Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: October 2026

S. 138 NI Act | Cheque Dishonour Sent To Drawer's Address Is Validly Served Though Received By Family Member : Supreme Court

Case Title: SAINABA VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

The Supreme Court held that a statutory demand notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be treated as invalid merely because it was received by a family member of the drawer, when the notice was dispatched by registered post to the drawer's correct address.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment, which had overturned the drawer's conviction solely on the ground that the statutory demand notice was not received by him personally but by his mother, who resided at the address provided by the drawer.

The Court said that once a demand notice is dispatched by registered post to the correct address, a rebuttable presumption of service arises shifting the burden upon the drawer to rebut the presumption by establishing, for instance, that the address was incorrect, that he had no knowledge of the notice, or that the postal endorsement was incorrect.

IBC | CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Merely Because S 9 Application Was Filed Fraudulently : Supreme Court

Case Title: ORRIS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. (with connected cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1006

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 30) held that, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority can recall the admission of a Section 9 insolvency application if the proceedings were initiated based on fraudulent or collusive jurisdictional facts.

However, the Court clarified that such a finding of fraud does not automatically require termination of the entire Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Once insolvency proceedings have been admitted and have assumed an in rem character, the Adjudicating Authority (AA) must separately determine whether the CIRP should continue in the interests of the corporate debtor and its other stakeholders.

“…insolvency resolution process can be continued even after a finding that the original application under Section 9 was initiated fraudulently and with active collusion of the suspended Directors of the corporate debtor…for deciding whether to continue the resolution process, the AA will take into account multiple factors, the most important of which lies in ensuring that the future proceedings can be conducted with integrity and confidence that the purpose and object of the Act could be achieved with certainty, probity and transparency.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.

Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans, Freeze Online Services: Supreme Court Orders, Notes Over ₹23,000 Crore Traffic Fines Pending

Case Title: S.RAJASEEKARAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1007

The Supreme Court has directed States and Union Territories to take stringent measures to recover pending traffic fines, including impounding vehicles found with unpaid e-challans during random checks and freezing online services relating to vehicles until outstanding dues are cleared.

The Court observed that merely issuing thousands of e-challans would serve little purpose unless the authorities ensured recovery of the fines. The Court was informed that approximately ₹49,194.05 crore remained recoverable towards e-challans issued across the country, out of which ₹26,175.05 crore had been recovered.

The directions were passed on September 28 in the ongoing road safety case S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, which the Supreme Court has been monitoring since 2012.

SARFAESI | Bids Received In Defiance Of Restraint Order Cannot Form Foundation Of Valid Sale: Supreme Court

Case Title: STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS LIMITED VERSUS M/S P.M. ASSOCIATES & ORS. (with connected cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 30) set aside an auction sale concluded in defiance of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, noting that bids had been received in violation of a restraint order on the auction sale and that the sale had taken place before the expiry of the 30-day notice period to the borrower.

Amongst other things, a major violation occurred of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal's order, as despite the operation of a restraint order on the auction sale proceedings, the bids were received by the secured creditor in defiance of the DRAT's restraint order. The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's decision to uphold the auction sale in the secured creditor's writ petition.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard a case where the borrower, Sterling Holiday Resorts, had availed loans from Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited (“IFCI”) and Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited (“TFCI”), secured by a mortgage over its “The Fernhill” resort at Ooty.

SARFAESI | Sale Certificate Issued To Non-Bidder Entity That Didn't Exist On Auction Date Is Illegal : Supreme Court

Case Title: STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS LIMITED VERSUS M/S P.M. ASSOCIATES & ORS. (with connected cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

The Supreme Court has held that an entity which did not exist when bids were invited and received in a SARFAESI auction could not subsequently be made the beneficiary of the sale by issuance of a sale certificate in its favour.

A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed while setting aside the Madras High Court's decision to uphold the auction sale of Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited's “The Fernhill” resort in Ooty, which was concluded in defiance of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (“the Rules”).

The Court noted that the auction bid had been submitted by one-Rukmani Khemchand in her individual capacity, and she was declared the successful bidder. However, the sale certificate was subsequently issued in favour of M/s P.M. Associates, a partnership firm comprising Khemchand and her brother.

S. 313 CrPC | Statement Of Accused Cannot Be Used To Complete An Unestablished Chain Of Circumstances : Supreme Court

Case Title: SANTOSH GURUNG VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

While acquitting a man convicted of raping and murdering his six-year-old maternal niece, the Supreme Court on Thursday (October 1) held that the conviction cannot be recorded solely based on defence statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. / Section 351 BNSS when the prosecution otherwise failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, the accused's answers to the questions put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to fill up the gaps left by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions. Only when the accused fails to furnish any explanation of the incriminating materials established against him, an adverse inference can be drawn against him, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the conviction of a man in an alleged offence of a rape and murder of a minor girl, who was sentenced to a life imprisonment, after noting that the accused's responses under Section 313 Cr.P.C. formed the basis for the conviction, despite other circumstantial evidence found unsatisfactory to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court Urges Centre & BCI To Frame Regulations For Sexual Harassment Complaints By Women Lawyers In All Courts

Case Title – Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India and Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

The Supreme Court on Friday urged the Union Government and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to jointly draft regulations for addressing sexual harassment complaints by women lawyers practising before High Courts, district courts, Taluka courts, tribunals and other quasi-judicial authorities.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) could not be applied in a “straitjacket manner” to women in the legal profession and asked the parties to study the Supreme Court's own 2013 regulations and formulate a similar framework for other courts.

“These regulations have been made with regard to the Supreme Court of India precincts only. In order to have a wider coverage of these regulations in so far as the High Courts and all courts under the District Judiciary as well as Tribunals of the Central and State Governments, other quasi-judicial authorities etc., it is necessary that a separate set of regulations are made as we find that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 cannot be applied in a straitjacket manner to the aggrieved women who belong to the legal profession. In the circumstances, we request the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties to have a joint consultation so as to draft a set of regulations applicable to all the aforesaid judicial and quasi-judicial courts, tribunals and authorities.”

Cattle Transport Can't Be Presumed To Be For Slaughter Due To Mere Absence Of Documents : Supreme Court

Case Title: Saurabh Bajaj Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1012

The Supreme Court has observed that a mere absence of transport documents cannot give rise to a presumption that the cattle were being transported for slaughter.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the conviction of a man under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 (“Act”), accused of transporting 32 bullocks for slaughter, observing that the transportation of the cattle without any documents did not give rise to a presumption that the cattle were being transported for slaughter purposes alone.

“The mere fact that the transport was not accompanied by any documents cannot lead to a presumption that the transport was for slaughter.”, the Court observed.

Elected Representatives Can't Assume Role Of Police Or Courts; People's Mandate Not Source Of Unbridled Power: Supreme Court

Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

The Supreme Court has observed that elected representatives cannot assume the role of the police, administrators or courts, stressing that the mandate of the people cannot be treated as a source of personal authority or unbridled power to command or intimidate others.

“Democracy confers power through the ballot, but the exercise of that power remains subject to the discipline of law,” a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed while cancelling the bail granted to a Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation corporator and three others accused of assaulting doctors and medical staff at a municipal hospital.

In July 2026, the elected corporator of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre (Respondent No 1/R1), with three others assaulted and verbally abused three doctors, including a lady doctor, on duty in the Labour Ward. The incident arose from a dispute over the shifting of a pregnant patient in labour.

Any Attempt To Intimidate Or Assault Medical Professionals Can't Be Tolerated : Supreme Court

Case Title: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs. RAMESH SUKRYA MHATRE

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

The Supreme Court recently observed that doctors cannot reasonably be expected to exercise sound and independent professional judgment while facing the apprehension of physical violence, intimidation or coercion, emphasising that the safety and dignity of medical professionals are safeguards necessary for the proper delivery of healthcare.

The Court further observed that grievances over medical treatment, however genuine, cannot justify resorting to violence. It emphasised that allowing such conduct would undermine the conditions in which medical professionals are required to make decisions concerning the lives and health of patients.

The Court highlighted that a doctor's responsibility extends beyond providing a professional service, as patients place their health and, in serious cases, their lives in the doctor's hands. The doctor-patient relationship is founded on trust, confidence and reassurance, it noted.

Doctors Assault Case | Supreme Court Sets Aside Shiv Sena Corporator Ramesh Mhatre's Bail, Says 'Strong Message Needed'

Case Title - STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs. RAMESH SUKRYA MHATRE

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

The Supreme Court today set aside the Bombay High Court's order granting bail to Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre, who is accused of assaulting doctors and hospital staff at a municipal hospital in Dombivli, Maharashtra.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed Mhatre to surrender within three days.

The bench orally remarked that a strong message must be sent and the medical fraternity cannot be attacked in this manner. "The message must go loud and clear. Medical fraternity cannot be touched and attacked in this manner," Justice Mehta said.

'Investigating Officer Must Not Create Evidence' : Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal After Finding Witnesses Were 'Set Up'

Case Title: THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VERSUS ANCHLA @ CHANCHLA

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1014

Observing that the role of an investigating officer is to collect evidence, not to create it, the Supreme Court has acquitted a woman convicted in a double murder case after finding that the investigating agency had "set up" witnesses to create evidence and failed to explain what prompted it to record their statements during the investigation.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi heard the case, where, among other materials, the prosecution sought to establish the guilt of the accused based on the testimonies of a taxi driver and a hotel staff member, who were found to be created witnesses, as the investigation neither explained why, when, and under what circumstances their testimonies were recorded, nor did the said witnesses possess any incriminating material against the accused that would have prompted them to approach the police.

The case arose from the murder of a woman (D-1) and her son (D-2) at their residence in Diur, Himachal Pradesh, in 2011. The Respondent- accused, was the stepdaughter of D-1 and stepsister of D-2.

Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Over Alleged False Promise Of Marriage After Three-Year Consensual Relationship

Case Title: Martanda Singh v State of Chattisgarh & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1015

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of sexually exploiting a woman under the pretext of marriage, holding that a three-year consensual relationship could not be said to be based on coerced consent or misrepresentation.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal against the Chhattisgarh government and the complainant, observing that “a consensual relationship spreading over three years has eventually ended with a criminal case lodged against the appellant.”

In 2025, the complainant registered an FIR against the appellant alleging that he (accused/appellant) refused to marry her after exploiting her sexually under the pretext of marriage. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed in the case pursuant to which the accused filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

NDPS Act Prosecution Can't Be Quashed On Sole Ground That Disclosure Of Co-Accused Was Relied Upon : Supreme Court

Case Title: The State of Karnataka & Anr. Versus Sadiq Pasha

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1016

The Supreme Court has held that although a confession under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) or a disclosure statement under Section 53A cannot have evidentiary value to secure a conviction, the mere presence of such material cannot be a ground to quash a pending NDPS prosecution at the threshold.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that material disclosed by co-accused identifying an absconding accused may be used by the investigating officer to gather further evidence, which may ultimately form the basis of a chargesheet or conviction in a properly conducted trial.

The aforesaid observation came by a bench while hearing a State of Karnataka's appeal against the High Court's decision to quash the NDPS Act proceedings, at the threshold, against the accused for alleged possession of a 32.615 kg commercial quantity of 'ganja'.

Tax Classification Must Be Based On Form Of Goods At Stage Of Sale & Not Its End Use : Supreme Court

Case Title: ADDL. COMMR. COMMERCIAL TAX & ORS. VERSUS CADILA HEALTH CARE LTD & ANR.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1017

The Supreme Court has held that goods sold in the form of powder or biscuits cannot be classified as “non-alcoholic drinks and beverages” merely because they may subsequently be mixed with milk or water to prepare a beverage.

A bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Arun Palli considered an issue of whether the goods should be classified based on their end use, that is, the fact that they could be mixed with milk or water to make a drink, or based on their form when sold.

Answering the issue, the Court held that for the purpose of tax classification, the form in which goods exist at the time of sale is determinative, and their subsequent use by consumers cannot alter the taxable classification to levy a higher rate of tax on a consumer.

S.72 BSA | Courts Must Compare Signatures Themselves, Expert Evidence Cannot Be Called Routinely In Handwriting Disputes: Supreme Court

Case Title: GOPAL PATHAK VERSUS NITIN ALIAS PAPPU & ANR.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1018

The Supreme Court has observed that it is impermissible to send every case involving a disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression for expert examination when the Court can compare the signature or writing and reach its own conclusion.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan held that expert evidence cannot be called routinely on the mere ground that the Courts are not expert to ascertain the genuineness of the handwriting/signature/finger impression. The Court clarified that only when it has any doubt, or the writing/impression is smudgy, vague, or very light, can it exercise its discretion to call for expert evidence.

“This Court is further of the view that it is the duty of the Court to compare the signature or writing and come to its own conclusion and the same cannot be avoided by recourse to a statement that the Court is not an expert. In fact, the evidence of an expert is only an opinion which is not binding on the Court. Consequently, the finding of the High Court that obtaining expert opinion under Section 39 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is essential for determining the genuineness of the Will is untenable in law. However, the Court has full discretion to seek expert opinion like where it has any doubt or the writing/impression is smudgy, vague or very light.”, the Court observed.

Precedents Barring Recovery Of Excess Payments Have Not Considered Section 72 Contract Act: Supreme Court

Case Title: Dr MK Ravi Varma etc etc v National Institute of Technology and Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1019

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu made the observation while dismissing appeals by teachers whose Academic Grade Pay benefits were withdrawn after they were found to have been granted by mistake.

The case pertains to the grant of Academic Grade Pay to the appellants. The financial benefits were extended to them around October 2009 and withdrawn in January 2010, on the ground that they had not put in the requisite years of service, pursuant to which a writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court.

A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court allowed the teachers' writ petitions in November 2014, ruling in their favour. In appeal, a Division Bench reversed the decision in November 2015.

Excess Salary Paid By Mistake Can Be Recovered From Employees Who Gave Undertaking: Supreme Court Dismisses Teachers' Plea

Case Title: Dr MK Ravi Varma etc etc v National Institute of Technology and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1019

The Supreme Court has upheld the recovery of Academic Grade Pay benefits that were given by mistake to the teachers of the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Calicut, holding that the recovery was valid because the teachers had given written undertakings to refund excess payments.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu ruled so while dismissing the appeals against the Kerala High Court Division Bench's judgment.

The case pertains to the grant of Academic Grade Pay to the appellants. The financial benefits were extended to them around October 2009 and withdrawn in January 2010, on the ground that they had not put in the requisite years of service, pursuant to which a writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court.

Original Status As Daily Wager Cannot Be Ground To Deny Annual Increment After Regularisation : Supreme Court

Case Title: Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

The Supreme Court (October 6) has held that daily-wage skilled workers who were treated as permanent employees under a government resolution and granted regular pay scales and retirement benefits cannot be denied the annual increment falling due after their retirement merely because they were originally engaged as daily wagers.

Setting aside the Gujarat High Court's division bench judgment, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva rejected the Gujarat government's contention that the appellants were not entitled to the increment because of their original appointment as a daily-wage worker.

The Court relied on the 1988 state government's resolution under which daily-wage skilled workers completing the prescribed service of ten years were treated as permanent employees and granted regular pay scales, allowances, pension and other retiral benefits.

Marks In Exam Cannot Cure Lack Of Essential Qualification Under Recruitment Rules: Supreme Court

Case Title: SANTOSH B. NAIK VERSUS STATE OF GOA & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1021

The Supreme Court has held that marks secured in the written examination cannot cure the absence of an essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules, reiterating that comparative merit can be considered only among candidates who first satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions.

The Court further held that recognition of an educational qualification by an educational board does not, by itself, make it equivalent to the specific qualification prescribed under Recruitment Rules.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the appointment of a candidate as Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the Government of Goa, who held a Secondary School Certificate (10th standard) obtained through the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), which was recognised by the Goa Education Board as equivalent to possessing a 10th standard under the 10+2 system of education. However, the Recruitment Rules required a candidate to have "passed 10th standard under 10+2 system of education” and do not treat NIOS 10th Standard as a requirement for the post.

Tendency To Colourize Civil Disputes Into Criminal Offences An Open Secret : Supreme Court

Case Title: SUDHA RAKESH VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a purely civil dispute cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution unless the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences are made out.

“The tendency of litigants to colourize civil disputes into criminal offences is an open secret in the present times. The courts have tried to put their foot down to prevent the litigants from obliterating the fine distinction between the two. We have done so to prevent the abuse of criminal process.”, observed a bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh while quashing criminal proceedings against a power-of-attorney holder arising out of a failed agreement to sell land in Karnataka.

The case arose after prospective purchasers failed to complete a land transaction within the agreed period. The landowners subsequently sold the property to a third party, following which the prospective purchasers filed a civil suit for specific performance as well as a criminal complaint alleging offences under Sections 420, 423, 120-B and 34 IPC.

Supreme Court Rebukes UP Govt For Not Paying Pension To Retired Peon For 10 Years, Calls For Chief Secretary's Report

Case Title: Jagdish Prasad Tripathi v State of UP through its Principal Secretary & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

The Supreme Court has pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government, expressing shock over its failure to pay retiral dues to a peon for nearly ten years after his retirement, and directed the Chief Secretary to file a report on the delay, the officers responsible and the compensation the state government proposes to pay.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) when it came heavily on the state government, observing that “grave injustice has been done to the petitioner.”

The petitioner was appointed as a peon in 1984. In 2016, he superannuated after nearly thirty-two years of service. His service was pensionable and he repeatedly requested release of his pension, filing several complaints.

High Court Should Not Suggest Custodial Interrogation Of Accused: Supreme Court

Case Title: Miteshgiri @ Mulrajgiri Sevagiri Goswami & Anr. v State of Gujarat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held so while setting aside a Gujarat High Court order that had rejected anticipatory bail sought by a retired school principal and his wife.

The appellants are husband (A1) and wife (A2). A1 was a Principal of Shri Secondary School, while A2 was President of the school's governing body. It is alleged that they tampered with the service record of A1 to change his date of birth from 19.06.1964 to 19.06.1965, which changed his date of retirement. It is also alleged that A1 thereby made unlawful gain at the cost of the public exchequer. Thereafter, an FIR was registered under Sections 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Appellants' plea seeking anticipatory bail was rejected by the Gujarat High Court in June 2026. In August this year, the Supreme Court directed that the appellants should not be arrested, on condition that they cooperate with the investigation.

RP Act | Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner Himself & Not Counsel : Supreme Court

Case Title: V. PON. PANEERSELVAM VERSUS S. REGUPATHY AND OTHERS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

The Supreme Court (October 7) has held that an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) must be presented by the election petitioner himself, and that non-compliance with this mandatory requirement renders the petition liable to be dismissed.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar upheld the Madras High Court's dismissal of an election petition challenging the election of DMK MLA S. Regupathy from the Thirumayam Assembly Constituency in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, after noting that the Election Petition was not filed by the election petitioner, but by his counsel.

“…an election petition is a serious proceeding which may result in the vitiation of an electoral process and that the procedure prescribed by an election statute must, therefore, be strictly followed. The requirement that the petition be presented “by” the petitioner enables the High Court, at the stage of presentation itself, to undertake a preliminary verification so as to ensure that the proceeding is not frivolous or vexatious.”, the Court observed, relying on its 2009 judgment of G.V. Sreerama Reddy and Another v. Returning Officer and Others.

Income Tax | Subsidy Can Become Taxable Depending On Purpose Test : Supreme Court

Case Title: M/S. MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE

Citation: 2026 LiveLAw (SC) 1027

The Supreme Court (October 7) held that an electricity subsidy calculated based on power charges incurred by an industrial undertaking is a revenue receipt liable to tax when it is intended to reduce operational costs rather than contribute to capital investment.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed an appeal filed by an assessee, upholding the tax authorities' and the Madras High Court's concurrent findings that the electricity subsidy of ₹16,20,745/- received by an assessee under the Puducherry Government's scheme was taxable.

The Court reiterated that the nature of a subsidy must be determined by applying the “purpose test”, examining the object for which it is granted and the scheme's actual operation.

Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case Over Unpaid Steel Dues, Calls Criminal Cases In Civil Disputes An Abuse Of Process Of Law

Case Title: Yogesh Premjibhai Suvariya & Anr. v State of Gujarat & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1028

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held so while setting aside the Gujarat High Court's order, which had discharged the appellants of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023/BNS) but sustained the charge of cheating under Section 420 IPC (now Section 318(4) of the BNS 2023) read with Section 114 IPC (now Section 54 of the BNS 2023).

The appellants are directors of Shivamy Enterprises Pvt Ltd., a company in the steel business. The informant (R2) is an employee of Hans Ispat Ltd. Since 2006, Shivamy Enterprises was buying steel bars from Hans Ispat Ltd. and selling them to third parties. It is alleged that the directors of Shivamy Enterprises (appellants) had purchased Thermo-Mechanically Treated (TMT) bars worth Rs 1,19,00,000 pursuant to which Hans Ispat Ltd (company in which R2 is an employee) raised the bills. The directors issued post-dated cheques which were dishonoured and the bills remained unpaid.

Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the appellants and a chargesheet was filed. Subsequently, the appellants' discharge application was rejected by the Magistrate. Their revision application before the Gujarat High Court was also dismissed in March 2021 as not maintainable. Later, in 2024, the Supreme Court held that the revision was maintainable and directed the High Court to decide it on merits.

If Breakup Ends Up With Suicide, It Cannot Always Be Termed Abetment To Suicide : Supreme Court

Case Title: Chittibarika Chandra Shekar & Ors. Versus The State of Telangana & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against six persons accused of abetting the suicide of a woman after her partner allegedly refused to marry her, holding that a refusal to marry, even if followed by suicide, does not by itself constitute abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that people react differently to situations and that a breakup ending in suicide cannot automatically be characterised as abetment to suicide.

The Court was hearing an appeal arising from a criminal revision before the Telangana High Court concerning a woman who had been in a consensual relationship with the first accused. The prosecution alleged that after he refused to marry her, she died by suicide.

Delhi Women Safety | Supreme Court Orders To Step Up Police Patrol, Verify Cab-Bus Drivers & Close Unauthorised Liquor Outlets

Case Title: In Re: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed its concern by observing that the question was not merely whether appropriate directions exist, but whether those directions translate into sustained, visible, and verifiable action on the ground.

The bench took suo motu cognisance following reports of a series of sexual offences against minor girls and women in Delhi-NCR, referring to the alleged gangrape of a 17-year-old girl at Aastha Kunj Park, the alleged gangrape and murder of a teenage girl in Swaroop Nagar, and the alleged sexual assault of a minor girl in a moving sleeper bus. The bus travelled over 47 km from Greater Noida to Delhi without being intercepted. The bench stated that these incidents pointed to a systematic failure on the part of law enforcement and public administrative authorities to guarantee basic public safety, adding that expressions of solidarity were not enough and that accountability had to be fixed on the authorities.

Last month, the bench had passed interim directions after taking suo motu cognisance of the incidents. Senior Advocate Liz Mathew was appointed as amicus.

Proof Of Robbery Or Attempted Robbery Essential Component For Conviction Under S. 394 IPC : Supreme Court

Case Title: APPA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

The Supreme Court (October 7) held that a conviction under Section 394 IPC / Section 309 (6) of BNS cannot be sustained unless it is proved that robbery or an attempt to rob took place.

“The robbery or attempted robbery is not at all a peripheral circumstance and is rather an essential component of the offense.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, while setting aside the conviction under Section 394 IPC, which punishes an act of voluntarily causing grievous injury in committing robbery.

The case arose from a January 1993 incident at a farmhouse in Maharashtra, where four assailants allegedly entered at night. The complainant identified Appa as the person who threatened her with a knife, injured her hand and punched her in the face, causing an upper tooth to fall out.

'Entrustment Basic Ingredient Of Criminal Breach Of Trust' : Supreme Court Restores Acquittal of Telephone Department Cashier

Case Title: Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

The Supreme Court has restored the acquittal of a Cashier-cum-Counter Clerk of the Telephone Department in a case under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023/BNS), holding that the prosecution has failed to prove entrustment of property, misappropriation or dishonest intention. It also observed that the High Court had erred in reversing the trial court's acquittal.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held so while setting aside the Bombay High Court judgment that had reversed the acquittal of the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to produce the original cashbook, daily registers and audit report despite being called upon by the Investigating Officer.

It further observed that, without these documents, “it would be difficult to hold that there was, in fact, entrustment of the amount of cash to the appellant, which is one of the basic ingredients for constituting breach of trust.”

Procedural Violation Will Not Vitiate Seizure But Can Affect Evidentiary Value : Supreme Court

Case Title: RAMKRUSHNA PRAHLLAD DONGARDIVE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

The Supreme Court (October 8) held that a failure of the accused to furnish an explanation regarding the seizure made at his place cannot be regarded as incriminating material against him, and the burden of proving the valid seizure remains with the prosecution.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard the case where the accused's acquittal in an alleged offence of criminal breach of trust (under Section 409 IPC) was reversed by the Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench, where the High Court gave credence to the seizure of documents made at his house, despite being made in defiance of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C., particularly, the failure of the prosecution to supply the list of seized items to the accused, and the panch witnesses going hostile.

Initially, the trial court found that the procedure prescribed under Section 100(7) Cr.P.C. was not followed during the search and seizure. However, the High Court relied on the testimony of the Investigating Officer (“IO”) without any further corroboration to deem the seizure to be valid. Moreover, the High Court held that the absence of the appellant's signature on the seizure panchnama was not significant and relied on the IO's testimony. It reasoned that there was no reason for the police officer to falsely depose about the seizure.

Victim Also Has Right To Seek Speedy Trial Like Accused : Supreme Court

Case Title: RENUKA JAIN VERSUS THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

The Supreme Court has held that a victim of an offence has the locus standi to approach the High Court seeking expeditious disposal of a criminal trial, ruling that the right to a speedy trial is not the exclusive prerogative of the accused but is equally available to the victim.

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Delhi High Court order that had dismissed a complainant's petition seeking an expedited trial as frivolous and imposed costs of ₹10,000 on her.

“to say that the role of the victim is limited to being a witness, is not correct. A victim or the legal guardian of the victim is a definite stakeholder in the criminal justice system. Like the accused, she has also a vested right to insist on a speedy trial and also for a fair trial. Therefore, on a reading of the statutory scheme as enumerated supra, certainly a victim has locus standi to seek a speedy trial. She can certainly bring a petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S. seeking a direction from the High Court to the Trial Court to expedite the trial proceedings.”, the court observed.

Freebies To Doctors : Supreme Court Asks Union To Form Committee To Recommend Regulations On Pharma Marketing Practices

Case Title: Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(SC) 1034

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to constitute a committee to recommend statutory regulations to curb unethical marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies.

"The committee will consider the suggestions and representations and give its recommendations to the Union. The matter is directed to be listed on 29th January for consideration of compliance affidavit by the Union," the Court pronounced.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pronounced the order in a petition seeking statutory regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices to curb unethical interactions between pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

Inter-District Transfer Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right By Govt Servant : Supreme Court

Case Title: Pratap Singh Baghel Versus Akanksha Shukla

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1035

The Supreme Court has refused to transfer an Uttar Pradesh-based government teacher to her in-law's place, holding that an inter-district transfer could not be claimed as a matter of right on a mere displacement from a family.

“This is a universal problem faced by employees and one cannot, on the mere displacement from the family, claim an inter-district transfer, which in the present case also entails a cadre change; as a matter of right.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the contempt proceedings against the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, initiated by the Respondent-teacher for defying the High Court's judgment which had directed the Board to consider the claim of the respondent for inter-district transfer from Bahraich District to Lucknow in terms of the Rule 8(2)(d) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008 (“Rules”), which provides relaxations to female teachers.

The appellant-contemnor opposed the contempt proceedings by relying on the Rules, contending that the respondent was not eligible for inter-district transfer as she had secured marks below the prescribed minimum cut-off. It was further argued that permitting her transfer would leave the concerned school short of teachers, thereby violating the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which prescribes a specific student-teacher ratio to be maintained in every school under its Schedule.

Govt Servant Cannot Claim Inter-District Transfer As Right; Education System Is For Students, Not Teachers' Convenience: Supreme Court

Case Title: Pratap Singh Baghel v Akanksha Shukla (Diary No. 10142/2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1035

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held so while setting aside an Allahabad High Court order that had prima facie found contempt in the rejection of a female teacher's inter-district transfer request, observing that it there was no contempt in the order rejecting her request, and that the reasons for rejection were fully justified.

The plea before the Supreme Court was filed by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, against an order of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in a contempt case. The High Court had prima facie found disobedience of its 2023 judgment in which the respondent (teacher) was the appellant. The High Court had passed directions to consider the respondent's claim in terms of Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008.

The bench examined the rejection order and found that it did refer to Rule 8(2)(d) of the 2008 Rules. For context, the rule provides that applications for inter-state transfer are not entertained for five years. In special circumstances, applications of female teachers are considered for inter-district transfer to the district of their husband's residence or in-law's place.

Hindu Widow's Limited Interest Became Absolute Under 1956 Succession Act : Supreme Court

Case Title: Sultan Singh (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. The Financial Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1037

The Supreme Court has held that a Hindu widow's limited interest in agricultural land can become absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that succession must be determined by considering the personal law applicable at the time of her death.

A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard the case concerning a dispute over approximately 45 bighas of agricultural land, between the heirs of a woman's first husband's family and her two sons from her second marriage.

The central issue was whether the land should revert to the heirs of the woman's first husband or devolve under the applicable succession provisions after her limited interest had become absolute ownership.

Supreme Court Acquits Man In POCSO Case Over Victim's Failure To Identify Him In Court, Unexplained Delay In FIR

Case Title: Charming Rupon v State of Meghalaya (Diary No. 32065/2022)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1038

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Meghalaya High Court. It found that the evidence of the victim's mother (informant), the victim and the victim's cousin was wavering and unreliable.

It is alleged that the appellant sexually assaulted the 40% intellectually disabled victim in 2015 when she was 11 years old, at her home when her mother (informant/PW 1) had gone out and she was alone. PW 1 allegedly saw the accused plucking mulberry leaves in the garden next to the house as she left. Thereafter, the victim then went to her cousin's house (PW 2) and stayed for the night. The cousin told the victim's mother about the incident the next day, but the mother did not take it seriously because the child did not confirm the accusation. Later, the victim disclosed the incident to her school teacher who informed the parents and an FIR was lodged nearly 10 days after the alleged incident.

The accused was then convicted by Special Judge (POCSO) and was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 Lakh. The accused appealed before the High Court which dismissed his appeal in 2022.

Lawyers, Journalists, Other Professionals Should Not Be Stopped From Doing Their Job Amid Delhi Protest Curbs : Supreme Court

Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v Govind Mohan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1039

Lawyers, journalists and other professionals should not be impeded from carrying out their professional duties, the Supreme Court categorically said during the CEC protest matter.

After allegations were levelled that Delhi Police prevented lawyers and journalists from carrying out their professional duties, a bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana impressed upon Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that these professionals must not be obstructed from carrying out their professional duties.

In the order, the Court recorded the SG's assurance (on instructions) that lawyers, journalists and other professionals will not be impeded in discharge of professional duties. It further directed that free movement of people shall be permitted across the city subject to traffic regulations.

CEC Protest: Supreme Court Directs No Illegal Detention Of Peaceful Protesters, Normal Metro & Rail Services, Free Movement, Undisturbed Internet

Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v Govind Mohan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1039

In a special Sunday sitting related to protests in Delhi against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the Supreme Court today directed that there shall be no detention of any person except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly with respect to any assembly of peaceful and unarmed persons beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS prohibitory orders are in operation.

A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana also directed the authorities to take down the board concerning the imposition of Section 163 of BNSS in the area around the Supreme Court, if not already done, to ensure there is no apprehension regarding access to justice, including ingress and egress to any court of law.

The Court further directed that metro and rail facilities shall function normally unless restrictions are required to be imposed keeping in mind disturbances to public order, as contemplated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

Past Ad Hoc Service Can Count For Pension, Not For Seniority Claim Over Direct Recruits: Supreme Court

Case Title: H. NAGARAJAN & ORS. Vs. STATE OF T.N. & ORS. (with connected cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1040

The Supreme Court has held that the temporary or ad hoc appointees cannot claim parity in matters of the determination of seniority with the direct recruitment appointees. In essence, an ad hoc / temporary appointees seniority would be determined from the date of their confirmation in service, not from the date of their initial appointment.

The bench comprising Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar said that while the ad hoc services of the appointees can be taken into consideration for pension purposes, it cannot be counted for determination of seniority.

