Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: May 2026

Judgments

Supreme Court Quashes Bail Condition Requiring Accused To Vacate Home Solely To Prevent Alleged Offence Against Complainant

Cause Title: SACHIN YADAV VERSUS STATE (NCT of DELHI) & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 451

The Supreme Court has quashed a bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court that required the accused to vacate his residence solely to prevent any potential offence against the complainant living in the same building.

“The objects for imposing conditions to enjoy the concession of bail need no elucidation; but a condition that amounts to effective ouster from residence could be susceptible to an invalidation unless there is clear and cogent material to show that a lesser restrictive measure would not suffice. In the absence of such satisfaction, the condition would become punitive rather than preventive.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while allowing the accused's appeal against imposition of a condition by the High Court ousting him from his residence just to prevent commission of a crime against the complainant residing in the same building, where the accused resides.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, Delhi, under Sections 110(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 308 and 34 IPC). The FIR was lodged following a violent altercation between the appellant and the complainant, who are relatives residing in the same building.

Dowry Deaths 'Serious Social Problem', Particularly In UP, Bihar & Karnataka : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MAHESH CHAND VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 452

In a strong indictment of the continuing menace of dowry-related violence, the Supreme Court observed that dowry deaths remain a “serious problem in some sections of society”, particularly in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Karnataka, while cancelling the bail granted to an husband in a dowry death case.

The Court made these remarks while allowing an appeal filed by the father of a deceased woman, setting aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to the accused husband in a case involving allegations of harassment and death within seven years of marriage

"Over a period of time, we have noticed that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, young girls just married are being killed mercilessly at their matrimonial home for want of dowry. Either they are forced to commit suicide due to incessant harassment or are murdered for want of more dowry," the Court noted.

Article 226 Can't Be Invoked To Seek FIR Registration Without Availing Statutory Remedies : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SUJAL VISHWAS ATTAVAR & ANR. vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 453

The Supreme Court (May 4) has observed that Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked at the first instance to seek direction for registration of an FIR.

“If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's direction to the Police to record complainant's statements and proceed for FIR registration.

The complainant made a criminal allegation alleging that forged documents were used to apply for measurement of the property, and sought an action against Appellants who allegedly impersonated the company's director before the revenue authorities to facilitate such measurement.

Doctor's Legal Heirs Liable For Medical Negligence Under Consumer Protection Act : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Kumud Lall VERSUS Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 454

The Supreme Court (May 4) held that upon the death of a doctor, his or her legal heirs can be substituted in the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, but their liability for compensation arising from the doctor's alleged negligence is limited to the extent of the estate inherited from the deceased.

“...in view of the preceding discussion and the statutory framework provided in 1986 Act as well as 2019 Act, we conclude that upon the death of the alleged medically negligent doctor, his/her legal heirs can be impleaded and brought on record.”, observed a bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar while approving the NCDRC's findings that “the legal heirs shall be liable to satisfy the decretal amount to the extent payable from the estate left behind, on conclusion of the proceedings.”

The Court disagreed with the law laid down in NCDRC's decision in Balbir Singh Makol Vs. Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Others, 2001 (1) CPR 45, which had treated all claims as abating upon the death of a doctor, including the claim against pecuniary loss caused to the patient by the doctor's negligent acts. Instead, the Court held that claims for pecuniary losses would survive even after the death of the doctor under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, which can be settled through the doctor's legal heirs' estates to the extent of their share inherited.

Survival Of 'Right To Sue' On Legal Representatives Of Deceased Litigant : Supreme Court Explains Principles

Cause Title: Kumud Lall VERSUS Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 454

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court has summarised the principles regarding the continuation of the right to sue to the legal representatives, following the death of a party.

The Court clarified that traditional maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona (a personal action dies with the person) is not absolute in India and has been modified by statutes such as the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, Legal Representatives' Suits Act, 1855, and the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Legal representatives of a deceased person may institute fresh proceedings or be proceeded against, subject to statutory limitations under succession law. Whether a proceeding survives is determined by Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, not merely procedural provisions.

Supreme Court Suggests Expanding S.306 Succession Act To Allow Survival Of Tortious Claims On Legal Heirs

Cause Title: Kumud Lall VERSUS Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 454

The Supreme Court has recently recommended that the Law Commission of India re-examine Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to consider expanding its scope to include the tortious claims against deceased wrongdoers.

At present, Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act (“Act”) follows an old legal principle called “actio personalis moritur cum persona”, which means a personal legal action dies with the person. In simple terms, in many personal injury or tort cases, if the accused/negligent person dies before the adjudication of the case, the case may also come to an end.

Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 basically says that after a person dies, their legal rights and liabilities generally continue through their legal heirs or representatives. However, there are certain exceptions, such as cases involving defamation, assault, or other personal injuries that do not result in death, and cases where the relief becomes meaningless after the person's death. In the present case, the Court was mainly concerned with understanding and interpreting these exceptions.

Supreme Court Bars Candidates Without Law Degree On Date Of Advertisement From Rajasthan Asst Prosecution Officer Exam

Cause Title: RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VERSUS LAVANSHU SANKHLA & ORS. (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 455

The Supreme Court (May 4) declared several candidates ineligible for the Rajasthan Assistant Prosecution Officer Exam, 2024, noting that they lacked the requisite law degree at the time of submitting an application for examination.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, which had allowed the Respondent candidates to appear in the preliminary examination despite lacking a requisite law degree at the time of submitting an application form.

The Respondent-candidates sought permission to appear in the examination for Rajasthan APO, where 181 posts were advertised via a recruitment advertisement dated March 7, 2024. Possessing a law degree was one of the requirements for becoming eligible to appear in the examination. However, on the date of submission of an application, the Respondents lacked the requisite qualification, as they only acquired the requisite qualification on August 22, 2024.

If Right To Speedy Trial Violated, Bail Must Be Considered Regardless Of Crime's Seriousness : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SAHIL MANOJ MACHARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 456

Observing that the right to speedy trial can't be infringed regardless of the seriousness of the crime, the Supreme Court (May 4) granted bail to an undertrial accused of murder, noting his prolonged incarceration and no reasonable prospects of the trial being completed in the near future.

“We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while allowing the bail plea of the accused, who was in jail for past almost 4 years without examination of even a single witness.

An FIR against the appellant-accused was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) respectively. Aggrieved by the Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Bench's denial of bail, he moved to the Supreme Court.

'Fence Sitters' Can't Be Permitted To Raise Seniority Disputes After Third Party Rights Are Crystallised : Supreme Court

Cause Title: T. GNANAVEL VERSUS R. SASIPRIYA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 457

The Supreme Court (May 4) observed that 'fence-sitters,' i.e., persons who watch litigation from the sidelines without intervening, cannot be permitted to raise disputes relating to seniority and consequential promotion after the matter has concluded.

“It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be permitted to raise a dispute relating to seniority and consequential promotion or challenge the validity of an order after the matter has concluded. No party can claim relief as a matter of right, and one of the well-recognised grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the Court is guilty of delay and laches. A court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage the agitation of stale claims, particularly in matters of seniority and promotion, where the rights of third parties have crystallised in the interregnum.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan.

The principal dispute involved the Appellant, who was promoted as Assistant Engineer in 2005. This promotion was challenged by Respondent No.1 in 2005. The matter travelled through the High Court for nearly two decades, with Appellant and Respondent No.1 both receiving subsequent promotions to Assistant Executive Engineer (2007) and Executive Engineer (2016).

'Parameters For Sections 156(3) & 200 CrPC Are Different': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Allowing Second 156(3) Plea

Cause Title: MOHAN KARTHIK & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU, & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 458

The Supreme Court has held that the parameters governing the invocation of Sections 156(3) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 operate in distinct fields, setting aside a High Court order that had upheld a Magistrate's direction to register an FIR on a second application under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The second 156(3) CrPC application was filed by the complainant pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court to file a private complaint under S.200 CrPC against the police closure report. The Supreme Court stated that when liberty was granted to file S.200 private complaint, an application under S.156(3) cannot be filed, as if both are the same.

A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that the complainant's second recourse to Section 156(3), after an earlier rejection and closure of proceedings pursuant to a preliminary inquiry, was impermissible in law.

'Parties Happily Cohabited For 4 Yrs, Relationship Soured Later' : Supreme Court Quashes False Marriage Promise Rape Case

Case Title – Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 459

The Supreme Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape on false promise of marriage, observing that the relationship began was consensual over several years and was not induced by a false promise to marry as it began when both parties were already married to others.

“In the light of the admitted facts, parties had knowledge that they were married to some other spouse earlier and the admitted fact is that before obtaining a divorce, the respondent-complainant gave a matrimonial advertisement and before finalization of divorce, had sexual relationship and never complained of any force by the appellant for 04 years. We are of the opinion that this was not a case where a promise of marriage resulted in appellant deceiving the complainant. Parties have happily cohabited together between 2017 and 2020 and, thereafter, the relationship soured”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Manmohan set aside the Bombay High Court's order refusing to entertain the appellant's quashing petition on the ground that it was not maintainable as he had earlier withdrawn a petition to quash the same offence.

Corporate Veil Can Be Lifted To Include Assets Of Group Companies In CIRP Of Holding Company : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Alpha Corp Development Private Limited versus Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 460

The Supreme Court (May 5) observed that for protecting the rights of the homebuyers and paving a way for completion of the stalled real estate projects, the corporate veil may be lifted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated against the holding company, by allowing the inclusion of the assets of the subsidiary companies.

Setting aside the NCLAT's decision, which had refused to treat a subsidiary company's assets as part of the holding company's assets during the latter's CIRP, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe provided relief to homebuyers who had invested amounts to purchase dwelling units in the real estate company's housing projects. These projects had stalled because the NCLAT's decision did not consider a resolution plan for the corporate debtor's subsidiary companies.

“…when, in reality, associated or group companies are inextricably connected so as to form part of one concern, the corporate veil should be lifted.”, observed the Court, while rejecting the NCLAT's view which held that assets of the subsidiary company cannot be treated as part of the holding company assets, when CIRP was initiated against the holding company.

Companies Act 1956 | Entry In Register Of 'Members' Not Necessary To Maintain Plea Against Oppression/Mismanagement: Supreme Court

Case Title: DR. BAIS SURGICAL AND MEDICAL INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. & ORS. VERSUS DHANANJAY PANDE, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8973 OF 2010 (and connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 461

The Supreme Court recently upheld a stakeholder's locus to maintain a petition before the Company Law Board alleging oppression and mismanagement, holding that entry in the register of "members" is not the only mode of acquiring membership.

The Court observed that even in the absence of a formal entry in the appellant-company's register of members, respondent No.1 was entitled to be treated as a member for the purpose of maintaining proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (against oppression and mismanagement).

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the judgment, stating,

NDPS Act | Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Possessing 22 KG Ganja On Sole Ground Of Trial Delay

Cause Title: RAJADURAI VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 462

The Supreme Court (May 5) granted regular bail to a man accused of possessing nearly 22 kg of ganja, observing that he had remained in custody for over a year and that the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon, particularly as not a single witness has been examined so far.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan granted a discretionary relief to the Appellant-accused against whom an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii) (c) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), respectively.

The case involved a commercial quantity; therefore, the High Court refused to grant him bail, leading to the filing of a plea before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Cancels Default Bail Of 2 Accused In Haldwani Riots UAPA Case, Disapproves HC's Adverse Comments On Probe

Case Title: STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. JAVED SIDDIQUI & ANR., SLP(Crl.) No(s). 908 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 463

The Supreme Court recently cancelled the default bail granted to two accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in connection with the Haldwani Riots case of 2024.

Allowing the appeals filed by the State of Uttarakhand, the Court cancelled the bail granted to accused Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub, and directed them to surrender within two weeks.

The Court noted that the accused were not prompt in challenging the trial court's orders extending the time for completion of the investigation and rejecting bail. Since the investigation was completed within the extended time, the Supreme Court faulted the High Court for granting default bail.

Mere Exercise Of Supervisory Role Over Temple & Appointment Of Pujaris Won't Confer Title Upon It : Supreme Court

Cause Title: KISHAN CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VERSUS GAUTAM GAUR HITKARAK SABHA, KOTA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 463

The Supreme Court has observed that the mere fact that a group exercised a managerial or supervisory control over the temple would not ipso facto confer title of the temple upon them.

“The mere fact that the society exercised certain supervisory or managerial functions over the temple or participated in the appointment of “pujaris” would not ipso facto confer title upon it.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision, which had upheld the title of the Respondents over the temple 'Moorti Swarup Shri Govardhan Nath Ji' in Kota, Rajasthan, despite their failure to produce any document showing their title over the temple.

Supreme Court Directs NLU Delhi To Assess Union's Compliance With Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act

Case Title: JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION Versus U.O.I. AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 116/1998

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 464

The Supreme Court recently tasked the National Law University, Delhi with the assessment of Union of India's compliance with the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Notably, the Court had earlier directed 8 NLUs to undertake nationwide assessment of care institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities as well as compliance with the Act. This project was titled Project Ability Empowerment.

Recently, taking note of appointment of Nodal Officers by States/UTs, it directed that the compliance with the 2016 Act across the country be assessed by the 8 NLUs, with NLU Delhi extending its assessment to the Union of India.

Ensure Persons With Disabilities Scoring Above General Cut-Off Are Considered In Unreserved Vacancies : Supreme Court To Centre, States

Case Title: JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION Versus U.O.I. AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 116/1998

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 464

The Supreme Court has exhorted the Union and the States to implement the policy of "upward movement" for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD), as per which PwBDs, who score higher than the general cut-off on their own merit, will be considered against unreserved vacancies.

Noting that the Union Government has already issued executive instructions to ensure appointment and promotion of PwBDs on their own merit, the Court directed that the policy be adhered to in letter and spirit.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order.

Supreme Court Empowers District Collectors To Enforce Solid Waste Management Rules 2026, Issues Directives

Cause Title: BHOPAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VERSUS DR SUBHASH C. PANDEY & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 465

The Supreme Court has empowered District Collectors across the country to enforce the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, by delegating statutory powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to issue a notification under Section 23 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, delegating powers under Section 5 to District Collectors for a period of one year. These powers include the authority to issue binding directions, including coercive measures such as the stoppage of water and electricity supply to bulk waste generators who fail to comply with statutory obligations.

“…the MoEFCC is directed to issue a notification under Section 23 and delegate the powers under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, to the District Collectors across the country for a period of one year, exclusively for supervising, administering and implementing SWM Rules, 2026, within their jurisdictional limits. The District Collectors are directed to constitute and dedicate a 'Special Cell' not only to oversee the implementation, but in given circumstances, to issue directions for the stoppage of water/electricity to bulk generators of solid waste who disobey the directions or disregard the Rules. The District Collectors are directed to conduct virtual spot inspections of the dumping sites, implement the rules, and fortnightly prepare and forward the report to the designated Secretaries in the respective States. The directions, if any, issued by the District Collectors under the delegated authority are understood as directives issued in furtherance of the orders of this Court.”, the court ordered.

S.28 Specific Relief Act | Separate Application Not Needed To Rescind Agreement To Sell For Buyer's Default : Suprme Court

Cause Title: HABBAN SHAH VERSUS SHERUDDIN

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 466

The Supreme Court (May 6) observed that a decree-holder's failure to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated renders the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell inexecutable, resulting in rescission of the contract.

The Court held that a separate application by the judgment-debtor is not mandatory to rescind the contract for the buyer's default.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which had condoned the Respondent-plaintiff's delay in depositing the balance sale consideration, despite the decree specifically mentioning that the balance sale consideration had to be deposited within three months.

Disciplinary Authority Cannot Punish Employee For A Charge Not Originally Framed Without Fresh Show-Cause Notice : Supreme Court

Cause Title: DR. NIGAM PRAKASH NARAIN VS. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 467

The Supreme Court (May 6) held that a delinquent employee who has successfully defended the charge against him cannot be removed on the new charge on which he was not granted an opportunity to defend.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal filed by a retired paediatrician who had been barred from the Indian Medical Register for three months after failing to disclose, in a declaration form submitted during a National Medical Commission inspection at Patna Medical College, that he had previously served as a faculty member at another institution.

Initially, a notice was issued to the Appellant for the charge of submitting a fake faculty declaration form, which was successfully defended by him before the Ethics Committee; however, when the matter was remitted back for reconsideration, he was found guilty of an act of omission, which was at variance with the original charge of submitting a fake faculty declaration.

Supreme Court Grants Rs 56 Lakh Compensation For Motor Accident Leaving 14 Year Old 100% Disabled

Case: Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath & Ors

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 468

The Supreme Court has enhanced compensation to ₹56.83 lakh for a 14-year-old boy who suffered 100% permanent disability in a road accident, holding that the amounts awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Rajasthan High Court were grossly inadequate considering the lifelong impact of the injuries.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the appeal filed by Hansraj, who was 14 years old at the time of the 2016 accident.

The boy, who was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, suffered grievous injuries to his neck, head and backbone after the motorcycle hit the rear portion of a tractor trolley. He remained hospitalised for about 203 days and was left with 100% permanent disability.

'Revenue Record Doesn't Confer Title' : Supreme Court Summarises Principles On Revenue Entries & Land Ownership

Cause Title: VADIYALA PRABHAKAR RAO & ORS. VERSUS THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 469

The Supreme Court (May 6) reiterated that revenue entries serve as evidence of possession but do not constitute conclusive proof of ownership in the absence of valid title documents.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti affirmed the Andhra Pradesh High Court's Division Bench judgment, holding that revenue entries alone would not be sufficient to assert title over the land, unless title is proved through some primary documents.

The bench summarised the position of law regarding Revenue Entries and their legal effect on the question of title:

Para-Teachers' Claim For Regularisation Subject To Educational Standards Set By State : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS (With connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 470

The Supreme Court has observed that a contractually employed teacher cannot claim regularization through a judicial order as a matter of right merely on account of their long-term service, as it leads to creating a parallel mode of public recruitment outside statutory rules.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti said that while it is reasonable for the ad hoc teacher to “desire” to be a government teacher, it is also the State's duty to assess the “desirability” of candidates for ensuring quality education.

The Court effectively held that while para-teachers may legitimately aspire for regular government posts, the State retains the constitutional authority under Article 309 of the Constitution to determine who is suitable and qualified to hold teaching positions through statutory recruitment processes.

S.294 CrPC | Accused Can Exhibit Documents Already Part Of Chargesheet Without Formal Proof Of Signature : Supreme Court

Cause Title: R. GANESH VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 471

The Supreme Court has observed that when an accused seeks to exhibit on the defence side certain documents which already form part of the charge sheet and the prosecution's record, they need not undergo formal proof and can be read in evidence without proving the signature of the person purported to have signed them.

The Court relied on Section 294(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per which, proof of signature is not required to take the document on evidence if its genuineness is not disputed.

“If such document is not disputed, it can be read in inquiry, trial or other proceedings under Cr.P.C. without proving the signature of the person to whom it purports to be,” the Court observed.

'Cruel, Caste-Coloured' : Supreme Court Invalidates Odisha Courts' Bail Conditions Asking Dalit-Adivasi Accused To Clean Police Station

Case : In Re : Condition Being Imposed While Granting Bail By High Court Of Orissa and District Courts in the State of Odisha and ancillary issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 472

The Supreme Court of India came down heavily on courts in Odisha for imposing bail conditions that required accused persons from Dalit and Adivasi communities to clean police stations for a period of two months.

Taking serious exception to the directions, the Court termed the condition “obnoxious” and said it reflected a caste bias.

"We are deeply disappointed and disheartened, and express our strongest disapproval at the manner in which the Odisha State judiciary has, in fact regressed to a colonial mindset by imposing such onerous, degrading and humiliating conditions, whic are ex-facie violative of the human rights. Such conditions, far from advancing the cause of justice, strike at the dignity of the accused, and proceed on the premise of guilt, which is completely impermissible in law," the Court observed.

'Very Disturbing', Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convict In Jail For 22 Years, Faults Orissa HC For Rejecting Appeal On Delay

Cause Title: ARJUN JANI @ TUNTUN VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 473

The Supreme Court (May 7) granted bail to a murder convict who has spent more than 22 years in prison, expressing serious concern over the Orissa High Court's approach while dismissing his criminal appeal solely on the ground of delay without examining the matter on merits.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan described the High Court's order as “very disturbing”, observing that the High Court ought to have adopted a practical and sympathetic approach, particularly since the appeal had been filed from jail by a convict already undergoing life imprisonment.

The case concerned a petitioner who was convicted in 2006 by the trial court for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Consumers Cannot Be Made To Bear Power Plant Depreciation Costs For Period During Which No Electricity Was Supplied: Supreme Court

Cause Title: DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION VERSUS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 474

In a significant relief to the electricity consumers, the Supreme Court (May 7) has observed that electricity consumers cannot be burdened with paying depreciation costs for a power plant that no longer supplies electricity to them, even if the asset continues to have remaining technical life.

“…admittedly, electricity has not been supplied to the consumers beyond March-2018. The consumers cannot be required to pay for a service which they no longer received…”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, while allowing the appeal filed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and setting aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which had permitted the power generator to recover depreciation costs from consumers even after the plant ceased supplying electricity to them, despite the generator being free under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) framework to sell power elsewhere after the initial six-year supply period.

The Court noted that though the technical project life of the power plant was 15 years, that alone wouldn't grant an indefeasible right to the power generator to claim depreciation cost for the entire technical life of the project. In essence, the power plant can claim depreciation cost for the period it supplied power to the consumers, and not for the entire technical period.

Extending Time To File Chargesheet Without Hearing Accused Illegal : Supreme Court Grants Default Bail To UAPA Accused

Cause Title: Md. ARIZ HASNAIN @ ARIZ HASNAIN VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 475

The Supreme Court has ruled an accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC if the investigation agency fails to file the chargesheet within the statutory period and if the extension of time is granted without complying with mandatory procedural safeguards.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a case in which the accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was denied the statutory right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. after the investigation agency was granted an additional 25 days, beyond the initial 90-day period, to file the charge sheet without affording the accused an opportunity of hearing.

The case arose out of an FIR registered on November 7, 2023. The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on November 8, 2023. As the statutory 90-day period for filing the chargesheet was nearing completion, the investigating agency moved an application on February 2, 2024, seeking an extension of time by 25 days under Section 43-D(2) of the UAPA.

Railways 'Consumer' Under Electricity Act, Not Deemed Distribution Licensee : Supreme Court

Cause Title: INDIAN RAILWAYS VERSUS WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 476

The Supreme Court (May 8) has held Railways to be a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Electricity Act, 2003, thereby disentitling its claim to a status of 'deemed distribution licensee' to avoid payment of cross-subsidy surcharges and additional surcharge to the distribution companies.

The Court observed that Indian Railways operates a closed and self-contained electricity network solely for meeting its internal operational requirements, including traction, signalling, and station facilities, and therefore cannot be treated as a “distribution licensee”, since it does not supply electricity to external consumers outside its network.

“The erection of transmission lines or distribution lines as argued by the Appellant(Railways), cannot bestow upon the Appellant the authorisation to carry out supply of electricity that is procured by it, to third party consumers… It is only when electricity is sold or provided to consumers outside the operational domain of the railway, that the activities undertaken by the Appellant could intersect with the obligation of a distribution licensee.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

'No Automatic Recission Of Contract For Non-Deposit Within Time' : Supreme Court Summarises Principles On S.28 Specific Relief Act

Case : Anand Narayan Shukla v Jagat Dhari

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 477

The Supreme Court has summarised the legal principles governing rescission of contracts and extension of time in decrees for specific performance under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, holding that courts retain jurisdiction to extend time for payment even after expiry of the period fixed in the decree.

The Court held that there is no automatic rescission of a decree for specific performance merely because the purchaser failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated in the decree, and that courts retain the discretion to extend time based on the equities of the case. At the same time, if the decree itself specified that the contract will be rescinded on default, then the decree cannot be executed if there is a failure to comply with the time limit.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan allowed an appeal against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which had upheld the dismissal of his execution proceedings in a specific performance suit.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Meaningfully Read To See If Statutory Bar Is Veiled By Clever Drafting: Supreme Court

Cause Title: MANJULA AND OTHERS VERSUS D.A. SRINIVAS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 478

In a significant ruling on the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Supreme Court has held the trial courts must undertake a "meaningful and wholesome" reading of the plaint to see if a statutory bar has been concealed by way of clever drafting.

The Court also held that a plaint is liable to be rejected if there is a material suppression of fact.

"Courts below must curtail frivolous suits which are barred by law, and cases where the cause of action disclosed is illusory, by piercing the veil of clever drafting and giving a meaningful and wholesome reading to the plaint and accompanying documents, preferably at the earliest stage of the suit," the Court stated.

Property Purchased In Benami Transaction Can't Be Claimed By Real Owner On Basis Of Will Executed By Benamidar: Supreme Court

Cause Title: MANJULA AND OTHERS VERSUS D.A. SRINIVAS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 478

The Supreme Court has held that a person cannot claim ownership over property purchased in a benami transaction merely on the basis of a Will executed by the ostensible owner, observing that such testamentary arrangements cannot be used to defeat the statutory bar under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

The Court (May 8) held that properties purchased with funds provided by another person under a commercial contract do not qualify as 'fiduciary duty' for seeking an exemption under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Act), thereby making them liable for attachment by the Central Government.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan heard the case where both the Appellant-defendant and Respondent-plaintiff assert ownership over the suit property purchased in the name of one K. Raghunath, who remained an ostensible owner, as the funds utilised for the purchase of the property were invested by the plaintiff.

S. 25 Hindu Succession Act | Murder Accused Cannot Claim Inheritance Of Murdered Person's Property : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MANJULA AND OTHERS VERSUS D.A. SRINIVAS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 478

The Supreme Court recently disqualified a plaintiff from inheriting a property based on a Will executed by a deceased, after noting that the plaintiff was arrayed as an accused in the deceased's murder.

The Court disqualified the plaintiff by virtue of an operation of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which provides that a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered.

The bar under Section 25 applies to a person who seeks to inherit the estate of the deceased through testamentary succession. The Court reasoned that “a person must not be permitted to profit from or take advantage of his own wrong. This principle is reflected in the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio and the rule that no man may benefit from his own wrong.”

Supreme Court Orders Criminal Action Against Constable Who Joined Bihar & Jharkhand Police In Different Names

Cause Title: State Of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Noting that public employment cannot be transformed into an instrument of fraud, the Supreme Court (May 8) directed the initiation of criminal proceedings against a police constable accused of obtaining dual appointments in Jharkhand and Bihar Police under different identities.

While restoring the dismissal of the delinquent officer, the Court observed that criminal proceedings also initiated against him, as the matter involved serious offences of impersonation and fraud.

“Public employment, particularly in the police service, cannot be converted into an instrument of fraud. If individuals entrusted with enforcing the law themselves secure entry into service through deception and fabricated credentials, it would seriously erode the rule of law. In these circumstances, while restoring the disciplinary action, it is both necessary and appropriate to direct initiation of criminal proceedings in accordance with law.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan, while setting aside the Jharkhand High Court's Division Bench judgment which overturned his dismissal from the service.

Bank Cannot Invoke IBC Against Debtor Over Loan Directly Disbursed To Builder Linked To Construction Progress: Supreme Court

Cause Title: DHANLAXMI BANK LIMITED VERSUS MOHAMMED JAVED SULTAN & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 480

The Supreme Court has observed that the mechanism under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, cannot be invoked for recovery of debt, particularly when the dispute between the parties is predominantly contractual in character, involving competing claims relating to transfer of property and associated obligations.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was dealing with a case in which the appellant-bank(Dhanlaxmi Bank) had directly disbursed a sum of Rs. 1.34 crores to a builder, instead of the corporate debtor, for the latter's purchase of a property in the builder's real estate project. After the corporate debtor's account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), the bank initiated proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which resulted in recovery proceedings against the corporate debtor. Despite the pendency of such recovery proceedings, the bank subsequently initiated winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act against the corporate debtor, which were later transferred and treated as proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The NCLT upheld the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor after noting that a debt and default were established, prompting its suspended director to appeal to the NCLAT.

Non-Publication Of Marks Of Unsuccessful Candidates Wouldn't Raise An Inference That They Passed Examination : Supreme Court

Cause Title: DURGAPUR STEEL PLANT & ORS. VERSUS BIDHAN CHANDRA CHOWDHURY & ORS. (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 481

The Supreme Court has observed that where the recruitment rules or the advertisement do not provide for disclosure or publication of candidates' marks, a candidate whose name does not figure in the merit list cannot claim appointment solely on the ground that his or her marks were not disclosed.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard an appeal filed by Durgapur Steel Plant challenging the Calcutta High Court's direction to consider the respondents for appointment to the post of Plant Attendant. The High Court had issued the direction on the ground that the appellant, which had entrusted the recruitment examination to an independent agency, published only the select list of successful candidates without disclosing the marks or results of the remaining candidates, including the respondents.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Aradhe observed that in the absence of a mandate to publish the marks of the candidates, neither an adverse inference can be drawn against the recruiter that they had deliberately excluded the other candidates from selection, nor can an inference be drawn that the candidates had passed the exam.

BCI Cannot Issue Warning To Advocate When Misconduct Complaint Was Found Baseless : Supreme Court

Cause Title: PREM PAL SINGH VERSUS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 482

The Supreme Court has recently expunged an adverse remark made against an advocate during the proceedings before the Bar Council of India.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi noted that since the complaint against him for an alleged professional misconduct was dismissed by the concerned State Bar Council, whose decision was duly affirmed by the Bar Council of India (“BCI”), then it was unjustifiable for the BCI to record an adverse remark against an advocate.

A complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, was registered against the Appellant-Advocate, practicing in the Courts of Moradabad District, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant, who happened to be Appellant's sister's husband, alleged that the Appellant had threatened and intimated to him to kill him, over the growing tensions between the parties, due to an ongoing marital dispute between the Appellant's sister and her husband, i.e., the complainant.

Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Admission Made In Criminal Case Can Be Used In Civil Proceedings: Supreme Court

Cause Title: SHEIKH ABEDIN VERSUS IQBAL AHMED & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 483

The Supreme Court has observed that a judgment on an admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be based on an admission even contained outside the pleadings.

Refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and the High Court, a bench comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a plea filed by a defendant who had been directed to vacate the suit premises on the basis of admissions made by him in criminal proceedings, wherein he acknowledged that he was occupying the property merely as a caretaker under the plaintiff.

In a complaint filed, which led to the registration of the FIR, the appellant had admitted that he was the caretaker of the suit owned by the respondent.. Relying on this admission, the trial court decreed the suit for mandatory injunction and directed the Appellant-defendant to vacate the suit property.

No SC/ST Act Offence If Alleged Casteist Abuse Occurred Inside Private House : Supreme Court

Cause Title: GUNJAN @ GIRIJA KUMARI AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 484

The Supreme Court (May 11) quashed a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against an individual, who was accused of hurling caste-based abuses upon the complainant belonging to the Scheduled Caste category inside the four walls of a house.

Since the FIR did not disclose that the alleged incident of abuse and intimidation by appellant No.1 and the other appellants occurred in a place exposed to public gaze, the Court held that the essential ingredient of the offence under the SC/ST Act, namely that it must take place “in any place within public view,” was conspicuously absent, rendering the proceedings against the appellants unsustainable.

“…to make out the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and/or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the occurrence of the incident and the act and conduct of hurling of caste-based abuses must take place at “a place within public view”. It must be a place within the public gaze. Even if it happens to be a private place, then in such eventuality a public-eye must have an access to be able to notice what happens there or what is taking place that will only make the “place within public view”.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.

"Final Act Of Forgiveness" : Supreme Court Keeps Senior Advocate Yatin Oza's Contempt Conviction In Abeyance Indefinitely

Case Title – Yatin Narendra Oza v. Suo Motu, High Court of Gujarat and Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 485

The Supreme Court kept Senior Advocate Yatin Oza's conviction and sentence, imposed by the Gujarat High Court, in the 2020 criminal contempt case in abeyance indefinitely by invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, while cautioning that any future misconduct of a similar nature could revive the conviction and sentence imposed by the Gujarat High Court.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar pronounced the judgment in Oza's appeal against the Gujarat High Court's 2020 contempt verdict arising out of his public remarks against the High Court administration during the Covid-19 period.

