theft : Nirmohi Akhara Moves Supreme Court Seeking To Restructure Ram Janmabhoomi Trust As Public Trust

Case : M.A filed by Sri Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara in M.Siddiqui and others v. Mahant Suresh Das and others | C.A 10866/2010

The Nirmohi Akhara has moved the Supreme Court seeking directions to restructure the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, which manages the Ayodhya Ram Mandir, contending that the Trust, as presently constituted, is inconsistent with the spirit of the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment and lacks adequate accountability.

The miscellaneous application has been filed in the disposed Ayodhya title dispute proceedings, seeking implementation of the directions issued by the Constitution Bench in its November 9, 2019 judgment. The Akhara contends that while the judgment envisaged an “appropriate role” for it in the management of the temple, the scheme framed by the Central Government has effectively excluded it from both the governance of the Trust and the conduct of religious affairs.

The application has been filed by Shri Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara through its Sarpanch, Mahant and Sarvakar, Mahant Raja Ramchandracharya Ateet Guru Raghunath Das, who claims to have been appointed and recognised by a resolution dated July 5, 2026. The application states that the Akhara is a Panchayati Mutt whose decisions are taken through a democratic process by its Panchayat, and asserts that it was one of the principal parties in the Ayodhya title dispute.

Supreme Court Stays Demolitions Of Petitioners' Structures Near Rajasthan Indo-Pak Border For 2 Weeks, Asks Them To Move HC

Case : Taj Mohd and others v. State of Rajasthan and others | WP(c)  818/2026

The Supreme Court (July 17) halted the demolitions of structures belonging to the petitioners near the India-Pakistan border in Rajasthan for two weeks, while asking the affected parties to approach the division bench of the Rajasthan High Court for relief.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to entertain the writ petition filed by eight petitioners, and asked them to file intra-court appeal in the Rajasthan High Court.

On July 13, a single bench of the Rajasthan High Court had dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the demolition drive in the border region affecting various structures, including mosques, kabarstans and dargahs. The demolitions were carried out following the expansion of the Border Security Force's area of operations to a 50-kilometre radius from the international border. The High Court observed that the matter pertained to national security and rejected the allegations of religious discrimination. The High Court further held that in issues relating to national security, strict adherence to principles of natural justice was not required.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Elections In Maharashtra Local Bodies Treating Reservation Above 50% As Open Seats

Case Title: SANGRAM GOVINDRAO PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 806/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra State Election Commission on a petition seeking directions for immediate conduct of local body polls in Maharashtra, which have not been held despite a lapse of 506 days since the expiry of the respective local bodies' tenures.

The petition seeks directions to immediately conduct elections to the concerned Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis, declare that reservations beyond the 50% ceiling be treated as open category seats, direct that elections under Part IX of the Constitution shall not be postponed on account of constitutionally impermissible reservation structures, and frame guidelines to ensure timely local body elections while adhering to constitutional limits in future.

The petition assails the non-conduct of elections to Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis in the State of Maharashtra allegedly on account of reservations exceeding the 50% ceiling limit laid down by the Court in K Krishna Murthy v. Union of India and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra.

"Even If Building Is Demolished Today, I Won't Allow Listing": CJI Surya Kant Deprecates Practice Of Directly Approaching Supreme Court

The Supreme Court declined to urgently list a plea seeking protection against the demolition of a property, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant refusing to entertain the matter directly and reiterating that litigants should first approach the jurisdictional High Court.

Seeking a same-day listing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the authorities were proceeding with the demolition despite the existence of a sanctioned building plan. The counsel argued that while the authorities alleged that the construction had come up in a pond area, the building had been raised pursuant to a duly sanctioned plan.

The CJI, however, refused to grant an urgent hearing or pass any interim protection.

Will Ask CBSE To Give Opt-Out Option In APAAR Consent Forms For Students: Supreme Court In Plea Against Aadhaar Linkage

Case : ABHISHEK BAXI Vs UNION OF INDIA WP.(C) No. 832/2026

The Supreme Court said that it will direct the Central Board of Secondary Education to implement adirection of the Orissa High Court to amend the model consent form for generation of APAAR (Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry) IDs to explicitly provide parents with an option to refuse consent or opt out of the scheme.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the parents of four students challenging the constitutional validity of the APAAR ID scheme for students on the ground that it compelled students to obtain Aadhaar IDs. The petitioners also raised concerns about the protection, storage and processing of students' personal data, and sought strict compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said that it will also pass a direction to the CBSE to address these concerns.

HC Judges' Post-Retirement Benefits Must Be Uniform Across Country : Supreme Court Asks Centre To Form Committee

Case: JUSTICE V.S. DAVE PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATION OF RETD. JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS v. KUSUMJIT SIDHU . AND ORS. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 425-426/2015 In W.P.(C) No. 523/2002 and connected matters

The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to constitute a committee within two weeks to frame uniform guidelines on post-retirement facilities for former Chief Justices and judges of High Courts, observing that essential amenities currently vary widely from State to State.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, was hearing a writ petition concerning the security and other post-retirement facilities available to retired High Court judges.

The Court noted that the issue before it concerns "certain benefits/facilities to be made admissible to retired Chief Justices and judges of High Courts."

Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre For Delaying Decision On Ex-Cop's President's Gallantry Award For Anti-Dacoity Operation

Case : GOVIND MOHAN Vs VIVEK SINGH CHOUHAN | MA 2056/2026 in SLP(C) No. 10821/2026 Diary No. 40866 / 2026

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the Union Government's continued refusal to comply with a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction to confer the President's Gallantry Award on a former police officer who shot dead two dacoits during an anti-dacoity operation more than two decades ago.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an application filed by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan seeking time to comply with the order directing the conferment of the award to police officer Vivek Singh Chouhan.

Appearing for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the Centre had filed a review petition against the Supreme Court's order approving the High Court's judgment. He submitted that the objection was "in principle" and not against the individual officer.

Supreme Court Stays HC Order Allowing Accused To Inspect Unrelied Electronic Evidence In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

Case Details:  STATE NCT OF DELHI Vs DEVANGANA KALITA|SLP(Crl) No. 12447/2026 Diary No. 38990 / 2026

The Supreme Court (July 20) stayed the Delhi High Court's order,which allowed Devangana Kalita, accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, to inspect electronic evidence collected by the Delhi Police during the investigation but not relied upon by the prosecution.

It may be recalled that on June 6, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court dismissed Kalita's plea seeking videos of the CAA-NRC protests and WhatsApp chats relied on by the Delhi police against her due to the sensitive information involved. However, the judge allowed her to inspect the un-relied documents stored in police custody.

This order was challenged by the Delhi Police before the Supreme Court. Before a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted that in two judgments of the Court -  Debendra Nath Padhi and  Sarla Gupta - clearly held that the accused is not entitled to inspect unrelied documents at the stage of framing of charge. Raju stated that seeking to inspect unrelied documents at this stage is nothing but a tactic to delay the trial.

Supreme Court Affirms Delhi HC Verdict Quashing MEA Tenders On Outsourcing Consular Services At 4 Indian Missions

Case : UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. E TRAV TECH LIMITED AND ANR.| SLP(C) No. 24271-24277/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union Government's challenge to the Delhi High Court's judgmentsetting aside tenders for outsourcing Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) services at Indian missions in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra. However, the Court permitted the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Engineers India Limited (EIL) to make interim arrangements to ensure uninterrupted services until a fresh tender process is completed.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order after hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union Government and Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi and Shyam Divan for the private parties.

During the hearing, the Solicitor General submitted that the Delhi High Court had erred in quashing the tender process and contended that the evaluation criteria had been applied on the basis of each bidder's individual competence.

Supreme Court Questions BCI's Opposition To Enrolment Of Advocate With Pending Criminal Case

Case Title – K.R. Sudersan v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry

The Supreme Court pulled up the Bar Council of India (BCI) over its opposition to the enrolment of law graduates facing pending criminal cases. The Court orally remarked that the bigger concern was the BCI granting recognition to law colleges run in garages, while failing to point to any statutory provision barring such enrolment.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan was hearing a petition filed by K.R. Sudersan, a Chartered Accountant who later obtained a law degree but was denied enrolment as an advocate by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry because a criminal case is pending against him.

The Madras High Court in 2015 via a Single Judge directed the Bar Council of India to ensure that law graduates facing pending criminal cases are not enrolled as advocates. A Full Bench in another case later affirmed the direction as a temporary measure to operate until Parliament amended the law.

'Many Pujaris Wasting Properties' : Supreme Court On Priests' Plea Against State Control Of Temples

Case Details:  PURANDAS Vs UNION OF INDIA| W.P.(C) No. 828/2026 Diary No. 33767 / 2026

The Supreme Court (July 20) issued notice in a writ petition filed by 237 hereditary pujaris and owners of private temples contending that their temples, built on private land, are being auctioned by the government.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the matter and issued notice to the Union of India, and authorities in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan . As per the petitioners, who are hereditary pujaris and owners of private temples situated in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan, their temples were established by ancestors and have always remained private temples. However, executive circulars have been issued where Collectors were appointed as managers.

At the outset, Justice Kumar questioned if the names of District Collectors were entered by virtue of the 1974 circular, what were the petitioners doing for 60 years.

Don't Politicise Ayodhya Ram Temple Donation Theft, Cautions Supreme Court

Cases : Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 790/2026; Ajay Kumar Rai and another v. Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust | WP(Crl) 241/2026; Sudhakar Singh v. Union of India and others | WP (crl) 256/2026; Hindu Dharma Parishad v. The Union Of India And Ors. | WP(C) No. 827/2026

The Supreme Court observed that the Ayodhya Ram Mandir donation theft issue should not be politicized.

Hearing petitions seeking CBI investigation and audit of the temple Trust finances, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, “We are only putting a word of caution. Don't play any politics. The Courts are not meant for this. Don't politicize the issue. It is a simple prima facie case of commission of an offense", the CJI said.

Indicating that the Court would pass certain directions, the CJI's bench adjourned the matter so as to go through a status report filed by the Uttar Pradesh government.

