Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: September 2026

If Prosecution Fails To Examine Crucial Witness, Trial Court Must Question It : Supreme Court

Case Details: Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 875

The Supreme Court cautioned the trial courts to proceed with alacrity during trial, especially when there is a total failure of the prosecution for not conducting examination of the crucial witnesses.

“…when there is total failure of the prosecution, the Court should with alacrity question the prosecution's conduct in not examining crucial witnesses. The Trial Court is not a moot spectator and even in the role of an unbiased adjudicator has the responsibility to ensure that the best evidence is not suppressed by the prosecution…”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the concurrent findings of the Patna High Court and Trial Court's order rejecting the de-facto complainant Section 311 Cr.P.C. application seeking examination of the crucial witness which could have a direct impact on the outcome of the trial.

The case arose from an altercation in which the appellant and his father sustained injuries.

If Legal Assistance Is Inadequate, Constitutional Courts Must Ensure Quality Aid To Litigants : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ummed Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 878

The Supreme Court has disapproved of dismissing appeals on technical grounds like the absence of a delay condonation application when the litigant was not having proper legal assistance. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure quality legal assistance to the litigants.

“True that the appeal should have been accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, but the Constitutional Courts should also be alive to the travails of a litigant and if the legal assistance is not adequate, it has a duty to provide quality legal assistance to the litigants, whether it be a victim or an accused.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision which had dismissed the appeal against an acquittal in a dowry death case merely for want of an application seeking condonation of delay with an appeal.

The victim's mother filed the appeal against the accused's acquittal before the High Court with a 19-day delay. The High Court dismissed the appeal for failing to file a delay condonation application with the appeal and lack of representation on behalf of the Appellant.

Clarificatory Statement Does Not Qualify As Binding Undertaking For Contempt: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v. Matrix Pharmacorp Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 879

The Supreme Court (September 1) held that a clarificatory statement made before a court cannot be treated as an unconditional undertaking for the purpose of contempt proceedings unless it constitutes a solemn, express and unequivocal commitment intended to be acted upon by the court.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana upheld the Telangana High Court's decision declining to initiate contempt proceedings against IQuest Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., observing that the statement made by IQuest regarding its decision not to proceed with an acquisition was merely clarificatory in nature.

“The Statement made by IQuest before the Commercial Court, Hyderabad in its Counter Affidavit as recorded in the order dated 01.05.2024, cannot be treated as unconditional undertaking and hence the findings of the High Court that the statement does not invite a contempt action is upheld…”, the Court said.

Mere Delay In Depositing Foreign Travel Tax Not Same As 'Failure To Pay' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Penalty On Saudi Airlines

Case: M/S Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 880

The Supreme Court has (01.09.2026) held that mere delay in depositing Foreign Travel Tax (FTT) collected from passengers cannot be equated with failure to pay the tax, and hence, does not attract the penalty prescribed under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979. The Court also held that imposition of penalty under the provision is not automatic merely because there has been a breach of the statutory timeline.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the penalty imposed on Saudi Arabian Airlines by the customs authorities, the revisional authority under the Ministry of Finance. It has allowed an appeal against a 2010 judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court.

The airline (appellant) was authorised to collect FTT from passengers on international journeys, under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1979. It had delayed depositing the tax into the government treasury six times between 1994 and 1997. In five of these cases, demand drafts had already been purchased before the due dates, but could not be deposited on time; which the airline attributed to security restrictions. The other delay was attributed to the concerned employee being on emergency leave.

Litigant Cannot Be Worse Off For Filing An Appeal : Supreme Court Explains Doctrine Of 'No Reformatio In Peius'

Case: M/S Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 880

The Supreme Court (01.09.2026) has reiterated the principle that a litigant cannot be placed in a worse position merely for having availed a remedy provided under law. It also held that the penalty enhanced against an appellant on remand, after the appellant's own appeal led to the remand, could not be sustained.

The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ruled so while dealing with an appeal by Saudi Arabian Airlines, which had challenged a penalty imposed under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 for delayed deposit of Foreign Travel Tax (FTT). While allowing the appeal primarily on the interpretation of Section 38(3), the Court also discussed the doctrine against reformatio in peius (a change for the worse) after noting how the penalty was enhanced manifold once the appellant chose to pursue statutory remedies.

The airline (appellant) was authorised to collect FTT from passengers on international journeys, under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1979. It had delayed depositing the tax into the government treasury six times between 1994 and 1997. In five of these cases, demand drafts had already been purchased before the due dates, but could not be deposited on time; which the airline attributed to security restrictions. The other delay was attributed to the concerned employee being on emergency leave.

Post-Conviction Compromise Can Be Used To Quash Proceedings In Non-Heinous Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Punjab v. Avtar Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 881

The Supreme Court held that proceedings against an accused may be quashed on the basis of a post-conviction compromise between the accused and the complainant/victim in non-heinous offences.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar declined to interfere with the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision to quash criminal proceedings against the accused, even after his conviction for offences including unlawful assembly, kidnapping/abduction, and use of dangerous weapons.

Before the trial court, the complainant / victim made the statement, post-conviction of the Respondent-accused, stating that the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectable and relatives and was genuine without any pressure and undue influence and has been arrived at his/her own free will.

'CBI Failed Miserably' : Supreme Court Acquits Former Indian Bank Manager In Loan Fraud Case

Case Details: v. Balakrishnan v. State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 882

The Supreme Court (September 1) acquitted a former Indian Bank Branch Manager in a 1991 loan fraud case, holding that the CBI failed miserably not only in proving the allegations but also in properly framing the case, which the Court described as “fabricated” and having “no legs to stand.”

“The CBI has failed miserably in not only proving its case but also in framing the case.”, the Court said, while also calling for a report from the Indian Bank's Anna Nagar Chennai Branch Manager for keeping the excess money received by them in auction after satisfying the loan account. The Court expressed concern over the fact that the bank had apparently retained the surplus amount instead of disbursing it to the persons legally entitled to it.

“…we are concerned as to how the Indian Bank kept the excess money in auction received by them, without disbursal to the legal heirs, even if the predecessors-in-interest were arrayed as accused in this case….”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

Guilt Can't Be Presumed Merely Because Investigating Officer Faced Collusion Allegations : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dhrub Singh Etc. v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 883

The Supreme Court (September 1) observed that though a faulty investigation cannot, by itself, operate to the benefit of an accused, Courts also cannot presume guilt merely because the Investigating Officer (IO) was recalcitrant or faced allegations of collusion, particularly when the prosecution has failed to produce reliable evidence establishing the accused's guilt.

“A faulty investigation cannot inure to the benefit of the accused, but when there is no reliable evidence, merely because the I.O was recalcitrant or a complaint of collusion was raised against him, the Court cannot presume the guilt of the accused.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The prosecution case was that the deceased, along with four others (a son, an employee, a nephew, and a villager), were proceeding to fields when the accused ambushed the party, started indiscriminate firing, and shot the deceased in the back. The victim succumbed to the gunshot injury. A patrolling car with a Magistrate arrived at the spot, and the accused ran away.

Supreme Court Sets Aside ₹425-Crore Penalty As Customs Authority Used AI-Generated Fake Case Laws

Case: Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 884

The Supreme Court set aside a ₹425.27-crore customs penalty imposed on a diamond trader after finding that the adjudicating authority had relied on non-existent or incorrectly cited judicial precedents that appeared to have been generated or hallucinated by artificial intelligence.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu allowed the civil appeal filed by one Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya and quashed both the Gujarat High Court order and the original customs adjudication order.

The penalty had been imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, on October 8, 2025, under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had been accused of mis-declaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds in order to pay a lower tariff. The Gujarat High Court subsequently dismissed his challenge to the penalty on January 20, 2026.

No Absolute Bar On Interim Release Of Vehicles Seized Under Gujarat Prohibition Act : Supreme Court

Case Title: M/S Abc Express v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885

The Supreme Court (02.09.2026) has set aside orders of the Trial Court, the Sessions Court, and the Gujarat High Court, declining interim custody of a truck seized while transporting a large consignment of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), and directed that the vehicle be released to its owner on furnishing security. While setting aside the orders, the Court held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not operate as an absolute embargo against release of a seized vehicle to its owner pending trial, even where the quantity of liquor recovered exceeds the prescribed limit.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sree Chandrashekar ruled so while hearing a case relating to the seizure of an Ashok Leyland truck belonging to the appellant. The truck was seized while it was travelling from Modasa towards Vadodara via Lunawada. On interception, the driver could not produce any pass or permit for the goods being carried. On search, the vehicle was found to be carrying 8,064 bottles of IMFL, amounting to approximately 22,532.253 litres and valued Rs 17,02,656. It was concealed among consignments of edible goods worth around Rs 98.66 lakh.

Thereafter, a case was registered under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81, 116(b) and 83 of the Prohibition Act, and a chargesheet was filed against four accused, including the driver. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking interim custody of the truck. However, it was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lunawada which was subsequently upheld both by the Sessions Judge, Mahisagar and, by the Gujarat High Court.

Banks Can Invoke SARFAESI For Loans Acquired From NBFCs Not Covered Under Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Trupti Sanjay Mehta and Others (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 886

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court (September 2) held that banks can take recourse to the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to recover debts assigned to them by NBFCs, notwithstanding that such NBFCs were not covered under the Act at the time the debt was created.

“…when the institution (bank) is one to which the SARFAESI Act is already applicable, acquisition of a non-performing secured loan account by such institution from an entity, that does not come within the ambit of the SARFAESI Act, would immediately clothe the said loan account with the attributes of a 'secured debt' covered by the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva while setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had restricted the Kotak Mahindra Bank from invoking the SARFAESI Act for recovery of debts assigned to it by an NBFC that was not a notified financial institution under Section 2(1)(m) of the Act when the loans were advanced.

The dispute arose from loan accounts originally advanced by City Financial Consumer Finance Limited (CFCFL), an NBFC which, at the relevant time, was not a “financial institution” notified under Section 2(1)(m) of the SARFAESI Act.

'Several Missing Links' : Supreme Court Acquits Child Murder Case Convict After 16 Years' Imprisonment

Case Details: Sahab Singh Alias Sat Pal v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 887

The Supreme Court has acquitted the convict in a 2007 murder case involving the death of a six-year-old child, holding that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that several crucial links in the chain of circumstantial evidence were missing.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Sessions Court at Ambala, which had convicted appellant Sahab Singh under Sections 302, 201 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellant had already spent more than 16 years and seven months in custody. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier direction that he be released forthwith unless his continued detention was required in connection with another case

Supreme Court Calls For Cooperative Federalism Between Centre, Tamil Nadu In Regulating Purse Seine Fishing

Case Title – Fisherman Care v. Government of India Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 888

The Supreme Court observed the Union and State Governments must abide by the principle of cooperative federalism to ensure effective implementation of the regulatory framework governing purse seine fishing in India's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and territorial waters.

Purse seine fishing uses a large net to encircle and catch schools of fish. EEZ is the sea area extending up to 200 nautical miles from a country's coastline, where the country has special rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage marine resources such as fish, oil and gas.

The Court was dealing with a controversy that arose over Tamil Nadu's ban on using purse seine nets within its territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the coast), including prohibiting fishermen from carrying the nets through those waters to fish in the EEZ beyond 12 nautical miles. The issue was concerning the right of fishermen using purse seine nets to access the EEZ beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu.

Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Revision Under Karnataka Land Revenue Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: M.R.R. Setty (Dead), By Lrs v. Government of Karnataka and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 889

The Supreme Court (September 2) observed that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked to negate the limitation period provided in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva heard a matter wherein the Karnataka Government's land record authority, acting under its revisional powers, directed a fresh enquiry into land survey numbers in the Yediyur Lake area of Bengaluru, beyond the three-year limitation prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (“Act”).

The state government defended the move citing the applicability of the delay condonation provision of the Limitation Act applying mutatis mutandis to the appeals filed under the Act. Rejecting this argument, the Court observed that the question was not about the filing of an appeal under the Act, but exercising of the revision powers under the Act, whose proviso to Section 56(3) prescribes only three years limitation for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the authority.

NDPS Act | Drug Disposal Committee Cannot Dispose Of Seized Vehicle Without Trial Court's Orders : Supreme Court

Case: R Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 890

The Supreme Court has held that the power to confiscate a vehicle seized in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) vests exclusively in the court trying the offence under Section 63 of the Act. It also ruled that a Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) constituted under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, cannot independently proceed to dispose of a seized conveyance without orders from the court.

"Statutorily the power of confiscation is on the Court, trying the offence," the Court held.

Applying this, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran directed release of a lorry to its owner, whose vehicle had remained in custody even after the accused persons were acquitted in the NDPS case.

Supreme Court Explains Procedure For Disposal Of Vehicles Seized Under NDPS Act; Says Notice To Owner Mandatory

Case: R Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 890

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran ruled so while examining the interplay between Section 63 of the NDPS Act, which vests the power of confiscation in the court, and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling, and Disposal) Rules 2022, which permit disposal of seized conveyances through the DDC.

The petitioner's lorry, along with 66 kg of ganja allegedly recovered from it, was seized after interception. This led to prosecution of four persons under the NDPS Act. Later all four of them were acquitted by the Additional District and Sessions Court, (EC and NDPS cases, Pudukottai), stating discrepancies in the arrest memo, absence of any registered recording safe custody of the contraband, the prosecution's inability to explain how the lorry was permitted to ply during pandemic, and delay in sending samples to the court and the laboratory. While acquitting the accused, it had also directed release of the lorry to its owner once the appeal period lapsed.

However, when the petitioner approached the trial court once the appeal period was over, his plea was rejected. The Madras High Court affirmed the rejection under Section 52A, the Standing Orders, and the 2022 Rules, especially since the Investigating Officer had separately moved the trial court to refer the vehicle to the DDC. Aggrieved by the High Court's finding, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

Futures & Options Segment Investors Cannot Seek Reimbursement Of Losses From Professional Clearing Members : Supreme Court

Case Details: Edelweiss Custodial Services Limited v. Nse Clearing Ltd. & Anr. (With Connected Appeals)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 891

Highlighting the speculative nature of the Futures and Options (F&O) segment and the substantial losses suffered by investors despite the inherent risks involved, the Supreme Court (September 2) held that F&O investors cannot seek reimbursement of their financial losses from Professional Clearing Members (PCMs), whose role is just to facilitate the clearing and settlement of trades.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that in the F&O segment, the investor has a direct relationship with the Trading Member (TM), which deals with the investor and executes trades, while furnishing collateral or securities to the Professional Clearing Member (PCM) to secure its own obligations. Therefore, in the absence of any privity of contract between the PCM and the individual investors, the PCM cannot be held liable towards the investors for their losses.