The Court held that the reasons assigned in the Gujarat High Court's order did not warrant interference. However, the Court, extending a final act of forgiveness, exercised powers under Article 142 to suspend and keep in abeyance indefinitely the conviction and sentence awarded to Oza.

Absence of Eyewitness Not Fatal If Surrounding Circumstances Establish Guilt: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction

Cause Title: MITESH @ T.V. VAGHELA VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 486

The Supreme Court (May 11) upheld the conviction of a murder accused, observing that the absence of an eyewitness is not fatal to the prosecution's case when the surrounding circumstances, read along with the deceased's dying declaration, clearly establish the guilt of the accused.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court, which had extensively relied on the witness testimony (PW-1), who although not an eyewitness to an incident, his testimony assumed significance because the deceased has deposed him repeatedly about the assault committed by the Appellant on him, which was later corroborated by an auto-driver passing thereby from the place of incident.

The case arose from the murder of one Somabhai Sankabhai Rabari, who ran a tea stall in Ahmedabad. According to the prosecution, on the night of December 11, 1998, a quarrel broke out between the deceased and the accused after the accused allegedly threw a half-burnt cigarette into a bucket used for washing cups and saucers at the tea stall. During the altercation, the accused allegedly threatened the deceased.

Supreme Court Seeks Data From Allahabad High Court On Pending Criminal Cases, Undertrial Custody In UP

Case Title – Kailash Chandra Kapri v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 487

Observing that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot remain an “abstract or illusory safeguard”, the Supreme Court recently sought extensive data from the Allahabad High Court on criminal pendency, undertrial detention, bail applications and vacancies in the Uttar Pradesh district judiciary.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the directions while quashing criminal proceedings pending for 35 years against a former Uttar Pradesh police constable in a case involving allegations of simple hurt and criminal intimidation.

“Article 21 has been a part of our Constitution since it was adopted in 1949 and came into effect on January 26, 1950. As of 2026, it has been a cornerstone of Indian democracy for 76 years while it states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”, its meaning has expanded significantly over the decades through various decisions of this Court to include the right to privacy, education, clean environment, etc., and above all, the right to speedy trial. This right to speedy trial should not remain as an abstract or illusory safeguard”, the Court emphasised.

'Quick Justice Sine Qua Non Of Art 21' : Supreme Court Quashes 35-Year-Old Simple Hurt Case For Violation Of Speedy Trial Right

Case Title – Kailash Chandra Kapri v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 487

The Supreme Court recently quashed criminal proceedings pending for 35 years against a former Uttar Pradesh police constable, holding that continuation of the case would violate his fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“The Right to have a speedy trial is one of the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution irrespective of the fact whether the accused is in jail or on bail and furthermore irrespective of the nature of the crime. This speedy trial is one of the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and from the facts and circumstances of a given case if the High court finds that the proceeding if allowed to continue will amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution then the High court should not hesitate to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023 or in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution”, the Court held.

The Court allowed an appeal filed by Kailash Chandra Kapri against a 2024 Allahabad High Court order refusing to quash the proceedings.

S.167 B(2) IT Act | Fixed Share Given To Member Of 'Association Of Persons' Regardless Of Profit Will Be Taxed As Income : Supreme Court

Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III VS. M/S. SANAND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 488

In an important ruling on a tax law, the Supreme Court (May 12) held that a member receiving a fixed percentage of gross receipts from an Association of Persons (AOP), without bearing business expenses or losses, cannot claim such receipts as a "share of profit” to claim exemption from income tax.

It is worthwhile to mention that taxation of members in an Association of Persons (AOP) or Body of Individuals (BOI) is governed by Section 86, read with Section 167B (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The combined reading of these provisions says that when an AOP is taxed at the maximum marginal rate under Section 167B (2), usually because members' shares are unknown or high-income members exist, the share of income received by a member is excluded from their total income. This is to ensure that if the AOP is taxed at the highest rate, the member is not taxed again on the same income, to avoid double taxation.

The Case

When Can Re-Assessment Be Opened U/s 147, 148 of Income Tax Act? Supreme Court Explains

Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III VS. M/S. SANAND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 488

While dealing with a tax caserelated to development of a housing project, the Supreme Court recently elucidated the position of law pertaining to reopening of assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan referred to Section 147 (pre-2012) and Section 148 (pre-2006) of the IT Act and observed that power to reopen assessment is not confined to cases where the assessee has concealed income. It extends to all cases where the Assessing Officer has “reason to believe”, based on tangible material in his possession, that income has “escaped assessment”.

“Subject to the provisions and safeguards in the section, the Assessing Officer can reassess income for an assessment year irrespective of whether the original assessment was merely processed under Section 143(1) or assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The power to reopen assessment is not confined to cases where the assessee has concealed his income; it also extends to cases where though there has been no concealment by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe, in consequence of tangible material in his possession, that income has escaped assessment.”

'Oral Dictation Not Final' : Supreme Court Slams Party Who Alleged Signed Order Favouring Adani Ports Was Not Same As Oral Order

Cause Title: FAKIR MAMAD SULEMAN SAMEJA AND ORS. VERSUS ADANI PORTS AND SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES LTD. AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 490

The Supreme Court (May 12) held that an order/judgment dictated in an open court cannot be deemed as final, as it may be open to alteration or modification by the bench post-dictation. The Court said that only a signed order remains enforceable and binding.

“The Court might dictate a draft to keep the facts fresh in the mind and the draft so dictated then becomes final only after signing, subject to corrections and alterations which do not amount to a material change in the order. The signed order is what embodies the final unalterable opinion of the Court, it is the only version of the Court's order which is reached after multiple rounds of correction after dictation in Court.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar made the observation while dismissing a miscellaneous application filed in a dispute connected to land resumption proceedings in favour of the Appellants-landowners, against which the Adani Ports appealed to the Supreme Court.

IBC | Appeals Must Be Filed With Certified Copy Of Impugned Order, Mere E-Filing Not Enough: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association versus M Lalitha and another

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 491

The Supreme Court (May 12) observed that an e-filing of an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) without a certified copy of the impugned order is not a mere defective filing but a “wholly incompetent appeal” that cannot subsequently be cured.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's order condoning a 150-day delay in refiling an appeal that had been instituted without a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order.

The case arose from insolvency proceedings where the NCLT Kochi approved a resolution plan submitted by the Appellant-Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association on August 14, 2024.

Supreme Court Directs Rajasthan Govt To Include Rajasthani Language As Subject In All Govt And Private Schools

Case Title: PADAM MEHTA AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 1425/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 492

Underlining the absence of an appropriate policy framework, the Supreme Court directed the State of Rajasthan to take steps for introduction and provision of Rajasthani language as a subject in all government and private schools across the state.

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

"we deem it appropriate to direct the State of Rajasthan to formulate an appropriate and comprehensive policy for the effective implementation of the constitutional mandate relating to the mothertongue-based education, particularly in the backdrop of the National Education Policy, 2020.

Supreme Court Orders SIT Probe Into Sale Of Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation Lands In UP

Case : Shrikant Ojha v State of UP and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 493

The Supreme Court has ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary to probe the alleged fraudulent sale of lands belonging to the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India, while setting aside an Allahabad High Court interim direction that had restrained police from filing a chargesheet in the case.

A bench of Justice JK. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that while a court may exercise discretion to protect an accused from coercive steps during pendency of proceedings, directing the investigating agency not to file a police report under Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was unjustified in the facts of the case.

The case arose from an appeal filed by complainant Shrikant Ojha against an interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a criminal writ petition filed by one of the accused, Raghvendra Pratap Singh, a director of M/s Singhvahini Infraprojects Private Limited. The High Court had allowed investigation to continue in FIR No. 642 of 2025, registered at Noida Sector 39 Police Station, but restrained the investigating officer from submitting the police report till the writ petition was decided.

Land Acquisition | Residential Plot Sale Deed Can't Be Used To Determine Compensation For Industrial Land : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Project Director, National Highways Authority of India versus Alfa Remidis Ltd. and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 494

The Supreme Court has held that a residential sale deed from an adjoining village cannot be used to determine compensation for industrial land acquired for highway expansion, ruling that the "similar type of land" requirement under Section 26(1)(b) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is mandatory and strictly enforceable for determining the land acquisition compensation.

“Applying the rigours of Section 26(1) of the 2013 LA Act to the case on hand, we find that the Arbitrator demonstrably erred in relying upon the sale deed dated 29.03.2017 relating to residential land in an adjoining village to determine the market value of respondent No. 1's land, which was being used for an industrial purpose. Clearly, the two lands were not of a 'similar type' for the purposes of Section 26(1)(b) of the 2013 LA Act and the price in the said sale deed could not have been adopted.”, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed.

The dispute arose from the acquisition of 1,394 square metres of land in Nagpur for the four-laning of the National Highway. A notification under the National Highways Act, 1956, was issued on May 9, 2017.

Contractual Appointment Against Regular Post Advertisement Is 'Patently Illegal': Supreme Court

Cause Title: LOKENDRA KUMAR TIWARI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 495

The Supreme Court (May 13) held that appointing a candidate on a contractual basis against an advertisement issued for regular vacancies is “patently illegal and unconstitutional” when no reasons are recorded for such differential treatment.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti allowed an appeal filed by an Assistant Professor, who was granted a contractual appointment (which was later on revoked) against a regular job advertisement for the teaching posts in the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad. The Court directed the institute to issue him a regular appointment as Assistant Professor within four weeks, with continuity of service but without financial benefits for the intervening period.

“The record does not disclose any reason for denying the post for which the Appellant was shortlisted and interviewed.”, the court observed, when the Respondent No.2, institute, failed to justify denying him a regular appointment.

'Hostile Witness Testimony Can Be Used To Acquit Also, Not Just Convict' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction

Cause Title: TALARI NARESH VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Observing that the evidence of hostile witnesses can be used not only for conviction but also to discredit the prosecution case and support acquittal, the Supreme Court (May 13) has acquitted a man accused of killing a man belonging to a SC/ST category.

The Court found that the very foundation of the prosecution's case was discredited by the prosecution's witnesses as they didn't support the prosecution's stand on the place of occurrence of the crime.

“…when the testimony of a hostile witness is admissible subject to be feeded by corroboration and the conviction on that basis could be arrived at, the reverse is also true as a canon of appreciation of evidence. What necessarily implies is that as the evidence of a hostile witness can be used for convicting the accused, such evidence could indeed be applied and utilised also for the purpose of acquitting the accused, when what is testified by the hostile witness inspires credibility, when read with the other evidence on record, either ocular or documentary. The dictum would be that the testimony of a hostile witness or statement in the deposition of hostile witness could be properly employed to discredit the prosecution case and a conclusion of acquittal could well be supported through it and could be founded therein.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.

Canara Bank Regulations | Joint Disciplinary Proceedings Not Necessary When Multiple Officers Involved In Same Case : Supreme Court

Cause Title: CANARA BANK VERSUS PREM LATHA UPPAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 497

The Supreme Court has ruled that a separate disciplinary proceeding is permissible against a delinquent bank employee as per Regulation 10 of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, despite multiple officers are involved in a delinquent act, as there's no mandate to hold a joint disciplinary proceeding where more than one officer is involved.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside that part of the Karnataka High Court Division Bench order, which held that failure to hold a joint/common proceeding against multiple officers involved in a delinquent act would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. Instead, the Court endorsed the High Court's Single Judge's observation to the extent where it held that:

“Regulation 10 does not vest any power or right in the hands of a delinquent officer/employee to either insist or ask for joint or common proceedings to be held. There is no such corresponding right vested in an employee”, and that “[f]ailure to hold a joint enquiry [does not vitiate] the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against an individual officer.”

Students Transferred To Other Private Colleges After Original Institution Lost Recognition Can't Claim Govt Fees : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SOUMYA RANJAN PANDA & ORS. VERSUS SUBHALAXMI DASH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 498

The Supreme Court has held that students shifted from the defunct Sardar Rajas Medical College and Hospital (SRMCH), Odisha, to other private medical colleges after the original institution lost recognition cannot claim a “windfall” by paying only subsidised government medical college fees, and permitted recovery of outstanding dues from them at the fee rates applicable at SRMCH.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed that approximately ₹14 crore secured from the Selvam Educational and Charitable Trust, which managed SRMCH, be released to the three private medical colleges that accommodated the transferred students. This includes the ₹10 crore bank guarantee furnished to the Medical Council of India/National Medical Commission and ₹2 crore deposited before the Supreme Court, along with accrued interest.

The case arose from the collapse of SRMCH's recognition after inspections by the Medical Council of India found serious deficiencies in infrastructure, faculty, and regulatory compliance, jeopardising the academic future of MBBS students admitted in the 2013-14 and 2014-15 batches. To prevent students from losing an academic year, the Supreme Court had earlier facilitated their transfer through a State-supervised counselling process to Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, IMS & SUM Hospital, and Hi-Tech Medical College in Odisha.

Arbitration Clause Gets Incorporated In Later Contract When Earlier Agreement Is Imported “Body and Soul” : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Hirani Developers versus Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS Ltd. and another Etc.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 499

The Supreme Court observed that when a subsequent contract incorporates, in its entirety, the terms and conditions of an earlier agreement containing an arbitration clause, such incorporation is sufficient to invoke arbitration, and the later agreement need not separately express a clear intention to refer disputes to arbitration or specifically mention the arbitration clause in the earlier agreement.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Bombay High Court's decision refusing to appoint an arbitrator on an application filed by the Appellant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the High Court erred in rejecting the plea solely on the ground that the subsequent agreement did not specifically refer to the arbitration clause in the principal contract, despite expressly incorporating all the terms and conditions of the principal agreement into the later contract.

Background

Judges Must Show Patience & Encouragement Towards Young Advocates : Supreme Court Says After AP HC Judge-Lawyer Exchange

Case Title: BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA Versus HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, W.P.(C) No. 602/2026 (and connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 500

The Supreme Court observed that no direction was necessary from its end in relation to the incident in the Andhra Pradesh High Court - where a Judge was seen in a viral video clip threatening a young lawyer with police custody - as the issue was amicably settled at the High Court level with the involvement of the Chief Justice and the Bar Association.

The Court noted that the Judge's oral remarks did not translate into an executable order, and that the Judge made the comments due to an impression that the young lawyer had struck the files on the podium in anger, though it was the lawyer's claim that the files had accidentally slipped from his hands.

Noting that the issue has been resolved and the advocate also has no complaint, the Supreme Court chose not to precipitate it further. At the same time, the Court made certain pertinent observations on the need for the Judges to exercise patience and to be encouraging towards young lawyers.

'Heinousness Of Crime Alone Not Ground To Deny Remission': Supreme Court Orders Release Of Madhumita Murder Case Convict After 22 Yrs

Cause Title: ROHIT CHATURVEDI VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 501

The Supreme Court (May 15) has held that the plea for remission of a convict cannot be rejected solely on the ground of the heinousness of the offence; instead, the decision on remission must be based on the holistic assessment of the prisoner's right to be released on fair and reasonable criteria.

The Court made the observation, while quashing the Ministry Of Home Affairs (MHA) decision refusing to allow the premature release of 2003 Madhumita Murder Case convict Rohit Chaturvedi.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed :

Reliance's Supply Of Gas From KG Basin To UP Is Inter-State Sale; VAT Not Applicable : Supreme Court

Cause Title: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS. (with connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 502

The Supreme Court (May 15) has held that the sale of natural gas from the KG-D6 basin in Andhra Pradesh to buyers in another state is an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and therefore not subject to State Value Added Taxes.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the classification of the supply of Natural Gas from the KG-D6 basin by Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) to buyers in the State of Uttar Pradesh as 'inter-state supply'.

The State of UP sought to levy State VAT on the supply of natural gas within the state, classifying it as 'intra-state' supply; however, the Court rejected its stand, stating that once the gas having been metered, delivered, and title having passed to the buyer's transporter in the State of Andhra Pradesh in terms of the Gas Sales and Purchase Agreement, the sale stood concluded at that point, and “the subsequent commingling of the gas and the re-metering at Auraiya in the State of Uttar Pradesh were mere incidents of transportation…, and cannot create a fresh occasion for the levy of tax under the VAT Act.”

Co-Owner Is 'Landlord' Under Bombay Rent Act, Can Maintain Eviction Suit Without Exclusive Title: Supreme Court

Cause Title: MARIETTA D' SILVA VERSUS RUDOLF CLOTHAN LACERDA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 503

The Supreme Court has held that a co-owner of a property qualifies as a “landlord” under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and is therefore entitled to maintain eviction proceedings even without exclusive title or formal partition of the tenanted premises.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan set aside the Bombay High Court's decision that had overturned the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court in an eviction dispute, where the appellant-plaintiff, a co-owner and co-landlord of the tenanted premises, had sought eviction of the respondent-tenants on the ground of bona fide residential requirement for her family needs.

The High Court had reversed the eviction decree in civil revision proceedings on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish exclusive ownership over the premises so as to qualify as a landlord competent to maintain the eviction suit.

Mediclaim Reimbursement Cannot Be Deducted From Motor Accident Compensation : Supreme Court

Case : New India Assurance Company v Dolly Satish Gandhi andanother

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 504

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that amounts received by an accident victim under a Mediclaim or medical insurance policy cannot be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, holding that the two benefits operate in distinct legal spheres.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed an appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Limited challenging a Bombay High Court ruling which had held that Mediclaim reimbursements are not deductible from compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs).

The central legal issue before the Court was whether a claimant who has already received reimbursement of medical expenses under a personal Mediclaim policy can again claim compensation for those expenses in motor accident proceedings, or whether that would amount to impermissible "double benefit."

Lawyers Must Also Bring To Court's Notice Judgments Which Do Not Support Their Case : Supreme Court

Case : New India Assurance Company v Dolly Satish Gandhi andanother

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 504

In a significant observation on professional ethics and judicial discipline, the Supreme Court has said that lawyers have a duty to bring to the court's notice not only precedents that support their case but also those that go against them, stressing that both the Bar and the Bench share responsibility for ensuring consistency in the justice delivery system.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi made the observation while deciding a case on whether Mediclaim reimbursements can be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Expressing concern over contradictory rulings by different benches of the same High Courts on the same legal issue, the Court said such inconsistencies create judicial uncertainty, complicate litigation, and burden the justice system.

State Cannot Deny Benefits Under Final Order Merely Because Employees Delayed Seeking Its Implementation : Supreme Court

Cause Title: B. YERRAJI & ORS. VERUS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 505

The Supreme Court has held that the State cannot refuse to implement a judicial order that has attained finality merely because the beneficiaries approached the courts belatedly for its enforcement, stressing that the government, as a model employer, cannot take advantage of its own failure to comply with the law.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed an appeal filed by a group of Grade-IV employees against the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, directing the authorities to implement a 2012 Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal order in their favour within four months.

Background

Hindu Succession Act | 2005 Amendment Does Not Limit Daughters' Pre-Existing Inheritance Rights : Supreme Court

Cause Title: B.S. LALITHA AND OTHERS VERSUS BHUVANESH AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 506

In an important ruling on the Hindu Succession Act, the Supreme Court (May 15) held that the 2005 amendment granting daughters coparcenary rights by birth does not take away or limit their independent right to inherit their deceased father's property as Class I heirs when he dies intestate. The Court clarified that a partition carried out among the sons alone cannot defeat the daughters' succession rights in the father's share of the property.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dealt with a suit filed by the appellants-daughters seeking partition of their late father's five properties. The Karnataka High Court had dismissed the suit at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d), CPC, after accepting the respondents' plea that the suit was barred by Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act. The respondents argued that a partition deed executed in 2000 among the sons was protected by Section 6(5), which saves partitions effected before December 20, 2004, from the operation of the 2005 amendment to the Act.

Setting aside the High Court's ruling, the Court noted that the 2005 amendment does not take away or extinguish the rights accrued to a daughter in an intestate property, which usually devolves upon her as a Class I heir under Section 8 of the Act. Denying the daughter her legal right in an intestate property by virtue of a partition deed was not an objective of the 2005 amendment, as the amendment doesn't extinguish or cancel the pre-existing rights of the daughter in her father's property, which ought to have been devolved upon her after the father's death intestate.

Res Judicata Principle Applies Also Between Two Stages Of Same Litigation : Supreme Court Explains 'Interlocutory Res Judicata'

Cause Title: B.S. LALITHA AND OTHERS VERSUS BHUVANESH AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 506

The Supreme Court has held that the principle of res judicata applies even between two stages of the same litigation. This is known as the principle of 'interlocutory res judicata'.

Hence, the dismissal of an earlier application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure can bar a subsequent application for plaint rejection on the same ground.

The Court said it is immaterial that the subsequent application seeking a rejection of the plaint was filed by a different person. If the substance of the application remains the same, then the subsequent application would be barred by res judicata.

Even 'Loan' Can Qualify As 'Deposit' Under MPID Act; Private Individual Can Be 'Financial Establishment' : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ALKA AGRAWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 507

In a significant development, the Supreme Court (May 15) observed that even private persons can be categorized as a 'Financial Establishment' under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act. This means that money advanced by an individual to a debtor with a promise to return with interest, then such money can be legally treated as a “deposit,” even if the parties describe it as a “loan”.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice NV Anjaria set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench decision, which refused to consider the Appellant's money advanced to the Respondent as a 'deposit' under the MPID Act to attract penal consequences.

The dispute arose from transactions between the appellants and private respondents relating to the development of a resort project at Tadoba, Maharashtra. Between September 2016 and April 2019, the appellants advanced approximately Rs. 2.51 crore to the respondents.

'Govt Servant Not Expected To Take Stand Against Govt' : Supreme Court Quashes Rs 25 Lakh Penalty On Officer Who Executed Govt Order

Cause Title: C. POORNA CHANDRAN VERSUS THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 508

Observing that a government employee cannot be saddled with personal liability merely for acting in accordance with a government order that was operative at the relevant time, the Supreme Court has expressed surprise over the Government of Tamil Nadu's silence over the penalty imposed on its employee for implementing a state government's order.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an appeal filed by the former Director of Collegiate Education, Tamil Nadu, against a High Court order which had imposed a total cost of Rs. 50 lakhs, Rs. 25 lakhs on the State, and another Rs. 25 lakhs to be recovered personally from the appellant.

The controversy arose from the appellant's refusal to approve recruitment beyond 11 Group-D posts in a private women's college, based on Government Order No. 219 dated October 24, 2013, which imposed restrictions on recruitment. The High Court had faulted the authorities for delayed salary payments to certain employees and held the appellant personally responsible.

Order XV Rule 5 CPC | Tenant's Defence Cannot Be Struck Off Without Examining If Default In Rent Deposit Was Wilful : Supreme Court

Cause Title: DHARMENDRA KALRA & ORS. VERSUS KULVINDER SINGH BHATIA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 509

The Supreme Court has observed that it is impermissible to strike off the tenant's defence at the threshold under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without determining the “first date of hearing” and the issue of proper service and opportunity of hearing to the tenant to examine whether the default was wilful or bona fide.

“The power to strike off the defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC, though couched in mandatory terms, is not to be exercised mechanically. The Court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious…Striking off the defence is a serious matter and ought not to be resorted to unless there is a clear case of deliberate default or contumacious conduct on the part of the tenant.”, observed a bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

Background

Preventive Detention Unwarranted When There's No Breach Of Public Order & Ordinary Law Can Be Applied: Supreme Court

Case Title: VIDYAWANT v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Crl.A. No. 2495/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 510

The Supreme Court recently quashed a preventive detention order issued under the MPDA Act 1981, holding that when a person can be dealt with under ordinary law and there is no cogent material to show breach of public order, invocation of the preventive detention law is unwarranted.

"in our view, the satisfaction of the detaining authority that activities of the appellant were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order has no real basis. Besides, where a person can be dealt with under ordinary laws of the land, invocation of the power under preventive detention laws is not warranted in absence of cogent material to show breach of public order", the Court said.

With these observations, a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan directed immediate release of the appellant (unless required in any other case).

Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order For New Sewer Line Across AIIMS To Tackle Waterlogging In Green Park Extension Area

Case Title: ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES v. SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR, SLP(C) No. 29481/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 511

Observing that Constitutional Courts cannot take over administrative roles of authorities, the Supreme Court recently set aside a Delhi High Court orderwhich issued directions for laying down of a new sewer line across AIIMS premises to control the waterlogging in Green Park Extension and surrounding areas in the national capital.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the order, stating,

"The writ petition is still pending before the High Court but we are of the opinion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by stepping into the shoes of the authorities concerned and taking upon itself the responsibility of coming up with a solution. The impugned interim order dated 18.06.2025 is, therefore, set aside."

Upto 6% Conviction In UAPA Cases Nationally; In J&K, Conviction Rate Less Than 1% : Supreme Court

Case Title – Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 512

The Supreme Court, while granting bail to a Jammu and Kashmir man accused in a narco-terror case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and incarcerated for over 5 years, noted that UAPA conviction rates across India ranged between 1.5% and 4% between 2019 and 2023, while conviction rates in Jammu and Kashmir remained below 1%.

Referring to NCRB data placed before Parliament by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that these statistics point to a high probability of acquittals in such cases at the end of trial.

“Therefore , for all India figures, we have 2% to 6% conviction, meaning thereby that there is 94% to 98% possibility of acquittal in such cases in the country. In so far as the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, the annual rate of conviction is always less than 1%. It means that at the end of the trial there is 99% possibility of acquittal in such cases”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Disapproves Judgment Denying Bail To Umar Khalid For Ignoring Binding Precedent In 'KA Najeeb'

Case : Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs NIA, Jammu | SLP(Crl) 1090/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 512

The Supreme Court (May 18) expressed reservations about the judgment delivered by a two-judge bench in January this year in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (which denied bail to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case) saying that it did not properly follow the judgment delivered by a three-judge bench in 2021 in Union of India v. KA Najeebwhich recognised long delay in trial as a ground for bail in cases under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

The Court also expressed disapproval of the judgment of the two-judge bench delivered in 2024 in Gurwinder Singh v. Union of India for not applying KA Najeeb.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made these observations while allowing the bail plea of one Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who has been under custody for over 6 years in a case under the UAPA for allegedly funding terrorism through supply of narcotics.

Bail Is Rule, Jail Exception Even Under UAPA: Supreme Court

Case Title – Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 512

The Supreme Court held that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) cannot override constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and 22.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice BV Nagarathna observed that the principle that bail is the rule was not merely a statutory concept under the CrPC but a constitutional principle rooted in personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.

“The often-invoked phrase bail is the rule and jail is the exception is not merely an empty statutory slogan flowing from the CrPC,” Justice Bhuyan said while pronouncing the judgment.

Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Hospital Over Rs 2500 Billing Error

Case Title: NARAYANA HEALTH & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS., SLP (CRL.) NOS. 10379-10380 OF 2023

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 512

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Narayana Health, its hospital in Kolkata, and senior officials over allegations arising from a ₹2,500 billing discrepancy, holding that the complaint disclosed no criminal offence and was essentially a service-related grievance better addressed through civil or statutory remedies.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe delivered the judgment, allowing the hospital and its staff's appeal against a Calcutta High Court decision whereby the Magistrate's summoning order was set aside but the matter remanded for reconsideration on complicity of the entity running the hospital (appellant No.1) and its Chairman.

Briefly put, the case arose out of a complaint by respondent No.2 following his mother's treatment at Narayana Health hospital (appellant No.1), Barasat, in February 2021. After his mother was discharged, the complainant approached the hospital pointing out certain discrepancies in the billing and seeking medical documents/records. Subsequently, the hospital issued a revised bill, which reflected an adjustment in the charges of a test amounting to Rs.2500.

Final Decree Application Not Necessary When Preliminary Decree Specifies Option If Physical Partition Was Impractical : Supreme Court

Cause Title: JENNIFER MESSIAS VERSUS LEONARD G LOBO

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 513

The Supreme Court (May 18) observed that merely because no separate application for passing a final decree under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, a preliminary decree would not become inexecutable, especially where the decree itself provided that the property should be auctioned if partition by metes and bounds was not possible, thereby giving the decree the character of a final decree as well.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice SVN Bhatti heard the case arising out of a Madhya Pradesh High Court, where the High Court had twice interfered with the execution of the partition decree passed on Appellant's suit. Initially, the preliminary decree was passed, with a direction to the Commissioner to conduct a feasibility of conducting a partition between the parties. The preliminary decree directed the Commissioner to examine whether the suit property, a residential flat, could be physically divided by metes and bounds, and further provided that if such division was not feasible, appropriate compensation or sale could be resorted to.

Based on the Advocate Commissioner report stating that the flat could not be partitioned by metes and bounds because physical division of the property was impracticable, the Executing Court ordered a public auction of the property. However, the High Court interfered and held that the decree was merely a preliminary decree and therefore could not be executed unless a separate final decree was first drawn up, prompting the Appellant to move to the Supreme Court.

Govt Servant Has No Vested Right To Seek Promotion As Per Old Rules Merely Because Vacancies Arose Earlier: Supreme Court

Cause Title: STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. VERSUS SREEPATI RANJAN DASH (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 514

The Supreme Court (May 18) held that government employees do not possess a vested right to seek promotion under old service rules merely because vacancies had arisen before the introduction of new rules.

The Court held that the government is competent to alter the method, criteria, or procedure for selection and promotion at any stage by introducing new service rules, provided that they are not arbitrary.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the appeals where the Respondent-employees, who were employed in State Transport Department on Junior level, and later on promoted to a Senior Level, claimed a promotion to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Senior Assistant), which had arisen during the during the applicability of the old Rules making eligible those employees who have completed five years of service on the post of Grade I Assistant, however the State Government denied the same, stating that mere arisen of the vacancies during the applicability of the Old Rules would not ipso facto grant any vested right upon the employees to claim a promotion, as the government is empowered to restructure the cadre and change the mode of the selection from being promotional to a selective one.

Supreme Court Allows Euthanasia Of Rabid, Incurably Ill & Demonstrably Dangerous Dogs As Per Statutory Protocol

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 515

In a significant order passed, the Supreme Court allowed authorities to carry out euthanasia of rabid and dangerous dogs to curb the threat to human life, in appropriate cases, strictly in accordance with the statutory protocols.

The Court ordered :

"In areas where the population of stray dogs has assumed alarming proportions and where incidents of dog bites or aggressive attacks have become frequent and pose a continuing threat to public safety, the concerned authorities may, subject to due assessment by qualified veterinary experts and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 and other applicable statutory protocols, take such measures as may be legally permissible, including euthanasia, in cases involving rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous/aggressive dogs so as to effectively curb the threat posed to human life and safety."

Stray Dogs Can Be Maintained In Campuses Only If Student Bodies Accept Liability : Supreme Court Allows Exemption For NALSAR

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 515

The Supreme Court has held that animal welfare groups and student-led bodies can maintain or feed stray dogs within educational institution campuses only if they formally undertake legal liability for any dog-bite incidents or related harm caused within the premises.

In its judgment on stray dog management, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria said the protection of stray dogs cannot be separated from the responsibility to ensure human safety, and made accountability a precondition for any campus-based animal welfare activity.

"The assertion of rights or interests in favour of such animals cannot operate in isolation, divorced from the corresponding responsibility to safeguard human life and safety. Insofar as the animal welfare groups or student-led bodies in educational institutions are concerned, it shall be mandatory for any such group or body operating within such campuses to expressly undertake such liability by filing an affidavit to this effect with the Head of the Institution concerned, failing which no such activity of maintaining or feeding stray dogs shall be permitted within the institutional premises,” the Court held.

Dogs Don't Have Absolute Right To Occupy Institutional Premises; ABC Rules Don't Mandate Their Release At Such Premises : Supreme Court

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 515

The Supreme Court has held that stray dogs found within institutional and restricted-access premises such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, airports, bus stands and railway stations cannot be treated as “street dogs” or “community dogs” under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, and therefore cannot claim re-release to the same location after capture and sterilisation.