The dispute arose from temporary appointments made by the Tamil Nadu Government during a ban on recruitment to ministerial posts in 1981–83. M. Prema and other employees were appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Permissible If Additional Facts & Reliefs Have Direct Nexus With Existing Controversy: Supreme Court

Case Title: HARAMANI SAHOO AND OTHERS VERSUS LALITA NAYAK AND OTHERS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1041

The Supreme Court has observed that a belated amendment to a plaint seeking to introduce additional facts and legal issues for adjudication cannot be rejected merely because it expands the scope of the dispute.

The Court further emphasised that while considering an application for amendment, courts should adopt a liberal approach and should not be unduly concerned with technicalities.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan heard the case, where the original plaintiff, filed a suit in 2009 seeking declaration of title, possession and rectification of sale deeds concerning 0.12 acres of land. During the proceedings, he claimed to have discovered a compromise decree passed in a separate suit in 1998, which allegedly allotted a portion of the disputed property to a defendant. He sought to amend the plaint to introduce the decree and challenge its validity.

Arbitration | Governing Law Clause Relevant For Seat Determination Where Agreement Mentions Two Venues : Supreme Court

Case Title: ARCIS CLEAN ENERGY PVT. LTD VS. PARSHVA INNOVATION

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1042

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 12) held that where an arbitration clause mentions two places for arbitration without clearly designating one as the juridical seat, the governing law clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at a particular place becomes relevant in determining the parties' intention to identify the seat of an arbitration.

“that mere expression “place of arbitration” cannot be the basis to determine the intention of the parties that they have intended that place as the “seat” of arbitration. The intention of the parties as to the “seat” should be determined from other clauses in the agreement, including the conduct of the parties.”, a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi quoted from Mankastu Impex (P) Ltd. v. Airvisual Ltd. to hold that the seat of the arbitration would be determined upon a holistic reading of various clauses of the Agreement, especially the governing law of the arbitration.

The appeal was filed against the Delhi High Court's decision to allow the Respondent's plea for an appointment of an arbitrator, where the arbitration clause mentions two venues, i.e., Delhi and Goa; however, the governing law clause conferred exclusive jurisdiction with the Courts in Goa.

Section 161 CrPC Statements Cannot Be Relied On At Trial But Can Be Considered At Cognizance Stage : Supreme Court

Case Title: Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary Versus State of Bihar & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1043

The Supreme Court has held that although the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C./Section 180 BNSS cannot be relied on at trial, they can be considered at the cognizance stage.

“Section 161 CrPC statements, obviously, cannot be relied on at the trial, but definitely could be gone into at the time of cognizance, since that is the material available before the Court, as produced by the Police along with the final report. That the Court is entitled to take cognizance despite a closure report by the police, requires no reiteration.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the Patna High Court's decision to interfere with the cognizance order of the magistrate, relying on the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Briefly put, the Appellant, being a father of the deceased who died of drowning, alleged that the Respondent No.2 played an active role in her son's death. Compelling circumstantial evidence also existed, along with witnesses who saw the Respondent No.2, the accused, running away from the spot.

Drug Users Are Victims, Focus Should Be On Breaking Supply Chain Rather Than Punishing Them: Supreme Court

Case Title: SANJANA BHASKARAN VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1044

The Supreme Court has observed that the persons who are at the last stage of the narcotics supply chain should not be dealt with merely as offenders, cautioning that their prosecution and incarceration pending trial may have adverse consequences by exposing them to associations that could draw them deeper into the drug trade.

“Prosecuting such victims can have a spiralling effect and incarceration pending trial, can lead to more disastrous consequences of the victim joining the supply chain, by reason only of associations developed in prisons.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, emphasising that the focus of law enforcement should be on curbing the availability of narcotics and dismantling the supply chain, rather than merely punishing users.

“Curbing availability and breaking the supply chain shall be the focus and not merely punishing the user, who is actually the victim.”, the Court said.

Non-Signatories Can Be Joined In Arbitration If Dispute Affects Their Rights: Supreme Court

Case Title: Hemant D. Shah HUF & Anr. Versus Chittaranjan D. Shah HUF & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1045

The Supreme Court has held that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement may be included in arbitration proceedings when the dispute substantially affects their rights, emphasising that the determination of whether someone is a “veritable party” depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the question cannot be resolved through a rigid formula, as the relationship between the parties and their interests in the subject matter of the dispute must be considered.

“…the Courts and Tribunals cannot adopt a rigid approach to exclude all persons or entities, who through conduct and relationship with the signatories intended to be bound by the underlying contract containing the arbitration clause.”, the Supreme Court observed, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's decision to decline the request to implead the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement in arbitration proceedings, noting that when the outcome of the proceedings have a substantial impact on the rights of the non-signatories, they cannot claim severance from the proceedings merely because they were non-signatories.

Income Tax | Fresh Claim Cannot Be Raised Before Revisional Authority Without Timely Revised Return : Supreme Court

Case Title: ORISSA RURAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1046

The Supreme Court has held that a fresh claim before the Revisional authority cannot be filed by the assessee without filing a revised return in accordance with law.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed an assessee's plea against the Orissa High Court's decision to uphold the income tax authority's decision to decline the fresh claim of the assessee without filing a revised return within a stipulated time period.

Briefly put, for the assessment year 2006–07, the appellant filed its return declaring a loss of ₹1.94 crore. During the assessment proceedings, it sought to revise its return, but the Assessing Officer did not take the request into account while passing the assessment order.

Give Insurance Cover To Tickets Sold Over Counter Like Online Tickets : Supreme Court Directs Railways

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA V RADHA YADAV

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1047

In a significant case, the Supreme Court has ordered Indian Railways to provide insurance coverage to tickets purchased at the railway reservation counters within two weeks, with effect from October 27. It said the insurance coverage should be the same as when tickets are purchased online.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddhin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan passed this order while hearing a matter pertaining to the safety of the common man and prevention of untoward incidents while travelling in trains. One of the issues raised in this case was the insurance coverage, which is currently available only to those who purchase their railway tickets online by paying a nominal additional amount.

In earlier proceedings, the bench had given time to the Indian Railway authorities to devise a mechanism for extending such coverage to those purchasing tickets offline, including persons belonging to the lowest strata of society. However, when the matter was taken up for hearing on October 6, the bench noted that there has been no progress and deemed it fit to pass the present direction.

PMLA | ED's Delay In Forwarding Arrest Order To Adjudicating Authority Doesn't Automatically Vitiate Arrest : Supreme Court

Case Title: SANJAY SUREKA @SANJAY KUMAR SUREKA VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1048

The Supreme Court has held that upon arrest in an alleged money laundering offence, the failure of the arresting officer to forward the arrest order and related materials to the adjudicating authority, simultaneously with the arrest, would not by itself render the arrest illegal when there exists necessary reason justifying the delay.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi said that when the core safeguard against the arbitrary arrest was complied with, such as the authorised officer had material in possession, reasons to believe were recorded in writing, grounds of arrest were furnished, and the Appellant was produced before the competent court within 24 hours, then mere delay in compliance with Section 19(2) pales into insignificance.

The Court explained that since Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act mandates the arresting officer to 'immediately' forward a copy of the arrest order and the material in their possession to the Adjudicating Authority, hence, in the absence of a timeline mentioned, the word “immediately” does not "mean within 24 hours or within a set time limit, it means that the material has to be transferred expeditiously and simultaneously."

S. 62 IBC | Limitation For Filing Appeal Runs From NCLAT Order Pronouncement, Not Receipt Of Certified Copy : Supreme Court

Case Title: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, CGST DIVISION VERSUS SREENIVASA RAO RAVINUTHALA AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1049

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 14) has held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 begins from the date the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal pronounces its order, and not from the date on which the appellant receives the certified copy.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that the time spent by a litigant in applying for and obtaining a certified copy can be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, but the period of inaction before applying for the copy cannot be excluded.

The Court reiterated that Section 62 of the IBC prescribes a limitation period of 45 days for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court, with a further 15 days available for condonation of delay. The 60-day outer limit cannot be extended.

State Must Be Made Party If Relief Is Sought Against Public Exchequer; Impleading Officer Or Dept Not Enough : Supreme Court

Case Title: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SUDHIR S/O MOTIRAMJI HIWARKAR & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

The Supreme Court has observed that a State could not be saddled with financial liability without being formally impleaded as a party.

“The impleadment of an officer or a department, without formally arraying the State as a juristic entity under Article 300 of the Constitution, renders the petition fundamentally defective when substantive relief is sought against the public exchequer.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's decision to fasten a liability of an absorption of a lecturer to a 'no grant in aid' college upon the state government without impleading it.

Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Commerce Lecturer at a college run by a society during the 1990–91 academic session. The college operated strictly on a “no grant-in-aid” basis. Following earlier episodes of termination and reinstatement, Respondent No.1 was suspended and subjected to a departmental inquiry. After obtaining the University's permission, the management terminated his services on August 17, 1999. The University also permitted the college to close its Commerce Faculty from the 1999–2000 academic session due to a shortage of students.

Ambiguity In Recruitment Criteria To Be Construed In Candidate's Favour: Supreme Court

Case Title: IRFAN AHMAD HAKAK Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

The Supreme Court has held that ambiguity or vagueness in eligibility criteria prescribed in a recruitment advertisement should be construed in favour of a candidate who prima facie possesses the requisite qualifications.

“…any ambiguity or vagueness in the prescribed qualification should be construed to the benefit of the candidate who prima facie appears to possess the requisite qualifications.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chadrashekhar, while setting aside the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's decision holding a candidate ineligible for appointment as a Librarian over unclarity regarding the experience for the advertised post, despite he being possessing a requisite qualification.

The Court heard appeals filed by one-Irfan Ahmad Hakak, the first wait-listed candidate for the post of Librarian under the Jammu and Kashmir Law Department.

Should Intra-Court Appeals Be Denied Just Because Writ Petition Dealt With Criminal Issue? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Title: SANJAY PRASAD VERSUS MADHUSUDAN DWIVEDI & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1052

The Supreme Court has questioned whether its 2017 ruling in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, which restricted intra-court appeals in certain writ proceedings connected with criminal-law matters, places an unnecessary burden on litigants by limiting their ability to challenge a Single Judge's decision passed in a contempt jurisdiction before a High Court Division Bench.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu observed that approaching the Supreme Court can involve substantial expenses, including the cost of travel, boarding, lodging, preparing and presenting a case, and securing reasonable legal representation.

“Long distance is not the only disabling factor; heavy expenses for boarding/lodging and for the proper presentation of a case and reasonable representation before this Court are also involved, notwithstanding what science and technology have helped the system to achieve,” the Court observed, while hearing a case where it examined the maintainability of a Special Appeal (intra court appeal) against a Single Judge's order before the Division Bench of the High Court passed in contempt proceedings arising from a writ petition.

Students' Fees Cannot Be Hiked Midway Through Professional Courses Except In Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court

Case Title: DR. B.C. ROY ENGINEERING COLLEGE & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1053

The Supreme Court has held that fees payable by students pursuing professional courses in self-financing higher educational institutions cannot ordinarily be increased midway through the course, except in exceptional circumstances such as an unforeseen increase in expenditure.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that certainty about fee liability is essential for students and their families, who often commit a substantial part of their income and savings, or take educational loans, to finance professional education.

Hence, the fee fixation authorities must notify the fees payable for the entire course before a student takes admission, ensuring certainty about the financial liability undertaken by students and their families.

Supreme Court Criticises Allahabad High Court For Casually Granting Probation To Convicts In Brutal Attack Case

Case Title: Umesh Chand Versus State of U.P & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1054

The Supreme Court has criticised the manner in which the Allahabad High Court has dealt with a case while granting probation to two men convicted for a brutal attack that left a victim with grievous injuries. The Court said that the accused were released on probation in ignorance of the adverse report submitted by the probation officer against them.

“The High Court, despite the overwhelming adverse report on the 'character of the offenders' and giving short shrift to the 'nature of the offence', released the accused on good conduct. There was nothing commending the Court to so release the accused, since the conduct, over the years, of the accused was anything other than 'good'.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, adding that despite the brutality of the attack and the serious injuries suffered by the victim, “the accused have gone scot-free without suffering a single day of imprisonment…”

The case arose from a 2003 incident in which the two accused allegedly attacked the victim with a cutting weapon and a firearm following a dispute involving neighbouring shops. The victim suffered cut injuries and gunshot wounds and continues to experience debilitating consequences of the assault.

Auction Can't Be Cancelled Merely Because Fresh Bids Are Lower Than Earlier Offers : Supreme Court

Case Title: M/S DHANLAXMI MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. (with connected case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1055

The Supreme Court has set aside the cancellation of two sand-mining auctions in Madhya Pradesh, holding that the government cannot reject the highest bids merely because they are lower than the amounts offered in an earlier auction.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that although the government has the power to reject bids, it must exercise that power fairly and on objective grounds.

The case concerned auctions for sand-mining areas in Shahdol and Katni districts. Two companies, Sahakar Global Ltd. and Dhanlaxmi Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., emerged as the highest bidders in an auction held in October 2025. Both companies had offered amounts above the reserve prices fixed by the government.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Orders Rejecting Waqf Trust's Objection To Execution Of Property Decree, Orders Fresh Inquiry

Case Title: ALLADIN CHARITIES AND ZAKAT WAKF VERSUS MOHAMMED SALEEM ALIAS MOHD. WAJID ALI AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1056

The Supreme Court has set aside orders rejecting a claim petition filed by Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf, which sought to resist the execution of a decree for possession of a property in Hyderabad, and remanded the matter to the executing court for fresh consideration.

A bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria held that the findings recorded by the executing court and the Telangana High Court did not conform to well-established principles of law. The Court directed the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to permit both parties to raise fresh pleas, adduce additional evidence and conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with law.

The judgment was delivered on October 14 in an appeal filed by Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf against Mohammed Saleem alias Mohd. Wajid Ali and another.

Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan High Court's Disciplinary Proceedings Against Judge Over Bail Order

Case Title: MUKESH TYAGI VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1057

The Supreme Court has quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Rajasthan judicial officer(since retired) for granting bail to two accused persons despite their earlier bail applications having been rejected by the High Court, observing that counselling or a warning would have sufficed in the peculiar facts of the case.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya directed the Rajasthan Government and the High Court to recompute the officer's pay under the revised pay scale and release his terminal benefits, including pension and arrears, within three months, subject to there being no other legal impediment.

The case concerned Mukesh Tyagi, who was serving as a Special Judge under the POCSO Act at Dholpur when he granted bail to two accused persons in May 2019. The Rajasthan High Court subsequently cancelled the bail, observing that no change in circumstances had occurred after the accused persons' earlier bail applications were rejected.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Gift Deed Executed Over Share Given Up In Family Settlement

Case Title: B. ANASUYAMMA (DIED) PER LR AND ANOTHER versus B. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY (DIED) PER LRS AND OTHERS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1058

The Supreme Court has held that a person having parted with his share in a property via a compromise deed cannot later execute a gift deed in relation to the same property. The Court faulted the Telangana High Court's order for overlooking a compromise deed before upholding the execution of a gift deed by a man who had already relinquished his share via a compromise deed.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva heard a case in which a man, despite having relinquished his claim over properties allotted to his mother under a 1986 compromise in exchange for absolute rights over a house property, subsequently executed a gift deed in 2007 in respect of the same properties.

The core legal issue before the Court was whether a gift deed could be upheld without properly appreciating the effect of an earlier family settlement and a compromise decree that had recognised the parties' respective rights over the properties.

Converts To Non-Hindu Religions Can't Claim Backward Class Quota Solely Based On Pre-Conversion Status : Supreme Court

Case Title: The Secretary to Government v Sameer Ahamed

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1059

The Supreme Court today(October 15) upheld thejudgment of the Madras High Court, which held that a person converting to Islam was not entitled to backward class reservation based on their pre-conversion status.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the challenge the Tamil Nadu government preferred against the High Court's order. It ordered: "A person who converts to Islam by that act alone doesn't become a member of one of the seven notified backward class social communities in the State. His former caste status can't be transposed to the Muslim backward class category, nor can his private religious body conclusively determine such status entitlement."

The bench pronounced the following conclusions :

RBI Was Mere Bystander When YES Bank Carried Out Business Clandestinely : Supreme Court

Case Title: YES BANK LIMITED & ANR.VERSUS AXIS TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED & ORS. (with connected cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1060

The Supreme Court has observed that it would be “highly unfair” to make investors bear the consequences of administrative lapses, after the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) allegedly allowed YES Bank's Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) ratio to fall to 0.6% despite earlier irregularities in the bank's functioning.

“The RBI was a mere bystander, allowing the CET1 ratio of YES BANK to drop to an astonishing low of 0.6% while the business of YES BANK was being carried out in a clandestine manner. It cannot be denied that material irregularities in functioning of YES BANK were noticed much prior; criminal prosecution has also been initiated against the personnel of YES BANK. However, to have the investors at the receiving end of the administrative lapses would be highly unfair.”, a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed while setting aside the write-down of ₹8,415 crore worth of Additional Tier 1 (AT-1) bonds.

The Court upheld the Bombay High Court's decision, holding that YES Bank's Administrator lacked the authority to write down the bonds after the final reconstruction scheme came into force.

Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments In Compilation Filed By Party

Case Title: Deepak Raheja and Another v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Ltd. and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1061

The Supreme Court has flagged an “undesirable incident” involving the alleged use of AI-generated, non-existent judgments in a compilation of cases submitted on behalf of the appellants, expressing concern over the conduct of the lawyers involved in the matter.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, while dismissing appeals filed by GSTAAD Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Neo Capricorn Plaza Pvt. Ltd. against the initiation of insolvency proceedings against them, recorded that the respondents had immediately objected to the compilation, alleging that it contained judgments that did not exist.

“When queried by the Court, the Advocate-on-Record for the appellants sought to shift the entire blame on the appellants while at the same time feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained,” the Court observed.

Arbitration Clause Does Not Bar Criminal Case : Supreme Court

Case Title: Indroneel Goho v Razouvonuo Thong & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1062

The Supreme Court has recently held that the existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement does not bar criminal proceedings. It further observed that courts must first examine whether the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of the offence.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed so while hearing an appeal against a Gauhati High Court order refusing to quash a cheating case against the CEO of a tea company arising from an unsuccessful tea estate deal.

The appellant was the CEO of Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates Private Limited. The proprietor of CR Traders (Respondent 1/R1), negotiated with the appellant's company about a tea estate. In 2021, before the agreement, she wrote to UCO Bank about the tea estate and its mortgage with the Bank. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the Company and CR Traders, which the appellant signed as the Company's authorised signatory. In June, 2021, R1 transferred Rs 40,00,000 to the Company's account in two transactions (Rs 39,95,000 and Rs 5,000).

BREAKING | Right To Access & Use Internet A Fundamental Right Of Every Individual Including Children : Supreme Court

Case Title: Just Rights for Children Alliance and another v S. Harish & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1063

In a significant pronouncement, the Supreme Court has declared the right to access and use the internet a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Every individual, including a child, has this right, the Court stated, adding that it would be absurd to deny this right to children altogether.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed :

"..we have no hesitation in saying that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Our children, irrespective of their age enjoy the same rights, and to deny the same altogether would be as absurd as saying children below a certain age do not have a conscience worth protecting or a freedom of speech worth expressing. The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both."

Supreme Court Directs Union To Create National Database On Child Sexual Exploitation & Abuse Materials (CSEAM) For Removal Across Platforms

Case Title: Just Rights for Children Alliance and another v S. Harish & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1063

The Supreme Court has called for stronger technological and regulatory measures to detect and remove child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) from the internet, including the creation of a comprehensive national database to enable the identification and removal of such content across social media platforms.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Chandran issued a series of directions to strengthen the existing framework for detecting, reporting and removing CSEAM, expressing concern over the continued circulation of such material despite the Court's 2024 directions in Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors.

The Court observed that the existing mechanism largely relied on individual instances of harmful content being reported and subsequently removed, without adequate coordination between platforms to ensure that the same material was detected and removed across the internet.

HC Registry Must Ordinarily Exclude Intervening Vacation Period When Bench Directs To List After Certain Days : Supreme Court

Case Title: SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER VERSUS MOHAMMED KAMRAN

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1064

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 16) has clarified that when a High Court directs a matter to be listed “two weeks hence” and the period expires during court vacation, the Registry should ordinarily exclude the vacation period while calculating the two weeks, subject to the applicable High Court rules.

“where a Bench of a high court directs listing of a petition 'two weeks hence' and the day following expiry of the period of 'two weeks', in terms of such direction, happens to fall in the midst of a vacation, the period of two weeks should ordinarily be computed by the registry of each such court excluding the period during which the court is on vacation.”, observed a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.

The Court clarified that if the Bench fixes a specific date falling during the vacation or directs that the matter be listed before the Vacation Bench, the Registry should ordinarily list it accordingly, subject to the relevant High Court rules.

Mere Proximity In Time & Sameness Of Accused Can't Justify Joint Trial When Places Of Occurrence & Victims Are Different: Supreme Court

Case Title: DANISH & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UP & ANR.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1065

The Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that two alleged incidents occurred in close proximity in time and involved the same set of accused would not, by itself, justify a joint trial when the places of occurrence and the victims were different.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Allahabad High Court's order directing a joint trial in two separate cases where the major offence of criminal trespass was common with the same set of accused persons, but the places of occurrence as well as the victims were different.

The dispute originated from two proceedings relating to alleged incidents in 2021, where an FIR was lodged by the Appellant's group, alleging that a group of persons armed with sharp-edged weapons, sticks and other weapons had trespassed into his house and assaulted the inmates.

Can't Insist Compliance With Impossible Tender Conditions : Supreme Court

Case Title: Hardev Construction Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1066

The Supreme Court has held that rigid adherence to the literal terms of a document cannot be insisted upon when compliance is clearly impossible, particularly where the underlying requirement has already been fulfilled.

“Rigid adherence to the letter of a document cannot be countenanced, especially when there is a clear impossibility in compliance of the same.”, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, while setting aside the Patna High Court's decision to reject a bidder's offer for a railway infrastructure project over its failure to submit the physical original of a receipt for bid security paid electronically.

The case concerned the Appellant-bidder, whose bid was rejected for not furnishing the original bid-security document as required under the tender conditions, even though the company had deposited the amount through an electronic payment gateway and uploaded the payment receipt.

State Cannot Accept Gift Of Temple Land; Govt Only Custodian, Not Owner Of Temple Properties Under HR&CE Act : Supreme Court

Case Title: K Ramalingam and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1067

The Supreme Court has held that the State Government is a custodian and regulator of temple properties, not their owner, and cannot accept a gift of such property from a trustee, even when the transfer is intended to serve a public purpose.

Setting aside a Madras High Court judgment, a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe declared void a gift deed through which a temporary trustee of Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple in Tamil Nadu's Erode district had transferred 1 acre and 10 cents of temple land to the State Government for the construction of a Taluk Office.

The Court held that the gift violated Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, 1959, which prohibits gifts of inam land granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institution.

Letters Patent Bench Can't Interfere With Single Bench Decision On Mere Showing Of Some Error Of Fact Or Law : Supreme Court

Case Title: R. SARAVANAN VERSUS PERIYAR UNIVERSITY REP BY ITS REGISTRAR & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1068

The Supreme Court has held that a High Court's Division Bench, in exercise of their Letters Patent jurisdiction, cannot interfere with a Single Judge's decision in a writ jurisdiction merely because it takes a different view of the case.

“The Letters Patent Bench is not entitled to interfere with the decision of writ Court on mere showing of some error of fact or in law. If the decision rendered by the writ Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is in furtherance of justice, equity and good conscience and is not against public policy, then the Letters Patent Bench constituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of Madras High Court or similar provisions of the Letters Patent of other High Courts cannot exercise its appellate jurisdiction under the Letters Patent to interfere with the writ Court's decision. Simply put, the Letters Patent Bench can not interfere with the decision rendered by the writ Court which is otherwise just and reasonable.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.

The court clarified that the “Letters Patent Bench can interfere in the matter only where the findings are demonstrably erroneous and the mistake is glaring on the face of record. There must exist cogent grounds and such grounds are not projected on some minor mistake in the judgment under challenge.”

Voters Can File Private Complaints Against Candidates For False Affidavits Under S. 125A Of RP Act: Supreme Court

Case Title: Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1069

The Supreme Court has held that private individuals can file criminal complaints against elected candidates for offences under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging that they furnished false information or concealed information in their election affidavits.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that such complaints do not attract the restrictions under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which requires a complaint by the concerned public servant for certain specified offences.

The Court held that Section 195(1) of the CrPC does not include Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, which prescribes punishment for candidates who knowingly furnish false information or conceal information in their nomination papers or affidavits.

Section 17A PC Act Doesn't Apply To Bribe Demand As It Is Unconnected To Official Duty: Supreme Court

Case Title: Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1070

The Supreme Court has held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates prior approval before initiating an inquiry or investigation into certain allegations against public servants, does not apply to cases involving the demand of illegal gratification, as such conduct is unconnected with the discharge of official duties.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria observed that the provision applies only where the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or a decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of official functions or duties.

“The act of demanding a bribe is a pure criminal act, not connected with official functions and not relatable to or having any linkage with recommendation or decision of the appellant in his capacity, as public servant,” the Court observed.

Motor Accident Claims | Victim Requiring Lifelong Attendant Can Be Considered 100% Functionally Disabled : Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Kumar (Totally Disabled Represented by Wife) v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. and connected matter

Case Title: Sunil Kumar (Totally Disabled Represented by Wife) v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1073

The Supreme Court has held that a person who remains dependent on another and requires an attendant throughout life can be considered to be suffering from 100% functional disability, even if the Medical Board certifies a lower percentage of medical disability.

“Even though the Medical Board certified the medical disability to be 75.5%, the functional effect can be said to be debilitating for the appellant to the extent of 100%. One who remains dependent on another and requires an attendant throughout his life can be said to be suffering from 100% functional disability,” the Court observed.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria made the observation while enhancing the compensation payable to a motor accident victim, Sunil Kumar, from ₹36.22 lakh to ₹77.84 lakh.

AP Municipal Polls : Supreme Court Asks State Election Commission To Decide On YSRCP Plea To Extend Nomination Deadline

Case Title: YUVAJANA SRAMIKA RYTHU CONGRESS PARTY Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1075

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission (APSEC) to take a decision on the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party's (YSRCP) plea seeking extension of the deadline for filing nominations for the elections of Urban Local Bodies, wherever the SEC is of the view that the candidates were unable to file nominations due to the law and order situation. The decision should be taken by tomorrow, considering the representations filed by the YSRCP and its candidates, including video clips.

If the SEC chooses to extend the time, such time shall be extended by 48 hours from the time of publishing the decision.

A special bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, deciding the petition filed by YSRCP, also asked the SEC not to publish the final list of candidates, which was scheduled to be published today (October 21), and to defer its publication until October 25.

Supreme Court Quashes Blacklisting Of Drug Supplier Over Quality Failure As Retesting Opportunity Denied

Case Title: M/S Jpee Drugs vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1075

The Supreme Court has quashed the blacklisting of a pharmaceutical supplier by the Madhya Pradesh government after finding that the authorities failed to follow the mandatory procedure for retesting drug samples before imposing punitive action.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Augustine George Masih and Sandeep Mehta set aside orders blacklisting M/s JPEE Drugs for three years and debarring it from supplying a particular drug for two years after four batches of medicines supplied by the firm were declared Not of Standard Quality (NSQ).

The Court held that the failure to conduct retesting in accordance with the tender conditions, followed by the authorities' failure to comply with the High Court's directions for fresh testing within the stipulated period, deprived the firm of an effective opportunity to challenge the laboratory reports.

Courts' Hands Aren't Tied To Interfere When Free & Fair Elections Are Polluted By Unconstitutional Or Illegal Means: Supreme Court

Case Title: YUVAJANA SRAMIKA RYTHU CONGRESS PARTY Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1075

The Supreme Court has observed that while Constitutional Courts would not ordinarily interfere with the election process, their hands are not tied when intervention is necessary to ensure that free and fair elections are not polluted by unconstitutional or illegal means such as the use of muscle power.

The Court made the observation while granting interim relief to the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP), the principal opposition party in Andhra Pradesh, which alleged that its candidates were prevented from filing nominations for the Urban Local Body elections due to violence and the prevailing law and order situation.

A bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the party had made out a prima facie case warranting directions to protect the integrity of the nomination process. The bench therefore directed the State Election Commission to consider the YSRCP request to extend the nomination deadline in the light of its complaints regarding widespread violence against its candidates.

Supreme Court Stays Investigation In Kerala FIR Against Ex-CM Pinarayi Vijayan & Kin In Exalogic Case For 10 Days

Case Title: Pinarayi Vijayan v Adv KM Shajahan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1076

The Supreme Court today (October 21) held that former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and son-in-law Muhammed Riyaz(a former Minister) are entitled to file appeal before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court challenging the Single Bench's direction to register an FIR in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case on the basis of the information supplied to the Kerala Police by the Directorate of Enforcement.

Faulting the Division Bench's view that they do not have the locus to file the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order which refused leave to them to file an appeal. The appeal was restored to the High Court's files. To enable them to pursue the appeal before the Division Bench, the Supreme Court stayed the investigation in the FIR registered by the Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau for ten days.

A special bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that they can be held to be aggrieved parties in view of the Single Bench's view that there was material disclosing cognizable offence against them. The petitioners were not made party in the writ petition filed before the Single Bench.

Pre-Trial Detention Cannot Be Permitted To Degenerate Into Punishment Without Trial : Supreme Court

Case Title: Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and Mukesh Pathak v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1077

The Supreme Court has observed that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be permitted to degenerate into punishment without trial, reiterating that an undertrial's right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected even in cases involving grave allegations of financial impropriety.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu made the observation while granting regular bail to Mahesh Chandra Joshi (former Congress Minister) and Mukesh Pathak, accused in a corruption case relating to alleged irregularities in tenders worth hundreds of crores of rupees under the Jal Jeevan Mission in Rajasthan.

The Court observed that although allegations of large-scale financial impropriety and institutional collusion in the implementation of a public welfare project warranted serious scrutiny, the gravity of the allegations could not, by itself, eclipse other considerations governing bail or justify indefinite pre-trial detention.

Disputed WhatsApp Message Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case

Case Title: KUSUMLAL SAO VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1078

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted of murder, holding that WhatsApp messages allegedly linking him to the crime could not sustain his conviction when the purported sender denied sending them and the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution's account of the incident.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi heard the case, where the accused was convicted, inter-alia, based on a WhatsApp chat between two prosecution witnesses in which the accused was said to be responsible for the murder of his deceased friend. The chat disclosed the alleged role of the accused in the commission of the crime, stating that a fight had taken place between the accused and the deceased before his death. However, neither the sender nor the receiver had witnessed the alleged incriminating role of the accused, which was necessary to make the texting relevant.

“…the exchange of message between PW-5 and PW-6 does not prove that on the fateful night the deceased was present in the house of the accused and that the accused had assaulted the deceased, it, at best, creates a suspicion against the accused-appellant which by itself is not sufficient to sustain conviction.”, the Court said.

Public Authority Can Revisit Auction To Maximise Price Of Public Property Before Binding Contract Is Concluded: Supreme Court

Case Title: SATINDER PAL SINGH & ORS. VERSUS BEDI HOSPITAL & ORS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1079

A public authority can revisit an auction to maximise the price of public property before a binding contract is concluded, the Supreme Court has held while setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that quashed the Chandigarh Administration's decision to cancel Bedi Hospital's ₹12.58 crore bid for a nursing home site.

The Court held that the Chandigarh Administration was entitled to reconsider the auction before the issuance of the allotment letter and execution of the conveyance deed, particularly when the bid for the site was substantially lower than the price fetched by an adjacent plot of the same size.

The Court directed the Chandigarh Administration to conduct a fresh e-auction for the site in Sector 33C within three months, noting that a subsequent auction had fetched ₹18.30 crore, approximately ₹6 crore more than Bedi Hospital's original bid.

Mere Suit Seeking Recovery Of Possession Not Sufficient When Plaintiff's Title Is Disputed : Supreme Court

Case Title: SMT. RANO SINGH AND OTHERS VERSUS SH. GURBAX SINGH (D) TH LRS AND OTHERS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1081

The Supreme Court has held that a suit simpliciter for recovery of possession without seeking a cancellation of a sale deed would not be maintainable when the plaintiff's title is disputed. According to the Court, when the plaintiff's title was disputed by the defendant by cogent evidence, then the proper remedy for the plaintiff would be to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed in the defendant's favour along with the suit for recovery of possession, and not just a suit simpliciter seeking recovery of possession.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard the case, where the Appellants, being the legal representatives of the plaintiffs, filed a suit simpliciter seeking recovery of possession of the suit property on the strength of an agreement to sell entered into between the plaintiff and the vendor, but failed to seek the relief of either specific performance of the agreement to sell or cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 1.