“…there can be no claim laid against the PCM for the default committed by the TM, especially in the context of the TM having indulged in illegal schemes and the investors having participated with open eyes in such schemes on the assurance of an assured return, which, in the F&O Segment, is downright impossible.”, the Court observed.

First-Time Juvenility Claims Before SC Show 'Huge Gap' In JJ Act Implementation By Police, Trial Courts : Supreme Court

Case: Mahavir @ Avnish v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 892

The Supreme Court has flagged the increasing number of cases in which pleas of juvenility are being raised for the first time before it, observing that the trend points to a serious gap in the understanding and implementation of the Juvenile Justice Acts (JJAs) by police and courts.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, in a judgment delivered (September 2, 2026), set aside the 21-year-old conviction of a man who was found to have been a juvenile on the date of the offence. The Court held that once his juvenility had been established by the Juvenile Justice Board, the High Court was duty-bound to consider his case in accordance with the law applicable to children in conflict with law.

"This case brings to the limelight a serious issue which has hindered the implementation of the JJAs. We must remember that the impact of industrialisation, urbanisation and migration changed the people's daily lives. They started migrating from rural areas to the cities as a result of which there was an explosion in population. The cohesiveness of communities started weakening and the family gradually lost effective control over the children. Poverty, inequality, illiteracy and the discriminatory environment in which a child grows trigger delinquent behavior in the child, and he becomes a victim of the crime. The rise in the number of cases coming to this Court raising the plea of juvenility for the first time in this Court indicates in ample measures that there is a huge gap in the understanding of law by the stakeholders."

S. 362 CrPC Does Not Curtail High Court's Inherent Power To Recall Judgment Resulting In Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court

Case: Mahavir @ Anvish v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 892

The Supreme Court has held that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which generally bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing a judgment after it has been signed, does not obliterate the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to recall an order or judgment when allowing it to stand would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court made the observation while allowing the appeal of Mahavir alias Avnish, who was found to have been a juvenile on the date of the offence but had been convicted and sentenced by a regular criminal court. The Court criticised the High Court's approach in declining its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to recall its judgment convicting him, despite finding that he was a juvenile.

The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar overturned a 2018 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) which had declined to reopen his conviction under Section 201 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), on the ground that the judgment had attained finality and could not be revisited under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

'Child Should Not Be Treated As Criminal': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction On Juvenility Claim After 21 Years

Case: Mahavir @ Avnish v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 892

The Supreme Court (02.09.2026) has set aside the 21-year old conviction of a man who was found to be a juvenile on the date of the offence, holding that a High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) can be exercised to recall its own final judgment where a mistake by the court has caused grave prejudice to a party, even after the Special Leave Petition (SLP) for the same has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar has overturned a 2018 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) which had declined to reopen his conviction under Section 201 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), on the ground that the judgment had attained finality and could not be revisited under Section 482.

The case arose out of the death of one Bhuri and her infant daughter, whose bodies were found on a railway track in Morena, in 2004. An FIR was registered against Bhuri's husband, in-laws, and brothers-in-law (including the appellant), under Sections 302, 304B, and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC (now Section 103, 80, 238, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). Allegations of dowry harassment, murder, and destruction of evidence were put against the accused persons.

'Homebuyers Can't Be Penalised For Builders' Default' : Supreme Court Rejects NOIDA's Time-Extension Charges In CIRP

Case Details: Authorised Representative For Granite Gate Properties Private Limited Rakesh Verma v. M/S New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 893

The Supreme Court set aside directions treating NOIDA's time-extension charges as insolvency process costs in two delayed high-rise projects, holding that homebuyers and the new resolution applicant cannot be made to pay penalties for the original developer's default.

The Court held that homebuyers, who constitute a class of financial creditors in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of a defaulting developer, cannot be saddled with the liability to pay time extension charges for the underdeveloped project, especially when the project is being completed with the pooled financial contributions of the homebuyers themselves.

“The homebuyers and the SRA (Successful Resolution Applicant) are sought to be penalised for past sins of the Corporate Debtor, which cannot be allowed, especially in the context of the authority imposing penalty, ie: the local authority being concerned essentially with the development of the area under its control.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while allowing the appeal filed by the homebuyers, setting aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) directions upholding the NOIDA's demand to treat time extension charges as CIRP costs.

NCTE Executive Committee Empowered To Seek Annual Performance Appraisal Reports From Teacher Educational Institutes : Supreme Court

Case Details: National Council For Teachers Education v. Association of NCTE Approved Colleges Trust and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 894

The Supreme Court (September 3) upheld the National Council for Teacher Education's and its executive committee's power to call for annual Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR) from Teacher Education Institutes.

“…there is ample empowerment of the Council as well as the Executive Committee to call for annual Performance Appraisal Report from institutions imparting teacher education.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, while setting aside the Delhi High Court's Division Bench judgment which ruled against the NCTE's executive committee's authority to issue a notice calling for a Performance Appraisal Report from the Teacher Education Institutes.

“We fail to understand as to how a regulatory measure of a statutory body, empowered to achieve planned and coordinated development of teacher education system in the country could be restrained from calling upon the TEIs to file Performance Appraisal Report. We are of the opinion that even without a specific empowerment under the statute, such a regulatory measure can always be incidental and ancillary to the duties and functions of a regulator. As there is a performance audit of NCTE itself by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), it is but natural and incidental that NCTE would require the stakeholders, over which it exercises the regulatory jurisdiction, to provide the necessary Performance Appraisal Report.”, the Court said.

RBI Can Supersede Multi-State Co-operative Bank Board Beyond Six-Months; Consultation With State Not Needed : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sandeep S. Ghandat & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 895

Observing that the Banking Regulation Act applies to multi-state co-operative banks, the Supreme Court (September 3) held that the Reserve Bank of India's power to supersede the Board of Directors of a multi-state co-operative bank extends beyond the six-month limit prescribed under Article 243ZL(1) of the Constitution.

“…the power of RBI to supersede BoD of a multi-State co-operative bank under Section 36AAA (1) of BR Act is not circumscribed by the 6-month limit prescribed in Article 243ZL (1) of the Constitution.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, while affirming the Bombay High Court's judgment which had refused to interfere with the RBI's decision to supersede the board of directors of the Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Limited ('Bank') beyond the six-month limit prescribed under Article 243ZL (1) of the Constitution.

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellants (superseded board members) argued that the RBI's power to supersede the Board was subject to the six-month ceiling under Article 243ZL(1) of the Constitution. Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the third proviso to Article 243ZL(1) expressly makes the BR Act applicable to multi-State co-operative banks.

Supreme Court Allows NGO Energy Watchdog To Participate In Proceedings Against Companies Over Alleged Unauthorised Power Use

Case Details: M/S. Amalgam Steels and Power Ltd. and Anr. v. Energy Watchdog and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 896

The Supreme Court has permitted the NGO Energy Watchdog to participate in the proceedings initiated by Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. against two companies over alleged unauthorised supply and use of electricity.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to interfere with the interim order passed by the Jharkhand High Court permitting the NGO to participate in the proceedings so that collection and consideration of relevant information could be facilitated. The Court agreed with the High Court's impression that the long-standing complaint by the NGO against the unauthorised supply and use of electricity speaks that all is not well with the inquiry conducted by the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd (JBVNL).

An argument was raised by the petitioners-electricity companies challenging the High Court's order that the Electricity Act being an exhaustive code in itself, disentitles any third-party interventions in the proceedings.

Motor Accident Claim | Functional Disability Can't Be Reduced Just Because Victim Was Retained In A Specified Role : Supreme Court

Case: Reliance General Insurance Company v. Priyanka Das & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 897

The Supreme Court has held that assessment of functional disability in motor accident compensation cases must focus on a victim's ability to earn in the open, competitive labour market, rather than on the fact that the person continues to retain a job in a highly accommodated workplace.

"The calculation of functional disability depends on assessing the victim's earning capacity in the open, competitive market, rather than on retention in a specific, highly accommodated role," the Court said.

A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria made the observation while enhancing compensation to a woman who suffered complete blindness, serious pelvic injuries and a permanent colostomy following a 2011 road accident. The Court held that her continued employment could not, by itself, be treated as evidence that she had suffered little or no loss of earning capacity.

Supreme Court Allows Retiral Benefits To Employee Whose ST Certificate Was Found Invalid After 25 Years' Service

Case Details: Shirish Pandharinath Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 898

The Supreme Court (September 3) in exercise of its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution has protected the retiral and pensionary benefits of a retired employee, whose community certificate was subsequently found to be invalid after rendering over 25 years in service.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard the appeal filed by a Junior Engineer (Civil) who was appointed with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in 1994 based on a community certificate belonging to 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe. Later on, in 2020, the caste certificate was declared invalid by the scrutiny committee, whose decision was upheld by the Bombay High Court, leading to the filing of an SLP before the Supreme Court by the retired employee.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant continued in service pursuant to the interim order of the Court and ultimately retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 2025. Since, the appellant is now retired, he alternatively prayed for protection of the retiral and pensionary benefits of the appellant relying upon the Court's decision in Surekha Baljorsingh Thakur v. Caste Scrutiny Committee & Anr.(2024).

'Shoddy Investigation' : Supreme Court Overturns Conviction In Kidnapping & Murder Case

Case: Kondapaka Sridhar @ Shekar @ Madhu @ Gopi @ Chinna v. State of Telangana

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 899

The Supreme Court (03.09.2026) acquitted the (sole surviving) convict in a kidnapping for ransom and murder case, holding that the prosecution's investigation was shoddy and rested on inadmissible confessions and an unsubstantiated “story”, rather than on legally proved evidence.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing an appeal filed by the accused 1 (A1), whose conviction had been affirmed by the High Court even after it acquitted four of his five co-accused.

It was alleged that the victim went untraceable as he left his home for Hyderabad, following which his father (PW1) received a ransom call. Subsequently, a police complaint was registered and Rs 1,50,000 was deposited to a bank account belonging to the accused. Call records led to accused 6 (A6). Thereafter, A6 was arrested and his confession led to the recovery of the victim's body which was concealed inside a refrigerator. The confession also led to other co-accused (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5). The trial court convicted A1(appellant), A2, A3, A5, and A6 while A4 died during the trial itself. However, the High Court acquitted A2, A3, A5, and A6, while confirming the conviction of the appellant. It is to note that appellant's conviction was made relying on the testimony of PW 3 (a watchman in the apartment from where the body was recovered), and on appellant's failure to explain the presence of the body in a flat he had allegedly taken on lease, which was treated as an incriminating circumstance under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).

University Must Honour Teachers, Can't Deviate From UGC Regulations On Payscale : Supreme Court Gives Relief To Associate Professor

Case Details: Dr. Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Union of India & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 900

The Supreme Court held that universities could not depart from the statutory guidelines and regulations governing the pay scale of their teaching staff.

“University ought to honour its teachers and uphold their rights as they undertake to impart knowledge to vast number of students and they are estopped from departing from the regulations and guidelines. Hence, University cannot be permitted to deviate from the MHRD guidelines and UGC regulations.”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where the Appellant, posted as an Associate Professor at Uttarakhand Sanskrit University, Haridwar was denied the pay band of an Associate Professor mentioned in the advertisement post, as per MHRD & UGC norms, on the ground of a typographical error.

Housing Project Must Be Built As Per Brochure Given To Buyer: Supreme Court Directs CBI Enquiry Into DLF Construction

Case Details: Swarnpreet Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 902

The Supreme Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to proceed with a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) into issues surrounding the construction of the DLF Primus project in Gurugram, particularly the alleged deviation from the project plan and brochure shown to homebuyers.

A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan said a housing project must be delivered in accordance with the representations made to prospective buyers through the brochure and plan. The Court observed that the 24-metre-wide road shown as cutting across the DLF Primus project does not exist in the manner represented in the original plan.

The exercise to determine whether the nature of the road has been altered was entrusted by the Court to Saurabh Gupta IPS of the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI). In the CBI officer's status report dated August 3, 2026, it was found that the road did not exist as such within the project. According to the report and material placed before the Court, portions of the earmarked area were being used for parking, while other portions had been developed as a green track.

Defendant Need Not Enter Witness Box To Prove Admitted Document : Supreme Court

Case Details: Punnu Ram v. Laturia Ram Dead Th. Lrs.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 903

The Supreme Court has held that a defendant is not required to step into the witness box when the defence is based on an undisputed document already placed on record.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard the case where the Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking a mandatory injunction and possession against a Respondent-tenant claiming him to be the owner of the property and permitted the respondent to use the property as a licensee.

The trial court dismissed the Appellant's suit, taking on record the revenue entry showing him as 'tenant'.

Companies Can Be Prosecuted Even Without Naming Individual Officers : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sanofi India Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 904

The Supreme Court (September 7) held that a company can face criminal prosecution for an offence requiring mens rea even if the individual employee or officer through whom the alleged offence was committed has not been identified or arraigned as an accused.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that the absence of an identification and arraignment of a natural person, by itself, is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings against a corporation at the threshold stage under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“Non-identification of the natural person does not, by itself, render the allegations incapable of disclosing the corporation's role in the offence… where the surrounding facts and circumstances, taken as a whole, disclose the possibility that the corporation acted with the requisite mens rea, that disclosure is not defeated merely because no particular individual has been identified as its source… All that is being said is that neither identification nor arraignment of a natural person can be read in as a prerequisite, such that their absence alone would justify quashing in every case.”, the Court said.

How To Attribute Mens Rea To Company? Supreme Court Explains Three-Stage Inquiry

Case: Sanofi India Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 904

The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings against a company accused of an offence cannot be quashed merely on the ground that no individual director, officer, or employee has been identified or arraigned as a co-accused, even where the offence charged requires proof of mens rea.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held so while hearing an appeal filed by a pharmaceutical company, against a Karnataka High Court order that had refused to quash a corruption and criminal conspiracy case arising out of alleged irregularities in drug procuration by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).

Dismissing the appeal, the bench perused English and Indian law on corporate criminal liability and evolved a fresh, three-stage framework for determining when the guilty mind of a natural person can be attributed to a company.

Prior Land Possession Not Mandatory To Apply For Environmental Clearance For Bio-Medical Waste Facilities : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Punahchakran Private Limited v. Indotech Waste Solution & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 905

The Supreme Court (September 7) held that a prior allotment or legal possession of land is not mandatory at the stage of submitting an application for granting an Environmental Clearance (EC) for the purpose of establishing a Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF).