The Court said stray dogs do not possess an “indefeasible or absolute right” to occupy all categories of spaces irrespective of their nature and use, and clarified that the statutory framework for humane management of stray dogs cannot be interpreted as conferring a perpetual right of occupation in sensitive institutional spaces.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria delivered the judgment in a batch of matters arising from the Court's suo motu proceedings on stray dog attacks.

'Dog Bite Menace Rising' : Supreme Court Refuses To Modify Directions To Remove Stray Dogs From Public Places

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 515

The Supreme Court refused to recall its earlier directions that stray dogs picked up from public places like hospitals, bus stands, schools, railway stations, etc., must not be released to the same place after vaccination/sterilisation.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria dismissed a bunch of applications seeking modifications to the directions issued by the Court in November last year.

The Court also dismissed applications challenging the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India. In the judgment pronounced, the Court referred to reports about "deeply disturbing incidents" of dog attacks against children. Young children have been mauled, old people attacked, and even international travellers have faced dog attacks.

'Parallel FIRs On Same Allegations Impermissible', Supreme Court Directs Clubbing Of FIRs Linked To Brahma City/Krrish World Project

Cause Title: AMIT KATYAL & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Reiterating that there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same transaction or occurrence, the Supreme Court ordered the clubbing of a Haryana FIR with an earlier Delhi Economic Offences Wing (EOW) against NCR-based real estate developer Amit Katyal arising out of the alleged real estate fraud linked to the “Brahma City/Krrish World” project.

“…there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence or transaction giving rise to cognizable offences. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure postulates a single, comprehensive investigation, with liberty to the investigating agency to conduct further investigation and file supplementary reports, rather than permitting parallel and overlapping investigations in different fora.”, observed a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B Varale, while referring to T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181.

“Permitting multiple FIRs and investigations in different jurisdictions on the same set of facts would not only be contrary to the settled legal position but would also result in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the petitioners. At the same time, consolidation of 17 such FIRs at one place would subserve the ends of justice by ensuring a coordinated, effective and complete investigation, while also safeguarding the right of the petitioners to mount an effective and meaningful defence in a singular proceeding.”, the court added.

State Officers Cannot File Affidavits Supporting Litigants Contrary To Law: Supreme Court

Cause Title: DR. MANOJ KUMAR RAWAT VERSUS STATE OF UP & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 517

In a strong censure of the conduct of government officers in litigation, the Supreme Court said State authorities cannot support a litigant by taking a stand contrary to law, and asked the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary to examine the conduct of officers who filed affidavits backing an unlawful position.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar made the observation while dismissing an appeal by a waitlisted candidate seeking appointment as Principal of Meerut College through a change in posting under the repealed Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980.

The Court found that after the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, the authorities could not have relied on the old selection list to facilitate the appellant's appointment. It noted that the State authorities had initially taken the position that no change in place of posting was permissible after the candidate had already been recommended for appointment elsewhere, but later reversed course and supported his claim.

Accused Entitled To Parity With Discharged Co-Accused If Evidence Against Him Is Not Qualitatively Stronger: Supreme Court

Cause Title: SUSANTA KUMAR DALEI @SUSANTA KUMAR DALAI VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA (VIGILANCE)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 518

The Supreme Court has held that an accused cannot be singled out for prosecution when similarly placed co-accused have already been discharged, particularly where the material against the remaining accused is not qualitatively stronger.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale discharged a Forest Range Officer facing corruption and conspiracy charges in an alleged illegal timber felling case in Odisha, holding that the prosecution materials contained only vague, omnibus allegations without specifying his individual role.

The Court strongly underscored the principle of parity in criminal jurisprudence, noting that two co-accused Indian Forest Service officers, who were more senior and more prominently placed in the administrative decision-making chain, had already been discharged.

Crime Scene Re-Enactment Won't Violate Right Against Self Incrimination In All Situations: Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v PONNUSAMY AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Noting that the technique of crime scene re-enactment is gaining prominence in heinous crime investigations, the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of this technique, holding that the re-enactment of the crime scene cannot be rejected outright as unconstitutional merely because it involves participation of the accused.

The Court clarified that the accused's participation in the crime scene re-enactment would violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution (fundamental right against self-incrimination) only when it compels the accused to disclose incriminating facts based on personal knowledge, and not when it is merely a directed physical demonstration for scientific analysis.

“…it cannot be held as a general proposition that every re-enactment or demonstration of a crime scene per se amounts to personal testimony of the accused. If the re-enactment is merely based on a direction to walk or to act a certain way or to imitate a visual sequence, it does not necessarily involve any physical manifestation or disclosure of the personal knowledge of the accused. In that sense, it does not amount to any personal testimony. However, if the accused is somehow led into demonstrating the incriminating acts committed by him from his own knowledge, the same would amount to testimonial compulsion and would be squarely hit by Section 25 and 26 of Evidence Act.”, observed a bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Dr Subbiah Murder | Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC's Acquittals; Gives Life Sentence To 7 Convicts, Allows 2 To Seek Pardon

Case Details:THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v PONNUSAMY AND ORS | Crl.A. No. 2493-2502/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 519

The Supreme Court(May 19) restored the Trial Court's order convicting the accused persons in the infamous Dr. Subbiah murder case. It has sentenced all persons to life imprisonment, except A1(Ponnuswamy) and A2 (Mary Pushpan). The Court has considered the advanced age of these two accused persons and their limited role in the conspiracy stemming from their parental obligations to protect their children as mitigating circumstances.

Consequently, the Court allowed A1 & A2 to seek a pardon from the Tamil Nadu Governor within 8 weeks.

It may be recalled Dr Subbiah was attacked in 2013 with a sickle while he was on his way back from Billroth hospital in Chennai. He sustained multiple cut injuries on his head, neck, shoulders, etc. The police concluded that the motive was a property dispute between A1's family and the deceased. It arrested 9 persons, including A2(wife of A1), A3 and A4(children of A1&A2).

Filing Anticipatory Bail Petitions In Quick Successions Abuse Of Process, Reduces Litigation To Mere Gamble : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Vasantha versus State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 520

The Supreme Court recently disapproved the practice of repeatedly filing anticipatory bail applications within short intervals of time, observing that the remedy of anticipatory bail, meant to safeguard an accused's personal liberty in advance, cannot be reduced to gambling.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside an order passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent-accused on his third successive plea. The Court noted that the third application had been filed in quick succession after the dismissal of the earlier two anticipatory bail pleas within a span of two months.

“Filing of anticipatory bail petitions in quick succession in this manner, viz., three petitions in three months, reduces that legal process, which is intended to pre-emptively secure the personal liberty of an individual in deserving cases, to a mere gamble and is nothing short of an abuse of process.”, the court observed.

Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case As He Was Wrongly Identified As Absconding Accused Linked To LTTE

Cause Title: SRI VERSUS STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Q BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM, TAMIL NADU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 521

The Supreme Court (May 20) set aside the conviction of a Sri Lankan national in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, after finding that he had been wrongly identified as another prime accused person who continued to remain absconding in connection with the offence.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench decision, which refused to interfere with the conviction of the Appellant by the trial court. The Court faulted the Courts below for wrongfully convicting the Appellant-Sri alias Ranjan, because his prefix name “Sri” is the same as that of the absconding prime accused.

Further, the Court noted that the entire prosecution case, which was rested on the testimonies of the PWs 8 and 9, had in their cross-examination admitted that they hadn't mentioned the name of the Appellant during the earlier proceedings, and it was only after his arrest that the Appellant's name was taken by them. The Court said that the belated and improved testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses, without there being any material to link the identity of the Appellant with the absconding accused, would be an abuse of process of law against the Appellant, justifying his acquittal.

BNSS S.223(1) Proviso Mandatory; Cognizance Without Hearing Accused Void Ab Initio: Supreme Court

Cause Title: PARVINDER SINGH VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 522

The Supreme Court has held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which mandates an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance is taken in a complaint case, is a substantive safeguard flowing from the right to fair trial under Article 21, and non-compliance would render the cognizance order void ab initio. The Court further clarified that an accused need not demonstrate prejudice caused by such non-compliance, as the defect constitutes an illegality that vitiates the proceedings rather than a mere procedural irregularity.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Parvinder Singh against the Directorate of Enforcement in a PMLA case, setting aside the Uttarakhand High Court's judgment as well as the Special Court's order taking cognizance of the Enforcement Directorate's prosecution complaint.

The case arose from an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered against the appellant in July 2023. The ED filed its prosecution complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on June 24, 2024. Although the complaint was filed before the BNSS came into force on July 1, 2024, cognizance was taken by the Special Court on July 2, 2024, without hearing the accused.

Pre-Cognizance Hearing Of Accused Mandatory For PMLA Complaint When Cognizance Taken After BNSS : Supreme Court

Cause Title: PARVINDER SINGH VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 522

In an important ruling, the Supreme Court has held that where cognizance of an alleged offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is taken by a magistrate after the commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), such cognizance would stand vitiated in the absence of compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which mandates granting the accused a prior hearing before taking cognizance, even if the complaint itself had been filed before the BNSS came into force.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's decision, which had affirmed the magistrate's order taking cognizance of an offence under the PMLA against the Appellant, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant-accused as mandated under first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS.

“…non-compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS vitiates the very order taking cognizance, and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.”, the Court observed.

Landowners Can't Be Forced To Forgo Statutory Compensation To Receive Other Statutory Benefits : Supreme Court

Cause Title: BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. VERSUS VIJAY NAGAR APARTMENTS AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 523

The Supreme Court (May 20) held that a statutory right to compensation cannot be waived through contractual conditions imposed by civic authorities. The Court clarified that once a law grants a person the right to compensation, such right cannot be treated as surrendered merely because the landowner agreed to forgo it as a precondition for receiving another statutory benefit or amenity.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed an appeal filed by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (“BMC”), who assailed the High Court's decision to allow the Respondent-Landlord to claim statutory compensation under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, without compelling them to give up part of that compensation as a condition for acquisition or grant of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for development of the garden.

“Once the statute read with the regulations framed thereunder provides for compensation to be granted in a certain manner, there was no occasion for the officials of the Corporation to enter into further negotiations with the Landowner to come up with a new mechanism for payment of compensation in derogation of the same. There was no occasion for the authorities to contract out of the statutory conditions for payment of compensation. Such an act cannot be countenanced and sustained in law, and it therefore deserves interference by this Court.”, the court observed.

Banks Casual In Giving Huge Loans To Big Entities, But Very Demanding In Small Loans To Ordinary Persons : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S BHASKAR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. v STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. | Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.3313/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 524

The Supreme Court recently remarked that banks in general have become very casual in granting huge sums as loans to big companies, but when it comes to ordinary people, they impose a heightened level of scrutiny often amounting to "borderline harassment".

These observations were made by a bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan in a case where the petitioner company, Bhaskar International Private Limited, was given a loan of Rs. 8,09,00,000 by the State Bank of India without proper assessment as to the repayment.

The petitioner company failed to pay the very first instalment of the loan amount and defaulted for six years before the SBI moved to take over possession of their properties.

Supreme Court Restores ₹162 Crore Penalty On Power Generator For Failure To Demonstrate Declared Capacity

Cause Title: Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Versus Talwandi Sabo Power Limited & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 525

The Supreme Court (May 20) held that a power-generating station's failure to demonstrate its declared electricity generation capacity attracts strict liability and does not require proof of mens rea or deliberate wrongdoing. The Court observed that since generating stations receive fixed charges based on their declared capability, failure to establish such declared capacity within the prescribed time framework would automatically invite penal consequences.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran restored the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) order of imposing a penalty of approximately ₹162 Crore on Talwandi Sabo Power Limited for failure to demonstrate its declared power generation capability within the stipulated time under the Punjab State Grid Code, 2013.

“Demonstration of DC is a measure of ensuring that the (State Generating Stations) has the ability to generate the capacity declared on a real time basis and that the declaration is made faithfully, especially when fixed charges are paid on the declared capability and incentives earned for annual generation in excess of 80% of the declared capability.”, the court observed.

Husband's Failure To Explain Wife's Death In Matrimonial Home Draws Adverse Inference u/s 106 Evidence Act: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction

Cause Title: CHETAN DASHRATH GADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 526

The Supreme Court (May 21) upheld the conviction of a husband for strangulating his wife to death, observing that once the prosecution establishes that certain incriminating facts were especially within the accused's personal knowledge, the burden shifts to him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to offer a credible explanation.

The Court noted that the husband's failure to explain the circumstances surrounding the death within the matrimonial home constituted a significant incriminating circumstance against him.

“…the failure of the appellant (husband) to furnish any plausible explanation in discharge of the burden cast upon him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, cumulatively form a chain so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for doubt.”, observed a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

'Bail Jurisdiction Can't Be Used To Issue General Directions' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad HC Directives On Summons Service

Case : Rambalak v State of UP

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 527

The Supreme Court has set aside directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in bail proceedings requiring trial courts to take specific measures for service of summons and coercive processes, holding that such far-reaching directions could not have been issued while exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed the ruling in an appeal filed by accused Rambalak, who had challenged the Allahabad High Court's rejection of his second bail application in a case arising from a 2002 criminal case registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

While the immediate challenge arose from denial of bail, the Supreme Court noted that the real issue concerned the High Court's directions to the trial court to issue summons under Sections 62 and 69 CrPC and take coercive action against persons delaying proceedings. These directions were based on earlier Allahabad High Court orders in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P. and Jitendra v. State of U.P., which had sought to address systemic delays in execution of summons and production of witnesses.

Law Doesn't Require Registration Of Will; Non-Registration No Ground To Doubt Will's Genuineness: Supreme Court

Cause Title: PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND ORS. VERSUS LAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 528

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the mere non-registration of a will cannot be treated as a circumstance casting suspicion on its genuineness, emphasizing that Indian law does not mandate registration of wills.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi made the observation while upholding the validity of a will executed by a man in favour of his sister, rejecting objections raised by his wife and children who had challenged the testamentary document as fabricated.

“There is nothing in law which requires the registration of a will and wills are in a majority of cases not registered at all. To draw any inference against the genuineness of the will on the ground of its non-registration appears to us to be wholly unwarranted,” the Court observed, relying on its earlier decision in Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi (1953) 1 SCC 295.

Mere Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Won't Make Will Suspicious: Supreme Court Upholds Will In Sister's Favour Excluding Wife & Kids

Cause Title: PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND ORS. VERSUS LAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 528

The Supreme Court (May 21) observed that a Will cannot be invalidated outright as suspicious merely because the testator had excluded his legal heirs from his property.

The Court said that since the testator has the right to dispose his property according to his own wishes, a Will cannot be regarded as suspicious merely because he had excluded his legal heirs from his property.

“It is trite to state that when the validity of a Will is to be determined, the overall terms of a Will, the intention of the testator and the surrounding circumstances have also to be seen. Mere exclusion of the natural heirs from the property of the testator, by itself, cannot be construed as a suspicious circumstance so as to invalidate a Will outrightly. A testator is legally entitled to dispose of his property according to his own wishes, and unless the exclusion is accompanied by suspicious circumstances affecting the genuineness or due execution of a Will, such exclusion alone does not render a Will invalid.”, observed a bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.

Regularisation Cannot Be Denied Solely Because Initial Appointment Was Not Against Sanctioned Post: Supreme Court

Cause Title: SUKHENDU BHATTACHARJEE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS (with connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 529

In a major development, the Supreme Court (May 21) held that the mere fact that workers were initially appointed on a temporary basis and not against sanctioned posts would not, by itself, disentitle them from seeking regularisation under the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

The Court observed that where employees have rendered continuous service for decades in departments discharging regular governmental functions, they would still be entitled to consideration for regularisation, regardless of the fact that their initial appointment was not against the sanctioned post.

Setting aside the Gauhati High Court's Division Bench judgment, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the batch of appeals filed by the employees who were temporarily engaged on muster rolls in various departments of Government of Assam but denied regularisation of service despite rendering the regular nature of services for more than a decade.

Supreme Court Faults HC Reading Of 'May' In Tender Document As 'Shall', Grants Relief To Contractor

Cause Title: RR CONSTRUCTIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus GAYATRI VENTURES AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 530

Observing that the word “may” used in the tender document could not be interpreted as “shall”, the Supreme Court granted relief to a contractor whose bid was rejected for submitting the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) through a Fixed Deposit instead of a Demand Draft, despite the tender conditions not mandating submission of the EMD only through a DD.

“The word “may” is also employed in Clause 2.15 and hence it is only in the nature of an option and not a mandatory condition.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while allowing the appeal against the Chhattisgarh High Court decision which dismissed the Appellant's plea against the bid cancellation on account of non-submission of it via DD.

The Court rejected the High Court's interpretation of 'may' as 'shall', stating that the submission of the bid via DD was not the compulsion, and since the Appellant had submitted the bid via FD, that would also be considered as a valid bid.

Supreme Court Expands Meaning Of 'Unchastity', Says Threat To Leak Woman's Bathing Video Punishable Under S.506 IPC

Cause Title: VIJAYAKUMAR VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 531

In a significant ruling on women's dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy, the Supreme Court has held that the concept of "unchastity" under criminal law must be understood in light of modern constitutional values, and not through outdated moral frameworks.

The Court made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man under Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code for threatening to upload a woman's private bathing video on Facebook, holding that such conduct amounts to “imputing unchastity” to a woman within the meaning of the provision which penalises criminal intimidation.

“…the act of video-recording the victim in a naked state while she was taking a bath and the threat to upload it on digital social media can be construed to be an act amounting to a threat to impute unchastity within the meaning of Part II of Section 506 IPC.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

Statement Of Accused Absolving Himself & Incriminating Co-Accused Not Reliable : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Papan Sarkar @ Pranab Versus State of West Bengal (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 532

The Supreme Court (May 22) set aside a murder conviction, upon noting that the statements of an accused by way of an extra-judicial confession, arraying other co-accused, without affording them an opportunity to cross-examine the maker, would be fatal to the prosecution's case, and not reliable for a conviction.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran overturned the Calcutta High Court's decision, which had affirmed the trial court's decision of convicting the Appellants for an offence of murder. Amongst other flaws in the prosecution's case, the Court found that the Appellant's conviction was based on the extra-judicial statement of an accused, who had made an exculpatory statement, absolving him, but accused the other co-accused persons of the commission of the crime.

Disregarding such exculpatory statements, the court observed:

Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench 'Perceived Conflict' In Judgments On UAPA Bail When Trial Is Delayed

Case Details: TASLEEM AHMED v STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI | Diary No. 5434-2026 and ABDUL KHALID SAIFI @ KHALID SAIFI v STATE (NCT OF DELHI) | SLP(Crl) No. 3867/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 533

Observing that there was a "perceived conflict" among different benches regarding the understanding of the 3-judge bench judgment in Union of India v KA Najeeb - which held that long incarceration can be a ground to grant bail in cases under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, regardless of the statutory rigours - a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger bench.

While referring the matter, the Court also granted interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi for six months in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. It has imposed bail conditions, including that they must not interact with the media and speak about their case.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale referred the matter, considering the arguments made by the Delhi Police in the petitions filed by Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi seeking bail in the Delhi riots UAPA case.

Burden To Prove GPA Transactions Were Loan Security, Not Sale, On Plaintiff; Mere Fraud Allegations Insufficient : Supreme Court

Case : Mallika v. R. Nallathambi & Ors

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 534

The Supreme Court has held that a person claiming that property transactions executed through General Powers of Attorney (GPAs) were merely security arrangements for loans, and not genuine sale transactions, bears the burden of proving that claim with credible evidence, ruling that mere allegations of fraud or fiduciary misuse are insufficient.

“Burden of establishing that the transactions were not genuine sale transactions, but merely security arrangements for loans, rested upon the appellant and mere allegations of fraud or misuse of fiduciary position are not sufficient unless supported by reliable and cogent evidence,” the Court observed while dismissing an appeal arising from a property dispute in Tamil Nadu.

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the Madras High Court's judgment refusing to interfere with the reversal of a trial court decree that had favoured the plaintiff.

Non-Mention Of Accused In Inquest Report Does Not By Itself Suggest Innocence: Supreme Court

Cause Title: BHAGAT SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 535

The Supreme Court (May 22) observed that mere omission to name the accused in the inquest proceedings would not be a ground to grant bail, when there exist other corroborative circumstances implying the prima facie involvement of the accused in the crime.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to the Respondent No.2, who was accused of murder, on the ground that his name did not surface in the inquest proceedings.

Reiterating that in matters where grave accusations were labelled against the accused, the Courts need to exercise the judicial discretion sparingly and carefully, the bench noted that mere omission of the accused's name in the inquest proceedings was irrelevant when there exist other corroborative materials collected during the investigation.

Order Granting Bail In Second Round Must Record Change In Circumstances Or Fresh Grounds : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MOHSEEN VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 536

The Supreme Court has observed that, upon rejection of an earlier bail application, the failure to record the existence of the fresh grounds while hearing the subsequent bail application would render the bail order liable to be interfered with.

“While there is no absolute bar against a High Court granting bail to an accused whose bail was previously cancelled by this Court, the grant of bail must be supported by reasons demonstrating either a change in circumstances or the existence of fresh grounds not considered by this Court at the time of cancellation.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to an accused in an attempt to murder along with Arms Act case, where the High Court overlooked the fact regarding the rejection of his earlier bail by the trial court in an order granting a bail, moreover, nothing was brought on record to justify the grant of bail based on the change in circumstances or emergence of any fresh grounds.

S. 307 IPC | Gravity Of Injury Not Enough To Convict For Attempt To Murder Without Proof Of Intention To Cause Death: Supreme Court

Cause Title: ROSHAN LAL VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 537

The Supreme Court has observed that unless the mens rea to cause death is proved, the conviction for attempt to commit murder cannot be sustained merely on account of the gravity of the injury suffered by the injured.

“…the gravity of the injury by itself cannot be determinative of the offence under Section 307 IPC unless the prosecution is able to establish the requisite mens rea contemplated under the provision.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while setting aside the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had affirmed the trial court's conviction of the appellant for the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, finding out that the courts below had placed undue reliance upon the injury being dangerous to life, whilst entirely overlooking the critical fact that the appellant lacked the requisite intention or knowledge to commit murder.

The Court observed that, as per Section 307 IPC, to constitute an offence of attempt to murder, two essential elements must be established: (i) intention or knowledge to commit murder, and (ii) an actual act of trying to commit murder.

“Her Story An Eye-Opener”: Convicting Husband For Wife's Murder, Supreme Court Warns Against Forcing Women Back Into Abusive Marriages

Cause Title: Gour Acharjee Versus The State of Tripura & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 538

While upholding the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife and for subjecting her to domestic cruelty, the Supreme Court (May 25) drew attention to the societal failure to recognise the distress faced by married daughters in their matrimonial homes. The Court noted that the deceased victim's repeated complaints of domestic violence and dowry harassment were ignored or trivialised, with pressure placed on her to reconcile with her husband and resume matrimonial life.

The Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan heard a case where, despite the victim repeatedly complaining to her family about being subjected to violence by her husband, her concerns were ignored by both her relatives and village elders, who urged her to return to her matrimonial home in the hope of reconciliation. She was ultimately killed, though the appellant unsuccessfully sought to portray the death as a case of suicide.

Condemning the repeated failure of the victim's family members and the village members, the Court observed:

In-Laws Can't Be Prosecuted Merely For Asking Wife To Adjust : Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Harassment, 498A Case

Cause Title: ARTI MEHTA & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 539

The Supreme Court (May 25) quashed the domestic cruelty, domestic violence, and dowry demand proceedings against the in-laws of the woman, holding that omnibus, generalised allegations lacking specific overt acts cannot justify continuation of prosecution against the husband's relatives in matrimonial disputes.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed appeals filed by the complainant's in-laws, setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior bench order refusing to quash the proceedings against them.

The Court observed that criminal law cannot be used as a weapon to settle personal or familial grievances in the absence of legally sustainable allegations.

Medical Negligence Case | Supreme Court Discharges Anaesthetist Who Prescribed Medicine Over Phone To Staff Nurse

Cause Title: SUPRIYA KUMARI M.C. VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 540

The Supreme Court (May 25) discharged an anaesthetist for an alleged post-surgery complication to the patient because of the medication prescribed by her over the phone to the nurse, which resulted in the death of the patient.

The Court held that an anaesthetist would not be held guilty under Section 304-A of IPC, for the post-surgery complication, which resulted due to improper application of medicine to the patient by the staff nurse, which was entirely beyond the physical control of the off-duty anaesthesian.

“Legally, an anaesthetist whose duty hours have concluded cannot be held criminally liable for a subsequent procedural error committed by a staff nurse. Even if the prosecution's case is taken at face value that the appellant suggested a painkiller over the phone, such an act constitutes standard medical advice for postoperative pain, not gross criminal recklessness. The failure of the nurse to accurately locate the epidural space might represent a deficiency in service (civil liability), but it fundamentally lacks the gross culpability or mens rea required to invoke Section 304-A IPC.”, observed a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, while setting aside the Kerala High Court's order refusing to quash the medical negligence case (Section 304-A IPC) against the Appellant- anaesthetist.

Supreme Court Lays Down Principles On Promissory Estoppel, Says It Can't Be Invoked For Benefits Never Intended

Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 541

The Supreme Court (May 25) observed that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to claim benefit under a government policy which was never aimed to benefit a specific class of industrial unit.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment directing the State to extend concessional electricity tariff benefits under the Industrial Policy, 2019 to the respondent-company, an existing manufacturer engaged in industrial metal processing and stamping, on the basis of substantial expansion undertaken by it.

The Court said that the High Court overlooked the fact that the policy was not aimed to cover the existing industrial units, but only to all new industrial enterprises. Hence, the benefit of doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be claimed by the Respondent, which is an existing industrial unit, regardless of the fact that it had done substantial expansion based on the industrial policy but can't claim electricity at a concessional tariff rates under the State's industrial policy.

High Court Exercising Probate Jurisdiction Has Constitutional Power To Order Investigation Into Irregularities In Estate : Supreme Court

Cause Title: BAI AVABAI HORMUSJI TATA TRUST VERSUS SHERNAZ FAROUKH LAWYER & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 542

The Supreme Court (May 25) held that a High Court, as a probate court, overseeing the administration of the deceased's estates, is empowered to direct a police investigation after noticing irregularities in the administration of the deceased's estates.

The Court held that even while exercising jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act, the High Court is not denuded of its plenary powers under Article 215 of the Constitution.

“…a primary function of the Probate Court is to adjudicate the execution and genuineness of the Will but while doing so if the High Court notices glaring irregularities or there is an element of mischief played by an executor noticed by the High Court then in that situation the High Court cannot be a silent spectator and will have to exercise its plenary and constitutional power to check the mischief so as to protect the property.”, observed a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

'Arrest Memo Mentioned Murder Offence Even Before Body Was Recovered' : Supreme Court Upholds Acquittals

Cause Title: PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA VERSUS MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 543

The Supreme Court (May 25) upheld the acquittal of four accused persons in a murder case, holding that the alleged recovery of the dead body at the instance of one of the accused was surrounded by serious irregularities and could not be safely relied upon to sustain a conviction.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the Rajasthan High Court's acquittal, upon noting that the recovery of the dead body was doubtful, as the police prematurely treated the missing report filed by the complainant as a murder case.

The case arose from the disappearance and death of one Ashok Kumar Sharma, a Bolero Jeep taxi driver, who went missing on April 26, 2007. The prosecution alleged that the accused made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the deceased's body from a dry well.

'n-Hexane' Not 'Motor Spirt' For Customs Duty : Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal Against Reliance Industries

Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA, GUJARAT VERSUS M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 544

The Supreme Court has observed that the imported product 'n-hexane', mainly used in making chemicals or extracting vegetable oils, could not be classified as a petroleum product/motor fuel, to attract lower duty, merely because it has a low flash point.

Dismissing the Custom Department's appeal, a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale granted relief to Reliance Industries Ltd. while upholding the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) decision to classify 'n-hexane' as a solvent compound, not 'motor fuel'. Thus, the Court held that the imported 'n-hexane' would fall under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff, which attracts a lower duty.

The dispute centered on the classification of n-Hexane, a saturated acyclic hydrocarbon with the chemical formula C₆H₁₄, imported by Reliance Industries. While the assessee classified the product under Chapter 29 (CTH 2901.10/CETH 2901.90), the Customs Department sought to classify it under Chapter 27 as “Motor Spirit,” attracting a higher duty liability.

Accused In Jail For 9 Years As Undertrial Deserves Bail As Article 21 Right Violated : Supreme Court

Case Details: VICKKI YADAV @ VIKAS YADAV v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9430/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 545

The Supreme Court recently granted bail to an undertrial prisoner in jail for the past 9 years on the grounds that his Article 21 right has been violated.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan granted bail, reiterating that an undertrial can't be kept in jail for an indefinite period.

To briefly state, the petitioner was denied bail by the Allahabad High Court in connection with the offence of murder. He was facing offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner has been undertrial for more than 9 years and the trial is currently at the fag end. It was also submitted that the co-accused wasgranted bail by the Court on April 29.

Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal Must Itself Hear Convict On Sentence, Cannot Remand To Trial Court For Sentence Alone : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mukesh Kumar Yadav Versus The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) Etc.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 546

The Supreme Court (May 26) held that if an Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal, finds the accused guilty, then it cannot relegate the matter to the trial court for imposing the sentence. The Appellate Court itself has to hear the convict on sentence.

“It can be seen from Section 386(a), Cr.P.C., that where in an appeal from an order of acquittal, the court hearing the appeal finds the accused guilty it is required to pass a sentence on him according to law.”, observed a bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while setting aside the Calcutta High Court's Port Blair Circuit Bench decision to relegate the matter to the trial court for the purposes of imposing the sentence on the accused, after overturning his acquittal.

The Court said that “if it is the appellate court which is convicting the accused for the first time after reversing the acquittal, the appellate court has to hear the convict on sentence. The appellate court cannot relegate the matter to the court below only for the purpose of imposing a sentence after the appellate court had recorded a conviction. That will be contrary to Section 386(a), Cr.P.C., and the judgments of this Court.”

S.33(1)(a) Arbitration Act Only To Correct Clerical Errors In Award; Can't Be Invoked To Change Nature Of Interest : Supreme Court

Cause Title: GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VERSUS SARYU PLASTICS PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 547

Holding that substance of an arbitral award cannot be altered under the guise of correcting errors, the Supreme Court has ruled that changing the nature of interest awarded from simple interest to compound interest amounts to a substantive modification that falls outside the limited scope of Section 33(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the ruling while allowing appeals filed by the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board against a Gujarat High Court judgment that upheld a Commercial Court's decision modifying an arbitral award in favour of Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

The Court held that the Commercial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting simple interest awarded for the pendente lite period with compound interest, a change that dramatically increased the Board's liability from approximately Rs.30.38 crore to Rs.144.93 crore.

Party Estopped From Challenging Award On The Ground Of Mandate Expiry After Accepting Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate: Supreme Court

Cause Title: GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VERSUS SARYU PLASTICS PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 547

The Supreme Court (May 26) has held that a party who continues to participate in arbitration proceedings without objecting to the extension of the arbitrator's mandate cannot later challenge the award on the ground that the mandate had expired.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the dispute that arose out of arbitration proceedings between the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd. relating to supply contracts for PVC pipes.

Under the arbitration agreement executed on April 3, 2012, the arbitrator's mandate was initially fixed for six months. Though the parties formally extended the mandate until September 30, 2014, the arbitrator thereafter continued extending the timeline unilaterally while proceedings remained pending.

Modifying Life Term Sentence As Fixed Sentence Permissible : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Munna Moyuddin Shaikh Versus State of Gujarat

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 548

The Supreme Court (May 26) reaffirmed the settled proposition of law that the imposition of a life imprisonment sentence on the convict would not bar the modification of the sentence to a fixed-term sentence when the convict had already undergone more than 14 years of imprisonment.

“…when a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed, Section 53 read with Section 45 of the IPC would convey the meaning that it is till the natural life subject to the right of claiming remission. Hence, modifying a sentence of life imprisonment and imposing a fixed sentence is permissible…”, observed a bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, relying on Shiva Kumar versus State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252.