Briefly put, in 1952, plaintiff was allotted a plot by a housing society under an Agreement to Sell, with a condition to construct a house within three years. Unable to build, plaintiff wrote a letter on October 4, 1954, requesting the society to transfer the plot to his "nephew," i.e., Defendant no.1. The society accepted, and defendant no.1 took possession, paid all dues, and constructed a house by 1959.

Can't Penalise Flat Buyers Who Relied On Official Documents : Supreme Court Directs Alternative Site Before Demolition

Case Title: S. GURURAJ VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY/ COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS (with connected cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1082

The Supreme Court has held that flat purchasers who relied on government permissions and official revenue records while purchasing properties cannot be made to suffer for the lapses of government authorities, directing the Tamil Nadu government to provide an alternative site to the owners of 20 flats before demolishing their apartments built on land classified as a water body.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu and the District Collector of Tiruvallur to allot a vacant site of commensurate value to the flat owners represented by their society, preferably within six months, before proceeding with the demolition of the apartments constructed on 0.22 acres of the disputed land.

The Court observed that the authorities had issued building permissions and altered revenue records in a manner that led bona fide purchasers to believe that the property was legally available for purchase.

'UP Police Need Education In Investigation' : Supreme Court Orders ₹6 Lakh Compensation To Man Acquitted After 6 Years In Jail

Case Title: ARUN @ DEEPAK Versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1083

The Supreme Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹6 lakh compensation to a man who spent six years in prison as an undertrial in a kidnapping and murder case before being acquitted, strongly criticising the police investigation and prosecution as a "travesty of justice".

Criticising the slipshod investigation and haphazard prosecution that led to the six-year under-trial incarceration of the man, the Court also advised the State Police to educate their officers in the process of investigation.

“six years have been erased from the life of a man on the strength of a concocted story built on mere surmises and conjectures. Not even a rudimentary investigation was carried out.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, pointing out that the case demonstrated how an improper investigation could put a person's life and liberty in jeopardy.

IBC | CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Citing Improved Financial Position Of Corporate Debtor : Supreme Court

Case Title: BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Versus S.M. KAMAL PASHA & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1084

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) has ruled that a Committee of Creditors (CoC) cannot withdraw its approval of a resolution plan after it has been submitted to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for approval, merely because the corporate debtor's financial position has improved during the intervening period.

“We would not interfere with the impugned order which though found the CoC to have no jurisdiction to withdraw from its approval…The improved profitability alone cannot be a reason to refuse approval if the Resolution Plan meets the requirements under sub-section (2) of Section 30.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while affirming the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's decision which had declined to accept the CoC withdrawal from the resolution plan.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Bank of India and other financial creditors challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) decision rejecting their request to withdraw an approved resolution plan.

Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Information To Member As 'Personal' If Registrar Can Access Such Records : Supreme Court

Case Title: The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Versus The State Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. (with connected cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1085

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) held that a member of a cooperative society cannot be denied information about the affairs of the cooperative society under the Right to Information Act, 2005 merely because the cooperative society doesn't come under the ambit of 'public authority'.

“…a Member of the Society cannot be denied such information on the ground that it is personal to the Society or that it does not involve any public activity or interest.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, emphasising that when a public authority has an access to the documents of a cooperative society under a different law then an information under the RTI cannot be concealed to its member.

The respondent, a member of the bank, had sought the two documents under the RTI Act from the Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies. His request was initially rejected, but in the second round of proceedings, the State Information Commissioner and the Kerala High Court upheld his right to access the records.

Supreme Court Quashes Karnataka Land Acquisition Over Fraud & Bribery In Housing Society Scheme, Orders Land Restoration To Owners

Case Title: N. Arasappa Versus State of Karnataka & Ors. (with connected cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1086

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) set aside the land acquisition proceedings of a privately owned land for construction of a cooperative housing society in Bengaluru, after finding that the private players had lured the state government to approve the proposed extent of land for acquisition, and there was no approved housing scheme or layout plan before acquisition took place.

The Court also directed that possession of the acquired land be restored to the respective landowners, irrespective of whether they had challenged the acquisition. The landowners must refund any compensation received from the government, without interest. The Court clarified that this would not require them to refund amounts received in private transactions.

The bench enhanced the costs payable to each petitioner to ₹50,000. It, however, deleted the direction to initiate contempt proceedings against government officers, considering the passage of time.

In Electricity Theft Cases,High Courts Can Restore Supply On 50% Deposit If Provisional Assessment Appears Arbitrary : Supreme Court

Case Title: DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS VAIBHAV METAL CRUSHER (with connected case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1087

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) has held that High Courts can, in appropriate cases, order restoration of electricity supply disconnected over alleged electricity theft upon payment of at least 50% of the provisionally assessed amount, provided the assessment appears prima facie arbitrary, and the court records reasons for granting such relief.

"In such circumstances, where the provisional assessment is prima facie arbitrary, in our view, the High Court may, for reasons to be recorded, order restoration of the supply by directing the writ petitioner to pay such amount, out of the demanded amount, which should not be less than 50%. We have said 50% because under sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the 2003 Act an appeal is be entertained only upon deposit of half of the assessed amount.", observed a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan, stressing that electricity is an essential commodity necessary for life and livelihood, and its deprivation may have serious consequences. However, courts must adopt a cautious approach in cases involving alleged theft, which necessarily involves criminal intent.

The Court clarified that the amount payable for restoration of electricity supply under the third proviso to Section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, must be assessed by following the procedure prescribed under Section 126 of the Act, unless a separate procedure is prescribed under the applicable Electricity Supply Code.

Bleaching, Dyeing Of Handloom And Powerloom Fabrics By Job Workers Not 'Manufacture' Of Textiles To Attract Cess : Supreme Court

Case Title: The Assessing Officer, Textiles Committee v. M/s. Premium Suiting Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1088

The Supreme Court has held that independent textile processing units engaged in bleaching, dyeing and other processing of handloom and powerloom fabrics on a job-work basis cannot be made liable to pay textile cess under Section 5A of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963, as such activity does not amount to manufacture under the Act.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria rejected the Revenue's contention that bleaching and dyeing constituted manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and therefore attracted textile cess. The Court held that the definition of 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act could not be imported into the Textiles Committee Act, 1963 (“Act”), which neither defines the term nor incorporates the definition under the former Act.

“The word 'manufacture' is not defined in the Act, and it is neither safe nor permissible in law to advert to and adopt the connotation 'manufacture' as defined in another statute, and on the basis of such alien definition, treat the activity undertaken by respondent No.1 to be the manufacturing activity. Therefore, while interpreting the word 'manufactured' which occurs in Section 5A of the Act in the present case, it has to be understood in its common parlance and not in any special sense by borrowing a special ingredient of the concept from other statute.”, the Court observed.

Order 21 Rule 97 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Direct Third Party To File Separate Suit To Challenge Decree : Supreme Court

Case Title: BALAKRISHNA (DEAD) THR. LRS. versus G.N. KANNIAH NAIDU (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1089

The Supreme Court has observed that a person who is not a party to a civil decree can resist its execution by filing an application under Order XXI Rules 97–101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), claiming an independent right, title or interest in the property.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva set aside the Karnataka High Court judgment upholding the trial court's rejection of a third party's application under Order XXI CPC to resist execution of a decree, after directing him to file a separate suit to challenge the decree.

The plaintiff instituted a suit in 1987 seeking a declaration of title and possession of the suit property in Bengaluru. He claimed that the Tahsildar had allotted the site to him under a Hakkupatra in 1972.

S. 319 CrPC | Cross-Examination Cannot Be Ignored Before Summoning Additional Accused : Supreme Court

Case Title: NEELAM YADAV VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1090

The Supreme Court has set aside the arraignment of a woman as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (now Section 358 BNSS), observing that the court had failed to consider the cross-examination of the witness whose testimony formed the basis for summoning her as an accused.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh emphasised that the witness's entire testimony must be considered before summoning an additional accused, particularly when the statements made during cross-examination undermine the very basis of the witness's examination-in-chief on which the arraignment was ordered.

“…where the witness has been cross-examined, the trial court cannot shut its eye to the entire statement. Because evidence would not merely be the statement in chief of a witness but would include his statement recorded during cross-examination. No doubt, the trial court is not supposed to weigh the statement of a witness on the anvil of probabilities, or against the weight of other evidences, to consider whether it would be appropriate to try the additional accused along with one already facing trial. However, if the statement of a witness during cross-examination demolishes the edifice of his statement in chief, the trial court cannot overlook the statement in its entirety, when the decision to arraign additional accused rests entirely on his statement; though, after considering the statement in its entirety, it would be within the domain of the Trial Court whether to arraign the additional accused to face trial along with the one already facing trial.”, the Court said.

UAPA | Mere Foreign Nationality Not Enough To Deny Bail, Illegal Entry Into India Must Be Proved : Supreme Court

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA VERSUS MOHAMED RIFAS @ MOHAMED RIGBAS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1091

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 27) held that there's no bar under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to grant bail to a foreign national.

Dismissing the Union of India's appeal, a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the Madras High Court's decision granting bail to a person alleged to be a Sri Lankan national.

The Court noted that despite the stringent threshold for granting bail to a foreign national under Section 43D (7), the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused's initial entry into India was illegal.

S. 43B Income Tax | Unpaid Excise Duty Cannot Be Disallowed If No Deduction Was Claimed : Supreme Court

Case Title: M/S. LAKSHMI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI -II

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1092

The Supreme Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot disallow an amount under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the taxpayer has not claimed it as a deduction in the first place.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside a Delhi High Court judgment that had upheld the addition of around ₹69.92 lakh towards unpaid excise duty on a sugar mill's closing stock.

The Court observed that the tax authorities had failed to establish how the disputed amount had been accounted for or how it had reduced the company's taxable income.

IBC | Lender Influencing Corporate Debtor's Policy Decisions Is Related Party, Cannot Join CoC: Supreme Court

Case Title: ECL Finance Ltd. and Anr. Versus Abhinav Mukherjee and Ors. (with connected matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1093

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 27) held that a lender and debenture holder exercising pervasive influence over a corporate debtor's management and policy decisions can be treated as a related party under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and excluded from participating in the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

“The requirement would not be to the extent of being in the driving seat, but a role of navigation would suffice, in determining policy and channelising business interests.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while dismissing the appeal filed by a debenture holder for inclusion in the CoC, after finding that it to be a related party under Section 24(5)(m)(i) of the IBC, having an all-pervasive control over the policy decision-making of the corporate debtor.

“We are, hence, only looking at whether the association with the CD by the ECL, in its status as a Debenture Holder; which alone we would as of now consider, brings in a participation in policy making of the Corporate Debtor…”, the Court said, while justifying Appellant's exclusion from the CoC.

Life Sentences For Different Offences Can't Run Consecutively; Remission In One Won't Affect Life Term For Another: Supreme Court

Case Title: Raju Shantaram Koli Versus The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1094

The Supreme Court has reiterated that life sentences ordered in more than one offence cannot run consecutively; however, they can be superimposed over each other so that remission in one offence does not by itself commute the operation of the life sentence in another offence.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment of Muthuramalingam and Others vs. State (2016), observed that:

“We further direct, in accordance with Muthuramalingam (supra), that the life sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302 and the life sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Section 376 read with 342, shall be superimposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority qua one, does not ipso facto result in the remission of the sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other.”

Supreme Court Dismisses Centre's Challenge To War Injury Pension To Soldier Posted In Kargil

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS NARENDER KUMAR

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1095

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 28) has upheld the grant of a War Injury pension to ex-armed forces personnel for the ailment which developed owing to his posting at Kargil as part of Operation Rakshak.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the Union government's appeal against the High Court's and Armed Forces Tribunal's order which granted a War Injury pension to the ex-personnel in place of the disability pension.

At the same time, the Court also suggested that the government issue a comprehensive and clearly identifiable subordinate legislation governing the services of ex-personnel who became eligible for a War Injury Pension, noting that there is uncertainty about which Rules, Regulations, Instructions and Policies of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) are applicable.

Supreme Court Asks Law Commission To Recommend Measures For Speedy Execution Of Arbitral Awards

Case Title: M/s Royal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s National Projects Construction Corporation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1096

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 28) requested the Law Commission of India to undertake a focused study of the statutory and procedural framework governing the enforcement and execution of arbitral awards and recommend measures to ensure their timely enforcement.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Aparesh Kumar Singh said that the prolonged execution of arbitral awards undermines the very objective of arbitration as an effective alternative to conventional civil litigation.

The Court observed that even after an award is rendered and survives judicial challenge, the successful party may be forced to undergo another prolonged round of litigation to realise its benefits.

Procedural Defect In Informing Arrest Grounds Won't Lead To Bail If No Prejudice Caused To Accused : Supreme Court

Case Title: STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS JHABRA RAM

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1097

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 28) has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused of spying for Pakistani intelligence handlers, holding that an alleged procedural lapse in communicating the grounds of arrest cannot automatically justify bail in the absence of demonstrable prejudice.

“In the absence of demonstrable prejudice or denial of an opportunity to defend, an alleged procedural defect in the mode of service cannot ipso facto invalidate detention or entitle an accused to regular bail, more so in cases involving grave allegations of espionage affecting national security and sovereign integrity.”, observed a bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale while setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's order granting bail to a man accused under the Official Secrets Act of transmitting sensitive military photographs, videos and troop movement details to Pakistani intelligence handlers in exchange for money.

The High Court had granted bail on the ground that written grounds of arrest were not furnished to the accused, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066.

Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Man Accused Of Sharing Sensitive Military Information With Pakistan

Case Title: State of Rajasthan v Jhabra Ram

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1097

The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a Rajasthan High Court order that had granted regular bail to an accused in an espionage case solely because the grounds of arrest were not furnished to him in writing.

“A hyper-technical objection regarding the form or mode of communicating grounds of arrest cannot be treated as a self-executing, blanket key to unlock regular bail, bypassing the core parameters governing bail jurisprudence,” the bench held.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale made the observations while directing the respondent Jhabra Ram to surrender within two weeks from the date of the order, while reiterating that communication of grounds of arrest is a crucial constitutional and statutory safeguard, but held that the record showed substantial and effective compliance in the case, and that no prejudice had been found.

Rape Case Can't Be Quashed Solely On 'Settlement' Between Victim & Accused : Supreme Court

Case Title: Gopal Lodhi v State of MP & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1098

The Supreme Court has set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had quashed a rape case on the basis of a compromise between the parties, stating that it could not approve quashing a case involving serious offences on a mere settlement.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held so while also granting anticipatory bail to the accused and directing that the trial be proceeded. It also expressed concern about the false complaints made on the lure of financial settlements, and about settlements obtained through coercion.

The petitioner had sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 64(1), 33(2) and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/SCT Act).

Supreme Court's Requests To Courts Or Tribunals Must Be Treated As Directions : Supreme Court

Case Title: SONA BANSAL VERSUS VASHISHT KUMAR GOYAL & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1099

The Supreme Court has observed that any request made by it to a court or tribunal must be construed as a direction, warning that non-compliance with such directions would be viewed seriously.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has expressed displeasure over the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) failure to hear a company appeal despite an earlier order requesting it to do so.

“When the Supreme Court makes a request to any Court or Tribunal, it has to be construed as a direction and not just a request.”, the Court observed.

Income Tax | Reassessment Proceedings Can't Be Done If Notice Under S.143(2) Wasn't Issued : Supreme Court

Case Title: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHUBANESHWAR VERSUS ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD. (with connected matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1100

The Supreme Court has held that the Revenue's failure to serve a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act on an assessee would render the reassessment proceedings vitiated.

“A notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is mandatory, as it grants the Assessee an opportunity to produce or cause to be produced any evidence or particulars based on which the Assessee claims relief. A notice under section 143(2) of the Act is sine qua non for a proceeding for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. In the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, no further proceedings can be undertaken by the Revenue.”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Orissa High Court's judgment, which had ruled in favour of the assessees by declaring the reassessment proceedings against them to be vitiated for the Revenue's failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.

S.29A Arbitration Act | Tribunal's Mandate Can Be Extended Even After Expiry Of Statutory Period And Passing Of Award : Supreme Court

Case Title: SOUTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. VERSUS INDIA POWER CORPORATION RESPONDENT(S) LTD. & ANR. (with connected matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1101

The Supreme Court has held that an application under Section 29A (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an extension of an arbitral tribunal's mandate is maintainable even after the statutory time limit has expired and an award has been rendered in the meantime.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar clarified that if the mandate is extended, the tribunal can resume proceedings from the stage at which its mandate expired and complete the arbitration within the time granted by the court, without starting afresh.

“An application under Section 29A (5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator would be maintainable even after the expiry of the time under Sections 29A (1) and (3) and even after rendering of an award during that time.”, the Court observed.

Delay In Appeal Under S. 74 Of 2013 Land Acquisition Act Cannot Be Condoned: Supreme Court Disagrees With Precedent

Case Title: Rajasthan Housing Board v M/s Hariyali Rural Ventures Ltd. & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1102

The Supreme Court has recently held that the period of 120 days prescribed under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for filing an appeal before the High Court is inflexible and rigid, and that the delay beyond it cannot be condoned.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu ruled so while dismissing a special leave petition filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board. It also expressed reservations about the recent decision inDeputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v SV Global Mill Limited, which had held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to such appeals. However, the bench declined to refer the decision to a larger bench.

The Rajasthan Housing Board challenged the High Court's judgment dismissing its petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition challenged two orders of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA), Jaipur. One is of May 2025, allowing the reference sought by the first respondent under Section 64 of the 2013 Act, and the other is of September 2025 making a minor modification in favour of the first respondent while allowing its review petition.

S. 147 Income Tax | Assessment Can Be Reopened Based On Fresh Material If No Opinion Was Formed In First Instance : Supreme Court

Case Title: CHETAN SABHARWAL VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 28(1) NEW DELHI (with connected matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1103

The Supreme Court observed that when the Revenue reopens an assessment based on fresh material suggesting income escaped assessment, the reopening cannot be rejected as a mere 'change of opinion' if the officer never examined or formed an opinion on the issue during the original assessment.

According to the Court, a change of opinion presupposes a conscious application of mind and the formation of an opinion in the original assessment, which the court must verify, either expressly or by necessary implication, before interfering with the reopening. However, when the Revenue never examined or formed an opinion on the specific issue in the original assessment, the Revenue is not precluded from reopening the assessment upon subsequently discovering material suggesting that income had escaped assessment.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed an assessee's appeal against the Delhi High Court's judgment justifying the reopening of an assessment by an AO, after finding that the reopening of an assessment was based on the facts which were never examined during the course of original assessment, as the reassessment was “based on the tangible material of the report of the Investigation Unit, Noida, prepared after the assessment, and which have a rational nexus and a live link with the belief formed by the AO.”

'Legislature Cannot Directly Annul Judgment' : Supreme Court Strikes Down 2022 Karnataka Law Validating Tainted 2011 Civil Service Selection

Case Title: SRINIVASA T. & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1104

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 29) has struck down the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, which sought to validate a recruitment process for Karnataka Civil Services posts that had earlier been cancelled over allegations of rampant corruption and nepotism.

“…nothing remains to be looked into to sustain the recruitment of 2011 which has been set aside not merely on defect or irregularity noticed in the process, but on rampant corruption and blatant nepotism having vitiated the entire selection. There could be no equity, insofar as the selected candidates are concerned, especially the selection being based on a recruitment which is declared as tainted by the Constitutional Courts and the appointment having been effectuated based on a stillborn legislation; the Act of 2022.”, the Court said.

The Court held that the State Legislature could not enact a law to nullify judicial decisions unless the very basis of the judgment was removed, while upholding the cancellation of the tainted recruitment.

Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Grant Relief Against Its Terms : Supreme Court

Case Title: Shreeram Builders versus Upendra Kantilal Thanawala and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1105

The Supreme Court has reiterated that an arbitral tribunal cannot rewrite the parties' contract or grant relief contrary to its terms.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva heard the dispute that arose from a property development transaction between the parties. The matter was referred to arbitration, where the majority of the arbitral tribunal granted relief in favour of the respondents, including specific performance.

The arbitral award was challenged before the district court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”). The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court after the High Court affirmed the challenge under Section 37, which examined whether the award could be sustained in view of the contractual terms and the statutory limits governing arbitral decision-making.

Moneylenders In Maharashtra Must Produce Licence At Threshold In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court

Case Title: IN THE MATTER OF: VYOMESH MAHIPATRAY SHAH

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1106

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 29) clarified that its May 2026 judgment in M/s Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd. v. M. Lalitha & Ors.should not be understood as having laid down a pan-India precedent that unlicensed money lenders can maintain complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 over loans advanced against negotiable instruments.

The Court stated that the May judgment dealt with only the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act. Moneylenders in Maharashtra seeking recovery of loans advanced against promissory notes must produce their money-lending licence at the threshold in proceedings arising from cheque dishonour or recovery proceedings per the provisions of the Maharashtra law.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria made the observation while considering a miscellaneous application filed by one Vyomesh Mahipatray Shah, who apprehended that the judgment could be relied upon by unlicensed moneylenders in Maharashtra to pursue cheque-bounce proceedings arising from loans advanced against promissory notes.

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Former Sub Registrar In Disproportionate Assets Case

Case Title: V Gopalkrishnan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1107

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a former Sub-Registrar under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It also held that once the prosecution establishes the disproportion with reference to known sources of income, the burden squarely rests on the accused to show that the assets were acquired from lawful sources.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held so while dismissing the appeal filed by the accused (appellant) against the Kerala High Court's 2025 judgment. The accused who was on interim bail, has been granted two weeks to surrender before the trial court to undergo the remaining sentence.

The appellant joined as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in 1971 and became a Sub Registrar in 1993. As per the prosecution, he acquired assets by illegal means between 1993 and 2001 that were disproportionate to his known sources of income. The assets possessed by him and his family were worth Rs 1,93,898 at the start of the check period and Rs 12,37,720 at its end. During this period, they earned Rs 10,12,117.20 and incurred expenditure of Rs 4,93,424, leaving Rs 5,18,693 as the amount (likely savings) which the appellant could not explain.

S. 96 CPC | Non-Parties Can Challenge Consent Decree With Leave If Their Rights Are Affected: Supreme Court

Case Title: GIRISHBHAI NATWARLAL PATEL Versus GAUTAM PUNJABHAI PALKHIWALA (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1108

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 30) reiterated that there's no bar to file an appeal against the consent decree by a stranger if it shows that the consent decree prejudicially affects his rights or interests. Also, a leave to appeal cannot be denied to such a stranger merely because he was not party to a consent decree, if shown that the consent decree materially affects his rights or interests.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran explained that the principle of estoppel applicable to the consent decree operates within the parties who were party to a consent decree, and not to the stranger who was never a party to a consent decree.

“…a person who was neither a party to the original proceedings nor a party to the compromise cannot, merely by virtue of the decree having been passed with the consent of others, be deemed to have consented to it or be precluded from asserting an independent right allegedly prejudiced thereby. A stranger to a compromise decree cannot be said to be barred under Section 96(3) read Order XXIII Rule 3 & Rule 3A of the CPC, 1908, since the scope and import of these provisions are limited to the parties to the compromise and act as an estoppel only with respect to them.”, the Court said.

'APTEL Has Gone Haywire' : Supreme Court Slams Tribunal For Overruling SC Precedent In Review

Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation v. Maithan Alloys Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1110

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 30) has strongly criticised the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) for reviewing its earlier order in violation of a binding Supreme Court judgment, observing that the Tribunal had committed a “blatant breach of judicial discipline” and violated Article 141 of the Constitution.

“We cannot but observe that the Tribunal has gone haywire; we are apologetic for the expression but we find no substitute to express our angst in allowing the review, that too, when the very same issue, for the earlier years, was settled by this Court…”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the Tribunal's review order passed in defiance of its original 2019 judgment, which had allowed the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) to recover contributions to its Sinking Fund through electricity tariffs.

The Court also imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on Maithan Alloys Limited, which had sought the review, and ₹1.5 lakh on Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), which had supported the review order.

Court Cannot Pass Moral Judgments On Adults' Choices': Supreme Court

Case Title: SANTHOSH KUMAR N.P Vs STATE-STATION HOUSE OFFICER

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1111

The Supreme Court today observed that it is not entrusted with passing moral judgments on the choices made by adults in their personal relationships. The Court added that any undesirable consequences of such choices cannot automatically be transformed into criminal offences requiring State intervention.

“It is trite to reiterate at this stage that this Court has not been entrusted to pass moral judgement on the varying exercises of free choice, autonomy and agency by individuals in the country. Adult, men and women may freely make decisions that are wise or unwise, prudent or reckless and considerate or callous. These decisions would necessarily be accompanied by consequences, perhaps in the form of undesirable outcomes or unexpected possibilities, some even deeply hurtful. None of this would, however, transform these decisions and their resulting circumstances automatically into criminal offences requiring the intervention of the State apparatus,” the Court observed.

The Court further cautioned that criminal law cannot be used as “munitions to settle personal scores, exact revenge or coerce an individual to act in any particular way.”

False Rape Accusation After Breakup Deprives Man Of Agency, Binds Him To Relationship Indefinitely : Supreme Court

Case Title: SANTHOSH KUMAR N.P Vs STATE-STATION HOUSE OFFICER

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1111

The Supreme Court has held that the legislature never intended for consensual sexual acts between adults occurring during a mutually affectionate relationship to be retrospectively criminalised merely because the relationship came to an end.

The observation came while the Court discharged a man from charges in a rape case alleging sexual relations on a false promise to marry. The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan flagged a “disturbing trend in recent years” in which consensual relationships that have ended are retrospectively examined  to identify what can post facto be construed as violence and sexual assault.

The Court drew a clear distinction between situations where an absence of consent built entirely on a “mirage of deceit and falsehood at the outset,” and “experience of regret for having consented to past sexual acts owing to the later demise of the relationship."  The latter, while unfortunate, “cannot constitute a consensual relationship as a crime” or set the criminal justice system in motion in a manner that deprives the accused of liberty and reputation.

'Jagirdar Has No Title, Land Vests In Govt' : Supreme Court Rejects Claims To 550 Acres Miyapur Land In Telangana

Case Title: Bandari Ramchander & Ors. Maitri Coop. Housing Ltd. & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1112

The Supreme Court on Thursday (29 October) dismissed appeals claiming title over lands in Miyapur, Telangana, and upheld the declaration that the government is the rightful owner. It also held that a jagirdar is not a title holder, that the lands vested in the State government when jagirs were abolished in 1949, and that the revenue entries relied on by one set of claimants were bogus and not genuine and a case of fraud “orchestrated by persons in collusion with the revenue officials.”

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ruled so while dismissing the appeals against the 2003 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment. The Court described the facts as “a sorry state of affairs” and said an attempt was being made by the appellants “to usurp the lands vested in the State of Telangana.”

The lands, spreading over 550 acres and 39 guntas, were classified as Sarkari poramboke (public land) after the survey of Miyapur Village in 1912. The appellants traced their title through three different sources. Some claimed it through Nawab Mohammad Khaisaruddin Khan, son of Rafi-un-nisa Begum, to whom the Reilly Commission had recommended that Miyapur and other villages be restored in 1927. Others claimed through Raheemunnisa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam, whose name appeared as pattedar in the pahanies of 1950-51 to 1952-53. A third individual claimed through Raheemunnisa Begum, wife of Nawab Moinuddowla Bahadur, relying on the 1929 Firman (official order).

Police Officer Accused Of Corruption Can't Claim Parity With Layman : Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Of Karnataka SP

Case Title: KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, BANGALORE DISTRICT VERSUS SRINATH JOSHI MAHADEV, IPS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1113

The Supreme Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to a Karnataka cadre IPS officer, Srinath Joshi Mahadev, in an alleged corruption case linked to an alleged extortion racket in the name of Lokayukta officials.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed the Karnataka Lokayukta Police appeal against the High Court's order granting pre-arrest bail to Joshi. The Court said that Joshi, being the Superintendent of Police of the Lokayukta Police when the alleged offence is said to have been committed, cannot claim parity with the layman, as the corruption and abuse of office allegations levelled against him warranted serious consideration.

“The inescapable fact is that the respondent is a member of the uniformed service and is of the rank of no less than the Superintendent of Police. Grave accusations have been levelled against him in the context of his alleged abuse of office within the establishment of the Lokayuktha. As the very objective of the Lokayuktha's establishment is to check corruption, the allegation against the respondent to the effect that he is himself a part of such corruption, warranted serious consideration. Being a member of a uniformed service, the respondent cannot claim parity with a layman, who seeks protection from being arraigned as an accused in a criminal case and being investigated/arrested in connection therewith.”, the Court said.

While Rejecting Anticipatory Bail, HC Can't Direct Trial Court To Grant Regular Bail On Preset Conditions : Supreme Court

Case Title: JAGANNATH MANDANGI VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA & ANR. ETC.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1114

The Supreme Court has recently come across an Orissa High Court order, where the High Court, while denying anticipatory bail to the accused in a murder case, has advised the accused to move for regular bail and directed the trial court to release the accused persons on the conditions imposed by the High Court, thereby usurping the role of the trial court.

Deprecating such a practice, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said it is impermissible for the High Courts to usurp the trial court's role by imposing bail conditions and advising a party on its next/future course of action.

“Once the High Court came to the conclusion that no case was made out for grant of anticipatory bail, it was not for the High Court to direct as to how the future should unfold. The High Court not only advised the respondents as to their next course of action but also decided and dictated the terms on which they were to be granted bail by the trial Court.”, the Court said.

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Dismisses Trinamool Congress Plea Against Freezing Of 4 Indian Bank Accounts, Requests HC To Expedite Hearing

Case Title: All India Trinamool Congress v. State of West Bengal

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 18064/2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to grant relief to the Mamata Banerjee-led All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) in its plea challenging the freezing of four of its Indian Bank accounts by the West Bengal Police.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale refused to entertain the petition filed against the Calcutta High Court's refusal to grant interim relief to them. Noting that the main matter is pending in the High Court, the bench declined the exercise of Article 136 jurisdiction. While disposing of the matter, the bench also requested the High Court to expedite the hearing.

The Court was hearing plea filed by All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) seeking permission to operate four accounts maintained with Indian Bank that were debit-frozen following a criminal investigation initiated by the West Bengal Police over a complaint filed by MLA Biswanath Das.

2008 Ahmedabad Blasts : Supreme Court Stays Execution Of Convict's Death Penalty

Case : AHMED BAWA @ ABBU ABUBAKAR BARELVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.|. Diary No. 58302-2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the execution of the death sentence awarded to Ahmed Bawa @ Abbu Abubakar Barelvi, one of the 38 convicts sentenced to capital punishment in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts case.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the order while hearing Barelvi's challenge to the Gujarat High Court judgment which upheld his conviction and death sentence.

Appearing for Barelvi, his counsel submitted that the conviction was based entirely on the allegation of conspiracy.

'Legislative Privilege Shouldn't Be Invoked Against Non-Member For Mere Criticism' : Subhashini Ali To Supreme Court

Case : N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai | W.P. (Cri.) No. 000206 - 000210 / 2003

Former Lok Sabha MP and former CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Subhashini Ali has moved the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the constitutional reference concerning the scope and limits of parliamentary privileges under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution.

Ali, who served as a Lok Sabha member from Kanpur in 1989 and was a member of the CPI(M) Polit Bureau from 2014 to 2024, has said that her intervention is based on her experience as a legislator who exercised the freedoms protected by Articles 105(1) and 194(1).

The application raises questions concerning the constitutional limits of parliamentary privilege when it is exercised against citizens or members of the press for speech, reportage or criticism outside the House. Ali contends that parliamentary privilege is intended to ensure the independent and effective functioning of legislatures and to enable legislators to deliberate freely, and cannot be treated as a general power to insulate Parliament or its members from public scrutiny

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Calcutta HC Judgment Invalidating Bengal OBC Certificates Issued In 2025-2026

Case : AKTARUL ISLAM AND ORS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS | Diary No. 50605-2026 and RIGHT AND JUSTICE FOUNDATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA Diary No. 41300-2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a petition challenging the Calcutta High Judgment which declared the OBC certificates issued between 2025-26 to be void.

A bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana further ordered that the appointments will be subject to the result of the decision in the present matter. The bench further directed that this should be made clear in the appointment letters issued to the new recruits.

The bench passed the interim order after hearing Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat for the petitioners, who participated in the 2024 recruitment for Constables in the West Bengal Police. The bench also heard Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy in a connected matter. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the State.