“Clause 6 of the EIA, 2006 states that an application in Form 1 can be made after the identification of prospective site(s). Therefore, land allotment cannot be said to be a pre-condition for the making of an application under Form 1.”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the National Green Tribunal's decision to quash the environmental permissions granted to the Appellant-company for its proposed CBWTF facility in Uttar Pradesh's Sambhal District.

'Victim Didn't Identify Accused In Court' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted For Rape Of 5-Year-Old

Case Title – Dhanraj v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 906

The Supreme Court reiterated that identification of an accused during a Test Identification Parade (TIP) cannot be treated as substantive proof of identity and is only meant to corroborate the identification subsequently made by a witness in court.

“TIP is intended to test the memory and capacity of a witness to identify a person whom the witness claims to have seen during the occurrence and to lend corroboration to the identification subsequently made before the Court. The test identification proceedings undertaken during investigation cannot be treated as substantive proof of identity. Substantive proof would be the identification of the accused by the witnesses while testifying on oath or dock identification in common parlance”, the Court observed.

The Court acquitted a man convicted of raping a five-year-old girl, finding the prosecution case fatally deficient as the child victim did not identify the accused during her deposition, although the accused was present in court and she had stated that she could identify him.

Indian Stamp Act | Is Fraudulent Intent Necessary To Invoke S.47A Over Undervalued Deed? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Details: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. District Revenue Officer (Stamps) & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 907

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench a significant question on the scope of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, raising doubts over whether authorities must have material indicating wilful undervaluation and fraudulent intention before initiating proceedings to determine the correct market value of a property.

Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is the provision that allows the registration/revenue authorities to investigate whether a property transaction has been undervalued for stamp-duty purposes. If the registering officer has reason to believe that the market value or consideration stated in a sale deed is not the true value, the officer can refer the document to the Collector for determination of the correct value and the stamp duty payable.

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu questioned the proposition in the Court's earlier judgment in V.N. Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector of Stamps, which held that the power under Section 47-A was linked to wilful undervaluation with fraudulent intent to evade stamp duty. The same approach was subsequently followed in Registrar of Assurances v. ASL Vyapar (P) Ltd.

Family Court Judges Not Eligible For High Court Elevation : Supreme Court Refuses To Revisit Precedent

Case: Indrakala Joginder Nanda v. High Court of Judicature At Bombay | D No. 38854/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 908

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea by seven Family Court judges from Maharashtra seeking a declaration that they hold “judicial office” for the purpose of eligibility for appointment as High Court judges under Article 217 of the Constitution.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana held that the issue had already been conclusively dealt with by the Supreme Court in its earlier judgment in S.D. Joshi and Others v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Another [(2011) 1 SCC 252], which had held that the post of a Family Court judge in a separate cadre could not be treated as a “judicial office” for the purposes of Article 217(2)(a).

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate R Basant, urged the Court to revisit the earlier ruling in light of changed circumstances, particularly the manner in which Family Court judges have been appointed in Maharashtra over the past 36 years.

Plaintiff In Specific Performance Suit Must First Debunk Suspicious Circumstances : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bohar Singh & Anr. v. Sardara Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 909

The Supreme Court held that where a plaintiff seeks specific performance of an agreement to sell whose genuineness is clouded by suspicious circumstances, the plaintiff must first explain those circumstances satisfactorily before the evidentiary burden can shift to the defendant.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside the concurrent findings of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the First Appellate Court, which had reversed the Trial Court's dismissal of the respondent-plaintiff's suit for specific performance.

A loan transaction was disguised as a sale agreement. The appellant's signature, taken on blank paper, was used to create an agreement to sell his land to the respondent. The loan amount paid to the respondent's father was shown as earnest money, with the balance payable at execution.

Supreme Court Clears Implementation Of Resolution Plan For Stalled 'Sushant Aquapolis' Project In Ghaziabad

Case Details: One City Infrastructure Private Limited v. Ghaziabad Development Authority and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 910

In a relief to home buyers of the Ghaziabad-based housing project 'Sushant Aquapolis,' the Supreme Court cleared the path for implementation of the resolution plan of the corporate debtor, M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Private Limited, which had promoted the group housing cluster.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran accepted the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) demand in a hearing took place on August 31, permitting them to develop a 24-meter-wide pathway on three boundaries of the stalled "Sushant Aquapolis" project, without claiming any title over the land, to unlock the implementation of a resolution plan.

“…we deem it appropriate that the SRA i.e., the appellant herein carry out the development of the pathway with the 24-meter width on the three boundaries of the plot GH-1, on which the appellant or their assignees shall not raise any claim of title and then make necessary applications to the GDA. After completion of the project, they shall only be provided with access to the property through the said way, causing minimum disturbance to the road.”, the Court said.

Human Rights Courts Can Be Approached Directly Without Prior Recourse To Commission: Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Rule

Case: Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 911

The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, holding that the provision is neither inconsistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 nor ultra vires the rule-making power of the State legislature under Section 41 of the Act. Setting aside the High Court's orders, the Court has restored the proceedings initiated against the concerned police officials.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled so while setting aside a Karnataka High Court judgment which had struck down Rule 6 as unconstitutional, and consequently quashed a criminal complaint filed before a Human Rights Court constituted under the Act.

For context, Rule 6 prescribes the procedure in respect of complaints before a Human Rights Court, permitting a victim of human rights violation (or his/her legal representative, or a registered non-governmental organisation, or public person) to file a complaint against a public servant alleged to have committed or abetted such an offence while acting under colour of his office. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Court may either direct investigation by a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or conduct an inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed for private complaints under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). It also provides for the course to be followed upon receipt of the investigation report, consideration of sanction for prosecution wherever required, and the conduct of trial in accordance with the procedure applicable to trials before a Court of Session.

Widow's Family Pension Must Be Paid From Date Of Husband's Death : Supreme Court

Case: Maya Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 912

The Supreme Court has held that a widow's settlement to a family pension arises from the date of death of her husband, and cannot be restricted to the date on which she first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), particularly where the delay in claiming the benefit was not attributable to any fault on her part.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar was dealing with an appeal filed by the widow of a Railway employee who had died in harness, in 2000, challenging the Bombay High Court order that allowed her claim for family pension, restricting the benefit only from 2014 (the year she first moved the CAT), instead of 2000.

The appellant and her husband were residing separately due to a dispute and was unaware of her husband's service particulars at the time of his death. Her husband was subsequently dismissed from service in 2001, after his death. When the appellant appealed against the dismissal, her plea was rejected in 2012 on grounds of delay and discrepancy in the recorded dates of death. Later a civil suit was filed which declared 12.11.2000 as the correct date of her husband's death. Thereafter, she approached the CAT. However, the Tribunal dismissed her plea as time barred. Subsequently, she moved the Bombay High Court, which granted her family pension but only from 2014 onwards.

Supreme Court Upholds Asst Professor's Appointment Despite Doubts Over PhD, Orders University Probe

Case Details: Annu Kumar & Anr. v. Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 913

Supreme Court has declined to set aside the appointment of an Assistant Professor despite prima facie material indicating that the Ph.D. degree relied upon by him may be fake, holding that the disputed doctoral degree was not an essential qualification for the post as he had independently fulfilled the mandatory requirement of qualifying the UGC-NET examination. At the same time, the Court directed Maharshi Dayanand University to conduct a fresh inquiry into the authenticity of the Ph.D. degree.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan passed the order while deciding appeals arising from a challenge to the appointment of an Assistant Professor of Physical Education at Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Rohtak, affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University.

The appellants, as the writ petitioners, challenged the appointment of the sixth respondent as the Assistant Professor questioning the authenticity of his Ph.D. degree, allegedly awarded by Bundelkhand University, Jhansi.

Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted For Pension Benefits : Supreme Court

Case Details: Punjab School Education Board and Another v. Satnam Singh and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 914

The Supreme Court has held that service rendered by employees on contract, ad hoc, daily-wage or work-charge basis prior to their regularization must be counted as qualifying service for retiral and pensionary benefits, particularly where the breaks in service are merely notional, artificial or caused by administrative circumstances or court orders.

Holding thus, a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the Punjab School Education Board's (PSEB) appeal, affirming the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment which directed the State to grant the pensionary benefits to the Respondent-employees, who had initially entered service during the 1990s and were regularized in August 2004, saying that the State could not treat them as fresh recruits merely because their appointment letters used the expression "appointment". Their engagement, the Court found, was, in substance, regular.

“…the Single Judge and Division Bench had rightly held that the services by respondent-employees rendered on contract/ad hoc/daily wage basis prior to regularization must be computed as qualifying service for the purpose of retiral and pension benefits.”, the Court observed.

Solatium & Interest For Land Acquisition Under National Highways Act To Be Computed As Per 1894 Act For Pre-2015 Awards : Supreme Court

Case: Manav Bhanot v. National Highway Authority of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 915

The Supreme Court (08.09.2026)held that when the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act) determines compensation before 01.01.2015, the solatium, interest, and interest on solatium payable to the landowner must be computed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. For context, 01.01.2015 is the date on which the 2013 Act was made applicable for acquisition made under the NH Act.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vinod K Chandran ruled so while dealing with an appeal arising from a land acquisition matter under the NH Act, where the dispute was “whether the claim of solatium, interest and interest on solatium, insofar as the acquisition made under the National Highways Act, 1956, is to be computed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.”

The appellant's land was acquired under the NH Act in 2011, via a notification published under Section 3A, and a declaration under Section 3D was subsequently published in 2012. The Competent Authority under the NH Act determined the compensation in 2014, as Rs 3,47,38,287, out of which the appellant received Rs 49,17,000, in 2014. The appellant, thereafter, sought a reference to arbitration, wherein the Arbitrator passed an award in 2016. Subsequently, the award was challenged before the Supreme Court under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Voluminous Records In Corruption Cases Delaying Prosecution

Case:Khanindra Kr Dutta v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 916

The Supreme Court (08.09.2026) observed that prosecutions in corruption cases have a history of long pendency, often on account of voluminous but largely unnecessary and irrelevant evidence intimidating the courts.

"We cannot but notice that in corruption cases voluminous evidence is led, which is often intimidating to the Court, especially since many aspects attempted to be led in evidence are way off the mark, in providing a substantiation of the allegation, or to bring home the guilt of the accused-public servant," the Court stated, noting that in the present case, over 62 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who were mostly irrelevant.

The observation was made by the Court while acquitting a former government store in-charge who was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in a 1993 case relating to fake medicine supply bills, holding that a conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act cannot survive if it is found that no pecuniary advantage was obtained by the accused.

Prosecution Story Of Taking Dead Body To Police Station Suspicious : Supreme Court Acquits Two Murder Convicts

Case: Ashok Upadhyay & Anr v. State of Of Bihar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 917

The Supreme Court (08.09.2026) acquitted two persons convicted of murder, holding that the prosecution's own case of taking the body of the deceased to the police station instead of the hospital, raises suspicion, and that this conduct along with other infirmities in the investigation and eyewitness testimony raised a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vinod K Chandran was hearing an appeal against a Patna High Court judgment which had upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The case arose over a dispute that led to a brawl between two families, in which one accused allegedly shot a person dead, while the other accused fired at other family members. Five persons were chargesheeted, out of which three were acquitted by the trial court and two were convicted. The conviction was also upheld by the Patna High Court.

Partnership Act | Outgoing Partner's Share Must Be Valued On Date Of Assessment, Not Date Of Dissolution : Supreme Court

Case Details: v. Sumitra Reddy & Anr. v. K. Ranganadha Reddy & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 918

The Supreme Court (September 9) held that, upon dissolution of a partnership at will, an outgoing partner's right to receive his share in the residue of the partnership assets is not frozen as of the date of dissolution. Instead, the partner is entitled to have his share determined based on the value of the partnership assets as on the date of their actual valuation.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where the partnership firm owning 3.27 acres of land in Hyderabad sought to be dissolved by one of the partner at Will. The issue before the Court was whether the outgoing partner's share in the firm's immovable property had to be valued as on October 18, 1983, the date of dissolution, or at the value prevailing when the property was actually assessed or sold.

Affirming the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment, the judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan held that though the profits or losses of the partnership business have to be determined as on the date of dissolution, that date does not necessarily determine the monetary value of the partner's share in the residue of the partnership assets.

Release Of Escrow Under SEBI Buyback Regulations Does Not Bar Separate Fraud Inquiry : Supreme Court In Vedanta Case

Case: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Vedanta Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 919

The Supreme Court (09.09.2026) has held that release of the cash escrow deposited by a company under Regulation 15B(8) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Buyback of Securities) Regulations, 1998 (Buyback Regulations), does not operate as a bar to a separate and independent inquiry into fraud under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations).

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, however, remanded the matter back to the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) for fresh adjudication on the limited question of fraud, after finding that neither the Adjudicating Officer (AO) nor SAT had dealt with disputed discrepancies in the trading data on the basis of which the fraud was discovered.

The appeals arise out of a 2023 judgment by which SAT had set aside a penalty order passed by the AO (SEBI). The AO had imposed a penalty of Rs 5.25 crore on Vedanta Limited (respondent, formerly as Cairn India Limited) and Rs 15 lakh each on three other individuals (other respondents). It was alleged that the respondents had made a misleading buyback announcement without any real intention of fulfilling it, in violation of the PFUTP Regulations and Regulation 19(1)(a) of the Buyback Regulations.

Constructive Criticism Of Judiciary Necessary Feature Of Vibrant Democracy, But It Must Be Voiced In Appropriate Forum : Supreme Court

Case Title – In Re: Social Science Textbook For Grade–8 (Part-2) Published By Ncert and Ancillary Issues

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 920

The Supreme Court observed that the Judiciary as an institution is open to criticism and fair, informed and constructive critique of judicial functioning is a legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, however, said such criticism must be voiced through an appropriate forum and a fair, rational mechanism. Unverified criticism should not be included in a school curriculum meant for children, the Court said.

The Court also clarified that an earlier observation concerning three academics involved in preparing the curriculum was not a finding by the Court.

Supreme Court Orders Centre To Give Rs 15 Lakh To Officer Who Was Illegally Retired As 'Deadwood', Directs To Give Him Farewell

Case Details: S.S. Das v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 921

The Supreme Court (September 9) set aside the compulsory retirement of a former Indian Trade Service officer, who was prematurely retired despite possessing an unblemished record and outstanding gradings. The Court awarded him ₹9 lakh as compensation for loss of reputation and ₹6 lakh as costs, and directed that he be called back to office by the Director General of Foreign Trade for a formal farewell with full honour.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that an officer with a consistently outstanding service record, who had been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary merely two months before his compulsory retirement, could not have been suddenly branded as “dead wood” or an officer of doubtful integrity in the absence of any intervening adverse material.