The Appellant-convicts, who had already served about 23 years imprisonment for an offence of murder, appealed to the Supreme Court against the Gujarat High Court's decision, which had upheld the trial court's decision of conviction and imposition of a life imprisonment sentence on them.

'SIR Meets Proportionality Test' : Conclusions From Supreme Court Judgment

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 549

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, holding that the exercise does not conflict with the Representation of the People Act or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and is traceable to the Election Commission's powers under Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution.

The Court held that the SIR satisfies the test of proportionality, observing that the exercise serves the legitimate constitutional objective of ensuring accurate, complete and credible electoral rolls, which are foundational to free and fair elections. It found that the measures adopted were neither excessive nor arbitrary, and that adequate procedural safeguards were built into the process.

Rejecting the argument that existing inclusion in the electoral roll creates an absolute bar against fresh scrutiny, the Court held that the presumption arising from enrolment is rebuttable. It clarified that Lal Babu Hussein judgment was decided in the context of adjudicatory proceedings and does not prevent the Commission from undertaking a broader systemic verification exercise.

SIR | Supreme Court Asks ECI To Send To Centre Names Of Persons Deleted From 2003 Bihar Roll Over Doubtful Citizenship

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 549

While upholding the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise of electoral rolls, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India to forward to the Central Government the names of persons deleted from the 2003 Bihar electoral roll over doubtful citizenship within four weeks, to determine their citizenship.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, pronouncing judgment in a batch of petitions which challenged the ECI's notification to conduct SIR in Bihar, observed :

"Regarding persons whose names have been deleted from the 2003 roll on account of the Commission being of the opinion that they are not citizens, the Commission shall refer such cases within 4 weeks to the Competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, for adjudication of their citizenship."

ECI Can Examine Citizenship For Limited Purpose Of Electoral Roll Inclusion, But Its Determination Not Final: Supreme Court

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 549

In a significant ruling on the scope of the Election Commission's powers, the Supreme Court held that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is empowered to undertake a limited inquiry into an individual's citizenship for the purpose of determining eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll, but clarified that such a determination cannot be treated as conclusive on the question of citizenship.

The judgment came while upholding the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.

Addressing the challenge to the Commission's scrutiny of citizenship status during the exercise, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the ECI's power flows from its constitutional responsibility to maintain accurate electoral rolls and ensure that only eligible persons are included.

Supreme Court Upholds Election Commission's Power To Conduct SIR Of Electoral Rolls, Says It Advances Free & Fair Elections

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 549

The Supreme Court(May 27) upheld the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls done by the Election Commission of India and observed that electoral SIR advances the Constitutional imperative of free and fair elections.

The Court held that the Election Commission has the power to conduct SIR under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Rules made thereunder.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi pronounced the judgment in the writ petitions, which challenged the notification issued by the ECI in June last year to conduct SIR in Bihar.

Central Govt Must Engage With State's Views Before Rejecting All India Services Officer's VRS : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ABDUR RAHMAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 550

The Supreme Court has observed that though the Voluntary Retirement from Service from All India Services requires a mandatory approval of the Central Government, this would not by itself, empower the Central Government to reject the application for VRS without considering the recommendation of the State Government.

While dealing with a VRS plea of a Maharashtra Cadre Indian Police Service (“IPS”) Officer, a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the concurrent findings of the Bombay High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had upheld the Central Government's decision to reject the Appellant's VRS plea.

The Court noted that the Central Government's decision to reject the Appellant's plea for VRS was passed without a proper application of mind and did not contain the State Government's recommendation regarding the suitability of the Appellant to apply for VRS.

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To S.63(4) BSA Mandating Hash Value Disclosure For Electronic Evidence

Case : Pune Bar Association v Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 551

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), rejecting a challenge mounted by the Pune Bar Association against the stricter admissibility framework for electronic evidence. While refusing to interfere with the provision, the Court also clarified that a Madras High Court view suggesting that only government-notified electronic evidence examiners can certify such records should not be treated as binding precedent.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order on May 22 in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The petitioner Bar association had challenged Section 63(4) of the BSA, read with the Schedule appended to the Act, contending that the provision imposes unreasonable and impractical obligations on litigants seeking to rely on electronic records as evidence.

Bus Driver Not Expected To Turn Back & Check If Passengers Alighted : Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction For Death By Negligence

Cause Title: MOHAMMAD HANIF JAINUM KHALIFA VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 552

The Supreme Court (May 27) acquitted a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus driver who had been convicted for causing the death of a passenger who fell while alighting from the bus, holding that a driver acting on the conductor's signal to move the vehicle cannot automatically be held criminally negligent.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside the conviction of the Appellant-driver under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, observing that the prosecution failed to establish any rash or negligent act on his part.

“When the appellant accused had followed the instructions of the conductor in stopping and moving the bus, which the appellant was duty-bound to do, it would be both unreasonable and illogical to attribute any negligence on his part.”, the court observed.

Supreme Court Sets Aside CCI Order Revoking Approval For Amazon-Future Deal; Says Regulatory Fairness Vital To Boost Investments

Cause Title: AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC VERSUS COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 553

In a significant ruling with implications for India's regulatory climate and foreign investment sentiment, the Supreme Court held that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) exceeded its statutory powers in revoking the approval for the 2019 Amazon -Future Coupons investment, stressing that merger regulation must be rigorous but also predictable, fair and anchored in law.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed Amazon's appeal against the NCLAT judgment which had substantially upheld the CCI's December 2021 order keeping in abeyance the approval granted to Amazon's transaction, directing it to file a fresh Form II notice, and imposing penalties of over Rs 202 crore for alleged suppression and misrepresentation.

The Court held that the CCI had exceeded its statutory powers by treating alleged “imperfect characterisation” of disclosed material as a complete failure to notify the transaction under the Competition Act, 2002.

Primogeniture Rule Won't Govern Inheritance Of Ex-Royal's Private Estate, Succession Law Applies : Supreme Court

Cause Title: TIKKA SHATRUJIT SINGH & ORS. VERSUS SUKJIT SINGH & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 554

The Supreme Court (May 27) held that a rule of 'primogeniture' i.e., the eldest male heir alone inherits the royal estate or throne, would not apply to succession of the private properties of the former rulers, and such properties will devolve by way of personal succession laws.

“…the properties declared to be the personal private properties of the ruler would devolve not according to the rule of primogeniture but according to the personal law, whether Muslim Law or Hindu Law.”, the court held.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment which had recognised Brigadier Sukhjit Singh as the exclusive successor to the private properties of late Maharaja Paramjit Singh under the rule of primogeniture, by virtue of being the eldest male lineal descendant after the abolition of princely rule.

'S.138 NI Act Quasi-Criminal' : Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench Whether IBC Moratorium Totally Bars Cheque Dishonour Case Against Company Director

Cause Title: Dineshchand Surana v. UCO Bank (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 555

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question whether cheque bounce proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be stayed during the moratorium period under Part III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, while holding that such proceedings are predominantly criminal in nature and not merely debt recovery actions.

A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that proceedings under Section 138 NI Act cannot be treated purely as legal action for recovery of money. The Court disagreed with the view in P Mohanraj and others v M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Ltd (2021) that cheque dishonour cases are essentially civil in nature, stating that the core objective of Section 138 is to preserve public faith in cheque-based commercial transactions by attaching criminal consequences to dishonour of cheques.

The Court said the offence under Section 138 is the act of cheque dishonour itself, while non-payment of debt is only the injury flowing from the offence. It stressed that the provision was enacted as a deterrent against issuing cheques without sufficient funds and “was not intended to be used as a recovery of debt mechanism.”

'Trauma Care Part Of Right To Life' : Supreme Court Directs To Integrate Emergency Helplines Into 112, Implement PM RAHAT & Good Samaritan Scheme

Case Details: SAVELIFE FOUNDATION AND ANOTHER v UOI | WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 726 OF 2024

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 556

Recognising that the trauma care of citizens is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court recently passed interim directions, including to operationalise one common helpline number '112' for emergency response throughout the country.

The Court issued a series of interim directions to all States and Union Territories to create a uniform and robust trauma care system across the country, including integration of all emergency helplines into 112, operationalisation of the PM RAHAT cashless treatment scheme and establishment of Good Samaritan grievance redressal systems.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar passed the judgment in an Article 32 writ petition by the organisation SaveLife Foundation, seeking to improve road safety and provide emergency medical care in cases of road accidents, also known as 'trauma care'.

Permission From Magistrate Necessary For Police To Conduct Further Investigation: Supreme Court Reiterates

Cause Title: PALINISWAMY VEERARAJA & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 557

The Supreme Court has reiterated that in the absence of an express permission from the magistrate, a further investigation cannot be proceeded with by the police after filing of a closure report.

“Even though the statute does not require express permission, the law as it has developed, has made abundantly clear that seeking of permission from the concerned Magistrate has evolved into a requirement.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

The bench set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had justified the continuation of the further investigation against the Appellant which was initiated without the approval of the magistrate.

Can't Brush Aside Land Compensation Claim Merely Because Claimant Is A Sanyasi: Supreme Court

Case : Satya Narayan Shukla v.State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 558

The Supreme Court recently observed that a person's claim for land or monetary compensation cannot be rejected merely because he claims to be a sanyasi.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while dismissing yet another round of litigation initiated by a man from Uttar Pradesh over compensation and allotment of land after a road was constructed over his property.

"Sanyas is the fourth and final stage in the traditional Hindu system of life stages, typically characterized by renunciation of material desires, family ties and worldly ambitions. The applicant, though claims to be a Sanyasi is claiming land and monetary compensation. His right to claim land and compensation cannot be brushed aside only because of the fact that he is claiming to be a Sanyasi," the Court observed.

NI Act | Office Bearer Of Society Not Liable For Cheque Dishonour Unless Active Role In Conduct Of Business Shown : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S MANSI FINANCE (CHENNAI) LTD. VERSUS M. LALITHA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 559

The Supreme Court has observed that a mere designation of an individual holding a managerial position in a society would not be sufficient to invoke liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

“The law governing Section 141 of the NI Act is clear that there is no deemed liability merely by virtue of holding an office or position in the company or society. The complaint must disclose the factual basis showing that the person sought to be prosecuted was in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the entity at the relevant time.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria, while quashing a cheque dishonour case against an Executive Member of the company, against whom no documentary material demonstrating his participation in the transaction or responsibility for the society's affairs was shown to uphold his liability under Section 141 of the NI Act.

The dispute arose out of a financial transaction between the appellant finance company and Ravindra Bharathi Educational Society.

'Serious Infirmities In Prosecution' : Supreme Court Acquits 2 Death Row Convicts In Rape-Murder Case

Cause Title: MEHTAB VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 560

The Supreme Court has acquitted two men who had been sentenced to death for the alleged rape and murder of a 55-year-old woman in Uttarakhand, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances connecting them with the crime.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi allowed the appeals filed by the murder convicts, setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court, which had convicted them under Sections 302 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and imposed the death penalty.

The Court held that the investigation suffered from serious procedural irregularities, unreliable recoveries, absence of scientific evidence, flawed identification procedures, and a broken chain of custody, making it unsafe to sustain the conviction.

Arbitration | Writ Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked To Challenge Arbitrator's Decision Under Section 16 : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S TARINI PRASAD MOHANTY VERSUS M/S SUNFLAG IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 561

The Supreme Court has held that while exercising its Writ Jurisdiction, it is impermissible for the High Courts to interfere with the arbitral tribunal's order passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

“It was not open for the learned Single Judge in exercise of writ jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the dispute while adjudicating the challenge to an order passed under Section 16 of the A and C Act.”, observed a bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, while refusing to interfere with the Orissa High Court's Division Bench judgment, which had set aside the Single Judge decision to interfere with the arbitral tribunal's decision under Section 16 of the Act, while exercising the Writ Jurisdiction.

The case arose from an agreement for sale of iron ore executed on February 12, 2004 between M/s Tarini Prasad Mohanty (mine owner) and M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited (SISCO). When disputes arose, the matter was referred to a Sole Arbitrator.

IBC | Once CoC Approves Resolution Plan, Successful Resolution Applicant Can't Negotiate Further : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SANJAY DAVE Vs. ANDHRA BANK LTD. & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 562

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the binding nature of Committee of Creditors (CoC)-approved resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), holding that a Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) cannot indirectly back out of a plan by later objecting to conditions that were discussed and accepted during CoC meetings.

A bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the NCLT and NCLAT, which had rejected the Successful Resolution Applicant's plea seeking restoration of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), holding that the appellant had failed to comply with the terms of the Resolution Plan after disputing the allegedly conditional nature of the Letter of Intent (LoI) issued in its favour.

“…once the CoC, after applying its commercial wisdom, has approved the resolution plan, the SRA is prohibited from negotiating further and is expected to act in a time bound manner to implement the plan. In the present case, it is seen that the appellant was deliberately trying to delay the implementation of the plan citing the purported conditionality of the LoI. This defeats the purpose of the Code as the otherwise timebound and swift process is now being delayed at the behest of the appellant.”, the Court observed.

S.311 CrPC Power Can't Be Invoked To Fill Up Lacunae In Defence : Supreme Court Quashes Order To Recall Rape Victim For Cross Examination

Case: State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 563

The Supreme Court has set aside a Tripura High Court order that permitted the recall of a rape victim for further cross-examination, holding that the accused had already been afforded ample opportunity to question the witness and that reopening her testimony after a four-year delay would cause undue hardship to the victim.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed an appeal filed by the State of Tripura against the High Court's March 14, 2024 order, which had directed the trial court to permit further examination of the prosecutrix with reference to call detail records (CDRs).

Emphasising the rights and dignity of victims, the Court observed that directing another recall would inflict further and unjustifiable hardship upon the prosecutrix, who had already undergone deposition and cross-examination on four separate occasions. It cautioned that witnesses, particularly victims of serious offences, cannot be expected to repeatedly appear in court to face cross-examination.

Supreme Court Asks States To Consider Using Software For Automatic Consideration Of Prisoners' Premature Release

Case : Surendra @ Sunda v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 563

The Supreme Court has directed the implementation of a digital processing module to automate the consideration of premature release applications of prisoners in Uttar Pradesh, after uncovering widespread delays in the State's remission system and irregular releases of convicts pursuant to a judicial direction that was subsequently declared bad in law.

The Court also asked all States and UTs to develop a software along similar lines in collaboration with the NIC or otherwise, for the automatic consideration of prisoners' applications for premature release in accordance with their respective policies/schemes.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar issued the directions while hearing an appeal filed by Surendra alias Sunda, who had challenged the Allahabad High Court's judgment affirming his conviction for murder under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment.

Supreme Court Grants Relief To Reliance Industries In 2007 RPL Futures Trading Case, Sets Aside SEBI's ₹447 Crore Disgorgement Order

Cause Title: RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ORS. Versus THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 564

The Supreme Court (May 29) set aside the ₹447.27 crore disgorgement order imposed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, being approved by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, on Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) in connection with alleged manipulative trading in the futures segment of Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (RPL) during November 2007.

Partly allowing the appeal filed by Reliance Industries Limited, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the finding of “fraud” under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations) could not be sustained, observing that the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) had committed an “egregious error” in affirming SEBI's conclusions on manipulation and fraudulent intent.

"We have reached the conclusion that the SAT in its majority judgment committed an egregious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as the question of fraud under regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations respectively is concerned," the Court observed.

Criminal Prosecution After Settlement Of Loan Before DRT Abuse Of Process : Supreme Court Quashes Cheating & Forgery Case

Cause Title: VIJAY KUMAR KELA & ANR. VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 565

The Supreme Court (May 29) quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a borrower under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that continuation of prosecution after a settlement of the loan account by way of an approved compromise settlement before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) would amount to abuse of process of court.

The Court framed the central issue as whether a criminal prosecution for cheating and forgery could continue after the loan account had been settled through a compromise approved by the bank and endorsed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

The Court noted that the bank had entered into a negotiated settlement with the borrower, accepted the entire compromise amount, issued a no-dues certificate, and secured dismissal of its recovery proceedings before the DRT. It held that the present case was squarely covered by its earlier decision in K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana, where criminal proceedings arising from a settled banking dispute were quashed.

Advocates Must Advise Their Clients Against Filing Frivolous Cases In Matrimonial Disputes : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ISHWAR CHAND SHARMA & OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 566

The Supreme Court (May 29) strongly deprecated the growing trend of filing false and vexatious criminal cases in matrimonial disputes, observing that courts as well as members of the Bar must actively discourage the misuse of criminal law to settle personal scores between estranged spouses.

“Vexatious litigation in the realm of matrimonial disputes based on frivolous and false allegations should be discouraged by the courts and the members of the bar. Advocates ought to advise their clients against the initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings against their spouses rather than encouraging them to do so.”, the Court observed.

A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while quashing more than 10 criminal cases, including allegations under the POCSO Act and rape provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), against a husband and his family members.

'Uglier Side Of Matrimonial Litigation' : Supreme Court Flags Trend Of Wives Filing False POCSO Cases Against Husbands

Cause Title: ISHWAR CHAND SHARMA & OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 566

The Supreme Court has expressed concern over a growing trend of false and frivolous cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act being filed in the backdrop of matrimonial and other personal disputes, cautioning that such misuse of criminal law causes severe hardship to innocent persons and burdens the justice system.

In a judgment, the Court observed that an increasing number of matrimonial disputes have witnessed allegations being levelled under the POCSO Act against husbands, who are also fathers of minor children, particularly daughters. According to the Court, such complaints are at times used as a tool to gain leverage in matrimonial litigation, secure higher monetary settlements, or harass the opposing party.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while quashing more than 10 criminal cases, including allegations under the POCSO Act and rape provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), against a husband and his family members. One of the cases filed at the instance of the wife alleged that her 14-year-old daughter was raped by her husband and her brother-in-law, and was physically assaulted by other family members of the husband.

'Individual Liberty Not Trivial Matter' : Supreme Court Awards Rs 11 Lakh Compensation To Prisoner For 24 Day Illegal Detention

Cause Title: DAUDAYAL Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 567

The Supreme Court (May 29) ordered the State of Rajasthan to make a payment of Rs. 11 lakh in compensation to a convict who was illegally detained for over a month, despite a judicial order existing in his favour.

“…the appellant is entitled to compensation for the twenty-four days of illegal custody suffered by him at the hands of the respondent State. The liberty of an individual is not a trivial matter. The State cannot continue curtailing the same in the face of a court order, on account of its slow bureaucratic processes of taking decisions whether to file appeals in a particular matter or not. If such a view is agreed to by us, it would amount to the liberty of a person being placed sub-par to the decision whether or not to file an appeal which is purely an administrative call. That cannot be countenanced.”, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The case arose from Daudayal's conviction in a 1967 criminal case, for which he was sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. His conviction was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court in 2021, following which he was arrested. In December 2023, he applied for permanent parole. The request was rejected in January 2024 on the ground that he had not availed the three stages of regular parole contemplated under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958.

Supreme Court Refuses To Review Judgment Mandating TET, Extends Deadline For In-Service Teachers

Case : State of UP v Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 568

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of review petitions challenging its 2025 judgment inAnjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, which held that in-service school teachers are required to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to continue in service and for promotions. However, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court extended the deadline for in-service teachers for acquiring the qualification by one year, until August 31, 2028.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan rejected contentions raised by States, teachers' associations and individual teachers that the requirement of qualifying TET could not be imposed on teachers appointed before the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The Court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of its earlier judgment.

In its original judgment, the Court had ruled that in-service teachers imparting lessons to students and having more than five years of service left before retirement must qualify TET within two years from September 1, 2025, failing which they would not be entitled to continue in service. It had also held that any teacher aspiring for promotion must necessarily qualify TET.

Permanently Vesting Secular Functions Of Mathadhipati In Govt Officer Denies Concept Of Mahantship; Violates Article 26: Supreme Court

Case : Arjun Dass v State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 569

The Supreme Court has held that the State cannot permanently separate the religious and secular functions of a Mathadhipati and vest the latter in a government-appointed administrator, observing that such an arrangement would amount to a denial of the very concept of Mahantship protected under Article 26 of the Constitution.

A Bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar made the observations while setting aside the Andhra Pradesh Government orders for the removal of Arjun Dass as the Mathadhipati of the historic Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt in Tirupati, and quashing orders appointing a "Fit Person" to administer the Mutt.

Referring to precedent in Shirur Mutt, the Court noted that in the conception of Mahantship, both the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest, are blended together and neither can be detached from the other.

MRTP Act | Property Tax Exemption Applies To All MIDC Units Till Transfer Of Services To Navi Mumbai Municipal Corp.: Supreme Court

Cause Title: SMALL SCALE ENTERPRENEURS ASSOCIATION & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 569

The Supreme Court has held that industries situated within the Trans Thane Creek (TTC) Industrial Area, which is vested in the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), are exempt from paying property tax to the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Court clarified that such exemption would apply for the period during which the industries availed essential civic amenities, including roads, drainage, water supply, street lighting, and sewerage services, provided by the MIDC.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale clarified that the benefit of the property tax exemption to the TTC Industries would cease to operate once the MIDC stopped providing the facilities to the industries, and the same was taken over by the NMMC. Thereafter, the TTC Industries are liable to pay property taxes to the NMMC.

“The moment the relevant authority (MIDC) stops providing those facilities and the responsibilities of the same are taken by the NMMC the benefit of the aforesaid exemption would cease to exist.”, the court observed.

1940 Arbitration Act | Award In Arbitration Invoked During Pending Civil Suit Without Court's Leave Not Enforceable : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ASHOK AND ORS. VERSUS PADAM CHAND AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 570

The Supreme Court has observed that during the pendency of the civil suit, an arbitral award secured by some parties under the 1940 Arbitration Act cannot be used to close the civil proceedings if the arbitration was initiated without the leave of the Court.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard the case where, during the pendency of a civil suit filed by the Appellant, an arbitral award under the 1940 Act was passed which effectively compromised the litigation between the parties and, based on this award, the Appellant's suit was dismissed, as the trial court deemed the dispute to be settled.

The central issue before the Court was whether an arbitration award passed during the pendency of a civil suit could be relied upon to settle or defeat the suit when the arbitration proceedings had been initiated without obtaining a court order under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Supreme Court Issues Guidelines To High Courts To Avoid Delay In Delivering Reserved Judgments; Sets 3 Month Timelimit

Case Title – Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 571

The Supreme Court issued a set of guidelines, which shall operate as "binding directions", to the High Courts to avoid delays in pronouncing judgments in reserved matters.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set a timelimit of three months to deliver judgments in matters where it is reserved. The orders in bail applications should be pronounced the same day, and if it is reserved, it must be pronounced and uploaded the next day.

If the bench which reserved the judgment does not deliver the judgment within four months of reserving, an application can be filed before the Chief Justice to withdraw the matter to another bench.

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Same/Next-Day Release Of Prisoners Granted Bail, Acquittal Or Sentence Suspension

Case Title – Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 571

The Supreme Court has issued a set of directions aimed at ensuring that undertrials and convicts are released from prison without delay after courts grant them bail, suspend their sentence, or acquit them.

Recognising that prisoners often continue to remain behind bars for days despite obtaining favourable judicial orders, the Court directed all High Courts and subordinate courts to streamline the process for pronouncement, communication and implementation of such orders.

The Court said that once a bail application is heard, the order should preferably be pronounced and uploaded on the same day. If the matter is reserved for orders, the Court observed that the order is expected to be pronounced on the next day and uploaded to the court website immediately thereafter.

Supreme Court Upholds Levy Of GST On Online Gaming, Says Its Taxable As 'Betting & Gambling'

Case : DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE HQS Vs GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED | SLP(C) No. 19366-19369/2023

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 572

The Supreme Court upheld the levy of Goods and Services Tax on online gaming activities as constitutionally valid, and rejected the constitutional and statutory challenge mounted against the levy of CGST on actionable claims arising from betting and gambling transactions.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that organised online gaming activities, including fantasy games involving pooled stakes and contingent price structures, give rise to actionable claims and supplies exigible to GST under the statutory framework governing betting and gambling transactions.

Online gaming amounts to betting and gambling

Supreme Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments & Stopping Of Illegal Resorts In Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve

Cause Title: A. JOHN KENNEDY AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 573

Expressing serious concern over the alarming extent of encroachments within the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve (SMTR), the Supreme Court issued a series of stringent directions aimed at restoring the ecologically sensitive landscape and ensuring strict compliance with forest and wildlife protection laws.

Noting that more than 4,600 encroachers occupying over 5,000 hectares of reserved forest land within the Tiger Reserve, and despite years of enforcement efforts, only 66 encroachers had been relocated and a relatively small portion of the encroached land had been recovered, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the pace of action was grossly inadequate considering the ecological significance of the area, which forms the upper catchment of the Vaigai River and serves as a crucial wildlife habitat.

“In SMTR alone, only 66 out of 4,601 encroachers have been successfully relocated, and even in respect of these 66 cases, the State has acknowledged that the process of taking over 40 cultivation, buildings and other assets has not been fully completed and continues to remain in suspended animation, thereby permitting continued illegal use of forest land and resources. Only 52.86 hectares out of 5,072.653 hectares under encroachment has been effectively recovered. These meagre figures, when viewed against the massive scale of encroachment and the duration over which this matter has been pending before various fora, reflect a pace of progress that this Court finds difficult to regard as commensurate with the gravity of the situation.”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Issues Comprehensive Victim Protection Plan For Human Trafficking Survivors, Calls For Legislative Reforms

Cause Title: PRAJWALA Versus UNION OF INDIA, MA 530/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 56/2004 PIL-W

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 574

In a landmark judgment addressing human trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation (CSE), the Supreme Court has issued a comprehensive Victim Protection Plan and directed all States and Union Territories to implement a series of measures aimed at protecting and rehabilitating trafficking survivors.

Invoking its powers under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan issued a detailed set of binding directions constituting a nationwide "Victim Protection Plan" covering rescue operations, victim identification, rehabilitation, prosecution mechanisms, and institutional coordination.

"It took a pretty long time to prepare this judgment, but we are sure you won't have to refer to any books henceforth on the subject. This will remain very close to our hearts because it will go a long way in protecting vulnerable young girls and women," Justice Pardiwala observed at the time of pronouncement.

Consent Of Adult Sex Trafficking Victims Must Guide Decisions For Their Rehabilitation : Supreme Court

Cause Title: PRAJWALA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 574

In a landmark ruling aiming to mitigate the concerns of the victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation (CSE), the Supreme Court has held that the consent of adult sex workers must be the primary consideration in decisions relating to rehabilitation, reintegration, and placement in protective homes.

While adjudicating a miscellaneous plea seeking guidelines and directions to protect the fundamental rights of victims of trafficking for CSE, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, accepting Senior Advocate Ms. Aparna Bhat submission, regarding the preparation of a 'Victim Protection Plan', held that victims cannot be treated as passive objects of rescue and rehabilitation, and that their choices and autonomy must be respected.

The Court rejected the paternalistic assumptions under the existing framework i.e., Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA), which often treats all persons rescued from prostitution-related situations in the same manner, irrespective of whether they were trafficked, coerced, or voluntarily engaged in sex work. According to the bench, such a "one-size-fits-all" approach fails to account for the diverse realities of those brought before magistrates.

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Odisha Courts' Bail Conditions Requiring Accused To Clean Police Stations

Case : In Re : Condition Being Imposed While Granting Bail By High Court Of Orissa and District Courts in the State of Odisha and ancillary issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2026

The Supreme Court registered a suo motu case regarding bail conditions imposed by the Orissa High Court and certain trial courts in Odisha, requiring accused persons to clean police stations.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will consider the suo motu case.

Advocates Who Missed Last AOR Exam By One Paper Challenge Supreme Court Decision To Not Hold AOR Exam In 2026

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court, by candidates who attempted the AOR exam last year and were declared eligible to re-appear in the next exam, challenging the decision not to hold the exam to select Advocates-on-Record (AOR) in 2026.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India this morning.

When CJI Surya Kant asked why can't the candidates wait for a couple of years, Naidu said that they had only missed the last year's exam by one paper. "They are not failed category, they are regulation 11(i) category, because one paper they missed. If they can be given a chance.." Naidu said.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Deploy Central Forces To Curb Post-Poll Violence In West Bengal

On the counting day of the West Bengal assembly elections, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea to deploy central forces to prevent post-poll violence in West Bengal, asking the party to approach the Calcutta High Court.

Senior Advocate V Giri, representing an organisation named 'Sanatan Sanstha', mentioned the matter before the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Giri highlighted that after the 2021 assembly elections, there were widespread acts of violence, and he sought measures to prevent such violence after the declaration of the present assembly elections, the counting of which is underway.

"Last time there was widespread post-poll violence, we have sought a direction that there could be some monitoring committee, preferably headed by a former Supreme Court judge to oversee that there is deployment of adequate force to prevent violence, " Giri said.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Challenge To Transgender Rights (Amendment) Act, Asks If Self-Identification Could Be Misused

Case Title: LAXMI NARAYAN TRIPATHI AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., and connected cases

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and States/UTs on a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice returnable within six weeks. The matter will be next placed before a three-judge bench.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, raised objection to the amendment taking away the right to self-identification of gender. He argued that the amendment was contrary to the 2014 judgment in NALSA case, which declared self-recognition of gender as a fundamental right.

Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka Response On Actor Darshan's Plea Alleging Denial Of Basic Amenities In Prison

Case Details: DARSHAN Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 159/2026

The Supreme Court(May 4) issued notice in a writ petition filed by actor Darshan, accused in the Renukaswamy Murder Case, raising the issue that he has not been provided with basic amenities which an undertrial is entitled to. He has also raised a plea that the trial is not progressing.

It may be recalled that last year, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had cancelledthe bail of actors Darshan, Pavitra Gowda, Nagaraju R., Anu Kumar@Anu, Lakshman M, Jagadeesh@Jagga and Pradoosh S Rao@Pradoosh for allegedly abducting the deceased from Chitradurga and then brutally torturing him before he succumbed to the injuries for three days in a shed in Bengaluru in June 2024. The body of the deceased was later thrown in the drain as per the police report.

The State of Karnataka filed an appeal challenging the bail granted by the Karnataka High Court, claiming that the actor Darshan was trying to influence the witnesses, and his post-bail conduct was questionable. It was also argued that the High Court erronously considered Darshan's celebrity status as a mitigating circumstance for granting bail.

'Very Nasty Registry, They Think They Are Super Chief Justice': CJI Surya Kant Lashes Out At SC Registry

In a strongly worded reprimand, the Chief Justice of India expressed serious displeasure over the functioning of its Registry, directing the Registrar (Judicial) to conduct a fact-finding enquiry into an apparent lapse in carrying out a judicial order.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took exception to the Registry's failure to issue notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), despite a specific direction passed by the Court.

During the proceedings, the Bench observed that its earlier order had clearly directed issuance of notice to the ED. However, the office report prepared by the Registry stated that no such direction had been issued. This discrepancy prompted sharp remarks from the Court.

Supreme Court Allows Bihar MP Pappu Yadav To Seek Urgent Hearing Before HC Against Lawrence Bishnoi Gang Threats

Case Title : RAJESH RANJAN PAPPU YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 164/2026

The Supreme Court heard a plea filed by sitting Bihar MP Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav alleging death threats from the gang of jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, and granted him liberty to move the High Court for urgent listing of his pending petition.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed that the petitioner's plea seeking protection had not been listed before the High Court since November 19, 2024.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Yadav, submitted that despite repeated mentions, the matter had not been taken up. He stated that Yadav currently has only “Y category” security with two personnel and referred to an alleged attempt on the life of the petitioner's brother. Farasat urged that the immediate relief sought was only for an early hearing before the High Court.

AgustaWestland Case: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Christian Michel's Plea Challenging India-UAE Extradition Treaty Provision

Case Title – Christian Michel James v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused Christian Michel James challenging Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty, which allows prosecution for offences connected to those for which extradition was granted.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice returnable in four weeks.