Supreme Court Affirms Ban On Commercial Activity In Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor

Case Title: M/S JUNGLE HUT Versus THE HONBLE SEGUR PLATEAU ELEPHANT CORRIDOR INQUIRY COMMITTEE AND ORS. SLP(C) No. 32019/2025 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court categorically ruled out any sort of commercial activity in the Segur plateau (Western Ghats area), which was declared as an Elephant corridor.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana disposed of a bunch of petitions challenging the Madras High Court order which upheld the findings of a Supreme Court-appointed committee, declaring as null and void the land bought by resort owners in the Segur plateau.

It however gave persons aggrieved by the High Court order, who have lost their livelihood, liberty to seek alternative sources of livelihood. The Court further gave the State of Tamil Nadu liberty to identify the land which was worth acquisition in the area and not possessed/owned by tribal communities.

'Will Jail You, You Duped Whole Country' : Supreme Court Warns Parsvnath Directors Over Non-Compliance With HRERA Orders

Case Title : RITA TIKKU v. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY | W.P.(C) No. 640/2026

The Supreme Court again came down on Haryana-based Parsvnath Developers, calling on its directors to deposit the total recovery amount in connection with undelivered flats or else face jail.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with writ petitions filed by senior citizen homebuyers in the Parsvnath Exotica Project (Gurugram), who have been awaiting possession of their flats since over 2 decades despite payment of entire consideration.

Earlier, the Court had passeda slew of coercive directions against the directors, calling for their appearance and freezing their personal bank accounts. It had further passed remarks against the Haryana authorities (considering their non-action despite the Developers' non-compliance with HRERA orders) and called for compliance affidavits by the Haryana Chief Secretary, the DGP, all Collectors and all banks concerned.

Supreme Court Stays Allahabad HC Proceedings In Which CBI Was Directed To Secure Evidence In 2009 UP Police Custodial Death

Case Details: AJAY KUMAR MISHRA v ASSOCIATION FOR ADVOCACY AND LEGAL INITIATIVES & ORS.|Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).17458-17459/2026

The Supreme Courtstayed further proceedings before the Allahabad High Court concerning the custodial death of a disabled man in Uttar Pradesh in 2009.

The High Court bench comprising Justice Atul Shreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan, in its order passed on May 16, rebuked the Uttar Pradesh police and the National Human Rights Commission for their "institutional failures" in closing the 16-year-old custodial death case.

A High Court bench, in the impugned order passed on May 18, severely criticised the NHRC for closing the case by treating the police's version as gospel truth without conducting any independent investigation. Particularly, the High Court had expressed anguish over videography and photography of the crime scene and the postmortem not being made available to it for the last 16 years. Orders were passed directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to secure missing video evidence within 60 days. The High Court retained the matter for further consideration, and listed it to August 10.

Shiv-Sena UBT Moves Supreme Court Against Lok Sabha Speaker Approving Merger Of Its 6 MPs With Shinde Sena

Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray faction approached the Supreme Court (July 21) against Lok Sabha Speaker approving merger of its 6 Members of Parliament with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena.

The matter was mentioned by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat before a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant seeking urgent listing of the plea.

As the court asked about the urgency, Kamat said, "My functioning as a political party in the Parliament has come to absolute standstill. These MPs are not with me. The Speaker has recognized their merger with another party. And this is for this Parliament session".

Third Supreme Court Judge Recuses From Hearing Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea In 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case

Case Title: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No. 3742/2023

The Supreme Court (July 21) ordered that the bail plea of lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case should be heard by a bench not comprising Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.

The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar. At the outset, an advocate on behalf of Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for the National Investigation Agency) sought a passover, while Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioner. However, Justice Mishra said the matter will go before another coordinate bench since Justice Chandrashekhar has some difficulty.

"It will go to some other combination; my brother has some difficulty. Post before the bench in which one of us is not there," Justice Mishra said.

1996 Samleti Bus Bomb Blast: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Trial Of Death Row Convict Citing Ineffective Legal Representation

Case details: Crl.A. No. 1827-1829/2019 Diary No. 38125 / 2019 ABDUL HAMEED Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The Supreme Court (July 21) set aside the death penalty of Dr. Abdul Hameed, who was convicted in the 1996 Samleti Bus Bomb Blast involving an IED which detonated on a passenger bus travelling from Agra to Bikaner near Samleti village, killing 14 persons and injuring 37 others.

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta set aside the 2019 Rajasthan High Court judgement to the extent it upheld the conviction and death sentence of Hameed, citing ineffective assistance of counsel.

The judges have now ordered a de-novo trial in the matter.

Supreme Court Deletes Direction On Supervision Of Kerala Waqf Board By Govt Official, Asks HC To Decide Plea Expeditiously

Case Title: THE KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD AND ORS. Versus SHONE GEORGE AND ORS. SLP(C) No. 24194/2026 (and connected case)

The Supreme Court (July 21) deleted Kerala High Court's direction that the State Waqf Board shall function under supervision of the government's Joint Secretary/Additional Secretary of government.

The court passed the order in the Board's plea challenging the Kerala High Court's orderrestraining it from taking major policy decisions over absence of 2 non-Muslim members. The Apex Court meanwhile asked the High Court to expeditiously decide the case.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered,

'Not A Matter For Us': Supreme Court Defers Hearing On Plea Seeking SoP For Time-Bound Probe In Exam Paper Leaks

Case Details:  ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(Crl.) No. 264/2026 Diary No. 40857 / 2026

The Supreme Court (July 21) expressed its reluctance about entertaining a public interest litigation seeking a “Standard Questionnaire and Special Investigation Procedure” to ensure time-bound investigations in cases involving question paper leaks.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe orally remarked “It's not a matter for us [to consider].”

It indicated that it's already monitoring the petitions raising structural concerns with the National Testing Agency (NTA) conducting the NEET examination. On the insistence of Senior Advocate Vikas Singh(for petitioner, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay), the Court deferred the matter to be heard after one week after it has heard the NEET petitions.

Honeymoon Murder Case: Supreme Court Suggests Sonam Raghuvanshi Surrender, Questions Delay In Raising Plea Of Non-Supply Of Arrest Grounds

Case Title: STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SONAM RAGHUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU | SLP(Crl) No. 11944/2026

The Supreme Court (July 21) suggested that Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, surrender and face trial while questioning why she had not raised the plea of non-supply of grounds of arrest at the earliest opportunity.

The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing the Meghalaya government's challenge to the bail granted to Sonam by the High Court.

During the hearing, Justice Sundresh posed a series of questions to Sonam's counsel regarding her conduct and the timing of the challenge to her arrest.

BrahMos Espionage Case: Supreme Court Issues Notice On UP Govt's Appeal Against Acquittal Of Former Engineer

Case Details: Anti-Terror Squad, Through Investigating Officer Lucknow Uttar Pradesh vs Nishant|SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 32039/2026

The Supreme Court (July 13) issued notice on an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging a Bombay High Court judgment acquitting former BrahMos Aerospace engineer Nishant Agarwal of charges of cyber-terrorism and espionage.

Although the trial was conducted in Nagpur and the appeal against conviction was decided by the Bombay High Court, the Uttar Pradesh government has approached the Supreme Court since the case was investigated by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Lucknow (UP).

The matter was mentioned by Uttar Pradesh's Standing Counsel, Advocate Shaurya Sahay, before a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, which issued notice to Maharashtra and Agarwal.

Supreme Court Defers SCBA Reforms To 2027-28 Elections, Upcoming Polls To Be Held Under Old Rules

Cause Title: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VERSUS B.D. KAUSHIK & ANR.

The Supreme Court has partially modified its earlier order on electoral reforms for the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections, stating that the suggested reforms, including new voter eligibility norms based on court appearances and a two-year term for office-bearers, will take effect only from the 2027-28 election cycle.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan agreed to accept a “unanimous request" from the Bar that the reforms should not be applied to the upcoming 2026-27 elections, as the electoral roll had already been finalized on May 26, 2026 with a cut-off date of February 28, 2026.

“The election for the year 2026-27 will be held as per the regime that was obtained prior to the order of this Court dated 29.05.2026 since the electoral roll already stood finalized before the order of 29.05.2026, with the cut-off being 28.02.2026.”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Woman Advocate Alleges Assault By Bar Association Office Bearer Over Land Grabbing Case In Lucknow District Court

A practicing Supreme Court advocate alleged before the Court that she and her client were beaten up by a Bar Association office bearer in connection with a land grabbing case at the Lucknow District Court.

Just as the Chief Justice of India's bench was rising for the day, the counsel appeared online and submitted, "A very urgent matter your lordships...I am a practicing advocate in Supreme Court...I came to Lucknow District Court to attend a hearing. The defendant is a Bar Association Office bearer. He is not letting us appear in the matter. He has assaulted us. Our client is still in the captive of the Bar Association office here."

"I request your lordships' kind indulgence. He is interfering in the administration of justice in the entire District Court! We are not able to enter inside the Court. He has assaulted us. He has beaten us. And now we had to flee to the High Court. It's impossible to enter inside the District Court. It's risky for us. He [office bearer] is carrying a gun!", she added.

Remaining Maharashtra Local Body Elections Can Be Conducted Without Breaching 50% Reservation, Says Supreme Court

Case Title: RAHUL RAMESH WAGH v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 19756/2021 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court orally said that elections of 20 Zilla Parishads and 211 Panchayat Samitis, which are yet to be held in the State of Maharashtra, can be conducted without exceeding the reservation ceiling limit of 50 per cent.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was dealing with a bunch of petitions related to Maharashtra local body elections, which remained held up between 2022 and 2025 over issues pertaining to reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

In May 2025, the Court had passed an interim order paving way for the local body polls to be held in the state. Subsequently, however, certain applications were filed before it, contending that the ceiling limit of 50% reservation (contemplated by a Constitution Bench in K Krishna Murthy judgment) was breached in case of some local bodies. This led the Court to later observe that the Maharashtra authorities misconstrued its 2025 order and that the 50% limit was not to be exceeded.