“The object of compulsory retirement is to enable the administration to dispense with the services of public servants who, when viewed in the prism of public interest, have been rendered dead wood and, thus, outlived their utility…However, a promotion earned on merits, and not by dint of seniority alone, immediately prior to such order of compulsory retirement being made would, by itself, render the order susceptible to invalidity.”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Directs J&K To Approve Govt Teacher's Assignment As National Kayaking Coach For Asian Games 2026

Case Details: Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 922

The Supreme Court (September 10) directed the Jammu and Kashmir Govt. to immediately issue the relieving order, No Objection Certificate (NOC), and permission in favour of a Physical Education Teacher, who was selected as Chief Coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team, to enable her to participate in the Asian Games, 2026.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench order which had denied a relieving order, NOC to the sports teacher Ms. Bilquis Mir, who was selected as Coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team, to enable participate in an upcoming Asian Games tournament.

“Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to issue the necessary relieving order/No Objection Certificate/permission in favour of respondent No.3 – Ms. Bilquis Mir, forthwith and, in any event, on or before 15.09.2026 to enable her: a. to join and discharge the remaining assignment as Coach/Chief Coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team; and b. to accompany and assist the Indian National Team in connection with the Asian Games, 2026.”, the Court said.

Long Possession Alone Does Not Prove Adverse Possession,Hostile Intent Essential : Supreme Court

Case: Bhag Singh (Dead) Through Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 923

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar ruled so while hearing an appeal filed against a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had reversed concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, and decreed a suit for declaration of title and possession in favour of the respondents.

The case concerns agricultural land and traces back to a civil suit instituted in 1981. The plaintiffs relied on a 1965 registered sale deed and a recital of delivery of possession. Per contra, the defendants contended that the property had long before been dedicated for Dharam Arth in favour of the Dera, and that revenue records consistently recorded the Mahant of the Dera to be in possession of it as gair marusi bila lagan bawaja Dharam Arth. It was also contended that the property had consistently been in possession of successive Mahants, thus, Dera had the title by adverse possession also.

Subsequently, the trial court ruled that the property stood dedicated to the Dera and that possession had continued through Mahants. This was subsequently affirmed by the first appellate court, holding that the dedication stood completed upon delivery of possession and that no separate registered instrument was required. However, the findings were reversed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, holding that the revenue entries did not conclusively establish either a completed dedication or adverse possession, particularly in the absence of evidence showing continuity of possession through the subsequent Mahants or any hostile assertion of title.

Supreme Court Explains S.69 BNS : No Offence Of Deceitful Sex By Breach Of Genuine Marriage Promise

Case: Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v State of Gujarat & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 925

The Supreme Court has recently quashed an FIR registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse for which consent was obtained by deceitful means, such as false promise to marry, after finding that the complaint itself disclosed a consensual relationship rather than a deceitful inducement. It also noted that refusal to marry because the accused's mother did not permit it, does not amount to deceit.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a special leave petition against a Gujarat High Court's order wherein it had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Gulati v State of Haryana to decline to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner.

The petitioner (appellant/accused) was booked under Section 69 BNS on the allegation that he had entered into a physical relationship with the complainant under the pretext of a promise to marry her, and later resiled from his promise citing his mother's disapproval of the match. Petitioner's plea for quashing the case against him was subsequently rejected by the High Court.

Why Ultra-Processed Foods Grouped With Other Packaged Foods Under Warning Label Regime? Supreme Court Asks FSSAI

Case Details: 3S AND OUR HEALTH SOCIETY v UNION OF INDIA AND ANR| MA 1177/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 926

The Supreme Court has questioned whether ultra-processed foods (UPFs) should be subjected to the same front-of-pack warning-label thresholds as other packaged foods, observing that clubbing ultra-processed foods with minimally processed packaged foods could overlook the nutritional differences between them.

A Bench of Justices JB  Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran has specifically asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) whether, while calculating thresholds for nutrients of concern under its proposed Front-of-Pack Labelling (FoPL) regime, it proposes to account for the distinction between Food Group B [moderately processed foods with no additives] and Food Group C[excessively processed foods with additives]/

The Court noted that the food classification contained in the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by ICMR-NIN, first divides foods according to their degree of processing into Group A (minimally processed, no additives), Group B (moderately processed, no additives) and Group C (excessively processed, with additives). These are then further divided into sub-categories 1, 2 and 3 according to calorific value.

Corporal Punishment Not Offence Under POCSO Act: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Teacher

Case: Bhaskar Paul v State of West Bengal

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 927

The Supreme Court has recently quashed a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), against a school teacher accused of aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The case was quashed, holding that his conduct of resorting to corporal punishment, though inappropriate and insensitive, did not disclose sexual intent necessary to constitute the offence. It also observed that an eventual acquittal would be “wholly inadequate” to undo the damage caused by the prosecution itself, and will have irreversible stigma on a teacher.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar was hearing an appeal against a Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri) order, which had refused to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

An FIR was registered against the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, after female teachers informed the headmaster that he had physically touched some Class X girl students, who had verbally complained against him. Pursuant to this, the District Child Protection Unit (DCPU) visited the school and prepared a Counselling-cum-Enquiry Report, based on which police registered the FIR suo motu. The appellant sought quashing the FIR before the High Court, however, it was refused.

Suit Not Maintainable To Recover Money Paid For Illegal Purpose, Must Be Rejected Under O VII R 11 CPC : Supreme Court

Case Title: Poosa Sri Krishna & Ors v Gattu Kishan Rao & Anr

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 928

The Supreme Court has recently held that where a plaint itself discloses that the money sought to be recovered was paid for an illegal and fraudulent purpose, the suit is barred by the of in pari delicto and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan ruled so while hearing appeal against a Telangana High Court order by which it had upheld the trial court's order, by which appellant's plea seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected.

The dispute relates to a money recovery suit filed by the original plaintiff (respondent) seeking recovery of money allegedly paid to the appellants for procuring loans from various banks, purportedly to cover unspecified “overhead expenses.” The appellants had filed an application for rejection of the plaint, contending that the plaint itself disclosed an illegal and fraudulent object. The trial court, however, dismissed the plea. Subsequently, the dismissal was upheld by the Telangana High Court.

Aggrieved by the High Court's finding, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Electricity Act | Past Dues Beyond Two Years Can Be Recovered Only If Continuously Shown As Arrear : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Dakschinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Vidut Lokpal, Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 929

The Supreme Court observed that ordinarily an electricity bill needs to be raised within two years of the consumption, and if the amount is sought to be recovered beyond the two-year limitation, then the said amount needs to be continuously treated as a recoverable arrear.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria dismissed the appeal of an Uttar Pradesh-based distribution licensee, Dakschinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. appeal, which sought to recover Rs.57,74,164/- as a Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charges (“MCGC”) for the period from February, 1998 to September, 1998, with respect to the additional 2000 KVA load facility offered to be supplied by the Appellant to the consumer.

The Court upheld the Allahabad High Court's order, which had dismissed the appellant's writ petition. The High Court noted that the additional 2000 KVA load facility offered to the consumer was never actually availed by the consumer; also, the amount so claimed was not continuously treated as recoverable arrears from the consumer from 1998 until the date of the demand, i.e., 13.02.2007.

Supreme Court Dismisses Gangster Abu Salem's Plea For Premature Release In 1993 Bombay Blasts Case

Case: SLP(Crl) No. 12871/2026 Diary No. 41145 / 2026 ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYOOM ANSARI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 931

The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea filed by gangster Abu Salem, sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, seeking premature release

Salem approached the court contending that his earned prison remission and undertrial custody should be counted towards the 25-year imprisonment cap flowing from India's extradition assurances to Portugal.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pronounced the verdict. The Court held that Salem continues to serve life imprisonment and the 25-year stipulation flowing from the extradition assurance did not convert his life sentence into a fixed-term sentence.

SARFAESI Proceedings Can Be Invoked Despite Earlier Decree Passed In DRT OA For Same Debt : Supreme Court

Case: KK Praveen v JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company P Ltd & Ors

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 932

The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution challenging the invocation of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) by an Asset Reconstruction Company (respondent), holding that the overriding effect of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act permits such action even where an ex-parte decree already stands passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for the same debt in an Original Application.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan ruled so while dealing with a writ petition, seeking declarations against the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Sections 13(2), 13(4), and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act).

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner submitted that once a decree (including an ex-parte decree) has been passed, the principle of transit in rem judicatam applies, and the underlying cause of action merges into the decree. It was also contended that the general principle of res judicata would consequently bar any further proceeding on the same cause of action, and that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act could not have been invoked in the present case.

EPF Act | Whether Penalty For Delayed Provident Fund Deposit Is Mandatory? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case: M/s Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation v Central Board of Trustees and Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 933

The Supreme Court has recently doubted the correctness of its earlier decision in[[LINK: ]]Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, Coord v Regional Provident Fund Organization(2022), which had held that imposition of damages for delayed payment under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 (EPF & MP Act) is automatic and mandatory.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran has referred the question of whether Section 14B confers a discretion on the authority to levy or not levy penalty, to a larger bench.

The appeals arose from orders passed at the instance of the Central Board of Trustees under the EPF & MP Act, which had applied the earlier ruling that the “share of workmen dues” must be kept outside liquidation, and that concerned workmen/employees must be paid Provident Fund (PF) and Gratuity Fund (GF) dues by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) implementing a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Deed Granting Fishing Rights Is Transfer Of Immovable Property, Amounts To Lease : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ZAKI ULLAH KHAN VERSUS STATE OF U.P.AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 934

The Supreme Court recently held that a lease deed vesting fishing rights for more than a year in an individual is compulsorily registrable and liable to stamp duty.

The Court held that the right to catch and carry away fish from a water body constitutes profit à prendre—a benefit arising out of land—and is therefore immovable property for the purpose of stamp duty.

“…when the right is given to a person to catch fish in the tank, it is profit à prendre attached to, or a benefit to arise out of the land. Therefore, it is an instrument for the purpose of stamp duty and since the duration of the licence, which is in fact a lease, is for more than a year, it is compulsory registrable and liable to stamp duty as an instrument of lease.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.

'Army's Burden To Prove Disability Was Not Due To Service' : Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Appeals Against Disability Pension

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS COL. NC ISAAC (RETD.) (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 935

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 15) dismissed 271 appeals by the Union Government against disability pensions given to ex-servicemen within 15 years of retirement. The Court said that even though the 2008 Rules removed the presumption that a soldier was fit at entry, this does not help the employer. The Union of India must still prove that the disability was neither attributable nor aggravated (NANA) by military service.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe delivered a judgment while hearing the Union's appeals against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and various High Courts which had granted disability pension to ex-servicemen.

In each case, a Release Medical Board (RMB) had opined that the disability was "neither attributable nor aggravated" (NANA) by military service. The ex-servicemen's appeals were dismissed, following which they approached the AFT or High Courts, which granted them disability pension. Against this, the Union moved to the Supreme Court.

Trust Not A Juristic Person, Cannot Be Arrayed As Accused : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Madasa Masih-UI-Uloom Educational and Charitable Trust Versus State of Karnataka & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 936

Reiterating that a 'trust' being not a juristic person, and cannot sue or be sued, the Supreme Court has quashed a criminal proceeding against a Trust, who has been arrayed as an accused in a financial irregularity case in Karnataka.

“…a Trust does not have a separate legal existence of its own, making it incapable of suing or being sued, since it is only an obligation annexed to the ownership of the property arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of the another, or of another and the owner. The obligation to maintain or defend suits is placed on the shoulders of a Trustee and not on the Trust itself.”, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran endorsed the judgment passed in [[LINK:Pratibha Pratisthan v. Manager, Canara Bank (2017)]].

The Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the Appellant-trust.

Courts Must Presume Correctness Of Answer Key, Interfere Only If Mistake Is 'Glaring And Apparent': Supreme Court

Case: Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission v Ashok Yadav & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 937

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that a challenge to the correctness of an answer key selected by an examining body can be entertained only where the error is so glaring and apparent that it can be detected without any resort to any interferential reasoning. It set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had awarded a disputed mark to a candidate in a Village Development Officer recruitment examination conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (UPSSSC).

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi allowed the Commission's appeal against the Division Bench's review order which had reversed an earlier dismissal of the candidate's writ petition and directed the Commission to award him one additional mark, prepare a fresh recommendation, and directed the Uttar Pradesh government to grant him appointment.

For context, the Commission had advertised posts for Village Development Officers, whose results were declared based on a revised answer key. The present dispute concerns a question which asked candidates to identify the incorrectly matched pair from four options linking historical chronicles to their subjects/authors. The Commission's answer key treated option B (Shahjahannama - Mohd Tahir) as the correct answer, being the incorrect pair. The candidate (respondent) had instead marked Humanyunnama - Humayun (option C) as the incorrect pair, contending that Humayunnama was not authored by Humayun but by Gulbadan Begum.

Seat Belts In Cars : Supreme Court Asks Centre To Consider Suggestions For Stricter Enforcement

Case: Jothydev Kesavadev v Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 938

The Supreme Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking effective implementation and enforcement of mandatory seat belt usage, child restraint systems and first-aid kits in vehicles, while granting liberty to the petitioner to forward a copy of his petition to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for consideration of his recommendations.

The Court observed that non-compliance with existing safety laws and lax enforcement by authorities was “essentially a question of maintenance of law and order as well as traffic discipline,” and that a judicial order restraining the legal provisions “per se will not aid in their enforcement.”

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana was hearing a writ petition filed by Dr Jothydev Kesavadev, who is described by the bench as “an internationally acclaimed diabetic specialist and researcher with over 300 publications to his credit.”

Supreme Court Expresses Dissatisfaction With States' Compliance On Menstrual Hygiene In Schools

Cause Title: JAYA THAKUR VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 939

The Supreme Court has expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which States and Union Territories reported compliance with its directions on ensuring menstrual hygiene facilities in schools, observing that some responses appeared to be mere formalities and did not reflect the situation on the ground.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan while monitoring compliance with its judgment in Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 94, after perusing the affidavit filed by the Union Of India, stated that though substantial progress has been made, a lot more ought to be done to make the right to menstrual health more meaningful.