During the hearing, Counsel appearing for Michel argued that the Delhi High Court had gone to the extent of holding that the treaty would prevail over a law made by Parliament. It was submitted that Article 17 of the treaty is in absolute contravention of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which limits prosecution to the offences for which extradition is granted.

Supreme Court Extends RPwD Act To Persons Forced To Consume Acid & Suffer Internal Injuries Without External Disfigurement

Case Title : SHAHEEN MALIK Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court invoked its special powers to hold that persons forcibly made to consume acid, as well as those suffering internal injuries without visible external harm, fall within the ambit of 'acid attack victims' under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

The clarification was issued since the Act defined 'acid attack victims' as only "a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance." The Court further directed that this clarification will have a retrospective effect from 2016.

This meant that persons who were forced to drink acid, or did not suffer from disfigurement, were not entitled to benefits under the Act.

'Unwanted Pregnancies On Rise', Says Supreme Court Dropping Contempt Proceedings Against AIIMS

Case No. – Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 233/2026 In C.A. No. 6667/2026 Diary No. 26229 / 2026

Case Title – S [Mother of N] v. Punya Salila Srivastava

The Supreme Court dropped contempt proceedings against the Centre and All India Institute of Medical Sciences after being informed that its order permitting termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a minor girl had been complied with.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a contempt petition filed by the mother of the minor alleging non-compliance with the Court's earlier directions.

“Learned Additional Solicitor General has brought to our notice 2 reports dated 2nd May 2026 and 4th May 2026. She has reported that the direction issued by this court has been implemented in as much as the termination of pregnancy has been carried out. We do not find any reason to consider this contempt petition any further. Hence the contempt proceedings against the respondents are dropped”, the Court ordered.

'5-7 Yrs Punishment No Deterrant' : Supreme Court Calls For Harsher Punishment In Acid Attack Cases & Making Illegal Sellers Liable

Case Title : SHAHEEN MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025

In acid-attack survivor Shaheen Malik's case, CJI Surya Kant expressed an inclination to take action against illegal sale of acid across the country. The CJI further opined that those who are selling acid illegally should be held accountable and made vicariously liable in acid attack cases.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with Shaheen Malik's petition seeking protection for victims who were forcibly administered acid or did not have external injuries on their body.

In a significant move, the Court extended the benefits under RPwD Act to such victims and ordered that the clarification shall be deemed to have retrospective effect from the date of coming into effect of the RPwD Act.

'Perfect Order' : Supreme Court Dismisses Byju Raveendran's Appeal Against NCLT Restoring Original CoC In Think & Learn CIRP

Case Details: BYJU RAVEENDRAN v ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED AND ORS | Diary No. 52266-2025

The Supreme Court(May 4) refused to interfere with an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (NCLAT), which had restored the original Committee of Creditors (CoC), including Aditya Birla and Glas Trust Company LLC as financial creditor, in the insolvency resolution process concerning Think & Learn Pvt Ltd (the company which ran the ed-tech company Byju's).

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, dismissing the appeal filed by Byju Raveendran, said that the IRP shall proceed expeditiously with the insolvency proceedings, which shall be carried out in accordance with law.

"In this matter, we will not [interfere]. This is now too much. This litigation has gone too far beyond. Perfect order, we will not interfere," Justice Pardiwala said.

Plea To Limit Aadhaar Enrolment Only For Children Below 6 : Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Approach Authorities

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No.21141/2026

The Supreme Court disposed of a public interest litigationseeking that Aadhaar Cards be issued to citizens only upto the age of 6 years, and after the said ceiling limit, they be allowed to obtain an Aadhaar from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Tehsildar office.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi opined that the issues raised were in legislative domain and ordered that the writ petition (filed in the nature of PIL) be treated as a representation to the respondent-authorities.

Briefly put, the PIL was filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay impleading the Union, the States/Union Territories and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). It sought a direction to the UIDAI to issue new Aadhaar cards only to children and framing of stringent guidelines for adolescents and adults, so as to prevent infiltrators from getting it and masquerading as Indian citizens.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On CBI Challenge To HC's Clean Chit To Bhupinder Hooda & AJL In Panchkula Land Allotment Case

Case Details: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v BHUPINDER SINGH HOODA AND ANR. | SLP(Crl) No.7634-7635/2026

The Supreme Court yesterday (May 4) issued notice in the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's recent order giving a clean chit to the former Chief Minister of Haryana, Bhupinder Singh Hooda, and the Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the Congress newspaper National Herald, for alleged allotment of land in Panchkula to AJL.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the CBI before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The bench issued notice, returnable July.

By an order dated February 25, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya of the High Court held that the re-allotment of land is valid and it has neither been declared illegal nor has it been cancelled. It said that the CBI took it upon itself to term the re-allotment illegal and questioned how an investigating agency could do so.

'Morality' Can't Be Interpreted As Societal Morality As It Can Be Based On Prejudices : Indira Jaising In Sabarimala Reference

How to interpret the term 'morality' used in Articles 25 and 26 as one of the limitations on the exercise of religious freedoms is an issue which the nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference has been asked to settle.

While the Union Government as well as the review-petitioners(who seek review of the Sabarimala women entry judgment) have argued that there is no place for constitutional morality as it is based on subjectivity, and that it is the public morality which is represented by the Parliament as reflecting the will of the people, the respondents have argued that it can't be a morality which is dictated by majoritarianism.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, for the respondents, made her submissions on April 29, the eleventh day of the hearing. At the outset, she submitted that morality can't be interpreted as something which is dictated by society at large because societal morality can be full of prejudice.

'What Good Came Out Of Your PIL?' : Supreme Court Questions NGO Which Filed Plea For Sabarimala Women Entry

Indian Young Lawyers' Association, the NGO which filed the Public Interest Litigation petition in 2006 seeking the right of young women to enter the Sabarimala temple, faced certain tough questions from the Supreme Court on the 11th day of the hearing of the reference.

The 9-judge bench asked Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, the lawyer representing the Association, why the PIL was filed. The bench asked how an organisation, a juristic entity, can claim the right to worship.

"What did you file the PIL? What good has come out of it?" Justice Nagarathna asked. The bench repeatedly asked the lawyer if the organisation was headed by believers.

'How Can Right To Conscience Be Taken Away By Marriage?' : Supreme Court Questions Excommunication Of Parsi Women Marrying Outside Faith

On the 11th day of hearing in the Sabarimala reference, Supreme Court orally commented that the practice followed by Zoroastrians, barring a Parsi woman from entering the fire temple(Agiaries) if she marries outside her religion, is prima facie excommunication purely based on gender and is discriminatory.

Justice BV Nagarathna made these remarks during arguments by Senior Advocate Darius J. Khambata, who represents the petitioner, Goolrokh Gupta, in the set of petitions concerning the Parsi woman's religious identity.

Gupta, born a Parsi woman, married a Hindu man under the Special Marriage Act, 1954(SMA), and continued to practice her religion. But she was barred by the Valsad Parsi Anjuman Trust, in Gujarat, from entering the temple and attending the last rites of her parents. She approached the Gujarat High Court in a writ petition, which in 2012 upheld the practice, observing that a woman's religious identity is merged with that of her husband upon marriage. That is, the common law doctrine of coverture applies, and she ceases to be a Parsi upon marrying outside her religion.

NEET- PG : Supreme Court Seeks Institutional Mechanism To Address Recurring NEET-PG Cut-Off Issues

Case Title – Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India and connected matters

The Supreme Court(May 4) called for creation of an institutional mechanism to address recurring issues arising from reduction of qualifying cut-off percentiles in NEET-PG, observing that the problem arises every year and requires a structured solution.

“This is happening every year that the academic sessions go on, counselling continues, and young people face a lot of trouble while a large number of seats remain unfilled. Perhaps the system needs to be tweaked. The method needs to be institutionalized”, the court observed.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a plea challenging the decision to lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Post Graduate (NEET-PG) examinations.

Use Of AI-Generated Fake Judgments : Supreme Court Urges BCI To Form Expert Panel To Examine Issue

Case Title – Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao

The Supreme Court asked the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee of experts, including field experts, to examine issues arising from the use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings, in a case where a trial court relied on non-existent judgments cited by a litigant.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said that the committee should submit a report, while clarifying that no formal order was being passed at this stage.

The Court was dealing with an SLP challenging a trial court order in a suit for injunction. The trial court had dismissed objections to an Advocate Commissioner's report and relied on four decisions purportedly reported as Subramani v. M. Natarajan (2013) 14 SCC 95, Ramasamy (1071) 2 SCC 68, Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha (2006) 5 SCC 551, and Gajanan v. Ramdas (2015) 6 SCC 223.

Supreme Court Asks Sambhal Mosque Committee Factions To Resolve Dispute After 2 Petitions Filed Against Same HC Order

Case Details – Committee of Management Jami Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025 (AoR Anil Kumar) and Committee of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal, Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) 21599/2025 (AoR Fuzail Ahmad)

The Supreme Court asked rival factions of the Sambhal Mosque Committee to resolve their internal dispute after noting that two special leave petitions had been filed against the same Allahabad High Court judgment through different advocates on record.

“Let the board pass resolution. We don't want to step into your dargah. It is between all you people. We don't want to get into that. You sit down and then sort it out. It is rather embarrassing for us to get into this”, the Court remarked.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing the challenge to the High Court order upholding a trial court direction to appoint an advocate commissioner to survey the mosque in a suit alleging that it was built after demolishing a temple.

'This Matter More Important' : Supreme Court Refuses Union's Adjournment Request In Plea Challenging Election Commissioners' Law

Case Title - Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

The Supreme Court turned down a request made by the Union Government to adjourn the hearing of the petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta requested a two-judge bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta to adjourn the hearing, saying that he was occupied with the Sabarimala reference hearing before the 9-judge bench.

Justice Datta then referred to thecomments made by the 9-judge bench yesterday that the PIL seeking entry of women in Sabarimala temple should not have been entertained in the first place. Justice Datta seemed to indicate that the present matter is more important, as the 9-judge bench reference arose out of a PIL which was not maintainable in the first place.

Constitution Didn't Intend To Give Religious Denomination Higher Rights Than Believer : Darius Khambata In Sabarimala Reference

Case : Goolrookh M Gupta v. Sam Chothia | SLP(c) 18889 of 2012

In the Sabarimala reference matter before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Darius J. Khambata argued that an interpretation giving primacy to Article 26(b) over Article 25(1) will annihilate religion, as it would enable denominational groups to trample upon the rights of individual believers

He is representing Goolrook Gupta, who is challenging the practice of preventing Zoroastrian women who married outside the community from entering Aghyaris. The petition was also tagged along with the Sabarimala reference, since similar constitutional questions arise in both matters.

Yesterday, during the hearing, the 9-judge bench had raised questions about the practice, saying that it appeared to be gender discriminatory.

MP Bar Council Election : Supreme Court Gives Time To Advocates Excluded From Voters' List To Rectify Defects

Case Title: DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, KATNI & ANR. VERSUS BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS., WP(C) No(s). 564/2026

The Supreme Court recently allowed members of a District Bar Association in Madhya Pradesh to take remedial steps against their exclusion from the State Bar Council's electoral rolls, whereupon their claims shall be reconsidered by the Election Committee to be allowed to vote in the elections.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with a plea filed by District Bar Association, Katni and one of its members. The petitioners sought inclusion of names of the excluded advocates in the electoral rolls for the upcoming MP State Bar Council elections.

Upon hearing the parties, the Court noted that initially about 235 advocates, who were members of the petitioner-Association, were excluded from the electoral rolls. After the Bar Association made a representation, 183 names were re-included but 52 advocates remained excluded.

Present Law Ensures 'Prime Minister's Man' Is Appointed As Chief Election Commissioner : Petitioners Challenging CEC Act Tell Supreme Court

Case Title - Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that the Election Commissioners Act, 2023 ensures that the persons suggested by the Prime Minister will be appointed as Election Commissioners, making it impossible for any alternative candidate to be selected and undermining the independence of the Election Commission.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 Act, which provides that the section committee to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and other ECs will comprise the Prime Minister, a minister nominated by the PM, and the Leader of the Opposition (LoP).

The matter came before this bench after CJI Surya Kant recused from the hearing, as the petitioners are challenging a law which removes the CJI from the selection panel.

What Happens To Indian Civilisation If Every Religious Practice Is Questioned In Courts? Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

On the thirteenth day of the hearing in the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about the breaking of India's civilisation if the judiciary starts interfering with religious disputes indiscriminately.

The 9-judge bench was hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, who is representing the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, challenging the power of the Dai (religious head) of the Dawoodi Bohra community to excommunicate persons. Ramachandran argued that the excommunication power has been exercised arbitrarily in many instances, treating the believers as slaves, and this violated the fundamental rights of the believers.

During the course of the arguments, the bench asked if the power of excommunication is not protected under Article 26(b), as per which a religious denomination has the right to manage its own affairs. The senior counsel contended that Article 26(b) cannot be used to destroy the rights under Article 25(1), and that both the rights must be harmoniously interpreted.

Supreme Court Appoints Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud As Mediator In Rani Kapur-Priya Kapur Dispute Over Sunjay Kapur's Estate

Case Title: RANI KAPUR Versus PRIYA SACHDEV KAPUR AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 13943-13945/2026

After a nudge from the Supreme Court, late industrialist Sunjay Kapur's mother Rani Kapur and widow Priya Kapur agreed for mediation of their dispute in relation to the Rani Kapur Family Estate. Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud will be mediating the dispute between the parties.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan passed an order referring the parties to mediation after they gave mutual consent for the same. The bench advised the parties to explore mediation with an open mind and requested that they refrain from making statements in public and/or go on social media.

"It's a family dispute, let it be confined among the family only. It should not be a source of entertainment", said Justice Pardiwala. The remark came in response to a request by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Priya Kapur, that Rani Kapur be asked to not "wash dirty linen" on national TV.

Wish Judges Were Appointed As Speedily As Election Commissioners : Supreme Court

While hearing petitions challenging the law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, the Supreme Court remarked that it wished judges too were appointed with the same speed as Election Commissioners.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma is hearing the petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023, as per which the ECs will be appointed by a selection panel comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, for one of the petitioners, argued that the appointment of ECs were carried out in a swift manner without any effective consultation with the Opposition Leader. He told the bench that in 2024, an application was filed to restrain the appointment of Election Commissioners as per the new law. Preempting the hearing of the application in the Court, the Union hurriedly took steps to appoint the ECs, Hansaria claimed.

Supreme Court Questions Delhi HC Ruling Against Debarring Law Students Over Low Attendance, Asks BCI Why It's Not Challenged

Case Title: PRAKRUTHI JAIN v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, Diary No.47760/2024 (and connected case)

The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of a Delhi High Court judgmentwhich, while dealing with some law students' case, held that the shortage of attendance shall not act as a bar on their continuing academic pursuits.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a PILfiled by two final year law students from NALSAR University, who assailed circulars issued by the Bar Council of India in September 2024 mandating criminal background check, declaration of simultaneous degree or employment and compliance with attendance norms before enrolling of candidates for legal education or practice.

During the hearing, Justice Nath asked BCI counsel, Advocate Radhika Gautam, whether the Delhi High Court judgment observing that students cannot be barred on the basis of low attendance has been challenged. The judge remarked that the judgment has created "chaos" and become a serious concern for the National Law Universities.

Female Genital Mutilation Affects Health; Can't Be Compared With Circumcision : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court orally voiced concerns about the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) among sections of the Dawoodi Bohra community.

The petitions challenging FGM are tagged along with the Sabarimala reference, since the Constitutional issues relating to Articles 25 and 26 considered by the 9-judge bench have an impact on this matter.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Lutha, appearing for the petitioners opposing FGM, told the bench that the practice is done on young girls aged 7 years, and it causes an irreversible change in their bodies, which will affect their sexual and reproductive health. He argued that many families follow the practice because of the fear of excommunication if they do not adhere to it.

SC Shouldn't Have Totally Struck Down Law Banning Excommunication : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court orally commented that the 1962 judgment in 'Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb vs The State Of Bombay' was wrong for absolutely striking down of the Bombay law prohibiting excommunication.

The Court opined that the judgment ought to have applied the doctrine of severance, or should have adopted the method of reading down, to hold that excommunication of a member for reasons other than religious cannot be permitted. In other words, the judgment should have permitted excommunication only for breach of religious diktats, and should not have permitted excommunication of members for their activities in secular or social spheres.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who is heading the 9-judge bench, made these observations.

SC Judgment Didn't Say Law On Election Commissioners Must Be Made In A Particular Manner : Supreme Court During Hearing

Case Title - Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

The Supreme Court questioned the basis of challenge to the law governing appointment of Election Commissioners, observing that the ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India was only meant to fill a vacuum until Parliament enacted a law and did not mandate any particular structure for such a law.

“Anoop Baranwal judgment was only to fill the vacuum till the law is made. There is no observation in the judgment that the law should be framed in a particular manner. Don't only take the ground of violation of the 5-judge judgment in Anoop Baranwal”, Justice Dipankar Datta said.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing petitions challenging the statute which provides that the selection panel for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners will comprise the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of Opposition.

Gomchu Yekar Suicide: Supreme Court Upholds Arunachal Pradesh IAS Officer Talo Potom's Bail In Abetment Case

Case Title: TALO POTOM Versus THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 1699/2026

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

As per allegations, Gomchu Yekar was employed in the State Public Works Department. The job was given to him by Potom. In his suicide note, Yekar accused Potom and another (engineer in the Rural Works Dept) of sexually assaulting him, which led him to get infected with HIV/AIDS.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order, after hearing counsel for the complainant.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Relating To AIIMS' Allotment Of PG Medical Seats On Institutional Preference

Case Title: DR. SUKRIT NANDA M. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR., Writ Petition (C) No. 464 of 2024

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the AIIMS' alleged practice of allotting over 50 percent medical seats of a particular discipline in post-graduation by way of 'Institutional Preference'.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe passed the order, observing that it was not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The question of law was however left open.

The petitioner, a 23-year old aspirant of a post-graduate medical course, filed the petition contending that the allotment of over 50% seats by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences by way of "Institutional Preference" was contrary to the Court's judgments in AIIMS' Students Union v. AIIMS and Ors. (2002) and Saurabh Chaudri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2003).

Sringeri Votes Recount Row Reaches Supreme Court; Raje Gowda Challenges Karnataka High Court Order

Case : TD Rajegowda v. DN Jeevaraja and others | Diary No. 27809/26

TD Raje Gowda, a Congress leader from Karnataka, has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Karnataka High Court's order directing a recount of postal votes in the Sringeri constituency.

Following the recount, Gowda, who had won the Sringeri seat in the 2023 assembly polls, lost it to BJP candidate DN Jeevaraja, by 52 votes.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat mentioned Gowda's appeal before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing. Kamat submitted that his client got unseated following the High Court's order.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On AAP Plea Against Suspension Of Gujarat Unit's Instagram & Facebook Accounts

Case Title – Aam Aadmi Party Secretary v. Union of India

The Aam Aadmi Party has approached Supreme Court challenging the suspension of the Gujarat unit's Instagram handle “@aapgujarat” and its Facebook page.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice on plea to the Union and tagged it with other petitions involving similar issue.

The Court tagged it with Software Freedom Law Center, India v. Union of India, a PIL challenging the blocking of social media accounts/posts without issuing notice to the user.

Didn't Go For Judicial Service At Career Start As A Judge Advised ''Bar Is Waiting For You" : CJI Surya Kant Recalls

Case : Prerna Gupta v. Registrar General of Delhi High Court | SLP(C) No. 12677/2026

The Supreme Court witnessed a personal moment from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who shared how a senior High Court judge once advised him against joining the judicial service at the start of his profession and encouraged him instead to pursue litigation, telling him that “the Bar is waiting for you.”

The CJI narrated the anecdote while hearing a plea filed by an Advocate-on-Record relating to the Delhi Judicial Service Exam. Advocate Prerna Gupta, who appeared in person, filed the petition challenging the alleged alteration of the exam marks. The CJI told her that revaluation is permissible only if the rules expressly allow it, and expressed reluctance to entertain her matter.

On getting to know that the petitioner is an AoR in the Supreme Court, the CJI asked, "They why you want to become a judicial officer?".

Lakhimpur Kheri Case : Supreme Court Expresses Disappointment At Non-Examination Of Witnesses, Asks Trial Judge To Ensure Their Presence

Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022

The Supreme Court expressed disappointment over the slow pace of trial in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, particularly the non-production of witnesses for examination over the past two months, and directed the trial court to take lawful measures to secure their presence while also ensuring compliance with the witness protection scheme.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the bail plea of Ashish Mishra, son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, who is accused in the case relating to the killing of five persons in October 2021 after vehicles allegedly linked to his convoy ran over protesting farmers during the agitation against the farm laws. Mishra is continuing on interim bail pursuant to the earlier orders of the Court.

During the hearing, the State counsel informed the Court that in the first trial concerning the main incident, 44 witnesses had been examined while 15 witnesses had been discharged, leaving 72 more witnesses to be examined. In the second trial, out of 35 witnesses, 26 had already deposed and only nine remained.

MP Minister Vijay Shah Probably Wanted To Praise Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, But Ended Up Saying Something Else : SG Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: KUNWAR VIJAY SHAH Versus THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 8449/2025

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta proposed to the Supreme Court if a lenient view can be taken towards Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah in the criminal case over his objectionable remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.

The Solicitor General said that probably the Minister intended to praise the officer, but ended up saying something else as he could not articulate the message properly. He added that he was not defending the statements of the Minister, which were described as "unfortunate."

The SG clarified that it was his personal view, and not the stand of the State of Madhya Pradesh, whichwas directed by the Courtin January to decide on granting sanction to prosecute the Minister within two months.

“May Be I Was Cheated” : Anil Ambani Tells Supreme Court As Petitioner Questions His Non-Arrest In Bank Fraud Case

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

The Supreme Court heard a PIL seeking investigationinto the alleged loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crore by companies of the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, during which Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Anil Ambani, told the Court that “maybe he was cheated” by officials, even as petitioner's counsel questioned why Ambani had not been arrested despite serious allegations in the probe agencies' findings.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that multiple investigations by the CBI and ED were underway.

Placing a status note before the Court, the SG said two FIRs had been registered against Reliance Telecom on complaints by SBI, while nine regular cases had been registered in total. Of these, seven were under investigation and two had already been chargesheeted. He added that the total loss in the seven cases under probe was Rs 27,337 crore.

Punjab Drug Menace Terrible, Police Only Catching Small Peddlers: CJI Surya Kant

Case Title: IN RE: CREATION OF SPECIAL EXCLUSIVE COURTS Versus, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026

The Supreme Court pulled up Punjab State authorities over their failure to tackle drug abuse and trafficking in the state. The Chief Justice of India commented that the State Police arrests small-level peddlers for publicity, but fails to act against persons running the rackets, including some influential persons.

"In Punjab, condition is terrible. There are instances now surfacing in public domain...an old woman, more than 60 years...crying because she lost her 5th son to drug addition. All of her 5 children have died, one after the other. Look at the plight of that mother. This is the second instance that has happened in last 2 weeks. What is the State doing?," CJI Surya Kant commented.

Stressing the importance of catching the "bigger sharks", CJI said :

SCBA Election | Supreme Court Suggests Creation Of Second Vice President Post From 2027 Onwards For Women

Case Title – Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik

The Supreme Court said that the earmarking of the post of Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for women members will continue for the 2026 elections, while also proposing the creation of a second Vice-President post to be reserved for women from 2027 onwards.

“The SCBA and members of the bar who are present in court have graciously agreed that for the upcoming election for 2026-27 also, the earmarking of the post of Secretary for the women members of the Bar shall continue. Meanwhile, the General Body Meeting may be convened where the desirability of creation of one more post of Vice President be considered. Such second post of Vice President shall then be exclusively earmarked for the women members of the Bar from next from the year 2027-28 onwards”, the Court stated.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Vishwanathan was hearing pleas concerning issues related to SCBA elections and reforms in the association.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Mizoram Inheritance Law For Excluding Mizo Women Marrying Non-Mizo Men

Case Details: Lalsangliani Colney v. State of Mizoram, Law and Judicial Department Principal Secretary

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments introduced through The Mizo Marriage and Inheritance of Property (Amendment) Act, 2026, alleging that the law discriminates against Mizo women who marry non-Mizo men and adversely affects the rights of their children.

The petition challenges amendments made to Sections 2, 3(m), 25 and 26(1) of The Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014. According to the plea, the amended Section 2 restricts the applicability of the Act to marriages where both spouses are Mizo or where only the husband is Mizo. Consequently, a Mizo woman marrying a non-Mizo man is excluded from the statutory framework, while a Mizo man continues to remain covered irrespective of the identity of his spouse.

"The amendment thus introduces a gender-based classification founded on the identity of the male spouse and the matrimonial choice of the woman, resulting in manifest arbitrariness and discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India," as contended in the petition.

Supreme Court Takes Cognisance Of SCBA Resolution Against AP HC Judge Ordering Custody Of Young Lawyer Mid-Hearing

Case Title – Supreme Court Bar Association v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh

The Supreme Court took cognisance of a representation and resolution passed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) condemning the recent incident in which a young advocate was directed to be taken into judicial custody for 24 hours during court proceedings by Andhra Pradesh High Court.

The Court registered the writ petition after the association urged the Chief Justice of India to take “appropriate institutional cognizance” of the matter and consider corrective and administrative measures appropriate to preserve public confidence in the judiciary and maintain cordial Bar-Bench relations.

The writ petition was registered following the controversy in proceedings before Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, where a young advocate was directed to be taken into judicial custody for 24 hours during the hearing of a writ petition.

Plea In Supreme Court To Direct TN Governor To Invite Vijay's TVK Party To Form Government

Case Title: Ezhilarasi P v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Tamil Nadu

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Governor of Tamil Nadu not to invite anyone other than actor and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief C Joseph Vijay to form a government in Tamil Nadu.

The petition has been filed by Advocate Ezhilarasi P, claiming to be a member of TVK. The plea seeks directions to the Governor of Tamil Nadu to invite Vijay to form the government and swear him in as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

TVK secured the highest number of seats (108 out of 234) in the recent assembly elections, the results of which were announced, May 4th. However, so far, the Governor has not invited anyone to form the new government.

Supreme Court Closes Case Over West Bengal VC Appointments, Approves Candidates For Remaining 3 Universities

Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

After about 2.5 years, the Supreme Court finally closed the matter pertaining to appointment of Vice Chancellors for Universities in West Bengal. The Court approved recommended candidates for the remaining 3 Universities and ordered that their appointments be made soon after the Governor's approval.

This order puts an end to the "marathon exercise", as the Court termed it, of appointing Vice-Chancellors to 36 Universities in the State of West Bengal. Due to a deadlock between the State government, headed by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, and the State Governor (also the Chancellor), the Court had appointed a Search-cum-Selection Committee headed by former CJI UU Lalit. Pursuant to recommendations made by this Committee, names of candidates were cleared in a phased manner for appointment as Vice-Chancellor., the Court closed the matter as Vice Chancellors for all the Universities stood appointed/approved.

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

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Alleged Bangladeshi Man Accused Of Transborder Human Trafficking

Case Title: AMOL CHANDRA DAS @ AMOL DAS @ SUJIB Versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, SLP(Crl) No. 5567/2026

Considering a custody period of about 2.5 years, the Supreme Court granted bail to a man accused of being a Bangladeshi national and facing offences under the Indian Penal Code for allegedly trafficking persons into India from Bangladesh and Myanmar.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, while imposing stringent conditions on the petitioner-accused and requested the trial court to expedite the trial.

Briefly put, the allegation against the petitioner is that he is a Bangladeshi, serving as part of a syndicate indulging in transnational human trafficking of persons from Bangladesh and Myanmar into India. He is an accused in the case registered by the NIA for offences under Sections 370(3) and 120B of IPC along with Sections 14, 14(A)(B) and 14(C) of the Foreigners Act and Section 3 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920 read with Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950.

Supreme Court Directs Centre To Form 1 Exclusive NIA Court For Every 10-15 Cases, Urges To Complete At Least 1 Trial Per Month

Case Title: IN RE: CREATION OF SPECIAL EXCLUSIVE COURTS Versus, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026

To enable timebound disposal of trials in cases under special statutes like the UAPA, the Supreme Court yesterday directed setting up of exclusive Courts under Section 11 of the NIA Act. It stipulated that atleast 1 such court be setup for upto 10 pending trials under a High Court, 2 for over 15 pending trials, and 3 courts for over 25 pending trials.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the suo motu caseconcerning the creation of exclusive courts to tackle cases under special statutes like UAPA, NDPS, etc.

During the hearing, responding to the Court's earlier queryas to whether Union's funding to set up exclusive Courts will extend to the Special Courts set up by the States under Section 22 of the Act (which handle cases prosecuted by State agencies), Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said that at this stage, such extension would dilute the financial grant.

Supreme Court Expresses Surprise At Delhi Heritage Sites Being Leased To Private Parties; Directs Police To Ensure Monuments' Protection

Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India and others SLP (c) 12213/2019

The Supreme Court recently expressed shock over historical and heritage structures in Delhi being handed over to private entities such as the Delhi Golf Club and the Panchsheel School, and observed that several such monuments appeared to have been “totally neglected”, despite prohibitory orders and preservation obligations.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N Kotiswar Singh passed stringent directions to the Delhi Police to ensure protection of monuments and warned that local SHOs could face suspension if encroachments, vandalism or theft at heritage sites continued unchecked.

The Court was hearing the long-pending matter concerning preservation of heritage structures in Delhi. During the hearing, the bench considered a report submitted by historian Dr. Swapna Liddle pursuant to an earlier order dated April 13, 2026. The report flagged rampant encroachment, pilferage and damage to ancient structures, supported by photographs placed on record.

'Malicious' : CJI Surya Kant Denies False Casteist Remark Attributed To Him, Warns Strict Action

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant took strong objection to a false casteist statement attributed to him by certain social media handles, and warned that strict action would be taken against those propagating such “vile, brazen and mischievous” posts.

“To manufacture a fictitious quote and attribute it to the highest judicial office of the country is an act of utter dishonesty, deliberate social provocation, and contempt for constitutional values,” CJI Surya Kant said.

“Such irresponsible conduct undermines the very foundation of public confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law,” the CJI added.

'Custom Inconsistent With Constitution Must Be Quashed' : Brahmin Scholar Seeks Intervention In Supreme Court Sabarimala Reference

A 94-year-old Brahmin scholar and author from Kerala has moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the pending Sabarimala reference proceedings, contending that customs inconsistent with constitutional principles must be struck down.

S. Parameswaran Nampoothiri, a freedom fighter, traveller and author belonging to the Kerala Namboothiri Brahmin community, filed the intervention application in the proceedings arising out of the Sabarimala temple entry dispute. He argued that there is “nothing in Articles 25 and 26” of the Constitution that justifies banning the entry of women of any age into the Sabarimala temple.

“Religion, customs, usage and spirituality are not free from the test of constitutional validity. If any custom or religious practice is a violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, the same needs to be tested and quashed to the extent of illegality inconsistency with the provisions of the constitution,” the application states.

RTE Act Mandate On Reservation Of Private School Seats For Poor Students Enforced? Supreme Court Asks States, UTs

Case Details: MD IMRAN AHMAD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. | WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 141/2023

The Supreme Court recently asked ten States and three Union Territories to show whether they have implemented Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education(RTE) Act, 2009. On the failure to show the faithful implementation of Section 12(1)(c), the Court will be compelled to summon the Principal Secretaries of the Education Department of the said States/UTs.

The present petition was filed in 2023 by one Md Imran Ahmad seeking the implementation of the said provision. Section 12(1)(c) requires non-minority private unaided schools to reserve at least 25% of their entry-level seats to children belonging to disadvantaged sections of the society.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has been hearing the matter. In a recent hearing on May 7, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid(for the petitioner) placed a chart of all States and UTs that have failed to implement Section 12(1)(c).

Rajasthan Admits Prima Facie Inaction On Illegal Mining Complaints In Dausa, Forms High-Level Committee After Supreme Court Warning

Case Title –Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan government has told the Supreme Court that it has constituted a high-level committee to identify officials responsible for alleged inaction over illegal mining and stone crushing activities in Dausa district, after the Court warned that the Chief Secretary would have to personally appear if substantive action was not shown.