'Just Sharing Our Concern' : Supreme Court Seeks State's Response On Mahua Moitra's Plea Alleging MPLADS Obstruction

Case Title: MAHUA MOITRA vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 000390 / 2026

The Supreme Court today(October 1) has directed the State of West Bengal and the Union to file a counter in a writ petition filed by Congress (TMC) Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra, claiming obstruction in carrying out Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme(MPLADS) fund work in her Krishnanagar constituency.

At the outset, before a bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta(for Union and State of West Bengal) objected to the maintainability of the petition. He stated that there are more than 500 Members of Parliament, and if each comes before the Court seeking implementation of the scheme, it would cause difficulty.

To this, Justice Bagchi shared a concern and asked SG Mehta if he had seen the September 1 letter written by Moitra. "We are just sharing our concern. Have you seen the 1st September letter? That if a Member of Parliament comes to the Circuit House, she must inform 3 days before."

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi High Court Ruling Against Ilaiyaraaja In 'En Iniya Pon Nilave' Copyright Dispute

Case Title: Ilaiyaraaja v Saregama India Limited

The Supreme Court today (01 October) has refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order restraining the use of a recreated version of the song En Iniya Pon Nilave, in a challenge brought up by music composer Ilaiyaraaja. The bench, instead, clarified that the High Court's observations are prima facie.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the music composer, against the Delhi High Court's Division Bench order.

The dispute pertains to Vels Film International Limited using a recreated version of the song. Vels claimed a licence from Ilaiyaraaja under an agreement. While Saregama India Limited contended that it owned the rights through an assignment from the film's original producer.

Can't Seek Priority Just Because You Are Judicial Officer : Supreme Court Rejects Early Hearing Plea

Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR NAIN v STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Case Number: Diary No. 48030-2026

The Supreme Court today(October 1) refused to give priority hearing for a former District Judge, reminding that the Constitution treats every person on equal parameters.

While dismissing a writ petition of the former judicial officer seeking expeditious disposal of his writ petition pending before the Allahabad High Court against dismissal from service, the Court stated that the Constitution doesn't allow giving preferential treatment to anyone.

To briefly state, the present writ petition has been filed by Rakesh Kumar Nain, who was posted as a Special Judge overseeing cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Nain was dismissed by the full Court of the Allahabad High Court after he was found guilty of judicial misconduct on corruption charges. His services were terminated with immediate effect. Against this, he preferred a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging his dismissal, which remains pending adjudication.

We Want To Reform Entire Judicial Recruitment Process : Supreme Court

Case Title: Mansi Jain & Anr. v. Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 925/2026

While hearing a matter challenging the Gujarat High Court's recruitment process for District Judges, the Supreme Court orally indicated that it wishes to initiative to reform judicial examination process.

The Court was hearing writ petition was filed by two advocates challenging the Gujarat High Court's recruitment process for District Judges under the 25% direct recruitment quota for the recruitment year 2024-25, in which none of the 113 advertised vacancies were filled despite two candidates qualifying for the viva voce stage. Notice was issued last month.

When the matter was taken up today by a bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, the Court was informed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan that the records of the recruitment have now been placed before it, including the marks awarded in sealed cover. He added that as per the recruitment rules, a report has to be obtained from the High Court to which the candidate belongs to assess his character. He urged that the Court must see if the reports were obtained in these cases.

Supreme Court Asks AG To Consider Plea To Enhance State Bar Councils' Strength

Case Title: ROHIT PANDEY Vs UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1218/2026 Diary No. 57731 / 2026

The Supreme Court today(October 1) requested the Attorney General, R. Venkataramani, to consider the plea of increasing the statutory limit of the State Bar Councils, which at present stands at 25 members as per Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

A bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed an order while hearing a writ petition filed by one advocate, who has contended that the statutory restriction of SBCs to 25 members was kept at a time when the 1961 Act was enacted. But over time, the electorate has grown substantially. For instance, he pointed out that the Bar Council of Delhi presently comprises 2 lakh registered advocates, which necessarily requires adequate and proportionate representation in the elected body.

The present writ petition, filed through AoR Nikhil Jain, has been preferred by one Rohit Pandey, who contested this year's Bar Council of Delhi Elections and secured 2,259 votes but fell short of 63.5 votes to be included among the 25 members of the SBC. However, because of the Supreme Court's direction reserving 30% representation for women advocates in the SBCs, a low-ranking woman candidate was declared elected even though she secured only 265 votes. As per his plea, the declaration of the said woman candidate as an elected member is contrary to the 1961 Act.

Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC Directions Constituting SIT, Ordering De Novo Probe Into KPSC Recruitment Scam

Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Raj Mohammed

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 18775-18779/2026 Diary No. 59897 / 2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 1) stayed the Karnataka High Court's directions constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and ordering a de novo investigation into alleged irregularities in the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Veterinary Officer recruitment scam.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the interim order while hearing the Karnataka government's challenge to the September 21 judgment of the High Court, which had constituted an SIT to investigate alleged irregularities in the recruitment of 400 Veterinary Officers and related allegations concerning other KPSC recruitments.

The Court issued notice returnable on October 12 and directed the State to file an additional affidavit in a sealed cover setting out its objections, if any, to the officers appointed to the SIT. The State may also suggest alternative names for the team.

Supreme Court Judges Not Meeting 'One Nation One Election' Committee

The proposed meeting between the Joint Parliamentary Committee on 'One Nation, One Election' and Supreme Court judges will not take place, sources said.

The Committee had earlier proposed to meet the Chief Justice of India and Supreme Court Judges on October 6 for "informal discussions" on simultaneous elections. However, the Supreme Court has declined the proposal of the Committee, according to sources.

Earlier in the day, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, in a press conference, had criticised the Committee's move to meet the Supreme Court judges by saying that it was a violation of the separation of powers. Sibal stated that such a meeting had never happened in the history of the country.

'Offends Secularism & Fraternity' : Buddhist SC Leader Moves Supreme Court Challenging Centre's Mandate On Six-Stanza 'Vande Mataram'

Case : BHIMRAO DURYODHAN BORKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER | Diary No. 61620 / 2026

A Buddhist activist has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Union Government's January 28 and July 9, 2026 orders prescribing a six-stanza version of 'Vande Mataram' for singing and playing on specified occasions, contending that the directives violate secularism, fraternity and the fundamental rights of citizens who do not subscribe to Hindu religious beliefs.

The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by BD Borkar, a Scheduled Caste Buddhist, Ambedkarite activist and former National President of the All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF), also seeks a declaration that no person can be compelled to sing the song, and that its singing or playing cannot be made compulsory.

Contending that the imposition of the six-stanza version of the song violates secularism and fraternity, the petitioner states :

NEET-PG 2026: Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Disclosure Of Actual Questions, Options And Correct Answers To Candidates

Case Title: Democratic Medical Association v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: Diary no. 61065/2026

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the manner in which the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has disclosed the answer key and candidate responses for NEET-PG 2026, seeking disclosure of the actual questions and options presented to each candidate to enable independent verification of their scores.

The petition, filed by the Democratic Medical Association, challenges the NBEMS notice dated October 1, 2026, which provides candidates access to their question-wise evaluation through their individual applicant logins.

The petitioner contends that although the notice provides Question IDs, numerical IDs of correct answers, candidates' recorded responses, and marks awarded for each question, it does not disclose the actual questions or the text of the options in the sequence in which they were presented during the examination.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With HC Judgment Allowing Railway Compassionate Appointment To Grandson

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS JITENDRA VERMA

The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's direction to the Railway authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the grandson of a deceased railway employee.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a plea filed by the Union of India and Railways against the High Court's direction to the Railways to consider the Respondent's case for a compassionate appointment.

The case concerned Respondent-Jitendra Verma, whose grandfather died in 2002 and father died in 2006. He was thereafter brought up by his grandmother, Chhama Bai, who was working as Helper-II/Khalsi in the Bhopal Division of West Central Railway. She died in harness on June 19, 2016.

No Devadasi Dedication Practice Currently Prevalent In Karnataka, State Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Kamalabai & Ors. v. Shivappa @ Shivayogi

Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11555/2026

The Karnataka government recently told the Supreme Court that the Devadasi dedication system is not currently prevalent in the State, based on inquiries conducted by officials in 15 districts in which it was historically prevalent.

The 15 districts are – Bellary, Koppal, Yadgir, Kalaburagi, Davangere, Haveri, Vijayanagara, Dharwad, Shivamogga, Vijayapura, Belagavi, Raichur, Gadag, Chitradurga and Bagalkot.

However, the State acknowledged that former Devadasis continue to reside in these districts and that measures are required to prevent any revival of the practice.

Yamuna Expressway Bus Fire : Supreme Court Seeks Report From Centre, UP On Arrests, Safety Compliance

Case Title: S.RAJASEEKARAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. & ORS.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Uttar Pradesh Government and the Centre on a plea seeking a series of road safety measures following the death of nine passengers who were charred to death in a sleeper bus fire near Jewar on the Yamuna Expressway during the intervening night of September 23 and 24, 2026.

It has asked the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Union of India, and the Secretary of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to respond on whether the driver and the owner of the bus have been arrested or not. It has also sought information on whether the registered owner had complied with the rules and regulations applied to the double-decker bus.

The matter was considered by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, a 2012 writ petition seeking directions on road safety, on an interlocutory application(IA).

Trial Judge's 'Advice' To Supreme Court On When To Grant Bail Disapproved

Case Title: Amit Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No.8043/2026

The Supreme Court has disapproved remarks made by a trial court judge in West Bengal, who, while seeking an extension of time to complete a criminal trial, appeared to offer advice to the Supreme Court on when bail should and should not be granted.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed displeasure over the manner in which the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, North 24 Parganas at Barasat, addressed a letter to the Supreme Court seeking more time to conclude the trial.

The Bench said that it was "quite disturbed" by the manner in which the Trial Judge wrote the letter.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Relocation Of 135-Year-Old Central Secretariat Library Under Central Vista Plan

Case : In Re: 135-Yr-Old Library 8.5 Lakh Books– And No Room In The New Central Vista Plan | SMW(C) No. 21/2026

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the proposed relocation of the 135-year-old Central Secretariat Library (CSL) in Delhi, which houses more than 8.5 lakh books, amid reports that no room has been allocated for it in the new Central Vista Plan

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva is scheduled to hear the matter on Monday (October 5). The suo motu case titled "In Re: 135-Yr-Old Library 8.5 Lakh Books– And No Room In The New Central Vista Plan" was registered on October 3.

The suo motu action follows a report published by The Indian Express on September 29 titled "135-yr-old library, 8.5 lakh books – and no room in the new Central Vista plan", which stated that the library, currently housed in Shastri Bhawan, may face relocation in view of the proposed demolition of the building as part of the Central Vista redevelopment plan. Concerns have been raised over the availability of suitable accommodation for the library and the preservation of its extensive collection.

'Legislative Privileges Shouldn't Be Invoked To Curtail Press Freedom' : The News Minute To Supreme Court

Case Title: N. Ravi v. Speaker Legislative Assembly Chennai

Case Number: IA in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206-210 of 2003

Digital news outlet The News Minute and its Editor-in-Chief Dhanya Rajendran have moved the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the long-pending case concerning the scope of legislative privileges under Article 194(3) of the Constitution and their interplay with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

In an intervention application filed through Advocate-on-Record Pritha Srikumar Iyer, they have contended that allowing legislative bodies to invoke breach of privilege proceedings to curtail journalistic reportage and commentary would have a chilling effect on press freedom and the public's right to information, and would adversely affect the Indian democracy.

“Further, the Applicants submit that reportage and commentary on the actions of members of legislatures ought not be viewed in isolation as speech concerning specific individuals, but as speech concerning elected representatives and bearers of Constitutional office. As such, the press' right to freedom of speech and expression regarding members of legislatures acts as an important check on the powers and authority of the legislature. This assumes even greater importance in a parliamentary democracy like India where members of the legislature also form part of the political executive. It is settled position that a citizen has a legitimate and substantial interest in the conduct of public officials and that the freedom of press extends to engaging in uninhibited debate about the involvement of public figures in public issues and events. The exercise of legislative privilege to curtail the freedom of speech and expression of the press would, thus, have a grave bearing on the health of the Indian democracy”, the plea contends.

ECI Row : Supreme Court To Hear Tomorrow Petitions Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar Over SIR Decisions

Cases : Rakesh Kumar Singh v Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026 & Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026

The Supreme Court will hear tomorrow two writ petitions filed against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the controversial decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) which were reportedly taken without the concurrence of two other Election Commissioners.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana will hear the petitions.

The petitions have been filed in the context of reports that about 14 decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections recorded by the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. According to the petitions, the two Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning various SIR steps.

Supreme Court Asks Centre To File Affidavit On Space Allotted Under Central Vista Plan For 135 Yr Old Library

Case Title: In Re: 135-Yr-Old Library 8.5 Lakh Books– And No Room In The New Central Vista Plan

The Supreme Court asked the Union Government to file an affidavit explaining the space allotted under the new Central Vista Plan for the 135-year-old Central Secretariat Library (CSL) in Delhi, housing about 8.5 lakh books, which is proposed to be relocated.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing the suo motu case registered over reports that the Central Vista Plan has no space allocated for the CSL.

The bench asked the Centre to file a detailed affidavit with full details of the area which would be allotted for the library. The affidavit should also indicate whether the space would be adequate to store not just the books presently in the CSL in Shastri Bhavan, but also the 2 lakh books which are lying in cartons in RK Puram.

Supreme Court May Close Reference On Legislative Privileges As TN Assembly Resolution Was Withdrawn In 2004

Case : N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai | W.P. (Cri.) No. 000206 - 000210 / 2003

TheSupreme Court's 7-judge reference on the issue of legislative privileges vis-a-vis free speech might be disposed of as an academic issue, since the Court was informed that the 2003 resolution of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly, which was the trigger for the case, was withdrawn in 2004.

The reference originates from the 2003 case N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai, challenging the 2003 decision taken by the Tamil Nadu assembly to sentence 5 journalists of The Hindu for articles criticising the State Government. The matter was ultimately referred to the 7-judge bench to examine the interplay between Articles 194(3), 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. The reference remained pending for over two decades, and the Court, in August 2026, decided to commence the hearing from October 6.

A day before the scheduled hearing of the reference, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, for the State of Tamil Nadu, informed a 3-judge bench led by CJI Surya Kant that the 2003 resolution of the Assembly was revoked in 2004 itself. Though an affidavit was filed in the Court regarding this development, this fact was omitted to be noticed in the reference order. Since the cause of action for the case no longer survives, the reference may have become academic, Ramachandran suggested.

Great Nicobar Project: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Centre's Challenge To PIL Maintainability, Urges Calcutta HC To Decide Soon

Case Title: Union of India v. Meena Gupta and Ors.

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the Union's challenge to a Calcutta High Courtorder which upheld the maintainability of a PIL alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in obtaining consent for the Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project.

Noting that the matter is pending in the High Court and is fixed for hearing on November 25-26, the Supreme Court declined interference, urging the High Court to hear the matter on the date fixed itself.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter.

Supreme Court Agrees To List Plea Seeking Permission For Peaceful Protests In Delhi Amid Agitation Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar

Case : Priya Mishra v. Union of India | Diary No. 62121/2026

The Supreme Court agreed to list a plea seeking directions to the Delhi Police to permit peaceful protests in Jantar Mantar in the national capital, amid protests being held in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The plea was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

Appearing for the petitioner, Adv Narendra Mishra submitted that the Delhi Police was not allowing peaceful protests in Delhi, including protests by students, citizens, office-bearers of registered political parties and Members of Parliament.

Supreme Court Refuses To Suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar Ex Parte, Issues Notice On Plea Challenging ECI Decisions

Cases : Rakesh Kumar Singh v Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026 & Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India, Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026, W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026

The Supreme Court declined to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, observing that it should first seek the response of the Election Commission and other respondents on the allegations that several SIR-related decisions were taken unilaterally by the CEC.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice to the Union of India, the Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sindhu, Dr Vivek Joshi, Dy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg IAS and DG(IT) Seema Khanna on the petition.

The petition was filed following a report of The Indian Express that 14 crucial decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision were taken in the name of ECI by the CEC, ignoring the objections recorded by two ECs.

Modified Form 6 Has Not Been Approved By Supreme Court : CJI Surya Kant

Case : Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Court has not approved any modified version of Form 6 used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), while hearing a petition seeking prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The observation of the CJI assumes significance because the Election Commission of India last week claimed thatthe new declaration annexed to the online Form 6 for the ongoing SIR process in some states has been approved by the Supreme Court.

It may be noted that the changes to the new Form 6 declaration had become a point of controversy after it emerged that two Election Commissioners had objected to the changes citing the reason that they cannot be carried out without the Central Government amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. After The Indian Express reported that the new Form 6 declaration was implemented despite the objections of the Election Commissioners, the ECI issued a press release on September 26 suggesting that the Supreme Court had upheld the Form 6 declaration in the May 2026 judgmentrelating to Bihar SIR.

'Let Him Contest': Supreme Court Adjourns West Bengal Plea Against Interim Bail Of Nandigram Congress Candidate Milan Pradhan

Case Title: The State of West Bengal v. Milan Pradhan

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 18996/2026

After Justice Joymalya Bagchi's recusal, the Supreme Court adjourned the plea filed by West Bengal government challenginginterim bail granted by the Calcutta High Court to Milan Pradhan, who is contesting the Nandigram Assembly by-election on Congress ticket.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana adjourned the matter to October 7, after Justice Bagchi recused citing a 'conflict of interest'. The judge said that during his practice years, he represented some of the parties in the underlying case involving Pradhan.

Last week, the Court haddenied Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's plea for urgent listing of the matter. The SG had submitted that the bye-election was scheduled for Monday and the matter would become infructuous by then. The CJI however declined the request, indicating that the Court was inclined to dismiss the State's plea. "We can assure we will dismiss it, but will dismiss", the CJI said.

'His Arrogance' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Actor Rajpal Yadav For Failing To Deposit Rs. 5 Crores In Cheque Dishonour Cases

Case Title: Rajpal Naurang Yadav and another v. M/s Murli Projects Pvt Ltd

Case Number: SLP(Crl) 16923/2026

The Supreme Court pulled up Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav, who has been convicted in 7 cheque dishonour cases, for failing to deposit Rs. 5 Crores with the Court Registry despite repeated court orders.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing Yadav's petition challenging the conviction and sentence in the cheque dishonour cases.

On noting that he has not complied with the direction to deposit, Justice Bagchi said, "We tried to ignore the way he is treating us. To ensure and secure your (complainant's) money. Or we just give him what he deserves, i.e., a dismissal. We want to dismiss his appeal, but we want to also balance equities. To ensure your client gets some money. His (Yadav's) arrogance needs to be kept in its right place."

'Women In Delhi Must Feel Safe Even Walking Alone At Night; Men Should Fear Committing Sexual Offences' : Supreme Court To Police

Hearing the suo motu case taken on the rising sexual offences in the National Capital Region, the Supreme Court today(October 5) in the strongest terms expressed the need to take all preventive steps to prevent offences against women.

While addressing the general feeling that women are not safe in Delhi, it ordered that all public places such as the metro, bus stands, railways stands must be continuously monitored by beat patrolling units, and halting points of Delhi police control room vans must be strengthened. Additionally, it stressed that, given the festive season is approaching, the miscreants will be on the run, so the police need to ensure that the women are safe.

"You need to create a fright or fear in the mind of a man who is prone to commit offences. Unless and until you don't create that fright or fear in that goon or anti-social element that 'ab kuch kia toh mar jayenge', you will not be able to prevent commission of such crimes...Every girl molested is our sister, our mother. Huge challenge for NCT Delhi police. Don't allow such things to happen," the Court orally said.

Lakhimpur Kheri Case: Supreme Court Sends Vigilance Report On Trial Judge To Allahabad HC CJ; State Appoints New Prosecutor

Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P.

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022

The Supreme Court directed that a vigilance report concerning the trial judge in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case be placed before the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for an appropriate decision.

The development came during the hearing of the bail matter concerning former Union Minister Ajay Mishra's son, Ashish Mishra, who is an accused in the case. In the earlier hearing, the victims, represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, had raised doubts about the Presiding Officer as well as the Prosecutor.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Allahabad High Court, informed a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that the report of the Vigilance Officer of the High Court had been sent directly to the Supreme Court.

Identify Authority Which Will Ensure Every Road Has Footpath : Supreme Court To Centre

Case Title: IN RE: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO WALK AND FOOTPATH Vs MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 844/2026 Diary No. 38826 / 2026

The Supreme Court asked the Centre to identify a central authority responsible for ensuring that wherever there is a road, there is a footpath, and directed the Union Government to identify five towns where the Court's directions can initially be implemented as a pilot project.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj to obtain instructions on identifying such an authority and file a report before the Court. The bench was monitoring compliance with its June judgment which declared that right to walk on a footpath is a fundamental right, and that every road must have a demarcated footpath.

The Court said that the authority entrusted with the task must have adequate infrastructure, space, human resources and funds to effectively undertake the responsibility.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL To Fill Vacancies In State Human Rights Commissions

Case Title: ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS OF INDIA Versus NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND ORS.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1202/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL seeking filling up of vacant positions in State Human Rights Commissions across the country within a timebound period prescribed by the Court.

The Court called for the authorities' response, after it was informed that most of the State Human Rights Commissions are either lying vacant or non-functional. "Even NHRC website is not updated" the petitioner's counsel told the Court.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the PIL filed by Association of Retired judges of Supreme Court and High Courts of India. The petitioner seeks to ensure that State Human Rights Commissions remain fully functional in compliance with Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the Supreme Court's directions in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal.

Can Bail Be Granted In NDPS Case For Failure To Supply Arrest Grounds Though S.37 Conditions Not Met? Supreme Court Reserves Order

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu Rep By The Inspector of Police v. Vignesh

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 12743/2026 Diary No. 38255 / 2026

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the issue whether an accused in an NDPS case can be granted bail on account of failure to supply grounds of arrest as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution, without satisfying the stringent twin conditions for bail prescribed under Section 37 of the Act.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan reserved judgment in appeal filed by State of Tamil Nadu against a Madras High Court order granting bail to a man arrested for alleged possession of 50 kg of Ganja.

The state's plea has raised the issue – “Whether the High Court could have granted bail by primarily relying upon an alleged infirmity regarding communication of grounds of arrest without first recording findings on the statutory conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?”

Great Nicobar Project | 'Preservation Of Culture Is A Constitutionally Protected Fundamental Right': Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Case Title: Union of India v. Meena Gupta and Ors.

Case Number: Diary No. 44246/2026

During thehearing of a matter pertaining to the Centre's Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project, Justice Joymalya Bagchi orally said that preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the Union's challenge to a Calcutta High Court order, which upheld the maintainability of a PIL alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in obtaining of consent for the project.

After hearing Attorney General R Venkataramani (for Union) and Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar (for respondent/PIL petitioner), the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court order.

CEC & Election Commissioners Enjoy Greater Legal Immunity Than Even Judges, Remarks Supreme Court

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India, Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026, W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026

The Supreme Court (October 5) orally observed that the legal protection granted to the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners under the 2023 law may be broader than the protection available even to constitutional court judges, during thehearing of petitions challenging the decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by CEC Gyanesh Kumar in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the petitions.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners(Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, had substantially enhanced the authority and immunity of the CEC and Election Commissioners.

Punjab Govt Moves Supreme Court Against HC Order For CBI Probe Into Corruption Allegations Linked To Chief Minister's Office

Case : State of Punjab v Nikhil Saraf | Diary No. 62464/2026

The Punjab government has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a criminal case and probe allegations of corruption linked to the office of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann.

The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the State government, challenging the order passed by the High Court.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, for the State of Punjab, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India, seeking an urgent hearing. However, CJI Surya Kant refused to grant a listing for today, and said can consider listing for tomorrow or day after tomorrow.

Supreme Court 7-Judge Bench Disposes Reference On Legislative Privilege As Infructuous

Case : N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai | W.P. (Cri.) No. 206 - 210/2003

The Supreme Court closed the7-judge reference on the issue of legislative privileges vis-a-vis free speech, noting that the 2003 resolution of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly, which was the trigger for the case, was withdrawn in 2004.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice PK Mishra, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Vipul Pancholi, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice V Mohana was constituted to hear the matter, which had been pending for nearly 2 decades.

Today, while disposing of the matter as infructuous, the bench noted that the withdrawal of the impugned resolution skipped the notice of the Court while passing the reference order.

Bench Clerk's Experience Can't Be Treated As Equal To Law Clerk's For Judicial Service : Supreme Court

Case : TAPASMITA SUTAR Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1224/2026 T

Case Title: TAPASMITA SUTAR Vs UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1224/2026

The Supreme Court (October 6) dismissed a writ petition seeking to treat the experience of a bench clerk in the district judiciary as equivalent to that of a law clerk for the purpose of fulfilling the one-year legal practice requirement for appearing in the judicial service examination.

Orally observing that the experience of a bench clerk was "ministerial" in nature and was different from that of a law clerk, the Court dismissed the matter.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Mohana made the observations while hearing a plea filed by a bench clerk working in the district judiciary, who sought to have her experience as a bench clerk counted towards the eligibility requirement of prior legal practice.

Sensitise Indian Fishermen Not To Cross Into Sri Lankan Waters : Supreme Court Tells Centre

Case Title: A.K. SELVARAJ Vs UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SECRETARY

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 561/2008 Diary No. 22484 / 2008

The Supreme Court today(October 6) orally remarked that the Indian Tamil fishermen need to be sensitised against entering the territorial sea of Sri Lanka for fishing at the Katchatheevu island.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing writ petitions challenging the "unconstitutional ceding" of the Katchatheevu island to Sri Lanka through the Indo-Sri Lankan Maritime Agreement 1974, and also the 1976 agreement restricting the rights of fishermen. While adjourning this matter today, as was sought by the Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani, the Court questioned how long it can keep the matter pending.

Justice Kumar also asked if there is any development in the matter about the interpretation of the international treaty: "Are you talking to them about the treaty?"

3 New Supreme Court Judges Take Oath, Total Strength Rises To 37

Three newly appointed judges of the Supreme Court took oath of office, taking the working strength of the Court to 37 (including the CJI).

The sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges is 38. Before today's swearing-in ceremony, the Court was functioning with 34 judges (including the CJI).

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant administered the oath to Justice Sunita Agarwal, Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh at a ceremony held at the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Gets 3 Women Judges With Justice Sunita Agarwal's Elevation

With the appointment of Justice Sunita Agarwal, former Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, the Supreme Court now has three sitting women judges.

The highest number of women judges the Supreme Court had at a time was 4, when Justices Indira Banerjee, Hima Kohli, BV Nagarathna and Bela Trivedi were present simultaneously from August 2021 till Justice Banerjee's retirement in September 2022. Justice Hima Kohli retired in September 2024 followed by Justice Bela M. Trivedi in May 2025. After Justice Trivedi retired in May 2025, Justice Nagarathna was the sole woman judge until the elevation of Justice Mohana a year later.

Notably, this is the second appointment of a woman judge by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant-led Collegium afterJustice Mohana.

Supreme Court Acquits Govt Clerk Who Already Served Sentence In 16 Year Old Bribery Case

Case Title: Ajit Kumar v State of Jharkhand (Diary No. 29811/2026)

Case Number: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1023

The Supreme Court (05 October) has set aside the conviction of a government employee under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) who had already served his sentence, holding that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held so while hearing an appeal filed by the government employee who had already served his sentence, and had pursued the appeal only to “get his name cleared.”

The appellant was an Assistant in the District Education Office and the complainant (PW 1) was appointed as an orderly in a Government High School but was not paid his salary. It was alleged that the appellant demanded Rs 5,000 as bribe in 2010 for releasing the salary. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Vigilance Bureau pursuant to which a trap was laid down leading to the arrest of the appellant and recovery of tainted money of Rs 5,000.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas Against Delhi HC Verdict Diluting Mandatory Attendance Requirement For Law Students

Case Title: SVKMS Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies v. Bar Council of India

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 9450/2026 Diary No. 28872 / 2026

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on pleas challenging the Delhi High Court's November 2025 ruling that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations or continuing their academic pursuits solely on account of shortage of attendance.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih reserved the verdict in pleas filed by Bar Council of India (BCI) and Narsi Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) challenging the High Court judgment which also directed BCI to reconsider mandatory attendance requirements for three-year and five-year LL.B. courses.

High Court Ruling

Shiv Sena Row | ECI's Symbol Allotment May Have To Be Revisited If Speaker's Refusal To Disqualify Is Found Erroneous, Says Supreme Court

Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024

In the Shiv Sena case, the Supreme Court pondered whether the Election Commission's decision recognising the Eknath Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena and awarding it the party's reserved election symbol would have to be revisited if the Court were to find that the Maharashtra Speaker wrongly rejected disqualification petitions against the faction's MLAs.

“If let us say the disqualification decision is reversed by this court. What will be its impact on the symbol order? If the decision is found to be erroneous, will it not amount to the decision of the Election Commission allotting a symbol to someone who ought to have been disqualified if the law was correctly applied”, Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the challenge made by Uddhav Thackeray to the Election Commission's decision recognising the Eknath Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena and allowing it the use of the 'bow and arrow' symbol.

CJI To Take A Call On Application To Recall Verdict In CEC Appointment Law

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that he will examine the application which has been filed seeking the recall of the split verdict in the CEC Act case.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the application before the CJI. He clarified that it was an interlocutory application filed seeking recall of the September 23 verdict passed by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in the petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

He further informed the bench that another party has filed a curative petition against the split verdict.

Justice Sharma Didn't Disclose Son's Link To ECI During CEC Appointment Case Hearing : Petitioner To Supreme Court

An application for recall of the 2-judge benchsplit verdict in Election Commissioners' Appointment case has been filed before the Supreme Court claiming that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, who was part of the bench which rendered the decision, did not disclose hisson's association with the Election Commission.

"The Petitioners state on record that the engagement of Hon'ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma's son as the standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was not disclosed to the parties by Hon'ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma at any point in time during the 5 hearings in the matter."

The application, filed by Naman Sherstra, avers that had the association of Justice Sharma's son with ECI been known prior, the applicants would have requested for recusal of the judge. The absence of disclosure deprived them of the opportunity to make such a request before the split verdict was pronounced, they state.

'What Is This Scant Attitude To Court?' : Supreme Court Rebukes Centre For Non-Compliance On Welfare Of Disabled Military Cadets

Case Title: IN RE: CADETS DISABLED IN MILITARY TRAINING STRUGGLE

Case Number: SMW(C) No. 6/2025

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Union government for failing to comply with its earlier directions to reconsider welfare measures for officer cadets boarded out of military training due to injuries or disabilities.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice DK Upadhyaya was hearing the suo motu case concerning the plight of such cadets. The Court expressed sharp dissatisfaction over the Centre's affidavit, noting that there had been no genuine reconsideration of the recommendations of the 2015 Sabharwal Committee report despite clear directions issued on August 4, 2026.

The recommendations included granting Ex-Serviceman status and disability pension to such boarded out cadets. The Union had in 2022 rejected these recommendations.

Supreme Court Requests Allahabad High Court Chief Justice To Examine Giving Priority To Pension Cases

Case Title: Jagdish Prasad Tripathi v State of UP through its Principal Secretary & Ors

The Supreme Court has requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to examine whether matters relating to non-release of pension cases can be given prioritised hearing and early disposal, noting that the petitioner's writ petition has not been listed before the High Court for nearly two years, despite his application for early hearing.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a retired peon who had not received his retiral dues for nearly ten years after superannuation, when it came heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government.

The petitioner was appointed as a peon in 1984. In 2016, he superannuated after nearly thirty-two years of service. His service was pensionable and he repeatedly requested release of his pension, filing several complaints.

'Make A Good Movie, You Can Restore Your Image': CJI To Rajpal Yadav After He Deposits 1.15 Cr In Cheque Bounce Cases

Case Title: Rajpal Naurang Yadav and another v. M/s Murli Projects Pvt Ltd

Case Number: SLP(Crl) 16923/2026

While interacting with Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav, who suffered a cheque dishonour case conviction, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant suggested on a lighter note that the actor make new movies to entertain the public and restore his public image.

Yadav, who was personally present in Court, told the bench comprising CJI Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that he had suffered great loss over his film project 'Ata Pata Lapata'. The bench was hearing Yadav's petition challenging his conviction and 3-month sentence in 7 cheque dishonor cases.