'No Allegation That He Exhorted Violence' : Supreme Court On 2020 Rioting Case Against Punjab Minister Aman Arora Over AAP Protest

Case Title: U.T. CHANDIGARH v. AMAN ARORA, Diary No. 40158-2026

In a rioting case against Punjab Minister Aman Arora (AAP), the Supreme Court orally opined that mere presence in an unruly group does not per se result in sharing of common intention so as to attract Sections 147/148 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court also orally commented that there was no allegation that Arora had exhorted violence.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was dealing with the Chandigarh administration's challenge to a Punjab and Haryana High Court order which quashed the rioting case against Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann, Aman Arora and other AAP leaders.

Collegium Faces Casual Criticism From Those Unaware Of How Judiciary Functions : CJI Surya Kant

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that the Supreme Court Collegium often faces "casual criticism" from people who do not understand how the judiciary functions or the rigorous process involved in selecting judges for constitutional courts. He stressed that the Collegium considers a range of objective factors, including merit, performance, experience, inclusiveness and diversity, while recommending appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts.

The CJI made the remarks while addressing a felicitation ceremony organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to welcome the newly appointed Supreme Court judges - Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice Arun Palli and Justice V Mohana - who took oath on June 2.

"I can assure you that despite the casual criticism the Supreme Court Collegium sometimes faces, particularly from people who do not know the functioning of the judiciary and how the Supreme Court Collegium evolved, what kind of criteria it factors in, and the issues that are deliberated... the Collegium, while taking decisions, considers so many important and relevant factors while shortlisting Judges for appointment to the Supreme Court and even the High Courts. We follow the same criteria for the appointment of Chief Justices as well," the CJI said.

'Don't Waste Our Time' : Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Listing Of Plea Against Police Action On Student Protesters

The Supreme Court refused to allow urgent listing of a letter petition raising the issue of the Delhi police attack on student protesters in the national capital during the protests called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) seeking the resignation of the Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over exam paper leaks.

"Don't waste our time, and don't waste your time," the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant told Advocate Narendra Mishra, who mentioned the matter. Mishra has sent a letter petition to the CJI regarding the issue.

The lawyer said that the students are raising important issues such as proper conduct of the NEET exam, and reforms in the National Testing Agency.

Kapil Sibal Files Plea In Supreme Court Against Political Defections Under Guise Of Mergers

Case : Kapil Sibal v. Union of India | Diary No. 42846/2026

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal has moved the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition as a party-in-person challenging the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution that permits legislators to avoid disqualification under the anti-defection law by taking the route of a political party merger.

In his petition, Sibal has questioned the constitutional interpretation of the provisions relating to mergers under the Tenth Schedule, contending that the existing interpretation allows splinter groups to escape the rigours of the anti-defection law by engineering mergers with other political parties.

Sibal mentioned the matter for urgent listing before the Chief Justice of India.

Bhojshala Dispute : Will Allot A Nearer Spot For Friday Namaz, MP Govt Tells Supreme Court

In the Bhojshala dispute, Muslim parties have filed an application in the Supreme Court objecting to the Madhya Pradesh administration's choice of the plot allotted for Friday namaz.

They contended that though the Supreme Court had directed that a plot which is adjacent to the Bhojshala complex must be given for Friday namaz, the site given by the administration is located 2 kilometres away from it.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi mentioned the application before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant this morning for urgent listing tomorrow.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Lok Sabha Speaker On Shiv Sena UBT Challenge To Merger Of MPs With Shinde Sena

Case Details: ARVIND GANPAT SAWANT v HONBLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 886/2026

The Supreme Court (July 22) issued notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker in a plea filed by Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (UBT) member Arvind Ganpat Sawant challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision approving the merger of its six Members of Parliament with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena. However, the Court refused to grant interim relief at this stage.

Before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Senior Advocate Devadutt Kamat(for UBT) argued that no disqualification petitions are pending before the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla; therefore, there was no occasion to pass an order approving the merger. He pressed for an interim relief for a stay on the Speaker's order. He also raised a contention that the merger order has been signed by some Joint Secretary and not by the LS Speaker.

He said: "This raises important questions of constitutional morality and propriety, goes to the heart of parliamentary democracy. 6 MPs out of 9 chosen on my party symbol; no disqualification proceedings are pending. Question on merger has not arisen as what your lordships said in Subhash Desai...whole thing orchestrated only for the purposes of parliament session, my lords may take it next week."

Prosecution Should Focus On Securing Conviction Than Opposing Bail: Supreme Court Flags Increasing SLPs Against Bail Orders

Case Title: CHAITANYA BHAGHEL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SLP(Crl) No. 17232/2025 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court voiced serious concerns over the growing number of appeals against bail orders reaching the apex court, observing that prosecutors should focus more on securing convictions than opposing bail and reiterating that bail matters should ordinarily rest with the High Courts.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana refused to cancel the bailgranted to Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, in the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam. While dismissing petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the State Economic Offences Wing (EOW), the Court expunged certain adverse remarks made by the Chhattisgarh High Court against the prosecution, holding that they were "completely uncalled for."

During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the increasing tendency of prosecutors to challenge bail orders before the Supreme Court instead of concentrating on ensuring successful prosecutions.

Consider Increasing Retirement Age Of District Judges To 61 : Supreme Court To States/UTs

Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

The Supreme Court directed all States/UTs to consider enhancing the retirement age of District Judges to 61 years, after consulting with the respective High Courts.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the All India Judges Associationcase, where one of the issues being considered is whether the age of superannuation of members of District Judiciary should be enhanced to 62 on pan-India level despite any resistance shown by any State/UT or High Court.

The Court indicated that it will decide the issue as to whether the retirement age needs to be uniform on pan-India level at the earliest. But in the meantime, its earlier interim order (permitting District Judges in some states to continue till 61)  is modified to hold that district judges who are due to retire may continue working till the age of 61, provided the State/UT they are working in and the respective High Court are in concurrence over increase in the retirement age.

Supreme Court Asks Union, CPCB To Explain Utilisation Of 'Environment Relief Fund'

Case Title: GYAN PRAKASH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 1093/2019

The Supreme Court has called for a comprehensive affidavit from the Union of India and the CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board) on the "Environment Relief Fund" established under the Public Liability Insurance Act.

For context, the ERF was created to provide financial relief to victims of transport accidents involving hazardous materials. A person plying a vehicle on road is supposed to have a policy covering third-party risk, but those carrying hazardous materials must have an additional insurance in terms of the PLIA. Since its creation, over Rs.1000 crores are stated to have been received in the ERF.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi called for the affidavit, while dealing with a public interest litigation initiated by Jabalpur-based social activist Gyan Prakash. At his request, the bench also agreed to appoint an Amicus Curiae in the matter.

Law Students Can't Be Barred From Ongoing Academic Session Exams Over Attendance Shortage: Supreme Court Grants One-Time Relief

Case Title – Prakruthi Jain v. Bar Council of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Supreme Court has held that law students whose academic session was ongoing when the Delhi High Court delivered its November 3, 2025 judgment diluting attendance norms, which was later stayed, cannot be barred from appearing in their final examinations for that academic session on the ground of shortage of attendance.

“we hereby direct and provide that the students whose academic session was ongoing when the judgment dated 3rd November, 2025 was rendered by the Delhi High Court, shall not be detained or prevented from appearing in the final examinations for the said academic session”, the Court directed.

The Court clarified that this is a one-time measure in view of the confusion created by the Delhi High Court's direction that no law student could be barred from taking examinations solely on the ground of lack of minimum attendance and the Bar Council of India's subsequent circular implementing it.

Supreme Court Metro Station Closure Amid Student Protest : CJI Says Will Intervene If No Solution By Lunch

The closure of the Supreme Court Metro station in the wake of the ongoing student protests was raised before the Supreme Court by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh, who urged that at least lawyers, litigants and court staff with valid access to the apex court be permitted to use the station.

Mentioning the issue before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Singh said that persons holding valid Supreme Court entry passes, along with Registry staff, should be allowed to exit at the Supreme Court Metro station after appropriate security screening.

"In the metro, there is one advantage that when they come out of the train, there is an exit point. There they can be screened. People having proximity cards, and Registry staff, can be permitted to come out, and the rest can be told to take the other train and go. So people will be able to use the train also," Singh submitted.

Honeymoon Murder Case : Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Sonam Raghuvanshi

Case Title: STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SONAM RAGHUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU | SLP(Crl) No. 11944/2026

The Supreme Court set aside the bail grantedto Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, holding that the High Court and the trial court erred in granting her relief on the ground of alleged defects in the communication of the grounds of arrest.

A Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale, however, granted Sonam three weeks' time to surrender. The Court also observed that if the trial is not concluded within six months, she will be at liberty to move a fresh bail application.

Allowing the appeal filed by the State of Meghalaya, the Court held that while service of grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1), the present case did not involve a complete failure to serve the grounds of arrest.

Supreme Court Dilutes Earlier Order Banning Industrial Activity In Taj Trapezium Zone, Allows Processing Of Applications

Case Title: IN RE: REGULATION OF INDUSTRIES IN THE TAJ TRAPEZIUM ZONE Versus SMW(C) No. 9/2026

The Supreme Court diluted its earlier order that effectively barred fresh industrial activity in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) without its prior approval, permitting the TTZ Authority to process around 410 pending applications, most of them filed by micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) seeking permission for industrial establishment, expansion or relocation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order in the suo motu case "In Re Regulation of Industries in Taj Trapezium Zone."

The Court modified itsOctober 14, 2024 order, under which the TTZ Authority had been restrained from permitting the setting up or expansion of industries without obtaining prior approval from the Supreme Court.

Inadequate Grounds Of Arrest Don't By Themselves Vitiate Arrest, Prejudice To Accused Must Be Shown: Supreme Court

Case: State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu | SLP (Crl.) No. 11944/2026

Drawing a distinction between complete non-service of grounds of arrest and inadequate communication of the reasons for arrest, the Supreme Court held that while the former would vitiate an arrest, in the latter case the Court must examine whether prejudice has been caused to the accused.

