Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: March 2026

Judgments

S. 202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory In Complaint Filed By Public Servant: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Kerala & Anr. v. M/S. Panacea Biotec Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 206

The Supreme Court has ruled that the magistrate need not conduct a statutory inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 225 of the BNSS) before issuing a summons to an accused residing beyond the magistrate's territorial jurisdiction based on a complaint filed by a public servant in discharge of its official duty.

A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti set aside the decision of the Kerala High Court, which had quashed the Magistrate's summoning order on the ground that no inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was conducted before issuing summons to the respondent-accused residing outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.

As per Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., upon taking cognizance based on a private complaint, it is mandatory for the magistrate to conduct an inquiry before issuing a summons to the accused, who is residing outside its territorial jurisdiction. However, an inquiry, before issuing a summons to an accused residing outside the magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, would not be mandatory when the complaint is filed by a public servant, the Court said.

IBC | Supreme Court Cautions Against Excessive Judicial Review, Criticises Trend Of Unsuccessful Bidders Seeking To Reopen CoC Decision

Case Details – Torrent Power Limited v. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 207

The Supreme Court criticised growing trend of unsuccessful resolution applicants converting challenging almost every commercial decision of the Committee of Creditors under the guise of procedural impropriety and turning the insolvency process into a protracted adversarial contest.

“The appeals before us typify the growing strategic use of the judicial system by unsuccessful resolution applicants who seek to reopen almost every commercial decision under the guise of procedural impropriety. This converts the corporate resolution process into a protracted adversarial contest and erodes the value of the corporate debtor. Such an approach incentivises delay, rent seeking and strategic obstruction and is fundamentally inconsistent with the economic logic and statutory design of the IBC”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan cautioned against judicial review of CoC decisions beyond the narrow scope under IBC.

High Court's Contempt Jurisdiction Not Lost Just Because SC Affirmed Its Order : Supreme Court

Case Details: United Labour Federation v. Gagandeep Singh Bedi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 208

The Supreme Court has held that a High Court can entertain a contempt petition alleging violation of its directions even if the original judgment has merged with a Supreme Court order affirming it. The Court clarified that the doctrine of merger does not extinguish the High Court's contempt jurisdiction where the Supreme Court has not issued fresh directions.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed an appeal filed by the United Labour Federation challenging a Madras High Court order which had dismissed its contempt petition as not maintainable.

"We are not convinced with the reasoning of the High Court that once the order passed by the High Court has merged with the order passed by the Supreme Court, the Contempt Petition would not be maintainable before the High Court, for the reason that the Contempt Jurisdiction is independent of the applicability of the Doctrine of Merger," the bench observed.

Non-Parties Liable For Contempt If They Knowingly Aid Disobedience Of Orders: Supreme Court

Case Details: Israr Ahmed Khan v. Amarnath Prasad and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 209

The Supreme Court has clarified that even persons who were not parties to the original proceedings can be held liable for contempt if they knowingly aid or facilitate the disobedience of a court order. The Court emphasised that once a person or authority becomes aware of a judicial order, deliberate inaction or assistance in non-compliance can amount to contempt of court.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan made the observations while dealing with contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with its May 20, 2025 judgment relating to officials of the Chhattisgarh Government. The Court explained that contempt jurisdiction extends beyond the parties named in a judgment and can cover any authority whose conduct frustrates implementation of a court order.

S.133 Contract Act | Surety Not Liable For Borrower's Withdrawals After Modification Of Loan Limit Without Consent : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Babaldas Amtharam Patel (D) Through Legal Representatives & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 210

The Supreme Court held that a guarantor cannot be held liable for loan amounts withdrawn by the borrower beyond the sanctioned limit without the guarantor's consent. However, the guarantor would remain liable for the loan amount originally guaranteed.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment which has ruled that variance in a loan agreement would discharge the surety of entire liability.

The Court examined the provisions relating to guarantees under Chapter VIII of the Indian Contract Act, particularly Sections 133 and 139.

Allahabad High Court's Failure To Pronounce Verdict 6 Years After Reserving Forces Supreme Court To Transfer Cases To Itself

Case Details: Jaideep Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 56/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 211

The Supreme Court invoked Article 139A(transfer of certain cases) of the Constitution and transferred to itself three criminal revision petitions pending before the Allahabad High Court, which failed to deliver the judgments despite reserving them for orders long back in 2020.

As a result of the pendency of these criminal revision petitions in the High Court, the trial in a murder case of 1994 remained stalled.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the Courts usually do not exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 139A in an Article 32 petition. However, the continued pendency of these petitions before the High Court has a direct bearing on the petitioner's denial of speedy justice, as the criminal trial has come to a complete standstill.

Non-Parties Aggrieved By Judgment Can Seek Review Or Challenge It: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr Jiji Ks v. Shibu K

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 212

The Supreme Court has reiterated that persons who were not parties to a case but are adversely affected by the judgment are not without remedy and can seek review or challenge the decision before the appropriate forum.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar made the observation while deciding appeals arising from a dispute over promotions in the Kerala Technical Education Service.

The Court emphasised that in service matters, judicial decisions may sometimes affect employees who were not parties to the proceedings. In such situations, those affected persons may seek review of the judgment or approach the appropriate forum to challenge it.

Cancellation Of Coal Block Is 'Change In Law', Power Generator Entitled To Compensation From 2014: Supreme Court

Case Details – West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Adhunik Power & Natural Resource Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 213

The Supreme Court held that cancellation of the Ganeshpur coal block allotted to Adhunik Power & Natural Resource Ltd. as per the Court's 2014 judgment constituted a “Change in Law” under its power purchase agreement with West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. The Court held that this entitled APNRL to compensation from that date.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, ruled that Adhunik Power cannot recover higher coal costs incurred before August 25, 2014, as the contract barred escalation in energy charges when coal was sourced from sources other than the captive mine.

The dispute arose from a power supply arrangement executed in 2011. On January 5, 2011, WBSEDCL entered into a Power Supply Agreement with PTC India Limited for supply of 100 MW of power for a period of 25 years. On March 25, 2011, Adhunik Power entered into a back-to-back Power Purchase Agreement with PTC for onward sale of 100 MW of power to WBSEDCL. The West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission approved the arrangement on December 15, 2011.

Arbitral Tribunal Can't Grant Pre-Award & Pendente Lite Interest When Contract Prohibits It : Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India & Ors. v. Larsen & Tubro Limited (L&T)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 214

The Supreme Court has ruled that pre-award interest or pendente lite interest cannot be granted by a arbitral tribunal in form of a compensation when the contract expressly prohibits it.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi set aside that part of the Allahabad High Court's order, which had upheld the grant of pre-award interest to the Respondents in a form of compensation despite the contract expressly prohibits it.

Taking note of Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the Court reiterated that granting a pre-award interest is not a mandate unless otherwise stated in the contract.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Film “Yadav Ji Ki Love Story”, Says Title Does Not Portray Community Negatively

Case Details – Awdesh Kumar Yadav v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 215

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a stay on release of the film “Yadav Ji ki Love Story”, holding that the title of the movie does not portray the Yadav community in a negative manner.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the title did not contain any adjective or word that attached any negative meaning to the community.

“We fail to understand how the title of the film reflects the community in bad light. The title of the film does not have any adjective or any word that portrays the Yadav community in bad light. The apprehensions are wholly unfounded”, the Court said.

Auction Purchaser In Possession Need Not Prove Delivery Of Possession To Seek Injunction Against Interference: Supreme Court

Case Details: P. Elaiyappan v. Natarajan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 219

The Supreme Court has held that an auction purchaser who is already in possession of the property is not required to prove a formal delivery of possession under Order XXI Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in order to seek an injunction against interference.

“It is trite law that title in immovable property vests in the auction purchaser on confirmation of sale. No doubt, Order 21 Rule 95 CPC provides for the procedure to take possession by an auction purchaser but if the auction purchaser gets possession and is in possession on the date of institution of the suit, in our view, he cannot be denied injunction against a non-title holder seeking to interfere with his possession.”, observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan, while setting aside the Madras High Court's decision, which had dismissed the appellant's injunction suit on the ground that there had been no formal delivery of possession following the auction sale under Order XXI Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and therefore the appellant could not claim a valid title to seek an injunction.

The dispute arose from competing claims over a property in Tamil Nadu. The property originally belonged to one Ganapathy, against whom a money decree had been passed. In execution of the decree, the property was sold through a court auction to Ramasamy, who later sold it to the appellant, through a registered sale deed dated October 15, 1991.

Quarrel With Daughter-in-Law By Itself No Offence Of Cruelty Or Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey & Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 220

The Supreme Court (March 9) quashed criminal proceedings against the parents-in-law of a woman in a dowry harassment case, observing that the allegations against them were vague and identical.

The Court observed that the lone allegation against the appellants was that they would quarrel with the woman. The Court stated that a quarrel, per se, will not constitute the offence of domestic cruelty or dowry harassment in terms of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta gave a benefit of parity to the Appellants (parents-in-law) of the complainant-wife, noting that a case against her sister-in-law arising out of the same FIR was quashed, as no specific role was attributed to them.

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | No Vested Right To Produce Additional Evidence At Appellate Stage : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gobind Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 221

The Supreme Court (March 9) held that the parties do not possess any vested right to bring on record an additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC at the Appellate stage, as it is the discretion of the Appellate court to permit additional evidence upon fulfilment of certain conditions enumerated under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

“…the appellate court may permit additional evidence only upon being satisfied that the conditions expressly stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC are fulfilled. The parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

The case pertains to a title dispute over a piece of a land in Gwalior. The Appellants-plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the disputed land via adverse possession. However, the Respondent-Union of India claimed that the ownership of the land was transferred to them from State Government in 1953.

NCLAT Order Not Invalid Merely Because Bench Had Majority Technical Members : Supreme Court

Case Details: Pannalal Bhansali v. Bharti Telecom Limited & Ors. (With Connected Appeals)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 222

The Supreme Court has held that an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) cannot be treated as illegal merely because the bench deciding the case had a majority of technical members. The Court clarified that the present statutory framework governing the tribunal system does not mandate that judicial members must outnumber technical members in NCLAT benches.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made the observation while dismissing appeals filed by minority investors challenging a capital reduction scheme undertaken by Bharti Telecom Limited.

Challenge Based On NCLAT Bench Composition

S. 66 Companies Act | Valuation Report Not Mandatory For Share Capital Reduction : Supreme Court

Case Details: Pannalal Bhansali v. Bharti Telecom Limited & Ors. (With Connected Appeals)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 222

The Supreme Court (March 10) held that obtaining or circulating a valuation report is not a statutory requirement when a company undertakes a reduction of share capital under the Companies Act, 2013, though companies may obtain one as a matter of prudence.

“Reduction of share capital can be achieved by a special resolution and confirmation by the Tribunal, without a report of valuation from an approved/registered valuer…”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran, while dismissing a batch of appeals filed by the minority shareholders against the reduction of the Bharti Telecom Limited's share capital.

The case arose after Bharti Telecom decided to reduce the shares held by certain public shareholders as part of a capital reduction exercise and compensate them monetarily. The company had obtained a valuation from an external agency which determined the share value at ₹163.25, applying a Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM) due to the unlisted and illiquid nature of the shares.

Plaintiff Approaching Court With Unclean Hands Not Entitled To Specific Performance: Supreme Court

Case Details: Muddam Raju Yadav v. B. Raja Shanker (D) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 223

The Supreme Court (March 10) dismissed a suit for specific performance, observing that a plaintiff who approaches the court with unclean hands by withholding material information is not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance.

“In a suit for specific performance, the conduct of the parties is significant as it assists the Court in evaluating the evidence to find out the bona fides of the parties at the time of execution of the agreement. Even a slight doubt in the mind of the Court that the plaintiff was not acting bonafidely and that the material facts, having bearing on the agreement, have been withheld in the agreement itself and from the Court also, the equitable and discretionary relief has to be denied.”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Prasanna B. Varale was hearing a case in which the appellant–plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell, but had suppressed a crucial memorandum of understanding (MoU) executed between him and the respondent–defendant that contradicted his claim that the transaction was a genuine sale.

Co-Operative Society's Multi-State Status Depends On Objectives, Not Spread Of Members Across States: Supreme Court

Case Details: Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies & Ors. v. Gurdeep Singh Narval (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 224

The Supreme Court has held that the character of a multi-state cooperative society is determined by the nature of its objectives, and not merely by the fact that its members are spread across different states.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's judgment which held a state co-operative to be a multi-state co-operative society merely because its members are spread across different states.

Rejecting the contention that spread of co-operative society members to different states qualifies it to be a multi-state co-operative society, the Court said that to qualify as multi-state co-operative society, the objective of the co-operative society intends to serve the members across different states.

Frame No-Fault Compensation Policy For Adverse Events Due To COVID-19 Vaccination : Supreme Court Directs Centre

Case Details: Rachana Gangu & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. – WP(C) No. 1220/2021, Union of India v. Sayeeda K.A. & Ors | SLP (C) No. 16452/2023 (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 225

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to frame a no-fault compensation policy for individuals who suffer serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the direction while clarifying that the existing mechanism for monitoring Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) shall continue to operate.

The Court further directed that relevant data regarding such adverse events should be periodically placed in the public domain, in accordance with the observations made earlier in the 2021 judgment in the Dr. Jacob Puliyel case.

Govt Data Shows COVID Vaccines Led To Some Deaths; State Cannot Shrug Off Responsibility: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rachana Gangu v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 225

The Supreme Court held that when a vaccination programme is undertaken as a State-led public health intervention, the government cannot evade responsibility towards families who allege deaths or serious injuries following vaccination, particularly when official data itself acknowledges that some deaths occurred after COVID-19 vaccination.

Observing that the Constitution does not view the right to life solely through the prism of fault, the Court said that Article 21 imposes a positive obligation on the State to ensure that affected families are not left without any accessible mechanism for redress.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta accordingly directed the Union Government to formulate a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.

'Property Acquisition With Token Compensation Arbitrary' : Supreme Court Quashes Bihar Act To Take Over Historic Library At 1 Rs

Case Details: Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Observing that the deprivation of property must be based on law which is “just, fair and reasonable”, the Supreme Court (March 10) struck down the Bihar law that allowed the State to take over a historic library for a token compensation of just one rupee, holding that such a provision is “confiscatory” and fails constitutional scrutiny.

“While Article 300A of the Constitution permits deprivation of property by authority of law, such law must nevertheless be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary or confiscatory in effect. A statutory provision that enables acquisition of property while reducing compensation to a token amount lacks the basic attributes of fairness. The confiscatory nature of the vesting contemplated under the impugned Act therefore reinforces the conclusion that the enactment is manifestly arbitrary and fails constitutional scrutiny.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

The Court set aside the Patna High Court's ruling, which had upheld the law for taking over the library, established in 1924 by Sachchidanand Sinha, who served as the first temporary President of the Constituent Assembly of India.

Call Detail Records Not Admissible Without S.65 Evidence Act Certificate : Supreme Court

Case Details: Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 227

The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted in a murder case, holding that Call Detail Records (CDRs) cannot be relied upon in evidence unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

“…the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA] was not proved by the prosecution. In the absence of the certificate, mandatorily required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA], the call detail records become inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to support the prosecution's case.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, while setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's judgment which had upheld the conviction.

The case arose from the 2010 murder of a woman. The prosecution alleged that the victim's husband had conspired with the appellant to commit the crime. To establish the alleged conspiracy, the prosecution relied on Call Detail Records showing frequent contact between the two accused around the time of the incident.

Public Servant Convicted For Bribery Cannot Seek Acquittal Merely Because Co-Accused Was Acquitted For Not Proving Conspiracy: Supreme Court

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Baljeet Singh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 228

The Supreme Court has held that the public servant who personally demands and accepts a bribe can be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, even if the charge of criminal conspiracy fails and the co-accused is acquitted.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the acquittal of an Income Tax Inspector, who was acquitted by the Rajasthan High Court just because the co-accused was acquitted and the charges of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC were dropped.

The Court observed that even if the conspiracy allegation fails, the prosecution can still secure a conviction if the evidence independently establishes that the accused public servant demanded and accepted the bribe.

Supreme Court Urges Union To Bring Law On Passive Euthanasia

Case Details: Harish Rana v. Union of India | Ma 2238/2025 In SLP(C) No. 18225/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 229

The Supreme Court (March 11) voiced the need for legislation to govern passive euthanasia in India. It said that due to the legislative vacuum on this issue in India, the Court has to intervene, from time to time, to frame guidelines as a matter of constitutional necessity.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan said this while allowing withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining treatment for a 32-year-old Harish Rana who has been in a persistent vegetative state for the past 13 years.

The Court said that the issue was first examined in depth by the 196th Law Commission of India(2006), which said that withholding life support or medical treatment of terminally ill patients does not attract criminal liability of attempt to suicide, provided it is done in the best interest of the patient.

When Can Medical Treatment Be Withdrawn In 'Best Interests Of Patient'? Supreme Court Explains Allowing First Passive Euthanasia

Case Details: Harish Rana v. Union of India | Ma 2238/2025 In SLP(C) No. 18225/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 229

The Supreme Court (March 11) stated that the best interests of the patient should be the primary consideration when deciding whether medical treatment may be withheld or withdrawn. The Court also laid down certain indicative factors which can help in judging whether withdrawal of life support was in the "best interests of the patient".

If the medical treatment is futile, without giving any therapeutic effect, and is only prolonging the suffering by extending the mere biological existence, it can be a decisive factor in favour of the withdrawal of medical treatment.

These aspects were discussed by the Court in its historic judgment,which allowed passive euthanasia in India for the first time. The Court permitted the withdrawal of life support of  32-year-old Harish Rana, who has been in a persistent vegetative state(PVS) for 13 years.  A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the judgment in terms of the Common Cause judgment(2018), which was modified in 2023.

Supreme Court Allows First Passive Euthanasia, Permits Withdrawal Of Life Support For Man In Vegetative State

Case Details: Harish Rana v. Union of India | Ma 2238/2025 In SLP(C) No. 18225/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 229

The Supreme Court passed its first-ever order allowing passive euthanasia, in terms of its2018 Common Cause judgment (as modified in 2023) recognising the fundamental right to die with dignity.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed the withdrawal of life support for a 32-year-old man, who has remained in an irreversible permanent vegetative state for the past 13 years after falling from a building. The bench passed the order on a miscellaneous application of the father seeking to remove all life-sustaining treatment from his son.

"Harish Rana, presently aged 32 years, was once a young, bright boy. He met with a tragic life-altering accident after a fall from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation. His brain injury left him in a condition of Persistent Vegetative State (PSV) with 100% quadraplegia... Medical reports show that his medical condition has not improved in the past 13 years," the bench noted. He is sustaining life only on Clinically Administered Nutrition (CAN) administered through surgically installed PEG tubes.

Overzealous Investigation Fatal To Prosecution; Case Framed On Public Perceptions Ends Up In Mess : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 230

The Supreme Court cautioned that an overzealous investigation can be as damaging to a prosecution as a lethargic one, observing that cases built on public perceptions and investigators' personal predilections often collapse and risk implicating innocent persons while allowing the real perpetrator to escape.

The Court made the remark while dealing with a case involving the gruesome death of a couple in a house fire, where their son and daughter-in-law were accused of murder based largely on an alleged property dispute.

Noting that the prosecution rested almost entirely on the supposed motive that the son bore resentment over not receiving his share in ancestral property, the Court said the investigation appeared to have been driven by the village's hostility against the accused. As a result, the truth was “sacrificed at the altar of perceived vengeance,” aided by the Investigating Officer's selective and careless pursuit of evidence, which ultimately derailed the prosecution case.

Railway Travel Insurance Cannot Be Limited To Online Tickets, Must Be Available To Counter Ticket Passengers Too: Supreme Court

Case Details Background

Case Details: Union of India v. Radha Yadav, Miscellaneous Application No.741-742/2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 231

The Supreme Court has observed that passengers purchasing railway tickets over the counter cannot be denied the benefit of travel insurance when the same facility is available to those booking tickets online.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan noted that passengers booking railway tickets online are able to opt for insurance at a nominal additional cost, whereas the same option is not presently available to passengers purchasing tickets physically at railway counters.

Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Shikhil Suri highlighted this issue before the bench andpointed out the absence of any response from the Railways regarding the disparity.

Parental Salary Alone Can't Decide OBC Creamy Layer Status : Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India and Others v. Rohith Nathan and Another, Etc. (With Connected Appeals)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 232

In an important judgment, the Supreme Court has held that 'creamy layer' status for reservation under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category cannot be determined solely on the basis of parental income, without reference to the posts and status held by the parents in their organisations.

Dismissing a batch of appeals filed by the Union of India, a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan granted relief to several UPSC candidates, who were denied appointments despite clearing the Civil Service Examinations, as they were wrongly included in the creamy layer category.

The Court held that the authorities had incorrectly applied an income/wealth-based test to exclude them from the non-creamy layer, instead of applying the prescribed status-based criteria to determine whether the candidate falls within the OBC Creamy Layer.

Seniority Of Direct Recruits Counts From Initial Appointment, Not Probation Completion : Supreme Court

Case Details: M. Thanigivelu and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors. (With Connected Appeals)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 233

The Supreme Court had ruled that the seniority of directly recruited Assistant Engineers in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) must be counted from the date of their initial appointment, including the training period, and not from the date they commenced probation after completing training.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court's division bench judgment, which had calculated the seniority of the employee from the date they joined the service after completion of the probation.

“…the seniority of a direct recruit is to be counted from the first date of their joining after which they were sent for training. The period therefor is irrelevant. It may change from time to time.”, the Court observed.

Police Recruitment Can Be Denied To Person Acquitted In Heinous Crime Only On Benefit Of Doubt : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Yadav

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 234

The Supreme Court has observed that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt does not confer upon a candidate an automatic right to appointment in public service.

“…mere involvement of a person in an offence or in a conduct amounting to moral turpitude without anything else may become relevant consideration to judge his fitness to the post and to assess credentials for allowing such a person into the employment.”, observed a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and NV Anjaria, while restoring the MP Police Screening committee's decision to declare the Respondent unfit to join the services because of his involvement in the serious offences of kidnapping and rape of a minor girl.

The Court asserted that the “recruitees in the disciplined force should be the persons beyond reproach and men with rectitude” as the “quality of law and order in the society and maintenance thereof depends upon the character of the persons serving in the police force.”

Arbitration | Belated Jurisdictional Challenge Impermissible After Active Participation In Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court

Case Details: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. M/S R.V. Anderson Associates Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 235

The Supreme Court has observed that a party which participates in arbitration proceedings without raising a jurisdictional objection at the appropriate stage cannot subsequently raise a technical plea of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal upon passing of an adverse award.

“A party cannot keep a 'jurisdictional ace' up their sleeve and then claim that filing of the jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 would go back in time and wipe out the past conduct and acquiescence of the party which would clearly evince how the contractual terms were viewed by the parties. If the same is permitted, it will erode the basic principles of alternative dispute resolution and ethos of arbitration.”, observed a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, while upholding an arbitral award, which was sought to be challenged by the Appellant by raising a technical plea of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, when an adverse award was passed against it.