To recap, on September 15, the Court hadgrantedhim “last opportunity” to deposit at least ₹2 Crores out of ₹5 Crores with the Court Registry, extending his interim protection from surrender until October 5., the Courthad pulled up Yadav over his continuing failure to depositthe amount with the Court Registry.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Interim Bail To Congress Nandigram Candidate Milan Pradhan

Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Milan Pradhan

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 18996/2026

The Supreme Court upheld the interim bail granted to Congress candidate Milan Pradhan, who is contesting the Nandigram Assembly by-election, observing that the purpose of the relief was to enable him to contest the election and participate in the counting of votes.

Pradhan was arrested on 18th September, 2026 in criminal cases dating back 19 years arising from the 2007 Nandigram agitation.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana dismissed the West Bengal government's plea challenging the High Court's September 29 order granting Pradhan interim bail till October 21. Voting for the by-election took place on October 6, while counting is scheduled for October 9.

Supreme Court Asks AP High Court To Monitor Probe Into Death Of Girl After Anti-Malaria Drive

Case Title: NALLAPU MANIDEEP VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Taking suo motu cognisance of the reported death of a seven-year-old girl and the illness of several residents of Gollaguppa village in Polavaram District, Andhra Pradesh, allegedly after administration of chloroquine tablets during an anti-malaria drive, the Supreme Court asked the Andhra Pradesh High Court to monitor the investigation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana took cognizance based on a letter dated September 2, 2026 addressed to the CJI by one Nallapu Manideep.

The letter referred to a news report stating that around 52 villagers fell ill and were hospitalised after being administered anti-malaria tablets. It also stated that a seven-year-old girl died and 23 other children were shifted to Telangana for medical treatment.

Supreme Court Flags Delhi HC Judgment Impeding Speedy Execution Of Civil Decrees

Case Title: PERIYAMMAL DEAD THR. LRS. Vs V. RAJAMANI

Case Number: MA 1889-1891/2025 in C.A. No. 3640-3642/2025

The Supreme Court today(October 7) orally said that it will have to do something about a division bench judgment of the Delhi High Court that is apparently coming in the way of the Court in expeditiously disposing of the execution petitions. At the same time, it expressed some hope considering that in the last six months, a significant number of execution petitions have been disposed off, particularly led by the Gujarat High Court.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran has been hearing a matter concerning the disposal of pending execution petitions across the country. To recall, onMarch 6, 2025, the Supreme Court asked the High Courts to collate data on the pendency of 8.8 lac execution petitions across the District Courts nationwide. It appointed Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan as amicus in this case and set a deadline of six months to dispose of the petitions.

In today's hearing, the amicus referred to his report and pointed out that around 17,000 fresh execution petitions came to be pending before the Delhi High Court in the last six months. He stated that the reason could be that the division bench of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Works Pvt (2021) modified the earlier judgment of Bhandari Engineers, wherein the single judge had set mandatory guidelines for disclosure of assets and income by the judgment-debtor with an aim to dispose of the execution petitions.

Shiv Sena Row | Supreme Court Questions ECI Using 'Legislative Majority' Test, Asks Why Official Symbol Wasn't Withheld From Both Factions

Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024

In the Shiv Sena case, the Supreme Court questioned whether the Election Commission of India (ECI), while deciding the dispute between the rival Shiv Sena factions under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order, considered the option of not awarding the party's reserved election symbol to either faction.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the challenge made by Uddhav Thackeray to the Election Commission's decision under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order recognising the Eknath Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena and allowing it the use of the 'bow and arrow' symbol.

Justice Bagchi questioned the Election Commission's reliance on the legislative majority test to recognise the Eknath Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena and asked why ECI did not even consider the option of refusing to recognise either faction as the political party.

'ASI Lost Credibility': Supreme Court Lambasts Agency After Lodhi-Era Monument Found Used As Cow Shed, Dumping Yard

Case Title: Rajeev Suri v Archaeological Survey of India

Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).s/2019

The Supreme Court (October 7) passed some serious orders against the authorities of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) after finding serious deficiencies in the preservation of heritage sites in Delhi.

The Court was aghast to note that a Lodhi-era monument was now being used as a cow-shed, and that a 13-th century structure was under private encroachment.

The bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice NK Singh told the Director General of the ASI, who was present in the Court pursuant to its last order, that none of the heritage sites is worth visiting because of the apparent negligence on the part of the ASI. It also stated that the MCD is no more capable of maintaining any heritage sites in Delhi.

Supreme Court Adjourns Punjab Plea Challenging CBI Probe Against CM Bhagwant Mann's OSD Till Tomorrow

Case Title: State of Punjab v Nikhil Saraf

Case Number: Diary No. 62464/2026

The Supreme Court today(October 8) adjourned till tomorrow the pleafiled by the Punjab Government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a criminal case and probe allegations of corruption linked to the office of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann.

The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu. As soon as the matter was taken, Justice Datta said that the matter will be taken tomorrow, as the file reached Justice Nagu late.

When Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, for the State, requested that an interim order be passed against precipitative steps, Justice Datta asked how can it be passed when the other Judge did not get the opportunity to study the files.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Appointment Of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Sandhu & Vivek Joshi

Case : Suri Payala v. Union of India | Diary No. 63078/2026

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking writs of quo warranto against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, alleging that their appointments were made in breach of the procedure prescribed under the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The writ petition, filed under Article 32 by Suri Payala, challenges the March 14, 2024 notifications which appointed Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu as Election Commissioners. The petition further challenges Gyanesh Kumar's appointment as the CEC through the notification dated February 17, 2025, and Vivek Joshi's appointment as Election Commissioner through the same notification.

The petitioner alleges non-compliance with Sections 5, 6 and 8(1) of the Act in the appointments.

Supreme Court Mulls Dedicated Corpus For Financial Assistance To Spinal Muscular Atrophy Patients

Case Title: IN RE : LACK OF ADEQUATE AND SYSTEMATIC TREATMENT FOR SMA PATIENTS AND OTHER ANCILLARY ISSUES Versus

Case Number: SMW(C) No. 20/2026

The Supreme Court called for suggestions on the creation of a dedicated corpus for providing financial assistance to people suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy, a rare genetic disorder.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a suo motu case taken up over lack of adequate and systematic treatment for SMA patients. Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh (appointed as Amicus Curiae) and ASG Anil Kaushik appeared.

The case is an offshoot of the proceedings related to comedian Samay Raina and others, who were accused by M/s Cure SMA Foundation of makinginsensitive jokes about Persons with Disabilities (including those suffering from SMA). Aftercertain directions by the Court, the comediansapologized and took steps for making amends. Thereafter, the proceedings were closed and the Court took up the present suo motu case to address the issue of systematic issues in treatment of SMA.

'Because Of Supreme Court's Forgiving Nature, Country Facing Crimes' : Justice Datta On Death Penalty Commutations

Case Title: Jitender & Ors. v. Sonia & Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.

While hearing a remission matter today, Justice Dipankar Datta orally criticised the forgiving nature of the Supreme Court in commuting death sentences into life imprisonments. He stated that the Court will someday have to draw a line because the country is facing a crisis due to the increased number of crimes.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a challenge by the victims' family against the Punjab and Haryana's order for the premature release of two persons who were convicted in the murder of former MLA Relu Ram Punia and eight members of his family.

While hearing the matter, Justice Datta orally commented that there was a time when murder convictions were based on the 'rarest of rare' doctrine because the offence of murder in those days was also rare. But such is not the case at present.

Supreme Court Questions Jharkhand DGP Appointment Rule, Asks Amicus To Examine Validity Of Other States' Rules

Case Title: PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: WP(C) No. 310/1996

In the Jharkhand DGP Appointment case, the Supreme Court passed an order calling on Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, to examine the statutes/rules pertaining to DGP appointments in other states.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana prima facie observed that a 2025 Jharkhand rule, which allowed an officer with residual service of less than 6 months before superannuation to be considered for DGP Appointment, was contrary to thelaw laid down by the Court inPrakash Singh case.

It was referring to the rule contained in Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Regulations, 2025.

Shiv Sena Row | ECI Was Bound To Award Bow And Arrow Symbol Once It Found Shinde Faction Was Real Party: Kaul Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024

The Election Commission of India was bound to allot the Shiv Sena's reserved election symbol to the Eknath Shinde faction once it concluded that the faction represented the real political party, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued before the Supreme Court in the Shiv Sena case.

He also submitted that the symbol cannot be treated as a “continuing cause of action” capable of shifting between rival factions based on subsequent developments. He argued that ECI's decision awarding the bow-and-arrow symbol to the Shinde faction cannot be reopened even if the faction is subsequently disqualified, as the determination under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order has to be made on the facts existing when the ECI decides the dispute.

“If the ECI in its wisdom comes to a conclusion that legislative test is all that we are left with, they try every conceivable test and say we have no option but to do this, in that kind of a scenario, my lords, at that stage, it had no option, but to hold them to be the real political party, and once they hold that, the symbol must go. And in such a situation, to say that, 'could they have considered an option of not giving it to anyone or not at least giving it or would it change with passing of time with a decision changing on disqualification?' would play violence, in all humility, would do great violence to the Symbols Order and the object behind the Symbols Order and what your lordships have held”, he said.

Supreme Court Asks NALSA To Consider Plea For Better Pay Scale Of Permanent Lok Adalat Members

Case Title: ROONAM KAUSHIK AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Case Number: Diary No. 36768-2026

While hearing a plea seeking better pay scale for Permanent Lok Adalat members, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that Permanent Lok Adalat members render a voluntary service and cannot demand pay parity with others.

"These are part of the legal aid scheme. If you find that it's not workable, please leave it. It's a kind of voluntary service. There are retired judges, advocates who offer their services. These are not kind of services where conditions of service, parity, equality these things will apply. [Legal Service] Authorities have their own limited funding, they have to equitably distribute their funds and see which are the priorities...it varies from state to state that what kind of financial aid under different Act", the CJI observed.

"Even if I want to help them, I may not be in a position because there is structural change required in the routine allocation of funds. There are challenges to be addressed on administrative side", he added.

Can High Courts Be Directly Approached For Anticipatory Bail Bypassing Sessions Courts? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Title: MOHAMMED RASAL.C & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on a challenge to the Kerala High Court's order, which granted pre-arrest bail even though the petitioners had not approached the Sessions Courts at the first instance. Although the Court had made the interim protection absolute, it raised a larger question as to whether the High Courts should directly entertain anticipatory bail applications without the matter first being heard by the Sessions Courts.

The matter was reserved by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh in Mohammed Rasal C v State of Kerala recently.

On a previous occasion when the matter was first heard, the Court had disapproved of the practice by High Courts directly entertaining such applications. A bench comprising Justice Nath and Justice Mehta had referredthe matter to a three-judge bench in light of conflicting decisions.

SIR-Deleted Voters Move Supreme Court For Expeditious Disposal Of Appeals Before Kolkata, Howrah Municipal Elections

Five persons deleted from West Bengal electoral rolls after the Special Intensive Revision have approached the Supreme Court seeking expeditious decisions on their appeals by the Appellate Tribunals so they can cast their votes in the Kolkata and Howrah municipal elections in November.

By way of an application, filed through Advocate Prashant Bhushan, in theWest Bengal SIR matter, the applicants claim that their names were deleted without any notice to them.

They also seek constitution of a Special Investigation Team to enquire into the SIR decision-making process and original records underlying the initiation thereof.

Guruvayur Temple | Hold Udayasthamana Pooja On Ekadashi As Last Year, Supreme Court Directs Devaswom Board

Case Title: P.C. HARY Vs GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE

Case Number: C.A. No. 15381/2025 Diary No. 46884 / 2025

The Supreme Court today(October 8) directed the administration and the Chief Thantri(priest) of the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple to continue conducting the Udayasthamana Pooja as has been performed as per earlier practice on Vrishchikam Ekadasi, falling this year on November 21.

The Court reiterated a similar order that it had passed last year on October 25 against the decision of the temple administration cancelling the pooja on Ekadashi due to crowd management concerns.

It may be recalled that a dispute arose after the temple administration, supported by the Thantri decided to forgo the Udayasthamana Pooja on Vrishchikam Ekadasi, citing difficulties in crowd management and a desire to allow more devotees time for darshan. This was challenged by the temple's hereditary priestly family, contending that the decision violated age-old custom, as the concerned pooja is conducted on Ekasadi to increase the divinity of the deity.

'Shocking' : Supreme Court Questions MP High Court For Reducing Murder Conviction In Cryptic & Casual Manner

Case Title: RAMPAL PARTETI VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

The Supreme Court (October 8) questioned the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to reduce a man's conviction for murdering his wife under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part II of Section 304 IPC.

A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran found that the High Court had dealt with the evidence in a "very cryptic" and "very casual" manner and had ignored the evidence of the deceased's sister, who was an important witness to the alleged oral dying declaration.

The Appellant-accused was convicted by the Trial Court for murdering his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that he assaulted her on December 28, 2021, following which she suffered serious head injuries and died on December 30.

Supreme Court Orders Integration Of Digital Portals On Road Accidents To Curb Fake Claims

Case: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS TUNI PATI & ORS.

Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tuni Pati & Ors.

Case Number: SLP(c) 5582/2023

In a major push toward digital integration and systemic efficiency in motor accident claim settlements, the Supreme Court has directed the Union government, States, Union Territories to mandatorily integrate key digital platforms, including the Electronic Detailed Accident Report (eDAR), VAHAN, SARATHI, and the Insurance Information Bureau (IIB), within four weeks to facilitate seamless sharing of accident-related information, vehicle and insurance records, and previous claim histories.

The directions have been passedin a case where the Court has been dealing with the issue of fake accident claims.

The integration must also extend to hit-and-run cases and the PM-RAHAT Scheme, enabling early accident alerts to be transmitted directly to insurers, the court said.

'We Are Conscious' : Supreme Court To Consider Plea To Prioritise SIR-Deleted Voters' Appeals Ahead Of Kolkata, Howrah Municipal Elections

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea to prioritise the appeals filed in the SIR appellate tribunals by deleted voters from Kolkata and Howrah municipalities where elections are due in November.

The Chief Justice of India said that he will examine if the matter can be taken up on October 16.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the matter before CJI Surya Kant seeking urgent listing. Sankaranarayanan stated that the West Bengal SIR matter has been pushed to October 30, and requested for an earlier hearing date.

Supreme Court Dismisses Andhra Pradesh Govt Plea Against HC Quashing 34% Backward Class Quota In Local Body Elections

Case Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs THANDAVA YOGESH

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 35539/2026

The Supreme Court (October 9) dismissed the Andhra Pradesh government's challenge to the High Court's order quashing two government orders that provided 34% reservation to Backward Classes in rural and urban local body elections.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed the State's plea, after noting that the High Court passed a very reasonable order. It stated that the High Court had questioned the State's data for fixing the reservation at 34%.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi(for the AP Government) submitted that there is no reason why the High Court rejected the data as unreliable. To this, Justice Datta asked where the High Court "erred" in recording that the data on which the State has also relied on the Unified Family Survey is not relevant.

Justice Sheel Nagu Recuses From Punjab Govt Plea Against CBI Probe Into CM Office Graft Allegations

Case Title: State of Punjab v Nikhil Saraf

Case Number: Diary No. 62464/2026

Justice Sheel Nagu of the Supreme Court (October 9) recused himself from hearing the pleafiled by the Punjab Government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a criminal case and probe allegations of corruption linked to the office of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann.

The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu. When the matter was taken up, Justice Datta said, "It can't be heard by Justice Nagu; it will be assigned to another bench by the CJI."

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta for the petitioner submitted that Justice Nagu, as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, had passed certain orders dismissing the petitions filed by the PIL petitioner (on whose petition the High Court has passed the impugned order). Gupta, however, clarified that the State was not relying on those orders.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Investigation Of Delhi Police FIRs Over Jantar Mantar Student Protests Of July

Case : L Ramanthan v Union of India | WP(c) 1020/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking an investigation of the FIRs registered by the Delhi Police against student protesters over the July Jantar Mantar protests, observing that the petitioner was essentially seeking a review of the Court's earlier order quashing the FIRs.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a PIL filed by L Ramanathan who argued that there cannot be any judicial interference in the police functions, as they are "independent and sovereign". Notably, the petition was filed before the Courtpassed the September 1 order quashing the FIRs.

Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, appearing for the petitioner, questioned the maintainability of public interest litigation in the absence of actual litigants, remarking that people approached the Court as though it were their "private property".

Andhra Pradesh Local Body Elections | Conduct Polls As Per Old Rolls If SIR Not Complete Before Notification: Supreme Court

Case Title: PAKA SURESH Vs UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 35786/2026

The Supreme Court clarified that the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls cannot be a ground to delay local body elections in Andhra Pradesh, and that the polls should be conducted using the existing electoral rolls if the revised SIR rolls are not published before the election notification.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the clarification while hearing a challenge to the Andhra Pradesh High Court's October 1 order directing the State Election Commission (SEC) and the State Government to expeditiously commence the process of holding elections to rural and urban local bodies, preferably within six weeks.

The bench noted that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had proposed to publish the final SIR electoral rolls on October 16, 2026, while the SEC had not yet notified the local body elections.

Plea In Supreme Court Against Cancellation Of Trains, Metro In Delhi Ahead Of October 10 Protests Against CEC

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the cancellation of the train services to Delhi, the shutdown of metro stations and the internet imposed in the capital ahead of the October 10 protests announced by the CJP against the Chief Election Commissioner.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal made an urgent unlisted mentioning before the Chief Justice of India, seeking the hearing of the matter.

"What is happening to my country?" Sibal exclaimed. He submitted that various trains which are scheduled to arrive in New Delhi and Nizamuddin stations between 4 AM and 2 PM on October 10 have been cancelled, and hotels have been asked to stop taking guests. Also 57 metro stations spread across Central, South, North, North-West, North-East and East Delhi have been shut from 9 PM onwards.

Supreme Court Stays Trial In Criminal Defamation Cases Filed By BJP Leader Ramesh Bhiduri, Nephew Against TV Today Network

Case Title: TV Today Network Ltd v. Rajpal Poswal

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 4389/2026 Diary No. 10567/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the trial in criminal defamation cases filed against TV Today Network Ltd., which owns Aaj Tak and the India Today group, filed by BJP leader Ramesh Bidhuri and his nephew Rajpal Poswal. The case concerns alleged defamatory news connecting Bhiduri's nephew to a gang rape and abduction case.

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

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan allowed Bhiduri and Poswal to file their counter affidavit in the SLP by December 2026 and granted interim stay on trial proceedings, noting that the next date before the trial court is next week on October 16, 2026.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against TN Speaker Dropping Disqualification Proceedings Over AIADMK MLAs' Cross-Voting

Case Title: P.V. SELVAKUMAR Versus THE SPEAKER, TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND ORS.

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 34136/2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Madras High Court's dismissal of a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to challenge the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker's decision to drop disqualification proceedings against certain AIADMK MLAs who had voted against the party whip during a confidence motion in favour of Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay of the TVK party.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana refused to entertain the petition filed by one PV Selvakumar in the "peculiar facts and circumstances of the case." The bench clarified that it has left the questions of law open.

Court's Observations

Don't Completely Stop Trains/Metro In Delhi To Handle October 10 Protests : Supreme Court To Centre

Case : MA Baby v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 63560/2026

Case Title: MA Baby v. Union of India and others

The Supreme Court directed the Centre not to completely stop train services to Delhi and close the Delhi Metro stations ahead of the October 10 protests announced by the CJP and opposition parties in the national capital against the Chief Election Commissioner.

The Court asked the Centre to allow these services in a regulated manner, keeping in mind the principles of proportionality, so that the public is not inconvenienced.

The Court noted that Mail/Express trains arriving in New Delhi and Nizamuddin Railway Stations tomorrow have been instructed to be cancelled, and 57 Delhi Metro stations are to be closed from 9 PM today. The Court observed that the "notifications are overreaching, as they impose a complete ban upon essential public transportation".

Supreme Court Asks Centre To Decide On Reconsidering Jantar Mantar As Designated Protest Venue

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to consider whether another location should be designated for peaceful protests in place of Jantar Mantar, considering the suggestion that an alternative venue equipped with adequate amenities for protesters needs to be identified.

The Court passed the direction after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the competent authority would consider designating a place other than Jantar Mantar for peaceful protests, and requested to record the statement in the order. The SG said that Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal was also agreeable to the suggestion.

“During the course of hearing, it was also suggested, and learned senior counsel/counsel for Parties are ad idem that it's high time that some suitable place where all basic amenities can be provided for peaceful and lawful protestors needs to be identified and designated. Let the competent authority consider the suggestion and take an appropriate decision,” the Court ordered.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Kerala Govt Over Compliance With Direction On Elephant's Upkeep

Case Title: KRISHNANKUTTY Vs JAYAKRISHNA MENON

Case Number: D No. 56030/2026

The Supreme Court today(October 9) pulled up the Kerala government for not showing compliance with its June order to take over the custody of Raman, a captive elephant known to be the tallest in Kerala.

It may be recalled that in June, the Court held a Kerala resident, Krishnankutty, guilty of contemptfor violating an undertaking that the elephant would not be subjected to commercial exploitation pending the adjudication of the present dispute. Subsequently, it directed the State to take over the custody of Raman and house it in an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation centre.

Today, the matter came up before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu. When Justice Datta asked about the whereabouts of the elephant, the caretaker informed that it was with him because the elephant was in a state of musth and couldn't be shifted. The State's counsel also supported this argument, but the petitioner's counsel opposed it, stating that whenever there is an order to shift the elephant, the state of musth is "induced artificially."

Supreme Court Seeks Response On Plea To Declare Parts Of MP District Epidemic Prone After Deaths Of 35 Tribal Children

Case Title: Ajab Lal Lilhare v. Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1252/2026 Diary No. 59530 / 2026

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to declare the Baiga-dominated Birsa and Baihar blocks of Madhya Pradesh's Balaghat district an epidemic-prone area under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, following deaths of over 30 tribal children due to measles-rubella and severe malnutrition.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice to the Union, the State, NHRC and other official respondents on the plea after hearing Advocate Varun Thakur for the petitioner.

The petition alleges that administrative negligence, inadequate healthcare facilities, malnutrition and a failure to ensure timely immunisation contributed to the deaths of children in remote tribal settlements. It seeks compensation for affected families, the provision of safe drinking water and nutritious food, and implementation of government welfare schemes for the tribal community.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Fill Vacancies In Electricity Regulatory Commissions In 15 States, J&K

Case Title: Energy Watchdog v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1240/2026 Diary No. 59541 / 2026

The Supreme Court (October 9) issued notice on a PIL filed by NGO Energy Watchdog over prolonged vacancies and absence of legally qualified members in State Electricity Regulatory Commissions of 15 States and Jammu and Kashmir.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice.

The plea contends that the prolonged vacancies amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment inState of Gujarat v. Utility Users' Welfare Association.

Supreme Court Restrains Delhi Private Hospital From Discharging Acid Attack Survivor, Directs Treatment Regardless Of Cost

The Supreme Court directed Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi to provide all necessary treatment, regardless of cost, to an acid attack survivor admitted there after sustaining damage to both her eyes.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order when the matter was mentioned around 4 PM by a woman appearing in-person on behalf of the survivor.

The woman informed the Court that the acid attack survivor was currently in Ganga Ram Hospital but was being threatened with discharge. She alleged that the hospital was claiming that it was not "specialized" in the required treatment.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Karnataka Govt Plea Against Suspension Of Ex-Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni's Murder Conviction

Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA v VINAY RAJASHEKHARAPPA KULKARNI AND ANR & ORS

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 18004/2026

The Supreme Court today(October 9) issued notice to the State of Karnataka's plea challenging the Karnataka High Court's order staying the conviction of former Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni for the murder of BJP Zilla Panchayat member Yogesh Goudar in 2016.

Recently, the High Court stayed the former MLA's conviction until his appeal challenging the conviction is disposed of. Additionally, the High Court had granted him bail subject to certain conditions. It may be noted that the High Court also suspended the sentence of the other accused–Chandrashekhar Indi @ Chandu Mama and Channakeshava B Tingarikar.

Today, a bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar issued notice on the State's plea challenging the suspension of the conviction and sentence of not just the former MLA, but also Chandrashekhar and Channakeshava.

Contempt Plea Filed In Supreme Court Alleging Arbitrary Metro Station Closures & Train Cancellations Violating Court Order

A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court alleging that authorities continued to shut down Delhi metro stations and restrict public transport services in violation of theCourt's October 9 order, which directed that there should be no complete prohibition on transport services to handle the October 10 protests announced by CJP and opposition parties against the Chief Election Commissioner.

The petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi (who was one of the petitioners who sought an independent probe into the violence during the July Jantar Mantar student protests), seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan IAS, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar IPS and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) Chairperson D Thara IAS for allegedly wilfully disobeying the Court's directions.

The petitioner alleges that the authorities continued with the arbitrary closure of Metro stations and unwarranted cancellation of train services despite the Supreme Court directing that public transport should be permitted to operate in a regulated manner to avoid inconvenience to Delhi residents.

When Can ECI Choose Not To Hold Bye-Election? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Interpretation Of S.151A RP Act

Case Title: Election Commission of India v. Sughosh Joshi & Anr.

Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 200/2024

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the interpretation of Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prescribes a six-month period for holding bye-elections to fill casual vacancies in Parliament and State Legislatures, subject to certain exceptions.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta reserved the judgment in the Election Commission of India's plea challenging a December 2023 Bombay High Court judgment directing it to hold a bye-election for the Pune Lok Sabha constituency.

Section 151A provides that a bye-election to fill a casual vacancy "shall be held within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy." However, the proviso states that the provision will not apply if "the remainder of the term of a member in relation to a vacancy is less than one year." A further exception applies where the Election Commission, in consultation with the Central Government, certifies that it is difficult to hold the bye-election within the six-month period.

CJI Intervenes For Release Of Lawyers Detained Over Protest March

After the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) urgentlywrote to the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, about several advocates being detained and taken to Yamuna Sports Complex for peacefully protesting outside the Supreme Court, the CJI has communicated to the authorities that the lawyers be released.

The SCBA passed a resolution this morning bringing to the CJI's attention the excessive use of force against the lawyers, including women advocates. Subsequently, Advocate Devvrat, President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, also communicated the matter to the CJI.

Devvrat has confirmed that the CJI has communicated to the authorities for the release.

CJI Surya Kant Constitutes 'Judicial Well-Being Committee' For Judges' Mental Health

To foster the physical and mental well-being of judges across the country, the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, has constituted a Standing Committee chaired by Justice K. V. Viswanathan. The committee on 'Judicial Well-being' has been constituted on the occasion of World Mental Health Day, celebrated across the world on October 10 each year.

The committee will comprise four other members, including Dr. Savita Malhotra, Former Dean, PGIMER Chandigarh and Professor & Head, Department of Psychiatry; Mr. Rajat Mitra, Psychologist, Director and Co-founder, Swanchetan Society for Mental Health; Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India; and Ms. Aarti Singh, Registrar (J), Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court of India.

The initiative aims to address occupational stress, workload, and mental well-being of judicial officers who discharge their responsibilities under demanding circumstances. This is based on an empirical research undertaken by the Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court, examining the well-being of judicial officers in the District Judiciary.

ED Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi HC Order Quashing Money Laundering Case Against NewsClick & Prabir Purkayastha

Case Title : DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT vs M/S PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIOS PVT. LTD Case Number : DIARY NO. 63217/2026

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Supreme Court challenging theDelhi High Court's decision to quash the FIR registered against digital news portal NewsClick and its founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha over alleged irregularities in foreign funding.

In a judgment delivered on May 29, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR registered by the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and the connected money laundering proceedings initiated by the ED, holding that the continuation of the proceedings amounted to a gross abuse of the process of law.

The High Court had found that the allegations did not disclose the commission of the offences invoked in the FIR and that the proceedings were not legally sustainable.

Menaka Guruswamy Files Habeas Petition In Supreme Court Against Detention Of Political Leaders During Delhi Protests

Case Title: MENAKA GURUSWAMY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Case Number: Diary No. 63858-2026

Senior Advocate and TMC MP in the Rajya Sabha, Menaka Guruswamy, has approached the Supreme Court against the detention of political leaders during the protests in Delhi against the Chief Election Commissioner.

Guruswamy has filed an Article 32 writ petition seeking the relief of habeas corpus, which is listed to be heard by a special benchcomprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana sitting on Sunday. As per her petition, she has challenged the detention of former Chief Minister of Delhi, Aravind Kejriwal, former Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamta Banerjee, former Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, former Tripura CM Manik Sarkar, amongst others.

She has also stated in her petition that many of the politicians were picked up from their homes and taken to undisclosed locations before they could even reach the protest site.

CEC Protest: CJP Member Moves Supreme Court Seeking Release of Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das & Others Over Alleged Detention

Update at 1:01 am: The Advocates who filed the petition has clarified that the petition is not filed by the Cockroach Janta Party in its official capacity. As per latest developments, the petitioner Gaurav Bharti, has sought withdrawal.

Cockroach Janata Party member has filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court seeking production and release of its founder Abhijeet Dipke, co-convenor Saurav Das, spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka and other persons allegedly detained in connection with the party's proposed protest in Delhi on October 10 over issues concerning the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The petition has been instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by Gaurav Bharti, CJP Coverage Coordinator, through Advocates Rajesh G. Inamdar and Shashwat Anand.

Contempt Petition Filed In Supreme Court Against Delhi Police Commissioner Over Alleged Violence Against Civilians Amid CEC Protests

Case Title: Aman Prasad v Amit Kumar IPS

A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, IPS, alleging that Delhi Police personnel resorted to indiscriminate violence against citizens during the protests against the Chief Election Commissioner in the national capital on October 10, in violation of the principles laid down by the Court.

Filed by advocate Aman Prasad, the petition alleges that police personnel detained and assaulted several unarmed citizens, manhandled women protesters and operated without visible name tags or identifiers.

The petitioner has alleged that the police action violated the Supreme Court's earlier orders in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, which dealt with allegations of police excesses during the July student protests in Delhi, and its October 9 order inM.A. Baby v. Union of India concerning restrictions on public transport during protests.

RJD MP Manoj Jha Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi Police Actions During Protests Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar

RJD MP Manoj Jha has approached the Supreme Court alleging disproportionate use of force by the Delhi police during the October 10 protests at Delhi against CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission.

Jha alleges that the police indulged in illegal detention/abduction/house arrests of unarmed protestors, student leaders, advocates, politicians and civilians, as well as "sexual harassment of women protestors".

He points out that another protest call has been issued by the Cockroach Janta Party for today, that is, October 11.

PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Scrutiny Of Central Delhi Internet Shutdown During CEC Protest

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking judicial scrutiny of the suspension of mobile internet services within a four-kilometre radius of the Janpath–Kartavya Path crossing in Central Delhi on October 9 and 10 during protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Filed by advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, the petition seeks production of the original reasoned order authorising the suspension, the material relied upon to justify the restriction, records relating to publication of the order and details of the statutory Review Committee's proceedings.

As per the plea, the suspension was imposed from 10 PM on October 9 to 10 PM on October 10, pursuant to an authorisation attributed to the Union Home Secretary.

'Prima Facie Case Made Out' : Supreme Court Issues Notice To Authorities In Contempt Plea Over Metro Closure For October 10 Protests

Case Title: SHAILENDRA MANI TRIPATHI v. GOVIND MOHAN

Case Number: Diary No.63801/2026

In the Delhi Protests matter, the Supreme Court issued notice on a contempt petition alleging that metro services in Delhi remained substantially shut on October 10 despite the Court's earlierorder that metro and rail services in the capital can be regulated, but not stopped.

A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, in a special sitting on Sunday, was dealing with the contempt petition filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi alleging violation of the Court's order that there should be no complete prohibition on transport services to handle the October 10 protests announced by CJP and opposition parties against the Chief Election Commissioner.

Finding that a "prima facie" case was made out, the Court issued notice to the respondents (alleged contemnors). However, for the time, it dispensed with their personal appearance.

Lawyers' Body Moves Supreme Court; Says Protests Cannot Paralyse Delhi, Impede Lawyers' Livelihood

A lawyers' body has moved the Supreme Court alleging that successive demonstrations by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Delhi are aimed at attracting media attention and are disrupting the livelihood and professional functioning of advocates.

The plea has been filed by Lawyers Voice seeking permission to intervene in contempt proceedings arising out of a plea concerning protests called by CJP.

The contempt plea alleges that metro services in the national capital remained substantially shut on October 10 despite the Court's earlier order that metro and rail services in the capital can be regulated, but not stopped.

Did Authorities Seek CJI Surya Kant's Permission Before Imposing S.163 BNSS Outside Supreme Court?: Sr Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan

During the hearing of the CEC Protest matter, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan questioned whether the authorities took permission from the Chief Justice of India before erecting a board imposing prohibition under Section 163 BNSS around Supreme Court area.