On this reasoning, the Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, holding that the Meghalaya High Court and the Trial Court erred in granting her bail on the ground that she was not supplied with valid grounds of arrest.

The Meghalaya High Court had upheld the Trial Court's bail order in her fourth bail application after finding that the grounds of arrest documents referred to non-existent Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103(1).

'Bureaucrats Deciding Land Compensation Prima Facie Unacceptable': Supreme Court Recommends Amendment To National Highways Act

Case Title: M/S RIAR BUILDERS PVT LTD & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (with connected matters)

The Supreme Court urged the Union government to make suitable amendments to the National Highways Act so that land acquisition compensation disputes thereunder are decided by "judicially trained minds" and not government officers.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a batch of SLPs that arose from the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which declared Sections 3G and 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, unconstitutional.

These provisions constitute the statutory framework for determining compensation through arbitration when landowners dispute the amount awarded. The concern of the Court is grounded in a disparity between landowners whose lands were acquired under the NH Act vis-s-vis those whose lands are acquired under other statutes. This is because the compensation disputes under the former are decided by government officers, while the latter's are decided in courts.

Can MLAs Merge With Another Party Without Original Political Party's Consent? Supreme Court To Hear Goa Case In December

Case : Girish Chodankar Vs Speaker, Goa Assembly | SLP(c) 5256/25

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the petition filed by Goa Congress leader Girish Chodankar challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) which approved the defection of 8 Congress MLAs to the Bharatiya Janata Party as a valid merger.

Granting leave to appeal in Chodankar's Special Leave Petition, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana posted the matter for hearing in December 2026.

The central issue raised in the petition is whether the legislative party (the group of MLAs elected on the party ticket) can claim the defence of merger under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution if their act had no approval of the original political party merely because they constituted 2/3rd of the MLAs.

Supreme Court Orders FIR & SIT Probe In Custodial Death Of Gujarat Man Booked In Cow Slaughter Case

Case Title :TOFIK SHAIKH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. SLP(Crl) No. 11532/2026

The Supreme Court ordered the registration of a First Information Report and a Special Investigation Team probe into the death of a man alleged to have died in the custody of Gujarat police after he was booked in a cow slaughter case. The man's son claims that he died due to the consumption of 100 anti-diabetes pills and relies on a dying declaration.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the direction, after hearing Senior Advocate IH Syed for petitioner (the man's son). At the petitioner's request, the bench further ordered the Commissioner of Police to assess the threat perception and take appropriate action for the protection of the petitioner.

The Court directed that the FIR to be investigated by the SIT be registered initially without naming any suspect. The same shall be pursued from the angle of unnatural death, in the context of relevant provisions. A final report shall be submitted by the SIT before the jurisdictional Magistrate as early as possible and preferably within 3 months.

Supreme Court Sets Aside 2016 Uttarakhand HC Directions On Forest Fire Control, Relegates Matter To HC For Monitoring

Case Title: THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR v. IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTECTION OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY, WILDLIFE ETC. FROM THE FOREST FIRE ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1249/2019

The Supreme Court relegated to the Uttarakhand High Court a matter pertaining to forest fires in the State for issuance of appropriate directions and monitoring of periodic measures to control their menace.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Rajiv Datta (applicant in person), Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (for CEC) and Uttarakhand Deputy Advocate General Jatinder Kumar Sethi.

Disposing of the matter, the Court set aside the 2016 judgment of the High Court, whereby a slew of directions were issued on the issue of forest fires. The bench observed that the High Court directions were issued 10 years back, and given the lapse of time and technological advancements, the directions required to be revisited.

Supreme Court Takes Note Of Widespread River Pollution, Asks Rajasthan To Invoke Graver Offences Against Polluters

Case: In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8 of 2025

The Supreme Court sought Rajasthan Government's response to fresh reports alleging industrial pollution in different parts of the State, observing that the allegations, if found to be true, may point to a larger systemic failure in enforcement of environmental laws.

The Court also asked the State to explain why prosecutions relating to illegal discharge of untreated industrial effluents had not invoked graver offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the directions while considering the Second Status Report of the High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee constituted to oversee restoration of the Jojari-Bandi-Luni river system and the Committee's comments on the first report filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Manipur Violence : Supreme Court Proposes Special Courts For Day-to-Day Trials, Seeks Faster Completion Of Probes

Case : CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. ARUN KHUNDONGBAM @NANAO | SLP(Crl) No. 5756/2026 and connected cases

The Supreme Court proposed the constitution of special courts to conduct day-to-day trials in criminal cases arising out of the 2023 ethnic violence in Manipur, expressing concern over the prolonged delay in investigations and emphasizing that pending probes must be completed within a reasonable time.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted the status reports filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Special Investigation Teams (SITs), and former Maharashtra DGP Dattatray Padsalgikar, who was appointed by the Court to monitor the investigations.

The Court recorded that the CBI has filed charge sheets in 21 cases, while investigations are continuing in 11 cases. Closure reports have been accepted in three cases, and four cases remain under investigation. It further noted that SITs investigating 3,020 cases across eight districts have filed charge sheets in 301 cases, with trials having commenced in only 10 cases.

Supreme Court Bans Uploading & Sharing Of Audio-Video Recordings Of Court Hearings Without Prior Permission

Case : Harshita Grover v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 751/2026

The Supreme Court passed an interim order prohibiting the extraction, editing, dissemination, reposting, uploading or monetisation of audio and video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission from the concerned court.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed an interim order to the effect that "there  there shall be no extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing, or hosting of the audio-video recording(s) of the judicial proceedings on social media or any other digital platforms without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India or the Registrar Generals of the jurisdictional High Courts."

The Court clarified that the interim direction would not affect news reporting of court proceedings.

NEET-UG | 'Can't Go On Like This, No More Ad-Hocism': Supreme Court Says It Will Closely Monitor NTA Reforms

Case Details: FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 651/2026 and others

The Supreme Court indicated that it will closely monitor the institutional reforms being undertaken to overhaul the National Testing Agency (NTA), stressing that recurring paper leaks and ad hoc responses to examination security "cannot go on like this."

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe adjourned to August 3 a batch of petitions seeking structural reforms to the NTA after the Union Government sought time, stating that it was finalising measures that may go beyond the recommendations of the High-Level Committee headed by former ISRO Chairman Dr K Radhakrishnan. The petitions were filed after the NEET-UG 2026 exam held in May was cancelled due to paper-leak.

Appearing for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the government was "very serious" about safeguarding the future of students and assured the Court that any suggestions made by the Bench would be implemented without reservation.

'We Will Entertain' : Supreme Court To Hear On Monday Pleas Against Police Force On Student Protesters Across Country

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors. Diary no. 44078/2026

The Supreme Court agreed to hear two petitions alleging excessive use of police force against students participating in protests across the country over the issue of exam paper leaks.

The matter was mentioned before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan this afternoon.

Mentioning the urgency, Sankaranarayanan informed the Court that two petitions concerning the alleged violence against student protesters had now been formally filed.

'Courts Can't Be 24/7 Entertainment Channel': Supreme Court Rethinks Livestreaming, Seeks Reports From HCs On Its Impact

Case : Harshita Grover v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 751/2026

"Courts cannot be 24×7 entertainment channel", the Supreme Court orally expressed, as it expressed a need to rethink continuous livestreaming of the proceedings.

Hearing a petition against the unauthorised circulation of Court clips, the Court passed an interim order restraining the uploading and circulation of audio-visual recordings of Court proceedings on social media.

The Court also called for reports from the High Courts on their adoption of the Supreme Court 'Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings' and the impact and feasibility of continuous livestreaming.

If Bar Council Seats Are Increased, Women's Reservation Also Needs Proportionate Increase: Supreme Court Indicates

Case Title – M. Varadhan v. Union of India

The Supreme Court orally observed that the Bar Council of India's decision to increase the number of seats in State Bar Councils after elections would also require proportionate implementation of the 30% reservation for women.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a batch of petitions concerning various issues arising out of State Bar Council elections.

During the hearing, it was highlighted that BCI had at its General Council meeting on July 19, resolved to increase the number of elected seats in State Bar Councils, after the elections had already concluded.

Supreme Court Urges Star Health Insurance To Withdraw Case Against Cyber Expert Who Exposed Vulnerability In System

Case Title: HIMANSHU PATHAK Versus MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ORS.

In an attempt to put a quietus to the dispute, the Supreme Court told Star Health and Allied Insurance Company to withdraw its case against cybersecurity expert Himanshu Pathak who allegedly "hacked" into the company's data to expose vulnerabilities.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana called on Advocates S Shivathanu Mohan and Shloka Narayanan, the Star Health counsels, to obtain instructions, saying, "whatever it may be...you are not facing a class action over vulnerability. Take instructions whether you can put a quietus to it".

Justice Bagchi, in particular, noted that no harm had been caused to Star Health due to the petitioner's conduct. Rather, owing to the same, it had perhaps come out wiser. "At the end of the day, no harm has been caused to you. Maybe that this information, and the anxiety to make money out of that information, has really put you on the right track, and you became wiser than what you have been in the past", the judge expressed.

CJP Protests : PIL In Supreme Court Seeks FIR Against Delhi Police, CAPF Officials Over Use Of Force On Student Protesters

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking registration of FIRs against Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) personnel over the alleged use of excessive force against students who protested at Delhi's Jantar Mantar against Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan from July 20 onwards during the protests called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP).

The petition also seeks an independent investigation into the incidents, preservation of CCTV footage, body-camera recordings and other electronic evidence, besides compensation for protesters found to have suffered injuries.

The petition contends that peaceful student demonstrators protesting against the NEET-UG paper leaks and demanding comprehensive reforms in the examination system were subjected to disproportionate police action, including lathi-charge, physical assault, use of tear gas and unlawful detention. It further alleges that unidentified persons in civilian clothing assaulted protesters in the presence of police personnel, warranting an independent investigation.