“A party who has actively participated or consented to continuation of the proceedings cannot later challenge the same process merely because the result is adverse.”, the court quoted the observation from the latest case of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1153.

To Dismiss Public Servant Without Dept Enquiry, Sufficient Cause Must Be Shown : Supreme Court Reinstantes Delhi Police Officer

Case Details: Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 236

The Supreme Court (March 12) observed that the power to dismiss a government servant from service without holding a departmental enquiry cannot be exercised on mere presumption that conducting such an enquiry is not reasonably practicable. The Court added that the decision of the authority to dispense with the requirement of holding an enquiry before dismissing a government servant should be supported by some material.

A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal filed by the Delhi police constable, who was dismissed from service without holding a departmental enquiry on the presumption of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) that conducting such an enquiry would not be reasonably practicable, as the appellant, facing a criminal trial, might threaten or intimidate witnesses.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court restored the services of the appellant, holding that the High Court erred in upholding his dismissal. The Court observed that the power to dismiss a government servant without holding an enquiry under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution can be exercised only when it is not reasonably practicable to conduct such an enquiry, and the decision to dispense with it must be supported by relevant material.

Supreme Court Upholds Claim Of Candidates With Learning Disability & Mental Illness To Join CAG Auditor Post

Case Details: Sudhanshu Kardam v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 237

The Supreme Court (March 12) held that government authorities cannot deny appointment to persons with benchmark disabilities by relying on outdated identification of posts, and must apply the latest notification issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the appointment of candidates whose candidature had been rejected on the basis of the 2013 identification of posts for persons with benchmark disabilities, which did not recognize persons suffering from mental illness and Specific Learning Disability (SLD) as eligible for the post of Auditor.

The Court held that the High Court erred in overlooking the 2021 notification issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, which superseded the 2013 post-identification list and expanded reservation eligibility to include persons with mental illness and specific learning disability for several Group 'C' posts, including Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II.

S. 149 IPC | Failure To Prove Specific Overt Acts Of Each Member Of Unlawful Assembly Not Fatal To Prosecution : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dablu Etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (With Connected Case Details)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 238

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction and life sentences of four individuals, observing that the absence of a specific eyewitness account of the accused firing at the deceased is not fatal to the prosecution's case when the accused acted as members of an unlawful assembly with a common object under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti heard the appeals filed by the convicted persons, who, among other grounds, challenged their conviction by arguing that the independent witness to the incident had not seen them firing or causing harm to the deceased, and therefore their involvement in an unlawful assembly attracting liability under Indian Penal Code, 1860 could not be justified.

Dismissing the appeals, the bench observed that once the accused are shown to be members of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object, the failure of an independent witness to attribute specific overt acts to each individual becomes immaterial.

Attempt To Settle Dispute Cannot Prevent Police From Taking Cognizance Of Crime : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kuldeep Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (With Connected Appeal)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 239

The Supreme Court has observed that an attempt by the police to reconcile a dispute between the clashing groups would not bar them from registering an FIR for criminal acts.

“The mere attempt at reconciliation cannot prevent the police from taking cognizance of criminal acts.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran.

The case arose out of a dispute between two groups in a locality in Punjab. The appellants belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, while the respondents were from an upper-caste group. The conflict reportedly began over allegations that drainage water was being diverted into the houses of the Appellants.

'FIR Can't Be Doubted Merely Because It Is Based On Police Statement', Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail In SC/ST Case

Case Details: Kuldeep Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (With Connected Appeal)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 239

The Supreme Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to individuals who had allegedly hurled caste-based abuse at the members of the Scheduled Caste category, noting that the authenticity of an FIR cannot be doubted merely because it was registered based on a police statement, not by a complainant.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment, which had granted an anticipatory bail in an SC/ST case, by expressing reservations about the genuineness and authenticity of the FIR registered based on the police official's statement.

The case arose out of a dispute between two groups. Members of a Scheduled Caste community alleged that drainage water from the houses of members belonging to an upper caste community was being directed into their homes. When the affected residents protested, tensions escalated in the locality.

Auction Sale Confirmation Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny Of Valuation Of Reserve Price : Supreme Court

Case Details: Om Sakthi Sekar v. v. Sukumar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 240

The Supreme Court (March 13) observed that a conclusion of an auction sale would not bar re-valuation of the auctioned property, when a question arises regarding the adequacy of valuation or fixation of the reserve price.

“While there can be no quarrel with the settled proposition that the rights of a bona fide auction purchaser deserve due protection and that confirmed court sales should not ordinarily be interfered with, it is equally well established that such protection is not absolute. Where credible issues are raised regarding the adequacy of valuation or the fairness of the process leading to the fixation of the reserve price, the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court may be invoked to ensure that the recovery proceedings have been conducted in a manner that secures the best possible value of the property. The objective of recovery proceedings is not merely to complete the sale but to realise the maximum value of the secured asset so as to balance the interests of the creditor and the borrower.”, observed a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.

The bench affirmed the Madras High Court's decision, which had upheld the auction sale in favour of the appellant but had remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on the limited aspect of valuation of the auctioned property.

'Privy Purse Privileges To Princely Rulers Can't Be Claimed As Legal Rights' : Supreme Court Rejects Mizo Chiefs' Claim

Case Details: Mizo Chief Council Mizoram, Thr. President Shri L. Chinzah v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 22 of 2014

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 241

The Supreme Court (March 11) dismissed a writ petition filed by the Mizo Chief Council claiming that the Union of India had acquired the lands of tribal chieftains of the erstwhile Lushai Hills district(present-day State of Mizoram) without paying due compensation.

While the Court recognised that their claims arose when the right to property was a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, the chiefs failed to establish any violation of their rights.

They had also claimed that they stood on equal footing with rulers of the erstwhile Princely States. But the Court rejected this on the grounds that privy purposes were a result of pre-constitutional political and contractual arrangements negotiated between the rulers and the government.

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Excise Inspector In 35-Year-Old Bribery Case, Reduces Sentence Since Convict Now 75 Yr Old

Case Details: Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 242

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a former excise constable from Uttarakhand in a bribery trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while reducing the sentence in view of his advanced age and the time already spent in custody.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the appeal filed by Raj Bahadur Singh against the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which had affirmed his conviction for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. However, the Court modified the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Of 4 Men In Gang Rape Case Of 1998

Case Details: Rajendra & Ors v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 243

The Supreme Court has set aside the rape conviction of four individuals in a gang rape case, raising doubts on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale heard an appeal against the Uttarakhand High Court's decision, which upheld the appellant's conviction for committing a rape and intimidating the victim-prosecutrix.

In 2000, the trial court convicted all four accused and sentenced them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines. The conviction was upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court in 2012.

Air Force Group Insurance Society Is 'State' Under Article 12 Of Constitution : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ravi Khokhar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 244

The Supreme Court has held Air Force Group Insurance Society to be a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, amenable to Writ Jurisdiction.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi overturned the Delhi High Court's decision refusing to consider Air Force Group Insurance Society (“Society”) as 'State'. The bench held that since the Society performs a public function closely linked to the State's obligations toward members of the Indian Air Force, it qualifies as a State.

“We are of the considered view that AFGIS does indeed perform a public duty. The protection and welfare of armed forces personnel is a core government function. The role of the armed forces is directly linked to the sovereignty and security of the nation and in protecting the same members of the forces are required to adhere to, abide by, and maintain a strict set of rules, unquestionable conduct, and at times in the most severe and adverse circumstances. Thus, providing insurance coverage is a public function as it addresses a collective obligation the State has towards a defined public class whose service is indispensable.”, the court said.

Motor Accident Claim: No Deduction Of Employer-Provided Group Insurance Benefits From Compensation, Reiterates Supreme Court

Case Details: Managing Director, KSRTC v. P. Chandramouli & Ors. (With Connected Appeal)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 245

The Supreme Court has reiterated that amounts received by claimants under employer-provided group insurance schemes or other social security benefits cannot be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the batch of appeals filed against the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts' judgment, which had disallowed the deduction of the benefits received by the claimants under the Group Insurance Schemes, upon the death of the deceased, from the amount of compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicle Act.

Affirming the High Courts' ruling, the Court observed that benefits received out of the social security schemes are not 'pecuniary benefits', therefore cannot be deducted from the motor vehicle compensation.

Giving Accused Option To Be Searched Before Police Officer Violates Section 50 NDPS Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surat Singh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 246

The Supreme Court (March 16) upheld the acquittal in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, after noting that the accused, who was allegedly found in possession of 'Charas', was also given a legally impermissible option to be searched in presence of the police officer, which the court held to be contrary to Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as the personal search of an accused can be conducted either in presence of a magistrate or gazette officer.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh's appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to acquit the respondent-accused of the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

“The police has given option to the accused either to be personally searched before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Police Officer. The accused was also given option whether he wanted to be searched by the I.O. in the presence of witnesses mentioned in Ext. PW-1/A. According to Section 50 of the ND & PS Act, the accused has to be apprised of his legal right to be searched either before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. There is no third option to be searched before the Police Officer. Thus, the consent obtained from the accused was not in conformity with Section 50 of the Act. It has vitiated the entire trial.”, the bench endorsed the High Court's observation.

Anganwadi Workers With Degree Not Barred From 29% Quota For Supervisors In Kerala: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shiny C.J. & Ors. v. Shalini Sreenivasan & Ors. Etc. (With Connected Case Details)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 247

The Supreme Court has held that Anganwadi Workers possessing a graduate degree are not barred from competing for the 29% quota earmarked for workers with SSLC qualification and 10 years' experience for appointment as Supervisors under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS).

The Court clarified that the additional 11% earmarked for graduates is only an exclusive channel for them, and does not operate to exclude them from the broader 29% quota. Setting aside the Kerala High Court's contrary interpretation, the Court restored the decision of the Administrative Tribunal.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the 2014 amendment to the Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare Subordinate Services, 2010 did not create mutually exclusive quotas between graduate and non-graduate Anganwadi Workers. Instead, the amendment merely enhanced the overall quota for Anganwadi Workers from 29% to 40%, carving out 11% specifically for graduates from the open category quota. The Court emphasised that prior to the amendment, all Anganwadi Workers with SSLC and requisite experience, including graduates, were eligible to apply under the 29% quota, and this position continued even after the amendment.

Fraudulent Diversion Of Company's Funds Can't Be Cured By Subsequent Shareholder Ratification : Supreme Court

Case Details: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Terrascope Ventures Limited Etc.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 248

The Supreme Court held that diversion of funds raised through preferential allotment for purposes other than those disclosed to investors amounts to fraud under securities law, and cannot be cured by subsequent shareholder ratification.

Allowing appeals filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan set aside an order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) which had exonerated Terrascope Ventures Ltd. and its directors. The Court restored penalties imposed by SEBI's Adjudicating Officer (AO).

“…objects set out in the explanatory note for the issuance of securities including preferential allotment of shares are of utmost significance and have a large say in influencing and impacting the conduct of the stakeholders concerned with the securities market.”, observed the bench, pointing out that any diversion of funds without proper disclosure to the investors, amounts to fraudulent activity under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (“PFUTP Regulations”).

NGT Can't Order Removal Of Encroachment Raised In Violation Of Municipal Laws : Supreme Court

Case Details: Narender Bhardwaj v. M/S 108 Super Complex R.W.A. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 249

The Supreme Court has observed that the National Green Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to order the removal of an alleged encroachment, which was raised in violation of the Municipal Laws.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the New Delhi NGT decision, which had ordered the removal of a Temple, which was illegally constructed on the land shown as open space/Park in Sector – 16A, Vasundhara, District Ghaziabad.

The bench faulted the NGT's exercise of its power under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010, which authorizes the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the question of law relating to the environment in respect of statutes specified in Schedule I, such as the Air Act, Water Act, Forest Act, Environment Protection Act, etc.

Adoption Is Expression Of Reproductive Autonomy Under Article 21: Supreme Court

Case Details – Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 250

The Supreme Court held that adoption is an expression of reproductive and decisional autonomy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“The right of reproductive autonomy is not confined to the biological act of giving birth. Adoption is an equal exercise of the right to reproductive and decisional autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that non-biological modes of building a family are equally legitimate and meaningful, and an atypical family structure cannot strip away constitutional rights.

Denying Maternity Benefits To Adoptive Mothers Of Children Above Three Months Unconstitutional: Supreme Court

Case Details – Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 250

The Supreme Court (March 17) held that Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, which allow maternity benefit to an adoptive mother only if the adopted child is less than 3 months of age, is unconstitutional.

The Court held that an adoptive mother should be entitled to maternity leave of 12 weeks, irrespective of the age of the adopted child. The Court read down the provision as follows: "A woman who legally adopts a child, or a commissioning mother, shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother, as the case may be."

The provision earlier held that this benefit is available only to a woman who legally adopts a child "below the age of three months".

Bring Law Recognising Paternity Leave : Supreme Court Urges Union

Case Details – Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 250

The Supreme Court urged the Union Government to bring a law recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit. The Court observed that the duration of the leave must be determined to suit the needs of both the parents and the child.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan made this recommendation in a case concerning the constitutionality of the provision restricting maternity leave to adoptive mothers only if the age of the child is below 3 months.

The bench held that Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, which allows maternity leave of 12 weeks to an adoptive mother only if the child is below the age of 3 months, is unconstitutional. Reading down the provision, the Court declared that a woman who legally adopted a child was entitled to maternity leave of 12 months regardless of the age of the adopted child.

Scrutinising Contradictions And Questioning Witness Credibility Beyond Scope Of S.319 CrPC : Supreme Court

Case Details: Mohammad Kaleem v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (With Connected Appeal)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 251

The Supreme Court (March 17) observed that it is impermissible to conduct 'a mini trial' at the stage of summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih set aside the Allahabad High Court's decision, which did a 'microscopic analysis' of the evidence and applied a standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' at the stage of summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

“…there are inconsistencies in the overall testimonies of these witnesses but, that is a matter of trial and not within the Court's scope at the time of considering an application under section 319 Cr.P.C.”, the court observed.

'Bank Bound To Follow Customer's Instruction': Supreme Court Holds Bank Liable For Wrongful Remittance To Third Party

Case Details: Canara Bank Overseas Branch v. Archean Industries Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Emphasising that banks must strictly adhere to customer instructions, the Supreme Court held that a bank cannot unilaterally divert funds contrary to the mandate given by its customer, and upheld the liability of Canara Bank for erroneously remitting USD 100,000 to a third party.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the bank's appeal, affirming a Madras High Court ruling that directed it to indemnify Archean Industries Pvt. Ltd. for the mistaken transfer.

Background

Law Student Not Expected To Know Better When Judges Themselves Give Different Answers : Supreme Court Grants Relief In Law Officer Exam

Case Details: Charan Preet Singh v. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 253

The ambiguity in the correct answer to an exam question used to recruit a Law Officer led the Supreme Court to accept the competing claims of two candidates. The Court granted relief to both candidates by directing that both of them be accommodated by creating a supernumerary post.

The issue was with respect to the exam conducted by the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation in 2021 for one post of Law Officer. One Charan Preet Singh was selected. His appointment was challenged by another candidate, Amit Kumar Sharma, on the ground that he was wrongly given a negative mark. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in 2022, accepted the claim of Sharma. Singh therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.

“Which of the following Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights?”

RPwD Act Doesn't Allow State To Impose Ceiling To Exclude Persons With Higher Disabilities : Supreme Court

Case Details: Prabhu Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 254

The Supreme Court has held that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines the “floor” for reservation eligibility but does not empower the State to create an arbitrary “ceiling” excluding persons with higher degrees of disability, so long as they are capable of performing the functional requirements of the post with reasonable accommodation.

Applying this principle, the Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to appoint a 90% locomotor-disabled advocate as Assistant District Attorney (ADA), setting aside the High Court's judgment which had upheld his exclusion.

Background

Doctor's Opinion On Victim's Consciousness Prevails Over Police Assessment In Evaluating Dying Declaration: Supreme Court

Case Details: Subramani v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 255

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a husband for committing the murder of his wife based on her dying declaration, noting that a mere discrepancy in the investigation officer's statements would not discredit the dying declaration when the doctor has approved the deceased's fit state of mind to give statements.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti dismissed the husband's appeal, upholding the Karnataka High Court's judgment to convict him for the offences of murder (Section 302 IPC) and Cruelty (Section 498-A IPC).

The prosecution's case was that on the fateful night, a quarrel started between the couple, leading to the setting ablaze of the deceased wife by the Appellant-husband upon pouring kerosene over her.

Quashing Of FIR In Forgery Case When Handwriting Expert's Opinion Is Pending Is Unjustified : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 256

The Supreme Court has set aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment which quashed an FIR alleging a large-scale conspiracy involving forgery, cheating and misappropriation of property, holding that the High Court acted prematurely while the investigation, including forensic examination of disputed documents, was still underway.

Allowing appeals filed by the complainant Sharla Bazliel and the State of Himachal Pradesh, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta restored the FIR and directed the investigating agency to complete the probe expeditiously.

“…where allegations of forgery are set out in the FIR and Investigating Agency has undertaken the exercise of getting the disputed documents examined through the handwriting expert, an order quashing the FIR without awaiting the outcome of the handwriting expert's report would be totally unjustified.”, the Court observed.

'Legal Profession Tainted' : Supreme Court Condemns Barabanki Lawyers' Toll Plaza Hooliganism & Attack On Advocate For Representing Accused

Case Details: Vishvjeet and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 257

The Supreme Court has strongly condemned the acts of violence by members of the Barabanki District Bar Association in Uttar Pradesh at a toll plaza, after a dispute broke out over the alleged refusal of an advocate to pay toll.

The Court also condemned the lawyers for vandalising the office of "a brave lawyer" who came forward to represent the toll plaza employees who were arrested over the scuffle that broke out in January 2026. The Court urged the Bar Council of India to take an appropriate disciplinary action in this regard.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a writ petition filed by Gotona Bara Toll Plaza's employees who were arrested and remanded to custody.

'Is This James Bond? Shoot First, Think Later?' : Supreme Court Slams Rajasthan Police For Hasty FIR On Zee Media Complaint

Case Details: Ashish Dave v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 19369/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 258

Coming down heavily on the Rajasthan Police, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR over the offence of extortion registered against former Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan on a complaint filed by the Zee Media company.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the plea of Ashish Dave, the former Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan, and quashed the FIR. It passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal (for petitioner), ASG SD Sanjay (for State) and Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain (for complainant, Sanju Raju on behalf of Zee Media).

The bench expressed "shock" at the registration of the FIR based on allegations which amounted to a mere "story". "We are shocked at the manner in which the FIR was registered. Your Investigating Officer should have made an inquiry. He should have confirmed the allegations and then the FIR should have been registered. Lalita Kumari [case] is applicable to everyone. Which particular allegation of extortion, which particular offense of misuse of his position in the company was setout in the FIR and in the complaint, which required the police station concerned to immediately go for registration of FIR? Without there being any allegation at all! It's all story - all a fictional story", remarked Justice Mehta.

S.173(3) BNSS Safeguard Against Mechanical Registration Of FIRs On Vague & Doubtful Allegations : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ashish Dave v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 19369/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 258

The Supreme Court has observed that Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is intended to prevent the mechanical registration of FIRs based on vague, speculative or doubtful allegations, even where such allegations are framed as cognizable offences.

Highlighting the legislative shift from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regime, the Court explained that Section 173(3) BNSS introduces an additional procedural filter before registration of FIRs in certain categories of offences.

The provision allows police, with prior approval of a superior officer, to conduct a preliminary enquiry in cases punishable between 3 to 7 years, even where the complaint ostensibly discloses a cognizable offence.

Foreign Divorce Decree Not Enforceable In India If Party Had No Meaningful Opportunity To Contest It : Supreme Court

Case Details: K Kale v. K

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 259

The Supreme Court has held that a foreign divorce decree cannot be sustained unless the opposite party was afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate in and contest the proceedings before the foreign court.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Bombay High Court's decision recognising the binding nature of the US Court's divorce decree granted on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage,” noting that the appellant-husband neither meaningfully participated in nor was afforded an effective opportunity of hearing in the US proceedings.

“…we find that the foreign decree is not conclusive and cannot be sustained as a valid decree of divorce between the parties.”, the court held.

Foreign Divorce Decree On Ground Of 'Irretrievable Breakdown' Not Enforceable In India: Supreme Court

Case Details: K v. K

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 259

A decree of divorce passed by a court in the United States of America (USA) on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not enforceable in India, observed the Supreme Court.

This is because irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not recognised as a ground for divorce under the Indian law. Here, parties were married as per the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).

“…the US Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This ground is not recognised under the HMA, which is the matrimonial law applicable to the parties.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Movie Can Be Flop Too; No Cheating Offence Just Because Film Investment Didn't Return Profit : Supreme Court

Case Details: v. Ganesan v. State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 260

The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings for cheating cannot be sustained merely because a movie investment failed to generate profits, reiterating that such arrangements inherently involve commercial risk.

Quashing the crimnial proceedings initiated in Tamil Nadu for the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, a Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed :

"No one can be sure whether a movie would earn profits or would be a flop. If one agrees to share profits in lieu of his investment in a movie, he takes the risk of a possible zero return."

Fresh Poll Not Needed When Election With 2 Candidates Set Aside, Runner-Up Be Declared Winner : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ramadebi Rautray v. State of Odisha and Ors. (And Connected Case Details)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 260

The Supreme Court has observed that where only two candidates contested an election, setting aside the winning candidate's election does not warrant a fresh poll; instead, the runner-up should be declared elected.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Odisha High Court's decision to direct a fresh election, after the winning candidate's election as Panchayat Samiti Chairperson was declared null and void.

The dispute arose from the 2022 election to the post of Chairperson of the Delang Panchayat Samiti in Odisha, where the appellant and the respondent were the only two contestants. The respondent was declared elected.

Appellate Court Should Not Lightly Interfere With MACT Compensation : Supreme Court

Case Details: R. Halle v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 261

The Supreme Court (March 18) held that appellate courts cannot interfere with the assessment of disability and compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal unless they undertake a thorough reappreciation of evidence and provide clear and convincing reasons.

“…when an appellate court interferes with findings of fact duly recorded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, particularly on issues such as assessment of disability and loss of earning capacity, it is incumbent upon it to undertake a thorough reappreciation of the evidence and to assign cogent, clear and convincing reasons for departing from the conclusions arrived at by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.”, observed a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta.

The case arose from a motor accident claim in which the claimant had suffered severe injuries, including head trauma and cognitive impairment, resulting in 63% permanent disability. The MACT, after evaluating medical evidence, awarded compensation of ₹65.53 lakh.

SAIL Can Withhold Gratuity, Adjust It Against Penal Rent If Ex-Employees Illegally Retain Quarters: Supreme Court

Case Details: Management of Steel Authority of India and Others v. Shambhu Prasad Singh and Others (With Connected Appeals)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 262

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) is entitled to withhold gratuity and adjust penal rent from the dues of retired employees who continue to occupy company quarters beyond the permissible period, setting aside contrary directions issued by the Jharkhand High Court.