The State has further admitted that, prima facie, no effective or substantive action appeared to have been taken by field-level authorities on complaints made by villagers regarding illegal mining and stone crushing.

“as per the facts presently known and on a perusal of the record presently available, it does prima facie appear that no effective or substantive action was taken by the field authorities concerned for ascertaining the correctness of the complaints of illegal mining and stone-crushing made by the villagers of the area, including the sister of the Petitioner, at the relevant point of time”, the affidavit states.

CJI Surya Kant Announces 'One Case, One Data' System For Case Data Integration

The Supreme Court launched the “One Case, One Data” system, a new initiative aimed at strengthening the Court's case management framework through integrated judicial data access across courts in the country.

Announcing the initiative, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the system would, for the first time, enable seamless integration of case data from the Supreme Court, High Courts, district courts and taluka courts.

"This initiative is to strengthen this court's case management system through a multi-level integration with the database of High Courts, District Courts, and the Government. First time it's happening that the entire data will be now integrated, and while sitting in Supreme Court, we'll have all complete details up to the District Court and Taluka Courts, and similarly, Taluka Courts will also have all the connectivity here..."the CJI said.

Supreme Court Gives Suggestions To High Courts For Faster Disposal Of Bail Pleas

Case : SUNNY CHAUHAN Vs STATE OF HARYANA | SLP(Crl) No. 1613/2026

The Supreme Court proposed various suggestions to ensure expeditious disposal of bail applications in High Courts, expressing concern over mounting pendency and repeated delays in listing and hearing such matters.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a matter (Sunny Chouhan v State of Punjab) in which it had earlier sought details from High Courts across the country regarding pending bail applications.

Recording that most High Courts had furnished the required data and taken initiatives for timely disposal of bail cases, the Court, however, flagged the alarming pendency in some jurisdictions, particularly the Allahabad High Court.

Supreme Court Dismisses Man's Challenge To Hindu Marriage Act Provision Which Only Wives Can Invoke For Divorce

Case : JITENDER SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 460/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking gender parity in a provision of the Hindu Marriage Act that permits only wives to seek divorce on the ground of non-resumption of cohabitation after a maintenance decree against the husband.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea challenging Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which gives only women the right to seek divorce if there has been no resumption of cohabitation for one year or more after a decree for maintenance has been passed against the husband.

Appearing in person, the petitioner submitted that the provision should be made available to both men and women.

Plea To Regulate Institutions Imparting Religious Education | Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Await Centre's Decision

Case Details: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 590/2026

The Supreme Court (May 11) disposed of a writ petition seeking registration, recognition and supervision of all institutions imparting religious education to children up to 14 years. It directed the petitioner to await the outcome of the representation made to the Secretary, Ministry of Education.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the petitioner-in-person advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay briefly in this matter.

As per Upadhyay's petition, thousands of non-registered institutions are radicalising gullible young children under the garb of imparting religious instructions, as they are not supervised by the State. He has stated that this has serious implications not only for internal security but also fraternity, unity and national integration, as one can easily brainwash young children in the name of religion.

'Don't Treat Your Wife Like An Animal': Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Husband In Domestic Violence Case

Case Details: UMESH RAY Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR | SLP(Crl) No. 8342/2026 Diary No. 26667 / 2026

While denying anticipatory bail to a man accused of domestic violence, the Supreme Court orally remarked that a husband can't treat his wife like an animal and that she deserves dignity.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale was hearing an anticipatory bail application of a man, who was denied bail by the Patna High Court for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 85 and 353 of the BNS.

The allegation against him is that he had abused his first wife(the complainant) in a drunken state by throwing her to the ground, where she was hit by a brick and then had assaulted her with a lathi. It is also the case that he has married two other women. The accused, however, disputes his marriage to the complainant.

AOR Exam Cancellation : Supreme Court Asks Aggreived Lawyers To Submit Representation To CJI

Case Details: DANIA NAYYAR AND ORS. v. REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS. | W.P.(C) No. 582/2026 and VARISHA SHARMA AND ORS. v ADVOCATES ON RECORD EXAMINATION CELL AND ORS. | W.P.(C) No. 591/2026

The Supreme Court (May 11) refused to entertain writ petitionschallenging the decision taken by the Supreme Court Board of Examination not to hold exams to induct Advocates-on-Record (AOR) in 2026.

Observing that the matter cannot be considered on the judicial side, the bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale allowed the petitioners to submit representations before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.

"We are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by permitting the petitioners to share a comprehensive representation to the Chief Justice of India, and once made, we don't have any reason to think the Chief Justice would not consider it sympathetically," the bench observed, while disposing of the petitions.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against HC Order For CBI Probe Into Transformer Procurement During Senthil Balaji's Tenure As TN Minister

Case: V KASI v. ARAPPOR IYAKKAM AND ORS | Diary No. 27763-2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the Madras High Court's order directing a CBI probe into the alleged Rs. 397-crore scam in the procurement of transformers during the tenure of V Senthil Balaji as Electricity Minister in Tamil Nadu.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere with the High Court's direction ordering a Central Bureau of Investigation inquiry into the alleged irregularities.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Kasi, an official of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), argued that there was no specific prayer before the High Court seeking a CBI investigation and contended that the proceedings were politically motivated. TANGEDCO Chairperson also filed a similar petition, which was withdrawn.

West Bengal SIR | Vote Gap With BJP Less Than Pending Appeals : Trinamool Congress Tells Supreme Court

The All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) made a claim before the Supreme Court that deletions due to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls materially affected the results in certain assembly constituencies in West Bengal.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, for AITC members, submitted before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymlaya Bagchi, that in 31 constituencies, the winning margin of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) over the AITC was less than the number of persons deleted in the SIR adjudication process. In many cases, the deletions and the loss margin were almost the same, he added.

Bandhopadhyay submitted that one candidate lost by 862 votes in a constituency where over 5432 persons were removed from the rolls for adjudication.

'Our Order Not A Comment Against Any Judge': Supreme Court Clarifies In Suo Motu Case Over Odisha Courts' 'Caste-Coloured' Bail Conditions

Case Title: In Re : Condition Being Imposed While Granting Bail By High Court Of Orissa and District Courts in the State of Odisha and ancillary issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2026

In the suo motu case taken up over some Odisha courts' bail conditions requiring accused from Dalit-Adivasi communities to clean police stations, the Supreme Court clarified that its earlier order calling out the State judiciary over its orders should not be understood as casting aspersions or making adverse comment against any High Court judge or judicial officer in the state.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation, with CJI Kant noting that the remarks may otherwise have a demoralizing effect. Ultimately, the matter was disposed of, in view of a compliance report filed by the Registrar General of the High Court.

To recap, the top Court took up the suo motu case after taking note of some reportshighlighting Odisha Courts' bail orders requiring Dalit-Adivasi accused to clean police stations for 2 months. According to a report published by Article 14, such directions were issued in cases arising out of anti-mining protests in Odisha. About 8 orders were passed between May 2025 and January 2026; while 7 of them were passed by Courts in Rayagada district, 1 was passed by the High Court. Of the 8 cases, 6 accused belonged to the Dalit community, and 2 were Adivasis.

4-Yr Old's Rape In Gurugram: SIT Completes Probe, Supreme Court To Consider Hospital Lapse & Victim Compensation

Case Title : XXX v. STATE OF HARYANA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2026

In the caserelated to the rape of a 4-year-old girl in Gurugram, the Supreme Court expressed that it will be considering the aspects of hospitals' negligence/complicity and victim compensation.

Noting that the Special Investigation Team constitutedto probe the case had completed its investigation, the Court further directed that the chargesheet be filed before the competent court (for the law to take its own course).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by the parents of the victim-child seeking investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigation Team on the ground that the investigation by the Haryana police was unsatisfactory.

'Abuse Of Process' : Supreme Court Dismisses Cheque Case Convict's Plea Against Alleged Unlicensed Money Lending

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

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a convict in a cheque dishonour case, who sought a direction against alleged unlicensed money-lending practices in the State of Tamil Nadu.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the plea was a “manifest abuse of the process of law” aimed at reopening a concluded criminal conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The petitioner, S. Gayathiri, had approached the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking various directions, including framing of guidelines in cases involving alleged loan defaults by unlicensed money-lenders, strict enforcement of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957, and institutional safeguards for borrowers.

Supreme Court Stays Sringeri Recount Results Favouring BJP's DN Jeevaraja, Restores Congress' TD Rajegowada As MLA

Case Title – TD Rajegowda v. DN Jeevaraja

The Supreme Court stayed the effect of the recount exercise in the Sringeri Assembly constituency in Karnataka, which resulted in BJP's DN Jeevaraja being sworn in as the MLA from the constituency.

Hearing an appeal filed by Congress member TD Rajegowda, who got unseated as the MLA after the recount, the Court directed restoration of status quo ante (state of affairs before the recount), observing that the Returning Officer's exercise of reverifying already validated postal ballots was prima facie invalid.

In the appeal before the Supreme Court, Rajegowda argued that, though the High Court had only ordered the re-verification of 279 rejected postal ballots, the Returning Officer also recounted 562 valid postal ballots that were in Rajegowda's favour.

Advocates Re-using Same Welfare Stamp In Multiple Vakalatnamas : Registry Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Supreme Court Bar Association v. Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court Registry flagged the misuse of advocates' welfare stamps in e-filed vakalatnamas.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was informed during the hearing that lawyers were allegedly reusing scanned copies of the same welfare stamp in multiple vakalatnamas filed through the e-filing system.

Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay, appearing for the Registry, brought up the issue while the Court was hearing a plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association seeking a separate welfare fund for advocates practising before the top court.

'Madras High Court Fastest In Disposing Criminal Cases, Allahabad & Patna HCs Experiencing Difficulty': CJI Surya Kant

Case Title: SUNNY CHAUHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA | SLP(Crl) No. 1613/2026

While dealing with a caseraising concern about delays in hearing of bail matters, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant lauded the Madras High Court as the "fastest High Court" in the country ensuring timely disposal of criminal cases.

The CJI further noted that the most "problematic" High Courts are the Allahabad High Court and the Patna High Court, with the former suffering a huge volume of cases and therefore a slow disposal.

"Madras High Court – It is the fastest High Court in terms of disposal of criminal matters...they are dealing with 2018 division bench criminal appeals," CJI said.

Frictionless Relationship Between Bar & Bench Furthers Purpose Of Justice : Supreme Court

Case Title – Yatin Narendra Oza v. Suo Motu, High Court of Gujarat and Anr.

The Supreme Court, while closing the contempt case against senior advocate Yatin Oza, stressed that the Bench and the Bar are “two wheels of the chariot of justice” and friction between them has the potential to erode public faith in the justice delivery system.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar observed that the legal profession and the judiciary are intrinsic pillars of the justice system and both must maintain mutual respect and restraint. The Court said the case reflected an “unfortunate friction” between the Bench and the Bar after Oza, a senior advocate and Bar Association President, publicly made allegations against the Gujarat High Court and its registry during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It is imperative to reflect upon the foundational relationship between the Bar and the Bench. They are inextricably linked, serving as indispensable wheels in the chariot of justice. To steer through the complex terrain of the law and achieve fair, equitable outcomes, these wheels must move in perfect tandem, bound by the shared devotion to uphold the rule of law,” the Court observed.

CJI Forms 'Judicial Infrastructure Advisory Committee' To Submit Roadmap For Court Modernisation

The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, has constituted a “Judicial Infrastructure Advisory Committee” to prepare a comprehensive roadmap for strengthening judicial infrastructure across the country, with a focus on securing governmental support and funding between Rs. 40,000 crore and Rs. 50,000 crore for courts nationwide.

As per a communication dated May 8, 2026 issued by Supreme Court Secretary General Bharat Parashar, the committee "to prepare the infrastructural requirements of the Indian judiciary with emphasis on government support towards augmenting the judicial infrastructure in courts pan India by way of allocation of adequate funds to the tune of 40,000 to 50,000 crores and present the same to Shri Sanjeev Sanyal, a Member of Hon'ble Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Economic Advisory Council."

Justice Aravind Kumar of the Supreme Court has been appointed as the Chairperson of the committee. The other members are Justice Debangsu Basak of the Calcutta High Court, Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan of the Bombay High Court, and the Director General of the Central Public Works Department (CPWD). The Secretary General of the Supreme Court will serve as the Member Secretary.

Supreme Court Summons Ernakulam Asst Police Commissioner Over Failure To Register FIR On Complaint

Cause Title: ATHUL THOMAS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

The Supreme Court has summoned the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Ernakulam, to personally appear before it in a case concerning the alleged failure of the Kerala Police to act on a complaint involving the outraging of the modesty of a woman belonging to the SC/ST category despite supporting medical evidence.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan heard a plea filed by an accused challenging a Kerala High Court order refusing anticipatory bail in connection with an alleged assault and criminal trespass case registered at Panangad Police Station.

The controversy stems from an order passed by the Kerala High Court on February 11, 2026, in a batch of anticipatory bail applications arising out of an FIR registered at Panangad Police Station. The High Court, while partly granting anticipatory bail to some accused persons, had refused pre-arrest bail to accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 after noting that the first information statement attributed specific overt acts to them, including criminal trespass and assault with a weapon.

Majoritarian Notions Will Prevail If 'Morality' In Articles 25/26 Is Read As 'Public Morality : Raju Ramachandran In Sabarimala Reference

In the Sabarimala reference, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran has argued that the term 'morality' under Articles 25 and 26 can't be read as societal or public morality. He stated that giving the term such meaning would open doors for religious freedoms to be curtailed based on majoritarian views.

He said: "If morality as used under Articles 25 and 26 were to be read as social/societal/public morality, this would open the door for religious freedoms to be curtailed on the basis of majoritarian notions which are untethered to constitutional text, and that this would result in an even more amorphous judicial inquiry."

In his arguments presented before the 9-judge bench last week, he submitted that morality means internal principles which are based on different views and circumstances, and can shift over time.

TVK MLA Moves Supreme Court Against Madras High Court Order Barring Him From Voting In Tamil Nadu Floor Test

Case : R SREENIVASA SETHUPATHI Vs. KR PERIAKARUPPAN ORS is filed with Diary No. 29435 / 2026

TVK MLA Seenivasa Sethupathi has moved the Supreme Court challengingthe Madras High Court order restraining him from participating in the floor test scheduled for tomorrow in the Tamil Nadu Assembly.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, seeking urgent listing in view of the imminent floor test.

Taking note of the urgency, the CJI agreed to list the matter.

Wife's Pursuit Of Career Can't Be Branded Cruelty Just Because It Hurt Husband's Sentiments : Supreme Court

Case: Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt

In a strongly worded judgment on gender equality within marriage, the Supreme Court held that branding a wife's pursuit of her professional ambitions as matrimonial cruelty merely because it may have hurt the sentiments of her husband or in-laws reflects a deeply regressive mindset incompatible with modern constitutional values.

“To brandish the effort of the wife to pursue her own career goals as acts of cruelty, as the same may have hurt the sentiments of the husband or the in-laws, is highly objectionable and deplorable in the era where the society proudly talks of women empowerment,” observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The Court made the observation while setting aside findings of cruelty and desertion recorded against a woman dentist by the Family Court and affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in matrimonial proceedings initiated by her husband, an Army officer.

After NEET-UG 2026 Cancellation, Plea In Supreme Court To Replace NTA & Conduct Fresh Exam Under Judicial Supervision

Sabarimala Reference | Social Reform May Necessitate Scrutiny Of Religious Practices; Proportionality Test Can Be Used : Lawyers To Supreme Court

On the 14th day of hearings in the Sabarimala reference, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the State of Kerala, submitted before the Supreme Court that social reform finds a place within the chapter on religious freedoms because exclusionary social practices are often given a religious character to shield them from scrutiny.

He argued that courts may necessarily have to examine religious practices when adjudicating questions of social reform, and in doing so, may need to apply the essential religious practices (ERP) test.

“Article 25(2)(b) specifically includes welfare and reform because sometimes, to reform social rules, one has to encroach upon religious rights,” Gupta submitted.

'Atrocious' : Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Restraining TVK MLA Sethupathi From Voting In TN Floor Test

Case: R SREENIVASA SETHUPATHI Vs. KR PERIAKARUPPAN ORS with Diary No. 29435 / 2026

The Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court's order, which stopped TVK MLA Sreenivasa Sethupathi from voting in the Tamil Nadu Assembly floor test.

The Court also stayed the proceedings in the Madras High Court in the writ petition filed by DMK candidate KR Periakaruppan challenging Sethupathi's win.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi heard the plea filed by TVK MLA Sreenivasa Sethupathi challengingthe Madras High Court order restraining him from participating in the floor test scheduled for in the Tamil Nadu Assembly.

Child Has Fundamental Right Under Art 19(1)(a) To Receive Education In Mother Tongue : Supreme Court

Case Title: PADAM MEHTA AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 1425/2025

In a recent judgment directing the State of Rajasthan to provide Rajasthani as a subject in schools, and also to facilitate its use as a medium of instruction in schools, the Supreme Court observed that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution encompasses the freedom of a child to receive primary education in a language of their choice.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the right of a child to receive education in the mother tongue can be traced to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

"At a more fundamental level, the right to receive education in one's mother language finds its normative basis in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, for the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression necessarily encompasses the right to receive information in a form that is both meaningful and comprehensible. The true value of this freedom lies not merely in the ability to communicate, but in the ability to understand, internalize, and process information so as to make informed choices."

Avoid Interpretation Silencing Reformist Voices Within Religion : Mohan Gopal In Sabarimala Reference

Dr G Mohan Gopal urged the Supreme Court's nine-judge Bench hearing the Sabarimala reference to ensure that the constitutional interpretation of religious freedom does not suppress reformist voices emerging from within religious communities.

Appearing for an intervenor, Sree Narayana Manava Dharmam Trust, Dr. Gopal argued that the constitutional debate should not be viewed merely as a clash between fundamental rights under Part III and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26, but must also account for demands for social justice arising from within religions themselves.

“The point I seek to address is one issue which, in my respectful submission, has not received adequate attention so far. That is the demand for social justice emerging from within religious communities themselves,” he submitted.

No Concept Of Lane Driving In India, Most Accidents Due To That : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court remarked that there is effectively “no concept of lane driving in India” as it dealt with a batch of matters concerning road safety compliance.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing the matter S Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, in which the Court has been issuing directions from time to time for road safety.

During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala commented, "How do you ensure in this country that drivers do not do away with lane driving? There is no concept of lane driving in this country. Most of the accidents occurs due to that."

No Fitness Certificate Or Permit For Public Service Vehicles Without Tracking Devices & Emergency Panic Buttons: Supreme Court

In a significant push for passenger safety, the Supreme Court directed that no public service vehicle shall be granted a fitness certificate or permit unless vehicle location tracking devices (VLTDs) and emergency panic buttons are installed, verified, and reflected in the Vahan database.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan passed the directions while hearing the matter S Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, concerning implementation of measures to reduce road accident fatalities across the country.

The Court issued the directions after recording concern that less than 1% of transport vehicles currently have the mandated vehicle tracking devices installed, despite the legal requirement under Rule 125H of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

Law College Hostels Will Become Boarding & Lodging Facilities If There's No Attendance Mandate : Supreme Court

Case Title – SVKMS Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies v. Bar Council of India

The Supreme Court expressed reservations over a 2025 Delhi High Court judgment which held that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations solely due to shortage of attendance, observing that such a position could reduce law college hostels into mere boarding and lodging facilities.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi issued notice on a plea filed by Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies challenging the Delhi High Court ruling.

“The impact of that order would be that the National Law University hostels would be only boarding and lodging facilities, nothing else…The High Court was swayed by the suicide of the student, that seems to be the issue”, Justice Mehta said.

Sabarimala Reference: Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Reserves Verdict After 16 Days Hearing

After 16 days hearings, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict in the Sabarimala reference.

The 9-judge bench heard arguments on the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and whether Article 26 is a standalone provision considering the absence of the words 'subject to other provisions of this part' which are present in Article 25.

Yesterday, during an argument made by a lady advocate, Justice Nagarathna raised this issue that the nine-judge bench has not got enough assistance on what 'other provisions of this part' means.

'Essential Religious Practice' Doctrine Is Elitist: Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

During the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court orally remarked that the doctrine of Essential Religious Practice (ERP) is elitist in the sense that it tends to exclude denominations which don't follow religious practices in an organised, definitional manner.

This was said by Justice MM Sundresh during submissions made by Senior Advocate and amicus K Parmeshwar that the ERP doctrine should not be applied because it elevates certain practices over others.

The Sabarimala reference concluded after 16 days of hearing. The questions before the Court were related to larger religious issues pertaining to temple entry, mosque entry, the Parsi women's religious identity issue, female genital mutilation, and excommunication in Dawoodi Bohras.

Why Should Selection Panel For Election Commissioners Include Cabinet Minister? Third Person Must Be Neutral : Supreme Court

Case Title - Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

The Supreme Court questioned the rationale behind including a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, while hearing challenges to the Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 law, which provides that the selection committee for appointment of Election Commissioners will comprise the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of Opposition.

“It is not sufficient to be independent but it has to appear to be independent…The third member should be somebody who is a neutral person. He should select. Why should it be a Minister from the Cabinet??” Justice Datta asked Attorney General R Venkataramani during the hearing.

Unnao Rape | Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order Suspending Kuldeep Sengar's Sentence, Remits Matter For Fresh Decision

Case Title:

The Supreme Court (May 15) set aside the order of the Delhi High Court suspending the life sentence of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case, and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, partly allowing an appeal filed by the Central Burue of Investigation, requested the High Court either to decide Sengar's appeal against conviction within three months or pass a fresh order on the application seeking sentence suspension.

To recap, the High Court, while granting bail to Sengar, heldthat aggravated offence provisions under Section 5(c) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code were not attracted in the case, as he could not be categorized as a “public servant” within the meaning of those provisions. On that basis, it proceeded to suspend the sentence.

'If HC Makes You Senior, We Will Set It Aside' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Lawyer For Repeated Pleas Over Delhi HC Senior Designations

The Supreme Court pulled up a lawyer who has been filing repeated applications against the Delhi High Court in relation to senior designations.

The lawyer, appearing in person, submitted that it was the third time he was approaching the Court. He submitted that the High Court has failed to comply with the Supreme Court's earlier direction to reconsider the deferred or rejected applications expeditiously.

Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, for the High Court, informed the bench that the interviews for the senior designation process are currently underway.

Kannada Actor Darshan Can Seek Bail If No Substantial Progress In Trial In 1 Year : Supreme Court In Renukaswamy Murder Case

Case Details: DARSHAN Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 159/2026

The Supreme Court(May 15) asked the State of Karnataka to ensure that 60 important witnesses are examined within a period of one year in the Renukaswamy Murder Case. It said that the Trial Court can proceed on a day-to-day basis for the examination of the witnesses. The Court added that if there is no substantial progress in the trial, actor Darshan can approach the Court for bail.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has been hearing a petition filed by Darshan seeking basic amenities provided as per the jail manual. It may be recalled that this bail was cancelled last year, along with other co-accused persons.

On May 4, the Court asked for a report from the State , which was represented to the bench by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra(for the State of Karnataka). As per the report, Darshan has been provided with all amenities which an undertrial prisoner is entitled to. The Court had also sought a report from the trial court on the progress.

Thousands Of Fraudulent Lawyers, BCI Won't Do Anything; Need CBI To Verify Law Degrees : CJI Surya Kant

Observing that there appeared to be several bogus advocates in Delhi, the Chief Justice of India observed that he was thinking of ordering a CBI investigation into the genuineness of their law degrees.

CJI Surya Kant observed that he had noticed the comments being made on social media by these lawyers, and questioned the genuineness of their law degrees. The Chief Justice also commented that the Bar Council of India cannot be expected to do anything as they are "absolutely in collusion" with the lawyers.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application filed by an advocate against the Delhi High Court over senior designations.

Shiv Sena Dispute : Supreme Court Cautions UBT Side Over Comments Blaming Court For Delay In Decision

Case Title: UDDHAV THACKERAY Versus EKNATHRAO SAMBHAJI SHINDE AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 3997/2023; SUNIL PRABHU v EKNATH SHINDE & ORS SLP(c) 1644-1662/2024

The Supreme Court cautioned the Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (UBT) side against making public comments suggesting that the Court was not deciding the long-pending Shiv Sena split dispute, with Chief Justice of India warning against “irresponsible statements” targeting the Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petition filed by Uddhav Thackeray challenging the Election Commission of India's decision to recognize Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena. A petition filed by Sunil Prabhu challenging the Maharashtra Speaker's decision not to disqualify members of the Shinde faction was also listed.

As the matter was taken, a counsel appearing for the UBT side requested the Court to take up the matter at its earliest convenience.

'They're Not Terrorists, Only Demanding Basic Wages' : Supreme Court Orders Production Of Two Arrested Over Noida Workers' Protest

Case Details: KESHAW ANAND Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH | W.P.(Crl.) No. 174/2026

The Supreme Court (May 15) directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to produce Aditya Anand, and Rupesh Roy, who were arrested during the recent Noida workers' protest, before the Court on May 18 at 2 pm.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Keshaw Anand, brother of Aditya Anand, alleging that the UP Police was subjected the arrested persons to custodial torture.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to the State, and directed the production of the two persons. During the hearing, the Court remarked that the two accused persons were merely protesting for the increase in wages, and there is no reason why they have been treated as "terrorists".

'His Life Continues In Others' : Supreme Court Appreciates Harish Rana's Family For Donating His Organs After Life Support Withdrawal

Case Title – Harish Rana v. Union of India

The Supreme Court appreciated the family of Harish Rana for donating his corneas and heart valves after his death, weeks after the Courtpermitted withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the country's first passive euthanasia case after the recognition of the right to die with dignity.

“Harish left this mortal world on his own terms, surrounded by love and compassion. Even in the face of their own loss, his family chose generosity through the selfless decision to donate his corneas and heart valves. This way, his life continues in others. His legacy will live on through the lives of those he saved,” the Court stated.

As per the report from AIIMS, the Court noted that Harish died on March 24 at the AIIMS Palliative Care Unit after being shifted there pursuant to the Court'sMarch 11 judgment. He remained in palliative care for nearly 10 days.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Challenging UGC Students' Grievances Redressal Regulations 2023

Case Title: SANTHOSH TAMILARASAN AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 457/2026

The Supreme Court recently refused to issue notice on a petition to the extent it challenged the 2012 University Grants Commission Regulations. The Court restricted notice on the plea insofar as it challenged provisions of UGC's 2023 Regulations.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak (for petitioners). The matter was listed alongwith similar petitions pending before the court.

At the outset, the bench expressed disinclination to entertain a challenge to the 2012 Regulations, observing that while staying the 2026 Regulations, the Court directed that the 2012 Regulations would operate in the meantime.

'Casual Approach' : Supreme Court Summons Rajasthan Top Officials For Non-Compliance With Orders Against Illegal Mining In Chambal

Cause Title: IN RE: ILLEGAL SAND MINING IN THE NATIONAL CHAMBAL SANCTUARY AND THREAT TO ENDANGERED AQUATIC WILDLIFE

The Supreme Court (May 14) came down heavily on the Rajasthan Government for its failure to adhere to the Court's earlier directionsregarding curbing illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary.

The Court directed several senior Rajasthan bureaucrats, including the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Principal Secretaries of Mining, Finance, Forest, and Transport Departments of Rajasthan, to remain personally present before the Court along with detailed compliance affidavits on the next date of hearing scheduled to take place on May 20, 2026.

Also, the Court expanded the scope of proceedings to include the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) after being informed that extensive illegal excavation was taking place dangerously close to, and even beneath, the pillars of a bridge on National Highway-44 at the Morena-Dholpur border.

NEET UG 2026 Cancellation : United Doctors Front Moves Supreme Court Seeking NTA Dissolution

Case Title – United Doctors Front [UDF] Regd. v. Union of India and Ors.

A writ petition has been filed by the United Doctors Front (UDF) before the Supreme Court seeking dissolution of the National Testing Agency (NTA) in light of its “systemic failure” in conducting NEET-UG 2026.

The petition, filed through Advocate Ritu Reniwal, seeks the creation of a statutory national testing body through legislation enacted by Parliament with defined legal powers, transparency norms, and direct accountability to the Legislature. The plea states –

“The crux of the petition is that the NTA's current legal status as an autonomous society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, creates an "accountability vacuum."

Lawyer Brings To Supreme Court's Notice Udhayanidhi Stalin's Remarks Against Sanatana Dharma In TN Assembly

Case : Amita Sachdeva v Udhayanidhi Stalin | Contempt Petition (c) 1235/2023

An application has been filed bringing to the notice of the Supreme Court the recent comments made by Tamil Nadu Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin against Sanatana Dharma, calling for its abolition.

It may be recalled that DMK's Udhayanidhi, son of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu MK Stalin, came under the scanner in September 2023 for his remarks comparing 'Sanatana Dharma' to diseases like 'malaria' and 'dengue' while advocating for its elimination on the grounds that it was rooted in the caste system and historical discrimination. This not only triggered a major political row but also led to several criminal complaints against Udhayanidhi, with pleas filed in the Supreme Court seeking action against him.

The IA has been filed in a contempt petition, which arises from a writ petition in Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court directed the suo motu registration of FIRs in matters of hate speech. The contempt petition was filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, claiming that the police failed to take action against Stalin despite the Supreme Court's mandate in such cases.

Supreme Court Stays Tree Felling in Hyderabad's KBR National Park Eco-Sensitive Zone

Case : Kaajal Maheshwari v. State of Telangana | SLP(C) No. 17054/2026

The Supreme Court stayed tree felling in the eco-sensitive zone surrounding the Kasu Brahmananda Reddy (KBR) National Park in Hyderabad, while issuing notice on a plea challenging the move to cut trees for road development.

The Court ordered that there should be no tree felling within 25 to 35 metres eco-sensitive zone around the part.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the interim direction while hearing a petition filed by Kaajal Maheshwari, who challenged the Telangana High Court's refusal to grant interim relief.

Woman Accused Of Duping People By Posing As Prime Minister's Advisor Moves Supreme Court For Bail

Case : KASHMIRA SANDIP PAWAR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA | SLP(Crl) No. 8731-8732/2026

The Supreme Court (May 18) issued notice to the State of Maharashtra on the bail plea by Kashmira Sandip Pawar, who is accused of cheating people by personating herself to be the national advisor to the Prime Minister's Office.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice after briefly hearing the petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S Choudhari.

Choudhari mentioned that the present FIR was lodged with a two-year delay and stated that there is no material/recovery by the State to prove that she duped Rs. 14 crore in cash. He stated that it amounts to jeopardy because two similar FIRs on the same offence have been registered on the same set of allegations.

Supreme Court Declines To Entertain Plea Seeking Review Of Wages, Of Priests In State-Controlled Temples

Case : Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 625/2026

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a public interest petition seeking the constitution of a judicial commission or expert committee to review the wages and service benefits of priests, sevadars and other staff working in state-controlled temples across the country.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the plea after expressing disinclination to interfere in the matter.

When petitioner, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, appearing in person, urged the Court to consider the issue, the bench orally remarked that it was not inclined to intervene in the affairs concerning temple priests.

Supreme Court Stays Counting In Delhi Bar Council Elections Till Delhi High Court's Decision On Alleged Irregularities

The Supreme Court stayed further counting of votes in the Bar Council of Delhi elections after allegations of serious irregularities, including claims that tampered ballot papers were being counted.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took up the matter after Advocate Shobha Gupta mentioned the case, describing the situation as an emergency.

“Tampered ballot papers are being counted, there's an emergency,” Gupta submitted before the Court, seeking urgent intervention.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Chhattisgarh's Ex-IAS Officer Anil Tuteja In Corruption Case Over DMF Scam

Case Title: ANIL TUTEJA Versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, SLP(Crl) No. 7878/2026

The Supreme Court granted bail to Chhattisgarh's ex-IAS officer Anil Tuteja in a corruption case over the District Mineral Fund scam.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, observing that Tuteja was in custody since April 2024 and conclusion of trial in the present case was likely to take time.