14 Exclusive Courts For NIA Trials Established Across Country, 113 For NDPS : Union Tells Supreme Court; More Courts In 4 Weeks

Case Title: IN RE: CREATION OF SPECIAL EXCLUSIVE COURTS Versus, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026

In the suo motu caseconcerning the creation of exclusive courts to tackle cases under special statutes like UAPA, etc., the Supreme Court was informed on July 20 by the Union that a total of 14 designated courts have been established across the country exclusively for the trial of NIA cases.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was apprised of the development by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati. The ASG said that the requisite notifications would be issued within the week.

As per the information provided, the 14 designated courts have been established in - Jharkhand (3), J&K (1), Maharashtra (2), Bihar (1), Gujarat (3), Chhattisgarh (1), Manipur (1), Assam (1) and Punjab (1). In case of Delhi, it was informed that approval has been accorded for 3 exclusive NIA courts and the notification would be issued shortly.

States With Less Than 1000 Consumer Cases May Abolish Some District Commissions : Supreme Court

Case Title: In Re: Pay and Allowance of the Members of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (W.P.(C) No. 1144/2021)

The Supreme Court clarified that States where the total pendency of consumer cases is below 1,000 may abolish some District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions and entrust their work to serving judicial officers, subject to the prior concurrence of the jurisdictional High Court.

The direction was issued in continuation of theCourt's February 11, 2026 order, which had permitted States and Union Territories with very low consumer case pendency to devise alternative arrangements for consumer dispute redressal instead of maintaining full-fledged Consumer Commissions.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order.

'Peaceful Protests Constitutionally Protected, Mere Agitation Can't Justify Lathi-Charge': CJI Surya Kant In Pleas Over Jantar Mantar Police Action

Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors. Diary no. 44078/2026 (and connected case)

The Chief Justice of India Surya Kant orally observed that the right to peaceful and lawful protest is constitutionally protected and that mere agitation cannot justify a lathi-charge.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observations on mentioning of a batch of petitions before the Supreme Court, alleging excessive use of police force against students participating in protests across the country over the issue of examination paper leaks.

The Court further observed that allegations of police excess should be independently examined and stressed the need for uniform police protocols for handling demonstrations across the country.

Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha Moves Supreme Court Over Bihar Police Firing On NEET Protesters, Seeks FIRs Against Errant Officers

Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Kumar Jha has approached the Supreme Court seeking registration of FIRs over the alleged use of excessive police force against students who protested July 20 onwards against NEET paper leaks following a call by the Cockroach Janata Party.

The matter filed through AoR Ujjwal Singh was mentioned by Advocate Fauzia Shakil before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

"We have filed a writ petition with comprehensive information, including Bihar firing," Shakil said.

Surendra Gadling Bail Plea: Kapil Sibal Asks Supreme Court To List Matter Before Another Bench After Third Judge's Recusal

Case Title: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No. 3742/2023

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal requested the Supreme Court to assign lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling's bail plea in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case to a different bench, after Justice Shree Chandrashekhar recused from hearing the matter.

The request was mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.

Referring to the earlier listing, Sibal submitted, "I mentioned the other day, Bhima Koregaon, he was granted bail. My Lords listed it, but one of the judges recused."

Transition Of NEET To Computer-Based Testing Requires Consideration: Supreme Court On RJD MP Sudhakar Singh's Plea

Case Details : SUDHAKAR SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 675/2026 Diary No. 30906 / 2026

The Supreme Court (July 27) briefly postponed the hearing of a petition concerning conduct of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) 2026 through a Computer-Based Test (CBT) mode, instead of the existing pen-and-paper format.

The bench hadinitially refused to order National Testing Agency (NTA) to conduct the NEET-UG 2026 re-exam, scheduled on June 21, though CBT. The Top Court had however kept the matter open for the larger issue regarding the transition.

Reiterating that the larger issue requires consideration, a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said that it would hear the matter with two other writ petitions seeking structural reforms within the NEET.

1993 Mumbai Serial Blasts Case: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Abu Salem's Plea Seeking Premature Release

Case: SLP(Crl) No. 12871/2026 Diary No. 41145 / 2026 ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYOOM ANSARI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court reserved orders on a plea filed by gangster Abu Salem, sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, seeking premature release after briefly hearing arguments on whether his earned prison remission and undertrial custody should be counted towards the 25-year imprisonment cap flowing from India's extradition assurances to Portugal.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta orally asked Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for Salem, whether he wanted "a detailed judgment or dismissal simpliciter." The Court, however, reserved its order and permitted the parties to file written submissions and supporting judgments within a week.

Malhotra submitted that despite the TADA Court's categorical direction granting him the benefit of set-off for the period spent as an undertrial, the jail authorities had failed to extend that benefit.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Kapil Sibal's Petition Challenging 10th Schedule Interpretation Allowing Defections As Mergers

Case Details: Kapil Sibal v. Union of India | Diary No. 42846/2026

The Supreme Court (July 27) issued notice to the Union Government in a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal as a party-in-person challenging the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution that permits legislators to avoid disqualification under the anti-defection law by taking the route of a political party merger.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe briefly heard Sibal before issuing notice. At the outset, Justice Narasimha questioned why the Article 32 route has been taken.

Sibal submitted that there are huge repercussions on the polity because, due to mergers, the electoral majority can be turned into a minority verdict. He referred to the Goa matter pending before the Court. "Electoral verdict can be changed through this process. A majority can become minority and a minority can become majority."

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Union Minister Suresh Gopi's Plea Against Kerala HC Refusing To Dismiss Petition Against His Election

Case : Suresh Gopi v. Binoy AS | SLP(c) 18200/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by Union Minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suresh Gopi challenging the Kerala High Court's refusal to dismiss an election petition questioning his 2024 Lok Sabha election from the Thrissur constituency.

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe sought the response of the election petitioner, Binoy AS, an All India Youth Federation leader and a voter from Thrissur, who has challenged Gopi's election.

The appeal assails an April 1 judgment of the Kerala High Court delivered by Justice Kauser Edappagath, which held that the election petition was maintainable and should proceed to trial.

'Why Don't States Provide Protective Gear To Police?' Supreme Court On Pleas Alleging Attack On Cops During Student Protests

In pleas seeking action over alleged police brutality during student protests over NEET paper leaks and irregularities, the Supreme Court indicated that it may enquire from States/UTs as to why adequate safeguard measures, like protective helmets, are not provided to police personnel when handling large demonstrations.

The development came when the pleas were mentioned before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

While the cases were directed to be listed tomorrow, Justice Bagchi responded to a plea by some policemen's families, saying that questions may also be posed to State authorities.

Ayodhya Ram Mandir Theft Case : Supreme Court Asks UP Govt To Include Forensic Auditor In SIT, Seeks Status Report

Cases: Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 790/2026; Ajay Kumar Rai and another v. Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust | WP(Crl) 241/2026; Sudhakar Singh v. Union of India and others | WP (Crl) 256/2026; Hindu Dharma Parishad v. The Union Of India And Ors. | WP(C) No. 827/2026

The Supreme Court asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to include a forensic auditor in the Special Investigation Team constituted by the State to investigate the allegations of embezzlement of the donations received by the Ayodhya Ram Temple Trust.

The Court also directed the SIT to submit a status report regarding its ongoing investigation.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a bunch of petitions seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the allegations of embezzlement of donations received for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir and audit of the temple Trust finances.

Supreme Court Raises Concern Over Recurring Manual Scavenging Deaths, Issues Contempt Notices To 5 State Chief Secretaries

Case Details: DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,|W.P.(C) No. 324/2020

The Supreme Court (July 27) issued notices to the Chief Secretaries of five States asking them to showcause why contempt should not be issued against them for their failure to prevent manual scavenging deaths.

In a long-standing public interest litigation filed by Dr Balram seeking to prevent sewer cleaning and manual scavenging, in October 2023, the Supreme Court passed directions to eradicate the menace. It also enhanced the compensation in cases of sewer deaths to Rs. 30 lakhs. Then, in January 2025, it completely banned manual scavenging and sewer cleaning in six metropolitan cities. Since then, it has been monitoring the matter and issuing necessary directions to the authorities when those directions have not been implemented.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the matter on the developments that have taken place so far. Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar (amicus) submitted that despite the 2023 judgment and the further directions, deaths continue to take place. He submitted that 46 deaths have taken place in 2025, and 54 deaths in 2024 as per the data laid before the Parliament in one of the starred questions.

Kasol Rave Parties : Supreme Court Stays HC Direction For FIR Against Himachal Officers, Upholds Transfer

Case Title: ANURAG CHANDER SHARMA Versus HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS. Diary No. 42382-2026 (and connected case)

The Supreme Court stayed the Himachal Pradesh High Court'sdirectionfor registration of an FIR and constitution of an SIT for departmental proceedings against Kullu's Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police over the administration's 'tacit permission' to rave parties.

The Court however maintained the direction for the two officers' transfer, adding that the direction for transfer be implemented immediately. It was observed that the transfer was necessary for insulating the case from them.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the Kullu DC and SP's pleas against the Himachal Pradesh High Court order which observed that the two officers, as well as the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, failed in their duty of maintaining public order and rather, facilitated the organization of large-scale rave parties.

Delhi Protesters Allege Pellet Injury, Move Supreme Court For Ban On Pellet Guns

Case : Yashovardhan Azan and others v Union of India and others.

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions for decommissioning pellet guns(projectile action guns) by law enforcement for civilian crowd dispersal.

The Article 32 petition has been filed by a former IPS officer, Yashovardhan Azan and two other persons, Prasant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori. Singh and Mansoori claimed to have become victims of the pellets fired by the Rapid Action Force(RAF) during the Sansad Chalo demonstration organised by the Cockroach Janata Party on July 20 over the issue of exam paper leaks.

As per the petition, the Singh and Mansoor witnessed that the RAF had suddenly fired a pump action gun, releasing a wide spray of splinter-like pellets, which had penetrated their bodies, causing immediate pain and bleeding. It has been stated that they were taken to Lady Hardinge Medical College, where they received surgical intervention for removal of pellets lodged in their body. Singh said he had witnessed at least one more person come to the hospital with pellet injuries.