Affirming SAIL's powers under Rule 3.2.1(c) of the SAIL Gratuity Rules, the Court held that the employer is entitled to withhold gratuity for non-compliance with company rules, including failure to vacate accommodation, and that no interest is payable for the period of unauthorised occupation.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti allowed a batch of appeals filed by SAIL challenging High Court orders which had directed release of gratuity, in some cases with interest, to former employees of Bokaro Steel Plant who had not vacated staff quarters after retirement.

Supreme Court Upholds Telangana Constable's Accelerated Promotion For Countering Naxal Attack

Case Details: State of Telangana & Ors. v. P Srinivas

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 263

The Supreme Court upheld the grant of accelerated promotion to a Telangana-based Police Head Constable who had been denied the benefit by the State government, despite discharging the same duties as another similarly placed constable who was promoted for resisting a Naxalite attack on a police station.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria dismissed the State of Telangana's appeal against the High Court's Division Bench order, which had upheld the Single Bench order to extend the benefit of an accelerated promotion to the Respondent-constable, which was denied to him but was granted to others.

“The object of giving accelerated promotion…is to lift the morale of the police personnel. Therefore, keeping in view the object of giving accelerated promotion to counter Naxalites attack, the High Court was clearly justified in giving effect to the object of the G.O. by granting accelerated promotion to the respondent.”, the court observed.

HCs Must Decide FIR Quashing Petitions On Merits, Instead Of Disposing Them Asking Police To Follow Arrest Guidelines: Supreme Court

Case Details: Md. Mashood & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 264

The Supreme Court has held that it is impermissible for the High Courts to dispose of the quashing petition without determining the veracity of the prayer for quashing a FIR.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria set aside the Allahabad High Court's order, which had mechanically disposed of the quashing petition by merely directing the police to follow the guidelines regarding an arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014), without determining the veracity of the prayer for quashing and deciding the petition on its merit.

“…once a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and/or Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is preferred, the same should be decided on merits, rather than dismissing the same as infructuous or by directing the Police to follow Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra).”, the court held.

Notify Convicts Before Appointing Amicus To Represent Them In Appeals : Supreme Court Advises Courts

Case Details: Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 265

The Supreme Court has advised that it would be prudent for the Appellate Courts to notify a convict before appointing an amicus curiae to represent them in their criminal appeal when their counsel is absent.

The Court observed that such an intimation will obviate situations of a convict later complaining that the appeal was decided by hearing an amicus without their knowledge.

The ruling came in a case where the appellant's appeal remained pending for over two decades after he was released on bail. When the matter was finally listed, no counsel appeared for him and the High Court appointed an amicus curiae, who argued the case and secured partial relief by converting a conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.

'Disturbing Animals After Lawful Import May Result In Cruelty' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Vantara

Case Details: Karanartham Viramah Foundation v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 266

The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL alleging violations of international wildlife trade norms in the importation of animals by Vantata, noting that the issues raised were already rejected last year in another matter after an SIT inquiry found no foul play.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria refused to entertain the PIL filed by Karanartham Viramah Foundation under Article 32 of the Constitution, which relied on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Secretariat (CITES) document to allege irregularities in wildlife imports by two of Vantara's animal rehabilitation and welfare trusts, i.e., Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Center and Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust.

The petitioner had sought multiple directions, including, disclosure of records relating to import/export licences and CITES permits granted to private entities, constitution of an independent to verify compliance with CITES norms, initiation of proceedings under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, framing of a standard operating procedure for verification of CITES permits, and a temporary ban on further imports of certain species by private facilities.

Consumer Protection Act | Keeping Bank Deposit Not 'Commercial Purpose' Merely Because Interest Is Earned : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sant Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. v. Vijaya Bank

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 267

The Supreme Court (March 19) observed that merely earning interest on bank deposits does not automatically render the transaction “commercial” so as to exclude a person from the definition of a “consumer”; rather, it must be examined whether the deposit has a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra clarified that simple bank deposits to park surplus funds in the bank would not be a 'commercial purpose' merely because interest is earned on them. Rather, when the deposits are being used to leverage the business transactions or to avail the credit facility, and banking services, then such deposits may be regarded as used for 'commercial purpose'.

“In normal course, parking of surplus funds by a body corporate with a bank, either for safe custody or to comply with statutory mandate, as the case may be, is not reflective of a commercial purpose. More so, because ordinarily all deposits in a Bank earn interest. Hence, it would be too naive to hold that since the deposit earned interest, banking service was availed for a commercial purpose. However, it would be different where deposits are made to leverage a credit facility, or for availing other banking services, for business use. Deposit of the latter kind may amount to availing banking services for a commercial purpose.”, the court observed.

Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated During Service Can Be Continued After Retirement If Rules Permit : Supreme Court

Case Details: Virinder Pal Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 268

The Supreme Court (March 19) observed that if the service Rules/regulations permit, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an officer/employee before retirement can be continued even after attaining the age of superannuation, and penalties such as reduction in pay can be enforced by recalculating pensionary benefits.

“…what is settled is that if the extant service Rules/Regulations permit continuance of the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an officer/ employee before he had attained the age of superannuation, those can be continued and brought to its logical conclusion even after he had attained the age of superannuation.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra.

The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a bank officer on the very date of his retirement, September 30, 2011. The proceedings continued thereafter, culminating in a penalty of permanent reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay.

Dishonour Of Post-Dated Cheque By Itself Not Enough To Presume Dishonest Intention For Cheating : Supreme Court

Case Details: v. Ganesan v. State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 269

In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of cheating under the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court held that dishonour of a post-dated cheque, by itself, is not sufficient to presume dishonest intention on the part of the drawer. The Court emphasised that criminal liability for cheating requires proof of fraudulent intent at the inception of the transaction, and cannot be inferred merely from subsequent failure to fulfil a promise.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra allowed an appeal against a Madras High Court order which had refused to quash cheating charges under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Background

Calling Debtor For Loan Repayment Not Abetment Of Suicide : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Lotwala v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 270

The Supreme Court has observed that making a phone call to the debtor for the return of his money would not be a ground to prosecute a creditor for an offence of abetment to commit suicide.

“if a creditor makes a phone call to the debtor for return of his money that being a lawful act, it cannot on its own constitute a ground to prosecute the creditor.”, observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan, while quashing an abetment to suicide case (Section 306 IPC) against a creditor, whose 40 phone calls to the debtor demanding return of his money, led the debtor to commit a suicide.

The case arose from an FIR registered in Gujarat, where the deceased allegedly died by suicide after being unable to repay debts owed to multiple creditors. A suicide note recovered from the deceased named nine persons, including the appellant, accusing them of threatening him for repayment.

Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Infringement Case Against Director Sujoy Ghosh Over 'Kahani 2' Script

Case Details: Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand | SLP(Crl) No. 9452/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 271

The Supreme Court allowed the petition filed by national award-winning scriptwriter and director Sujoy Ghosh seeking to quash a criminal case filed under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, on the allegation that his movie "Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh" was based on a stolen script.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe quashed the criminal proceedings against Ghosh pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

The Special Leave Petition was filed challenging the order of the Jharkhand High Court, which dismissed the petition filed by Ghosh under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.

HCs Can Look Beyond FIR/Complaint To Quash Frivolous Or Vexatious Criminal Proceedings : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 271

The Supreme Court, while quashing the copyright infringement case against 'Kahaani-2' film producer Sujoy Ghosh, observed that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing criminal proceedings, the High Court's must not confine their enquiry to the stage of the case and may consider the overall circumstances and materials on record to quash frivolous proceedings.

“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, referencing Mohammad Wajid vs State of U P, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624.

The Court observed that while dealing with a petition for quashing FIRs/complaints registered out of frivolous or vexatious proceedings, “it will not be just enough for the (High) Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, and try to read in between the lines.”

Set-Off Can Be Raised As Defence Against Corporate Debtor Though Resolution Plan Bars Future Settlements : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ujaas Energy Ltd. v. West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 272

The Supreme Court has held that while claims not included in an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 stand extinguished, a limited plea of set-off can still be raised as a defence in arbitral proceedings, provided it does not result in any affirmative recovery.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih partly allowed an appeal filed by Ujaas Energy Ltd. against West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd., modifying the Calcutta High Court Division Bench's order which had directed continuation of arbitral proceedings without excluding the counterclaim.

The dispute arose from a 2017 contract for installation of grid-connected rooftop solar power plants in West Bengal. Ujaas Energy, an MSME, was later admitted to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in September 2020. During arbitration proceedings initiated by the company, the respondent PSU raised a counterclaim. However, this counterclaim had not been submitted before the Resolution Professional during CIRP.

Statutory Appeals Must Be Filed With Certified Copy Of Impugned Judgment: Supreme Court

Case Details: Central Bank of India v. Bijendra Kumar Jha & Others,

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 273

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a statutory appeal cannot be entertained without a certified copy of the impugned judgment.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing a civil appeal filed by the Central Bank of India against a decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

The Court noted that an application filed by the appellant seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment. It found that there was a delay of 102 days in re-filing the appeal, yet the exemption application failed to disclose whether any steps had been taken to obtain the certified copy.

Andhra Pradesh Liquor Scam Case: Supreme Court Grants Regular Bail To Avinash Reddy Using Article 142 Powers

Case Details: Muppidi Avinash Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 274

The Supreme Court (March 20, 2026) granted regular bail to Muppidi Avinash Reddy, an accused in the alleged multi-crore Andhra Pradesh liquor scam, invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi granted relief to Reddy, who was represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The Court converted the appellant's plea for anticipatory bail into one for regular bail and directed that he be released on bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It left it to the discretion of the trial court to impose stringent conditions, as deemed appropriate.

UP Ganster Act Has Perilious Consequences, So Strict Compliance With Procedure Mandatory : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gabbar Singh Alias Devendra Pratap Singh Alias Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 275

The Supreme Court has quashed proceedings against alleged gangster Gabbar Singh under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, citing procedural irregularities in the process of forwarding the recommendation for preparing the gang chart that included his name.

Rejecting the State's justification, the Court reiterated the settled principle that when a statute prescribes that a thing must be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, especially when personal liberty is at stake. The Bench underscored that the consequences of labeling a person as a gangster are severe and therefore strict adherence to procedural safeguards is indispensable.

"We fall back upon the principle that when a particular thing is to be done, it should be done in the manner stipulated; here statutorily prescribed, or not at all. Especially when at stake is the liberty of an individual, precious to all and possible of breach only in accordance with law. More so in the precarious nature of the law, which permits mere naming of a person, as a gangster and automatic condemnation, which perilous consequences we leave to be considered in an appropriate case."

Bihar Special Courts Act | Confiscation Proceedings Can Proceed Against Wife After Death Of Public Servant With Illicit Assets : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Bihar Thr. Vigilance v. Sudha Singh (With Connected Case Details)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 276

The Supreme Court has observed that upon the death of a delinquent officer found to have amassed disproportionate assets, a confiscation proceeding under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, can still be sustained against his wife, a non-public servant.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the Patna High Court's judgment, which had declared the confiscation proceedings against the Respondent-delinquent officer's wife as abated under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, upon the death of his husband/delinquent officer.

Disagreeing with the High Court's observation, the bench observed that when the initial case is registered under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 107 IPC (Abetment to Commit an Offence), then a confiscation proceeding can well proceed against the non-public servant even after the death of the delinquent officer.

Subsequent Tree Growth On Land Approved For Development Won't Make It 'Deemed Forest' : Supreme Court

Case Details: Naveen Solanki and Another v. Rail Land Development Authority and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 277

The Supreme Court has observed that land designated for development under a notified Master Plan cannot be treated as a “deemed forest” merely due to subsequent growth of vegetation or trees, and therefore, prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 would not be required for felling such later-grown trees.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih upheld the National Green Tribunal's order to approve the redevelopment project at Bijwasan Railway Station in Delhi, which was objected to on the ground that the redevelopment was carried out on land, which had subsequently attained 'deemed forest' status on account of tree growth.

Article 21 Applies To Foreigner : Supreme Court Grants Relief To Ugandan Who Couldn't Procure Bail For Lack Of Surety

Case Details: Customs v. Faridah Nakanwagi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 278

The Supreme Court came to the relief of an Ugandan woman, who was languishing in jail, despite securing bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, as she could not furnish a solvent surety.

Observing that Article 21 of the Constitution applies to a foreigner, the Court allowed her release on a personal bond.

The Court observed that when a case is made out of a bail, financial constraints such as furnishing of bail bonds, solvent surety, should not come in way for the release of the accused.

Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing Case Over Gun Threat By Advocate During Bulandshahr Bar Meeting

Case Details: Suman Kumar Raghav v. Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 279

The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court which had quashed criminal proceedings against an advocate accused of threatening a fellow lawyer with a revolver during a meeting of the District Bar Association, Bulandshahr, holding that the High Court relied on general observations made in earlier election-related proceedings to terminate the criminal case.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan restored the quashing application to the High Court for fresh consideration after observing that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and that the informant was not given an opportunity of hearing before the proceedings were quashed.

The case relates to an incident alleged to have occurred on December 23, 2024, during a meeting of the newly elected Executive Committee of the District Bar Association, Bulandshahr. According to the FIR, the accused advocate entered the Bar Hall with associates, took out his licensed revolver, cocked the weapon, aimed it at the informant (appellant before the SC), and issued threats, creating panic, commotion and an atmosphere of terror. The incident was stated to have been captured on CCTV footage.

Private Insurer Not Liable For Accident Caused By Vehicle Requisitioned By State Authorities : Supreme Court

Case Details: District Magistrate and District Election Officer and Collector, Gwalior, M.P. v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 280

The Supreme Court (March 23) held that when a private vehicle is requisitioned by the State for public purposes such as elections, the liability for accidents rests with the requisitioning authority, not the insurer.

“…where a vehicle is requisitioned for public functions and an incident occurs during the period of such requisition, liability ought properly to be borne by the requisitioning authority, and not by the insurer engaged by the owner for the vehicle's regular and voluntary use.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh.

The bench upheld the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, which had overturned the MACT's decision to fix a liability upon the insurer, and instead fixed liability on the District Magistrate/Election Officer, Gwalior, after a private school bus requisitioned for Gram Panchayat election duty collided with a motorcyclist, resulting in his death.

Reserved Category Candidates Can Claim General Seats On Merit Despite Availing Relaxation If Rules Permit: Supreme Court

Case Details: Chaya & Ors. Etc. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Etc.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 281

The Supreme Court (March 23) observed that reserved category candidates who avail relaxation in a qualifying examination can still be considered for general category posts if they secure higher merit in the final selection stage, if the relevant rules permit it.

Providing relief to the TET candidates, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe has set aside the Bombay High Court Aurangabad bench judgment, which held that the candidates who availed relaxation could not migrate to the general category.

The Court observed that the Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government through the Government Resolution dated 13.02.2013 do not prohibit migration of reserved category candidates who have availed relaxation in the qualifying examination to the open category. Therefore, denying such meritorious candidates the opportunity to migrate to the open category would be unjustified.

No Vested Right For Next Candidate In Select List To Claim Appointment Just Because Selected Person Didn't Join : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Santhosh Kumar C

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC )282

The Supreme Court has held that a candidate cannot claim appointment as a matter of right from the same select list merely because a selected candidate failed to complete pre-appointment formalities or did not join duty. The Court emphasized that such a vacancy must be filled in accordance with the governing recruitment rules and not by operating the same select list beyond its statutory framework.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka and set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had directed consideration of the respondent for appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner in the Karnataka Administrative Service after the originally selected candidate did not report for duty

“Once that exercise had culminated in publication of the final list and appointments were made in accordance therewith, the respondent could not claim, in the absence of express statutory sanction, that he should be shifted to another post merely because the selected candidate for that post did not complete the pre-appointment formalities or did not join.”, observed the bench.

Supreme Court Flags Systemic Disparity In Evaluation Of Women Officers For Permanent Commission In Armed Forces; Grants Relief

Case Details: Lt Col Pooja Pal v. Union of India (Army)

Case Details: Wg Cdr Sucheta Edn v. Union of India and Others (Air Force)

Case Details: Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India (Navy)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 285

The Supreme Court has flagged systemic disparity in the evaluation of women Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) across the Army, Navy, and Air Force, holding that institutional practices developed during periods of ineligibility for Permanent Commission (PC) distorted performance assessments and created structural disadvantages once women were later made eligible for long-term service.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice NK Singh, in three judgments, each addressing the cases of officers from Army, Navy and the Air Force, found that Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and selection processes in all three services were shaped by long-standing assumptions that women and certain categories of officers would not have sustained careers, resulting in uneven playing fields in comparative merit assessments.

Across all three services, the Court identified a common structural problem: evaluation systems developed in an institutional environment that assumed limited career prospects for women officers.

IBC | Primacy Of Commercial Wisdom Doesn't Mean Every Decision Of CoC Will Be Immune From Judicial Scrutiny : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S.Lamba Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S.Dhir Global Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 286

The Supreme Court has underscored that while the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors remains paramount, it is not immune from judicial scrutiny where issues of statutory illegality or jurisdictional error arise.

“…it is necessary to state that primacy of commercial wisdom does not mean that every action taken in the insolvency process is altogether immune from scrutiny in every situation. Where a challenge is laid in an appropriate proceeding on a legally sustainable foundation, such as statutory illegality or a jurisdictional infirmity, the matter would naturally be considered in accordance with law.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

The bench made the aforesaid observation as a parting remark while hearing a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking revival of a dismissed SLP, premised on subsequent developments arising after its dismissal. The earlier SLP had declined to interfere with the insolvency proceedings and upheld the CoC's decision to approve withdrawal of the CIRP under Section 12A of the IBC. This decision was later challenged by the applicant through the MA on the grounds that his financial offer was higher and had not been considered by the CoC, thereby rendering the decision to withdraw the CIRP legally unsustainable.

Govt Contracts Should Not Have One-Sided Clauses Foreclosing Legal Remedies For Private Parties : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Abs Marine Services v. Andaman and Nicobar Administration

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 287

The Supreme Court (March 23) strongly deprecated the one-sided clauses in the government contracts, which limit or take away the private party's right to access to justice by approaching the courts or arbitrator.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan set aside the Calcutta High Court's Port Blair bench decision which had interfered with the arbitral award passed against the Respondent-Andaman & Nicobar Administration. The High Court set aside the award relying on a one-sided contractual Clause 3.20 which barred the Appellant, a private marine service provider, from approaching the courts or arbitrator against the Respondent's unilateral decision to levy penalty for the alleged negligence found in the service.

The dispute arose from a "Manning Agreement" entered into in 2008 between the Appellant-ABS Marine Services and the Respondent-Andaman and Nicobar Administration for providing crew on 17 government vessels. After a vessel, suffered damage in rough seas in July 2009, the Administration unilaterally recovered ₹2,87,84,305 from the contractor's pending bills as penalty.

Conversion To Religion Other Than Hinduism, Buddhism Or Sikhism Results In Loss Of Scheduled Caste Status : Supreme Court

Case Details: Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 9231/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 288

The Supreme Court (March 24) upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order,which held that once an individual converts to Christianity and actively professes and practices the same, he cannot be regarded as a member of the Scheduled Caste community.

The Court held that no person who professes a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism can be regarded as a member of a Scheduled caste. Conversion to any other religion results in the immediate and complete loss of Scheduled Caste Status, the Court added.

The Court noted that the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950, made this clear, and the bar under this Order was absolute. Conversion to any religion not specified in Clause 3 of the 1950 order results in immediate loss of Schedule caste status, regardless of birth, the Court clarified.

Conversion Does Not Automatically Lead To Loss Of Scheduled Tribe Status, Person Must Renounce Tribal Customs : Supreme Court

Case Details: Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 9231/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 288

The Supreme Court clarifiedthat no person other than those professing Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism can be regarded as a member of the Scheduled caste.

At the same time, it said that while caste is a factor when it comes to the Scheduled caste, there is no requirement for the Scheduled Tribes, and therefore, conversion may not be the sole criterion for determining whether a person has lost membership of a tribe.

For the context, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Prasant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan was hearing a case of a Pastor, who belonged to the Madiga caste of the Hindu religion, but converted to Christianity. He then filed a case of assault against some persons under the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

When Can Converted Dalit Reclaim Scheduled Caste Status After Re-Conversion? Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 9231/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 288

In an important judgment, the Supreme Court clarifiedthat if a Scheduled caste person converts to any other religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, he immediately loses the membership of the Scheduled Caste status.

In this, the Court also explained that if such a person re-converts to Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, then he has to establish conclusive proof of the following, to re-claim SC status.

1. There must be clear proof that the person originally belonged to a caste notified under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950,

IBC | After Moratorium, Creditor Cannot Appropriate Pre-CIRP Dues From Earlier Security Deposit Made By Corporate Debtor : Supreme Court

Case Details: Central Transmission Utility of India Limited v. Sumit Binani & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 289

The Supreme Court has observed that once a moratorium is imposed, a corporate debtor's pre-CIRP dues cannot be set off against a deposit held by the creditor. The Court held that until such deposit is lawfully adjusted, it continues to remain the property of the corporate debtor, and any appropriation after the moratorium would be impermissible in law.

“The deposit made even if treated as a guarantee for the default in dues remains the property of the CD till it is adjusted towards the defaulted dues and if so adjusted after the moratorium kicks in towards pre-CIRP dues, the adjustment would be rendered illegal.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran.

The case arose from transmission agreements between Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL) and KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. (KMPCL), a power generator undergoing insolvency.

Article 25 Doesn't Include Right To Seek Public Holiday On Religious Occasion : Supreme Court

Case Details:All India Shiromani Singh Sabha v. Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 1474/2020

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC )290

The Supreme Court has held that the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 does not include a right to demand that the State declare a public holiday on a religious occasion, while emphasising that as a developing nation, India must prioritise productivity and continuity of work.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed a public interest litigation filed by the All India Shiromani Singh Sabha seeking directions to declare the birth anniversary (Prakash Parv) of Guru Gobind Singh as a nationwide gazetted holiday and to frame uniform guidelines governing the declaration of public holidays across the country.

Mere Participation In Arbitration Does Not Estop Party From Challenging Inherent Lack Of Jurisdiction Of Arbitrator : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Bharat Udyog Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S Jai Hind Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Ambernath Municipal Council Through Commissioner & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 291

The Supreme Court has ruled that in the absence of an arbitration agreement, a mere participation of a party to a unilaterally invoked arbitration proceedings would not operate as an estoppel to bar it from raising the legality of the arbitral award being non-est in law.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe affirmed the Bombay High Court's decision which had declared the award passed against the Respondent to be non-est, as the award was passed by the arbitrator who lacked the jurisdiction to pass the award because of the non-existence of an arbitration agreement, making the entire proceedings a nullity.

The dispute arose from an octroi collection contract between the petitioner and the Respondent, Ambernath Municipal Council for the period April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995. After the contract was executed and the petitioner commenced work, it sought a reduction in the minimum reserve price, a demand rejected by the Municipal Council.