Gopal S posed to the respondents-side, including Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, "Did you take permission from the Chief Justice of India [for uploading the board on imposition of S.163]?"

Initially, SCAORA President Devratt submitted before the Court that the lawyers' body was not informed about the imposition of Section 163 prohibition around the Supreme Court. Responding to the submission in a lighter vein, Justice Bagchi said that if the prohibitory order was not properly published, it would be a good ground to quash it.

Supreme Court Takes Note Of Fake Medical College In UP Operating From Farmhouse With Illiterate Tea Seller As Chairman

Case Title: Case: Ayesha Jain v. Amity University, Noida & Ors.

Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 531/2025

The Supreme Court has taken note of a purported fake medical college in Uttar Pradesh allegedly operating from a dilapidated farmhouse, where an illiterate tea seller was shown as the institution's chairman and reportedly admitted to regularly signing documents provided by the person running it.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N.V. Anjaria directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) and all regulatory authorities to issue public advisories cautioning people against taking admission to, or dealing with, educational institutions without first verifying their authenticity.

The Court also directed the Union Government to monitor compliance with the directions by the regulatory authorities.

''Is There An Undeclared Emergency?': Sr Adv Menaka Guruswamy Flags Mass Detentions; Reminds Supreme Court Of ADM Jabalpur Verdict

Case Title: MENAKA GURUSWAMY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Case Number: Diary No. 63858/2026

During the hearing of the CEC protest matter, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy alleged several fundamental rights' violations by police authorities and questioned whether the State had indirectly imposed an undeclared Emergency.

The senior counsel reminded the court of its decades-old ADM Jabalpur decision, while relying on other judicial precedents which ruled that Article 19 rights, such as freedom of speech and expression, can be restricted only during an Emergency.

"The Constitution says in Article 358 that Article 19 rights can be restricted only in the case when an Emergency is imposed. Is the State saying that they have brought in an un-imposed Emergency? In the past, there were judgments passed that only in case of Emergency, Article 19 rights can be suspended. You are assembled here today because something graver is at stake. Suspension of citizens' right to peacefully protest. The last time the Court had to consider such challenges was at the time of Emergency. We come back 50 years later - your lordships had (then) passed ADM Jabalpur" Guruswamy said before a bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas Writes To CJI Alleging Delhi Police Assault, Seeks Judicial Intervention

Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha and CPI(M) leaderJohn Brittas has written to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant seeking his intervention against the "appalling incident" of police brutality perpetrated against him during the protest over Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

He has stated that a credible investigation cannot be left exclusively to a chain of command whose personnel or supervisory officers may themselves be implicated. He has requested the communication be placed before an appropriate Bench of the Supreme Court for consideration, in accordance with law, of such judicial intervention as may be warranted, including the possibility of taking cognizance or directing appropriate proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Describing his incident, he has stated that he was forcefully dragged while demanding the resignation to Gyanesh Kumar: "At around 12.30 p.m. today, having learnt that some youth activists were being assaulted and detained, I reached the Connaught Place area and began speaking to journalists. I was peacefully exercising my democratic right to speak to the press. Nevertheless, personnel of the Delhi Police and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) forcibly manhandled and dragged me for approximately 50 metres, despite repeated assertions by me and the journalists present that I am a sitting Member of Parliament. A few police personnel lifted me bodily into the air and carried me towards a police vehicle, treating a sitting Member of Parliament as though I were an object to be hauled away. There was no provocation whatsoever to justify this high-handed action."

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay CBI FIR Against Punjab CM's OSD, Bars Coercive Action

Case Title: State of Punjab v Nikhil Saraf

Citation: Diary No. 62464/2026

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered that no coercive steps be taken in the CBI FIR registered in connection with corruption allegations linked to the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale issued notice on the petition filed by the Punjab government challenging the High Court's direction to register an FIR in the matter. However, the Court refused to stay the FIR and directed that no coercive steps be taken in the case. The bench further observed that the State must cooperate with the investigation.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared for the State. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing on behalf of the respondent (PIL petitioner in the High Court), submitted that the respondent was facing vindictive action from the State Government, and that his property was demolished. The respondent also required protection from State harassment, Naidu urged.

SCAORA Moves Supreme Court Seeking Probe Into Delhi Police Actions Against Lawyers During CEC Protest

Case Title: Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India

The Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association (SCAORA) has moved the Supreme Court seeking an independent, impartial and time-bound inquiry into the alleged illegal detention and manhandling of lawyers by Delhi Police during a protest march against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls on October 10.

The writ petition, filed through SCAORA Secretary Yugandhara Pawar Jha, contends that advocates, including senior lawyers, women advocates and Advocates-on-Record, were detained and subjectedto excessive force while participating in a peaceful march near the Supreme Court. It seeks directions to identify the police personnel involved, preserve evidence relating to the incident and hold those responsible accountable in accordance with law.

The plea submits that the lawyers were intercepted by Delhi Police personnel and taken to the Yamuna Sports Complex in Surajmal Vihar, New Delhi. Advocates-on-Record Pyoli and Shashank Raj Singh were among those detained.

There Should Be No Impediment In Movement Of Lawyers, Court Staff : CJI Surya Kant Amid CEC Protests

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday said that there should be no impediment to the movement of lawyers, litigants and court staff, amid the curbs in the national capital due to the protests against the Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

CJI also said that the Supreme Court should not be dragged into the issues.

The CJI made this observation when Senior Advocates Atamaram Nadkarni and Pradeep Rai mentioned petitions concerning the detention of lawyers. While Nadkarni mentioned a petition filed by a lawyer, SCBA President Rai mentioned the petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The SCBA petition concerns lawyers' detention and internet suspension.

'Every Lawyer Has Right To Be Part Of Peaceful Protests': CJI Surya Kant Amid Protests Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday said that every lawyer has the right to participate in peaceful protests, while hearing a mentioning concerning the detention of lawyers and alleged police excesses during protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the matter before the CJI-led bench, alleging that lawyers had been subjected to police action during the protests and that there was no order under Section 163 BNSS available in the public domain.

He said that the bench should ask the police to exercise restraint. Sankaranarayanan submitted :

SCBA Moves Supreme Court Over Lawyers' Detention, Internet Suspension Amid CEC Protests

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association VERSUS Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution over the alleged manhandling and detention of lawyers by police near the Supreme Court on October 10, seeking accountability of the officers involved and a review of restrictions affecting access to courts.

The petition alleges that several advocates, including senior advocates, women lawyers and senior citizens, were forcibly placed in police vehicles and taken away without being informed of the grounds for their detention. It states that the SCBA received videos of the incident and that the detained advocates were subsequently released following intervention.

The SCBA has sought a status report detailing the legal basis and duration of the detentions, the officers involved, the use of force, and the instructions issued through the police chain of command.

New Form 6 Wasn't There When Bihar SIR Judgment Was Delivered, We Haven't Adjudicated On It : Supreme Court

Case : Priya Mishra v. Union of India | WP (c) 1291/2026

The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it has neither approved nor disapproved the new Form 6 declaration (for the registration of new voters), and that it is yet to adjudicate on its validity.

The Court orally stated that theChief Justice of India's remarks of last week only meant to convey that the Bihar SIR judgment of May 2026 did not examine the new Form 6 as it was not in existence then.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made these oral remarks while hearing a writ petition filed by one Priya Mishra concerning the Election Commission of India.

'What Does Religion Have To Do With Firecrackers?' Asks Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Case : IN RE: CURBING AIR POLLUTION IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION - SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND BURNING OF CROP RESIDUE AND FIRECRACKERS | SMW(C) No. 15/2026

Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court on Monday questioned the linkage between religion and the use of firecrackers while hearing a suo motu matter on Delhi-NCR air pollution.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the issue of permission for firecrackers amid rising pollution worries ahead of the festive season.

Justice Bagchi asked: “What does religion have to do with firecrackers?”

Rajya Sabha MP AA Rahim Moves Supreme Court Alleging Illegal Detention & Assault Of DYFI Members During Delhi CEC Protests

Case Title: A.A. RAHIM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Rajya Sabha MP and Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) National President A.A. Rahim has approached the Supreme Court seeking an independent inquiry into the alleged illegal detention and custodial torture of DYFI office-bearers, Central Committee members and activists during a protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar at Connaught Place, New Delhi, on October 11.

The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution alleges that the protesters were forcibly taken away in police vehicles with curtained windows, assaulted while in custody, and detained for more than seven hours without arrest memos, intimation to their relatives, medical examination in custody, or production before a Magistrate.

According to the petition, the protesters were taken to Surajmal Stadium and released around 7:30 PM, approximately seven hours after their detention began. The plea alleges that no arrest memos were prepared, relatives were not informed, and the detainees were neither produced before a Magistrate nor medically examined as required under law.

Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police SIT Probe Into Assault On Lawyers Protesting Against BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra

The Supreme Court today directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to constitute a Special Investigation Team to probe the allegations pertaining to assault on certain lawyers in Bar Council of India premises when they were protesting against BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioners/victim lawyers). The petitioners filed the present petitionchallenging the Delhi High Courtwhich rejected a plea for CBI probe on the ground that they had alternative remedy of filing a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

After perusing the averments in the police complaint made by the petitioners on August 22, and to avoid prejudice to the respondents who had not been issued notice, the bench passed certain directions to ensure that the incident is appropriately investigated, and the investigation is taken to logical conclusion. The directions issued were as follows,

Rahul Gandhi & INDIA Bloc Leaders File Writ Petition In Supreme Court Against ECI Over SIR Process

Case : Rahul Gandhi v. Election Commission of India Diary No. 64196/2026

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and nine INDIA Bloc leaders have filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Apart from Congress leaders Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, Saugata Roy (Trinamool Congress-Mamata Banerjee), Akhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party), Tejashwi Prasad Yadav (RJD), Sanjay Raut (Shiv Sena UBT), MA Baby (CPI(M)), D Raja (CPI), Mahua Majhi (JMM), Supriya Sule (NCP Sharad Pawar) and ET Muhammed Basheer (IUML) are the other petitioners.

The petition arrays the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as the respondents.

Census 2027 : Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Raising Concerns Over Self-Declaration Of Caste Status

Case Title: AAKASH GOEL Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1249/2026

The Supreme Court today called on the Union of India to place before it the Standing Operating Procedure being followed in connection with the 2027 Census.

While hearing a plea alleging infirmity in the collection of caste data under the Census, CJI Surya Kant initially opined that, "Government authorities don't collect information merely on form basis". But later, the judge asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in Court, to place a note before the Court.

Without issuing notice on the petition before the Court, the CJI bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, conveyed to SG Mehta the petitioner's concern that only an application form for self-disclosure of information is being supplied to collect caste data.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Proper Maintenance Of Accessible Airport Infrastructure

Case Title: Turab Chimthanawala v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court recently issued notice on a PIL seeking proper maintenance of accessible airport infrastructure, including tactile pathways, Braille signage, accessible seating, and priority check-in for persons with disabilities.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana called for the responses of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the Airport Authority of India, the Central Industrial Security Force and the Digi Yatra Foundation.

The public interest litigation, filed by one Turab Chimthanawala, challenges "systemic and continuing failure" on the part of respondent-authorities in ensuring and operationalizing the accessibility standards and regulatory mandates governing civil aviation in India, including the Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation 2022, Rule 15(1)(f) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules 2017, the Civil Aviation Requirements titled "Carriage by Air-Persons with Disability (Divyangjan) and/or Persons with Reduced Mobility" (PRM-CAR) issued by the DGCA.

After Supreme Court Push, Centre To Cap Cancer Drug Margins At 30%

Case Title: Kishan Chand Jain v. Ethics And Medical Registration Board (EMRB)

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 794/2023 Diary No. 25176 / 2023

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court today that the Union government has decided to cap trade margins on cancer drugs at 30% of their maximum retail price (MRP).

Mehta told a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta that the government would announce a list of cancer medicines to which the cap would apply. The list would be updated periodically to include additional anti-cancer medicines in response to market developments and public health considerations.

The Union government's decision follows the Court's sharp observations during earlier hearings about cancer medicines being sold at MRPs up to ten times their price to retailers (PTR).

Plea Filed In Supreme Court Against Detention, Assault Of Journalists Covering Delhi Protests

Case Title: Free Speech Collective v. Union Of India & Ors.

Case Number: Diary no. 64241/2026

The Free Speech Collective has moved the Supreme Court seeking binding guidelines to protect journalists from alleged unlawful detention, physical assault, intimidation and obstruction by police while covering protests, alleging that journalists continued to face such action even after the Court directed authorities not to hinder their professional duties.

“The material placed with the Petition records reporters being dragged, physically manhandled and forced into police vehicles; identifiable journalists being subjected to force despite displaying or asserting their press status; and injury to a media worker during newsgathering. The use of force against a journalist is not a collateral consequence of crowd control. It disables the very process by which the public learns how coercive State power is being exercised, suppresses contemporaneous evidence and warns every reporter on the ground that scrutiny may invite physical reprisal”, the plea states.

The writ petition seeks enforcement of the fundamental rights to equality, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of movement and life and personal liberty under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d) and 21.

Lawyers Association For Constitution Moves Supreme Court Alleging Police Excesses Against Advocates During Delhi Protests

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of the Lawyers' Association for Constitution (LAFC) and four of its member/ advocates who were allegedly manhandled and illegally detained by the Delhi Police during protests in Delhi on 10 and 11 October 2026.

The petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Ms. Pyoli.

The petition raises serious concerns regarding police excesses against peaceful protesters, including assault, abuse and unlawful detention of advocates, women, juveniles, journalists and passers-by. It also challenges the denial of access to legal assistance and medical aid, failure of police personnel to display identification, and suspension of mobile internet services.

Journalist Files Contempt Petition Against MHA Secretary, Delhi Police Commissioner Alleging Police Assault While Covering Protests

Amaan Rastogi, a 26-year-old journalist with the digital news platform Molitics, has filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court.

The petition alleges wilful disobedience of the Court's order dated 11.10.2026 in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan & Ors. (Contempt Petition (C) Diary No. 63801/2026 in W.P.(C) Diary No. 63560/2026). Rastogi uses they/them pronouns.

In that order, a bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana recorded the Solicitor General's assurance thatlawyers, journalists and other professionals would not be impeded. In paragraph 16(f), the Court directed that they "shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever."

Supreme Court Stays Criminal Defamation Trial Against Rahul Gandhi For Comments Against PM Narendra Modi

Case Title: RAHUL GANDHI Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECERTARY (HOME) AND ANR.

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 19559/2026

The Supreme Court has temporarily stayed the trial proceedings in the criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks describing Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “Choro Ke Sardar” and “Commander-in-Thief”.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh issued notice returnable in 4 weeks on Gandhi's plea against the Bombay High Court's September 8 order refusing to quash the criminal defamation case.

“Issue notice returnable in 4 weeks. In the meantime, further proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed”, the Court ordered.

Supreme Court Seeks Presence Of Senior Delhi Police Officer To Explain Alleged Assault Of Women Journalists During Protest Coverage

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the personal presence of a senior Delhi Police officer to explain the alleged assault on women journalists during the recent protests in Delhi.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made the observation after Senior Advocate Indira Jaising mentioned apetition filedby the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI), seeking safeguards for journalists covering protests, particularly women journalists.

“We'd like some senior officer to remain present here and explain,” the CJI said, adding that the police would have to explain the allegations.

Plea Filed In Supreme Court Over Mob-Gathering In SC Premises After INDIA Bloc Leaders' Entry

Lawyers have filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court over the mob-gathering which took place on the Supreme Court premises yesterday night after Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders marched to the SC Registry to file their petition against the Election Commission of India and the SIR.

Senior Advocates Gaurav Bhatia and Mahesh Jethmalani mentioned the matters before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. CJI Surya Kant agreed to list the matter on Thursday.

Yesterday afternoon, Rahul Gandhi and the opposition leaders led a march to the Supreme Court signalling their protest against the ECI over the SIR process. They also filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the ECI decisions.

Supreme Court Dismisses Haren Pandya Murder Convict's Plea After State Refuses Remission

Case Title: MOHAMMED ASGARALI MOHAMMAD VAJIRALI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 15558-15559/2026 Diary No. 46668 / 2026

On October 12, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea filed by Mohammed Asgar Ali, who is serving a life sentence for the murder of former Gujarat Home Minister Haren Pandya, seeking premature release after the State of Gujarat informed the Court that it had rejected his remission plea.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh heard the matter and passed an order stating that it would not continue the matter, considering that the State has rejected his remission plea and that he has the liberty to challenge it before the High Court.

It may be recalled that the Gujarat High Court had, in July, asked the state government to decide within six months. Pandya was shot dead on March 26, 2003, in Ahmedabad near Law Garden during a morning walk.

Supreme Court Refuses Plea Alleging Illegal House Entry By UP ATS, Asks Petitioner To Approach HC First

Case Title: WAIZ KHAN Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Case Number: Diary No. 42099/2026

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a petition filed under Article 32 alleging that Uttar Pradesh ATS personnel entered the petitioner's house without proper uniform and identification even though there were no criminal proceedings pending against him.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not approached the Allahabad High Court at first instance and gave him liberty to avail that remedy. A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter.

During the hearing, considering the bench's disinclination, the petitioner's counsel questioned why the Supreme Court could not entertain an Article 32 petition claiming breach of fundamental rights.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union, ECI On ADR's Plea Challenging Lifelong Immunity To CEC, Election Commissioners

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms challenging the immunity granted to Chief Election Commissioner/Election Commissioners for actions taken in purported discharge of official duties.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana sought the response of the Union and the Election Commission on ADR's challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for ADR. The petition has been filed through AoR Rani Mishra.

Punjab CM Beant Singh Assassination | Supreme Court Seeks Intelligence Bureau Inputs On Convict's Prison Transfer Plea

Case Title: Jagtar Singh Hawara v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 403/2024 Diary No. 36064 / 2024

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought inputs from the Intelligence Bureau (IB) on whether Jagtar Singh Hawara, convicted in the 1995 assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh, can be transferred from Tihar Jail in Delhi to a prison in Punjab, after concerns raised by the Punjab government over the possible impact on law and order.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing Hawara's plea seeking transfer to a jail in Punjab, primarily to enable him to meet his elderly mother, who is stated to be in serious condition. The Court said that it would consider the request after obtaining the IB's assessment of the potential security and law-and-order implications of the transfer.

The Court observed that it could not disregard the Punjab government's objections, particularly since the case involved concerns that went beyond the individual prisoner. It said that while it was inclined to consider such requests sympathetically, it had to ensure that its order did not trigger further problems in the state. Justice Sundresh observed that the case could not be treated as an ordinary murder case because the state had raised concerns about the continuing influence of the ideology associated with the crime.

July Student Protests: Complaints Portal Ready For Launch, High-Powered Enquiry Committee Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v Union of India and others

Case Number: WP(Crl) 280/2026

The High-Powered Enquiry Committeeconstituted by the Supreme Court to inquire into allegations pertaining to violence during theGen Z Protestsin July, over NEET-Paper Leak and other education system irregularities, has informed the Court that the complaints portal is ready for launch.

After launch of the portal, public notices would be published in major newspapers to widely announce its launch, the Committee stated.

The HPEC filed a status report before the Court stating that the National Informatics Centre was engaged to design and develop the portal. Two templates were provided for the purpose - one, for aggrieved protestors, and one, for aggrieved police personnel.

Kerala Union Of Working Journalists Move Supreme Court Alleging Police Violence During Delhi Protests

The Kerala Union of Working Journalists (KUWJ), Delhi Unit, has approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking urgent intervention over the alleged unlawful detention, physical assault, manhandling and intimidation of working journalists covering student protests in Delhi on 10 and 11 October 2026.

The writ petition, filed through Dr. D. Dhanasumod, Secretary of KUWJ, Delhi Unit, raises serious concerns regarding the safety of journalists discharging their professional duties, the freedom of the press, and the alleged violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.

According to the petition, several accredited journalists covering the protests were allegedly targeted by personnel of the Delhi Police and the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) while documenting the events on the ground.

Delhi SIR : Plea In Supreme Court Challenges ECI Directive That Deleted Voters Must File Form 6 For Electoral Roll Registration

Case Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ & ANR V ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR

Case Number: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1188 OF 2026

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's procedure in the Delhi Special Intensive Revision requiring voters, whose names have been deleted pursuant to the SIR exercise, to fill Form 6 to seek re-inclusion of their names on the voter list.

An interlocutory application has been filed by transparency activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri in the pending petition, where they have challenged procedures regarding a logical discrepancy in the Delhi SIR. The petition has been filed through Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi.

They have pointed out that Form 6 requires every applicant to affirm that they are “applying for inclusion in the Electoral Roll for the first time”.

AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi Moves Supreme Court Challenging SIR Of Electoral Rolls

Case Title: ASADUDDIN OWAISI v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS

Case Number: Diary No. 64392/2026

Lok Sabha MP and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The plea was mentioned today before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by Advocate Nizamuddin Pasha, seeking a listing alongwith similar pending matters. The CJI said he would check and list the case along with similar cases.

The petition, filed through AoR Lzafeer Ahmad BF, submits that the implementation of SIR has imperiled the franchise of eligible citizens through departures from safeguards, warranting constitutional and remedial directions.

Delhi SIR: Supreme Court Advances Hearing After Plea Flags Deleted Voters Being Asked To Fill Form 6

Case Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ & ANR V ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR

Case Number: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1188 OF 2026

The Supreme Court today advanced the date of hearing in Delhi SIR matter, after it was alleged that voters, whose names have been deleted pursuant to the SIR exercise, are being asked to fill Form 6 for re-inclusion of their names on the electoral roll.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi advanced the hearing date from October 30 to October 28, on hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan.

When Bhushan urged that a hearing on October 28 might not make much of a difference as October 30 is the last date for correction of deletions, the CJI said, "we are thinking of passing an order that will take care of [all this]".

NEET-UG 2026: Supreme Court Allows Urgent Listing Of OMR Sheet Challenge Ahead Of NTA's Deadline To Destroy Exam Records

The Supreme Court allowed urgent listing of a plea challenging an OMR Answer Sheet in the NEET-UG Exam 2026, after it was submitted that the National Testing Agency is likely to destroy the records tomorrow.

On a mentioning, a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed for listing of the matter tomorrow. The matter will be heard by Justice PS Narasimha's bench.

The petitioner's counsel submitted, "The OMR Sheet is under question. NTA will destroy it tomorrow because tomorrow is 90th day...".

Asaduddin Owaisi Moves Supreme Court Seeking Review Of Bihar SIR Verdict, Says New Material Raises Questions On ECI's Decision-Making

Case Title: ASADUDDIN OWAISI v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Lok Sabha MP and AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi has approached the Supreme Court seeking review of the Bihar SIR judgment which upheld the legality of Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Though not party to the original Bihar SIR case, Owaisi has filed the review in the capacity of an elector, an elected representative and the leader of AIMIM whose Bihar State President has filed a writ petition concerning Bihar SIR.

Vide the Bihar SIR judgment, a bench led by CJI Surya Kant upheld the legality of the SIR of electoral rolls done by ECI and observed that electoral SIR advances the Constitutional imperative of free and fair elections.

Supreme Court To Hear Asaram's Challenge To Conviction, Life Sentence In 2013 Jodhpur Rape Case In November

Case Title: ASHA RAM @ ASHUMAL Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN, SLP(Crl) No. 11761/2026]

The Supreme Court today (October 14) dismissed self-styled godman Asaram's plea challenging the Gujarat High Court's order denying him temporary bail to visit his ailing wife in the 2013 Gandhinagar rape case.

The plea was withdrawn considering that Asaram is currently out on parole for20 days granted by the Rajasthan High Court in another 2013 Jodhpur minor rape case.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran will now hear Asaram's challenge to the Rajasthan High Court judgment upholding his conviction and sentence on merits in November.

Delhi Union Of Journalists Moves Supreme Court Alleging Police Violence During Delhi Protests, Seeks Protection For Independent Reporters

Case Title: DELHI UNION OF JOURNALISTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Case Number: Diary No.64814/2026

The Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court over the alleged detention, assault, and obstruction of journalists covering protests in Delhi on 10 and 11 October 2026.

It has submitted that reporters were forcibly removed from reporting sites, prevented from recording events, and subjected to physical force. It also refers to allegations concerning the taking of phones, cameras and microphones, and complaints by women journalists about intrusive searches and physical misconduct.

Among the accounts relied upon is the signed statement of senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, who states that he was detained on 10 October despite showing his Press Information Bureau (PIB) accreditation card, without being supplied grounds or detention papers. The petition also cites a Committee to Protect Journalists report recording at least 35 journalist detentions in Delhi during the two days.

DMRC Files Affidavit Before Supreme Court Attributing Reduction In Metro Traffic To Protests; Says 'Ordinary Citizen Adversely Affected'

Case : MA Baby v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 63560/2026; Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan | Diary No. 63858-2026

In connection with metro closures during the Delhi Protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court attributing reduction in metro travel by daily commuters to the protests.

Filed by the DMRC Chairperson D Thara (IAS), the affidavit states that on October 10, all stations except 45 remained fully operational, but the total number of commuters who travelled on the Metro network during its operational hours was approx. 32 lakh – compared to about 58 lakh passengers on a normal second Saturday.

“It is submitted that this figure was slightly lower than the ridership on a normal Second Saturday. This reduction may be attributed to the protest, which appears to have prompted a large number of commuters to refrain from travelling, and consequently, from undertaking their usual daily activities or attending to their business or private employment," the affidavit read.

'Overkill': Supreme Court Quashes UP Police Notice To 'X' Seeking Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay's Digital Data In Road-Rage Case

Case Title: ABHISHEK UPADHYAY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 14) quashed UP Police notice to social media platform 'X' seeking journalist Abhishek Upadhyay's digital data in a road-rage case for a period approximately 3 months prior to the incident.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, with Justice Bagchi observing that seeking of personal or digital information for such a period seemed to be an 'overkill'. It said that any information collected pursuant to the 'X' notice shall not be utilized against Upadhyay.

Even post-FIR, information could not be sought unless alternative measures to trace or arrest an accused were found inadequate, the Court observed.

Delhi Protest | Section 172 BNSS Unconstitutional, Enables Arbitrary Detention By Police: Plea In Supreme Court

Case Title: Samriddhi Das v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: Diary No. 64055/2026

A petition filed in the Supreme Court has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 contending that the provision empowers police officers to detain or remove people for disregarding their directions without adequate safeguards against arbitrary action.

Filed by B.Tech student Samriddhi Das, the writ petition seeks a declaration that Section 172 violates Articles 14, 19 and 21, which guarantee equality before law, fundamental freedoms and protection of life and personal liberty.

The petition argues that the provision allows detention on the basis of a police officer's subjective assessment, without requiring reasonable apprehension of a cognizable offence, recorded reasons or adequate safeguards for judicial scrutiny.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges De-Notification Of Jantar Mantar As Protest Site

Case Title: SWATY SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: W.P.(C) No.-001357/2026

A writ petition has been filed challenging the Standing Order dated October 11, whereby Jantar Mantar has been de-notified as a designated protest site and three alternative venues have been notified.

The petition has been filed by advocate Swaty Singh, arguing that the relocation of protests to distant and outlying areas may render the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression ineffective.

"The right to protest is not merely a right to assemble at a designated physical space; it is a right to communicate grievances, express dissent and draw the attention of the public authorities and society at large towards matters requiring redressal. The location of a protest is, therefore, not an inconsequential administrative consideration. Its proximity to the concerned institutions, accessibility to the public and visibility to the intended audience may directly affect its effectiveness."

Supreme Court Suggests Common Election Date For SCBA, Delhi HC And District Bar Associations In Delhi

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik

Case Number: Diary No. 13992 of 2023

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the views of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Delhi High Court Bar Association and district bar associations in Delhi on whether their elections could be held on a common date, observing that the arrangement could resolve the issue of multiplicity of votes by the members.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan asked representatives of the respective bar associations to consult their members and assist the Court in considering the proposal.

The CJI observed that holding elections on the same day would require advocates who are members of multiple bar associations to choose the association in which they wish to vote, instead of voting in more than one association.

Supreme Court Deletes Direction Requiring Trial Courts To Seek Mitigating, Aggravating Factors In All Cases Where Death Penalty Can Be Imposed

Case Title: Aman Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar

Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2351-52 of 2026

The Supreme Court has deleted a direction issued on April 27 requiring trial courts to call for reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances in every case involving an offence punishable with death, accepting the National Legal Services Authority's (NALSA) submission that the requirement would create difficulties.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh passed the order on October 7 while allowing NALSA's application seeking clarification of the April 27 directions.

The April 27 order was passed after the Court expressed concern that reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances were often not obtained at the trial stage or during the High Court's consideration of a death reference. Consequently, crucial information relevant to sentencing was being collected for the first time when the cases reached the Supreme Court, resulting in avoidable delays and undermining a balanced sentencing process.

“No Understanding Of Law”: Supreme Court Slams Chhattisgarh HC For Slipshod Handling Of Murder Appeal

Case Title: CHINTAMANI @ CHINTU PATEL Versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Case Number: Diary No. 60527-2026

The Supreme Court today (October 14) came down heavily on theChhattisgarh High Court and observed that it has no understanding of the difference between Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder with guilty intention) and Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder with guilty knowledge, but without the specific intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The sharp observations came from a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran in a plea filed by the convict challenging the High Court's order altering the conviction to Section 304, Part II.

To briefly state, the petitioner was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, to undergo life imprisonment with fine.

Supreme Court Asks MEA To Issue Public Notice Inviting Compensation Claims From Families Of Indians Killed In Russia-Ukraine War

Case Title: Divya v. Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 451/2026

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to issue a public notice inviting compensation claims from families of Indian nationals who died while fighting in the Russia-Ukraine war as part of the Russian armed forces, noting that only six families had sought compensation despite 51 reported deaths.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the MEA to provide assistance to the affected families in securing compensation from Russian authorities. The Court also asked the Ministry to place on record the compensation amounts determined by the Russian authorities and the amounts actually paid to the families.

“It is obvious that the right to seek compensation needs to be apprised to the other family members of the victims. We are informed that the MEA is contacting those families one by one to secure the necessary documents and information. It might be advisable for the MEA to issue a public notice and invite claims and thereafter provide full assistance to those families in order to secure the compensatory benefits for them. In this regard, we expect that if fresh status report we find by the MEA”, the Court observed.

'Proportionate Measure': Union Home Secy Defends Before Supreme Court Mobile Internet Suspension During Delhi Protests

In the Delhi Protest matter, the Union Home Secretary has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court seeking discharge of contempt notice and stating that only cellular internet services were suspended from October 9 to October 10 considering the situation and the same were found to be a "proportionate measure".

The affidavit has been filed in response to a contempt plea by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan IAS, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar IPS and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) Chairperson D Thara IAS for allegedly willfully disobeying the Court's directions.

It states that the notification issued on October 9 was one of the measures undertaken to achieve the objective of maintaining peace and tranquility and preventing any disturbance of public order. "The measures were necessitated by the call given by an organization to hold a protest without obtaining the requisite permission and in defiance of the refusal of permission, contrary to law declared by this Hon'ble Court in the judgment of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India and Ors. (2018) 17 SCC 324 and in light of the recent experience of the Delhi Police on 20.07.2026."

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Guidelines Against Political Protests Inside Court Premises, Contempt Proceedings Against Rahul Gandhi

Case Title: Digant Mishra v. Union Of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1360/2026 Diary No. 64394 / 2026

Four advocates have moved the Supreme Court seeking a uniform framework to regulate political processions and demonstrations around the Supreme Court and High Courts, including an absolute prohibition on political protests inside court premises, following the October 12 march towards the Supreme Court over issues concerning the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The plea also seeks preservation of CCTV footage, visitor and access-control records, and security reports relating to the events of October 12. The petition asks the Court to examine the conduct of political leaders, including Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, and consider initiating criminal contempt proceedings if their conduct is found to warrant such action.

“The right of citizens and political parties to express disagreement with public authorities is an important feature of democracy. However, the right to protest cannot be understood as conferring an unrestricted entitlement to enter restricted or operational court areas, obstruct access to court buildings, assemble in a manner that disrupts judicial work, intimidate persons involved in adjudication, or seek a favourable judicial outcome through collective pressure”, the plea contends.

Delhi Police Cites CJP's Past Violations To Defend October 10 Curbs, Says Action Was Needed To Prevent Public Order Crisis

The Delhi Police has filed an affidavit in the October 11 and October 9 orders, respectively, submitting that it has complied with all directions, including that all metro stations and railway facilities shall function normally, there should be free movement of people, internet access should be unhindered, and there shall be no illegal detention beyond areas where Section 163 BNSS is operational.