Notably, the ex-IAS officer was arrested in the present case on 23.02.2026, but was in custody (due to other cases) since 21.04.2024. The State vehemently opposed the grant of bail to him highlighting that he was the prime conspirator of all scams in the State, including the Liquor Scam, the NAN scam, the DMF scam, etc., as well as had a "history" of turning witnesses hostile, tampering with evidence and circumventing judicial processes.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Slaughter Of Buffaloes Inside Gujarat Zoo To Feed Animals

Case Title – Animal Welfare Foundation v. Secretary

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the slaughter of buffaloes inside the premises of two zoos in Gujarat for feeding wild animals housed there.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere with a Gujarat High Court order which had dismissed a public interest litigation filed by two charitable trusts against the practice followed at Sakkarbaugh Zoo.

Justice Mehta observed, “All this compendium (of rules) is meant for slaughterhouses where slaughter is done for human consumption…Let them manage the zoo as they want to. As a matter of fact, you should have filed a PIL saying that remove these zoos. That is also cruelty to animals.”

High Court Registrar General Cannot Suo Motu Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer : Supreme Court

Case : HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Vs DEEPALI SHARMA | SLP(C) No. 16520/2026

The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer cannot be initiated unless they are authorised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by a committee of judges constituted by the Chief Justice, ruling that the Registrar General has no independent authority to suo motu commence such action.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the reinstatement of a Civil Judge in Uttarakhand who had been dismissed from service following departmental proceedings over allegations that she had physically abused a minor girl employed as domestic help at her residence.

The Court, however, clarified that it was not examining the merits of the allegations or the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry, instead deciding the case on the threshold issue of whether the proceedings themselves were validly initiated.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Money Laundering After Posing As PM's Aide

Case Details: MOHAMMAD KASHIF Vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT | SLP(Crl) No. 4011/2026 Diary No. 12575 / 2026

The Supreme Court(May 18) granted bail to one Mohammad Kashif, who is accused of cheating people by claiming to be a close aide of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh granted him bail in the money laundering case registered over cheating allegations , considering the long period of incarceration undergone by him. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared for the petitioner.

The accused was arrested on April 19, 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and 66D of the IT Act, 2000, for morphing the photos of the Prime Minister and other ministers with himself and uploading them on social media.

Supreme Court Allows AoRs To Apply For SCBA Membership Till Tomorrow For Voting In SCAORA Elections

Case Title – Ritu Rajkumari v. Election Committee

The Supreme Court allowed Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) to apply for Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) membership till tomorrow 5 PM, to enable them to vote in elections for the office bearers of the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association (SCAORA) scheduled for May 21.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order while hearing a writ petition challenging the exclusion of newly registered AoRs from the SCAORA electoral roll.

The controversy centred around the requirement of SCBA membership as a condition for SCAORA membership and voting eligibility. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing in the matter, submitted that some AoRs, who are not SCBA members, are seeking voting right in SCAORA elections.

Supreme Court Requests Patna HC To Examine Issues Related To Shifting Of Old Age Home Residents In Bihar

Case Title: MADHUKAR ANAND v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 579/2026

While dealing with a PIL, the Supreme Court requested the Patna High Court to take cognizance of alleged translocation of old age home residents in Bihar in violation of the Court's directions safeguarding rights of the elderly.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, while dealing with a public interest litigation which assailed certain circulars issued by the State of Bihar relating to old age homes.

The petitioner's primary contention was that certain old age homes in Bihar were being closed and their residents sought to be shifted across districts. While doing so, apparently the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India were being violated.

'Why Take So Much Time?': Supreme Court Asks Maharashtra Govt To Expedite Handover Of 10 Acres For Bombay HC New Building

Case Details : IN RE: HERITAGE BUILDING OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND ALLOTMENT OF ADDITIONAL LANDS FOR THE HIGH COURT, SMW (C) No(s). 5/2024

In the suo moto caseinvolving the issue of additional land allotment for Bombay High Court's new complex, the Supreme Court was informed that as on date, possession of 20.19 acres of land has been handed over to the High Court and the remaining is proposed to be handed over by December 31.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed of the development by Maharashtra's Addl. Government Pleader-Jyoti Chavan, who submitted that out of remaining 10 acres, 5.27 acres are proposed to be handed over by July 31 and 4.74 acres by December 31.

Concerned about the time gap, the CJI posed to Chavan, "Why are you taking so much time? Then entire project will stand halted". In response, Chavan said that this was agreed upon in the affidavits since the inception and the plans have already been submitted to the Steering Committee.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Directions To Delhi Govt For Regular Appointments To DERC

Case Title: ENERGY WATCHDOG v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 626/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL seeking directions to the Govt of NCT of Delhi to constitute a Selection Committee for making regular appointments to the post of Member in Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after hearing Advocate Pranav Sachdeva (for petitioner-Energy Watchdog, an NGO).

Briefly put, the PIL seeks directions to the Government of NCT of Delhi to make regular appointments to DERC in terms of Sections 84 and 85 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as the assurance given by it before the Supreme Court in 2025 [Ref: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, WP(C) 1222/2023], stating, "the process of regular appointments shall be completed expeditiously".

Supreme Court Constitutes 2 New Election Tribunals For Speedy Resolution Of State Bar Council Election Disputes

Case Title: SAVITA DEVI @ SAVITA DHANDA AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 589/2026 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court constituted two new election tribunals for speedy adjudication of election-related disputes of State Bar Councils. These tribunals shall be headed by former Supreme Court judges - Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Hima Kohli.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order directing that the Bar Council of India take formal consent of the proposed members and notify the Tribunals within 3 days.

The two new tribunals shall be in addition to the ones already existing and their composition shall be as follows -

NEET-UG Cancellation : Revisiting Supreme Court's Advice To NTA After 2024 Paper Leak

In the July 2024 judgment in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, the Supreme Court attempted to lay down a constitutional and institutional roadmap for dealing with large-scale examination fraud in India, in the context of paper leaks in the NEET UG examination of 2024.

Nearly two years later, the cancellation of NEET-UG 2026 due to allegations of a widespread leak network, and writ petitions seeking the dissolution of the National Testing Agency (NTA) due to “systemic failure”, have once again brought attention to the standards evolved by the Supreme Court in the 2024 judgment and the subsequent reform measures proposed for the examination system.

In Vanshika Yadav, the Supreme Court refused to cancel NEET-UG 2024 despite acknowledging that a paper leak had in fact occurred in Hazaribagh and Patna. The Court held that cancellation of a national examination is justified only where the sanctity of the exam stands compromised at a “systemic level” and where it is impossible to separate tainted candidates from untainted ones.

'Everyone Has Right To Protest Peacefully, But Not To Come On Streets & Cause Problems For Others' : CJI Surya Kant

Case Title: PRAKASHJHOT SAMAJIK SANSTHA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 72298-2025

While responding to a claim that criminal cases are being slapped against young individuals protesting with regard to naming of the Navi Mumbai International Airport, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that everyone has a right to protest peacefully and lawfully, but they must not create a threat or law and order situation.

"They should not threat and create law and order problem. Everybody has a right to peaceful and lawful protest...as permissible in law can be done. But not come on streets and create problems for the common man...That should not happen", the CJI expressed.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was dealing with a petition filed by 'Prakashjhot Samajik Sanstha' challenging a Bombay High Court order which declined its similar plea. It disposed of the case with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse before the competent authority.

'Can't Second-Guess State Policy, Will Try To Clear Apprehensions' : Supreme Court On Challenge To SHANTI Act Limiting Nuclear Liability

Case Title: EAS SARMA AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 240/2026

The Supreme Court expressed reluctance to examine the validity of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, observing that it was a "sensitive legislative policy issue". At the same time, the Court assured the petitioners that it would try to clear their apprehensions regarding the power of the Courts to fix compensation in the event of an unfortunate nuclear accident.

The Court orally commented that the capping of liability may not limit the power of the Court to fix compensation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a public interest litigation challenging the SHANTI Act for capping the liability of private nuclear operators and the Government for mishaps.

Supreme Court Directs All High Courts To Monitor Compliance Of Stray Dog Management Orders, Says Erring Officials Will Face Contempt

Case Title – In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price'

The Supreme Court directed all High Courts in the country to register suo motu writ petitions to monitor compliance with the its directions to remove dogs from the premises of educational institutions, hospitals, bus stands, railway stations, etc., while warning that continued non-compliance by officials may invite contempt proceedings.

“It is made clear that any continued failure or deliberate non-compliance with the directions issued by this court and the present in the present order and the earlier order shall render the erring officials of the Municipal Department, administrative authorities, and the officials of the concerned departments of the States and UTs liable to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The jurisdictional High Courts, while undertaking the monitoring exercise in terms of the present order, shall be fully empowered to take appropriate action including initiation of contempt proceedings against the erring officials responsible for non-compliance, inaction, or wilful disregard of the directions issued by this Court”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria passed the directions while disposing of applications challenging the Standard Operating Procedures issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) pursuant to the Court's November 7, 2025 order.

Noida Protest : Supreme Court Seeks UP Govt Response On Plea Challenging NSA Detention Of Journalist Accused Of Inciting Workers

Case Details: KESHAW ANAND Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH | W.P.(Crl.) No. 174/2026 and SHAKAMBHARI v STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 201/2026

The Supreme Court(May 19) issued notice in a writ petition filed by the wife of journalist Satyam Verma seeking to declare his preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980, as illegal. Singh was arrested for allegedly instigating workers to carry out violence during the Noida labourers' protest in April.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has been hearing a writ petition filed by one Keshaw Anand, alleging custodial torture of his brother Aditya Anand and Rupesh Roy during the protest. The Court had issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government and had asked them to produce the accused persons physically. It had also orally remarked that the State shouldn't treat them as "terrorists" as they were merely protesting for fair wages.

Today, both of them were brought to the Court and the bench interacted with both of them briefly. The bench expressed satisfaction but ordered that the judicial custody should continue.

Supreme Court Extends Tenure Of All Tribunal Chairpersons/Members Whose Term Is Due To Expire Before Sept 8

Case Title: REVENUE BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA. SLP(C) No 11021-11022/2020 and connected cases.

With the Union's consent, the Supreme Court extended the term of Chairpersons and Members of various Tribunals who are due to retire before September 8, 2026. The tenure of these Chairpersons/Members shall continue till September 8, the Court said.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order upon mentioning by a counsel who informed that the tenure of a judicial member of the National Green Tribunal was due to expire in June.

Considering the consent given by Attorney General R Venkataramani, on behalf of the Union, the court extended the judicial member's tenure till September 8. To avoid multiple litigations, it extended the order to all Tribunal Chairpersons and Members whose tenures are due to expire before September 8.

Delhi Police To Seek Larger Bench Reference Over Conflicting Supreme Court Judgments On UAPA Bail

Case Details: TASLEEM AHMED v STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI | Diary No. 5434-2026 and ABDUL KHALID SAIFI @ KHALID SAIFI v STATE (NCT OF DELHI) | SLP(Crl) No. 3867/2026

The Delhi Police orally told the Supreme Court that the issue of grant of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act may require consideration by a larger bench in view of apparently conflicting rulings by co-ordinate benches on the governing legal standard.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju made the submission before a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale, which was hearing bail pleas filed by Delhi riots larger conspiracy accused Tasleem Ahmed and United Against Hate member Khalid Saifi against the Delhi High Court's refusal to grant them bail.

Raju sought that the matter be taken up tomorrow to consider whether it should be referred to a larger bench, stating that he needed time to examine the Supreme Court's judgment delivered yesterday in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency.

Supreme Court Seeks TN Govt Response On Plea Challenging Eviction For Madurai Airport Expansion

Case Details: P. Malairajn & Ors v The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors | SLP(C) No. 10335/2026

The Supreme Court yesterday(May 19) issued notice in a plea challenging the eviction proceedings by the Tamil Nadu government for the extension of Madurai International Airport.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the State Government in a plea filed by members of the Scheduled Caste community, claiming that they have been forced to vacate their dwelling houses without reasonable compensation and proper resettlement and rehabilitation. It is stated that they belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, and the act of the authorities, forcefully evicting them, violates their fundamental rights under Article 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution.

As per the plea, they have resided in the Chinna Udaippu Village for several decades and have been asked to vacate their houses without ensuring the statutory safeguards are met in respect to rehabilitation and resettlement under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019. The petitioners say they are entitled to a built house, 2 acres of agricultural land and other rehabilitation and resettlement package.

'Govt Needs To Know Number Of Persons In Backward Castes': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Caste Enumeration In Census

Case : Sudhakar Gummula v. Union of India | Diary No. 50275/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Union Government's decision to undertake caste enumeration as part of the upcoming Census, observing that the government must know the number of persons belonging to backward castes to frame welfare measures.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a PIL filed by one Sudhakar Gummula, who appeared in person.

The bench said the issue falls within the realm of policy and declined to interfere.

Supreme Court Extends Deadline For Bengaluru Municipal Corporation Elections Till August 31

Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Versus M. SHIVARAJU AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 15181-15183/2020

The Supreme Court extended the deadline for completing the election process for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) from June 30, 2026, to August 31, 2026, as a final opportunity.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi made it clear that no further extension will be granted.

The bench passed the order after Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the State of Karnataka, requested an extension, citing difficulties in arranging manpower in view of the upcoming SIR exercise in the State. Senior Advocate K Parameshwar opposed the grant of extension, stating that the previous extension was granted on the basis of a categorical undertaking by the State that the process would be completed by June 30.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & States On Plea Against Sale Of Alcohol In Tetra Packs, Sachets Resembling Fruit Juice Packs

Case : COMMUNITY AGAINST DRUNKEN DRIVING Vs THE UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 475/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest petition challenging the sale of liquor in inconspicuous packaging such as tetra packs, PET bottles and sachets, with the petitioner alleging that such packaging deceptively resembles ordinary fruit juice products and increases the risks of underage drinking, drunk driving and public consumption.

Appearing for the petitioner Community Against Drunken Driving (CADD), Advocate Vipin Nair told the Court that, unlike tobacco products, alcoholic beverages sold in such packaging do not carry prominent warnings.

“Unlike tobacco, there is no warning. These packs are like fruit juices but contain vodka, with pictures of apples. Chilli,mango vodka etc,” Nair submitted.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Minimum 30% Reservation For Women Lawyers In Govt Legal Panels

Case Title: LADLI FOUNDATION TRUST Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 471/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and all States on a public interest litigation filed by the Ladli Foundation Trust seeking at least 30 per cent reservation for women lawyers in government legal panels.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocates Vikas Singh (for petitioner).

During the hearing, Singh referred to the recent survey conducted by the Supreme Court Bar Association on the difficulties faced by women advcoates. Singh also submitted that even if women advocates are included in panels, they are not necessarily allotted cases. Hence, there must be a mechanism to ensure that they are allotted cases as well.

Supreme Court Directs Delhi Govt To Frame SOP To Enforce Free EWS Treatment In Delhi Private Hospitals

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA VERSUS MOOLCHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST

The Supreme Court has directed the convening of a high-level meeting involving government authorities, land-owning agencies, and private hospitals to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for effective implementation of its 2018 judgment, which directed free treatment for economically weaker section (EWS) patients in Delhi's private hospitals built on concessional government land.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria noted that despite the earlier orders, several hospitals had failed to file compliance affidavits and were found violating the condition to provide 10% IPD Inpatient Department, where a patient is admitted in a hospital for 24 hours or more) and 25% OPD treatment free of cost to patients from weaker sections.

It may be noted that the Court had earlier appointed senior advocate Sanjay Jain and advocate Ninad Laud as amici curiae to compile a report on the status of compliance. The amici submitted a report on May 10, 2026, along with geo-representations of 51 noticee hospitals, which were issued contempt notice over found in violation of the Court's 2018 judgment to provide free treatment to EWS people, on the base map of Delhi with adjoining jhuggi jhopdi bastis recorded with the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and DDA authorized colonies.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks CBI Probe Into Alleged Corruption Behind TVK's Trust Vote Win In TN Assembly

Case Details: KK RAMESH v UOI | Diary Number 31836/2026

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Coirt under Article 32 seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) into the allegations of corruption in the trust vote won by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam's Chief Minister Vijay in the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly on May 13.

The petition filed by KK Ramesh alleged that the TVK had won 108 seats but in order to become the single largest party to form a government, it obtained signatures of 12 MLAs overnight from various parties.

The petitioner has also sought President rule till the completion of investigation. It has been stated in the petition that large sum of money were distributed to other parties and they were promised government contract works in exchange for the trust vote.

'No New Dams In Uttarakhand's Upper River Ganga Basin; Only Ongoing 7 Hydel Projects Will Be Allowed': Union To Supreme Court

Case Title: Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. v. Anuj Joshi & Ors., Civil Appeal No.6736/2013

In a 2013 case pertaining to Hydro Electric Projects, the Union of India has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court suggesting that only 7 Hydel Electricity Projects (commissioned/ongoing) be permitted to proceed and no other new projects be undertaken in the upper reaches of the river basin in State of Uttarakhand.

Of the 7 projects that are suggested to be allowed to proceed, 4 are already commissioned, and 3 have already achieved substantial physical and financial progress. These projects include -

1. Tehri PSP (Tehri Stage-II) (Commissioned)

Over 2 Lakh Dog Bite Cases In Tamil Nadu And Karnataka In 2026: Supreme Court Flags “Alarming” Dog Bite Statistics Across India

Case Title – In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price'

Highlighting reports of dog bite incidents from across the country, the Supreme Court said that the magnitude of the stray dog problem and the resultant threat to public safety had assumed disturbing proportions.

In thejudgment passedon May 19, affirming the earlier directions to remove stray dogs from institutional premises and public places, the Court observed :

“After reserving judgment in the present matter, this Court has been apprised of multiple reports indicating that incidents of dog bites and stray dog attacks continue to occur across different parts of the country with alarming frequency and severity. The reports brought to the notice of this Court reveal that the magnitude of the problem and the resultant threat posed to public safety has assumed deeply disturbing proportions. The incidents disclosed are not isolated or sporadic occurrences, but reflect a continuing and widespread pattern of attacks resulting in severe physical injury, psychological trauma and, in several cases, loss of human life. It is clear that the unchecked population of dogs has become increasingly feral, and such animals have no place in areas densely populated by human beings owing to the serious threat they pose to public safety,” the Court further observed.

Bar Council Elections: BCI Seeks Supreme Court's Permission To Co-opt Women Candidates Who Were Eliminated At Last

Case : M Vardhan v. Union of India | WP(c) 1319 OF 2023

The Bar Council of India has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking approval for the proposal on 10% women's representation in State Bar Councils (beyond the 20% elected women members) through co-option of the highest-polling women candidates in the state bar council elections.

The BCI has proposed that the women candidates who narrowly missed election in the State Bar Council polls be co-opted against the 10% quota earmarked for co-option, instead of making fresh subjective selections.

The BCI has souhgt Court's permission to co-opt those women candidates "who were eliminated at last i.e. where 25 members are to be elected then those who remained on 6th & 7th position: And where 20 members are to be elected, those who remained at 5th and 6th position; And where 15 members are to be elected, those who remained at 4th position be co-opted by the Bar Council of India"

Supreme Court Questions 'Shocking' Rule Allowing Nursing Colleges 30 Km Away From ICU Hospitals; Issues Directions To Improve ICUs

Case Details: ASIT BARAN MONDAL Vs DR. RITA SINHA MBBS MS OBST. GYNAE | MA 1364/2026 in C.A. No. 8402/The 2016

In a significant intervention on healthcare standards, the Supreme Court expressed shock over a reported Indian Nursing Council norm permitting nursing colleges to be located up to 30 kilometres away from hospitals with Intensive Care Unit (ICU) facilities, questioning how nursing students could be expected to receive meaningful hands-on training under such an arrangement.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was informed that the nursing curriculum requires students to undertake daily ICU visits as part of practical training. The Court found it startling that institutions could be approved despite being located far from hospitals equipped with functioning ICUs.

“The Court is shocked,” the bench observed, noting that nursing students must work on real patients as part of their training and cannot be entrusted with responsibility without actual clinical exposure. When informed that existing guidelines permit the affiliated hospital to be located within a 30-kilometre radius, the Court said such an arrangement was wholly impractical.

'There Are Serious Issues' : Supreme Court Refuses To Modify Order Halting Vote-Counting Of Delhi Bar Council Elections

The Supreme Court refused a request to allow the counting of the Delhi Bar Council elections to proceed without declaring the final results.

When Senior Advocate Vikas Singh made an oral request to modify the Court's earlier order halting the counting of votes, Chief Justice of Surya Kant said :

"We will not allow, there are serious issues...Please go argue before HC...It's only a transitional order...We don't want to prejudice High Court. There is nothing pending before us. We will not modify the order, there are reasons."

'Have Requested All HC Chief Justices To Allow Virtual Hearings; Issuing Judicial Directions Inappropriate': CJI Surya Kant

The Supreme Court expressed reluctance to entertain a petition seeking directions to allow virtual hearings in all Delhi Courts as a measure to cut fuel consumption.

When a counsel orally mentioned the petition for urgent listing, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed that it was not a matter to be taken up on the judicial side. The CJI also revealed that he has already requested the High Court Chief Justices to allow virtual hearings.

"It may not be appropriate issue directions on judicial side. I have already requested the Chief Justices. Most have already implemented. It has to be voluntary exercise by both the Bar and the Bench."

'One HC Judge Had To Sit Till 7 PM To Hear SC-Expedited Case' : CJI Says Routine Directions Can't Be Issued To Fast-Track Hearing

While refusing to entertain a petition seeking an expeditious hearing of a matter in the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court said that it cannot overburden High Court Judges by setting them timelines without considering their caseload.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant noted that a Judge of the Allahabad High Court, to hear a matter within the deadline set by the Supreme Court, had sat till 7.10 PM after the regular matters, and ultimately adjourned the passing of the order, after recording that he was "hungry, tired and physically incapacitated" to dictate judgment.

The CJI was referring to a recent order passed by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the High Court in which he recorded that he could not dictate the judgment as he was tired and hungry after hearing cases till 7.10 PM.

Sedition | Courts Can Proceed With Trials/Appeals Involving S.124A IPC If Accused Doesn't Object : Supreme Court Clarifies

Case Title: KAMRAN Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, Diary No. 16320-2026

The Supreme Court clarified that Courts can proceed with trials or appeals relating to the offence of sedition (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code) if the accused has no objection to it.

The Court clarified that its May 2022 order passed in the SG Vombatkere case, which, while keeping the erstwhile sedition law in abeyance, had also stayed all trials and proceedings relating to Section 124A IPC.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order in the case of an accused who has been in jail for 17 years and whose criminal appeal is pending before the MP High Court.

Supreme Court Questions P&H High Court Order Quashing Chargesheet Over Forgery Allegations In 2002 Haryana Civil Service Recruitment

Case Title: Karan Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana and Ors., SLP (Crl) No.5598-5605/2026

While dealing with a cheating and forgery case against 8 Haryana Civil Service officers over their recruitment in 2002, the Supreme Court deprecated the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order quashing the chargesheet against the accused.

The Court questioned the High Court's taking over of the role of the investigating agencies insofar as it examined the answer sheets to test the veracity of an affidavit placed before it by the State Addl. Advocate General. It further noted that the High Court held onto the answer sheets for years, thereby precluding completion of investigation.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, after hearing Senior Advocate R Basant (for petitioner) and Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Ranjith Kumar and Gurminder Singh (for respondents), called for the assistance of the Haryana Advocate General on the next date as well as appearance of the Investigating Officer (alongwith all the material).

Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Dispute : Muslim Party Approaches Supreme Court Against MP HC Order Declaring Disputed Site Temple

Case : Quazi Moinuddin v. Hindu Front for Justice | Diary No.32281/2026

The long-running Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute has reached the Supreme Court, with one Muslim party challenging the recent Madhya Pradesh High Court judgmentthat declared the disputed site in Dhar a temple and prohibited the offering of Namaz there.

The special leave petition has been by Qazi Moinuddin, an intervener in the proceedings in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, assailing the Madhya Pradesh High Court's May 15 order passed in writ petitions filed by Hindu Front for Justice and other parties.

The plea challenges the High Court's findings concerning the character and usage of the disputed structure, contending that the order adversely affects the religious rights of the Muslim community.

PIL In Supreme Court Challenges CBSE's 3-Language Mandate For Class 9

Case : Yashica Bhandari Jain and others v. Union of India and others.

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to make a third language compulsory for Class 9 and 10 students from 2026-27 academic year.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant agreed to list the petition next week after Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi made an oral request for urgent listing.

"This is a petition by students, teachers and parents across the nation challenging new CBSE policy...by which in 9th standard, 2 more languages have been made compulsory...how can a student of class 9 take a new language and give exam in 10th? This will create chaos...please take up on Monday," Rohatgi submitted.

Can Ajmal Kasab Or Hafiz Sayeed Be Given Bail On Ground Of Trial Delay? Delhi Police Questions Supreme Court Judgment In 'Andrabi'

Case : TASLEEM AHMED Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI | SLP(Crl) No. 2867/2026 and ABDUL KHALID SAIFI @ KHALID SAIFI v. STATE | SLP(Crl) No. 3867/2026r

The Supreme Court expressed an inclination to grant interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, who have been in undertrial custody since 2020 in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case involving offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

The Court also reserved orders on the plea made by the Delhi Police for a larger bench reference on the issue of conflicting judgments relating to the scope of bail under UAPA in cases where there is a delay in trial.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale heard the petitions filed by them challenging the last year's Delhi High Court judgment denying them bail.

Chandigarh Admin Moves Supreme Court Against HC Judgment Quashing Rioting Case Against Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann

Case Title: U.T CHANDIGARH Versus BHAGWANT MANN AND ANR., Diary No. 21434-2026

The Union Territory of Chandigarh administration has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order, which quashed a rioting case against several Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann, arising from a 2020 protest in Chandigarh.

Though the matter was listed before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, it was adjourned as the Union sought time to file petitions in relation to the other accused.

To recap, in the impugned order, the High Court held that no prima facie case existed against the AAP leaders and that the alleged offences under the IPC were not made out. The Court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet filed under Sections 147 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), 332 (causing hurt to a public servant), and 353 (assault) IPC.

Supreme Court Recalls Order Sending Petitions Challenging Hindu Religious Endowments Acts Of TN, AP & Telangana To High Courts

Case Title – Shri Dayanand Saraswati Swamiji (Dead) & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

The Supreme Court recently recalled its April 2025 order which had directed petitioners challenging various Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments laws in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Puducherry to approach the respective High Courts.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed a review petition filed against the April 2025 order and restored the writ petitions to its file for adjudication on merits.

On April 1, 2025, the same bench had disposed of a batch of petitions challenging provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the Telangana Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1987 and the Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972.

Supreme Court Lifts Ban On 3 Academics Who Wrote NCERT Chapter On Judiciary, Removes Adverse Comments

Case Title: In Re : Social Science Textbook for Grade-8(Part 2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues | SMW (C) 1/2026

The Supreme Court recalled its previous order banning three academics, who were involved in the preparation of the controversial NCERT Class 8 chapter on corruption in the judiciary, from academic projects of Central or State Universities and public educational institutions.

The Court clarified that the Union and the States may take an independent decision on associating these academics for academic projects.

The Court also expunged the adverse observation made in its March 11 order that the three academics "deliberately and knowingly have misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian Judiciary to students of Class 8."

Centre Agrees In Supreme Court To Bring Back Some Persons Deported To Bangladesh & To Verify Citizenship Claim

Case : UNION OF INDIA Vs BHODU SEKH | SLP(Crl) No. 18658/2025 & UNION OF INDIA Vs AMIR KHAN & Ors | SLP(Crl) 18891/2025

The Union Government undertook before the Supreme Court to bring back certain persons who were deported to Bangladesh, and to determine their citizenship status before taking further steps.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta made this submission before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi. The bench was hearing the Union's petitions challenging the Calcutta High Court's directions to repatriate certain Bengali-speaking individuals who were sent to Bangladesh on suspicion of their citizenship.

"My instructions are, the Government will bring them back, and thereafter will examine their status, and depending on the outcome, will take steps accordingly," SG Mehta submitted.

After 4.5 Yrs In Custody, Supreme Court Grants Bail To UAPA Accused In Jammu & Kashmir Larger Conspiracy Case

Case Title: SUHAIL AHMAD THOKAR Versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, SLP(Crl) No. 83/2024

Taking note, inter alia, of his incarceration for over four and a half years, the Supreme Court granted bail to UAPA accused Suhail Ahmad Thokar in the Jammu and Kashmir “larger conspiracy” case arising after the revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order, adding that any failure on the part of the appellant to cooperate with the ongoing trial shall be construed as misuse of the relief granted.

Notably, the Court had earlier passed orders from time to time to ensure that vital/protected witnesses who had to depose against the petitioner were able to record their statements without any fear (prior to his release).

'If Both Parents Are IAS Officers, Why Should Children Have Reservation?' : Supreme Court

Case Title – Raghavendra Fakeerappa Chandranavar v. Department of Backward Classes Welfare

The Supreme Court questioned whether children of families that have achieved educational and economic advancement through reservation should continue to avail OBC reservation benefits, observing that such advancement results in social mobility too.

“If both parents are IAS officers why should they have reservations? With education and economic empowerment, there is social mobility. So then again to seek reservation for the children, we will never get out of it. That is a matter we have to concern. Also, what is the use then? You are giving reservation. The parents have studied, they are in good jobs, they are getting good income, and the children want reservation again. See, they should get out of reservation”, Justice BV Nagarathna said.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while hearing a petition against a Karnataka High Court judgment upholding exclusion of the petitioner, whose parents are both state government employees, from reservation on the ground of creamy layer.

In Child Missing Cases, Proceed On Presumption Of Kidnapping : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Combat Child Trafficking

Cause Title: G. GANESH Versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 11263/2025

Taking serious note of the alarming number of missing children across the country, the Supreme Court (May 22) issued a slew of directions to address systemic failures in tracing missing children and combating trafficking networks operating across States.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan expressed displeasure with the ever-increasing cases of missing children, upon finding that nearly 47,000 children continue to remain untraced across India, with thousands of new cases being added every year.

“There is a huge gap. Today, as of today, something around 47,000 children remaining untraced. Last year it must be around 10,000. Every year backlog,” Justice Amanullah said.

Supreme Court Flags Shortage Of Public Prosecutors, Says It Causes Delays In Trials

Case Title – Dolubhai Vihabhai Gohil v. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court highlighted the shortage of public prosecutors across courts as a major reason for delays in criminal trials, and urged the state government to appoint at least one prosecutor in each courtroom of a sessions court.

“See, at least appoint prosecutors. For each district and sessions court hall, not court, court hall. Each presiding officer must have an exclusive prosecutor. Now that prosecutor should not come from another district on only certain days, and only on those days you have sessions trials. What is all this?,” she said.

Justice Nagarathna further said that States routinely complain about delays in criminal justice but fail to address issues such as shortage of prosecutors by filling prosecutor vacancies.

49 Of 217 Indians Who Joined Russian Forces To Fight Ukraine War Dead : Union To Supreme Court

Case Title : DIVYA v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 451/2026

The Union government informed the Supreme Court that out of 217 Indian nationals who joined the Russian Armed Forces amidst the country's war with Ukraine, 139 have been released from contractual engagements after diplomatic intervention, 49 have lost their lives and 6 have been confirmed missing.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was hearing a writ petition filed by family members of 26 Indian nationals, who were allegedly forced into the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, for the Union, placed the aforementioned information before the Court. She further conveyed that out of the 26 nationals whose family members have approached the Court, 14 have lost their lives, 11 are MIA (missing in action) and 1 is incarcerated in a criminal case. The ASG added that the mortal remains of 8 Indian nationals who lost their lives in the war have been handed over to the families and DNA matching is going on.