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

Place Of Insurer's Office Doesn't Confer Territorial Jurisdiction For Motor Accident Claim : Supreme Court Explains S.166(2) MV Act

Case: K Rashik v National Insurance Company Ltd & Anr

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 940

The Supreme Court today (16.09.2026) has held that while Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits a claimant to file a compensation claim at a place where he himself “carries on business,” the same expression does not extend to the insurer, and an insurer company cannot be treated as a defendant for the purpose of conferring territorial jurisdiction merely because it carries on business at that place.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held so while dismissing an appeal filed by a claimant, upholding a Madras High Court order which had held that the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT), Chennai lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain his claim petition, since neither the accident nor his residence fell within its jurisdiction.

The appellant (claimant) had filed a claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act before the MACT Chennai. The insurer (respondent) objected to the MACT's territorial jurisdiction under Section 166(2), contending that no part of cause of action had arisen at Chennai. The MACT, however, rejected the objection, holding that since the insurer also had a business office at Chennai, it did not lack jurisdiction. The insurer subsequently challenged the finding before the Madras High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, which held that since the accident occurred at Chittoor, only MACT, Chittoor had jurisdiction.

Lessee Cannot File Writ Petition Against Eviction When Land Owner's Challenge Was Withdrawn : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS VERSUS M.A. GARDEN FUNCTION HALL AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 941

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 16) held that it is impermissible for the lessees of the trust to file a Writ Petition against the eviction when the Trust itself remained unsuccessful in seeking protection against the eviction.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar heard the case where two sets of proceedings culminated before the Telangana High Court, wherein, in the first set of proceedings initiated by one M/s. Kishan Chand Foundation Trust against the eviction proceedings initiated by the State ultimately resulted in dismissal by the Division Bench of the High Court, against which an SLP was later withdrawn by the Trust.

Despite no interim protection being granted to the Trust against the eviction by the Supreme Court while disposing of its SLP as withdrawn, a second leg of proceedings was initiated by the trust's lessees against the eviction before the High Court, which resulted in their favour, granting interim protection against the eviction.

Supreme Court Asks RBI To Issue Directions To Prevent Forcible Repossession Of Vehicles By Banks, NBFCs

Case: Hari Dutta Sharma v State of UP & Ors

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 942

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (16.09.2026) has directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to take effective steps to secure genuine compliance by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFC) and Scheduled Commercial Banks with the Guidelines, Master Circulars, and Clarifications it has issued over the years on recovery practices, observing that such instruments “have existed only on paper, and no steps have been taken by the RBI to implement it.”

Noting that despite over two decades of Guidelines, such practices continued unabated, the Court held that “the Guidelines/Master Circulars/Clarifications issued by RBI to NBFCs and Scheduled Commercial Banks have existed only on paper, and no steps have been taken by the RBI to implement it. We, therefore, direct the RBI to take effective steps to secure genuine compliance, by NBFCs and Scheduled Commercial Banks alike, with the Guidelines/Master Circulars/Clarifications, it has issued from time to time, so that incidents of the present kind, where a citizen is dispossessed of his livelihood in the dead of night, without notice and without recourse, do not recur. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to RBI.”

The bench accordingly directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the RBI.

Financiers Cannot Repossess Vehicles By Force : Supreme Court Awards Rs 10 Lakh Compensation To Truck Owner

Case: Hari Dutta Sharma v State of UP & Ors

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 942

The Supreme Court today (16.09.2026) has held that a financier's right of self-help repossession of a hypothecated vehicle cannot be exercised through force, deceit, or in violation of the terms of the loan agreement, and that recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles could only be made through legal means.

It also awarded compensation to a truck owner whose vehicle was repossessed at 1 am by breaking open its steering lock, without any prior notice.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe ruled so while setting aside an Allahabad High Court order, by which the appellant's writ petition was dismissed holding that as the vehicle was sold, he had belatedly approached the High Court, and had also defaulted in the payment of instalments of the loan.

Article 220 Doesn't Bar Ex-HC Judges' Co-option As Bar Council Women Members: Supreme Court

Case Details: SWATI SINHA & ORS.  v UNION OF INDIA & ORS in YOGAMAYA M.G. Vs UNION OF INDIA|MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2026 [DIARY NO(S).51143/2026]

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 943

The Supreme Court has clarified that Article 220 of the Constitution, which restricts former High Court Chief Justices and Judges from practising before courts and authorities in India, does not bar their co-option as women members of the respective State Bar Councils.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana made the clarification while disposing of miscellaneous applications seeking modification of the Court's earlier directions concerning the co-option of women members to State Bar Councils.

Article 220 of the Constitution provides that a person who has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court shall not plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India, except the Supreme Court and other High Courts. The provision is intended to restrict the legal practice of former High Court Judges, subject to the exceptions expressly mentioned in it.

Income Tax | AO Cannot Reopen Assessment Settled By Settlement Commission : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. M/s. Omaxe Limited

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 944

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 16) held that once an Income Tax Settlement Commission passes an order determining the net taxable income, it is impermissible for the Assessing Officer to issue a reassessment notice against the assessee under the Income Tax Act.

“If the jurisdiction of the AO under Sections 143(2), 148, 154, etc., is made independent and available for exercise again, the finality attached to the Settlement Commission will be defeated. Parliament did not envisage this course. On the contrary, while reopening the issues before the ITSC is provided for, judicial review by the Constitutional Courts under Articles 226 and 32/136 is available, but the AO's power to reassess the Settlement Order passed by the ITSC is unavailable.”, observed a bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria, while dismissing the Revenue's appeal against the Delhi High Court judgment quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated against real estate company Omaxe Limited for Assessment Year 2006-07.

The respondent, the assessee, had filed a settlement application covering AYs 2000-01 to 2006-07 after a search and seizure operation. The Settlement Commission passed its final order under Section 245D (4) in March 2008 and determined Omaxe's taxable income for AY 2006-07 after allowing the deduction claimed under Section 80-IB (10), which provides a 100% deduction on profits derived by an undertaking from developing and building eligible housing projects approved by a local authority.

PC Act | Handover Of Bribe To Intermediary Not Enough To Prove Public Servant's Guilt : Supreme Court

Cause Title: BHARAT RAJ MEENA VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 945

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 16) held that merely establishing that money changed hands between a complainant and an intermediary who invoked the name of a public servant cannot, by itself, prove that the public servant accepted a bribe.

“The prosecution has, at its best, established that money changed hands between a complainant and an intermediary who invoked the appellant's name. But that itself can be said to be a proof of appellant's acceptance of bribe.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while acquitting former Railway Protection Force officer Bharat Raj Meena in a corruption case after the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had demanded or accepted illegal gratification through the intermediary [See Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029].

The case arose from a CBI trap in which RPF employee P.P. Nandakumar alleged that ₹10,000 was demanded to secure a posting. The prosecution alleged that accused-Meena demanded the money through Constable Anantha Narayanan, who was subsequently caught accepting the tainted currency.

Litigant Mustn't Suffer When Delay Is Due To E-Filing Technical Glitch : Supreme Court Restores NCLAT Appeal

Case: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II v Ms Mamta Binani & Ors

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 946

The Supreme Court has recently held that a litigant cannot be shown the door merely because an appeal was e-filed a day beyond the statutorily condonable period, where the delay was caused solely by a technical glitch in the tribunal's own e-filing portal.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held so while setting aside an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, which had dismissed an appeal as time-barred on the ground that it fell one day beyond the maximum period condonable under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The dispute concerns a resolution plan which was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, on December 15, 20225. Aggrieved by this, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II filed an appeal before the NCLAT.

Appointment To Public Post Contrary To Recruitment Advertisement Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court

Cause Title: SUNITA LAHU PANCHPANDE VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 947

The Supreme Court has held that an appointment to a public post made in disregard of the qualifications prescribed in the recruitment advertisement amounts to a fraud on the public, while upholding the cancellation of an Anganwadi Supervisor's appointment in Maharashtra.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed an appeal filed by Sunita Lahu Panchpande, who had challenged the Bombay High Court's decision setting aside her appointment as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik district and directing the appointment of the next eligible wait-listed candidate.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Datta relied on the 1990 Supreme Court judgment of Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi to uphold the cancellation of the Appellant's appointment.

'Equal Pay For Equal Work' Doctrine Cannot Be Mechanically Applied, Experience Can Justify Pay Difference: Supreme Court

Case: GP Sangeetha & Ors Etc. Etc. v State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 948

The Supreme Court has recently held that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be mechanically applied merely on the ground that two categories of employees perform functionally similar duties, and that a difference in experience between directly recruited and promoted employees can constitute a valid basis for a difference in pay scales.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu ruled so while dismissing appeals filed by a group of directly recruited Higher Secondary School Teachers, Junior (HSST, Jr.) in Government-aided schools in Kerala, who had sought parity in pay scale with HSST, Jr. teachers appointed through transfer or promotion.

The appellants were appointed through direct recruitment under a 1998 government order and had claimed the full-time pay scale extended to HSST, Jr. teachers who were appointed by transfer or promotion, contending that both categories performed identical duties and responsibilities within the same cadre. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Kerala High Court held that the appellants had been subjected to grave discrimination. However, the Division Bench reversed the judgment, holding that promoted teachers could not be treated as equal to direct recruits who were freshers as the benefit of full pay being intended merely to protect the status such promoted teachers already enjoyed prior to promotion.

NDPS Act | 'Unexplained 5-Day Gap In Custody Of Samples, Breach Of S.52A' : Supreme Court Acquits Two Men After 20 Years

Cause Title: ABDUL RAJIK VERSUS STATE OF M.P., GOVIND VERSUS STATE OF M.P.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 949

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 16) set aside the convictions of two individuals after twenty years in an NDPS Act case for the alleged recovery and possession of charas in a commercial quantity, after finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the link in the chain of custody of the seized contraband. The Court noted an unexplained gap of five days between the date on which the seized material was forwarded for FSL testing and the date on which it was actually received by the FSL.

The Court also found an absence of identifying marks/signatures on the sample packets, no corresponding maalkhana exit entry, non-examination of the carrier Constable, and total non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act as significant factors rendering the conviction bad in law.

“The prosecution has offered no explanation whatsoever as to where and in whose custody the samples remained during the period with connected matter between 1st December, 2004 and 6th December, 2004. This grave discrepancy and the gap of five (5) days, completely breaches the link in the chain of custody, which was required to be established if the prosecution was desirous of placing reliance on the FSL report.”, observed a bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan, while setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment which had upheld the trial court's decision convicting the Appellants despite there an unexplained gap in the custody of the samples.

Supreme Court Allows 3-Year Law Graduates With Bachelor Degrees Through Distance/Open Mode To Provisionally Enrol As Advocates

Case: STS Gladies v Bar Council of India & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 950

The Supreme Court has recently directed the Telangana State Bar Council to provisionally enrol as advocates a batch of applicants whose three-year LL.B. degrees were obtained through the regular mode, but whose enrolment had been withheld on the ground that their preceding educational qualifications (Bachelor's degree) was obtained through open, distance, or correspondence mode.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order in a batch of applications seeking provisional enrolment pending final adjudication of the matter which concerns the interpretation and application of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 framed by the Bar Council of India (BCI).

The applicants (appellants) had completed their school education and thereafter obtained Bachelor's degrees from Dr BR Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad, before completing their three-year LL.B courses through the regular mode from BCI-recognised universities. Their enrolment as advocates had not been processed on account of their preceding Bachelor's degrees having been obtained through the open or distance mode.

No Vested Right To Claim Promotion Under Repealed Rules : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER VERSUS G.N. MANI RAVINDER AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 951

The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 17) reiterated that a promotional post arising under the applicable Rules need not necessarily be filled under those Rules, particularly where they have since been repealed. The Court held that such promotional posts can be filled up under the new Rules, which prescribe new methods of recruitment.

“The employee does not acquire any vested right for being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the concurrent findings of the Single and Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, which directed the BSNL to consider the promotion of its employees based on the repealed Rules, without adverting to the written test mandated under the new Rule.

The private respondents-writ petitioners are working as Assistant Director (Official Language), renamed as 'Rajbhasha Adhikari', on an officiating basis. They relied on the 2021 Supreme Court judgment of Medini C. and Others v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others to seek a vested right of promotion based on the Rules under which the promotional vacancy arose.

Presumption Of Guilt Under POCSO Act Not Absolute: Supreme Court Acquits Man

Case: Deepak in JC v State Govt. of NCT Delhi

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 952

The Supreme Court on Thursday (17.09.2026) acquitted a man convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), holding that the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act is not absolute, and that once the accused successfully expose inconsistencies and non-corroboration, “the presumption of guilt would no longer remain effective.”

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria ruled so while setting aside a Delhi High Court ruling that had upheld the conviction by the trial court, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 363 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and was sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act along with a fine, and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 363. He was acquitted under Section 506 of the IPC (now Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). An appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court, wherein the conviction and sentence of the appellant was upheld.

Grievousness Of Injury Not Necessary For Attracting Section 307 IPC : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Surender Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 953

The Supreme Court has held that the grievousness of the injuries sustained to an injured victim is not a necessary ingredient to attract an offence of an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.

“We are of the opinion that the grievousness of the injuries or the possibility of injury which could have led to death, is not a necessary ingredient to attract Section 307.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while dismissing a plea filed by a victim's brother who sought to add Section 307 IPC at a later stage against the accused after the trial had significantly progressed.

The petitioner's case was that initially, the police had registered the FIR under Section 307 and only on the examination by the Medical Board, as requested by the accused, Section 307 was deleted.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Maharashtra Rules Mandating Additives In Methanol, Issues Directions To Prevent Hooch Tragedies

Cause Title: M/S BALAJI FORMALIN PVT. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 954

The Supreme Court on Friday (September 18) has struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, which required bitterant and colourant to be added to methanol before it could be sold to non-drug manufacturers.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the writ petitions filed by the methanol-based product manufacturers against the mandatory inclusion of additives in methanol which had affected the quality and usability of their products.

Rules 18A and 18B were introduced in 2011 after a 1991 Mumbai Hooch tragedy which claimed 93 lives due to the consumption of toxic spurious liquor laced with high levels of methanol.

S. 92 CPC | Civil Court Cannot Pass Interim Orders While Leave Application Is Pending Against Public Trust: Supreme Court

Cause Title: S. PANCHALINGU & ORS. VERSUS PEOPLE'S EDUCATION TRUST (R) & OTHERS ETC.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 955

The Supreme Court on Friday (September 18) held that a Civil Court cannot pass protective or preservatory interim orders while an application seeking leave to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is pending.

Since, obtaining a prior leave of the court is mandatory to file a representative suit under Section 92 CPC when it is filed by individuals, a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan held that grant of leave under Section 92 CPC is a mandatory pre-condition for institution of the suit. Until such leave is granted, there is no pending suit or lis before the Civil Court on which interlocutory or supplemental powers can be exercised.