It may be recalled that ahead of the October 10 protest march announced by CJP and the opposition parties, the Supreme Court had passed an order on October 9 directing the Centre not to completely stop train and metro services. These orders were passed in a petition filed by CPI(M) General Secretary MA Baby and others challenging the curbs imposed by the Delhi police and others ahead of the protest. Subsequently, a contempt petition was filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi alleging that pursuant to the October 9 order, 12 metro stations continue to be closed.

Finding non-compliance prima facie, a special bench on Sunday directed that the work of lawyers and journalists shouldn't be hindered. It further directed that there shall be no illegal detention of any person except in accordance with law, particularly with respect to peaceful assembly and unarmed persons beyond the areas where Section 163 BNSS is in operation.

NEET-PG 2026: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Disclosure Of Actual Questions, Options And Correct Answers To Candidates

Case Title: DEMOCRATIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1319/2026 Diary No. 61605 / 2026

The Supreme Court today (October 15) issued notice on a writ petition filed by the Democratic Medical Association challenging the manner in which the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has disclosed the answer key and candidate responses for NEET-PG 2026.

It has sought disclosure of the actual questions and options presented to each candidate to enable independent verification of their scores.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice and tagged it with pending petitions raising structural issues with the National Testing Agency.

Supreme Court Refers Rajpal Yadav's Cheque Dishonour Dispute To Mediation After ₹2 Crore Deposit, Allows Passport Release

The Supreme Court on Thursday referred to mediation a dispute involving Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav, who has challenged his conviction and three-month sentence in seven cheque dishonour cases, after noting that he has deposited Rs. 2 crore with the Registry.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked the parties to explore an amicable settlement.

“Why don't you now settle the dispute? If you'll be reasonable and fair… ₹2 crores lying with us… you also be reasonable, try to settle,” the CJI told the respondent- the complainant company.

Supreme Court Declines To List Maharashtra SIR Challenge With Rahul Gandhi's Plea, Says It Will Examine Issues State-Wise

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Maharashtra, alleging that about 33% voters have been deleted and over 1 crore voters have been struck off on the ground of 'logical discrepancy'.

When the matter was mentioned on Thursday (October 15) before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, praying for listing thereof alongwith a plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhiand various others challenging SIR, the CJI declined.

The CJI also orally indicated that the Court wishes to tackle SIR issues state-wise, not in a generalized manner.

'One Petitioner Has To Explain His Conduct': Supreme Court Issues Notice On INDIA Bloc Leaders' Petition Against ECI Over SIR

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v. Election Commission of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1351/2026 Diary No. 64196 / 2026

The Supreme Court today issued notice on the plea filed by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and nine INDIA Bloc leaders challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and other Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. While issuing notice, the CJI orally said, "We would also ask one of the petitioners about his conduct."

In the order which was uploaded later, the Court stated that one of the 13 petitioners, Sanjay Raut (ShivSena UBT leader and Rajya Sabha MP), must explain his conduct. This is understood to be in relation to his comments against the CJI and the judges. Incidentally, the Attorney General, later today, granted consent to the SCBA to initiate criminal contempt against Raut for his comments on judges.

'Nobody Can Browbeat Us' : Supreme Court In Plea Against October 12 March By Opposition Leaders; Issues Notice

Case Title: Digant Mishra v. Union Of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1360/2026 Diary No. 64394 / 2026

The pleas were filed over a march towards the Supreme Court on October 12 by political leaders and supporters over issues concerning the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The march came after the CJI declined a request by the Leaders of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to meet him and submit a memorandum on the issues, observing that they were already pending before the Court.

Supreme Court Says It Will Examine Whether Delhi Police Applied Its Mind While Denotifying 'Jantar Mantar' As Protest Site; Issues Notice

Case Title: SWATY SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: W.P.(C) No.-001357/2026

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a writ petition challenging the Standing Order dated October 11, whereby Jantar Mantar has been de-notified as a designated protest site and three alternative venues have been notified by the Delhi Police.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymaya Bagchi orally observed that the Court will examine whether there had been an application of mind by the authority concerning the use and efficacy of the site.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta for the petitioner argued that a protest site must be one where demonstrators can be heard.

Delhi Protest | Supreme Court Orders No Coercive Action In SC/ST Case Against Woman Journalist Who Accused Delhi ACP Of Sexual Harassment

Case Number: WP (c) 1361/2026

The Supreme Court today granted interim protection to woman journalist in a case filed against her by Delhi Police's ACP Vivek Bhagat under the SC/ST Act. The case was filed after she accused the ACP of sexual harassment during the protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in the petitions filed by journalist bodies to examine allegations of sexual violence against women journalists covering the protests.

The journalist has been accused of subjecting Bhagat to “public humiliation and casteist slurs” along with her colleagues while he was discharging his duties during the protest. The FIR invokes Sections 221 (obstructing a public servant), 356(2) (defamation) and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Delhi Protests: Supreme Court Directs Police To Produce Prohibitory Orders Under S. 163 BNSS, Preserve CCTV Footage

Case Title: MA Baby v Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(Civil) No.1333/2026

The Supreme Court today directed the Delhi Police to place on record the prohibitory orders promulgated under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (erstwhile section 144 of CrPC) restricting public gatherings and demonstrations on various dates over the past two weeks in Delhi.

The Court also directed in its order that all law enforcement agencies preserve CCTV footage and other digital material relating to the protests.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy pointed out that the affidavit filed by the Delhi Police Commissioner did not contain the Section 163 orders or disclose the number of persons detained during the protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the ECI's Special Intensive Revision.

Delhi Protests: SG Tushar Mehta Objects To 'Misleading' Reports On Govt Apology In Supreme Court

In the Delhi Protest matter, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta today assailed before Supreme Court certain media reports and social media posts claiming that the government has apologized to the Court for its conduct and has nothing to say on it.

The SG submitted before a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the authorities' affidavits, which began by saying that they are tendering unqualified apology, were reported without context. The SG highlighted that whenever a contempt notice is issued, an alleged contemnor is required by law to first tender an unqualified and unconditional apology.

"I want to say something at the outset. Not on merits. I want to say this - your lordships have issued notice in contempt. We have filed responses in contempt. Your lordships' law is well-settled that whenever we file a response in contempt notices, the first sentence we write is that we hereby tender an unconditional apology. Thereafter, we explain how the contempt is not created. It is with reference to compliance with that law that in every affidavit this is the first paragraph. But now everything, in media and social media, the things are going on that government has apologized and that they have nothing to say. I want to clarify that government has defended and the first paragraph is in compliance with what your lordships' law is", the SG said.

Immoral Trafficking Prevention | Supreme Court Asks NJA To Frame Guidelines For Magistrates' Inquiry About Adult Rescued Women

Case Title: PRAJWALA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: Miscellaneous Application No. 530/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 56/2004

The Supreme Court has called for comprehensive guidelines to ensure uniformity in the conduct of a 'threshold inquiry' by Magistrates under Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act), to determine whether rescued adult sex workers are engaged in sex work voluntarilly.

The requested the National Judicial Academy (NJA) to prepare a comprehensive protocol for Magistrates to conduct such inquiries. The petitioner NGO Prajwala may assist the Academy in preparing the guidelines.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan said that uniform guidelines and appropriate training were necessary to ensure that Magistrates across the country implement the Court's directions on the protection, rehabilitation and reintegration of rescued adults in both letter and spirit.

RJD MP Manoj Jha Moves Supreme Court Challenging Lifelong Immunity To CEC, Election Commissioners; Calls It 'Fraud On Constitution'

RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha has approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, terming it a "fraud" on the Constitution.

Section 16 bars every Court in the country from entertaining or continuing any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioner, for anything done "or purporting" to be done in the discharge of official duty.

Jha has stated that Section 16 confers on unelected officials a shield/blanket immunity which is not even extended to the President, Governor, Member of Parliament, State Legislature, or any judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, because the immunity extends for a lifetime.

Menstrual Hygiene A Fundamental Right: Supreme Court Warns States Of Contempt Over Non-Implementation Of Directions

Case Title: Dr Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors.

Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1000/2022

The Supreme Court recently expressed displeasure over States and Union Territories failing to respond to the Union Government on the steps taken to implement its directions to ensure menstrual hygiene facilities in schools, in the judgment recognising menstrual hygiene as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court warned that it may issue contempt notices to the Chief Secretaries of the defaulting States if they fail to provide the requisite information before the next hearing.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan directed the Union Government to take up the issue seriously with every State and Union Territory and obtain written information detailing the measures taken to give effect to the judgment.

SCBA Files Contempt Petition Against Journalist Nikhil Wagle & MP Sanjay Raut For Comments Against CJI Surya Kant

The Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA) has filed a petition initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Journalist Nikhill Wagle and MP Sanjay Raut for their remarks against the Chief Justice of India. The petition has been filed after obtaining written consent from the Attorney General for India.

SCBA has stated that the statements made by the alleged contemnors are deliberately and knowingly made to scandalise and diminish the authority of the Supreme Court.

As per their petition, after the CJI declinedto meet the delegation of Opposition parties in connection with ongoing protests in Delhi, Wagle posted from the account @waglenikhli stating: " you CJI".

Supreme Court Asks Sanjay Raut To Explain Remarks Against CJI & Judges While Entertaining INDIA Bloc Petition

Case Title: Case : Rahul Gandhi & Others v. Election Commission of India and others

Case Number: WP(c) 1351/2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 15) asked Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut to explain his remarks against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the judiciary while entertaining the petition filed by INDIA bloc leaders against the Election Commission of India (ECI).

In its order, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the petition was being provisionally entertained at Raut's instance, subject to him explaining his conduct.

"In W.P. (C) No. 1351/2026 (Item 25), the petition on behalf of Petitioner No. 6 is entertained on a provisional basis, subject to his explaining his conduct," the bench observed in the order.  Raut is the 6th Petitioner in the joint petition filed by 13 INDIA bloc leaders.

'Whether There Are Classes Among Journalists Who Require Additional Protection' : Supreme Court In Delhi Protest Matter

In the Delhi Protest matter, the Supreme Court yesterday orally observed that journalists can be divided into certain classes, some of whom may require an additional level of protection. The Court however said that it was not presiding on the issue as to 'who is a journalist'.

"We are not presiding that. That would require a very very detailed examination of whether freedom of expression will empower every citizen of this country to be a journalist? That becomes difficult. There will be layers of protection - whether they are accredited journalists, whether they are employed with media houses who are registered under Press Council, whether they are individual freelance journalists, whether they are influencers, etc...well aware that [there are] classes amongst journalists, we'd have to examine", Justice Joymalya Bagchi said.

The petitioner-side urged that that is a larger issue, submissions on which can be made at an appropriate stage. CJI Surya Kant then commented, "We will also keep in mind that if everybody will start claiming [they are] journalists, it will lead to creating problems".

Ex-Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan Moves Supreme Court Against Kerala HC Direction For FIR In CMRL-Exalogic Case

Case Title: Pinarayi Vijayan v Adv KM Shajahan

Case Number: Diary No. 65479/2026

Former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court's direction to register FIR in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case on the basis of the information supplied to the Kerala Police by the Directorate of Enforcement.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing, saying that FIR has already been registered, and there was a threat of coercive action. CJI Surya Kant said that the matter can be listed on October 26/27 once the Court re-opens after the Dussehra break. When Luthra pressed for urgent hearing, CJI said that he can consider listing before a special bench during vacation, subject to the availability of the judges.

"The threat is because now the FIR is registered. All I am saying is, let him be protected, because that is my concern. Otherwise, an 82-year-old gentleman will be put in custody," Luthra said. Luthra argued that the direction was passed by a single bench in a writ petition in the nature of a PIL, although the bench did not have the roster for public interest litigation. He further argued that the single bench passed the direction without hearing the accused, and the division bench refused leave to appeal.

CJP Tiranga Protest | 'If NDMC Order Is Disproportionate, We'll Act' : Supreme Court On Traders' Plea Against Delhi Central Park Shutdown

The Supreme Court on Friday orally observed that it will exercise its powers if there is any unlawful loss of business caused by the shutdown of Delhi's Connaught Place on account of the Tiranga protest announced by the Cockroach Janata Party.

On an oral mention seeking the listing of the petition, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated that if the restriction imposed by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation is found to be disproportionate, then the Court will act as per the principles evolved for compensation.

The Court agreed to list the matter on October 26/27, after the Dussehra break.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Application Alleging Rahul Gandhi Pushed Pregnant Journalist During October 12 March

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 16) agreed to hear an application alleging that Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi pushed a woman journalist, who was three months pregnant, inside the Court premises on October 12 march when he and other opposition leaders marched to the Supreme Court to file a petition against the Election Commission of India.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia mentioned the application before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.  He said that the application has been filed in the petition filed by advocate Digant Mishra, which seeks directions against political demonstrations within Court premises.

Yesterday, during the hearing of the Delhi protest matters, Bhatia had referred to the alleged incident. However, the bench said that it cannot take note of an oral submission, and said that an application has to be filed.

'Is Valorem Court Fee Without Cap Valid?' : Supreme Court To Examine Kerala Court Fee Hike On KHCAA Plea

Case Title: KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION KHCAA Vs STATE OF KERALA

Case Number: D No. 25089/2026

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a petition filed by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) challenging the steep increase in court fees in Kerala, including the imposition of ad valorem court fees without an upper ceiling.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the limited aspect of examining the validity of uncapped ad valorem Court fee.

The Bench was hearing the Association's Special Leave Petition challenging the Kerala High Court judgment dated October 31, 2025, which upheld the amendments introduced through the Kerala Finance Act, 2025, to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Nikhil Wagle & Sanjay Raut Over Remarks Against CJI

Case Title: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION Versus NIKHIL WAGLE AND ANR.

Case Number: CONMT.PET.(Crl.) No. 2/2026

The Supreme Court today issues notice to journalist Nikhil Wagle and Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut asking them to show cause why criminal contempt proceedings should not be taken against them over their comments against the Chief Justice of India.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the Supreme Court Bar Association'splea for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against them.

The bench has dispensed with their personal presence.

There's Stark Non-Compliance With Direction For Cadre Review Of CAPFs, Says Supreme Court

Case Title: Mahendra Singh Deo v Govind Mohan and others

Case Number: CONMT.PET.(C) No. 37/2026 in C.A. No. 13106/2024.

The Supreme Court yesterday orally said that there seems to be a "stark" non-compliance with itsSanjay Prakash judgment(2025), where directions were issued for the Centre to take cadre review within the Central Armed Police Forces within 6 months.

A special bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing contempt petitions filed alleging non-compliance with the Sanjay Prakash judgment, where the Court had barred deputation of IPS officers into Central Armed Police Forces(CAPF).

It asked the Centre, through Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, what their explanation is for not complying with the 2025 directions, particularly cadre review. When Bhati informed that they have initiated the process, Justice Misra asked if the CAPF forces were informed that they are in violation of the Court's order since 6 months time line is over.

Give Mahua Moitra Circuit House Accommodation As Per Protocol After She Gives One Day's Notice: Supreme Court To West Bengal Authorities

Case Title: MAHUA MOITRA vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 000390 / 2026

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that the Nadia District Magistrate's letter requiring Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and other legislators from Nadia district to give three to four days' prior notice for Circuit House accommodation “seems retaliatory".

The Court modified the DM's direction by stating that she only needs to inform the district administration a day before her visit.

The Court stated that Moitra's request for accommodation must be processed as per protocol, overruling the State's objection that it can be only as per availability.

Twisha Sharma Death | Supreme Court Stays Trial, Issues Notice On Father's Plea To Transfer Case To Delhi

Case Title: Navnidhi Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case Number: Diary No. 58446 / 2026

The Supreme Court today stayed the ongoing trial before a Bhopal sessions court in the unnatural death case of Twisha Sharma.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), her husband Samarth Singh and mother-in-law Giribala Singh on a plea by her father seeking transfer of the proceedings from Madhya Pradesh to Delhi.

Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra & Siddharth Aggarwal along with Advocate Abhijeet Sinha appeared for Twisha's father Navnidhi Sharma. He has sought the transfer due to an apprehension that the case would not receive a fair trial in Madhya Pradesh because Giribala Singh, one of the accused, is a former judge and is influential in the state.

Rules On Airfare Pricing Finalised, To Be Published Within Two Weeks: Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: S. Laxminarayanan v. Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1124/2025 Diary No. 44885 / 2025

The Union Government informed the Supreme Court on Friday (October 16) that rules to regulate airfare pricing have been finalised and received administrative approval, and would be published within two weeks.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Singh was hearing a PIL filed by S. Laxminarayanan concerning arbitrary and exorbitant airfare pricing by private airlines.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the rules had been finalised and administrative approval had been granted for their publication.

'If No Concrete Steps Taken, We Will Sit On Dharna' : Supreme Court To Centre On Lack Of Pedestrian Crossing Near Delhi HC

Case Title: S.RAJASEEKARAN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. AND ORS.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 295/2012 PIL-W

The Supreme Court today (October 16) again reiterated its concern over the absence of a pedestrian crossing at the Delhi High Court and orally warned that, if no action is taken at the next hearing, the judges will have to come and stage a dharna (protest) near it until it's done.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan said this on the lack of basic pedestrian infrastructure at the Mathura Road crossing, which witnesses heavy foot traffic from court visitors and the public. On September 15, Senior Advocate and amicus Gaurav Agarwal informed the court that the government added a red light, but the bench suggested speed breakers and rumble strips near the Delhi High Court crossing. Justice Pardiwala had said the matter is very important and had warned that the judges would visit to see if the needful has been done.

Subsequently, on October 5, the Court again directed that a pedestrian crossing be installed at the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Garden on Mathura Road on a priority basis.

Supreme Court Asks ECI To Produce Video Records Of Vote-Counting In 2023 Sringeri Assembly Election

Case Title: TD RAJEGOWDA Versus DN JEEVARAJA AND ORS

Case Number: C.A. No. 7369/2026

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 14) rebuked the Election Commission of India for not maintaining the records of the vote counting in Karnataka's Sringeri Assembly Constituency in an appeal filed by Congress member TD Rajegowda.

Rajegowda had approached the Supreme Court after he was unseated as the MLA pursuant to the Karnataka High Court's direction to recount votes, which resulted in BJP's DN Jeevaraja being sworn in as the MLA from the constituency.

Earlier, the Supreme Court directedrestoration 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. Subsequently, it asked for the original records. The ECI had produced in sealed cover the videography of the recounting that happened in 2026 but didn't produce the video footage of the original counting of postal votes.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former RG Kar College Principal Sandip Ghosh In CBI Case

Case Title: SANDIP GHOSH vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION|

Case Number: Diary No. - 49942/2026

The Supreme Court on October 15 granted bail to Sandip Ghosh, former RG Kar Medical College Hospital at Kolkata, who was chargesheeted in a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case involving alleged financial irregularities at the college and manipulation of merit scores to accommodate undeserving candidates.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale allowed Ghosh's appeal against the Calcutta High Court's February 23, 2026 order rejecting his bail application.

The Court took note of the period of incarceration undergone by Ghosh and the progress of the trial, observing that he had been in custody for more than two years and that only seven out of 147 witnesses had been examined so far.

Delhi Protest | Supreme Court Refuses To Examine Challenge To Section 163 BNSS, Issues Notice On Plea Challenging S. 172 BNSS

Case Title: Samriddhi Das v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: Diary No. 64055/2026

In the pleas arising from the recent Delhi protests, the Supreme Court on Thursday (October 15) said that it will not examine constitutional validity of Section 163 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 144 of CrPC), which empowers executive magistrates to issue prohibitory orders.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of Section 144 CrPC, the provision corresponding to Section 163 BNSS, in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, (1961) 3 SCR 423.

The Court, however, notice on a challenge to Section 172 BNSS(which was not there in CrPC), which empowers police officers to detain or remove people who resist, refuse or disregard their directions, and directed the Union Government to file its reply within two weeks.

Supreme Court Stays Demolition Of CSI Church Built As Community Hall In Tamil Nadu's Tenkasi District

Case Title: Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association v. District Collector

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 37197/2026 Diary No. 64645 / 2026

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 16) stayed the demolition of a Church of South India (CSI) church in Thippanampatti village in Tamil Nadu's Tenkasi district, in a plea challenging the High Court order finding the structure unauthorised and ordering its restoration as a community hall.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Singh issued notice on the plea filed by the church trust.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appeared for the church trust.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Allahabad HC Order Banning Hookah Bars In Restaurants

Case Title: M/S. GOOD LUCK FOOD AND BEVERAGES v THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 35854/2026

The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh in a plea challenging theAllahabad High Court's order, which held that hookah bars and hookah services can not be provided even in "Designated Smoking Areas".

Vide order dated September 29, a bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary dismissed a batch of connected petitions concerning the operation of hookah bars and the provision of hookah services in restaurants. It held that hookah service in a Designated Smoking Area is also prohibited under Rule 4(3) of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008, as amended in 2017, read with the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA).

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice on a special leave petition filed by M/S. Good Luck Food And Beverages challenging the High Court's judgment. It has also issued notice on a prayer for interim relief.

Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam Should Have Been Granted Bail Long Ago: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

Former Supreme Court Judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia has expressed the personal opinion that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who have been in jail for over six years as undertrial prisoners in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, should have been granted bail much earlier.

Justice Dhulia made the remarks during the Third Sir Syed Lecture on the topic 'Vision of Justice in the Indian Constitution', while responding to a question from an audience member on judicial independence.

The audience member questioned how the judiciary could be considered independent when Khalid and Imam continued to remain incarcerated, while several former judges had been appointed to the Rajya Sabha or as Governors after allegedly delivering judgments favouring the ruling BJP government.

Supreme Court Directs States, UTs To Notify Anti-Human Trafficking Units As Police Station

Case Title: Prajwala v. Union of India

The Supreme Court has directed all States and Union Territories to take steps to confer police station status on Anti-Human Trafficking Units (ATHUs) by issuing appropriate notifications in accordance with law, emphasising that the measure is necessary for the effective implementation of its Victim Protection Plan to combat human trafficking.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan directed the Home Departments of all States and Union Territories to give effect to the direction at the earliest. It also asked the Union Government to take up the issue with all States and UTs and ensure that the necessary notifications are issued.

The direction came during an ongoing hearing in which the Court reviewed compliance with its May 29, 2026 judgment concerning human trafficking of women and children for commercial sexual exploitation.

CJI Surya Kant Inaugurates Ladakh HC Bench, Assures All Matters From Region Will Be Listed On Single Day In Supreme Court

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Sunday inaugurated the Ladakh Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in Leh and announced that the Supreme Court would list all matters originating from Ladakh on a single day, once adequate video-conferencing facilities are available to lawyers practising before the new Bench.

The CJI said the Supreme Court would also hear these matters on a day-to-day basis through video conferencing, enabling lawyers from Leh and Kargil to argue cases before the apex court without having to travel to Delhi.

The arrangement, he said, would spare litigants from Ladakh the time and expense involved in travelling to the national capital.

YSRCP Moves Supreme Court Alleging Violence Prevented Its Candidates From Filing Nominations For AP Municipal Polls

The Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) has approached the Supreme Court alleging that mass violence in Andhra Pradesh has prevented its candidates from filing nominations for the Urban Local Body elections.

The party has sought police protection for candidates, an extension of the deadline for filing nominations, and the designation of additional and alternative nomination centres to enable candidates to submit their papers safely.

The Special Leave Petition challenges an October 18 order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court refusing to extend the nomination period by one day. The High Court had dismissed the party's application seeking an extension, holding that the deadline had expired and that extending it would amount to interference with the election process.

Supreme Court Directs Centre To Publicise Scheme For Interim Compensation To Road Accident Victims

Case Title: S.RAJASEEKARAN v UNION OF INDIA

The Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to give wide publicity to the Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026, framed under Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to ensure that road accident victims are aware of their right to seek interim compensation.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan also asked the Centre to clarify whether the scheme covers accidents involving uninsured vehicles, after the amicus curiae Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal and an applicant appearing in person pointed out that the scheme appeared to be confined to cases involving insured vehicles.

The Court directed the Union to ensure that the scheme is published in the Official Gazette at the earliest and to inform it by the next hearing how it proposes to make the scheme operational.

Why Teaching Post Vacancies Notified Separately For Males & Females? Supreme Court Asks Delhi Govt On Transgender Candidate's Plea

Case Title: JANE KAUSHIK v LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12480/2026

The Supreme Court has questioned the rationale for notifying teaching vacancies separately for male and female candidates, asking the Delhi Government to explain the legal basis for such gender-based bifurcation and how transgender persons would be accommodated in public employment.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran raised the questions while issuing notice on petitions filed by Jane Kaushik and Praveen Singh, concerning the exclusion of transgender persons from vacancy notifications issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB).

The Court asked why the recruitment notification for public appointments continues to be gender-binary, that is, only available for the male and female categories, respectively. It has passed an order asking the NCT of Delhi what the constitutional or statutory basis is for notifying vacancies based on gender.

Don't Meddle In Domain Of Other Agencies: Supreme Court To ED In CMRL-Exalogic Case

Case Title: Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv KM Shajahan

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 20437/2026

The Supreme Court today told the Enforcement Directorate (ED) not to meddle in the domain of other investigative agencies, while temporarily staying the investigation into a corruption FIR lodged by the Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau against former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his kin in the CMRL-Exalogic case.

A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing petitions filed by Vijayan and the other accused challenging the Kerala High Court single judge's decision to direct registration of an FIR on the basis of information supplied by the ED under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The High Court had quashed the state's decision to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations.

BNSS Expands Safeguards For Public Servants Before Judicial Order For FIR Registration : Supreme Court Explains In Pinarayi Vijayan Case

Case Title: Pinarayi Vijayan v Adv KM Shajahan

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 20437/2026

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 21) observed that Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) expands the safeguards available to public servants before a Magistrate orders an investigation against them, unlike the erstwhile Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observation while allowing former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other petitioners to challenge a Kerala High Court Single Judge's direction to register an FIR in the CMRL-Exalogic case.

“Today 175 subsection 4, if it is a public servant, an opinion of the public servant is taken before a direction magistrate gives for FIR. That public servant has the right to have his arguments heard on merits before shutting the door by saying that you have no locus”, Justice Bagchi said during the hearing.

National Song Replaced With 'Religious War Song' From Anandamath : Ex-IAS Officer's Plea In Supreme Court

Case : BALAKRISHNAN SATHYABHAMA MAVOJI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER | Diary No. 62724 / 2026

Case Title: BALAKRISHNAN SATHYABHAMA MAVOJI v UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Case Number: IA No _ of 2026

A former IAS officer has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Centre's January 28 and July 9, 2026 orders prescribing a six-stanza version of 'Vande Mataram' for singing and playing on specified occasions. He has contended that installing the six-stanza version as the national anthem is an attempt to convert India into a divine sectarian theistic state.

The petition has been filed by a former IAS officer from Kerala, Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. He has filed the petition in this representative capacity as Chairman of the Anupathika Prathinidhya Prakshobha Samithi (APPS), arguing that he is an individual who retains his right to choose faith and belief system, and the government can't impose any sectarian and theistic faith by imposing the specific parts where the Hindu Goddess is revered.

The petitioner describes himself as a Hindu belonging to a Scheduled Caste community who does not profess the Vaishnavite or Saktheya religious practices referred to in the six-stanza composition. He argues that compulsory singing of the version amounts to compelling him to pay obeisance to deities and a religious doctrine that he does not accept.

Supreme Court Asks SCBA Not To Declare Result Of November 2 General Body Meeting On Electoral Reforms

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to hold its scheduled general body meeting on November 2 to discuss election reforms, but directed that voting must take place by secret ballot and that the outcome must not be declared. The results are to be placed before the Court in a sealed envelope.

The directions were issued by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant after Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, who heads the Court-appointed committee examining the SCBA reform, made an oral mention and raised concerns over the proposed meeting. Gupta pointed out that the SCBA had called a special general body meeting to pass two resolutions linked to theCourt's May 29 order, one relating to proximity card entry and the other concerning veteran members, ahead of the November 5 hearing in the matter of SCBA v BD Kaushik(in which the Court is monitoring the SCBA electoral reforms).

Gupta submitted that while he was not opposing any resolution, the meeting was being convened without consultation and appeared to overreach the Court's order, especially since the matter is listed for hearing just three days later. He also cautioned that any resolution passed would become binding immediately.

Supreme Court Permits Ashish Mishra To Visit Lakhimpur Kheri For Diwali

Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022

The Supreme Court on Monday heard the bail-related proceedings of Ashish Mishra, son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra Teni, in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case and allowed him permission to visit his hometown to celebrate Diwali with his family and close relatives till November 16.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was seized of the matter arising from the October 3, 2021 incident in which five persons, including four farmers and a journalist, were killed after vehicles allegedly linked to Mishra's convoy ran over protesting farmers in Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. The farmers were agitating against the now-repealed farm laws.

The Court had earlier granted him bailsubject to the condition that he not enter Lakhimpur Kheri except to appear in the trial. The condition was later relaxedto permit him to visit his hometown on weekends. Though bail was confirmed, the Court kept the matter pending to monitor the progress of the trial.

'Go To Trial Court': Supreme Court Refuses To Modify Bail Condition For Delhi Riots UAPA Accused To Attend Law University

Case Title: SHADAB AHMED Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Case Number: MA 3070/2026 in Crl.A. No. 15/2026 Diary No. 60223 / 2026

The Supreme Court today(October 26) refused to entertain the plea of Delhi riots larger conspiracy case accused Shadab Ahmad to leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi in order to attend classes at a Law University in Ghaziabad.

The Court dismissed the plea as withdrawn giving liberty to the accused to approach the Trial Court.

Ahmad has filed a miscellaneous application seeking modification of bail condition number (ii), which prohibits him from leaving the NCTD without prior permission of the Trial Court. He also sought modification of the bail condition number (v) to mark his attendance in the Station House Officer, Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Marg once a week instead of two days(Monday and Thursday) as imposed by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Seeks ECI's Response On Plea Challenging Maharashtra SIR

Case : ARUN ANANDAGIRI Vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1330/2026

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Election Commission of India on a writ petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Maharashtra.

The Court however declined to pass ex parte orders to extend the date for claims and objections or to restrain the ECI from publishing the final voters' list. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana posted the matter on November 5.

Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, appearing for the petitioner Arun Anandagiri, submitted that out of 9 crore voters in the State, nearly 33% (3 crores) have been struck off after the draft rolls were published, and 1.22 crore voters were deleted on the ground of 'logical discrepancy'. Datar said that these deleted voters are asked by the ECI to file Form 6 to register as fresh voters. He said that Form 6 is meant for first-time voters, and persons who have voted previously cannot be asked to fill Form 6.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking CBI Probe Against AIADMK MLAs Who Resigned To Join CM Vijay-Led TVK

Case Title: M. SRINIVASAN v. THE UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: Diary No. 35724-2026

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a writ petition against 5 MLAs of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) who resigned and joined Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay-led Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) following the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order in a writ petition filed by one M Srinivasan.

Justice Bagchi orally observed that the issue of an MLA resigning to join another party was something political parties could look into and there is "nothing criminal" about it. When the petitioner's counsel submitted that there's already an FIR registered, the judge replied, "then let the FIR be investigated. Law will take its own course".

Supreme Court Criticises Tamil Nadu Govt For Dragging 1996 Riot Compensation Matter

Case Title: THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs D.G.RAJAN ALIAS GNANARAJ

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 13089-13091/2025

The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the Tamil Nadu government for repeatedly seeking adjournments in a matter concerning compensation for property and business losses caused by communal riots of 1996 in Thoothukudi (Tuticorin), questioning its failure to ensure timely relief to the victims.

A bench comprising Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria expressed displeasure over the State government's approach, observing that despite appointing commissions to address grievances following communal riots and arson, the authorities often fail to ensure that the promised relief reaches those affected.

"So tired of this matter, I think I will carry this through my demitting the office...It is a simple matter; the State ought not to be dragging its feet," Justice Bhatti remarked after the bench was informed that a letter seeking an adjournment had been circulated last Saturday.

Supreme Court Directs States & High Courts To Ensure Availability Of Washrooms, Ladies' Bar Rooms For Women Lawyers

Case Title: SARIKA TYAGI v. UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 770/2026

The Supreme Court today directed all States/UTs and High Courts to ensure availability of exclusive bar rooms for women lawyers as well as washrooms within their respective jurisdictions.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, emphasizing that the States/UTs must allocate necessary funds wherever required and the High Courts' building-cum-infrastructure committees must oversee implementation.