Supreme Court Clarifies 2025 Decision On Pension Of Retired HC Chief Justices, Judges; To Apply From Oct 2016 Onwards

Case Title: IN RE REFIXATION OF PENSION CONSIDERING SERVICE PERIOD IN DISTRICT JUDICIARY AND HIGH COURT Versus,

The Supreme Court clarified that its 2025 directionsfor revised full pension of Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs.13.5 lakhs to retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court respectively shall be applicable from October 9, 2016.

"Para 76 (i), (ii) are clarified to the extent that the revised full pension mentioned [therein] shall be admissible from 09.10.2016. The arrears shall be computed accordingly. In the event a judge has retired before this date, such arrears shall be calculated on the basis of pre-revised maximum pension admissible to the retired Chief Justice/Judge (as the case may be)", the Court said.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi issued the clarification on a miscellaneous application filed by the Union of India, which was represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani.

'Hardcore Naxalite, Can't Be Welcomed With Bouquet' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Probe Into Maoist's Death In Encounter

Case Details: RAJA CHANDRA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH | Diary No. 61163/2025

On May 22, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed against the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal to order a re-postmortem and investigation into the death of Katha Ramchandra Reddy, a Maoist commander killed last year in September in an alleged police encounter in Chhattisgarh.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandran Sharma heard the special leave petition filed by the Maoist leader's son against the High Court's order refusing an investigation by the special investigation team.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves submitted that multiple injuries were found on the body of Reddy. He claimed it was a case of custodial torture.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Over Twisha Sharma Dowry Death Case

Case : In Re: Alleged Institutional Bias and Procedural Discrepancies in the Unnatural Death of Young Woman at Matrimonial Home | SMW(Crl) 4/2026

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the alleged dowry death of Twisha Sharma, registering a case titled In Re: Alleged Institutional Bias and Procedural Discrepancies in the Unnatural Death of Young Woman at Matrimonial Home.

The matter is slated to be heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi. The suo motu case was registered at 6.30 PM based on "media reports and other attending circumstances."

Twisha Sharma's husband Samarth Singh, a practising Advocate, and her mother-in-law Giribala Singh, an ex-District Judge, are accused of dowry harassment and abetment to suicide.

NGO Moves Supreme Court Against 'Indiscriminate Culling Of Stray Dogs', Says SC Direction Being Misunderstood

An NGO has moved the Supreme Court seeking clarification that itsrecent direction permitting euthanasia of dogs in certain circumstances cannot be construed as a mandate for indiscriminate culling of stray dogs.

The application has been filed by NGO Animals Are People Too in the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court, expressing concern that the Court's direction is being misinterpreted by authorities to justify unlawful killing or removal of dogs.

Referring to public statements made by Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann to "eliminate stray dogs" and media reports concerning the removal of dogs from Khalsa College, the applicant has contended that the Supreme Court's order is being misunderstood and implemented in a manner contrary to law.

Civil Service Exam : CIC Questions UPSC, DoPT Decision To Discontinue Publishing Of Paper-Wise Marks Of Successful Candidates

Cause Title: Aniket Kumar Gupta VERSUS CPIO, UPSC & Anr.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has criticized the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) over their “contradictory stances” regarding disclosure of paper-wise marks of successful Civil Services Examination (CSE) candidates, observing that the rationale for discontinuing the practice after CSE 2017 has not been satisfactorily explained.

While hearing a second appeal filed by UPSC aspirant Aniket Kumar Gupta under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a bench of Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam directed the DoPT to file comprehensive written submissions along with supporting records explaining why publication of bifurcated marks was stopped and why the Commission should not recommend reinstating the earlier practice.

The dispute centres around the non-disclosure of detailed marks secured by recommended candidates in each General Studies paper, optional subject papers, Essay, and Personality Test from CSE 2014 to CSE 2023.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks CBI Investigation Against 'Cockroach Janta Party' Activities & Fake Advocates

Case Title – Raja Choudhary v. Union of India

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the activities associated with the “Cockroach Janata Party,” the satirical online campaign that emerged following recent remarks made during Supreme Court proceedings.

The plea also seeks an investigation into fake advocates and fraudulent law degrees, claiming that the issues reflect a deeper erosion of professional standards within the legal system.

Filed by Raja Choudhary, the petition further seeks action against persons allegedly involved in the commercial exploitation of oral courtroom observations, including claims of trademark appropriation and monetised circulation of remarks made during court proceedings.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain NGO's Plea To Clarify Order On Euthanasia Of Rabid Dogs

The Supreme Court (May 25) refused to entertain an application moved by an NGO seeking clarification that the Court's recent direction permitting euthanasia of dogs in certain circumstances cannot be construed as a mandate for indiscriminate culling of stray dogs.

The application has been filed by NGO Animals Are People Too in the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court, expressing concern that the Court's direction is being misinterpreted by authorities to justify the unlawful killing or removal of dogs.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta told the counsel to move the Punjab and Haryana High Court in this regard.

Twisha Sharma Death : CBI To Take Over Probe; Supreme Court Requests Media To Avoid Publishing Statements

Case: In Re: Alleged Institutional Bias and Procedural Discrepancies in the Unnatural Death of Young Woman at Matrimonial Home | SMW(Crl) 4/2026

The Supreme Court asked the State of Madhya Pradesh if the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) can be asked to investigate the Twisha Sharma dowry death case.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the CBI will take over the probe, and that he will ensure that the administrative steps will be taken itself.

The Court also made an appeal to the media to exercise restraint in publishing the statements of the victims and the accused. "We are slightly at pain because of some of the actions. We will request our media friends to not go for the statements of the victims family or the other family. Let the things move as per law and procedure," the Chief Justice of India said.

'Don't Take It So Sentimentally' : CJI On Plea Against 'Cockroach Janata Party'

The Chief Justice of India told a petitioner not to take the 'Cockroach Janata Party' issue so emotionally, when the lawyer orally mentioned a petition concerning it for urgent listing.

Advocate NK Goswami submitted that despite the clarification given by the Chief Justice of India, a "distorted and malicious narrative is being continued."

"Don't take it so sentimentally," CJI Surya Kant told the lawyer.

Sad At NEET-UG 2026 Cancellation, NTA Hasn't Learnt Lessons : Supreme Court

Case Details: FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS. | W.P.(C) No. 651/2026 and others

The Supreme Court (May 25) expressed its anguish that the NEET-UG 2026 had to be cancelled over paper leak. The Court orally remarked that despite the directions issued by the Court in 2024 regarding the paper leak two years ago, the National Testing Agency(NTA) has not learned its lesson.

The issued notice on petitions filed by doctors and medical students seeking to replace the NTA, and sought a status report from the NTA on the steps taken as per the recommendations of the High-Powered Committee which was constituted, as per the Court's 2024 judgment, to suggest measures to strengthen the NEET mechanism.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe considered the matter. The Court also ordered that a copy of all petitions should be served to the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Advocate Tanvi Dubey and Dr. Charu Mathur appeared for the petitioners.

'Serious Issue' : Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On PIL To Ban Child Employment In Dance Bars, Spas

Case : Justice Rights for Children Alliance v. Union of India | WP (c) 647/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on a public interest litigation seeking stricter prohibition of child labour in entertainment and hospitality-linked establishments, including orchestras, dance bars, dance troupes, nautanki performances, massage parlours, spas and salons, where children are allegedly vulnerable to exploitation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was a PIL filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance, which sought directions to the Centre to exercise its powers under Section 4 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, to expand the list of occupations where child employment is absolutely prohibited.

During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant observed that it was a "serious issue." Senior Advocate HS Phoolka appeared for the petitioner.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Use Of Ballot Papers In Punjab Municipal Elections

Case Title – Ruchita Garg v. State of Punjab

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the use of Electronic Voting Machines instead of ballot papers in the Punjab Municipal elections.

Noting that the elections are scheduled to take place tomorrow, the bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi refused to interfere, saying that it was too late as all arrangements had been made.

Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, for the petitioner, submitted that it was the first time that the ballot papers were being used in the recent past. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has observed that EVMs are the norm.

Supreme Court Asks Nagpur Parsi Panchayat If Woman Who Married Outside Community Can Be Permitted To Offer Prayers At Aghyari

Case Title – Dina Budhraja v. Nagpur Parsi Panchayat

The Supreme Court explored the possibility of granting limited interim permission to a Parsi woman who had an interfaith marriage to offer prayers at Nagpur's only Agiary and participate in funeral and Muktad prayers.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, however, made it clear that it would avoid passing any order that could indicate a prima facie view on the larger constitutional issues pending before the nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference regarding the right of a religous denomination to excommunicate.

“Please get hold of those orders on consent to the extent the other Parsi Panchayats have permitted to attend funeral prayers of the father, organizations, etc. To that extent, we may give the same…We can pass the order without it being that the order is sort of a prima facie view”, Justice Bagchi told the counsel for the parties. The Court listed the matter for further consideration.

Supreme Court Chides Delhi Govt Over Delay In Constituting Selection Committee For DERC Appointments, Seeks Timeline In 2 Days

Case Title – Energy Watchdog v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Supreme Court questioned the Delhi Government over delay in constitution of a Selection Committee for appointments to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC), observing that the process appeared to be going “nowhere” despite the Commission remaining without a Chairperson for nearly a year.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a plea filed by NGO Energy Watchdog seeking regular appointments to DERC and constitution of a Selection Committee under the Electricity Act, 2003.

Counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi informed the Court that a proposal to constitute the Selection Committee had been moved on May 4, 2026, and sought additional time. She stated that the once the Selection Committee is constituted, appointments would be completed within three months as prescribed under Section 85 of the Electricity Act.

Supreme Court Questions Centre's Delay In Notifying Commercial Court Rules 2021, Says HCs May Consider Setting Up District Execution Cells

Cause Title: PERIYAMMAL (DEAD THR. LRS.) & ORS. VERSUS V. RAJAMANI & ANR.

The Supreme Court (May 25) took serious note of the Union Government's failure to notify the draft Commercial Courts Rules, 2021, observing that the country is facing a “huge challenge” in the effective and expeditious disposal of execution petitions.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal took suo motu notice of the fact that the draft Commercial Courts Rules, 2021, prepared pursuant to a Ministry of Law and Justice task force on “Ease of Doing Business”, have remained un-notified for nearly four years, and therefore sought an explanation from the Ministry about the delay in notification of the Rules.

“We wish to know, why these Rules have not been notified so far. The draft Rules, 2021 have been framed with a purpose or, to put it in other words, with a particular object. In this regard, we would request Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned Additional Solicitor General to take appropriate instructions from the concerned Ministry and revert on the next date of hearing.”, the court said.

After BCI Chairperson's Remarks On Fake Advocates, Plea Filed In Supreme Court To Verify Law Degrees

A writ petition has been filed over the recent remarks made by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India that 35-40 per cent of advocates have fake degrees, and are practising in the Courts based on fabricated degree certificates.

The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks directions to the Union of India, Bar Council of India (BCI), all State Bar Councils, and the University Grants Commission to establish a transparent and uniform verification mechanism for advocates' credentials.

The petition has been filed by Ms Yogamaya MG, who is a practising advocate. It says: "The issue assumes grave constitutional significance in light of public recent statements reportedly made by the leadership of the Bar Council of India, indicating that a considerable percentage of persons enrolled or practising as advocates may possess fake, forged, or unverifiable educational credentials, and that a substantial number have not completed the prescribed verification processes."

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Chhattisgarh Excise Commissioner Niranjan Das In Liquor Scam Corruption & Money Laundering Cases

Case : Niranjan Das v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 6562/2026

The Supreme Court granted bail to former Chhattisgarh Excise Commissioner Niranjan Das, who was arrested in connection with an alleged corruption and money laundering case arising out of the Chhattisgarh liquor scam.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered Das' release, while clarifying that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations against him. The Court said the release would be subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court.

During the hearing, the Court noted that Das has been in custody since December 19, 2025, and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Listing Of Plea Seeking Enforcement Of Anti-Cow Slaughter Laws Ahead Of Bakrid

The Supreme Court refused to urgently list a plea seeking enforcement of anti-cow slaughter laws ahead of Bakrid (Eid-al-Adha), with the Chief Justice of India declining to treat the matter as urgent.

Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha orally mentioned the matter for urgent listing. He said that the matter sought the implementation of the anti-cow slaughter laws, and said that the urgency was that Bakrid falls on May 28. "We are seeking a hearing so that if your lordships are persuaded, an interim order can be passed," he submitted.

The Chief Justice remarked that the plea had been brought at the last moment.

Supreme Court Surprised Over Vacancies In ITAT Administrative Staff, Seeks Attorney General's Intervention

Case : PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 617/2026

The Supreme Court expressed surprise over the large number of vacancies in the administrative staff of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) and sought the intervention of the Attorney General for India to ensure that the posts are filled at the earliest.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by Praveen Kumar Bansal concerning the longstanding vacancies in the tribunal's administrative setup.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing in the matter, submitted that several key administrative posts in the ITAT have remained vacant for years, affecting its functioning.

Supreme Court Takes Note Of News Report On Continued Illegal Mining In Chambal Sanctuary, Issues Further Directions

Case Details: IN RE: ILLEGAL SAND MINING IN THE NATIONAL CHAMBAL SANCTUARY AND THREAT TO ENDANGERED AQUATIC WILDLIFE Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN | SMW(C) No. 2/2026 Diary No. 15656 / 2026

The Supreme Court(May 26) took on record a news article byHindustan Times relating to the use of unregistered vehicles for sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary(NCGS). It passed further directions in view of the continuing and grave concern relating to rampant illegal sand mining activities, degradation of protected wildlife habitats, operation of unregistered and unidentified vehicles, and the threat posed to the critical infrastructure in the affected regions.

At the outset, the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta asked the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju(for State of Madhya Pradesh) if the read the Hindustan Times' report about pictures of unregistered vehicles moving around in the Morena district carrying river sand, despite the Supreme Court's earlier stringent orders to curb sand mining.

Justice Mehta told ASG Raju that the illegal miners have changed their routes due to the curbs imposed by the Court, but the issue continues to persist. Raju responded that he will go through the news report, but if the news is correct, it's "shocking". Justice Mehta added that if the report is true, false affidavits have been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.The Court has now asked the State's counsel to file a fresh affidavit giving a response to the said news report.

Supreme Court Agrees To Examine If Definition Of 'Wetland' In Wetland Conservation Rules 2017 Is Vague

Case :RAVINDRA SINHA Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 463/2026

The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the definition of “wetland” under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, with the Court limiting its notice on the petition on the aspect of he alleged vagueness in the definition contained in Rule 2(g).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the 2017 Rules substantially diluted the protection available to wetlands by narrowing the definition, resulting in a large number of ecologically sensitive sites being excluded from regulatory safeguards.

'All NLUs Suffering' : Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Judgment Against Debarring Law Students For Low Attendance

Case Details: Bar Council of India v. Union of India Diary No. 29604-2026

The Supreme Court (May 26) stayed the Delhi High Court's order, which said that no student can be prevented from taking exams on the grounds of lack of minimum attendance. The Court stayed paragraph 249 of the High Court' order order where directions were passed in this regard.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in a petition filed by the Bar Council of India against the Delhi High Court's order. It has now tagged the petition along with two pending writ petitions by students challenging the two circulars by the BCI requiring universities to implement a criminal background check system, installation of a biometric attendance system and CCTVs in all classrooms.

At the outset, many counsels, including Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, submitted that the Delhi High Court's order should be stayed. Rohatgi stated that the judgment has given a premium to bypass disclipine to attend classes.

Banke Bihari Temple : Supreme Court Asks Committee To Consider Goswamis' Suggestions; Urges UP Govt To Come With Development Plan

Case : MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THAKUR SHREE BANKEY BIHARI JI MAHARAJ TEMPLE AND ANR. Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 704/2025 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court impressed upon the committee administering the Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple at Vrindavan, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, to take measures to restore the traditional religious practices and to improve crowd management and day-to-day functioning, considering the suggestions given by the two groups of Goswamis.

The Court allowed the nomination of two members each from the two groups of Goswamis- Shayan Bhog and Raj Bhog- and allowed them to give suggestions to the committee.

The Court expressed the hope that the committee will take a decision after duly considering the suggestions. In August last year, the Court had constituteda committee headed by former Allahabad HC Judge Justice Ashok Kumar to administer the temple, while staying the operation of Ordinance brought by the Uttar Pradesh Government for its management.

Judicial Service Recruitment | Is Cut-Off For Viva-Voce Arbitrary? Supreme Court Hears Candidates' Plea

Case Title – Ajaykumar Shyamkishor Tripathi v. Registrar General

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in view of large-scale vacancies, observing that while 42 vacancies were available, only 13 candidates were selected.

The CJI observed that recruitment exercises yielding very few successful candidates despite a large number of vacancies was a matter of concern.

“When you undertake an entire exercise of exam, one should also think of what is the output I got. You spend public money and most importantly you invest a lot of time. And if ultimately outcome is very minimal, then maybe that something that has to be looked into”, the CJI remarked.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Appointments Of Karnataka MLAs In Statutory Corporations, Allows To Seek Review In HC

Case Title – Suri Payala v. State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court disposed of a special leave petition against a Karnataka High Court judgment that upheld the appointment of more than 40 MLAs and MLCs as chairpersons and members of various state boards and corporations with cabinet-rank status and ministerial perks.

However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to seek review before the High Court on the basis of a Karnataka government order dated October 7, 2020, which he contended had not been considered while dismissing the PIL.

“The petitioner's counsel apparently did not lay much emphasis on the contents of the said government order which might have some bearing on the issue raised by the petitioner. Consequently, we dispose of this special leave petition with the liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the High Court”, the Court ordered.

'100 Crore Property Sold At 10 Crore' : Supreme Court Questions Valuer For Auction Under MPID Act

Case Title – Quikr Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Jaiwanti

The Supreme Court refused to stay a Bombay High Court judgment that found serious irregularities in the valuation and auction of a Haryana land parcel attached in the NSEL scam and questioned the role of the valuer whose assessment had formed the basis of the sale.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ultimately allowed valuer Quiker Realty to withdraw his special leave petition and pursue a review before the High Court.

The Court was hearing a special leave petition filed by a valuer challenging the High Court order directing the valuer to be blacklisted for five years. During the hearing, the Court repeatedly questioned the valuation exercise that led to a 35-acre land parcel in Haryana being sold for about ₹10 crore after earlier valuations had placed its worth at several times that amount.

'MPID Courts Acting Daredevil; High Court Must See What Corruption Going On There': CJI Surya Kant

Case : Quikr Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Jaiwanti (Diary No. 30200/2026).

The Chief Justice of India made scathing remarks on the functioning of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) courts while refusing to stay a Bombay High Court judgment that found serious irregularities in the valuation and auction of a Haryana land parcel attached in the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) scam.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a special leave petition filed by valuer Quikr Realty Pvt Ltd challenging the Bombay High Court's May 8 judgment, which had set aside the auction sale of a 35-acre land parcel in Haryana and directed that the valuer be blacklisted for five years.

During the hearing, the bench expressed deep concern over the conduct of MPID authorities and courts, with CJI Surya Kant recalling an earlier instance where an MPID court allegedly acted in defiance of a Supreme Court order.

Centre Moves Supreme Court To Transfer Petitions Challenging Transgender Amendment Act 2026 From High Courts

The Union Government informed the Supreme Court that it has filed transfer petitions seeking to bring before the Supreme Court the various challenges pending in High Courts against the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights (Amendment) Act 2026.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, requesting that the transfer petitions be listed.

“We have filed transfer petitions to transfer the challenge to the Transgender Amendment Act here in this Court. Can the transfer petition be listed on Friday? If notice also goes, we can ask the High Court to wait,” Mehta submitted.

'Why Go To Social Media?He Lost Job' : Supreme Court Affirms Order To Delete Woman's Post Alleging Molestation By Male Co-Passenger

Case : K J v. N G. | SLP(C) No. 18051-18052/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by a journalist challenging an interim injunction passed by the Delhi High Court directing her to take down a social media post which alleged that a male co-passenger sexually harassed her during a flight.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan declined to interfere with the interim order passed by the High Court.

Plea Seeking Time Stamp on VVPAT Slips In EVMs : Supreme Court Leaves Decision to Election Commission

Case : NALLA SURESH REDDY Vs UNION OF INDIA | D No. 22538/2026

The Supreme Court disposed of a public interest petition seeking inclusion of the exact time of vote recording on Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips to enhance electoral transparency, leaving the issue for consideration by the Election Commission of India (ECI) as a technical matter within its domain.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Surya Kant heard the matter. The petitioner, Nalla Suresh Reddy, stated to be a businessman, had approached the Court in public interest seeking a direction to the ECI to modify VVPAT guidelines so that each slip would display the precise time at which a vote was cast.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, for the petitioner, contended that while the Conduct of Election Rules provide for VVPAT, the present system does not record the exact time of vote on the physical paper trail. The petitioner argued that this creates a “physical audit gap,” particularly in cases where questions arise over voting patterns during the closing hours of polling. It was submitted that the absence of a time stamp weakens the evidentiary value of the paper trail in verifying such concerns.

Can't Compel Lawyers To Attend Hearings Only Virtually, Can Only Appeal To Bar: Supreme Court

Case Details: SHOBHA GUPTA Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 658/2026 Diary No. 31285 / 2026

The Supreme Court said it cannot compel advocates to attend hearings only through video conferencing and can merely make an earnest appeal to members of the Bar to opt for virtual appearances amid the ongoing fuel crisis triggered by the conflict in West Asia.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi was hearing a writ petition seeking directions for virtual hearing of miscellaneous matters for three months in view of the fuel crisis

While appreciating the petitioner's initiative, the bench observed that the Court cannot judicially mandate advocates to appear only virtually if some members of the Bar face practical difficulties in doing so.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Former NCLAT Member's Plea Challenging Bar On Practice Before NCLT/NCLAT

Case : VIJAI PRATAP SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 670/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by former National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Technical Member Vijai Pratap Singh challenging the statutory bar preventing former tribunal members from practising before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and NCLAT.

Appearing in person, Singh questioned the rationale behind the restriction and suggested that a cooling-off period could be considered instead of a complete prohibition.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, however, expressed reservations, emphasising the need to preserve judicial independence and public confidence in the adjudicatory process.

Supreme Court Seeks Union, NCERT & CBSE Responses On Plea Challenging 3-Language Mandate In Class 9

Case : Yashica Bhandari Jain and others v. Union of India and others. W.P.(C) No. 694/2026

The Supreme Court sought a "comprehensive response" from the Union Government, Central Board of Secondary Education and the National Council of Educational Research and Training(NCERT) in a Public Interest Litigation challenging the decision of the CBSE to make a third language compulsory for Class 9 students from 2026-27 academic year.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi issued notice on the petition challenging the CBSE's decision, and kept the matter in the second week of July (when the Court re-opens after the summer vacation).

The bench told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that it wanted a report on the logistical preparedness to implement the decision.

Supreme Court Allows Appointment Of Manipur DGP From Outside Manipur Cadre, Notes Peculiar Circumstance In State

Case Details: PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. v UNION OF INDIA | Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 310/1996, I.A. NO. 160215/2026

In an application moved by the Manipur Government, the Supreme Court allowed the appointment of the Director General of Police from outside the Manipur cadre, considering the peculiar situation in the State.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order.

The Manipur government has moved an application stating that they have been unable to find a DG Police from the Manipur cadre after the retirement of DGP Rajiv Singh, who was appointed in the backdrop of the ethnic violence in the State in 2023. Singh is from the Tripura cadre.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & States On Plea Seeking Safety Guidelines For Women Advocates Visiting Police Stations

Case Title – Geeta Jain Aggarwal v. Union of India

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking the formulation and implementation of uniform guidelines across the country to ensure the safety, dignity and protection of women advocates while visiting police stations, particularly during late evening and night hours.

“The Advocates, as officers of the Court, are.an integral part of the justice delivery system and are frequently required to visit police stations to represent and assist their clients. However, in the absence of a specific legal framework governing their safety within such State-controlled environments, women advocates are increasingly exposed to risks of harassment, intimidation and abuse”, the petition states.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Union and all States on the plea returnable in 4 weeks.

Alleging Diversion Of Jaypee Funds, Homebuyer Moves Supreme Court Seeking ED Probe, RBI Audit Of Banks' Exposure To Real Estate Projects

Case Details: VANDANA SABHARWAL Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 661/2026 Diary No. 27990 / 2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and the Enforcement Directorate on a writ petition filed by a Jaypee homebuyer seeking a court-monitored investigation into alleged diversion of thousands of crores collected from homebuyers in the Jaypee Wishtown project in Noida.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice returnable on July 15. Notice has also been issued to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Reserve Bank of India, UP RERA, NOIDA, Jaiprakash Associates Ltd, Jaiprakash Infratech Ltd and related entities.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted: "Issue is, the ED, which has been investigating, has raised the doubt of 14,559 crores collected by JAL and JIL from more than 21,000 home owners. Substantial amount were diverted for non-construction purposes and siphoned off to entities etc. One of the larger issues that arises is that this has been happening in a large number of projects where funds have been collected from homeowners and diverted. The problem is home owners are left in a situation where diverted funds are not identified or not brought back in times because it has been diverted to other companies".

Supreme Court Requests Delhi High Court To Expedite Hearing Of Plea Challenging Bar Council Transfer Fee

Case Details: ADITYA KUMAR KANDU Vs BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 682/2026 Diary No. 30820 / 2026

The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain an Article 32 writ petition challenging the alleged extraorbitant fees charged by Bar Councils for the transfer of the Bar Council registration from one State to another.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi stated that another writ petition raising a similar issue is currently pending before the Delhi High Court. While refusing to entertain the present petition, the bench granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter in the Delhi High Court.

The bench has requested the High Court to expedite the disposal of the pending writ petition.

Wrestling Federation Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi HC Order Allowing Vinesh Phogat To Participate In Asian Games Selection Trials

Case: Wrestling Federation of India v. Vinesh Phogat | SLP (c) 19503/2026

The Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) has approached the Supreme Court challenging aDelhi High Court order permitting wrestler Vinesh Phogat to participate in the selection trials for the Asian Games 2026.

A Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe will consider the matter tomorrow.

On May 22, the Delhi High Court directed that Phogat be allowed to take part in the selection trials scheduled for May 30 and 31.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union, FSSAI On Plea Seeking Turnover-Based Penalty For Sale Of Unsafe And Adulterated Food

Case Title – Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Union and the FSSAI on a plea seeking directions to strengthen the penal and enforcement framework under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, contending that the present regime has failed to effectively curb the sale of unsafe and adulterated food products across the country.

“The Act, in its structure, is aligned with internationally accepted food safety standards and scientific benchmarks and is complete in its legislative design; however, the visible gap lies in effective implementation, and in practice the scale and enforcement of monetary penalties often become insignificant when compared to the vast commercial earnings of large food business operators, thereby diluting the intended deterrent effect and reducing the statutory scheme to a largely symbolic presence rather than a continuously operating preventive mechanism”, the petition states.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in the petition filed by IVF specialist Dr. Aniruddha Malpani.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Anticipatory Bail Granted To Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati In POCSO Case

Case Details: ASHUTOSH BRAHMACHARI v SWAMI AVIMUKTESHWARANAND SARASWATI JAGATGURU SHANKARACHARYA JYOTISHPEETHADHEESHWAR AND ORS. | Diary No. 18688-2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed 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.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh heard the matter.

Ashutosh Brahmachari, the first informant in the case, had filed the petition through AOR Saurabh Ajay Gupta, arguing that the High Court failed to adequately consider the severity of the allegations against Swami.

Supreme Court Allows Wrestler Vinesh Phogat To Participate In Asian Games Selection Trials

Case: Wrestling Federation of India v. Vinesh Phogat | SLP (c) 19503/2026

The Supreme Court allowed wrestler Vinesh Phogat to participate in the selection trials for the Asian Games scheduled to be held on May 30, refusing to stay aDelhi High Court order that had granted her relief.

Considering a petition filed by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) challenging the High Court's order, the Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe declined to stay the High Court's order, thereby clearing the way for Phogat to compete in the trials.

However, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about the approach adopted by the Delhi High Court in granting relief to the wrestler. Despite those concerns, the Bench chose not to interfere with the order at this stage, considering the imminent conduct of the selection trials.

NEET-UG 2026 Cancellation : 'UPSC Never Had Paper Leak, NTA Needs To Learn' : Supreme Court Seeks Union's Affidavit On Reforms

Case Details: FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS. | W.P.(C) No. 651/2026 and others

Hearing a plea concerning the NEET-UG 2026 cancellation due to paper leak, the Supreme Court raised concerns over the ad-hoc nature of the National Testing Agency (NTA), and said that unless clear accountability is fixed, the problems will recur.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe considered petitions seeking to disband the NTA. During the heairng, the bench observed that the NTA needs to learn from other bodies like the UPSC which conduct large-scale competitive exams without any paper leak.

"UPSC has never been a situation, you need to learn," Justice Narasimha said.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Cobrapost's Plea Against Trial Court Allowing Anil Ambani To File Fresh Defamation Suit

Case :COBRAPOST.COM v. ANIL. D. AMBANI AND ORS. | SLP(C) No. 18891/2026

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition filed by news portal Cobrapost challenging a trial court order permitting industrialist Anil Ambani to file a fresh defamation suit after withdrawing his previous suit filed against the portal over its reports alleging that companies linked to him had committed a fraud exceeding ₹41,000 crore.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, noting that the petitioner has alternate remedies in civil law, refused to entertain the matter.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the trial court had granted liberty to file a fresh suit without hearing Cobrapost, despite the fact that such permission can be granted only under limited circumstances contemplated by Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To ED On Former Haryana MLA Dharam Singh Chhoker's Bail Plea In Money Laundering Case

Case Title – Dharam Singh Chhoker v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by former Haryana MLA Dharam Singh Chhoker from Congress against to him in an alleged Rs. 616 Crores money laundering case.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi posted the matter for hearing on 17th June 2026. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Chhoker.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while denying regular bail observed that the allegations, nature of transactions, and material collected during the investigation did not justify release at this stage.

SCBA Elections : Supreme Court Directs Implementation Of Revised Eligibility Criteria This Year; Raises Term To 2 Years From 2027

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik | Diary No. 13992 of 2023

The Supreme Court approved a wide-ranging set of electoral reforms for the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), laying down fresh eligibility criteria for voters and candidates, introducing anti-corruption safeguards, and directing implementation of most reforms before the next election.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan pronounced the directions after considering recommendations made by the committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice L Nageswara Rao, suggestions received from the SCBA, and independent representations from members of the Bar.

Significantly, the Court increased the tenure of the Executive Committee from one year to two years. However, the Court directed that this reform would take effect from 2027.

Complete Selection Of DERC Chairperson And Members Within Two Months: Supreme Court Directs Selection Committee

Case Title – Energy Watchdog v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Supreme Court directed the Selection Committee to complete the selection process for Chairperson and two members of the Delhi Electricity Regulation Commission (DERC) within two months.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered -

"The Selection Committee to take immediate necessary steps for the selection of chairperson and two members and make an endeavour to complete the selection process within a period of 2 months. Post this matter immediately after 2 months. A compliance report to be filed"

'GST Is Tax On Supply, Not Profits' : Why Supreme Court Rejected Casino's Plea That Tax Liability Is On Net Outcome After Games

Cause Title : Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence Hqs Vs Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited | SLP(C) No. 19366-19369/2023 (with connected cases)

While holding that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) would be made applicable to online gaming, fantasy sports, and other games played in virtual settings that involve stakes upon uncertain outcomes, the Supreme Court has also dealt with an issue regarding the correctness of the Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) taxability model used by the Casinos while determining their GST liability.

During the hearing, it was argued on behalf of the Casinos that GST should be levied only on Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR), i.e., the amount ultimately retained by a casino after deducting winnings paid to players. They argued that if players won amounts exceeding their bets, then there would effectively be no taxable consideration.

Rejecting the Casinos' stand, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that GST would be payable not on the net financial outcome at the end of a gaming cycle, but right from the moment the player is permitted to participate in the gambling activity. "The supply involving such actionable claims therefore constitutes the taxable event under the CGST framework.", the court said.