Defence Security Corps Personnel Eligible For Second Pension; Shortfall Up To One Year Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India & Ors. v. Balakrishnan Mullikote (Ex Hav 256812 M) (With Connected Appeals)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 292

The Supreme Court on March 24 held that personnel of the Defence Security Corps (DSC) who are already drawing pension from their earlier service in the Army are eligible to earn a second service pension for their subsequent DSC service, and any shortfall in qualifying service up to one year can be condoned in accordance with the Pension Regulations. The Court clarified that there is no legal bar on grant of a second pension merely because the individual is already receiving pension from the first spell of service.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan dismissed a batch of appeals preferred by the Union Government, against the grant of a second pension to the Defence Security Corps, noting that the entitlement to pension arising out of services at DSC “does not arise from the same service, post, or continuous spell of employment, but from a distinct and independent engagement.”

Thus, the claim for DSC pension cannot be rejected merely because the personnel was already in receipt of the regular army pension, the court observed.

Supreme Court Refuses NHAI's Plea To Review Retrospective Application Of Solatium To NH Acquisitions, But Bars Reopening Settled Claims

Case Details: National Highways Authority of India v. Tarsem Singh and Ors., R.P.(C) No. 2528/2025 In Ma 1773/2021 In C.A. No. 7064/2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 293

The Supreme Court rejected a review petition filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking to declare that the2019 'Tarsem Singh' judgment, which held that solatium and interest will be applicable to the land acquisitions carried out under the National Highway Act, will apply only prospectively.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan refused to review the 2025 judgmentwhich held that the 'Tarsem Singh' judgment will have retrospective application.

At the same time, the Court clarified that claims which had already attained finality prior to March 28, 2008 cannot be reopened merely on the basis of the subsequent declaration of law.

Mandate On Non-Disclosure Of Rape Victim's Identity Not Being Followed: Supreme Court Directs Strict Compliance In Pending Cases

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hukum Chand Alias Monu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC )294

Expressing concern over the disclosure of a rape victim's identity in court records, the Supreme Court has directed all Registrars General of High Courts to ensure strict compliance with the statutory prohibition under Section 228-A IPC in all pending cases, including those instituted prior to its 2018 judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India. The Court observed that the mandate against disclosure of a victim's identity is a long-standing position in law, yet it has not been consistently followed.

“In the end, we direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to all the Registrars General of the High Courts to ensure that in all matters dated prior to the passing of this Court's judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, which has mandated the non-disclosure of the victim's identity, and still pending, the proscription in Section 228-A IPC is followed strictly. This has been the long-standing position in law but, it has not been followed,” the Court observed.

The observations came in a case where the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal of a man accused of committing rape on a minor girl, holding that minor inconsistencies in witness statements cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case in its entirety when the core of the case remains intact.

Excise Duty Exemption Notifications Based On “Intended Use” Must Be Liberally Construed In Favour Of Assessee : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Ltu)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 295

The Supreme Court has observed that excise exemption notifications based on “use” or “intended use” should be interpreted liberally in favour of the assessee. The Court held that once the goods are used for the intended purpose, the fact that a portion is incidentally used for other activities does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the exemption

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the excise duty demand against Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, holding that the exemption could not be denied merely because a portion of the output derived from Naphtha procured for fertilizer manufacture was used for generating electricity for non-fertilizer purposes.

The appellant, Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited was procuring Naphtha at nil rate of duty from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) by claiming benefit of exemption under exemption notifications, after obtaining CT-2 certificates from the excise authorities and declaring that the input would be used in the manufacture of fertilizer or ammonia. The said Naphtha was also used along with the natural gas as fuel for the generation of steam in the steam generation plant.

Omission To Sign Order Sheet On Framing Charges Won't Vitiate Trial, When Charges Were Read Over To Accused : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sandeep Yadav v. Satish & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 296

The Supreme Court has observed that the absence of a signature on the charge-framing order sheet is a curable procedural defect and does not vitiate the trial, particularly where the accused was duly informed of and understood the charges against them.

“…the defect relating to the absence of signature on the charge does not constitute an illegality. It is, at best, a curable procedural irregularity within the ambit of Sections 215 and 464 Cr.P.C. In the absence of any demonstrated failure of justice, such defect cannot vitiate the proceedings.”, observed a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan, while setting aside the Allahabad High Court's order which had ordered a fresh trial against the nine-accused persons in a murder case merely because the trial court's order of charge framing remained unsigned, despite the accused persons were informed and made understood about the charges, moreover also participated in the trial.

Disagreeing with the impugned order, the Court observed that “where the accused (persons) clearly understood the nature of the allegations and had a full opportunity to defend themselves, defects in the charge cannot be treated as fatal.” It reasoned that “even the absence of a formally framed charge does not vitiate the proceedings. The decisive test is whether the accused was misled in the conduct of his defence and whether a failure of justice has resulted.”

'Respect For Higher Courts' Orders A Basic Principle' : Supreme Court Rebukes Rent Authority For Revisiting Eviction Order Affirmed By SC

Case Details: Rajesh Goyal v. M/S Laxmi Constructions & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 297

The Supreme Court has censured a Rent Control Authority in Uttar Pradesh for disregarding its order affirming the tenant's eviction by reopening the matter on the tenant's application, despite the proceedings having already attained finality.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a case where, despite the tenant's eviction attaining finality, having remained undisturbed up to the Supreme Court, the Rent Control Authority entertained the tenant's application seeking recall of the eviction order on the ground of disputing the landlord's ownership of the premises.

The Respondent-landlord challenged the Rent Control Authority's decision to restore the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court, which ruled in favour of the landlord and set aside the Rent Control Authority's decision to restore the proceedings.

'HC Hasn't Discussed Anything' : Supreme Court Criticises Patna High Court For Mechanical Bail Order In Dowry Death Case

Case Details: Lal Muni Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 298

The Supreme Court has criticized the Patna High Court for passing a mechanical order of granting bail to the husband in an alleged dowry death case.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi observed that the High Court erred in granting bail without considering the gravity of the offence and the materials placed on record indicating prima facie involvement of the accused-husband.

“The impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail is wholly unsustainable. In a very serious crime like dowry death, the High Court should have been very careful in exercising its discretion.”, observed the Court, noting that the High Court's reliance on the period of custody undergone by the accused and the delay in examining remaining witnesses, was insignificant, particularly in light of the post-mortem report revealing multiple injuries on the deceased wife's body and the fact that the trial was progressing at a satisfactory pace.

Dismissal Of Suit For Default Not Res Judicata, But Party May Still Be Denied Relief For Abandoning Earlier Proceedings : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sharada Sanghi & Ors. v. Asha Agarwal & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 299

The Supreme Court held that dismissal of a suit for default does not operate as res judicata since there is no adjudication on merits. However, the Court clarified that a litigant who had an opportunity to pursue a claim but allowed proceedings to be dismissed repeatedly may still be denied relief on equitable principles, as such conduct can amount to abuse of the process of court.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and  Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal in a property dispute, holding that although res judicata was not attracted, the appellants' conduct in abandoning earlier suits precluded them from enforcing the decree through execution proceedings.

Factual Background

Land Acquisition | Person Who Accepted S.28A Award Can File Second Application For Enhancement Based On Appeals : Supreme Court

Case Details: Andanayya and Ors. v. Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 300

The Supreme Court has held that a second application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is maintainble to seek re-determination of compensation on the basis of enhancement awarded by the High Court in other cases.

The Court held that acceptance of land acquisition compensation would not bar a landowner from claiming enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

A bench comprising Justices M. M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the Karnataka High Court Division Bench ruling, which had rejected the appellant's claim for enhanced compensation under Section 28-A on the ground that, having earlier accepted the awarded amount, he was estopped from seeking further enhancement at par with similarly placed landowners.

Electricity Act | Regulatory Commission Can Take Into Account Govt Grant While Determining Tariff : Supreme Court

Case Details: Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited & Anr. v. Green Infra Wind Solutions Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC ) 301

The Supreme Court has observed that although tariff determination lies exclusively within the domain of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission, it is equally bound to consider government policy incentives, including subsidies aimed at enhancing power generation; however, such consideration must not result in a mechanical deduction of the incentive from the tariff in a manner that defeats the very objective of the scheme.

"Regulatory Commissions have plenary power over tariff determination and there is no unallocated regulatory residue remaining outside its power to determine tariff. The argument that Regulatory Commissions do not have the power to take into account a Grant made by the Central Government under Article 282 is rejected. Tariff determination is the exclusive province of the Regulatory Commissions."

The Court added :

Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man After Two Years' Undertrial Custody

Case Details – Pardeep Kumar @ Banu v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 302

Observing that keeping an accused in custody for nearly two years without commencement of trial amounts to punishment, the Supreme Court granted bail to one Pardeep Kumar booked for alleged extortion and attempt to murder.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prasanna B Varale allowed an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's July 11, 2025 order refusing bail.

“Almost two years have passed since the appellant was arrested without trial having commenced and conclusion thereof nowhere being in sight. Incarceration without trial amounts to punishment”, the Court observed.

'Fraudulent Insurance Claims With Staged Incidents Common' : Supreme Court Orders SIT Probe Into Fake Fire Claim

Case Details – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sayona Colors Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 303

The Supreme Court ordered a Special Investigation Team probe into the 2011 fire at a chemical company, Sayona Colors Pvt Ltd, after finding that its insurance claim was fraudulent.

“Before parting, we deem it appropriate to observe that fraudulent insurance claims involving staged incidents are not uncommon and have serious ramifications on the integrity of the insurance system and public confidence therein”, the Court observed in the order passed on on March 17, 2026.

The Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad to constitute the SIT headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police and complete the investigation within three months. The matter has been listed for July 21, 2026.

Govt Can Withdraw Tax Concession Given To Industry In Public Interest : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Maharashtra & Others v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 304

The Supreme Court has observed that tax concessions granted by the government create no indefeasible right on the recipient to claim it indefinitely, and the government can withdraw such concessions in the public interest.

“The recipient of a concession has no legally enforceable right against the Government to grant of a concession except to enjoy the benefits of the concession during the period of its grant. This right to enjoy is a defeasible one, in the sense, that it may be taken away in exercise of the very power under which the exemption was granted.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while allowing the Maharashtra Government's appeal against the captive power generators, upholding the government's decision to withdraw the tax benefits received by them for generating captive power (power that is generated by the industry for their own purpose, without relying on grid supply).

The dispute arose from electricity duty exemptions granted by the State of Maharashtra since 1994 under Section 5A of the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 to encourage captive power generation by industries.

Can Foreign Arbitral Award Be Challenged In India On Grounds Rejected By Seat Court? Supreme Court Explains 'Transnational Issue Estoppel'

Case Details: Nagaraj v. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I and Others Etc.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 305

The Supreme Court has held that enforcement of a foreign arbitral award cannot be blocked on “public policy” grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the issue has already been finally decided by the seat court, and Indian courts cannot re-examine the merits under the guise of enforcement, due to the applicability of the doctrine of 'transnational issue estoppel'.

“we must necessarily bear in mind that though the grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act would have to be applied independently, in the course of such an exercise by the enforcement court in India, a party which has failed in its challenge to the arbitral award before the seat court cannot seek to reopen factual issues that were argued on merits and settled by such court once again before the enforcement court. One must remember that it is the sovereign commitment of India to honour foreign awards, except on the exhaustive grounds provided under Article V of the New York Convention.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran.

In essence, the Court said that “a merits-based evaluation cannot be resorted to by the enforcement court and it cannot reopen factual issues which were conclusively settled on merits by the decision of the seat court.”

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Flags Trial Court Citing “AI-Generated Fake Judgments”, Terms It Misconduct

Case Details: Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr

The Supreme Court has taken serious exception to a trial court relying on what were found to be non-existent, allegedly AI-generated judgments, observing that such conduct strikes at the integrity of the adjudicatory process and may amount to misconduct rather than a mere error of law.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a special leave petition arising out of a civil revision decided by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

The petitioners are defendants in a suit for injunction instituted by the respondents. During the pendency of the suit, the trial court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the property in dispute.

Supreme Court Rejects Ex-Chhattisgarh CM's Dy Secretary Saumya Chaurasia's Plea Against Sanction Notices In Tax Evasion Case

Case Details: Saumya Chaurasia v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 3405-2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by Saumya Chaurasia, former Deputy Secretary to ex-Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, challenging sanction notices issued under the Income Tax Act authorizing her prosecution in a tax evasion case.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and rejected Chaurasia's challenge to the Delhi High Court order which dismissed her petition on the above issue.

It however added that she would be at liberty to raise all contentions, including on the validity of the prosecution sanction, at the appropriate stage before the competent Court. The competent Court shall examine these contentions without being influenced by the High Court order, it said.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To 51 Delhi Hospitals Over Not Meeting Requirement Of Free Treatment To Weaker Sections

Case Details: Union of India v. Moolchand Khairati Ram Trust, Miscellaneous Application No. 1187/2019 In C.A. No.3155/2017

The Supreme Court issued contempt notice to 51 hospitals in Delhi over non-compliance with the condition to provide minimum 10 percent IPD (Inpatient Department) and 25 percent OPD (Outpatient Department) for the weaker sections, free of cost.

The Court called on the hospitals to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them and concessions granted by the Delhi government (towards land allotment) withdrawn. The hospitals which have been issued notices include - Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, BLK Max Hospital, Fortis Escort Hospital, Moolchand Khairatiram Hospital, Centre for Sight and Rajeev Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Rohini.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria passed the order in a miscellaneous application filed by the Union of India against Moolchand Khairati Ram Trust, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and the DDA.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Challenging Gujarat Civil Judge Recruitment Process

Case Details:Ruchi Sharma and Others v. High Court of Gujarat and Others | WP(C) 259/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Gujarat High Court and the Gujarat Government on a writ petition challenging the recruitment process conducted for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, on February 26, issued notice returnable on March 12.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by twenty candidates who participated in the recruitment examination, contends that the process has resulted in an “unusual situation" where the number of candidates shortlisted for the viva-voce is itself lower than the number of vacancies notified.

Supreme Court Directs Husband's Employer To Deposit Monthly Maintenance To Wife's Account After Deducting From His Salary

The Supreme Court directed the employer of a man to deduct ₹25,000 every month from his salary and transfer the amount directly to the bank account of his estranged wife towards maintenance for her and their minor daughter.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the direction after noting that the husband had failed to comply with earlier orders and had not paid any maintenance despite living separately from his wife since 2022.

The Court recorded that the couple has a four-year-old daughter who is being taken care of solely by the mother. It also noted that the husband had neither contributed towards the child's upkeep nor even met the child in the past four years.

Kerala MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil's Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Challenged In Supreme Court

Case Details: XXXX v. Rahul Br and Others.

The complainant who alleged that Kerala MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil raped her and caused miscarriage of her pregnancy, has approached the Supreme Court challenging theKerala High Court's judgment of February 12, granting anticipatory bail to him.

The complainant has in particular taken objection to the High Court's remarks which suggested that the relationship was prima facie consensual.

This is the first of the three rape cases registered against the ex-Congress legislator. This crime was registered at Nemom Police Station on November 28, 2025 for offences under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to rape [ Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(h), 64(2)(m)], causing miscarriage without consent (S.89) and criminal intimidation(S.115(2) and 351(3)), along with Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.

Bar Council Elections : BCI Moves Supreme Court Challenging FIR Against High Powered Committee

The Bar Council of India has approached the Supreme Court challenging an FIR registered against the High Powered Committee overseeing the elections of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Kerala.

Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairperson of the BCI, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. Mishra said that the FIR was lodged at the instance of an advocate solely because his nomination was rejected.

"This is a very urgent matter. An FIR has been registered against the High Powered Committee. This in relation to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa," Mishra submitted.

West Bengal SIR : Plea In Supreme Court Challenging Exclusion From Final Electoral Roll

Case Details: Om Prakash Shaw and Ors. v. Eci and Anr., Diary No.14114/2026, Bilkis Tarafdar v. Eci, Diary No.14042/2026

Some persons from West Bengal have filed petitions in the Supreme Court challenging their exclusion from the voters' list following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy mentioned the petition(s) before the Chief Justice of India for urgent hearing. CJI Surya Kant however wondered if the Supreme Court can sit in appeal over the decision of the authorities, bypassing the statutory remedies. Guruswamy explained that the orders have not been served on the petitioners and hence they are deprived of the remedies.

The CJI agreed to list the matter tomorrow, along with the other West Bengal SIR cases.

'Why Hurt Jain Sentiments?' Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Research On 'Tamasic' Nature Of Onion & Garlic

Case Details: Sachin Gupta v. Union of India Diary No. 53583-2025, Diary No. 53368-2025, 53585-2025 Etc.

The Supreme Court pulled up an advocate who filed a petition seeking directions to conduct a research on whether onion and garlic had 'tamasic' or 'negative' content.

Dismissing the petition as frivolous, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi rebuked the lawyer, who appeared as party-in-person, for filing such a PIL.

"Why do you want to hurt the sentiments of the Jain community?" CJI Surya Kant asked.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Search Powers Under S.132 Income Tax Act (S.247 New Act)

Case Details: Vishwaprasad Alva v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 114/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the search provisions under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its corresponding provision (Section 247) in the new Income Tax Act, 2025 (set to take effect from April 1, 2026).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi however allowed the petitioner to approach the Government of India with a representation seeking modifications or clarifications with respect to the provision. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

The bench disagreed with the submission of Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde,  assisted by Advocate on Record Pranjal Kishore, that the provision was unconstitutional.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Supply Of Complete Copies Of Times Of India Newspaper To Paper Buyers

Case Details: G.S. Rathore(Fulll Name Gouri Shanker Rathorde) v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 127/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Union and Times of India for supply of complete copy of the daily newspaper to all paper buyers.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing petitioner-in-person Gouri Shanker Rathore.

Briefly put, the petitioner sought a direction to the respondents for supply of complete copy of Time of India daily newspapers to all paper buyers. He further sought a restraint on the respondents "cheating" by non-supplying and/or short-supplying supplements and number of pages to paper buyers. In addition, the petitioner prayed for a direction for Times of India to donate Rs 10 crores to some needy animal shelters and such welfare schemes.

After YouTuber's Apology, Supreme Court Closes Contempt Proceedings Over Comments Against Judge

Case Details: In Re: Scandalous Remarks Made By Mr. Ajay Shukla, Editor-In-Chief, Varprad Media Pvt. Ltd., A Digital Channel v. | Smc(Crl) No. 1/2025 Diary No. 30681 / 2025

The Supreme Court (March 90 closed suo motu contempt proceeding initiated against Chandigarh-based YouTuber and Editor-in-Chief of Varprad Media, Ajay Shukla, for his alleged "scandalous, contemptuous and defamatory" remarks against a former judge of the Supreme Court.

The matter was disposed of by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma after Shukla tendered an unconditional apology through his counsel, Advocate Eesha Bakshi. However, the bench warned that any recurrence of such nature would attract severe consequences.

"However, Respondent 1 want to be cautious in future. Any recurrence of conduct or complaint would attract severe consequences," the Court said.

Unnao Rape Case : Supreme Court Allows Victim To Be Heard In CBI's Plea Against Kuldeep Singh Sengar's Bail

Case Details:

The Supreme Court allowed the impleadment of the Unnao rape victim in the petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the bail granted to former BJP MLA Kuleep Singh Sengar in the case, observing that she has a right to be heard.

At the same time, the Court rejected the intervention application filed by her cousin. The intervention application was filed by the minor son of the brother of the father of the Unnao rape victim. The applicant cited a threat to his life and liberty if bail was granted to Sengar.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the applicant ought to avail an independent remedy instead of seeking to intervene in CBI's petition. Reserving the remedy of the applicant to approach the High Court seeking protection of life and liberty, the application was disposed of.

Supreme Court Allows Extension Of Tribunal Members' Term Till September 8, 2026; Centre To Bring New Tribunal Law In Monsoon Session

Case Details: Revenue Bar Association v. Union of India. SLP(C) No 11021-11022/2020 and Connected Cases.

The Supreme Court allowed the Union Government to extend the term of Chairpersons and Members of various Tribunals, who are due to retire soon, till September 8, 2026.

The Court passed the order after Attorney General for India R Venkaramani informed that a new Tribunal bill, in terms of the directions in last year's judgment in the Madras Bar Association case, is likely to be presented before the Parliament in the monsoon session.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petitions filed by CAT Bar Association, the Revenue Bar Association etc, who raised the apprehension that many Tribunal Benches will become defunct in view of the impending retirement of incumbent members. There is a legal vacuum in relation to Tribunals, since the Madras Bar Association case judgment of last year struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

Don't Chase Media Attention By Filing Baseless PILs; Focus On Profession In Initial Years : Supreme Court To Young Lawyers

Case Details:Dushyant Sejwal v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000270 / 2026

The Supreme Court cautioned young lawyers against filing public interest litigations merely to attract media attention, while dismissing a petition seeking directions to prevent deaths caused by alleged “civic negligence”.

The Court advised that during the initial years,  youngsters should focus on the profession by working in offices to learn law and drafting.

A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the remarks while hearing a PIL which sought directions to curb incidents of foreseeable deaths caused by failures in maintaining public infrastructure.

Supreme Court Clubs FIRs Against Woman Accused Of Sending Bomb Threats To Frame Man Who Rejected Marriage Proposal

Case Details: R v. State Represented By The Sub Inspector of Police, Sarkhej Police Station, Ahemadabad, Gujarat and Ors., Diary No. 51497-2025

The Supreme Court allowed clubbing of the FIRs registered against a Chennai techie over the alleged sending of bomb threat emails across multiple states, allegedly to frame a man who refused to marry her.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat (for petitioner).

During the submissions, Kamat urged that the emails continued to be sent from Joshilda's email account even after her arrest. "That's artificial intelligence (AI) for you", responded Justice Mehta.

Supreme Court Dismisses Devangana Kalita's Plea For Reconstruction Of Case Diaries In 2020 Delhi Riots Case

Case Details: Devangana Kalita v. State (NCT of Delhi) | Diary No.74241/2025

The Supreme Court (March 9) declined to entertain Pinjra Tod activist Devangana Kalita's plea challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to allow reconstruction of the case diaries in relation to a 2020 Delhi riots case.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale heard the matter. Kalita's counsel argued that the material supplied by the prosecution was  "demonstrably forged", alleging that it was ante-dated. Unconvinced, Justice Kumar referred to Section 172(3) of CrPC (which restricts an accused's right to access case diary) and questioned, "Trial commenced 3 years back, what were you doing for 3 years?"

By an order dated September 22, 2025, Justice Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court said that the case diary is not evidence. But since its absence may affect the fairness of the trial, the Court allowed preservation of the same.

TV Today Network Moves Supreme Court Seeking Discharge In BJP Leader Ramesh Bidhuri's Defamation Case

Case Details – TV Network Ltd v. Rajpal Poswal

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by TV Today Network Ltd., which owns Aaj Tak and the India Today group, seeking discharge in criminal defamation cases filed by BJP leader Ramesh Bidhuri and his nephew Rajpal Poswal.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also issued notice on the plea seeking an interim stay on the trial court proceedings. The Court refused to grant interim stay on trial proceedings, but decided to hear the on April 13, before the next date in the trial court, i.e., April 16.