The order was passed in a petition filed by certain women advocates highlighting the absence of ladies' bar rooms and other essential facilities in courts across the country. Itstated:

Supreme Court Warns Rajasthan Of CBI Probe Into Regularisation Of Illegal Mining Along Jojari-Luni-Bandi River System

Case Title: In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan

Case Number: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8 of 2025

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) warned that it may order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged illegal mining and the regularisation of mining areas along the Jojari-Luni-Bandi river system in Rajasthan, questioning why State authorities had granted mining leases in areas where illegal mining had been detected, and regularising illegal leases.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta cautioned that several officials could face serious consequences if the State failed to take corrective action, while expressing concern over the authorities' failure to protect the rivers despite repeated judicial directions.

“What have you done about providing the statistics of the mining, illegal mining in the rivers? What have you done? You have regularized. You know, Mr. Raju, when illegal mining was pointed out, your officers went ahead and regularized those leases. We feel that if you don't pull up your socks and don't mend your ways, we'll be compelled to direct a CBI investigation. That would land many of your officers in hot waters,” Justice Mehta told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for Rajasthan.

ECI Cites Supreme Court Orders To Justify Filing Of 16.10 Lakh Appeals Against Voter Inclusions In West Bengal SIR

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1246 of 2026

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that 16.10 lakh appeals filed against the inclusion of voters after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the West Bengal were filed by the officers of the State's Chief Electoral Officer (CEO).

Further, the ECI has cited Supreme Court orders to justify its decision to file those appeals.

In a counter-affidavit filed on October 26 in a petition challenging 14 alleged unilateral decisions concerning the SIR exercise, the ECI has cited the Supreme Court orders in Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India dated April 1, 2026 and April 6, 2026.

Can Election Expenses Be Recovered From Candidate Who Resigns To Re-Contest For Another Party? Supreme Court To Decide

Case Title: K SUTHAN Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 36231/2026

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea raising the issue of election expenditure recovery from a candidate who resigns after getting elected from one political party in order to recontest from another party.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, calling for the response of the Union, the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, certain MLAs in Tamil Nadu who resigned from their posts and sought to re-contest in bye-elections, and others.

The petitioner, a practicing advocate, challenges a Madras High Court order, which dismissed his writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to ECI and CEO, Tamil Nadu to frame an "Election Expenditure Security" mechanism as well as a 5-year disqualification from Parliamentary/State Assembly elections for voluntarily resigning legislators (without compelling reason).

Journalist Siddique Kappan Moves Supreme Court Seeking Release Of Passport

Case Title: SIDHIQUE KAPPAN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Case Number: MA 2979/2026 in Crl.A. No. 1534/2022

The Supreme Court is set to hear on Monday(November 2) Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan's plea seeking release of his passport, which was deposited as part of bail conditions in the Hathras conspiracy case.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe adjourned it to Monday after counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh sought time to seek instructions.

Earlier, Kappan had filed anothermiscellaneous application for relaxation of the bail condition that he shall record his presence at the police station in Uttar Pradesh every Monday, which was allowed. On September 9, 2022, the Supreme Court's former Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat granted bail to Kappan while allowing an appeal against the order of the Allahabad High Court denying him bail.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Pregnant Journalist's Plea Seeking FIR Against Rahul Gandhi Over Alleged Assault In SC March

Case Title: Digant Mishra v. Union Of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1360/2026

The 3-month pregnant journalist who was allegedly pushed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi during the gathering in the Supreme Court on October 12, when Gandhi came to file the INDIA bloc's writ petition against SIR, has moved the Supreme Court seeking impleadment in a case related to political demonstrations within Court premises.

The applicant, Richa Parashar, alleges that Gandhi pushed her during the Opposition leaders' march to the Supreme Court on October 12, at which time she was 11 weeks and 3 days pregnant.

“Respondent No.4 suddenly pushed her towards the gate, with such force that she lost her balance and fell, and had to break the fall with her hands. The push was delivered openly, in a crowded place, in the presence of security personnel, journalists and other persons, despite her express pleas, and was not a mere jostle of the crowd”, the application states.

'Newsrooms Will Shutdown' : Digital Wings Of Legacy Media Move Supreme Court Challenging Personal Data Protection Law

Case Title: DIGITAL NEWS PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: Diary No. 45589-2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a writ petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) challenging the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

DNPA, an organisation comprising the digital wings of 21 major news organisations such as The Indian Express, The Hindu, India Today, Times Group, Zee, NDTV, Network 18, etc., has contended that the provisions adversely affect press freedom.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks to declare Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37 and 44(3) of the DPDP Act unconstitutional. It also challenges Rules 16, 17 and 23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025. Yukta Mudgal, an independent investigative journalist based in New Delhi, is also a petitioner.

LS Speaker Doesn't Appear In UBT Plea Against ShivSena MPs' Merger; Supreme Court Lists Matter For Final Disposal

Case Title: ARVIND GANPAT SAWANT v HONBLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA AND ORS.|

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 886/2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 27) scheduled for final disposal in December a plea filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Ganpat Sawant challenging Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla's decision to recognise the merger of six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena, after noting that the Speaker had not entered appearance despite notice being issued in July.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed that the matter be listed on December 8 for final disposal.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sawant, expressed concern over the delay in the proceedings, pointing out that the Court had issued notice in July but the Speaker had yet to enter appearance.

'We Will Examine': Supreme Court Adjourns Pleas Alleging Unilateral ECI Decisions

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 1246/2026

The Supreme Court today adjourned the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the functioning of the Election Commission of India, granting petitioners 10 days' time to file a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the ECIyesterday.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and alleging that several decisions of the Election Commission of India (ECI), including those concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, were taken without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.

During the brief hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing in the petition filed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and INDIA Bloc leaders, requested the Court to pass an order to preserve the file-notings and internal communications, saying that it was crucial to decide if the decisions were unanimous or unilateral.

Will Formulate Guiding Principles For Compulsory Rural Service By Medical Students: Supreme Court

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 332/2024

Citation: ASHISH REDU VS. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA.

The Supreme Court today(October 27) expressed its inclination to lay down some guidelines based on constitutional principles for mandatory compulsory rural service by medical students across the country.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe orally expressed this in view of the lack of clarity on the Union's stand on the same. It may be recalled that the bench is hearing a writ petition challenging a notification issued by the Karnataka Government that required medical students to fulfil one year of compulsory public rural service in order to be eligible for permanent registration with the Karnataka Medical Council.

In previous hearings, the bench has questionedthe exemption and asked why the private institutions don't want to serve people in rural India. In the latest hearing, the Court suggested that there should be a uniform policy regarding compulsory rural serviceto be rendered by medical students. The Solicitor General agreed to get instructions from the Centre regarding such a pan-Indian policy.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre On Pleas Challenging Mandate To Sing Six-Stanza Version Of Vande Mataram

Case Title: BHIMRAO DURYODHAN BORKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER & BALAKRISHNAN SATHYABHAMA MAVOJI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Case Number: Diary No. 61620 / 2026 & Diary No. 62724 / 2026

The Supreme Court today issued notice on two petitions challenging the Union Government's January 28 and July 9, 2026 orders prescribing a six-stanza version of 'Vande Mataram' for singing and playing on specified occasions.

One petition has been filed by BD Borkar, a Scheduled Caste Buddhist, Ambedkarite activist and former National President of the All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF).

The other petition is filed by a former IAS officer from Kerala, Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community.

Rising Acid-Attack Incidents Indicative Of Policy Failure: Supreme Court Calls On Union To Revisit Guidelines

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

In a matterpertaining to acid-attack survivors, the Supreme Court today impressed upon the Union of India to revisit its policy guidelines, considering that the incidents of acid attack have risen despite the guidelines.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana conveyed its opinion to Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, calling on the Union to examine the National Crime Bureau Records data with regard to the incidence of acid attacks over the years.

The CJI remarked, "Despite your guidelines (to restrict retail sale of acid), unfortunate incidents are taking place. Unfortunate incidents are increasing. That means there is some fault and your guidelines have not been able to achieve the object. That itself is a good ground for you to revisit the entire issue. You can't just be happy and satisfied that you have issued the guidelines and the burden is passed on to the states.

Congress Kerala Apologises To CJI Surya Kant For Disrespectful X Post, Says Person Liable Removed

The Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) has tendered an unconditional apology to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for a disrespectful post published on the official X account of the Indian National Congress Kerala. The KPCC stated that it was posted without authorisation, and the person responsible for the post, Vijay Thottathil, has been removed from his position.

In its reply to a legal notice sent by Advocate Meenesh Dubey, the Joint Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association, KPCC President Sunny Joseph tendered an unconditional apology to the CJI for the publication and the disrespect conveyed by its language. The committee also said that Thottathil had been asked to issue a public apology.

The post, published on October 12 and later deleted after it sparked a controversy, demanded the CJI's resignation and suggested that the organisation would find a replacement for him.

Why Most Medicines Kept Out Of Price Control Regime? Supreme Court Questions Centre, Reserves Order

Case Title: Kishan Chand Jain v. Ethics And Medical Registration Board (EMRB)

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 794/2023 Diary No. 25176 / 2023

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned why the Union government was reluctant to bring a wider range of medicines under price control, observing that its reliance on market forces and concerns about pharmaceutical-industry growth cannot justify leaving patients exposed to medicine prices that may be hundreds of times higher than procurement costs.

“You are dealing with the lives of people, Ms. Bhati. Don't take it as a commerce. Treat it as a life of the poorest person of this country. You are talking only in the terms of commerce, economic policy, this, that. Is this a matter in which economic policy will be supreme as compared to the life of the citizens at large?” Justice Sandeep Mehta asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who was defending the Centre's pharmaceutical pricing policy.

The Court reserved its order in the case concerning regulation of medicine prices after questioning the Centre over the substantial difference between the maximum retail price (MRP) of medicines and the prices at which retailers procure them. The Court also questioned why a large proportion of medicines remained outside the stricter price-control regime under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 (DPCO).

'Now Contest Elections': Supreme Court Disposes YSRCP Plea Alleging Obstruction Of Municipal Polls' Nominations

Case Title: YUVAJANA SRAMIKA RYTHU CONGRESS PARTY Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 37476/2026

The Supreme Court today disposed of a plea filed by the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) seeking extension of the deadline for filing nominations in the Andhra Pradesh municipal elections.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana closed the matter, after it was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for AP State Election Commission) that the time for filing nominations had been extended wherever any difficulty had been found to have taken place.

Noting that the nomination period had already ended, Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant remarked, “Now contest the elections, all the best.”  The bench said that it will pass a detailed order to ensure smooth conduct of elections.

Supreme Court Needs Proper Roster Ruling Out Manual Intervention Of CJI: Justice Oka

Former Supreme Court Judge Justice Abhay S Oka has said that the Supreme Court needs to introduce a proper roster system that rules out the possibility of manual intervention by the Chief Justice of India in the allocation of cases to benches.

Speaking on the topic "Accountability of Judges" at a seminar organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms in New Delhi, Justice Oka said that the absence of a proper roster in the Supreme Court raises questions about how cases are assigned to particular benches.

"The object of the roster is to rule out the possibility of manual intervention in listing. If there is a roster, the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Supreme Court will not have any right to manually intervene in the listing of any particular case," he said.

Ex-TN Minister KN Nehru Moves Supreme Court Against Madras HC Direction For FIR Registration Based On ED Materials

Case Title: Thiru KN Nehru v. IS Inbadurai

Case Number: Diary No. 67319/2026

Former Tamil Nadu Minister KN Nehru has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's direction to register an FIR against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of the information shared by the Directorate of Enforcement with the State Police.

In October 2025, the ED had written to the Tamil Nadu police chief alleging that the Minister and his associates were involved in a cash-for-job scam in the MAWS department. The ED had asked the police to take action against the Minister and his associates under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Since there was no action based on these materials, writ petitions were filed by Athinarayanan and by AIADMK Rajya Sabha member IS Inbadurai seeking directions to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption(DVAC) to register a complaint based on information received from the ED.

CBI Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court To Transfer 2021 West Bengal Post-Poll Violence Cases

Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. DEBASIS GHOSH AND ORS. and connected casces

Case Number: T.P.(Crl.) No. 632/2025 & connected cases

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Wednesday withdrew its petitions filed seeking to transfer the trial of 2021 post-poll violence cases out of West Bengal.

Citing “changed circumstances”, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, sought permission to withdraw the transfer petitions before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

The petitions had been filed in connection with cases arising from the post-poll violence that followed the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections.

Selection Panel Didn't Consider If CEC Or ECs Had Election Experience: Petitioner Produces RTI Records Before Supreme Court

Case Title: Suri Payala v. Union of India |

Case Number: Diary No. 63078/2026

A petitioner challenging the appointments of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking to produce records obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to allege that the selection committees did not specifically assess whether the appointees had experience in conducting elections or possessed the requisite integrity.

In an application seeking amendment of his writ petition, petitioner Suri Payala has contended that records obtained from the Legislative Department show that the material placed before the Search Committee and the Selection Committee consisted primarily of lists of candidates, service particulars, dates and service records. According to him, the records do not disclose any specific assessment of the candidates' integrity or experience in election management and conduct.

The petitioner has challenged the appointments made in March 2024 and February 2025 under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Post-Diwali Delhi Will Be Very Bad, Judges Cannot Stay Home To Escape Pollution: Justice Vikram Nath

The Supreme Court on Wednesday remarked that Delhi's air pollution would be significantly worse after Diwali, with Justice Vikram Nath remarking that judges could not stay at home to avoid the city's polluted air.

The observation came when the Court was fixing a date for hearing a matter. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising requested that it be listed after the Diwali vacation, on November 17, while counsel for the respondent sought a date in the first week of November.

“In a lighter note, in any case, Diwali is an extremely polluted time in Delhi. Please keep it on the 17th,” Jaising said.

Supreme Court Asks Nikhil Wagle To Appear Virtually & Sanjay Raut Physically In Contempt Case Over Comments Against CJI

Case Title: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION Vs NIKHIL WAGLE

Case Number: CONMT.PET.(Crl.) No. 2/2026 Diary No. 65315 / 2026

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed journalist Nikhil Wagle to appear virtually and Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut to appear physically on the next date of hearing in a criminal contempt petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) over their remarks against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the judiciary.

They have to appear at 2 PM on November 17.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was hearing the matter. The petition was filed after obtaining written consent from the Attorney General for India, who opined that the comments of the respondents were scandalous.

Delhi SIR : Why Deleted Voters Asked To File Form 6 When They Were On 2026 Rolls? Supreme Court Asks ECI

Case Title: Anjali Bharadwaj & another v. Election Commission of India and others |

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1188/2026

With respect to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, the Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Election Commission of India over asking persons deleted from the draft roll for not filling up enumeration forms to use Form 6 to register as new voters, when they were on the 2026 rolls.

The Court pointed out that Form 6 is meant for first-time voters, where the applicants have to declare that they have not voted before. The Court underscored that in Delhi, there would be various persons on whom enumeration forms could not be served as they changed their addresses, or have temporarily gone out of the city for work. Why cannot they be given an opportunity to fill enumeration forms or file Form 8(to show change in address), instead of filing Form 6, the Court asked.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the writ petition filed by Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri raising issues regarding the Delhi SIR process. Responding to the concerns flagged by the bench, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, for the ECI, said that the authorities will examine them and take remedial steps. Naidu also said that the ECI will consider extending the deadline.

'Logical Discrepancy' Category Allowed In Bengal SIR As Interim Arrangement, Its Legality Yet To Be Decided : Supreme Court

Case Title: Anjali Bharadwaj & another v. Election Commission of India and others |

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1188/2026

The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally commented that it is yet to adjudicate on the validity of the "Logical Discrepancy(LD)" category being used by the Election Commission of India in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process of electoral rolls. The Court further said that it allowed the use of this category in West Bengal as an "interim arrangement".

The Court further clarified thatits Bihar SIR judgmentcannot be seen as an endorsement of the "Logical Discrepancy" category, as it was not used in Bihar.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was part of a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana, made these remarks while hearing petitions concerning the Delhi SIR.

AITUC Moves Supreme Court Challenging 'Industry' Definition In Industrial Relations Code 2020

Case Title: ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS TAMIL NADU v. UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 330/2026

The Supreme Court is set to examine a petition filed by the All India Trade Union Congress, Tamil Nadu challenging the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 which came into effect in November last year.

The petitioner alleges negation of the functional and dominant-nature tests laid down by a Constitution bench of the Court in 1978 Bangalore Water Supply case and assails extinguishment of workers' access to statutory industrial dispute resolution framework.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana today tentatively listed the matter next month.

'Digital Dacoity' : Supreme Court Calls For Strong Action Against Cyber Crimes

Case Title: GOURAB KUMAR SAHA v. UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No.439/2026

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant today expressed a strong view over persons accused of digital arrest crimes. The Chief Justice said that if the law contains any scope, then such 'ruthless criminals', who target senior citizens and retired persons, must be punished before trial.

"Given a chance, we will not allow an accused of a digital arrest to be released on bail by any court. You're talking of consolidation. Given a chance, we will set aside the bail order. If the law has any scope to really punish them before trial, that must also be adopted. The nature of crime they are committing - This is the newest crime being committed against senior citizens, retired people, who are being targeted by these ruthless criminals and they must be dealt with in the most ruthless manner. Extortion is the simplest. This is prima facie digital dacoity", CJI Kant commented while hearing a case involving allegations of digital arrest.

The judge further remarked that on jurisdiction for investigation, the place where a victim was victimized is kept in mind by the court, not the one preferred by the accused. "We do not feel that your right of aggregation overrides the inconvenience of victims or the investigating agencies. Where does the convenience lie? Should we drag all the victims across the country to Delhi because you pray that you were a victim of some persuasion by the bigger stakeholders in this organized activity?", added Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

Supreme Court Stays Punjab & Haryana HC Order Restraining Rohtak Courts From Hearing Bail Pleas In DHL Real Estate Scam Case

Case Title: Sidhant Ohlan v. State of Haryana

Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 64731/2026

The Supreme Court has stayed a Punjab and Haryana High Court order restraining judicial officers in Rohtak Sessions Division from entertaining bail applications in a case involving an alleged large-scale real estate investment scam in which investors were allegedly cheated of crores of rupees.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the order on October 27 while hearing a special leave petition filed challenging the High Court's September 30 order.

The Court issued notice, returnable in four weeks, and stayed the operation of the impugned order in the meantime.

Uddhav Sena's Disqualification Plea Infructuous After 14th Maharashtra Assembly Term Expired : Shinde To Supreme Court

Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024

In the Shiv Sena dispute, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta argued today before the Supreme Court that Eknath Shinde faction MLAs cannot be declared disqualified after the Maharashtra Assembly's term has expired, opposing the Uddhav Thackeray faction's plea to have the MLAs declared disqualified under the anti-defection law.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the plea filed by Shive Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) member Sunil Prabhu challenging the Maharashtra Speaker's refusal to disqualify MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction under the 10th Schedule.

Another petition, filed by Uddhav Thackeray, was also listed before the bench, which challenges the ECI decision that recognized the Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena and allowed it the use of the 'bow and arrow' symbol.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Bars Advocates From Approaching Court Officers After Lawyer's Son Abuses Staff Over Phone

Justice Sanjay Kumar today barred Advocates on Record from approaching Court officers in his Court after an Advocate's son called an officer and used abusive language against her.

This morning, when the mentioning was being made in Court 8, Justice Kumar called an advocate-on-record and questioned whether he had taught his son no manners on how to speak to a woman.

Justice Kumar told the advocate: "Who spoke to her on the phone? You spoke to her? Your son spoke to her and you have obviously not taught him how to speak to a lady. Perhaps its time you did so first. Now, as a consequence of your action, from now henceforth all physical appearances will be immediately given as soon as the case is over, no one will speak to my court officers about it, be it in person or on phone. No one will approach them or speak to them."

Impress Upon Union To Provide Basic Amenities To NCLTs : Supreme Court Tells AG

Case Title: In Re : Appointment of Judicial and Technical Members and Inadequate Infrastructure in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Ancillary Issues

Case Number: SMW(C) No. 16/2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked Attorney General R Venkataramani to impress upon the Union Government to ensure that basic amenities are provided to the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLTs) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at the earliest.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana washearing a suo motu case concerning infrastructure and basic amenities at the principal and regional benches of the NCLT.

During the hearing, the Attorney General informed the court that the government's status report had been shared with the NCLT. He also proposed holding a meeting to discuss the requirements.

Unfortunate That Ministry Of Corporate Affairs Has Hijacked NCLT Staff Appointments : Supreme Court

Case Title: Ziyaul Haq and others v Union of India and others

Case Number: WP(c) No. 1385/2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concern over the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) taking control of appointments to staff positions at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), observing that the Ministry appeared to be seeking complete control over the institution.

"The Ministry wants to have complete grip over the institution. And that's what's most unfortunate," Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana made the observations while hearing a matter concerning the appointment of staff members working with the NCLT's judicial members.

Supreme Court Refuses Mahua Moitra's Plea To Mandate Disclosure Of Ultimate Beneficial Owners Of AIFs & FPIs

Case Title: Mahua Moitra v Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 885/2025

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to issue a direction to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to mandate full public disclosure of the ultimate beneficial owners (last natural persons) and portfolios of Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs), Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) and their intermediaries in India.

Citing the lack of an existing legal or regulatory framework, the bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice DK Upadhyaya disposed of the writ petition filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, argued that the lack of public disclosure of the ultimate beneficial owners of these investment vehicles had created opacity in the stock market and enabled potential manipulation.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Challenge To Casual Vacancy Election In Punjab &Haryana Bar Council

Case Title: Chetan Verma v. Bar Council of India

Case Number: Civil Appeal 13786/2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 29) declined to entertain a petition filed by an advocate challenging the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana's decision to conduct an election to fill up the casual vacancy which arose following the recommendation for the elevation of an elected member as a Judge of the High Court.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh heard the petition filed by advocate Chetan Verma.

Verma had approached the Supreme Court challenging an October 9 order passed by Election Tribunal No. 2 at New Delhi, which rejected his plea seeking to be declared a member of the Bar Council against a vacancy that arose after Minderjeet Yadav, an elected member, was elevated as a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Can Trans Women Claim Women's Rights? Women's Group Moves Supreme Court Against Transgender Persons Act

Case: WOMENS DECLARATION INTERNATIONAL INDIA Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT AND ORS.

Case Title: Women's Declaration International India v Union of India

Case Number: WP (c) 1371/2026

A women's group has approached the Supreme Court challenging the legal regime which allows biological males to be recorded as 'females' in official documents after undergoing sex reassignment surgeries.

The petitioner, an organisation named 'Women's Declaration International India', challenges Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, as amended in 2026, insofar as it enables biological males to obtain opposite gender certificates.  The petitioner also challenges Rule 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, along with related regulatory provisions which enable persons to obtain official documents recording a gender different from their biological sex.

The petitioner has also sought reconsideration and clarification of the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA), which recognised the right of transgender persons to legal recognition of their gender identity.

Supreme Court Reserves Order On ED's Plea For CBI Probe Against Mamata Banerjee Over Alleged Blocking Of I-PAC Raid

Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026

The Supreme Court today(October 29) reserved orders on the writ petition filed by the Directorate of Enforcement and its officers seeking an FIR and investigation against former West Benegal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and certain police officials over the alleged obstruction of the ED's search of the offices of I-PAC, the political consultant of the Trinamool Congress.

The Court reserved orders on the limited aspect whether the Court should refer to the Central Bureau of Investigation or leave it to the newly appointed State Government to investigate.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria concluded the hearing on the writ petition. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the former CM, argued that the State can investigate and no Court order was necessary.

'What Kind Of People Believe They Can Get Arrested On Mobile?' CJI Expresses Shock At Digital Arrest Scams

Case Title: In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents

Case Number: SMW (Crl.) 3/2025

The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed strong frustration over the continued prevalance of “digital arrest” scams, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant questioning how educated citizens continue to fall prey to such frauds.

Hearing a suo motu case on the issue of digital arrest scam, a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard submissions from the amicus curiae, Senior Advocate NS Nappinai, who informed the court that the scams persist despite ongoing efforts. She cited a recent incident in which a woman lost ₹2.5 crore.

She pointed out that even after the last status report given by the Centre on March 30, digital arrest cases are flourishing.

Supreme Court Questions Lack Of Data On Enforcing Firecracker Restrictions During Diwali In Delhi NCR

Case Title: Arjun Gopal v. Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 728/2015 Diary No. 32461 / 2015

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 29) questioned the Union and Delhi authorities over their failure to place on record enforcement data following last year's temporary relaxation of the firecracker ban in Delhi-NCR, observing that court orders become “a mere mockery” when they are not implemented on the ground.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale said that the authorities must explain what action was taken after the Court permitted the sale of green crackers for a limited period in October 2025, including whether enforcement teams were constituted, inspections and searches were conducted, prohibited firecrackers were seized, and prosecutions were initiated.

“Did you form teams? Did you make an inquiry? Did you make any search of the licence holders? What did you find? How many FIRs have you filed? How many other cases have you filed? Did you seize the material? What did you actually do? See now otherwise there is no point in passing orders and issuing all these directions unless on ground you really give effect to it. It becomes a mere mockery then. Enforcement data has not been filed. That is something you ought to have filed. Unless whatever the order passed, the implementing mechanism is put into operation, it's not going to have any effect at all”, Justice Sundresh said.

Supreme Court Says Banks Must Compensate Cyber Fraud Victims If It Took Place Due To Bank's Lack Of Due Diligence

Case Details : In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents, SMW (Crl.) 3/2025

In the digital arrest matter, the Supreme Court today expressed that financial institutions must face strict liability in the event of a customer becoming victim to digital arrest/cyber fraud if the institution/its officials are found negligent in exercise of due diligence.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the suo motu case taken up over rising incidents of digital arrest scams. Yesterday, the CJI took a strong view on persons accused in such crimes, saying that if law permits, such "ruthless criminals" targeting senior citizens must be punished even before trial.

Today, the Court was told by Attorney General R Venkataramani that while many steps have been taken to address the menace, the RBI is contemplating regulatory measures, which are likely to be operationalized by December. Considering Senior Advocate NS Nappinai's (Amicus) submission that despite the court taking cognizance of the matter and passing various directions, digital arrest incidents are rampantly taking place (last reported a week ago), the bench questioned why RBI was still consulting banks.

'Make This Diwali Enjoyable': Supreme Court Suggests Virat Kohli, Other Public Figures Promote Firecracker-Free Celebrations

Case Title: Arjun Gopal v. Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 728/2015 Diary No. 32461 / 2015

The Supreme Court on Thursday suggested to the Centre and Delhi authorities that celebrated cricketers such as Virat Kohli and other respected public figures could be involved in a public-awareness campaign encouraging people to celebrate Diwali without firecrackers.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing the ongoing proceedings concerning air pollution in Delhi-NCR.

The Court asked the authorities to widely publicise restrictions on firecrackers through television, newspapers and other platforms, and suggested that prominent personalities could record awareness segments urging people to celebrate the festival of lights without adding to pollution.

Supreme Court Refers Reliance-Government Dispute Over KG Basin Gas Extraction To Mediation By Justice RP Desai

Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 17584/2025

The Supreme Court on Friday referred the long-running dispute between Reliance Industries Limited and the Government of India concerning the exploration and extraction of natural gas in the Krishna-Godavari (KG) basin to mediation.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Baghchi and Justice V Mohana requested former Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai to act as the mediator. It also requested her to take the assistance of two domain experts, to be suggested by the parties.

The Court noted that both sides had sought adjournments from time to time to explore the possibility of a settlement but had been unable to arrive at a viable solution.

Supreme Court Dismisses NIA's Plea Challenging Bail Of Kashmiri Activist Khurram Parvez In UAPA Case

Case Title: NIA vs. KHURAM PARVEJ

Case Number: SLP(CRL) 17798/2026

The Supreme Court today(October 30) dismissed the petition filed by the National Investigation Agency(NIA) challenging the bail granted by the Delhi High Courtto Kashmiri activist Khurram Parvez in a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) over alleged terror funding.

The bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale refused to interfere with the High Court's order considering the long incarceration of the accused.

Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare appeared for the NIA. Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, appearing for the accused, submitted that he has a prosthetic leg and has undergone custody for nearly five years. He further told the bench that the framing of the charges has been deferred since the NIA, on August 19, sought time to file a supplementary chargesheet.

Supreme Court Asks MeitY To Ensure Action Against Unauthorised Uploading Of Court Hearing Clips

Case Title: Harshita Grover v. Union of India and others

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 751/2026

The Supreme Court today called on the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to include in its proposed policy a provision for action against the breach ofthe Court's directions restraining unauthorised uploading of audio-video clips of court proceedings.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a batch of petitions concerning live streaming and recording/publishing of court proceedings.

On the last date, the Court instructed its Registry to forward the suggestions received by the Court to the office of the Solicitor General. Other parties/intervenor/High Courts were further permitted to share their suggestions with the Solicitor General, who was to then prepare and furnish a draft proposal to tackle concerns regarding commercial exploitation, misrepresentation, misquoting and dissemination of misleading content related to court proceedings.

UP SIR : Bulk Forms 7 Filed Were Fake, Not Acted Upon, Says ECI; Supreme Court Directs Corrective Steps

Case Title: TANUJ PUNIA Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. (and connected case)

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1129/2025

The Supreme Court today asked the Election Commission of India to take corrective steps with respect to allegations of bulk Form 7 submission during its Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh.

Form 7 is filed by a person seeking the deletion of a voter included in the draft roll.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with an application filed in pleas challenging Uttar Pradesh SIR. The petitioners include Congress MP Tanuj Punia (Lok Sabha) andSamajwadi Party leader Arvind Kumar Singh.

UGC Regulations | Will Time Spent On PhD Count As 'Teaching Experience' For Associate Professor Post? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Title: UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION V. PRIYA VARGHESE,

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 15816/2023

The Supreme Court recently reserved judgment on the issue whether the period spent to acquire Ph.D. can be counted towards teaching experience for the appointment as Associate Professor as per the norms of the University Grants Commission.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan heard the petitions filed by the UGC as well as Professor Joseph Skaria challenging the Kerala High Court's 2023 judgment which upheld the appointment of Priya Varghese, wife of CPI(M) member KK Ragesh who was the Private Secretary to the then Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, in the Kannur University.

The issue arose after Dr.Joseph Skariah, who was ranked after Varghese in the Rank List, had filed the writ petition challenging the inclusion of Varghese in the List, stating that she was not qualified for the post of Associate Professor as she did not have the prescribed 8 years of teaching experience.

Supreme Court Directs Atibir Industries To Pay ₹375 Crore To Settle SBI Loan Dispute

Case Title: ATIBIR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD VERSUS STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

The Supreme Court has directed Atibir Industries Co. Ltd. to pay an additional ₹125 crore to an asset reconstruction company (ARC) to achieve a full and final settlement of its loan dispute with the State Bank of India (SBI), while leaving open the legal questions concerning the classification of its loan account as a non-performing asset (NPA) and the subsequent assignment of the debt.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the order in appeals challenging a Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment that had reversed a Single Judge's decision setting aside SBI's NPA classification and consequential assignment-related actions.

“…in the peculiar circumstances of the case without going into any legal issues or whether the compensation amount will have to be calculated on the basis of the debt value or the acquisition value etc. and without expressing any opinion on the conduct of the parties, this Court directs that a sum of Rs.125 crores over and above a sum of Rs.250 crores will have to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent No.2… This will be towards the full and final settlement of the entire dues payable by the Appellant towards the debt assigned by the Respondent No.1 in favour of the Respondent No.2. This amount has been fixed without going into the issue whether it is a return on investment or otherwise so as to bring an end to the dispute which is continued between the parties for years.”, the Court ordered.

Twisha Sharma Case | Former Judge Giribala Singh Likely To Influence Trial In MP : CBI Tells Supreme Court, Supports Transfer Plea

Case Title: Navnidhi Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case Number: Diary No. 58446 / 2026

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has supported the transfer of the trial in the Twisha Sharma unnatural death case from Bhopal to Delhi, telling the Supreme Court that there is every likelihood that the two accused may influence the proceedings and intimidate witnesses in Madhya Pradesh.

“It is further submitted that respondent No.2 being a retired District Judge from District Court, Bhopal may influence the trial proceedings and intimidate the witnesses of the case”, the affidavit states

In a counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on October 29, the CBI has submitted that accused Giribala Singh, a retired District and Sessions Judge, and her son Samarth Singh, a practising advocate in Bhopal, are influential persons in the district and may influence the trial proceedings and intimidate witnesses.