“…a Civil Court, seized of a plaint under Section 92 of the Code together with an application seeking leave to institute the suit, is not empowered to pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending disposal of the leave application.”, the Court answered, in response to the question framed i.e., “…whether a Civil Court, seized of a plaint filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('Code'), together with an application seeking leave to institute the suit, possesses the power to pass protective or preservatory interim orders during the pendency of the leave application?”

Despite Liquor Ban, Gujarat Witnessed Several Hooch Tragedies : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S BALAJI FORMALIN PVT. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Despite maintaining a strict prohibition policy for decades, Gujarat has witnessed several major hooch tragedies involving methanol-laced illicit liquor, the Supreme Court has observed while [[LINK:examining the constitutional validity]] of Maharashtra's restrictions on methanol.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran noted that Gujarat, a "dry State", had witnessed at least ten major mass hooch tragedies since its formation and Independence, claiming the lives of more than 600 people. The Court made the observation while discussing measures required to prevent deaths caused by spurious liquor.

The observations came in a[[LINK: judgment striking down]] Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, which restricted the purchase and possession of methanol and mandated the addition of colourant and bitterant to methanol before its sale to non-drug manufacturers.

O 7 Rule 11 CPC | Admissibility Of Document Cannot Be Decided While Considering Rejection Of Plaint : Supreme Court

Case: Sheo Kumar Singh & Others v M/s Sharda Educational Society & Others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 956

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ruled so while allowing an appeal filed by a group of landowners/lessors, setting aside a Patna High Court order that had remanded their eviction suit for fresh consideration on the ground that an unregistered supplementary lease deed on which they relied was inadmissible in evidence.

The bench framed the question as, “non-admissibility of a document on which the plaintiff relies for seeking relief in his suit is sought to be made a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Whether such a ground could be urged before commencement of the trial is the issue that arises for consideration in this civil appeal.”

The plaintiffs (appellants) had executed a registered lease deed in favour of the respondents (defendants) for a plot of land, for a 33-year term at a monthly rent of Rs 92,550 with 7% annual escalation. It is alleged that after the defendants sought a bank loan for constructing a school building on the land and were required to furnish an equitable mortgage as security, the parties executed a supplementary lease deed modifying certain terms of the original lease, including revising the rent based on the constructed area. The plaintiffs alleged that since this deed merely modified an already registered deed, it did not itself require registration.

Buyer Who Purchased Property From Defendant Is Necessary Party In Suit Seeking Declaration Of Tenancy Rights : Supreme Court

Case: Rasilaben & Anr. v Dinesh Deumal Harani & Ors

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 957

The Supreme Court has held that a person who purchases suit property during the pendency of a civil suit, from a party already impleaded as a defendant, is a necessary party to the suit seeking declaration of tenancy status against the property.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ruled so while setting aside the order of the Gujarat High Court which had refused to implead the appellants as defendants in a suit filed by a person claiming tenancy rights over a portion of the suit property.

The plaintiff (respondent) had filed a civil suit seeking declaration that his occupation of the premises was as a tenant, and also sought a permanent injunction. The co-owner of the suit property was impleaded as the first defendant.

Supreme Court Recommends Law To Govern Court Deposits, Urges Law Commission To Examine

Cause Title: NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS NATIONAL AGRO SEED CORPORATION (INDIA)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 958

The Supreme Court has urged the Law Commission of India to examine the lack of uniformity in how money deposited before Courts and Tribunals is administered, invested, and released.

“We are of the opinion that it is necessary to evolve and formulate a suitable legislation on the subject.”, observed a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe while hearing an appeal against the Delhi High Court's judgment, which had upheld the award-debtor's liability to pay interest on the deposit of an arbitral award amount from the date of passing of the arbitral award until the deposited amount was transferred to the award-holder.

The Court noted significant differences among Courts and Tribunals regarding the percentage of the award or decree required to be deposited, the bank or financial institution where the money is kept, the investment instrument, interest earned, and the withdrawal, renewal, and reinvestment of deposits.

Conditional Deposit Won't Stop Interest If Award-Holder Can't Freely Withdraw It: Supreme Court

Cause Title: NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS NATIONAL AGRO SEED CORPORATION (INDIA)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 958

The Supreme Court has held that a deposit of an arbitral award amount in court does not automatically amount to payment or extinguish the award-debtor's liability to pay interest. Interest liability ceases only when the deposit is made in accordance with Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is unconditionally available for withdrawal by the award-holder.

Conditional deposit of an arbitral award does not stop interest unless the award-holder can withdraw it unconditionally, ruled the Supreme Court.

The Court clarified that the real question is whether the award-holder had access to and could freely withdraw the amount deposited.

Supreme Court Acquits 4 Murder Convicts, Says Eyewitnesses Couldn't Have Identified Accused On Pitch-Dark Night

Case: Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr Etc. v The State of Odisha

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 959

The Supreme Court has acquitted four persons convicted for the 2001 murder of one Dhruba Pradhan in Odisha, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case either through direct or circumstantial evidence, and that the trial court and the High Court erred in relying on eyewitness testimony that could not withstand scrutiny.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale made the observations while setting aside the judgements of the Orissa High Court, holding that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.

It is alleged that in 2001, one of the accused visited the informant's house and threatened to kill the deceased. Later that evening, a group of accused persons armed with weapons allegedly searched for the deceased and later intercepted him on a motorcycle, assaulted him with stones and weapons, and threw his motorcycle into a pond.

Income Tax | CBDT Circular Not Binding On Court : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ORIENT CRAFTS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI. (with connected appeals)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 960

Reiterating that CBDT circulars are not binding on Courts, the Supreme Court recently dismissed a batch of appeals filed by assessees claiming deductions under Section 80HHC for the premium they received on the sale of their export quota.

Section 80HHC provided tax deductions on export profits for Indian companies and resident taxpayers, but no deduction is available from April 1, 2005, onwards.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria held that premium received by the assesses from the sale of their export quota is not an income generated from the export, as no foreign exchange is earned; therefore, the transaction cannot be qualified as an 'income from export' to claim deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”).

Principal Employer Not Liable To Pay Gratuity To Contractual Workmen; Controlling Authority Can't Decide Who Must Pay : Supreme Court

Case: M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v Suryakand D Lad & Ors (with connected appeals)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 961

The Supreme Court has held that a principal employer cannot be held liable to pay gratuity to workers engaged through a contractor when there is no employer-employee relationship between the principal employer and such contractual workmen.

The Court set aside a Bombay High Court order holding Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) liable to pay gratuity to workers engaged through a contractor, holding that the Controlling Authority cannot decide who is liable to pay gratuity.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan held so while hearing ONGC's appeals “on the short point of the Controlling Authority not being competent to go into the lis.” The bench, thus, set aside the Bombay High Court order and revived the order of the Appellate Authority, which had ruled in ONGC's favour.

Inequitable To Undo Sale Executed Pursuant To Specific Performance Decree Decades Ago By Ordering Refund: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Sobaran Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Versus Gordhan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 962

The Supreme Court has held that once a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell has culminated in execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession, the completed transaction cannot be undone by substituting it with an enhanced monetary refund merely to "settle equities".

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the observation while restoring a 1979 Trial Court decree for specific performance concerning around five bighas of agricultural land near Agra.

The dispute arose from a registered agreement to sell dated June 16, 1975, under which approximately five bighas of agricultural land was agreed to be sold within two years for ₹20,000, with ₹5,000 paid as advance by the Appellant-plaintiff.

'Arbitration Cannot Be Arbitrary' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Arbitral Tribunal Appointment For Lack Of Consent

Cause Title: Arth Micro Finance Private Ltd. And Ors. Versus Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 963

The Supreme Court has held that while arbitration is a consensual dispute-resolution mechanism, the appointment of an arbitral tribunal cannot be made arbitrarily, particularly when the appointment itself has been specifically objected to on grounds of alleged bias.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that while arbitration is intended to provide an effective mechanism for dispute resolution, the process itself cannot become arbitrary.

“Arbitration, though rhymes with it, cannot result in an arbitrary measure, even in the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal.”, the Court said.

Once Trial On All Issues Has Started, One Issue Cannot Be Tried As Preliminary: : Supreme Court Explains Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC

Case: John Mathew v Santha Paul & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 964

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli set aside the orders of the trial court, the first appellate court and the Kerala High Court. The trial court had dismissed a suit as time-barred on a preliminary issue, after the plaintiff had closed his evidence and the defendants had begun theirs. The bench restored the suit and directed that the trial resume from where it was interrupted.

Background

The plaintiff sought a declaration that a sale deed was void, a declaration of title, and recovery of possession with mesne profits in 2013. Plaintiff asserted that he executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of a defendant (Defendant No 1/D1) in 2005, to manage the suit land. The GPA did not authorise D1 to settle the terms of sale or create a charge on the property. Later, the plaintiff revoked the GPA in 2009. D1 replied that the land had already been sold to another person (Defendant No 2/D2/petitioner).

'No Private University Can Run As Profit-Making Institution', Supreme Court Seeks Financial Details From All Pvt Universities

Cause Title: AYESHA JAIN VERSUS AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Observing that private universities cannot be permitted to function as profit-making institutions, the Supreme Court has directed private universities across the country to disclose their five years' audited financial records, utilisation of funds, fee structures, surplus investments and payments made to persons not directly involved in educational functions.

The Union Government, States and UTs have been directed to file affidavits through their Chief Secretaries after getting the details from the universities and colleges concerned within six weeks from the date of the order, i.e., September 17, 2026.

“…we make it clear that no private university shall be allowed to be run as a profit-making institution. It has to serve a purpose with some sort of a cushion so that its finances/resources are responsibly managed to ensure smooth functioning of the institution and that the teaching and non-teaching employees are compensated suitably.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice NV Anjaria.

Police Statement That 'Sufficient Material Exists To File Chargesheet' Doesn't Mean Default Bail Can Be Granted : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. VERSUS MOMIN MOIUDDIN GULAM HASAN @ MOIN MISTRI & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 966

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 21) held that a mere statement by an investigating agency, in an application seeking extension of the investigation period, that sufficient material exists to file a charge sheet cannot be construed as completion of the investigation.

In other words, the Court held that where an investigating agency, while seeking an extension of time, states that sufficient material exists to file a charge sheet but requires additional time to analyse and collate the available material, including witness statements, bank records, electronic evidence and other investigative inputs, the extension application cannot be rejected merely based on that statement.

According to the Court, the mere assertion that sufficient material exists to file a charge sheet does not, by itself, establish that the investigation is complete or confer a right to default bail upon the accused.

Police Officer Who Arrests Without Furnishing Written Grounds Must Face Departmental Enquiry : Supreme Court

Case Details: JASKARAN JEET SINGH DEOL v STATE OF PUNJAB|Crl.A. No. 4234/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 967

The Supreme Court today (September 21) held that disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against a police officer who arrested a person without furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing.

The bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar observed that the arrest of an accused becomes illegal if the grounds of arrest have not been furnished in writing as per the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. If the investigating agency wants to re-arrest a person whose initial arrest was declared illegal, it needs to first furnish the grounds of arrest and obtain the permission of the concerned Magistrate. On the administrative side, the police officer who failed to furnish the grounds of arrest will have to seek an endorsement from a superior authority for the further custody of the accused.

The superior authority will have to assign the further investigation to another officer, and must direct departmental inquiry against the police officer. If on inquiry there are adverse findings against the police officer, it should entail departmental action with entry in the service book of the officer. The Court has directed that a copy of this judgment should be sent to the Director Generals of Police in all States and Union Territories.

Supreme Court Mandates Magistrates' Approval For Re-Arrest After First Arrest Is Quashed For Not Furnishing Grounds

Case:JASKARAN JEET SINGH DEOL Vs STATE OF PUNJAB | Crl.A. No. 4234/2026 Diary No. 35041 / 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 967

The Supreme Court on Monday pronounced an important judgment clarifying the procedure for the re-arrest of an accused, after the earlier arrest was declared illegal for not furnishing the grounds of arrest as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul Chandurkar laid down that to re-arrest a person, who was released for the breach of Article 22(1), the police must file an application before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and obtain the Magistrate's sanction. The said application can be filed only after furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused. Also, the application must be endorsed by the immediate superior of the police officer who carried out the first arrest.

The application should also contain the explanation for non-supply of grounds of arrest to that used at the first instance.

Can Civil Judge Notified As Commercial Court Hear Trademark Infringement Suits? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Cause Title: I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. Versus M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 968

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 21) has referred to a Larger Bench the question whether a Civil Judge (Senior Division) notified as a Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 can entertain a trademark infringement suit, despite Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 expressly prohibiting institution of such suits before a court inferior to a District Court.

Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act provides that a suit for infringement of a registered trademark or relating to certain other specified reliefs cannot be instituted before a court inferior to a District Court.

The issue arose when the Jharkhand High Court, exercising powers under the Commercial Courts Act, notified a Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court, thereby entitling it to hear a trademark infringement suit despite the rigors of Section 134 of the Trade Mark Act.

'Fire Doesn't Seem Accidental' : Supreme Court Upholds Repudiation Of Rs 2.4 Crore Fire Insurance Claim

Case: M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd v M/s Hemkund Duplex and Board Pvt Ltd.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 969

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the insured had made false declarations in support of its claims, in breach of the policy conditions.

The respondent manufactured paper boards and had an open yard and three godowns. It held two fire policies from New India Assurance, out of which one was for stocks (Rs 13 Crore, from December 30, 2008 to December 29, 2009) and another for buildings, plant and machinery (Rs 14 Crore, from February 28, 2009 to February 27, 2010). In May 2007, a fire broke out in the waste paper yard inside the factory and damaged raw material and tin shed. The respondent claimed about Rs 7.31 Crore with 18% interest per annum before the NCDRC.

The insurer appointed a preliminary surveyor who stated in his report that the case needed a meticulous investigation to rule out deliberate fire and hypothetical loss. It then engaged an investigation agency. The final surveyor computed the net loss at Rs 46,09,722 and said that the insured had manipulated its books to inflate the claim. Subsequent to this, the insurer repudiated the claim, citing breach of Policy Conditions 6 and 8.