The petition challenges a November 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court which refused to discharge TV Today Network Limited in the criminal defamation case. The present SLP has been filed on the ground that a company cannot be made accused in a defamation case.

Supreme Court Dismisses Dutch National's Plea Against Indian Trial For Murder Of British Woman In Kashmir

Case Details: Richard De Wit v. State of Jammu and Kashmir | W.P.(Crl.) No. 6/2026 Diary No. 71044 / 2025

The Supreme Court (March 9) refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Dutch national Richard De Wit, alleged to have murdered a 24-year-old English woman, Sarah Elizabeth Groves, in Jammu & Kashmir in 2013.

Wit had filed a writ petition seeking repatriation to Netherlands on the grounds that he is suffering from Schizophrenia and is unfit to stand trial.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti refused to entertain the writ petition. The counsel for the State of Jammu & Kashmir submitted that Wit has spent 13 years in prison and the trial has been stayed for the last 5 years.

Supreme Court Asks Centre To Take Efforts To Virtually Connect Indian Man With Child Taken To Russia By Mother

Case Details: Viktoriia Basu v. State of West Bengal and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 129/2023

The Supreme Court(March 9) asked the Union Government to make diplomatic efforts to trace and connect the Russian woman Viktoriia Basu and the child to the Indian father via video link.

The Court said that, given the complexity of how the case is developing, the anonymity of the whereabouts of the mother and the child may be maintained, and no efforts should be taken to deport them back to India for now.

The present is a complex case where the Russian mother and the Indian father hold joint custody of the child as per various orders passed by this Court. However, last year, it was found that the Russian mother allegedly abducted the child from the father's custody and returnedto Russia via Nepal. This was even though the child's Indian passport was surrendered before the Court.

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

Case Details: Kerala Police Officers Association v. State of Kerala | SLP(C) No. 31008/2025

The Supreme Court (March 9) partially modified the Kerala High Court's order laying down guidelines to be followed by police personnel for arresting persons from Court premises.

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

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

Why No Rehabilitation Scheme For Acid Attack Survivors By Giving Govt Jobs? Supreme Court Asks States/UTs

Case Details: Shaheen Malik v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025 Diary No. 62038 / 2025

The Supreme Court (March 9) asked the States and the Union Territories to show cause why directions should not be passed to form a rehabilitation scheme for the employment of acid attack survivors in government/government-controlled sectors. It said that if the States/UTs face logistical issues, the authorities should work on a proposal to pay honorarium equivalent to a subsistence allowance to such survivors.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik. She had approached the Court stating that she was attacked in 2009, and yet the Trial has not concluded. She has also raised the issue of cases where acid is forced to be consumed. In such cases, the survivors often face severe long-term disabilities.

In her case, the matter pertained to the State of Haryana but was transferred to the Rohini Court in Delhi, given that the survivor has been seeking treatment in Delhi. Last year, the Trial Court had acquitted all persons against whom she filed a criminal appeal before the Delhi High Court.

NCERT Issues Public Apology For Chapter On Judicial Corruption Ahead Of Supreme Court Hearing In Suo Motu Case

The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has issued a public apology for publishing a chapter on judicial corruption in a Class 8 Text Book.

It may be noted that the public apology has come a day ahead of the Supreme Court's scheduled hearing in the suo motu case regarding the chapter, in which it had, on February 26, issuedshow-cause notices to the NCERT Director and the Secretary of the School Education Department for contempt proceedings.

The Court had also directed a ban on the circulation of the textbook and the removal of its soft copies, after taking serious note of the contents of the chapter.  The suo motu case is posted tomorrow.

Supreme Court Seeks ASI Response On Plea To Allow Urs, Namaz At Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus Tomb In Gwalior

Case Details – Sabla Hasan v. Union of India

The Supreme Court heard a plea challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which upheld the Archaeological Survey of India's refusal to allow the performance of Urs and Namaz at the tomb of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus in Gwalior, a centrally protected monument.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted time to ASI and Union of India to file a counter affidavit responding to a Special Leave Petition against the MP High Court's order.

Advocate Manan Mishra, appearing for the petitioner, told the Court that the date for holding Urs had already passed but requested the court to decide the matter as it will be relevant in the future.

'Important Issue' : Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Union's Challenge To Bombay HC Quashing IT Rules On 'Fact Check Unit'

Case Details: Union of India v. Kunal Kamra and Others. | Diary No. 60880-2024 and Connected Cases.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Union Government's petitions challenging the Bombay High Court's September 2024 judgment which struck down the provisions in the Information Technology Rules which empowered the Central Government to establish Fact Check Units (FCU).

The Court however turned down the request of Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to stay the High Court's judgment.

As per the 2023 amendment to the IT Rules, the social media intermediaries will lose the 'safe harbour' protection if they fail to take down the content which has been flagged as fake by the Centre's Fact Check Unit (FCU).

'UCC Is The Answer' : Supreme Court On Plea Challenging Shariat Inheritance Law As Discriminatory Against Muslim Women

Case Details: Poulomi Pavini Shukla v. Union of India | D No. 67256/2025

The Supreme Court briefly heard a writ petition challenging Muslim personal law provisions as discriminatory against women.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice R Mahadevan, during the hearing, asked Advocate Prashant Bhushan if the Court can adjudicate the constitutionality of a personal law practice. Justice Bagchi referred to the 'Narasu Appa Mali' decision of the Bombay High Court which held that personal laws cannot be subjected to Constitutional tests.

The bench also asked if the Court struck down the Shariat inheritance law, would it not lead to a legal vacuum, as there is no statutory law governing Muslim inheritance. Bhushan replied that the provisions of the Indian Succession Act will apply in the vacuum. He further submitted that the Court can make a declaration that Muslim women are entitled to equal inheritance rights as men.

Pune Porsche Crash | Supreme Court Grants Bail To Father Of Minor Driver In Blood Sample Swapping Case

Case Details – Vishal Surendrakumar Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court granted bail to Vishal Agarwal, father of the minor alleged to have been driving the Porsche car involved in the May 19, 2024 accident in Pune that led to the death of two persons.

Vishal Agarwal is accused of hatching a conspiracy to swap blood samples and ensure that the occupants of the car get a Nil Alcohol report.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, "We have considered the arguments in light of the material on record as well as the fact that in similar cases this court has already granted the relief. We also note that the appellant herein has been in jail for the last 22 months. The appellant has made out a case for bail. Bail granted subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court."

West Bengal SIR: Supreme Court Directs To Form Appellate Tribunals Of Ex-HC Judges For Appeals Against Exclusions

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Eci W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025, Dola Sen v. Eci W.P.(C) No. 1074/2025, Bilkis Tarafdar and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 304/2026, Om Prakash Shaw and Ors. v. Eci W.P.(C) No. 305/2026 and Connected Cases.

The Supreme Court directed that Appellate Tribunals comprising former High Court Chief Justices and former High Court Judges be constituted to hear appeals against exclusions in the West Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, after concerns were raised about the absence of an independent appellate mechanism.

This follows the earlier directions of the Court, as per which Judicial Officers, from Bengal and neighbouring states, were deployed to adjudicate SIR claims, in view of the blame-game between the State and the Election Commission of India.

During the hearing, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners flagged two issues before the Court. The first related to the mechanism of appeal available to persons whose claims are rejected by the Judicial Officers (JOs) during the revision process. The second concerned the publication of supplementary lists of persons whose objections have already been disposed of, particularly in view of the large number of objections, reportedly exceeding ten lakh.

Won't List Matters Unnecessarily Mentioned By Lawyers : CJI Surya Kant

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed serious unhappiness with advocates continuing the practice of making oral mentions seeking listing of matters.

Reminding everyone that a system for the automatic listing of cases has already been put in place, the CJI said that there was no need for making oral mentioning everyday morning.

Unhappy with the sight of several lawyers queuing up before the bench to mention matters, CJI said, "All of you know very well that matters will be listed. Why you are unnecessarily mentioning? The entire impression is given to the clients that without mentioning, the matters won't be listed. This impression I will dismantle."

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

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

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

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order, after the State counsel informed that pursuant to the Court's earlier order, Rathore had appeared before the authorities and her statement had been recorded.

Granting the relief, the bench said that she shall continue to cooperate with the investigation.

'Public Infra Damaged As Officers Were Dragging Their Feet': Supreme Court In Suo Motu Case Over Rajasthan's Jojari River

Case Details: In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan, Suo Moto WP(C) No. 8/2025

In the suo motu case taken up over pollution of River Jojari in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court deprecated the state's failure to provide adequate logistical support to the High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee tasked with preparation of a blueprint for restoration of the Jojari–Bandi–Luni river system.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta orally noted that Rajasthan's Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma had been "very positive" in his response as an officer of the Court. But, the instructing persons seemed "not to be too impressed" by what is happening.

"Look at the pictures! Poles have been abandoned because of this stagnant water. What about public infrastructure? People suffering - that's a different thing. Immense public infrastructure has been damaged and destroyed. Because the officers were dragging their feet. Nearly 100 factories operating without permission on agricultural fields!", remarked Justice Mehta.

'Jao Ludhiana Aur Sweater Becho': Supreme Court Rebukes 12th-Pass Trader Who Failed To Explain Terms Used In His PIL

Case Details: Rajnish Sidhu v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 46/2026

The Supreme Court witnessed dramatic scenes when a petitioner-in-person, who has studied till 12th standard, appeared with a Public Interest Litigation containing high-sounding legal jargon.

The Court suspected that the petitioner, a cloth trader from Ludhiana, was a proxy for someone else. The petition, in relation to PM Cares Fund, was before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice R Mahadevan.

At the outset, the CJI inquired of the petitioner what his qualifications were and what he did for a living.

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Former Telangana Intelligence Chief As Probe In Phone Tapping Case Complete

Case Details – T. Prabhakar Rao v. State of Telangana

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan granted the relief after the State submitted that the investigation was almost complete, and Rao stated that he had complied with all orders of the Court and cooperated with the investigation.

“In light of the submissions, we dispose of the appeal by making absolute the interim protection which was granted to the accused…”, the Court stated.

When the matter was called out, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the State, submitted that the interim protection from arrest earlier granted to Rao may be made absolute while keeping the question of law regarding maintainability of the anticipatory bail plea open. He informed the court that the investigation is almost complete and an additional chargesheet will be filed against Rao in the coming days.

Shocking That Over 350 Trials Pending In J&K For More Than 5 Years : Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court (March 10) said that it is extremely disappointed to know that 351 sessions trials are pending in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir for more than 5 years, and out of those cases,  250 cases are pending at the stage of recording of oral evidence of witnesses.

Reminding that the accused persons have a right to a speedy trial, the Court said that the UT must come up with a plan to conclude the pending trials at the earliest.

It may be recalled that the Supreme Court last month granted bailto a man, accused in a murder case, after finding that his trial had been pending for more than 7 years and only 7 witnesses had been examined by the prosecution so far.

Supreme Court Adjourns Habeas Plea Challenging Sonam Wangchuk's Detention Till March 17

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

The Supreme Court (March 10) adjourned the hearing of a habeas corpus petition, seeking to declare the preventive detention of Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, 1980, as illegal. The petition has been filed by his wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale adjourned it to next Tuesday after the Court was informed by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta is not keeping well and did not come to the Court .

This comes after the matter was adjourned on February 26, and the Court had said that in any case, it will reserve the matter for judgment on the next hearing.

Supreme Court Warns Defence & Finance Secretaries For Not Deciding On Benefits For Cadets Disabled During Training

Case Details – In Re: Cadets Disabled In Military Training Struggle

The Supreme Court criticised the Union government for failing to take a decision on extending monetary benefits to military cadets who are boarded out due to injury or disablement during training.

“We had granted 6 weeks' time on January 20. However there has been no progress in the matter. We fail to understand why despite this court taking up the issue suo motu there has been no response from the Defence Ministry as well as the Finance Ministry”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan gave the Union Defence Ministry and the Finance Ministry two weeks to take a decision on the recommendations of the military chiefs, warning that it may summon the Defence Secretary and the Finance Secretary if no progress is made.

Supreme Court To Examine Non-Production Of Undertrials Before Courts On Pan-India Basis; Seeks Responses From All HCs & DGPs

Case Details: Shashikumar Alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani v. State of Maharashtra

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of a plea that originally concerned the non-production of undertrial prisoners before courts in Maharashtra, to examine the issue on a pan-India basis.

Observing that the non-production of accused persons before courts is a nationwide problem not confined to a particular State and requires comprehensive adjudication, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan directed that the Directors General of Police and the heads of prison departments of all States and Union Territories be impleaded as party respondents in the case. The Court also directed that all High Courts be impleaded through their respective Registrars General.

Explaining the need to implead the High Courts, the bench noted that mechanisms already exist to produce prisoners before subordinate courts through video conferencing from jail premises, but such facilities are not being widely utilised.

'Why Restrict Kambala Race To Certain Regions In Karnataka? : Supreme Court Dismisses PETA Challenge

Case Details: People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), India v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(C) No. 8272/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), India against the Karnataka High Court order which held that Kambala and bull races in Karnataka cannot be restricted to the coastal districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.

Counsel for PETA argued inter-alia that the events are proposed to be held in palace grounds at Bengaluru, though they are not a part of the tradition and culture of Bengaluru. In response, Justice Mehta said, "They want to showcase the culture in different parts of the state, what is wrong? Let people in other parts of the state be also familiarized with the culture. Why restrict it to a particular area only?"

Supreme Court Rejects UAPA Undertrial's Plea Questioning 21-Hour Confinement A Day In Prison Cell

Case Details: Vijith Vijayan v. Superintendent, High Security Prison, Viyyur and Anr., Diary No. 227-2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by UAPA accused-Vijith Vijayan against his alleged confinement for 21 hours a day in a high security prison cell at Kerala.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with Vijayan's challenge to an order passed by the Kerala High Court, which stayed for 2 months the direction passed by the Special Court for locking of prisoners in cells only in the evening (unless there's a special reason) in terms of Rule 238 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014.

Justice Nath said that the High Court rightly stayed the Special Court's direction and asked the petitioner to pursue the case before the High Court (which is still pending). Advocate Manika Tripathy, for Vijayan, contended that the High Court's stay is still operational (amounting to 21 hours confinement), but the bench was not convinced to intervene.

KK Venugopal Was Silent When Majoritarianism Grew During His Tenure As AG: Subhashini Ali

Senior CPI(M) leader and former MP Subhashini Ali criticised former Attorney General KK Venugopal, stating that he remained silent when “majoritarianism” was rising during his tenure as the country's top law officer between 2017 and 2022.

Ali made the remarks while speaking at the launch of Venugopal's autobiography 'The Accidental Lawyer' at New Delhi.

Ali began by saying that she had initially been surprised by the invitation to speak at the event.

Supreme Court Disturbed By NCERT Rewriting Chapter On Judicial Corruption; Bars Writers From Curriculum Projects

Case Details: In Re: Social Science Textbook For Grade-8(Part 2) Published By Ncert and Ancillary Issues | Smw (C) 1/2026

The Supreme Court said that it was "disturbed" by the stand of the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) that the controversial chapter on judicial corruption in Class 8 Social Sciences Book has been "duly rewritten" and that the revised chapter will be incorporated in the textbooks for the 2026-27 academic year.

The Court was aghast to note that even after it expressed its strong objections to the chapter in the suo motu case,  the NCERT has decided to include the chapter in a rewritten form.

The fact that the chapter has been rewritten was disclosed in the affidavit filed by the NCERT Director, Professor Dinesh Prasad Saklani, who was earlier issued a notice to show cause as to why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated. The Court was disappointed to note that the Director's affidavit did not disclose the "alleged domain experts" who had rewritten the chapter and approved its incorporation in the next curriculum.

Navodaya Schools Incompatible With Tamil Nadu's Two-Language Policy: State Tells Supreme Court

Case Details – State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumari Maha Sabha

The Tamil Nadu Government has told the Supreme Court that the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) scheme is incompatible with the State's statutory two-language policy and cannot be implemented in its present form in the State.

“The Three-Language Formula forming the basis of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya scheme is fundamentally incompatible with the Two-Language Policy followed by the State of Tamil Nadu. Implementation of the scheme in its present form within the State would necessarily require deviation from the mandate of the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006. Such deviation would be impermissible in law and contrary to the settled legislative framework of the State”, the affidavit states.

In an affidavit filed before the Court, the State said that although education falls in the Concurrent List, implementation of national schemes within a State must conform to existing State legislation, policies, administrative feasibility and fiscal sustainability.

NCERT Chapter Row | 'They Must Realize How To Deal With Current CJI': Supreme Court Directs Action Against Social Media 'Mischief Mongers'

Case Details: In Re: Social Science Textbook For Grade-8(Part 2) Published By Ncert and Ancillary Issues | Smw (C) 1/2026

The Supreme Court came down strongly upon "irresponsible" remarks made by certain "mischief mongers" on social media in the wake of the controversy surrounding NCERT's social science textbook for Class 8 which contained a chapter on "Corruption in Judiciary".

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant,  Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi ordered the Government of India to identify the websites which published such content as well as the persons behind those websites.

"Some elements have acted irresponsibly on media. We firmly believe in catching bull by the horn. We direct govt of India to identify such sites, persons behind those sites, and furnish their full details to enable us to take action. Law must take its own course against mischief mongers", the CJI dictated.

His Family Never Left His Side, Real Love Is Caring In Saddest Hours : Supreme Court Lauds Harish Rana's Parents

Case Details: Harish Rana v. Union of India | Ma 2238/2025 In SLP(C) No. 18225/2024

In the first passive euthanasia case of India after the right to die with dignity was recognised as afundamental right in 2018(as modified in 2023), the Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment of a 32-year-old named Harish Rana. Harish sustained a brain injury after he had fallen from a building in 2012 and has been sustaining on Clinically Administered Nutrition(CAN) with no signs of recovery as supported by the reports of two medical boards constituted by the Court.

Given the sensitivity of the case, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan had met the parentsof Harish during the hearings. Pronouncing the judgment, the Court held that prolonging the biological life of Harish, when there was no improvement in his condition, was not in his best interest.

While allowing the withdrawal of life support for Harish Rana, Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment, and Justice Viswanathan, who penned a concurring opinion, both wrote about how his parents and family continued to care for him despite the fact that he showed no signs of improvement.

Supreme Court Stays Death Sentence Of Man Convicted For Rape-Murder Of 5-Year Old Girl In Madhya Pradesh

Case Details: Atul Nihale v. State of Madhya Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 4126-4127/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the death sentence of Atul Nihale, a man accused of raping and murdering a 5 year old girl in Madhya Pradesh.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria passed the order while dealing with the challenge of the convict, Atul Nihale, to a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgmentwhich confirmed the death sentence awarded to him by the Special Court noting that barbarity dripped from "every ounce of evidence" in the case.

Calling for the case records, the bench directed inter-alia the production of Probation Officers' reports, report on the work performed by the convict while in jail as well as his behavior, and a report on his psychological evaluation.

Supreme Court Orders CBI To Conduct Preliminary Inquiry Into Death Of Dalit Woman Allegedly Molested By Ex-MP Home Minister's Aide

Case Details – Badi Bahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

The Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of a 20-year-old Dalit woman who was allegedly molested by a close aide of former Madhya Pradesh Home Minister Bhupendra Singh.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh said that if a prima facie case is made out, the CBI shall register an FIR and proceed with the investigation.

“Though allegations and counter allegations have been made at the bar, we do not wish to go into the same. Suffice it to take note of the fact that the case has got a checkered history as a few murders have taken place. We make it clear that we are not going to the facts governing the aforesaid murders. Suffice it to state that by taking of the statement given by the witnesses during the proceedings under section 174 of the CrPC, the matter requires an investigation. We direct the CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry on the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased girl. Suffice it so say that we only observe that if a prima facie case is made out, obviously we expect the CBI to register the FIR and thereafter conduct for the investigation”, the Court stated.

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

Case Details: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa [Civil Appeal No. 3947/2020] and Connected Matters

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

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

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

Regional Language Or English Used In Navodaya Schools In Non-Hindi Regions : Centre To Supreme Court On Tamil Nadu Opposition

Case Details – State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumari Maha Sabha

The Union Government has submitted before the Supreme Court that the medium of instruction in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNV) in non-Hindi speaking regions is primarily the regional language or English, responding to Tamil Nadu's concerns that the scheme is incompatible with its statutory two-language policy.

Clarifying the language pattern followed in Navodaya schools, the Union Government stated that in non-Hindi speaking regions the medium of instruction from Classes VI to VIII is the regional language or English. For higher classes, subjects such as science, mathematics, social sciences and humanities are taught in English.

“That the medium of instructions in JNVs in Non-Hindi speaking regions is as under: (i) Class VI to VIII:- Regional Language or English (Mostly in English, some children write in Regional Language). Class IX to XII: (Sciences & Mathematics: English, Social Sciences & Humanities: English”, the affidavit states.

YS Vivekananda Reddy Murder | Supreme Court Dismisses Daughter's Pleas Challenging Bail To Accused & Seeking Further CBI Probe

Case Details – Suneetha Narreddy v. Ys Avinash Reddy & Anr.

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of pleas filed by Dr. Suneetha Narreddy, daughter of former MP YS Vivekananda Reddy, seeking a direction for further investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into his murder and challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to YSR Congress Party MP YS Avinash Reddy as well as bail to other accused.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the petitions after the CBI submitted that a supplementary charge sheet had been filed and no further investigation was desirable.

“Learned ASG appearing for CBI submitted that a third supplementary charge sheet has already been filed yesterday. In light of this we are not inclined to interfere”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Expresses Strong Displeasure At Railways For Not Properly Explaining Investments On Safety

Case Details: Union of India v. Radha Yadav, Miscellaneous Application No.741-742/2019

The Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which the Railways has assisted the Court in a case concerning railway safety and policy priorities, observing that the material placed on record did not clearly explain how funds are being allocated and utilized.

Previously, the Court had flaggedinsufficient budgetary allotment for the railway, and had sought details of the safety measures taken.

Following that, Janak Kumar Garg, Chief Commissioner of Railway Safety, appeared before a bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan to explain steps taken for improving passenger safety.

Supreme Court Dismisses Lawyer's Plea Seeking Rs 1 Crore Fees For Filing Cases To 'Save' Former CJI Dipak Misra

Case Details: Ashok Pandey v. Union of India | Diary No. - 106/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by Advocate Ashok Pandey who sought Rs 1 crore from the Union Government towards fees and expenses for the cases said to have been filed by him to "save" former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi dismissed the petition as "misconceived." The bench observed that the High Court rightly dismissed his petition.

"You have not incurred any expenses? You appeared in person," CJI told Pandey at the outset.  Pandey replied that he incurred expenses of about Rs 2 lakh rupees for conducting the litigation, and that he had to take the money from his daughter.