Advocate Moves Supreme Court Alleging Assault By Delhi Cops During Police Station Visit To Meet Detained Student Protesters

An advocate has approached the Supreme Court alleging that he was assaulted and abused by the Delhi police when he visited the Nizamuddin Police Station on July 23 for the release of students detained over their participation in the protests at Jantar Mantar over the exam paper leak issue.

The applicant is Advocate Manik Gupta, who has been practising in various Courts in Delhi, including the Supreme Court. Gupta sought intervention in the writ petition pending in the Supreme Court raising the issue of police force on protesters.

In the application, Gupta said that on the night of July 23, he visited the Nizamuddin station pursuant to the distress calls received from detained students. He alleged that the Station House Officer intimidated him and instructed the other officers to detain him as well. He was then allegedly taken to a room where a police officer pulled his neck, slapped and punched him. When he said that he was a lawyer, he was abused, and the police officer allegedly told him that he would be taught a lesson. As per the complaint, the SHO later called him and threatened to register an FIR against him. The SHO then called the lawyer's father and told him that he was roaming on the streets at night. He was released after his lawyer friends reached the station.

CJP Food Volunteer Junaid Malik Moves Supreme Court Alleging Police Harassment Of Family

Case: IA in Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 283 of 2026

Junaid Malik, who was a food volunteer during the Cockroach Janata Party student protests in Delhi, has moved the Supreme Court alleging that he was illegally detained and harassed by police officials and that his family members were subjected to coercive police action without due process.

Malik claims to be a law graduate and social worker who volunteered at the protest site for 35 days beginning June 20, 2026. According to the application, he coordinated the distribution of food and water but did not hold any formal leadership position in the agitation. The plea states that his work received media attention, following which he allegedly became the target of police action.

In his petition, Malik claims that, on July 24 midnight, when he was returning from RML hospital after taking an anti-rabies injection, he was picked up by police officials from Delhi and kept inside a vehicle for nearly five to six hours. During this period, he alleges that he was threatened and intimidated. His mobile phone was forcefully taken and the officials checked it after forcing him to unlock it.

Student Protest Violence : Supreme Court To Order SIT Probe; Allows States To Investigate FIRs, Bars Coercive Action

Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors. Diary no. 44078/2026 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court observed that there was a need for a fair and independent investigation into the allegations of injuries to the students and police officials during the student protests which took place across the country last week.

The Court hinted that it might constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by a former Supreme Court Judge for the investigation, and sought the responses of the Union, Delhi NCT and the States of Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Kerala.

The Court also passed various interim directions, especially for the release of children below the age of 18 years having no criminal antecedents arrested or detained over the participation in protests.

Transgender Advocate Moves Supreme Court Challenging 2026 Amendment To Transgender Rights Act

Case Details:  ANKANI BISWAS Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 883/2026 Diary No. 38493 / 2026

The Supreme Court (July 28) issued notice on a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the proviso to Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, which excludes those with self-perceived identities from the definition of 'transgender person'.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice to the Union Government. The matter has been tagged with the pending petitions challenging the 2026 amendment act. The matter was argued by Advocate Pritthish Roy.

The petitioner, a transgender advocate practising before the Calcutta High Court, has challenged the proviso to the amended Section 2(k), which says: "provided that it shall not include, nor shall ever have been so included, persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities".

MP Moves Supreme Court Against Police Use Of Facial Recognition Technology & Biometric Surveillance At Protest Sites

Case Details: AA RAHIM M.P. v UNION OF INDIA|Diary No.45049/2026

An Article 32 petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the deployment of facial recognition technology(FRT) and allied biometric-surveillance measures by the Delhi police during the Jantar Mantar protest led by the Cockroach Janta Party.

The petition has been filed by Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, AA Rahim from Communist Party of India(M), Kerala, seeking a declaration that such indiscriminate biometric surveillance in peaceful assemblies is unconstitutional and should be restrained until the Parliament enacts a law validating it.

The main grievance raised in the petition is that the Delhi police carried out surveillance in a complete legal vacuum. It has been argued that neither the Delhi Police standing orders governing protests, nor the Criminal Procedure(Identification) Act, 2022, authorises the biometric surveillance of persons in a civilian assembly.

Supreme Court Pulls Up CBI, Delhi Police EOW Over Failure To File Status Report On Indiabulls Probe

Case Title: CITIZENS WHISTLE BLOWER FORUM v. UNION OF INDIA, SLP(C) No. 2993/2025

The Supreme Court sharply criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW) for failing to update the Court on the progress of investigations into allegations of financial irregularities involving Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, now known as Sammaan Capital Ltd.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana expressed dissatisfaction over the agencies' inaction in a public interest litigation alleging serious financial misconduct, including round-tripping of funds, siphoning of money and violations of the Companies Act by the company's promoters.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the CBI's affidavit filed in January stated that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had already found instances of siphoning of funds. He pointed out that the Delhi Police EOW had registered certain FIRs and that the CBI was considering clubbing five cases flagged by the ED with the Yes Bank investigation.

Air India Crash: AAIB Tells Supreme Court Report Due By October; Pilot Federation Seeks Consideration Of US Firm's Findings

Case Title: PUSHKAR RAJ SABHARWAL AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1031/2025 (and connected cases)

In the Ahmedabad Plane Crash matter, the Supreme Court was informed that simulation tests have been conducted as part of the ongoing Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) enquiry and the final report of the agency would be ready by October.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was informed of the development by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The bench was dealing with a set of pleas seeking independent, Court-monitored investigation into the crash of Air India Flight, which took place shortly after its take off from Ahmedabad airport, killing 260 people, on June 12, 2025. One of the petitions has been filed by the father of pilot-Sumeet Sabharwal, who was flying the ill-fated Air India plane.

At the outset of the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for Sumeet Sabharwal's father and the Federation of Indian Pilots) referred to an application filed bringing on record the findings of a US-based law firm, which has apparently found some discrepancies in the flight data. He claimed that a foreign firm has conducted 10 simulations and found that the RAT, which gets deployed upon takeoff in emergency situation arising from hydraulic/thrust/electronic failure, got deployed on the Air India plane while it was on ground.

Supreme Court Seeks Reports From 5 High Courts On Creation Of Dashboards For Unclaimed Motor Accident & Labour Court Sums

Case Details: IN RE COMPENSATION AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WITH MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALS AND LABOUR COURTS |SMW(C) No. 7/2024

The Supreme Court (July 28) passed an order directing the Registrar Generals of High Courts of Delhi, Allahabad, Madras, Meghalaya and Telangana to file a compliance report regarding the creation of dashboards indicating live updates on amounts lying deposited in connection with motor claims or labour court compensations.

It may be recalled that in April 2025, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued a slew of directions after a letter was addressed by a retired District Judge, BB Pathak, to the Court raising concern that huge amounts of compensation are lying unclaimed before Courts.

It directed that compensation paid to claimants under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is to be directly credited to their bank accounts. One of the directions was that the High Courts, with the help of State governments, shall create a dashboard on which the information regarding amounts lying deposited in connection with the compensation shall be established and regularly updated with details.

Sambhal Mosque Dispute | HC Couldn't Have Upheld Survey Order Due To SC's December 2024 Order : Ahmadi Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JAMI MASJID, SAMBHAL Vs HARI SHANKAR JAIN| SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025(AOR Anil Kumar) and COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, JAMI MASJID SAMBHAL, AHMED MARG KOT SAMBHAL vs. HARI SHANKAR JAIN|SLP (C) 21599/2025 (AOR Fazail Ahmad)

The Supreme Court heard the challenge filed by the Committee of Management of the Jama Masjid in Sambhal against the Allahabad High Court's decision upholding the Trial Court's appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey the mosque, with the mosque committee arguing that the High Court ignored the apex court's December 12, 2024 order restrainingcourts from passing effective interim orders in disputes concerning places of worship.

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Jama Masjid Management Committee.

The bench is hearing the mosque committee's Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court's order, which held that the Hindu plaintiffs' suit against the mosque was not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and upheld the survey order.

Rs 8 Lakh Annual Income Limit For EWS Quota Prima Facie Reasonable, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: NEIL AURELIO NUNES AND ORS.  Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 961/2021

The Supreme Court on July 28 orally remarked that the Rs 8 lakh annual income limit for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation was prima facie reasonable.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing the petitons filed in 2021 challenging the National Testing Agency's 2021 notification providing for  27% quota for Other Backwards Classes and 10% for EWS under the AIQ for medical courses. In Janhit Abhiyan, the Supreme Court in 2022 upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendmentwhich introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.

"You Want Us To Say No Films Can Be Made On Hindu Gods?" : Supreme Court Refuses To Ban 'Mahaprabhu Jagannath' Movie

Case : ELE ANIMATIONS PVT. LTD. Vs MAHESH KUMAR SAHU | SLP(C) No. 23905/2026 Diary No. 41972 / 2026

The Supreme Court rejected the applications seeking a ban on the release of the animation movie 'Mahaprabhu Jagannath'.

The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan refused to modify its earlier order of July 17 which permitted the film's producer to release it after the conclusion of Lord Jagannath Rath Yatra in Puri on July 28. Rejecting the argument that the depiction of Lord Jagannath in cartoon form was offensive, the Court orally remarked that if some people are affected due to their sensitivity, then no art forms can be made on Ramayana and Mahabharata.

The temple trust and a devotee had filed the applications to modify the July 17 order seeking to stop the release of the film.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Trial Court's Order Summoning Ex-PM Manmohan Singh In Coal Block Case, Accepts CBI Clean Chit

Case : Dr Manmohan Singh v. CBI | Crl Appeal 562-563/2015

The Supreme Court quashed the 2015 order of a Special CBI Court summoning former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in a coal block allocation case, holding that the trial court had no justification to reject the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) closure report and take cognizance against him.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana allowed Singh's appeal, accepted the CBI's closure reports giving him a clean chit, and closed the proceedings.

Although Dr. Singh passed away in December 2024, the Court decided to examine the legality of the trial court's order because it contained adverse observations against him.