When Tender Acceptance Is Patently Contrary To NIT Conditions, Courts Can Interfere: Supreme Court

Cause Title: MICKY TRADERS Versus L.R.Y. LABOUR CONTRACTOR & ORS. (with connected appeal)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 971

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 21) held that while courts must ordinarily defer to the commercial wisdom of a tendering authority, such deference cannot extend to an interpretation of tender conditions that is contrary to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) or is patently arbitrary.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe heard a case where a tender involved collection of user charges from large numbers of vehicles entering the Mandi premises over 12 months, under a contract exceeding ₹16 crore.

The tender required experience in the successful execution of annual collection of User Charges/Parking Fees work in Government, Semi-Government or PSU organisations during the preceding two years.

'Delayed Disclosure By Witness Diminishes Evidentiary Value', Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of Two In Murder Case

Cause Title: THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VERSUS VARINDER VERMA @ JATTI & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 972

The Supreme Court has observed that a witness's failure to disclose incriminating circumstances against the accused promptly creates a serious doubt about the credibility of his testimony.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi heard the case, in which the belated testimony of PW3 played a crucial role in the conviction of the accused persons. The witness stated that the accused persons, armed with Dandas, had inquired from him which way the two deceased had gone. However, despite reaching the crime scene on the day of the crime, he did not disclose these incriminating circumstances against the accused to the deceased's relatives who were present at the crime scene and disclosed them only the next day, leading to the arrest of the accused persons.

The question arose, therefore, was when the said witness was said to have possessed the incriminating circumstances against the accused persons, then why didn't he disclose the same to other witness PW 1, who was present at the crime scene, and was a close relative of the deceased.

Failure To Produce Original Deed In Forgery Case Not Ground To Discharge Accused : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ANTONETTO J D'SOUZA VERSUS ALDILA BRAGANZA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 973

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 22) held that the omission/failure to produce a forged document to prove the forgery charge at a pre-trial stage cannot be a reason for quashing the prosecution's case. The Court said that even after submission of a charge sheet, a document not submitted with a charge sheet can be produced subsequently.

“…absence of the original document relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the charge of forgery would be a matter to be considered at the trial and its absence by itself cannot be made the basis for quashing the entire prosecution. In other words, the prosecution can attempt to bring home the charge on the basis of circumstantial evidence. However, the entire proceedings would not be liable to be quashed without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to attempt to prove the charge at the trial...”, the Court observed.

The aforesaid observation came from a bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar, while setting aside the Bombay High Court Goa Bench Single Judge order, which had reversed the Magistrate's order refusing to discharge the accused persons merely because the forged document i.e., a sale deed, was not produced by the police at the time of submission of a charge sheet in an alleged offence relating to forgery.

Hindu Succession Act |Widow's Limited Interest Becomes Absolute Under S14(1) Even Without Partition: Supreme Court

Cause Title: GANAPATI (DEAD) BY HIS LRS VERSUS PRABHAKAR & OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 974

The Supreme Court has held that a Hindu widow who acquired an interest in her deceased husband's property under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, could become the absolute owner of that interest by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, even if no partition had taken place.

The Court observed that even where the property remains undivided, a widow's limited right in the property inherited upon her husband's death before 1956 is not extinguished merely because she did not seek or obtain a formal partition.

As per the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (“1937 Act”), property devolved upon a widow upon her husband's death vests in her a limited right in the inherited property with a right to seek a partition but without a right of ownership. Upon the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“1956 Act”), Section 14(1) grants absolute ownership rights to the widow over the property inherited by her, before or after the enactment, and regardless of whether partition took place at the instance of the widow

Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Bribe Demand Insufficient To Convict Under PC Act : Supreme Court

Case: Jaswinder Singh (Dead Through LRs) v State of Punjab

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 975

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (22 September) has acquitted a Patwari who passed away during the pendency of his appeal against his conviction for demanding and accepting bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The bench acquitted him, holding that mere recovery of tainted currency notes, without proof of demand, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli set aside the concurrent findings of the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, both of which had convicted the appellant, sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs 10,000.

The appellant was accused of demanding Rs 10,000 as bribe from the complainant for mutating the property of his deceased brother in favour of the legal heirs. The amount was later negotiated to Rs 9,500. Upon complaint, the Vigilance Bureau laid a trap in which tainted currency notes were allegedly handed over to and recovered from the appellant.

Supreme Court Judges Urge CJI To Consider Constituting Permanent Constitution Bench, Flag Years-Long Delay In References

Case Title - Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 976

The Supreme Court on Wednesday urged Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to consider constituting a permanent five-Judge Constitution Bench to decide pure constitutional questions, flagging the years-long delay in references to larger benches.

The Court observed that the inordinate delay in resolving references was a source of institutional embarrassment which all stakeholders should strive to avoid.

“If statistics are any guide, none can say with any reasonable degree of certainty when long pending references will get resolved. Undisputedly, this is an area of grave concern and the inordinate delay in resolution of the references is itself a source of institutional embarrassment which all stakeholders ought to strive to avoid. Self-introspection, indeed, is required,” it observed.

Hope Present Collegium Makes Proper Choices In Future; Judiciary Playing Second Fiddle To Executive In Judges' Appointment : Justice Dipankar Datta

Case Title - Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 976

Justice Dipankar Datta of the Supreme Court criticised the perception that the collegium is solely responsible for every controversial judicial appointment. He observed that people have come to believe that judges alone appoint judges and blamed the collegium for every "infelicitous choice", overlooking that aberrations are exceptions and that no system can guarantee infallibility in human choices.

At the same time, Justice Datta expressed hope that the present collegium, under the leadership of CJI Surya Kant, would make "judicious and apposite choices" in future, leaving little room for criticism of the system's functioning.

Justice Datta made [[LINK:the observations in his separate opinion]] in the challenge to the law governing appointments to the Election Commission, while dealing with arguments concerning the collegium system of judicial appointments. His comments on collegium system came in response to the Centre defending the Election Commissioners' appointment process by drawing an analogy with the collegium system where "judges are appointing judges".

'Prime Minister's Nominee Can't Be Expected To Defy Him': Justice Datta Doubts Independence Of Election Commissioners' Selection Panel

Case Title - Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 976

Supreme Court justice Dipankar Datta today prima facie questioned the neutrality of the mechanism for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners under the 2023 law, observing that the Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister cannot be expected to oppose the Prime Minister in the selection process.

Justice Datta prima facie observed that the Prime Minister-nominated Cabinet Minister could not be expected to act as an independent counterweight to the Prime Minister.

“The Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, to function as the third member on the Selection Committee chaired by the Prime Minister, cannot be expected to defy his own nominator and risk his continuation as such nominated member on the committee, for all practical purposes,” he observed.

Supreme Court Refers Pleas Challenging Election Commissioners' Law To Constitution Bench; Justice Datta Questions Selection Process

Case Title - Dr.

Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 976

The Supreme Court on Wednesday referred the petitions challenging the 2023 law governing the appointment process for the Chief Election Commissioners and Election Commissioners to a larger bench.

While Justice Datta opined the Union's demand for a larger bench reference was unwarranted, Justice Sharma held otherwise.

Election Commissioners' Appointment | Forced To Ask If Trust Placed In Prime Minister Has Been Betrayed In Practice : Justice Dipankar Datta

Case Title - Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 976

Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta on Wednesday questioned the Union government's reliance on the “constitutional trust” placed in the Prime Minister while defending the law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners.

Justice Datta asked whether that trust has actually been honoured in practice, pointing to the criminal backgrounds of several elected representatives.

“The misfortune of the people of India is that, the lofty ideals that the Constitution envisaged have remained largely unaccomplished owing to a lack of intent and non-abidance with constitutional morality by the ruling regime, past and present, resulting in substantial institutional erosion. It is disheartening to note that year on year, instead of promoting persons who have spotless track records and are known to be persons of unimpeachable integrity and rectitude, the political parties appear keen, instead, to promote individuals who have been accused of various crimes, including even moral turpitude”, he observed.

Supreme Court Frowns Upon PIL Challenging Inter-Se Assessment Of Tender Bids

Cause Title: O.P. MEHTA VERSUS MOHINDER KALTA & ORS. (with connected appeal)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 977

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 23) has observed that a ₹23-crore road construction contract was not of such magnitude as to justify a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the ground of alleged wastage of public resources, particularly when the dispute essentially concerned the comparative eligibility of competing bidders.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu made the observation while hearing an appeal against a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment that had quashed the award of a ₹23-crore Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (“PMGSY”) road project in favour of the Appellant-O.P. Mehta and directed re-tendering.

The Court questioned whether such a tender dispute could appropriately be brought through a PIL, noting that the challenge predominantly involved an inter-se comparison between two bidders.

Arbitration | High Court's Location Doesn't Become Arbitration's Seat Just Because HC Appointed Arbitrator : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD & ORS. VERSUS M/S GSCO (GURMEET SINGH AND COMPANY) INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 978

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 23) has held that mere conduct of arbitral proceedings at a particular place does not, by itself, determine the juridical “seat” of arbitration, in the absence of an express designation or agreement between the parties.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva set aside the Orissa High Court's judgment, which had deemed Cuttack as the 'seat' of an arbitration merely because Cuttack was a 'venue' of an arbitration, however there was no express designation or an arbitration clause in an agreement between the parties designating Cuttack as the seat of the arbitration.

“The High Court has clearly erred in also holding the 'Seat' as Cuttack because the disputes were referred to the Arbitrator by the High Court which has its seat at Cuttack. Merely because the seat of the High Court is at Cuttack would not confer jurisdiction on the District or Commercial courts at Cuttack. The High Court has clearly erred in restricting the jurisdiction of the High Court to the District within the territory of which the High Court is physically situated, i.e. Cuttack.”, the Court observed.

Anti-Suit Injunction Cannot Be Granted On Speculation That Foreign Court May Pass Decree Not Enforceable In India : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MIHIR PRAKASH BAJORIA VERSUS VIDUSHI JAIN BAJORIA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 979

The Supreme Court has observed that an anti-suit injunction cannot be granted merely on the speculative apprehension that a foreign court may ultimately pass a decree on a ground not recognised under Indian matrimonial law and that such decree may consequently not be enforceable in India.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria dismissed a husband's appeal against the Calcutta High Court's order which had interfered with the Alipore court's order granting an anti-suit injunction in favour of the husband. The Alipore court, in effect, restrained the wife from prosecuting matrimonial and maintenance proceedings against the husband before the Family Court in London, UK.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court said that an anti-suit injunction order cannot be passed routinely on a mere likelihood that the Foreign Court would pass a decree not recognised in India, thus remaining unenforceable in India.

Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Award Pre-Reference Interest If There's Contractual Bar: Supreme Court

Cause Title: North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) Versus Astra Construction Private Limited

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 980

The Supreme Court has held that when a contractual clause bars claims for interest arising from delay in making periodical or final payments, it is impermissible for an arbitral tribunal to award the same as a pre-reference interest under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the Meghalaya High Court's judgment, which had restored the Arbitral Tribunal's decision to grant an interest on delayed payments (i.e., for the pre-reference period) despite a bar in a contractual clause. Relying on Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act, the Court said the arbitral tribunal is denuded of power to grant an interest on the pre-reference period, when the contractual clause says otherwise.

“…we are of the considered view that Clause 54 of the GCC bars the grant of interest for the pre- reference period, and that the Arbitral Tribunal, in awarding such interest, exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction under Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act.”, the Court said.

'Parent Facing POCSO Prosecution Cannot Be Granted Custody', Supreme Court Permits Mother To Relocate Children To UK

Cause Title: D  VERSUS S

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 981

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 23) permitted a mother to relocate her two minor children to the United Kingdom, while denying custody to the father who is facing prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Court held that a parent facing prosecution under the POCSO Act cannot be considered entitled to custody of the children.

The Court noted that the son, during an examination at NIMHANS in 2023 after displaying aggressive behaviour, disclosed incidents indicating sexual abuse by his father. A police complaint was subsequently lodged, resulting in registration of a POCSO FIR against the father. A chargesheet has since been filed, while the father's challenge to the FIR remains pending before the Calcutta High Court.

The Court held that once a chargesheet had been filed in respect of allegations constituting an offence under the POCSO Act against the father, granting custody of the children to him would be "totally unwarranted and unjustified

Supreme Court Lays Down Safeguards To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Child Custody Cases, Quashes False FIR Against Father

Case: 'R' v 'E' & Anr and connected matters

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 982

The Supreme Court today (24 September) has laid down a set of safeguards to prevent the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) as a weapon in matrimonial and child custody disputes. The safeguards were laid down while quashing an FIR alleging sexual assault of a minor girl by her father, after a probe by the Central Investigation Agency (CBI) found the allegations to be unreliable.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was dealing with a batch of appeals arising out of a bitter and long-drawn custody battle between a divorced couple, referred to in the judgment as 'R' (father) and 'E' (mother), over their minor daughter 'M'.

Guidelines to prevent misuse of POCSO Act in custody battles

Article 311 Bar Not Attracted If Officer Removing Employee Is Equal In Status To Appointing Authority : Supreme Court

Case: Union of India & Ors v Ramdhani Prasad

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 983

The Supreme Court today (24 September) has held that the constitutional protection under Article 311(1) of the Constitution is attracted only when the removing authority is subordinate in rank to the authority that made the appointment. It was also held that mere delegation of disciplinary powers to a subordinate officer under statutory rules does not trigger the constitutional bar. For context, Article 311(1) bars dismissal or removal of a civil servant by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed him.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed so while setting aside concurrent findings of the Allahabad High Court and the first appellate court which had held that the removal of a Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) Rakshak was unconstitutional.

The respondent was issued a call letter in May 1979 by the Commandant, RPSF (Gorakhpur), asking him to report for initial training for the post of Rakshak. The call letter made his appointment expressly conditional upon successful completion of the training. Upon completion of training, a Battalion Order was issued by the Assistant Commandant in December 1979, appointing him and other recruits as Rakshaks with effect from the date and posting them to their respective battalions. A subsequent Battalion Order reaffirmed the December 1979 appointment in February 1980.

S 156(3) CrPC Order Is Pre-Cognizance Step, Sanction Under S 197 CrPC Not Required At That Stage: Supreme Court

Case:Sri Anumandala Rajesh Reddy v State of Karnataka & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 984

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held so while hearing a batch of appeals filed against a Karnataka High Court judgment which had quashed an FIR registered against certain police officials on a private complaint filed by the appellant.

The case of appellant is that subsequent to a business dispute with his former business partner, he was falsely implicated in a criminal case, illegally detained, and coerced by police officials into signing documents relinquishing his business interests. Subsequent to these instances, he filed complaints before the local police, and eventually to the Director General (DG) and Inspector General of Police (IGP). All of these complaints went unheeded. Later, he filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC (now Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Magistrate directed registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC against four police officials and some other persons.