'Approach Law Commission' : Supreme Court On Plea Challenging S.129 TP Act For Exempting Muslim Gifts From Registration

Case Details: Hari Shankar Jain v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 290/2026

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

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

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

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Kashmiri Separatist Shabir Ahmed Shah In Terror Funding Case; Notes Delay In Trial

Case Details: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 13399/2025

The Supreme Court granted bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Ahmed Shah in a terror funding case, noting that the delay ordained in the trial could not be explained.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves for Shah and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra for NIA.

Shah was arrested in June 2019 and arrayed as an accused in the second supplementary chargesheet filed by NIA on October 04, 2019. The allegations against him are that he played a key role in building a separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir, paying tribute to the families of slain terrorists, receiving money through hawala transactions and raising funds through LOC trade used to “fule subversive and militant activities.”

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Bring Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's Mortal Remains To India

Case Details: Ashis Ray v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 268/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Ashish Ray, grand nephew of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, seeking to bring Netaji's mortal remains to India.

After the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi expressed disinclination to entertain the petition, Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi, the petitioner's counsel, sought to withdraw the petition.

Singhvi said that the daughter of Netaji will file a fresh petition for the same cause, instead of the grand nephew.

UPSC Civil Service Exam : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Additional Attempt For Candidates Who Lost Last Chance Due To Covid

Case Details: Jaimin Patel v. Department of Personnel and Training (Dopt) and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 281/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking reconsideration of the age and attempt relaxation in respect of Civil Services Examination, 2026, for candidates whose last permissible attempt was affected due to Covid-19 pandemic (2020-2021).

The petitioner, a civil aspirant and Covid warrior, was statedly denied leave to appear in the civil services exam in 2021. As such, he prayed for a one-time additional attempt, pointing out that the respondent-authorities failed to hold a consultative process for reconsidering the age and attempt relaxations, despite a judicial direction and multiple representations. But the Court refused to entertain the petition, noting that he approached the Court belatedly after a gap of about 5 years.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.

Supreme Court Stays Bail Cancellation Of Accused In BSP Leader K Armstrong's Murder Case

Case Details: Aswathaman v. Porkodi and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 4327-4328/2026 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court stayed Madras High Court's cancellation of bail of 12 persons accused in BSP leader K Armstrong's murder case.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and V Mohana. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for respondent(s).

"In the meantime, the extension of the order of stay on cancellation would operate [on the same terms and conditions of bail] as allowed by the trial court" Justice Maheshwari dictated.

Sidhu Moosewala Murder Case : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Pawan Kumar Bishnoi, Jagtar Singh

Case Details: Pawan Kumar Bishnoi v. State of Punjab, SLP(Crl) No. 18883/2025; Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, SLP(Crl) No. 4018/2026

The Supreme Court granted bail to two accused - Pawan Kumar Bishnoi and Jagtar Singh - in Punjabi singer Sidhu Moosewala's murder case of 2022.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, while dealing with the accused's challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court order which denied bail. The High Court had denied bail noting that it would be appropriate to await recording of statement of eye-witnesses before the accused were granted bail.

During the hearing, Advocate Abhay Kumar, for Pawan Bishnoi, argued that only Pawan Bishnoi's name was similar to Lawrence Bishnoi; other than that, the two had no connection. It was further contended that Pawan got roped in based on a confessional statement recorded during his custody in another case.

Blood Donation Ban On Gays, Transgender Persons & Sex Workers Retained After Review : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Thangjam Santa Singh @ Santa Khurai v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 275/2021 (And Connected Matters)

The Union Government informed the Supreme Court that it has decided to retain the ban on blood donations by transgender persons, gay men, sex workers, after the experts revisited the earlier decision following a prodding by the Court.

Additional Solicitor General of India Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the experts have reiterated that the ban was essential in the larger public interest.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipula Pancholi was hearing a bunch of writ petitions which challenge the "Guidelines on Blood Donor Selection and Blood Donor Referral, 2017"issued by the National Blood Transfusion Council and the National Aids Control Organisation under the aegis of the Central Health Ministry. Clauses 12 and 51 of the said guidelines consider transgender persons, gay men and female sex workers as belonging to high-risk HIV/AIDS category and prohibit them from donating blood.

Supreme Court Closes Contempt Proceedings Against Telengana Speaker As All Disqualification Petitions Decided

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

The Supreme Court was informed (March 12) that the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly has taken a decision on all pending disqualification petitions in connection with the defection of ten MLAs from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi to the Indian National Congress. The Court has disposed of the matter, asking the Speaker to supply a copy of his decision to the petitioners by tomorrow.

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

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohagti (for State of Telangana) submitted that nothing survives in the matter as all matters have been decided by the Speaker. Singhvi informed that as for the decision taken, some of them have already been challenged before the Telangana High Court.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Ban On Animal Sacrifices For Religious Rituals

Case Details: Shruti Bist v. Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Diary No. 66314-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking a ban on killing of animals in the name of religion.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order on a petition filed by Advocate Shruti Bist.

Briefly put, the PIL has been filed seeking a direction to the Ministry of Animal Husbandry to amend Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 so as to ban the killing of animals in the name of religion.

Collegium of CM, LoP & Minister To Select DGP Not Workable, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court orally observed that the suggestion to constitute a collegium comprising the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and a minister to select Directors General of Police (DGPs) would not be workable.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joylamya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi made the observation while hearing applications seeking modification of the directions issued in Prakash Singh v. Union of India relating to the appointment of DGPs.

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, the Amicus Curiae in the matter, told the Court that the proposal to create a collegium consisting of the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and a minister for selecting the DGP was not workable. The Chief Justice agreed with this assessment.

'Interesting Question Is What's Public Data & Personal Data?' : Supreme Court On Challenge To DPDP Act

Case Details: Geeta Seshu and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 275/2026

The Supreme Court, while issuing notice in a plea challenging the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and Rules, expressed that protection of data privacy has now become a global issue. The Court will also examine the issue of what would be considered as public data and private data.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the petition filed by journalist Geeta Seshu and NGO Software Freedom Law Centre challenging theDigital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and DPDP Rules 2025.

Sr Advocate Indira Jaisingh, appearing for the petitioner, stressed that the impugned Act and Rules in effect legalise disproportionate State surveillance, create a compensation vacuum for citizens, dilute the Right to Information, erode the ability of journalists to practice their profession, and establish a data protection regulator that is structurally dependent upon the Executive.

Some High Courts Support Relaxing 3 Year Practice Mandate To Join Judicial Service For Specially Abled Candidates

Case Details – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

Several High Courts have supported retaining the mandatory requirement of three years' practice at the Bar as a uniform eligibility condition for entry-level judicial service posts while responding to the Supreme Court's call for suggestions on whether theMay 2025 judgment should be relaxed for specially abled candidates.

Some High Courts, however, suggested limited relaxation for persons with disabilities. The Meghalaya High Court said the condition should not be completely dispensed with but the Court may consider reducing the practice period or granting age relaxation of three to five years for specially-abled candidates. The Tripura High Court supported dispensing with the requirement in respect of such candidates.

The suggestions were sought in review proceedings arising from the Supreme Court's May 20, 2025 judgment which restored the condition that candidates must have a minimum of three years' practice as advocates to apply for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts. The review petitions include a plea seeking exemption of persons with disabilities from the rule.

Supreme Court Closes 40-Yr Old MC Mehta Case; Registers Suo Motu Case On NCR Air Quality Issue

Case Details: Mc Mehta v. Union of India, WP(C) No.13029/1985

The Supreme Court formally closed the 40-year old MC Mehta v. Union of India case pertaining to air quality in Delhi-National Capital Region. In its place, it ordered registration of a suo motu case as well as separate writ petitions to deal with the remaining issues/applications.

The suo motu case shall be titled "Re: Issues of air pollution in NCR".

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh (Amicus), Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, and others.

3 Year Practice Mandate : Law Colleges Suggest Alternatives For Special-Abled Candidates

Case Details – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

Several law universities and institutions have suggested that the meaning of “practice at the Bar” be broadened to include alternative forms of legal experience while responding to the Supreme Court's call for suggestionson whether persons with disabilities should be exempted from the mandatory three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial service posts.

Their suggestions have been placed before the Court through a compilation filed by amicus curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice AG Masih will hear the review petitions filed against last year's judgment which restored the 3-year practice condition.

Some institutions proposed redefining what constitutes relevant legal experience. Balaji Law College suggested that equivalent exposure such as judicial clerkships, structured litigation internships or research positions could be recognised as fulfilling the practice requirement.

Supreme Court Asks States To File Affidavits On Forming Animal Welfare Boards

Case Details: Gauri Maulekhi v. Union of India | W.P.(C) 259 of 2020

The Supreme Court heard a writ petition seeking the establishment of fully functional State Animal Welfare Boards across all States and Union Territories to effectively regulate animal welfare issues.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. It stated that despite ample opportunity given, 12 States and 2 Union Territories have not filed their affidavits.

These are Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jammu & Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Dadar and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu and Ladakh.

Supreme Court Asks Petitioners Challenging Plaster Of Paris Idol Immersion To Approach Bombay High Court

The Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petitions challenging the interim orders of the Bombay High Court, which permitted the use of Plaster of Paris(PoP) for idol manufacture and immersion of it in artifical ponds during religious festivals.

The special leave petition challenged the two interim orders of the High Court as well as the State Government's Idol Immersion Policy, which allows PoP idols exceeding five feet in height(now six feet) to be immersed in natural water bodies, subject to retrieval by municipal authorities. The petition, filed through Advocate Srishti Agnihotri and argued by Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy, contended that these orders permit the manufacture and immersion of PoP idols in natural water bodies despite a statutory prohibition under the Central Pollution Control Board's (CPCB) Revised Guidelines for Idol Immersiondated May 12, 2020.

It may be recalled that the Bombay High Court, by its interim order datedJune 9, 2025, modified its earlier directions passed on January 30, 2025, and lifted the prohibition on the use of PoP for making idols. The High Court, however, said that such idols could not be immersed in natural water bodies without its prior leave.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of Illegal Sand Mining In Chambal Sanctuary & Threat To 'Gharials'

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary and the threat to endangered aquatic wildlife, including gharials.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has taken up the suo motu case and placed the matter before CJI Surya Kant for appropriate orders.

After the bench assembled, Justice Mehta said,

Does Lokpal Act Envisage Separate Sanctions For Chargesheet & Prosecution? Supreme Court To Examine In Plea Against Mahua Moitra

Case Details: Lokpal of India v. Mahua Moitra, SLP(C) No. 8919/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra on a petition filed by the Lokpal of India challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment, which held that separate sanctions for the filing of a charge sheet and initiating prosecution are not contemplated by the Lokpal and Lok Ayuktas Act, 2013.

Holding that Section 20 of the Lokpal Act did not contemplate the separate grant of a sanction for filing of a chargesheet, and the sanction is granted only in a composite manner for prosecution, the High Court had quashed the sanction granted by the Lokpal to the CBI to file a chargesheet against Mahua Moitra in relation to the cash-for-query row. The authority approached the Supreme Court, challenging the interpretation given by the High Court.

While agreeing to examine the matter, the Supreme Court passed an interim order clarifying that the Lok Pal need not take a decision on sanction for prosecution as directed in paragraph 89 of the High Court's order.

'Mandating Menstrual Leave May Harm Women's Careers', Says Supreme Court; Asks Union To Consider Framing Policy

Case Details: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Secretary Ministry of Women and Child Development,Union of India and Ors. | Diary No. 73736-2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition seeking paid menstrual leave for women in all establishments, asking the Central Government to consider the petitioner's representation for modelling a menstrual leave policy in consultatin with all stakeholders.

During the hearing, the Court however expressed concerns that mandating menstrual leave through legislation may have unintended consequences for women's employment. The Court remarked it could discourage employers from hiring women, thereby adversely affecting their participation in the workforce.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also questioned the locus of petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi, and pointed out that no woman herself has approached the Court.

'Petition Like A Shopping Mall' : Supreme Court Rejects Omnibus PIL Seeking Directions To Curb Negligence By Authorities

Case Details: Janshruti (Peoples Voice) v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 284/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking omnibus directions to prevent deaths due to negligence by public authorities. The bench remarked that the PIL was of a wide nature and directions sought would not be manageable to implement.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi  was hearing the petition seeking directions to the Union and State governments to create SOPs for preventing deaths due to negligence caused by the State authorities, which included instances like unsafe infrastructure/ incomplete constructions, electrocution from poor wiring, etc.

The Advocate for the petitioners stressed that, despite making representations to the authorities, no concrete steps were taken. She stressed the need to have mechanisms accounting for such deaths

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea For Mandatory NAT Test In Blood Banks

Case Details: Sarvesham Mangalam Foundation v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 184/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking to make Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) mandatory in blood banks while accepting blood donations.

Observing that NAT is a more expensive process, as admitted by the petitioner itself, the Court said that it cannot issue a direction to make it mandatory, as it will create an extra financial burden on the States.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the issue raised by the petitioner relates to the introduction of a new medical technology and does not involve the interpretation of any existing law warranting judicial intervention.

Supreme Court Stays Telangana HC Order Mandating 90-Day Advance Notice For Movie Ticket Price Hikes

Case Details: M/S Mythri Movie Makers v. Dachepally Chandra Babu and Ors., Diary No. 14102-2026

The Supreme Court stayed a Telangana High Court order which directed the state government to put in public domain any decision regarding hike in movie ticket prices 90 days in advance.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order, while issuing notice on the plea filed by M/s Mythri Movie Makers, a film production and distribution company. On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the High Court's order had potential to affect all movie releases in the state.

Briefly put, one Dachepally Chandra Babu approached the High Court challenging the state government's grant of hike in the movie ticket price for Telugu movie 'Mana Shankara Vara Prasad Garu'.

'3-Year Practice Condition Should Remain, Only Issue Is Modalities': Supreme Court In Review Hearing; Extends Civil Judge Application Dates

Case Details – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

While hearing petitions seeking review of the 3-year practice rule, the Supreme Court directed all High Courts to extend the last date of application for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Posts until April 30, 2026.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran ordered :

"All the High Courts are directed to extend the date of last date of submission of applications if they have already advertised the post up to 30th of April 2026. Fresh advertisement to be issued by State/High Courts or State Public Service Commission shall also have the deadline of April 30, 2026."

3-Year Practice Rule | Now Source Is Coaching Centres, That's The Entire Problem : Justice Chandran On Judicial Recruitments

Case Details – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

While hearing petitions seeking review of the 3-year practice condition, Justice Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court remarked that the problem with the judicial recruitment is that "coaching centres have become the source now."

Justice Chandran was responding to Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, who argued that the practice requirement could act as a roadblock for aspirants and delay their entry into judicial service, as a couple of additional years are required to prepare for the exams.

“There is a whole difficulty. When I sat in the Constitution Bench also I said. Now the source is the coaching centers. I don't mind saying that in the open court. That is the entire problem. I have been a Chief Justice, I have been a senior judge in the court. I have gone through interviews. We have seen the district judges. It is not, don't say that without any empirical formula. From our experience, we are telling you”, Justice Chandran remarked.

Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Lawyer For Posting Book Extracts On Mamata Banerjee's Personal Life

Case Details: Koustav Bagchi v. State of West Bengal | Diary No. 14612-2026

The Supreme Court (March 13) issued notice and ordered status quo in a plea filed by Advocate Koustav Bagchi seeking to quash a defamation complaint filed against him after he posted an extract of a book which had allegedly made certain remarks concerning the personal life of the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee.

A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the interim order in a special leave petition filed against the October 31, 2025, order passed by the Calcutta High Court.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave(for the petitioner) submitted that the High Court had dismissed the petitioner's revisional application seeking quashing of the Trial Court's order, taking cognisance of the offence of defamation under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Supreme Court Empowers District Judges To Nominate Members To Bar Associations' ECs To Ensure 30% Women Representation

Case Details: Deeksha N Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(C) No. 1404/2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court empowered District Judges across the country to nominate women members to Executive Committees/Governing Bodies of Bar Associations within their jurisdictions, so as to meet the criteria of 30 percent women's representation in them.

The Court authorized the District Judges to make the nominations in the event that there were sufficient women members available in a particular jurisdiction, but they could not contest the elections of the Executive Committee/Governing Body due to some reason.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order.

Supreme Court Urges Centre To Revisit Yellow Dal Import Policy; Says Farming Of Pulses Be Incentivised

Case Details: Kisan Mahapanchayat v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 911/2025

The Supreme Court urged the Union Government to convene a meeting of relevant stakeholders to revisit the existing policy framework governing the import of yellow peas and explore measures to incentivise farmers to shift from conventional crops like wheat and paddy to pulses.

The Court emphasised the need for better coordination among ministries and observed that policies relating to import pricing and market support should be structured in a manner that does not adversely impact domestically grown pulses while ensuring remunerative returns to farmers.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitionfiled by Kisan Mahapanchayat challenging the policy of the Union Government to allow the import of yellow dal without any duty.

Supreme Court Notifies Composition Of 9-Judge Bench Hearing Reference On 'Industry' Definition

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

The Supreme Court has notified the composition of a nine-judge Constitution Bench to consider the correctness of the expansive interpretation of the term “industry” laid down in the 1978 decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa.

The bench will be headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and will comprise Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi.

The 9-judge bench will commence the hearing on March 17 and conclude on March 18.

Supreme Court Seeks Report From Union & States On Removal Of Encroachments From Ganga Banks

Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sinha v. Union of India

The Supreme Court has sought a comprehensive nationwide status report on encroachments along the banks and floodplains of the River Ganga while hearing a case concerning illegal constructions on the river's floodplains in Patna, Bihar.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan directed the Union Government, the State of Bihar and other States through which the Ganga flows to place before it updated details on encroachments and the steps taken to protect the riverbanks.

The Court also issued notice to States including Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh after being informed that encroachments have been reported along the riverbanks in these regions as well.

Sabarimala Reference : Consultation With Religious Scholars Needed Before Judicial Review Of Traditions, Kerala Govt To Supreme Court

The State of Kerala has told the Supreme Court that judicial examination of long-standing religious practices should ideally be undertaken only after consulting religious scholars and social reformers with authentic knowledge of the faith concerned.

In written submissions filed in the reference before the 9-judge bench arising out of the Sabarimala review, the State submitted that when courts examine religious traditions connected with beliefs followed for centuries, they should first solicit the views of eminent religious scholars and reputed social reformers of the concerned religion.

The nine-judge is examining broader Constitutional questions relating to religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Sabarimala Review: Dabholkar's Son Seeks Intervention In Supreme Court, Says Exclusion Of Women Discriminatory

The son of rationalist Dr. Narendra Dabholkar has moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the pending review proceedings relating to the Sabarimala temple entry judgment, urging the Court to uphold its 2018 verdict allowing women of all ages to enter the shrine and dismiss the review petitions challenging it.

Hamid Dabholkar, along with social activist Nandini Jadhav, filed an intervention application in the review proceedings arising from Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, the case in which a Constitution Bench in2018 struck downthe practice of excluding women between the ages of 10 and 50 from the Sabarimala temple.

The applicants told the Court that they have long been associated with efforts to promote scientific temper and combat superstition through the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti (MANS), founded by the late Dr. Narendra Dabholkar.

After Supreme Court's Nudge, Haryana Govt Rejects Sanction To Prosecute Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad For Posts On 'Operation Sindoor'

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

The Haryana Government informed the Supreme Court that it has refused to grant sanction to prosecute Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in the criminal case registered over his social media posts regarding “Operation Sindoor.”

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, recording the submission made on behalf of the State by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, quashed the criminal proceedings.

"As a one-time magnanimity, we have closed the case," ASG said.

Arvind Kejriwal Moves Supreme Court To Transfer CBI Liquor Policy Case From Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI WP(Crl) | Diary No.15968/2026, Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI SLP(Crl) | Diary No. 15911/2026

Arvind Kejriwal has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's rejection of his request to transfer the CBI's petition challenging his discharge in the liquor policy case from the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

In the writ petition filed, Kejriwal has challenged the Delhi High Court Registrar General's order, which was issued on the basis of the instruction of the Chief Justice. Rejecting his request, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court said that the case has been assigned to Justice Sharma as per the existing roster and there was no reason to assign the matter to another bench.

On February 27, the trial court discharged all the 23 accused persons in the case, including political leaders Kejriwal, Sisodia and K Kavitha. The trial court had also severely criticised the CBI's investigation in the case. It may be noted that the case had become politically controversial, as Kejriwal was arrested and remanded to the custody amidst the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. He was later granted bail by the Supreme Court after 156 days of custody. AAP leader Manish Sisodia also spent 530 days in custody in the case.

'We Can't Thrust Our Views' : Supreme Court On Plea To Reduce 5 Year LL.B Course As 4 Year

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar UPadhyay v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 453/2025

The Supreme Court observed that it cannot impose its views on matters concerning legal education while hearing a public interest litigation seeking reduction of the five year integrated LL.B. course to four years.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking the constitution of a Legal Education Commission consisting of eminent jurists to review and reform the legal education framework, including the duration and syllabus of law courses.

Upadhyay orally mentioned the petition, filed in 2025, seeking urgent listing.  During the hearing, Upadhyay submitted that most professional courses in India are four-year courses and argued that the five-year law course discourages talented students from pursuing legal education.

'Go To HC': Supreme Court Rejects Journalist Ravi Nair's Plea Against Gujarat Crime Branch Notice Over Article On Adani Ports

Case Details: Ravi Nair v. State of Gujarat and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 106/2026

Asking him to approach the jurisdictional High Court, the Supreme Court refused to entertain journalist Ravi Nair's plea against Gujarat Crime Branch's notice to him on a complaint allegedly made by Adani Ports and SEZ Ltd.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the case as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the High Court.

Nair approached the Court challenging Gujarat Crime Branch's notice dated February 12, 2026, issued to him in connection with an article published last year in The Washington Post titled "India's $3.9 billion plan to help Modi's mogul ally after U.S. charges". Nair co-authored the article with the then New Delhi bureau chief for The Washington Post-Pranshu Verma.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy Waste Disposal : Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Raise Mercury Leakage Concern Before MP High Court

Case Details: Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti v. Union of India | D No. 8813/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition raising concerns over the leakage of mercury from residual ash generated after the incineration of toxic waste lying in the Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, asking the petitioner to approach the High Court to seek remedies.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed the petitioner, Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti, an organisation of victims of the 1984 Bhopal Gas tragedy, to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court with material showing the apprehension of mercury leakage.

The petitioner relied upon a report of Dr Asif Qureshi of IIT Hyderabad, stating that since a huge amount of mercury is present in the incinerated material, there was a risk of contamination of groundwater and the environment around the site of disposal.

Supreme Court Rejects West Bengal Govt's Plea To Stay NIA Probe In Beldanga Violence

Case Details: State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Suvendu Adhikari and Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 4676/2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere in theCalcutta High Court's order, which refused to stay the investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in relation to the Beldanga violence in Murshidabad district in January this year.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to accept the challenge raised by the State of West Bengal to the High Court's order, saying that a balanced view has been taken by the High Court.

The High Court had also refused to stay the order of the City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, directing the transfer of case materials to the NIA.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To DoPT Secretary Over Delay In Considering IRS Officer's ITAT Appointment

Case Details: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Rachna Shah & Anr.