Supreme Court Dismisses Lokpal's Challenge To Delhi HC Quashing Enquiry Order Against Defence Secretary In NPC Promotion Case

Case Title: LOKPAL OF INDIA Versus RAJESH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 8888/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by the Lokpal of India against the Delhi High Court's quashing of its order for a CBI preliminary enquiry into alleged irregularities in recruitment and promotions within the National Productivity Council.

The High Court had quashed the order, holding that before forming a prima facie opinion regarding an action under Section 20(3) of the Lokpal and Lok Ayukta Act, the Lokpal must give an opportunity of hearing to the public servant. The High Court had set aside the Lokpal's order passed in July 2024 directing a CBI preliminary enquiry into the allegations against Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh during his tenure in 2023 as the Secretary of the DPIIT, under which the NPC functions.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the Lokpal's challenge to the High Court's view, after hearing Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar (for the Lokpal), Senior Advocate Vikas Singh (for the respondents) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

NEET-UG 2026 : Supreme Court Dismisses Candidate's Plea Challenging 6 Answers Of Re-Exam

Case Details: GAYATRI ARUN vs. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY|W.P.(C) No. 000898 / 2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate Gayatri Arun, challenging answers to six questions in the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination conducted on June 21.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the orders refusing to interfere with the results.

It observed: "Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on carefully perusing the material placed on record, we are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution."

'Model Code Of Conduct No Bar To Statutory Appointments': Supreme Court Directs To Fill Information Commissions Vacancies

Case Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ,W.P.(C) No. 436/2018

The Supreme Court said that the prevalence of Model Code of Conduct in a state/UT shall not act as an impediment to statutory appointments, such as, those to State Information Commissions.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a PIL raising the issue of vacancies in Information Commissions across the country.

It noted that in Himachal Pradesh, the selection process for ICs was stated to be completed, but the result was not notified on account of MCC imposed in connection with the municipal elections. In this backdrop, while directing the Himachal Pradesh government to make the appointments within 2 months, it said,

Paper Leak Protests : Bihar Congress Leader Moves Supreme Court Seeking Details Of FIRs Against Students & Restraint On Coercive Actions

An application has been filed by Dr Abul Farah Shazli, District Secretary of the District Congress Committee, Saharsa, Bihar, seeking intervention in the pending writ petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Manoj Kumar Jha concerning allegations of excessive police action during nationwide protests over the alleged NEET examination paper leak.

The intervenor has expressed support for the reliefs sought in the pending writ petition, which seeks an independent investigation into allegations of excessive use of force against student protesters, registration of appropriate criminal cases where warranted, and protection of the constitutional rights of peaceful demonstrators.

According to the proposed intervention, the application has been filed in the larger public interest and is intended to assist the Supreme Court without expanding the scope of the pending proceedings. It states that peaceful protest is an important constitutional freedom and that any allegations regarding disproportionate use of force by law-enforcement agencies deserve a fair, impartial and transparent examination in accordance with law.

Supreme Court Directs States Without Commissioners Under Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act To Make Appointments

Case Title: Rajive Raturi v Union of India and connected matters (Diary Number 9321/2005)

The Supreme Court (29.07.2026) directed several States and Union Territories that are yet to appoint State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities under Section 79 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act) to comply with the mandate within four weeks, warning that any laxity in compliance would be viewed strictly.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of petitions including, Rajive Raturi v Union of Union, on accessibility for persons with disabilities. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Rahul Bajaj pointed out that despite the mandate under Section 79 of the RPWD Act, several States and Union Territories are yet to appoint a State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities - Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Nagaland, Puducherry, Sikkim, and Tamil Nadu.

The Court directed all the States and Union Territories to ensure that a Commissioner is appointed in accordance with Section 79 of the RPWD Act within four weeks. Pressing on its significance, Justice Pardiwala stated, “This direction shall be strictly complied with and none of the states should exhibit any laxity. Laxity, if any, shall be viewed very strictly.” The Court further directed that the Commissioner so appointed must hold the post with independent charge.

Is TET Necessary For Special Educators? Supreme Court Asks Bihar Govt To Clarify

Case Title:Rajneesh Kumar PandeyvUnion of India and Ors., WP (C) No 132/2016

The Supreme Court (28.07.2026) asked whether the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for Special Educators, and directed the Bihar government to file an affidavit answering whether the rules requiring the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) and the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) were amended before notifying the advertisement for the posts of Special Educator in Bihar.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a batch of petitions concerning appointments of Special Educators across states, including Bihar.

Questioning the amicus curiae's contention that TET is a mandatory qualification, the bench observed that in the Bihar rules, there was no such condition prescribed. “Where is the requirement of TET in your rules?”, Justice Datta asked.. It questioned the amicus curiae's contention, observing that the TET requirement in the rules applies to a school teacher, not a special school teacher.

Plea To Ban Pellet Guns : Supreme Court Asks Delhi Govt To Ensure Treatment For Injured Protesters

Case Title: Yashovardhan Azan and Others v. Union of India and Others

While hearing a plea alleging the use of pellet guns by the Rapid Action Force against the student protests in Delhi last week, the Supreme Court passed an interim order directing the Delhi Government to ensure that the injured petitioners and other similarly placed persons are given adequate medical treatment.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the petition filed by former IPS officer, Yashovardhan Azad, and two other persons, Prasant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori. Singh and Mansoori stated that they were victims of pellets fired by the Rapid Action Force(RAF) during the Sansad Chalo demonstration organised by the Cockroach Janata Party on July 20 over the issue of exam paper leaks.

At the outset, Justice Bagchi told Advocate Vrinda Grover, for the petitioners,  that police regulations allow the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances, and without challenging the validity of those regulations, the reliefs might be barred.

TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee Moves Supreme Court Against Calcutta HC Order Denying Foreign Travel Permission For Eye Treatment

Case : Abhishek Banerjee v State of West Bengal | Diary No.44012/2026

Trinamool Congress MP and the party's General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court's July 20 order refusing him permission to travel abroad for specialised treatment for an eye condition.

The plea challenges an order passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Sougata Bhattacharya, which declined Banerjee's request to travel overseas for eye treatment during the hearing of a criminal case relating to an alleged provocative speech made in connection with the concluded West Bengal Assembly elections. Rejecting the plea for immediate foreign travel, the High Court directed Banerjee to first undergo a medical examination by specialists at the state-run SSKM Hospital in Kolkata before any decision on overseas treatment could be considered.

The restriction on Banerjee's travel flows from an earlier order passed in the pending criminal case, in which the High Court had granted him protection from coercive action on the strict condition that he would not leave the country without obtaining prior permission from the Court.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann & AAP Leaders On Chandigarh Admin Plea To Revive FIR Over 2020 Protest

Case Title: U.T CHANDIGARH v. BHAGWANT MANN AND ANR., Diary No. 21434-2026; U.T. CHANDIGARH v. AMAN ARORA, Diary No. 40158-2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by the Chandigarh Administration challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decisionto quash an FIR against Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders in connection with a 2020 protest against the electricity tariff hike.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter and sought responses from the respondents.

Appearing for the Chandigarh Administration, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that the High Court had erred in quashing the criminal proceedings despite the allegations disclosing the commission of offences.

Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Review Petitions Challenging 3-Year Practice Mandate For Judicial Service

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and connected cases

The Supreme Court on July 28 reserved its verdict on a batch of review petitions challenging its earlier judgment which made three years of legal practice mandatory for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service through direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division).

The Court also heard a writ petition seeking the relaxationof the 3-year rule for persons with disabilities.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice August George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard submissions from various counsel, intervenors and the amicus curiae before reserving judgment.

Supreme Court Allows IIT Kharagpur Student's Transfer To IIT Roorkee On Medical Grounds

Case : XXX v. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and others | WP(C) 889/2025

The Supreme Court allowed an IIT Kharagpur student to transfer to IIT Roorkee on medical grounds, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan directed IIT Kharagpur to issue the necessary transfer/migration certificate and other documents within one week to enable the student to secure admission at IIT Roorkee. The Court noted that the student was undergoing treatment at Chandigarh for mental health.

The Court had earlier directed AIIMS, New Delhi, to medically evaluate the student and had also asked IIT Roorkee to keep one seat vacant pending consideration of his plea.

Supreme Court Specifies Plot To Be Allotted For Friday Namaz Near Bhojshala

Cases: QUAZI MOINUDDIN Versus HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE (REGD. TRUST NO. 976) AND ORS., Diary No. 32281-2026 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court clarified its earlier interim order in the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula dispute by identifying a specific plot of land adjacent to the disputed Bhojshala complex where members of the Muslim community may offer Friday namaz between 1 pm and 3 pm.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order while hearing an application filed by the Muslim side seeking an appropriate alternate site for offering Friday prayers after the Madhya Pradesh High Court declared the disputed Bhojshala premises to be a temple. The High Court's judgmenthas been challenged before the Supreme Court.

Earlier, while declining to restorethe earlier arrangement at the disputed site, the Supreme Court had directed the State to provide an alternate site near the Bhojshala complex for Friday prayers.

Election Commissioners' Appointment | Can't Presume Prime Minister Will Act Against Democracy : Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Title - Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

During the hearing of the petitions challenging the law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, the Union government argued before the Supreme Court that a constitutional court cannot begin with an assumption that the Prime Minister would act against democratic principles.

Appearing before a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that invalidating the composition of the selection committee on the premise that the Prime Minister and the executive would act in bad faith would undermine the constitutional trust reposed in elected institutions.

The Bench was hearing petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides that the selection committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners shall comprise the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The law was enacted after the Supreme Court in March 2023, in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, directed that until Parliament enacted a law, the Election Commissioners must be elected by a panel comprising the PM, the Opposition Leader and the Chief Justice of India. The petitioners have challenged the law on the ground that it was not an independent appointment process since the executive has a greater say in picking up the ECI members.

Challenge To Election Commissioners' Law : Supreme Court Reserves Order On Larger Bench Reference

Case Title - Dr.

Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

The Supreme Court reserved its order on the preliminary issue of whether the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 should be referred to a larger Bench.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma reserved orders after hearing detailed submissions from the Union government and the petitioners on the question of reference.

The Centre urged the Court to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench, contending that the petitions raise substantial questions relating to the interpretation of Article 324 of the Constitution and the extent of Parliament's legislative power to prescribe the appointment mechanism for Election Commissioners.

Rape-Murder Of Ghaziabad Girl | Private Hospitals Which Denied Treatment To Victim 'Criminally Negligent', Says Supreme Court

Case Title : XXX v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, W.P.(Crl.) No. 139/2026

In the rape and murder case of a 4-year-old girl in Ghaziabad, where an SIT probe was directed, the Supreme Court orally observed that the private hospitals which denied the minor victim treatment while she was alive were "criminally negligent".

The Court was further informed that the SIT has recommended in its report action against the two private hospitals as well as the Station House Officer concerned.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was apprised of the development by ASG Aishwarya Bhati. The ASG stated that the SHO concerned had been removed from their post and sent to police lines, the police station was taking steps for preservation of CCTV footage for 6 months and a drive had been conducted at the subject area (which was prone to antisocial activities) to clean it and hold activities so that the locals feel it's a recreational area.

Ex-TN Minister Senthil Balaji Moves Supreme Court For Anticipatory Bail In TASMAC Corruption Case

Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Former Tamil Nadu Minister and present MLA V Senthil Balaji has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's dismissal of his anticipatory bail plea in the case over alleged corruption in TASMAC.

The matter was mentioned (afternoon) before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana for urgent listing by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi and Amit Anand Tiwari. The bench agreed to list the matter tomorrow and asked to clear defects if any.

Appearing for Balaji, Sibal and Rohatgi highlighted that the underlying FIR, registered by DVAC, is said to be based on the disclosure of a cognizable offense in an affidavit filed by ED 2 years ago in a case pending before the Supreme Court, and the allegations pertain to the years 2021-2025.

Supreme Court Asks Karnataka Govt To Consider Suggestions Of INTACH & IIT-Roorkee On Preservation Of 2 Mysuru Heritage Buildings

Case Details: G. SATYANARAYANA GOURI SATYA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA., SLP(C) No. 26848/2023

The Supreme Court was (July 30) informed that the State of Karnataka has decided to restore two 19th-century heritage buildings, the Devaraja Market building and Lansdowne Building in Mysuru.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was informed by Dr Aditya Sondhi, Senior Advocate (for the petitioner journalist). The Court was further informed that the State has gone to the extent of inviting expression of interest for the purpose of undertaking necessary repairs and renovation.

The bench passed an order asking the State to look into the suggestions given by Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) and IIT Rorkee.

Reconsider Blanket Ban On Sharing Of Court Clips : RTI Activists Tell Supreme Court

Case : Intervention Application in Harshita Grover v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 751/2026

The National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) co-convenor Anjali Bhardwaj and transparency activist Amrita Johri have moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the pending case concerning regulation of live-streaming and dissemination of court proceedings, contending that restrictions on sharing official court recordings should be narrowly tailored and must not undermine the constitutional principles of open justice, freedom of speech and the right to information.

The intervention application argues that the Supreme Court's interim order dated July 24, which prohibited extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting or hosting of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrars General of High Courts, has significant constitutional implications and requires reconsideration.

The applicants submit that while concerns regarding manipulation and misuse of court proceedings are legitimate, the solution lies in strengthening official live-streaming and archival mechanisms rather than imposing broad restrictions on citizens and the media.

Supreme Court Restrains MHADA From Issuing Work Order For Bandra Redevelopment Project

Case: M.I.G. Adarsh Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and connected matters

The Supreme Court directed that no work order shall be issued for the proposed MHADA cluster redevelopment project at Bandra Reclamation till 13th August while seeking responses from the State of Maharashtra and other respondents in a batch of petitions challenging the redevelopment scheme.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the respondents to file their counter affidavits within a week, permitted the petitioners to file rejoinders within a week thereafter, and posted the matter for hearing on August 13, 2026.

“Let counter affidavit be filed within a week. Rejoinder affidavit be filed within one week thereafter by petitioner(s). List on 13th August, 2026 to be listed immediately after the fresh matters. Till then, the work order shall not be issued”, the Court said.

'How Is UAPA Attracted Just Because Mob Burnt Police Station?' : Supreme Court Asks Uttarakhand Govt In Haldwani Violence

Case : STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs ABDUL MALIK | SLP(Crl) No. 12779/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed the Uttarakhand government's plea challenging the bail granted to Abdul Malik, an accused in the 2024 Haldwani violence case, while expressing serious reservations over the invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the case.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana declined to interfere with the Uttarakhand High Court's order granting bail to Malik, holding that even if the High Court's reasoning was deficient, there was no reason to interfere in a matter concerning personal liberty.

The case arose from the Uttarakhand High Court's April 16, 2026 order granting bail to Malik, who is facing charges under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the UAPA, the Arms Act and other penal statutes in connection with the February 8, 2024 Banbhoolpura violence in Haldwani. The High Court had noted that the investigation itself showed Malik was not present at the spot during the incident and that a co-accused, including his son Abdul Moied, had already been granted bail.

Supreme Court Directs All States/UTs To Constitute 'Board Of Visitors' For Prison Oversight

Case Details: IN RE: DISCRIMINATION INSIDE PRISONS IN INDIA Vs|SMW(C) No. 10/2024 Diary No. 48023 / 2024

The Supreme Court (July 30) passed an order directing the States and Union Territories to set up Board of Visitors (BoVs) in each district, to be headed by the Principal District Judge of that district, as per the Model Prison Manual, 2026.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a suo moto case regarding discrimination based on caste, gender, disability, etc., in prisons, arising from the landmark Sukanya Shantha judgment. Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar was appointed as amicus to continue monitoring certain directions, including that the caste column mentioned in prison details should be deleted.

Muralidhar submitted that a status report pointing out that none of the States and UTs has constituted BoVs, which, as per Clause 29.01 of the Model Prison Manual, 2016, is required to be formed in each district and sub-divisional prison as a principal mechanism of external prison oversight.

'They Have Embraced Freedom' : Omar Abdullah & Wife Agree To Dissolve Marriage, File Application In Supreme Court

Case Details: Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah SLP(C) No. 7427/2024

The Supreme Court was informed that Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir Omar Abdullah and his estranged wife Payal Abdullah have agreed to part ways and have filed an application invoking Article 142 of the Constitution seeking dissolution of their marriage on mutual consent.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe that the parties have "embraced freedom".   "Article 142 filed, my lords may grant divorce," Sibal said.

The bench was informed that the divorce application was filed on July 22. Hearing this, Justice Narasimha said the Court will pass orders accordingly.

Supreme Court Stays Senthil Balaji's Arrest In TASMAC Corruption Case, Asks Him To Cooperate With Probe

Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

The Supreme Court stayed the arrest of former Tamil Nadu Minister and present MLA V Senthil Balaji in the case registered by the Tamil Nadu Vigilance over alleged corruption in the TASMAC, subject to the condition that he cooperates with the investigation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order while hearing Balaji's plea challenging the  Madras High Court'sdismissalof his anticipatory bail plea in the matter. The bench further directed him to deposit his Passport and restrained him from influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Balaji, started by saying that it was a "strange case" and submitted that the FIR was filed in July after the new TVK government came to power, based on an enquiry by the Enforcement Directorate. "The events they say are of 2021-25. There's an affidavit filed by ED in 2025 in this court. The person who filed the affidavit has turned against...because the government changed. FIR filed on 28 July relying on that affidavit"

Indians Died In Russia-Ukraine War : Supreme Court Directs MEA To Aid Families To Bring Mortal Remains & Claim Compensation

Case : DIVYA v. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 451/2026

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to carry out DNA profiling so as to bring back and hand over to the concerned families the dead bodies of Indian nationals who died fighting the Ukraine war as part of Russian Forces.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a writ petition filed by the family members of 26 Indians, who were allegedly forced into the Russian-Ukraine war after they went to Russia in search of job opportunities.

As per allegations, when these nationals went to Russia, their passports and identity documents were illegally seized and they were forced to join the Russian Forces. Most of some of them died in the line of fire during the Russia-Ukraine war. Due to lack of verification, payment of requisite compensation to their families and bringing back of their mortal remains is pending.

Rohini Sindhuri IAS Approaches Supreme Court Against Karnataka HC Direction To Sanction Probe In Cloth Bag Scam

Case Details: ROHINI SINDHURI Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA|SLP(Crl) No. 6794/2026 Diary No. 20460 / 2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on Karnataka IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri's petition challenging the Karnataka High Court's order directing the State to grant sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to investigate the officer in the alleged 'eco-friendly cloth bags procurement' scam.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu issued notice to the State and the complainant.

Notably, the State Government told the Court that they are also opposing the High Court's order.

Supreme Court Raps States/UTs For Not Implementing Healthcare Professions Act Despite 2024 Direction, Sets September Deadline

Case: Joint Forum of Medical Technologists of India (JFMTI) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 983/2023

The Supreme Court has directed the Chief Secretaries and Health Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, along with the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions, to file compliance affidavits detailing the steps taken to implement the provisions of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that its directions issued nearly two years ago for implementation of the Act, including notification of councils and framing of rules and regulations, have still not been fully complied with.

The Court warned that if the directions are not complied with by the next date, the Court would be compelled to require the personal attendance of all concerned officers. The matter has been listed for hearing on September 22, 2026.

Supreme Court Stays CIC Order Holding NSE Amenable To RTI Act

Case Title – National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Central Information Commission & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice in an appeal filed by the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSE) challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment holding that it is a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The High Court had upheld a 2007 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing that the NSE be treated as a public authority under the RTI Act.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed an interim order directing that the operation of the CIC's order would remain stayed. The Court ordered, “Issue notice, returnable within four weeks. In the meantime, the effect and operation of the order dated 7th June, 2007, passed by the Central Information Commission, shall remain stayed” the Court held.