The Supreme Court has issued notice to Rachna Shah IAS, the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training, in a contempt petition for allegedly failing to convene a Search-cum-Selection Committee meeting to consider the appointment of an IRS officer to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had been repeatedly stalled for several years.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the contempt petition filed by Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, seeking compliance of the Court's January 30, 2026 judgment, where the bench directed the Union Government to consider the appointment of the Appellant, within four weeks of the passing of an order, upon constituting the SCSC, whose decision needs to be informed to the petitioner.

The petitioner had gone through almost four selection processes, but his appointment was stalled every time by the government, by putting cooked-up charges against him.

Supreme Court Again Flags “Inexplicable And Huge Delay” In Trials In Maharashtra

Case Details – Parmendra @ Gauravsing Rajendra Sinha v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court once again expressed concern over inexplicable delays in trials in Maharashtra.

“One factor, which has seriously made the Court concerned, is the fact that repeatedly, it has been noticing inexplicable and huge delay in trial being conducted, especially, by the State of Maharashtra”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice in a bail plea and sought a personally affirmed affidavit from the Commissioner of Police, Nashik explaining delay in the conduct of the trial in a case registered in June 2019.

Why Supreme Court Is Revisiting Justice Krishna Iyer's 48-Year Old Defintion Of 'Industry'

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

The Supreme Court is set to hear the correctness of the expansive definition of “industry” laid down in the 48 year old Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa(1978).

A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and will comprise Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi.

The hearing will commence on March 17, and it will conclude on March 18.

Supreme Court To Issue Guidelines To High Courts To Avoid Delay In Pronouncing Judgments; Amicus Gives Suggestions

Case Details – Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

The Supreme Court (May 16) reserved judgment on framing draft guidelines for the High Courts to avoid delay in pronouncing judgments after concluding hearing.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi appreciated the draft guidelines submitted by Advocate Fauzia Shakil, the amicus curiae in the matter, and sought the responses of the High Courts to the amicus's suggestions. The Chief Justice said that after considering the suggestions and responses, the judgment will be pronounced.

"We are not targeting anybody. It is only for enhancing the accountability and strengthening the institution. We will wait for a week or so, after that we will release the order, "CJI said.

Why Can't Information About Unclaimed Bank Accounts Of Dead Persons Be Given To Heirs? Supreme Court Asks Union, RBI

The Supreme Court asked the Union Government and the Reserve Bank of India why details of the bank accounts of deceased persons could not be disclosed to heirs for them to access unclaimed funds.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2022 by financial journalist and Managing Editor of Money Life, Sucheta Dalal, concerning unclaimed funds of investors and depositors that are not accessible to the rightful legal heirs.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Dalal, stressed that a key issue arises when the heirs of the deceased are not aware of the details of how many accounts/ funds are left unclaimed. He submitted that the PIL sought directions for making the details of such unclaimed accounts public.

Bilkis Bano Case : Supreme Court Issues Notice On 2 Convicts' Appeal Against Life Sentence For Murder & Gang Rape

Case Details – Bipinchand Kanaiyalal Joshi @ Lala Doctor v. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court issued notice on plea by two convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, Bipinchand Kanaiyalal Joshi and Pradip Ramanlal Modhiya, against the May 04, 2017 judgment of the Bombay High Court which upheld their conviction and sentence.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi issued notice to the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra and kept the SLP for hearing on May 5, 2026.

The Bombay High Court had upheld the conviction and life sentence imposed on 11 accused, including Joshi and Modhiya, by the trial court for offences relating to murder, rioting, and gangrape under Sections 143, 147, 302 read with Section 149, and Sections 376(2)(e) and (g) of the IPC. It also upheld sentences of rigorous imprisonment for other offences including ten years' imprisonment under Section 376(2)(g) IPC.

Welfare State Functions, Charitable Acts Can't Be Regarded As 'Industry': Centre Tells Supreme Court In 9-Judge Bench Hearing

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

The Union Government (March 17) told the Supreme Court that welfare activities and charitable functions undertaken by the State cannot be treated as “industry” under labour law, cautioning against an overbroad application of the test laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978).

Appearing before a nine-judge Constitution Bench, Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani submitted that while the “triple test” evolved in the 1978 judgment may be logically sound, its indiscriminate application has led to an unwarranted expansion of the definition of “industry”.

Colonial understanding of sovereign does not apply anymore: AG

Shun Black Robes In Family Courts To Avoid Fear In Children, Rename Them 'Family Resolution Centres' : CJI Surya Kant

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant suggested that the judges and lawyers in the Family Courts shun their customary black robes so that children do not feel intimidated. He also suggested renaming Family Courts as 'Family Resolution Centres'.

Speaking at the ceremony for laying the foundation stone for the new Family Court Complex at Rohini in New Delhi, the CJI asked, “Should the family courts have these black robes? Is it not going to create fear in the mind of the child?"

The Chief Justice proposed that the judges and lawyers do away with their black robes in Family Courts, as "this entire environment creates a  fear psychosis in the minds of the children."

Sheena Bora Murder Case : Supreme Court Grants Final 9-Month Extension To Complete Trial

Case Details: Indrani Mukerjea v. Central Bureau of Investigation., SLP(Crl) No. 17027/2024

The Supreme Court granted a final extension of nine months to complete the trial in the high-profile Sheena Bora murder case, while making it clear that no further requests for extension will be entertained.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh passed the order on March 16, considering a communication dated February 5, 2026, from the Special Judge, CBI, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, seeking additional time to conclude the trial.

Taking note of the request, the Court allowed the extension but imposed a strict outer limit. “Considering the prayer made, the time to conclude the trial stands extended by 9 months while making it clear that no further prayer seeking extension of time will be entertained,” the bench recorded.

'You Can't Dictate' : Supreme Court Rejects West Bengal's Adjournment Request In ED's Plea Over I-PAC Raid

Case Details – Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

The Supreme Court turned down a plea raised on behalf of the State of West Bengal for the adjournment of the hearing of the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate in relation to the I-PAC office raid.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a writ petition filed by the ED against the State of West Bengal over the alleged interference made by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee with the ED's raid of the office of the I-PAC, the political consultant of the Trinamool Congress party.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for the State of West Bengal, requested an adjournment, seeking time to file a response to a rejoinder affidavit filed by the ED. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the ED, vehemently opposed the request, saying that it was a tactic to delay the hearing. Pointing out that the rejoinder was filed four weeks ago, the SG said that there was enough time to seek instructions to file a response. "If you want to delay the matter, let's at least have a decent ground," SG said.

Supreme Court Notifies New Procedure For Adjournment Letters

The Supreme Court has issued a fresh circular laying down a detailed and stricter procedure for seeking adjournments in cases, emphasising that such requests will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances and subject to structured safeguards.

The circular, dated March 18, 2026, issued under the directions of the Chief Justice of India, supersedes two earlier circulars issued in November and December 2025.

Under the revised framework, advocates-on-record and parties appearing in person are permitted to circulate adjournment letters in both fresh and after-notice matters. However, the process has been formalised with mandatory pre-service requirements. A copy of the adjournment request must be served in advance on the opposing side or caveator, and the request must be submitted with proof of such service before 11:00 a.m. on the previous working day.

Allowing ED To File Writ Petition Against State Govt Dangerous To Federalism : West Bengal Govt To Supreme Court

Case Details – Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

The State of West Bengal,, opposed the maintainability of the writ petition filed in the Supreme Court by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Article 32 of the Constitution, contending that the agency lacks the legal personality required to invoke fundamental rights jurisdiction against a State.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for the State, contended that ED lacked a juristic personality, as it was only a government department, and allowing a  Central Government Department to file a writ petition against a State Government would be "dangerous to the federal structure."

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the Enforcement Directorate's writ petition alleging obstruction by West Bengal authorities during its January 8 search of the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC in Kolkata in connection with a money laundering probe linked to the coal scam. The ED sought registration of CBI FIR against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the State Police Officials who allegedly obstructed the ED raid. There was a connected writ petition filed by ED officers challenging the FIR registered by the West Bengal Police against them.

Charity & Profession Can't Be Excluded From Definition Of 'Industry' Under ID Act : Indira Jaising Argues Before Supreme Court

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

The Supreme Court (March 18) continued hearing a reference in regards to the expansive definition of "industry" given by the then Justice VK Krishna Iyer in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978).

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising(supporting the 1978 judgment) submitted that the now-repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was a beneficial legislation for the security of employment. She said that it was a pre-constitutional legislation which was drafted in the backdrop of the industrial development taking place in England, but it provided against the hire and fire rule, which was applicable in common law.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M Pancholi is hearing on the limited issue of whether the Bangalore Water Supply judgment was rightly decided.

Vadodara Car Crash : Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Bail Granted To Accused

Case Details: State of Gujarat v. Rakshit Ravish Chorasiya | SLP(Crl) No. 4371/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the Gujarat High Court's order granting regular bail to the accused in the 2025 Vadodara car crash case.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice NV Anjaria refused to interfere with the bail granted to 23-year old law student Rakshit Ravish Chorasiya, who was accused of rash and negligent driving after being intoxicated, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to nine others in March 2025.

The State's counsel argued that the accused had taken drugs and caused three collisions. "After that, he came out and shouted, 'another round, another round'. He had absolutely no remorse."

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against YouTuber Elvish Yadav in Snake Venom Case; Allows Filing Of Fresh Wildlife Complaint

Case Details – Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth v. State of UP and Anr.

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against YouTuber Elvish Yadav in a case alleging use of snake venom in video shoots and involvement in rave parties where drugs were consumed, holding that the FIR could not be sustained in law on the limited legal issues examined.

A Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh clarified that it was confining its consideration to two specific questions: the applicability of Section 2(23) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the validity of proceedings under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

On the NDPS aspect, the Court recorded the submission of Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta that the alleged psychotropic substance (snake venom antidote) recovered from a co-accused did not fall within the Schedule of the NDPS Act. The Bench noted that, admittedly, the substance in question was not covered under the statutory schedule. It also took note of the argument that no recovery had been made from Yadav himself, with the charge sheet only alleging that he placed orders through an associate.

Sushil Srivastava Murder : Supreme Court Allows Son To Seek Police Protection; Admits Appeal Against Acquittal Of Accused

Case Details: Avik Kumar Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand, Crl.A. No. 1451-1453/2026

Following the acquittal of 5 accused in his father's murder case, the Supreme Court allowed slain gangster Sushil Srivastava's son to seek police protection.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan passed the order, while admitting an appeal filed by Srivastava's son (petitioner) against the Jharkhand High Court judgment which acquitted 5 prime accused in the case and ordered their release.

"it shall be open for the appellant to prefer an appropriate representation addressed to the DGP of the State, requesting for an appropriate police protection. If any such representation is preferred, the DGP shall look into the same at the earliest and see to it that the needful is done in the matter in accordance with law", the Court said.

Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Reserves Judgment On Correctness Of 'Industry' Definition In Bangalore Water Supply Board Case

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

The Supreme Court (March 19) reserved its judgment on reconsideration of the expansive definition of "industry" given by the then Justice VK Krishna Iyer in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978).

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M Pancholi heard on the limited issue of whether the Bangalore Water Supply judgment was rightly decided.

Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, maintained that while the triple test pronounced by Justice Iyer in the Bangalore Water Supply is logically sound, it's too broad and indiscriminate in its application. He argued that welfare sovereign functions should not be regarded as "industry" for the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convict Yahya Dhebar In NCP Leader Ram Avatar Jaggi Murder Case Of 2003

Case Details: Yahya Dhebar v. State of Chhattisgarh, Crl.A. No. 4805/2024

After nearly two years in custody, the Supreme Court granted bail to convict-Yahya Dhebar in the 2003 murder case of Nationalist Congress Party leader Ram Avatar Jaggi.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran suspended Dhebar's life sentence and ordered his release subject to payment of fines, and terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court.

The Court noted that other similarly situated co-convicts had been granted similar relief and released on bail. It further observed that in a connected matter, CBI's appeal against acquittal of one of the accused had been allowed by a 3-judge bench and the matter relegated to the High Court for consideration on merits. Also, revision petitions filed by the de-facto complainant were pending before the High Court.

Plea In Supreme Court For Proper Investigation Of Rape Of 4 Year Old Girl In Gurugram

A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking investigation by the Central Burueu of Investigation or by a Special Investigation Team into the rape of a 4-year-old girl in Gurugram.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the petitioners, orally mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India, seeking urgent hearing, saying that the Gurugram police "have done nothing."

Rohatgi submitted that though the girl has given a statement to the Magistrate detailing the horrific offence, the police have done nothing. "There is no arrest made. The site has not been secured. No CCTV taken. Household maids are involved," Rohatgi submitted.

Supreme Court Accepts Proposal To Hold Tripura Village Committee Elections By June 2026

Case Details: Pradyot Deb Burman v. Union of India | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No. 786/2025

The Supreme Court on March 18, 2026 accepted the proposal of the Tripura State Election Commission to complete elections to Village Committees under the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) by June 2026, and directed that the timeline be strictly adhered to.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan was hearing a writ petition filed by Pradyot Deb Burman concerning delays in conducting local body elections in the State.

Taking on record a compliance affidavit filed by the State Election Commission, the Court noted the proposed schedule indicating that the entire election process for Village Committees would take approximately 72 days. The Commission stated that the process could begin immediately after the completion of District Council elections and conclude by the end of June 2026.

NCERT Textbook Row : Centre Informs Supreme Court Of Expert Committee Members Reviewing Chapter On Judiciary

Case Details: Dr Pankaj Pushkar v. Union of India and Anr., Diary No.13060/2026

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that Senior Advocate and former Attorney General for India KK Venugopal, former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra, and National Judicial Academy Director and former Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose, will be the members of the Expert Committee proposed to be constituted by the Central Government to review the NCERT's controversial chapter on judicial corruption.

SG Mehta made this statement before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi during the hearing of another petition seeking the removal of certain other observations regarding a Supreme Court judgment from the old social science textbook of NCERT.

"We have appointed a committee, as a jurist we requested and he has accepted - Mr. Venugopal. He will be a member of the committee in drafting the chapter.  Justice Indu Malhotra would be the judge. We have requested Justice Aniruddha Bose, as Judicial Director, to be kind enough to associate, and there will be one Vice Chancellor," SG Mehta said.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Curb "Brahmophobia" & Hate Speech Against Brahmin Community

Case Details – Mahalingam Balaji v. Union of India

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking recognition of hate speech targeting the Brahmin community, described as “Brahmophobia,” as a punishable form of caste-based discrimination.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan initially dismissed the plea after briefly hearing petitioner Mahalingam Balaji, who appeared in person. The petitioner later mentioned the matter, seeking permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

Ultimately, the Court allowed him to withdraw the plea with the final order, "The petitioner who has appeared in person has sought permission to withdraw this petition. His submission is placed on record. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

'No Political Battles In Court': Supreme Court Rejects Woman's Plea Alleging Threats At Behest Of Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah

Case Details: Sushma S Aradhya and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 108/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by a woman alleging threats at the behest of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah with the intention of capturing her property.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the case as withdrawn, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the Karnataka High Court. When the petitioner requested for a direction to ensure her safety on entering the state, Justice Mehta pointed out that there was an option available to e-file the plea.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel claimed that she had to relocate from Karnataka to Delhi due to the persistent threats. In response, Justice Nath questioned, "Karnataka Chief Minister is sending people behind you in Delhi?"

Advocate Alleges Police Detained Runaway Couple; Supreme Court Asks To Approach Delhi High Court First

The Supreme Court refused to interfere in a matter seeking protection of a runaway couple who are fearing honor killing. The bench asked the parties to first approach the High Court under Article 226.

The bench urged the parties to approach the High Court today itself.

Advocate Harvinder Chaudhary mentioned the plea before the bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi.

Supreme Court Bench With No CJI Or Future CJI To Hear Plea Challenging Law On Election Commissioners' Appointment

Case Details - Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and Connected Cases

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recused from hearing writ petitions against the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which dropped the CJI from committee to appoint Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi indicated that the case will be placed before a bench in which no judge is in line to become CJI.

The Court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging provisions of the Act which removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel appointing Election Commissioners (ECs).

'People Have Right To Criticise Our Judgments': Supreme Court On Plea Against Old NCERT Chapter On Verdicts About Slums

Case Details: Pankaj Pushkar v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 306/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition which sought to remove a remark against judgments from NCERT's old Social Science textbook for Class 8, observing that expressing a viewpoint about a verdict was not wrong.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was hearing a petition which took objection to the remark “recent judgments tend to view the slum dweller as an encroacher in the city” in the old Class 8 social science text book.

"It's a viewpoint about a judgment. That's a healthy criticism. Why the judiciary should be so oversensitive about that? This part of the book points out what is the structure of the judiciary, how they work, what they have done, some good has also been highlighted. Then they say however there are also Court judgments that people believe work against the best interests of common persons...This is a viewpoint about a judgment, people have a right to criticize our judgments", said the CJI.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stop BMC From Cutting 46K Mangroves For Versova-Bhayander Coastal Road

Case Details: Vanashakti v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation | D No. 12005/2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's order allowing the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to remove over 45,000 mangrove trees for the construction of the proposed Versova–Bhayandar coastal road.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition filed by an environmental organisation, Vanashakti, challenging the High Court's order passed on December 12, 2025. The High Court granted permission subject to the condition that the BMC to file annual status reports for ten years, detailing progress on mangrove restoration and compensatory afforestation.

Observing that the proposed road will have a "significant and beneficial impact on the general public as it will decongest the western highway", and noting that the High Court has imposed suitable conditions, the Supreme Court declined interference. "There will be other significant advantages for the residents of Mumbai due to the construction of the road," the Court observed.

Wildlife Surveillance & Tribal Privacy: Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Approach Ministry

Case Details – Trishant Tapankumar Simlai v. State of Uttarakhand

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL alleging that surveillance technologies such as camera traps and drones deployed in forest and tiger reserve areas across the country are capturing identifiable images of tribal communities without notice or consent.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi permitted the petitioners to submit a representation before the competent authorities.

The petition was filed by a Professor at the University of Cambridge seeking the court's intervention against misuse of conservation surveillance technologies in forest areas across the country.

Chambal Sanctuary | Supreme Court To Hold Officials Vicariously Liable For Wildlife Destruction Due To Illegal Sand Mining

Case Details: In Re: Illegal Sand Mining In The National Chambal Sanctuary and Threat To Endangered Aquatic Wildlife Versus, SMW(C) No. 2/2026

The Supreme Court expressed an intention to hold officials of the states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh vicariously liable for destruction of wildlife habitats in the National Chambal Sanctuary area due to their "lethargy and inaction" in preventing illegal sand mining.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with the suo motu case taken up over illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary and the threat to endangered aquatic wildlife, including gharials.

When the matter came up, Justice Mehta said that detailed consideration of all aspects would be made after receiving response from various state governments and departments. However, at present, the Court may observe that, "every act of destruction of wildlife habitat in a protected area would attract offenses and penalties under the Wildlife Protection Act, the Environment Protection Act, the Forest Conservation Act, the Biological Diversity Act, and the Indian Forest Act as well as other applicable statutes and Rules framed thereunder."

'You Are Not Marrying A Maid, Husband Also Must Contribute To Cooking' : Supreme Court Tells Man

In a matrimonial case where the husband is seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, the Supreme Court orally observed that allegations such as wife not adequately performing household chores (like cooking etc.) do not amount to cruelty.

The Court emphasized that the times have changed and the husband as well must contribute to such affairs. "You're not marrying a maid, you're marrying a life partner", remarked Justice Sandeep Mehta.

"You have to contribute in this cooking, washing, etc. Today's times are different", added Justice Vikram Nath.

Blackmailing By Digital Platforms Like Digital Arrest : CJI Surya Kant

Case Details: Hemendra Patel v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 311/2026

The Chief Justice of India agreed with a statement made by the Solicitor General of India that some digital platforms act like "blackmailers."

CJI Surya Kant said that such blackmailing is something like "digital arrests."

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition seeking to regulate the police act of posting the pictures of accused on their official social media accounts.

Criminals Started Coming Into Legal Profession, BCI Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: K R Sudersan v. Chairman Bar Council of India and Anr., Diary No. 12032-2026

Criminals have started coming to the legal profession, said the Bar Council of India in the Supreme Court, defending a judgment of the Madras High Court barring the enrollment of law graduates with pending cases related to serious offences.

The Court however issued notice on a plea challenging the 2017 Madras High Court judgment which approved a direction for State Bar Councils to not enroll any law graduate with pending criminal cases (subject to few exceptions) till appropriate changes are brought in by the legislature.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta considered the matter.

'Await Guidelines On Press Briefings' : Supreme Court Disposes Plea To Regulate Social Media Postings By Police

Case Details: Hemendra Patel v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 311/2026

The Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking guidelines on the posting of images of accused persons by the police on their official social media accounts.

The Court noted that in another PUCL case, directions were issuedto the States to frame guidelines for media briefings by the police. The Court observed that those guidelines could cover social media postings as well. The Court therefore suggested that the petitioner await the outcome of the guidelines.

Taking the Court's suggestion, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioner, withdrew the matter. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi heard the matter.

Supreme Court Seeks Data From All States/UTs On Prison Occupancy

Case Details: Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 406/2013

The Supreme Court directed all the States and the Union Territories to file their affidavits on the latest condition of prisons.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order in the PIL concerning overcrowding of prisons across the country.

The bench considered the submission of Adv Gaurav Agrawal, the amicus curiae in the matter,that the Court does not have on record the latest statistics regarding the condition of state-wise prisons.

Supreme Court To Hear Chhattisgarh Court Employee's Plea To Pursue LL.B As Regular Student

Case Details: Ajit Choubelal Gohra v. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors. | Petition(S) For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 9672/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's order, which held that permitting a probationary employee (Respondent-1) of the Principal District and Session Court to attend his third-year of LLB course as a regular student is not permissible under the Service Rules.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in a special leave petition challenging the January 27 order, which stated that such permission has direct implications on administrative discipline, office functioning, and statutory compliance.

As per brief facts, in September 2022, an employee was appointed as an Assistant Grade-III in the Court of Principal District and Session Court (Appellant-2) for a probation period of three years.

Placing National Emblem On Supreme Court's Dome To Be Considered On Administrative Side By SC

Case Details: Badaravada Venugopal @ Bara Khatarnak v. Union of India and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 261/2026

The Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking installation of the National Emblem on the dome of the Court's building, observing that the issue would be examined on the administrative side.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition filed by Badarvada Venugoapl @ Bara Khatarnak seeking a direction to install the National Emblem atop the dome of the Supreme Court building. At the outset, the Chief Justice indicated that the Court was in the process of constructing a new building and the matter could be considered in that context.

"We are constructing a new building, we will deal with it then," the Chief Justice remarked.

'Shocking' : Supreme Court Slams Haryana Police For Insensitive Probe Into Rape Of 4-Year-Old Girl

Case Details: Xxx v. State of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2026

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the Haryana Police handled the investigation into the rape of a four-year-old girl, terming the conduct of the probe "shocking" and insensitive.

The Court also took serious note of the complaint that the Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the victim in close proximity to the accused persons.

The Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram and the Investigating Officer to remain personally present before the Court on March 25, with the complete record of the investigation. The Court further asked the Sessions Court, Gurugram, to obtain the comments of the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the child's statement.

'Obstinate Attitude' : Supreme Court Raps West Bengal For Stalling Kolkata's Orange Line Metro Project

Case Details: State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Upamanyu Bhattacharya and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 7926/2026

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the West Bengal Government for delaying the implementation of the Kolkata's Orange Line Metro project connecting New Garia to Salt Lake Sector V., observing that the State had exhibited an "obstinate attitude" in stalling a public infrastructure initiative.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi dismissed the petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging an order passed by the Calcutta High Court in December last year directing the authorities to identify two consecutive weekend night traffic blockade dates to enable the construction of metro piers at the busy Chingrighata junction. The High Court had rejected the State's argument that traffic blockades cannot be imposed due to the festival season.

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the State challenging the High Court's direction issued to facilitate the expeditious construction of a public utility project.

Supreme Court Says Allahabad HC Judge 'Abdicated Responsibility' By Not Clarifying If Quashing Order Applied To Co-Accused

Case Details: Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Diary No. - 61335/2024

The Supreme Court criticised an Allahabad High Court judge for failing to clarify whether an order quashing criminal proceedings applied to co-accused persons, and directed that related petitions be heard by another Bench of the High Court.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan said the High Court's refusal to clarify the scope of its earlier order had created confusion before the trial court. It requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to assign the pending petitions arising from the same FIR to a Judge or Bench other than the one who passed the earlier orders, and to ensure their disposal within three months.

The Court observed that the High Court had dismissed a clarification application as “misconceived” despite the existence of multiple pending petitions by co-accused persons in the same case. It termed the non-consideration of the clarification request through a non-speaking and unreasoned order as “absolutely erroneous.”

'Nothing Left To Decide' : Supreme Court Disposes Plea Challenging Sonam Wangchuk's Detention Noting His Release

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

The Supreme Court disposed of the habeas corpus petition filed by Dr Gitanjali Angmo challenging the detention of Ladakh activist and her husband Sonam Wangchuk's detention under the National Security Act(NSA) as illegal.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale noted that the Union Government on March 14 revoked the detention, and the petition therefore has become infructuous. The bench orally observed that there was nothing left in the matter to decide.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioner, initially sought the posting of the matter after vacation.

Supreme Court Transfers Ilaiyaraaja's Copyright Suit Against Sony From Madras HC To Bombay High Court

Case Details: Sony Entertainment India Private Limited v. Ilaiyaraaja | T.P.(C) No. 2843/2025 Diary No. 57978 / 2025

The Supreme Court (March 23) allowed a transfer petition filed by Sony Entertainment seeking to transfer a copyright suit ed by music maestro Dr. Ilaiyaraaja in the Madras High Court to the Bombay High Court.

Sony filed a copyright infringement suit on January 13, 2022, before the Bombay High Court seeking a permanent injunction against Ilaiyaraaja to restrain him from infringing its copyrights in the sound recordings and underlying literary and musical works.

Whereas, Ilaiyaraaja instituted a similar suit on September 10, 2025, before the Madras High Court. He sought to restrain Sony Music, Echo Recording Company Ptv Lrd and Oriental Records from using, exploiting the sound recordings and musical works and has also challenged the ownership, right and title of Sony in the song recordings.

Claims Of Rs 2983 Crores Against ADAG Companies Settled For Rs 26 Crores In IBC Proceedings : Supreme Court Notes From ED Report

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

The Supreme Court noted from a report of the Enforcement Directorate that debts worth Rs 2983 crores of certain companies of the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) were settled in insolvency proceedings for merely Rs 26 crores. All these acquisitions were facilitated by 8 Non-Banking Finance Companies through "Project Help", the Court noted.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a plea seeking an investigation into the alleged loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) companies. Earlier, deprecatingthe "unexplained delay" on the part of agencies in investigating the matter, the Court had asked the ED and CBI to expeditiously probe the matter.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that a Special Investigation Team comprising ED officers has been constituted and the probe is ongoing.

Pattali Makkal Katchi Dispute : Supreme Court Asks PMK To Approach Civil Court To Seek Symbol Freezing

Case Details: Ms. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Election Commission of India | SLP(C) No. 9877/2026

The Supreme Court asked  Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) party to approach the Trial Court seeking the freezing of the 'mango' symbol in the upcoming assembly elections till the dispute relating to the party leadership involving the founder Dr S Ramadoss and his son Anbumani Ramadoss is settled.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition filed by PMK, which challenged the Madras High Court's refusal to entertain the writ petitions seeking to declare S Ramadoss as the Party President and freezing the mango symbol. The High Court had taken the view that since the dispute relating to the election of the Party President was pending before the Trial Court, the symbol dispute should also be decided there.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's approach cannot be faulted. "It is correct that such a dispute between the two rival groups claiming the symbol of an unrecognised political party cannot be decided by the Election Commission," the bench observed. However, the Court said that the aggrieved party is not without remedies. The Court allowed Ramadoss to file an application before the Civil Court tomorrow itself to seek the freezing of the symbol.

'Cabs Should Accommodate Wheelchairs', Says Supreme Court While Hearing PIL

Case Details: Shivjeet Singh Raghaw v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 789/2024

In a PIL seeking reliefs with respect to persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court emphasised the need for cabs plying across the country to accommodate wheelchairs and/other assistive devices of PwDs.

Considering the heavy reliance on cabs, especially in metropolitan cities, the Court orally suggested the use of carriers and specially modified cabs for PwDs to ensure their effective access to the cab service.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta adjourned the matter till March 24, calling for the assistance of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.

Magistrate Recorded 4-Yr Old Rape Victim's Statement In Front Of Accused : Rohatgi Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Xxx v. State of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2026

In relation to a 4-year old girl's rape case, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi flagged before the Supreme Court the issue of insensitivity on part of police officials and Courts while dealing with sexual offenses.

The senior counsel urged the top Court to lay down certain guidelines, so that a victim does not get "re-traumatized" at the pre-trial stage - the stage where the trauma endured by the victim is "fresh". "That trauma is increasing because of the insensitivity of everybody", Rohatgi said.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was dealing with the rape case of a 4-year old girl, whose parents have approached the Court seeking an investigation by the CBI or a Special Investigation Team, deeming the investigation by Haryana Police to be dissatisfactory.

Can Courts Be Rigid In Barring Post-Facto Environmental Clearances Absolutely? Supreme Court Asks In Vanashakti Review

Case Details – Vanashakti v. Union of India

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a writ petition filed by NGO Vanashakti challenging the legal framework permitting ex post facto environmental clearances.

The matter arises from the Court's earlier decision recalling its own order that had prohibited retrospective environmental approvals.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for Vanashakti submitted that legislation or delegated legislation could not permit ex-post facto environmental clearance under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act.

Identify How Many Special Courts Needed To Complete UAPA Trials Within 1 Year : Supreme Court To States

Case Details: In Re: Creation of Special Exclusive Courts Versus, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026

The Supreme Court called on 17 States/UTs to identify and report as to how many exclusive courts are required by them to ensure that trial in UAPA cases are conducted on day-to-day basis and completed "under all circumstances" within 1 year.

"State govts shall identify how many exclusive courts are required to be established for conducting trials in UAPA-related matters on day-to-day basis, with categorical commitment that each trial shall be completed in all circumstances within 1 year. After such evaluation, the viewpoint of states be placed on record within 4 weeks," the Court observed in its order.

The Court also urged the High Courts to take necessary steps to ensure the appointment of adequate court staff for the effective functioning of the concerned courts. It further directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and any other central or state investigating agencies to ensure that at least one dedicated Public Prosecutor (PP) is made available for each such court.

Supreme Court Adjourns Plea Against Nimisha Priya's Execution Sine Die

Case Details: Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council v. Union of India and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 649/2025

The Supreme Court adjourned 'sine die' (without giving a date) the plea by Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council seeking directions to secure the release of Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya, who is on the death row in Yemen.

The Court was informed that negotiations for saving Priya were underway.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta recorded the submission of the counsel for the petitioners and ordered that the parties are at liberty to get the matter listed again through an application if there was a change in circumstances and the matter needed to be revived.

Manipur Violence: Supreme Court Expresses Unhappiness Over Delay In Appointing Legal Aid Counsel For Victims

Case Details – Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei

The Supreme Court expressed unhappiness over the delay in appointing legal aid counsel for victims of sexual violence during the Manipur ethnic violence, observing that compliance with its earlier directionshad not been ensured even after a month.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a batch of petitions concerning investigation and trial of sexual violence cases that occurred during the Manipur crisis.

During the hearing, the Court questioned the Legal Services Authorities of Manipur and Assam (where the trials have been shifted) on the continued delay in finalising panel lawyers for the victims.

Can ED Go To State Police If CM Barges Into ED Raid? Supreme Court Asks West Bengal

Case Details – Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

The Supreme Court orally asked if the Enforcement Directorate can seek a remedy from the State Government against the alleged obstruction of its raid of the I-PAC office by Chief Minister, Mamata Banerjee.

The Court posed this question, addressing the preliminary objections raised by the State of West Bengal to the maintainability of the petitions filed by the ED and its officers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the alleged obstruction of the ED's raid of the I-PAC, the political consultant of Trinamool Congress.

The Court also orally commented that the ED officers can also individually maintain an Article 32 petition against the violation of their fundamental rights, as ED officers do not cease to be citizens of India.

Except West Bengal, SIR Took Place Smoothly In Other States: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court orally observed that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls had been conducted smoothly across the country except in West Bengal, while hearing a batch of petitions relating to the ongoing revision exercise in the State.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with petitions, including one filed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, challenging aspects of the revision exercise and the characterisation of certain voters in the “logical discrepancy” list.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice referred to an article discussing the progress of the revision exercise across States.

Supreme Court Expresses Reluctance To Set Timeline For Centre To Decide Citizenship Of CAA-Protected Refugees

Case Details: Aatmadeep v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 034474/2025

The Supreme Court expressed reluctance to set timelines for the Centre to decide applications seeking Indian citizenship as per the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, saying that it was a matter for executive decision, where "minimised judicial intervention" was desirable.

The Court was hearing aplea seekingcitizenship for refugees from Bangladesh in West Bengal, who are eligible for the benefit of the CAA. The petitioners raised the apprehension that they might be disenfranchised in the SIR process, as their CAA applications have not been processed.

The Court orally noted that there is a statutory regime in place (Citizenship Amendment Act 2019) and now it is for the Centre to see how it has to give effect to it.

Keeping 400 Deers In AN Jha Deer Park Having Capacity For 34 'Grave Cruelty' : Supreme Court

Case Details: New Delhi Nature Society Through Verhaen Khanna v. Director Hotriculture Dda & Ors. | SLP(C) No. 013374 - 013375 / 2025

The Supreme Court observed that keeping 400 spotted deer in Delhi's A.N. Jha Deer Park, having a capacity of only 34 deer, was 'grave cruelty' and expressed the need for relocation to forest ranges identified by the expert committee (CEC)

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the case relating to the relocation of a spotted deer from Delhi's A.N. Jha Deer Park to Rajasthan.

In November 2025, the bench had stopped the translocation, noting a 'distressing pattern of negligence' on the Delhi Development Authority's (“DDA”) part while translocating deer.

CBI Moves Supreme Court Seeking Bail Cancellation Of Two Accused In Manipur Violence Case

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arun Khundongbam @Nanao, Diary No. 7602-2026; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei, Diary No. 7619-2026

The Central Bureau of Investigation has moved the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to two persons accused of gangrape and parading women naked during the Manipur ethnic clashes of 2023.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and issued notice on CBI's plea, calling for the response of the accused. It further directed provision of free legal aid to the victims.

The matter was listed alongwith another plea filed by a third accused seeking bail, after his prayer for bail was rejected by the High Court. In this case, notice had been issued earlier.

'Need Of The Hour' : Supreme Court Issues Notice On SCBA Plea To Create Dedicated Welfare Fund For SC Advocates

Case Details – Supreme Court Bar Association v. Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Assocaition seeking the creation of a dedicated welfare fund for advocates practicing before the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice to the Supreme Court on its administrative side, the Union of India, the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Delhi.

SCBA President Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, submitted that there was a statutory vacuum. "In the Advocate Welfare Fund Act there is a reference to vakalatnama in Supreme Court but the money will go to the Delhi Bar Council. SCBA is completely out in the Act," Singh submitted.

Supreme Court Expunges Kerala HC Remarks About Woman In Rape Case Against MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil

Case Details: Xxxx v. Rahul Br and Others | SLP(Crl) No. 5050/2026

The Supreme Court expunged the remarks made by the Kerala High Court against the woman, who raised rape allegations against Kerala MLA Rahul Mamkootathil, while granting anticipatory bail to him in the case for alleged rape and forced miscarriage of pregnancy.

A Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh was dealing with the challenge to the Kerala High Court's judgment of February 12, granting relief to the former Congress legislator.

Senior Advocate PV Dinesh, instructed by Advocate Subhash Chandran KR, for the petitioner, submitted that the victim's grievance was primarily regarding the observations made by the High Court, which suggested that the relationship was consensual. He submitted that such observations could adversely affect the trial. The counsel submitted that the petitioner was not pressing for cancellation of the bail.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against MHA Circular On Vande Mataram, Says No Penalty Prescribed For Not Singing It

Case Details: Mohamemd Sayeed Noori v. Union of India | WP(C) No. 341/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the singing of all stanzas of the national song 'Vande Mataram' in official functions and schools, observing that the circular has not made the singing of the song compulsory.

Noting that there is no penal consequence prescribed for not singing the song, the Court observed that the petitioner's apprehensions regarding social discrimination against those who refused to sing it were "vague." The Court dismissed the petition, recording that it was "premature."

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a writ petition filed by Muhammed Sayeed Noori challenging thecircular issued by the MHA on January 28 regarding the singing of the entire stanzas of Vande Mataram and the subsequent protocol issued for its singing in offices and schools.

'Haryana Police Tried To Protect Accused In 4-Year-Old's Rape Case' : Supreme Court Forms SIT

Case Details: Xxx v. State of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2026

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Haryana police for derailing the investigation in the case of the rape of a 4-year-old girl in Gurugram, and constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to take over the investigation.

The Court observed that the police tried to dilute the gravity of the offence. Though there was prima facie evidence to indicate the offence of 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault' under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the police registered the FIR only for 'aggravated sexual assault' under Section 10, a lesser offence.

In a scathing order, the Court observed, "It's a glaring case where police have made all-out efforts to protect the accused."

'Never Dare To Do It' : CJI Surya Kant Slams Man For Contacting His Brother Over Child's Case

Case Details: Nikhil Kumar Punia and Anr v. Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 21/2026

In a medical admission-related matter, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant slammed a person for telephoning his brother in connection with an order passed by him. The CJI questioned why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the petitioner's father, who apparently made the call.

The curious development took place in a case where two General Category candidates were seeking admission in minority quota in a Buddhist medical college on the ground that they had converted to Buddhism. A bench led by the CJI, in January, had expresseddoubts about the bona fides of the conversion and had ordered an inquiry into the minority certificates of the petitioners.

Uttam Nagar Holi Violence: Supreme Court Allows Petitioners To Approach Delhi Police Seeking Protection For Tarun's Family

Case Details: Hari Shankar Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 336/2026

The Supreme Court allowed the petitioners, who filed a petition seeking security for the the family members of 27-year old Tarun Butolia, who died in a violent clash during Holi celebrations at Uttam Nagar, Delhi, to make a representation to the Delhi Police Commissioner.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order in a writ petition filed by Hari Shankar Jain, Ashish Kumar Dwivedi, Harinandan Singh and Yogesh Kumar.

Declining a CBI investigation, the Court stated,

'Patriotism Can't Be Compelled': Sanjay Hegde To Supreme Court On Vande Mataram Row; CJI Asks 'Not Even For National Anthem?'

Case Details: Muhammed Sayeed Noori v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 341/2026

Assailing the MHA circular regarding singing of national song-Vande Mataram in schools, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde stressed before the Supreme Court the importance of protecting individual conscience and contended that "patriotism cannot be compelled".

In this regard, CJI Surya Kant questioned the senior counsel whether the same argument applies in the context of the National Anthem as well. "Patriotism per se cannot be compelled. If the Constitution has to mean anything, as far as an individual is concerned, it has to protect individual conscience. Our tradition teaches tolerance" replied Hegde.

A bench of CJI Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was hearing a writ petition filed by Muhammed Sayeed Noori challenging the circular issued by the MHA on January 28 regarding the singing of entire stanzas of Vande Mataram and the subsequent protocol issued for its singing in offices and schools.

Post-Facto Environmental Clearance Allows Impermissible Projects To Continue Till State Intervenes: Supreme Court Raises Concern

Case Details – Vanashakti v. Union of India

The Supreme Court expressed concerns that allowing the grant of post-facto environmental clearance would result in projects, which are harmful to the environment, continuing until state intervention.

The Court noted that in contrast, if a prior environmental sanction is treated as non-negotiable, authorities would be duty-bound to stop any activity undertaken without it.

“When laws are made, they are made uniformly. But they are not applied uniformly. If the OM says it will be closed, it will only be closed when you implement that OM effectively. The cleansing effect that you want to make will not really give any significant difference to the impact on the environment. If we say prior consent is not negotiable then anything done without prior consent, you are duty bound to stop. If OM regime comes in, then everything is permissible till you implement the OM and close it”, Justice Bagchi said.

Menace Of Citing AI-Generated Fake Judgments Rampant Not Just In India, Across World : Supreme Court

Case Details: Heart and Soul Entertainment Ltd.V. Deepak S/O Shivkumar Bahry | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 3090/2026

Relying On Ai For Legal Research Risky, Platforms Like Chatgpt Have Generated Fake Case Details Citations: Justice Gavai

The Supreme Court stated that the practice of citing AI-generated non-existent judgments is a "menace" which is been rampant not just in India but across the world. It cautioned parties to be careful.

These remarks were made by a bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi in a special leave petition filed by the Director of a Company, seeking to expunge the remarks made by the Bombay High Court after he cited a non-existent judgment generated using artifical intelligence. The matter pertains to the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

Vide an order dated January 7, the Bombay High Court in paragraph 22 made certain remarks that the submissions of the appellant were generated using Chat GPT, including a judgment which had no citation in the real world. It said that the High Court and its law clerks were at pains to find out the caselaw but could not do so. It said:

Supreme Court Urges P&H HC To Consider Request To Relax 45% Minimum Mark Condition For SC Candidates In Civil Judge Exam

Case Details: Diksha Kalson v. State of Haryana & Ors | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 11430/2026

The Supreme Court requested the Punjab and Haryana High Court to "sympathetically consider" a request to relax for the Scheduled Caste category candidates the condition of securing 45% in the mains examination for the recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division), held as per the advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission in January 2024.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a Scheduled Caste woman, Diksha Kalson, who sought accommodation on the grounds that she failed to meet the criteria by only 1.9 marks. She also stated that only 9 candidates were recommended for appointment as Civil Judge(Junior Division) from the Scheduled Caste category against a total of 39 vacancies.

As per her plea, Kalson scored 493.10 marks out of 1100 and failed to meet the criteria by a narrow margin of 1.9 marks. The cut-off marks for the Scheduled Caste category were 495 marks. She stated that she was awarded zero marks for one of her answers in the English paper, which all authorities having repute in the English language attested to be correct.

Plea Moved In Supreme Court Against Anticipatory Bail To Swami Avimukteshwaranand In POCSO Case

A Special Leave Petition has been moved in the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court's March 25 order granting anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in the Prayagraj POCSO Case over alleged sexual abuse of minors.

Ashutosh Brahmachari, the first informant in the case, has filed the petition through AOR Saurabh Ajay Gupta, arguing that the High Court failed to adequately consider the severity of the allegations against Swami.

It may be recalled that the High Court granted relief to the Shankaracharya of the Jyotir Math partly due to what it termed the 'unusual' behavior of the minor victims, who chose to confide about the alleged offences in a stranger (the informant) rather than their natural guardians.

Sabarimala Reference | Courts Should Not Determine Essential Religious Practices : All India Muslim Personal Law Board Tells Supreme Court

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has told the Supreme Court that courts should refrain from determining what constitutes an “essential religious practice”, cautioning that such judicial scrutiny may amount to encroachment upon the freedom of religion guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

In its written submissions filed in the Sabarimala reference case, the Board argued that identification of the “core” of a religion is inherently subjective and dependent on the beliefs of followers, and therefore unsuitable for judicial determination.

The reference arises out of the review petitions filed against the 2018 verdict, which allowed the entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa temple. In November 2019, the Supreme Court, while hearing the review pleas, had referred certain questions relatedto religious freedom and Articles 25 and 26 to a larger bench. The nine-judge bench will commence the hearing from Arpil 7.

Bhojshala Temple - Kamal Maula Mosque Dispute : Supreme Court To Hear Plea On Videography

The Supreme Court will hear the dispute relating to the Bhojshala Temple cum Kamal Maula Mosque complex on April 1.

The petition has been filed by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, seeking that the objections recorded in the videography of the ASI excavation be also considered. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on March 16,observed that the objections will be considered at the time of final hearing.

Bhojshala is an 11th-century monument protected by the ASI. Hindus consider it a temple dedicated to Vagdevi, or Goddess Saraswati, while Muslims regard it as the Kamal Maula Mosque.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To ASI Director Over Failure To File Affidavit On Delhi Heritage Sites

Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India and Others SLP (C) 12213/2019

The Supreme Court issued a show-cause notice to the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) over failure to file an affidavit regarding the conservation of 173 heritage monuments in Delhi.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was considering the matter in the ongoing proceedings arising from a petition filed by Rajeev Suri concerning conservation and monitoring of monuments under various civic authorities in Delhi. The matter originally pertained to Gumti of Shaikh Ali, and was later expanded to other heritage buildings.

The Court noted that its previous order dated February 2, 2026 had required submission of status reports incorporating specific suggestions regarding monument inspection and documentation. Although the Court Commissioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, placed a summary indicating that 173 monuments fall under the purview of the ASI, no affidavit had been filed by the ASI in compliance with the directions.

Supreme Court Warns Gujarat Govt Of Contempt Proceedings Over Delay In Deciding Remission Pleas

Case Details – Mahesh Kumar Dhisalal Jangid v. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court warned the State of Gujarat of strict penal consequences, including possible suo motu contempt proceedings, for failing to decide applications for premature release of convicts within the timelines prescribed under its policy.

“It is further clarified that in future, if the above stipulation as per the policy itself is not implemented in its entirety and mandatorily, the same shall entail strict penal orders from this Court, including, but not limited to, initiation of suo motu contempt against all the persons who do not act in terms of the policy or if the final order does not come latest by the day on which the convict completes 14 years of actual incarceration”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was dealing with the case of a life convict whose premature release had not been decided despite completion of the required period of incarceration under the State policy.