The concerned police officials approached the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking quashing of the FIR. The High Court quashed the proceedings on the grounds that prosecution required prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC since they had acted in discharge of official duty, and that the appellant (complainant) had violated the guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v State of Uttar Pradesh, by directly approaching the Magistrate without first exhausting the remedies under Section 154 CrPC before the police.

Sessions Court Cannot Impose Special Category Sentence Barring Statutory Remission And Commutation : Supreme Court

Cause Title: NAVAL KISHORE & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 985

The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 24) reiterated that a Sessions Court cannot impose a special-category sentence directing a convict to remain in prison for the remainder of their natural life by excluding the statutory remission and commutation regime.

“…we are of the view that there is no doubt that the Trial Court was competent to impose the punishment of imprisonment for life upon the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, however, at the same time, the Trial Court was not competent to impose a special category sentence that the appellants “to remain in prison till rest of their life”, which in substance and effect, excludes the statutory power of remission or commutation.”, observed a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, while upholding the conviction of two for the murder of a woman and her two minor daughters.

The Court modified their sentence from life imprisonment without remission, as ordered by the Sessions Court and later affirmed by the High Court, to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment without statutory remission.

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Awarded To Man Convicted For Rape- Murder Of 6-Year-Old Stepdaughter

Case Title – Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 986

The Supreme Court today commuted the death sentence imposed on a man convicted for raping and murdering his six-year-old step-daughter in Madhya Pradesh.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi upheld his conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

The appellant, one Waris, was convicted by the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Jaora, on December 17, 2018, under Sections 376(2)(F), 376(2)(N), 376(AB), 302 and 201 of the IPC and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The trial court had sentenced him to death under Sections 376AB and 302 IPC. It had also imposed a five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under Section 201 IPC.

Testimony For Sexual Offence Within Home Does Not Require Same Corroboration As Crimes Committed In Open: Supreme Court

Case Title: Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 986

The Supreme Court recently held that evidence in cases involving sexual offences committed within the privacy of a home must be assessed with sensitivity and realism, observing that courts cannot insist on the same standard of corroboration that may be available in cases involving crimes committed in public.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that insisting such kind of corroboration would impose an impossible standard to meet and would amount to granting immunity to those who prey on children in the secrecy of a home.

“Offences of this nature are seldom committed in the presence of witnesses. The sexual abuse of a child within the household, in particular, is perpetrated in secrecy and in stealth, and the persons ordinarily present are the perpetrator, the child and, if at all, a member of the household who is powerless to prevent it. To insist, in such cases, upon the kind of corroboration that might be available in a crime committed in the open would be to insist upon a standard that the very nature of the offence renders impossible of attainment, and would be to grant to those who prey upon children within the home an immunity founded upon the secrecy in which they cloak their crime” the Court observed.

'Failed To Prove Karta Sold Ancestral Property Without Legal Necesssity' : Supreme Court Restores Dismissal Of Partition Suit

Case: HG Pattabi v KR Suraj & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 987

The Supreme Court has recently set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment that had decreed a suit for partition, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the sale of ancestral property by the karta was not backed by legal necessity, and that the failure of karta's wife to enter the witness box justified drawing an adverse inference against the plaintiffs.

A bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta held so while hearing an appeal filed by the purchaser of the suit properties against the Karnataka High Court's 2010 judgment, which had reversed the trial court's dismissal of a partition suit filed by the wife and two sons of one Renukaiah.

Renukaiah had received six items of land in a family partition in 1983. In 1993, he sold two of these properties to meet financial difficulties, as recorded in the sale deed also. The properties passed through subsequent sales before being purchased by the appellant during the pendency of the suit.

Supreme Court Directs Centre, States To Implement 2026 ICU Guidelines, Sets Deadlines For Infrastructure & Recruitment

Cause Title: ASIT BARAN MONDAL & ANR. VERSUS DR. RITA SINHA MBBS MS (OBST. GYNAE) & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 988

The Supreme Court has directed the Centre, States and Union Territories to implement the 2026 Guidelines for Organization and Delivery of Intensive Care Services, prescribing a maximum period of nine months for specified ICU infrastructure requirements and six months for recruitment of critical-care personnel.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan passed the directions in a case in which the Court has been monitoring the absence of uniform standards for ICUs and critical-care services.

The proceedings date back to 2016, when the Supreme Court began examining the need for uniform standards governing ICU infrastructure, staffing and patient care. The Court continued monitoring the issue even after the original appeal was disposed of in 2024.

Completed Trial Cannot Be Remanded Merely For Procedural Lapse Without Proof Of Prejudice : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Sanu Varghese Versus Shoukkathali

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 989

The Supreme Court has held that a completed trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be remanded back to trial merely on the ground that the procedure relating to defence evidence was not followed, particularly when the accused has not demonstrated any prejudice.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside the Kerala High Court's decision to order a fresh trial from the stage of defence evidence despite no ground urged by the accused before the trial court and First Appellate Court about the prejudice caused to him.

The appellant was the complainant in a cheque-bounce case. The accused claimed that he had issued a signed blank cheque as security for a ₹10 lakh loan, whereas the cheque was presented for ₹30 lakh.

S.413 BNSS | Victim's Appeal Against Acquittal By Magistrate Lies Before Sessions Court : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Subhas Chandra Sarkar Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 990

The Supreme Court has held that a victim's appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate lies before the Court of Session and not the High Court.

“…when there is a conviction in a trial held by a Magistrate of the First Class or the Second Class, an appeal lies to the Sessions Court. Going by the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, an appeal filed by a victim against an order of acquittal also has to be before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. The order of acquittal passed by a learned Magistrate, hence, has to be appealed before the Court in which a conviction ordered by a Magistrate can be appealed, which is the Sessions Court.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while affirming the Calcutta High Court's order which had refused to entertain the petitioner-victim's appeal against the acquittal, while granting them leave to file an appeal before the Sessions Court.

The petitioner's son, who was suffering from depressive disorders, died by suicide after being admitted to a hospital. The petitioner alleged that negligence of a doctor and a nurse caused his death. An FIR was registered under Section 304A read with Section 34 IPC.

Admiralty Law | Valid Bareboat Charter Termination Ends Demise Charter Without Physical Repossession : Supreme Court Vacates Vessel Arrest

Cause Title: Owners and Parties Interested in M.V. Nereus Progress Versus Om Freight Forwarders Ltd.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 991

In a significant ruling in the context of maritime and admiralty laws, the Supreme Court on Friday (September 25) has held that when a shipowner validly terminates a demise or bareboat charter, the charter comes to an end even if the owner has not yet physically taken back the vessel.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the dispute concerning the arrest of vessel M.V. Nereus Progress under Section 5(1)(b) read with Section 5(2) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017.

Nereides Marine Services was the demise charterer of the vessel under a BIMCO BARECON 2017 charterparty. After Nereides defaulted on payment of hire, the owner issued an Anti-Technicality Notice on November 6, 2025 and subsequently terminated the charter on November 13 under Clause 31.

'There Can't Be Part Acceptance & Part Rejection Of Prosecutrix's Statement' : Supreme Court Acquits Man In Rape Case

Cause Title: PARAMJIT SINGH BEDI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 992

The Supreme Court on Friday (September 25) acquitted a man of rape charges, observing that a court cannot partially reject the testimony of a prosecutrix while deciding one charge and then partially accept the same testimony to convict the accused for rape.

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment, which had sustained the Appellant's rape conviction ordered by the Sessions Court. The conviction was based on that part of the prosecutrix's testimony in which she denied consent to a physical relationship, even though the same testimony had been rejected by the Sessions Court while acquitting the Appellant of the offence of kidnapping.

“There cannot be partial rejection of the evidence of the prosecutrix for the purpose of Section 366 IPC and partial acceptance of the very same statement for the purpose of proving the charge under Section 376 IPC. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is of unimpeachable character, it has to be accepted in its entirety. There cannot be part acceptance and part rejection of the statement of the prosecutrix.”, observed the Court, stressing that the prosecutrix's denial of consent is not enough to sustain conviction; rather, her testimony must be seen in the overall context.

Senior Officer Cannot Be Paid Less Than Junior Holding Same Post : Supreme Court

Cause Title: JAI PRAKASH SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 993

The Supreme Court has held that a senior employee holding the same post cannot be paid less than a junior unless the disparity is supported by valid and demonstrable factors.

“It is fundamental that a senior officer cannot be paid less than a junior officer holding the same post...A junior receiving a higher pay compared to the pay of the senior has to be justified with reference to valid factors.”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu heard an appeal filed by a Reader (Associate Professor) in Dharam Samaj College, Aligarh against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed his writ petition against the disparity in pay scale compared to his junior.

Mere Absence Of Train Ticket Cannot Defeat Railway Compensation Claim : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case: Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr v Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 994

The Supreme Court on Friday (25 September) has held that mere absence of a railway ticket with an accident victim cannot by itself defeat a claim for compensation, especially where the victim remained hospitalised for over a month before succumbing to his injuries, making it “quite unlikely” that the ticket would have survived.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar observed so while hearing an appeal filed by the parents of a deceased passenger. The bench restored the compensation granted by the Railway Claims Tribunal, which had been set aside by the Gujarat High Court.

While travelling to Surat via Ahmedabad, the appellants' son fell down due to a sudden jerk, sustaining grievous injuries, in September 2017. He was hospitalised and succumbed to his injuries in October 2017.

Supreme Court Directs ₹1 Lakh Compensation For Daily-Wage Workers In 25-Year-Old Bihar Workmen Dues Case

Cause Title: BIHAR STATE ARDH SARKARI ARAJPATI KARAMCHARI MAHA SANGH AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 995

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 28) has directed the States of Bihar and Jharkhand to pay a one-time sum of ₹1 lakh to each concerned daily-wage employee/workman of five defunct State-owned corporations, while ordering 12% simple interest per annum on delayed EPF dues and 6% interest on delayed salary/wages and other monetary dues.

“…we deem it appropriate to direct the States of Bihar and Jharkhand to pay, in addition to the amounts already determined and disbursed, a one-time sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the concerned daily-wage employees/workmen employed by the concerned Corporation during the relevant period.”, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ordered, while bringing a quietus to the dispute, which traces its origins to the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, and concerns liabilities owed to employees and workmen of five defunct State-owned corporations following the creation of Jharkhand.

The proceedings arose from the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Bihar under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, following which Jharkhand was carved out as a separate State. The reorganisation gave rise to disputes concerning the apportionment and discharge of liabilities and service-related claims of employees/workmen of five State-owned inter-State corporations: Bihar State Construction Corporation Ltd., Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd., Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and Bihar State Panchayati Raj Financial Corporation Ltd. The litigation had its genesis in earlier proceedings including Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar and subsequent proceedings concerning inter-State liabilities.

Rape Cases In Delhi-NCR Show Systematic Failure Of Police & Administration : Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance

Case: In Re: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 996

The Supreme Court on Monday took suo motu cognizance of recent cases of rape in Delhi-NCR, including a gangrape in a park and the alleged sexual assault of a minor inside a moving sleeper bus in Delhi.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed that they were distressed by the news reports regarding recurring sexual offences in the National Capital Region, and stressed the need to fix accountability.

In the order, the bench referred to the gangrape and murder of a teenage girl in Swarup Nagar in Delhi, where the police recovered the victim's decomposed body in a field. Referring to the sexual assault of a minor in a moving sleeping bus, which the police failed to intercept during its travel of 47 kilometres from Greater Noida to Delhi, the Court said that  “one cannot help but draw painful parallels to the Nirbhaya incident of 2012.”

Suo Motu Case On Delhi Rapes | Supreme Court Issues Directions To Make Public Spaces Safer; Orders Safety Audit Within 4 Weeks

Case: In Re: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 996

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 28) issued a set of immediate directions to the Delhi Police and civic authorities to secure public spaces in Delhi-NCR. The directions include a survey of vulnerable areas, a district-wise vulnerability map, patrolling at all identified parks, and a lighting and CCTV audit. All are to be completed within four weeks.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued the directions in a[[LINK: ]]suo motu[[LINK: case registered ]]after a series of reported sexual offences against minor girls and women in the region.

The bench said public spaces “cannot be permitted to become zones of high risk due to grossly inadequate illumination, poor surveillance, lax patrolling, or other preventable administrative deficiencies.” It added that “expressions of concern, devoid of accountability, fall short of answering the larger institutional question.”

S. 17 Arbitration Act | Arbitral Tribunal Does Not Exercise Appellate Jurisdiction Over Section 9 Orders: Supreme Court

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS HARIOM PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 997

The Supreme Court recently held that a High Court hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against an interim order passed under Section 9 cannot, even with the consent of the parties, delegate its appellate authority to the Arbitral Tribunal by directing it to hear the challenge to the Section 9 order under its Section 17 jurisdiction to grant interim relief.

“An Arbitral Tribunal exercising powers under Section 17 does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over an order passed by a competent Court under Section 9.”, observed a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had required the Arbitral Tribunal to examine the subject matter of a statutory appeal under Section 37 by treating the appellate proceedings as an application under Section 17.

The Court observed that “the nature and source of the powers exercised by an appellate Court under Section 37 are distinct from the powers conferred upon an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 and same 7 cannot be interchanged merely by transmitting or remitting the appellate proceedings to the Tribunal.”

IBC | Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Invites EMD Forfeiture If Auction Terms So Provide : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S ASJ FINSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. Versus VIKRAM BAJAJ

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 998

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 28) ruled that where auction terms provide for it, a successful bidder's failure to pay the balance sale consideration in a liquidation proceeding will result in forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit, even though the Liquidation Process Regulations do not expressly provide for such forfeiture.

The successful auction bidder, Appellant, relying on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (“IBBI Regulations”), argued that while the IBBI Regulations prescribe that the EMD shall not exceed 10% of the reserve price, they contain no provision authorising forfeiture of the EMD for failure to deposit the balance sale consideration.

Rejecting this argument, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, although accepting the position regarding the forfeiture of EMD under the IBBI Regulations, which shall not be more than 10% of the reserve price, clarified that this did not assist the appellant because the terms of the e-auction notice itself expressly provided for forfeiture.

Supreme Court Quashes NSA Detention Of Sambhal Violence Accused, Imposes Rs 10 Lakh Cost On UP Govt

Case: Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 012534 / 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 999

The Supreme Court today(September 29) quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, accused of being the mastermind of the 2024 Sambhal violence, under the National Security Act, 1980. It set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the detention order.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that the Uttar Pradesh government couldn't have passed orders on preventive detention based on a confession allegedly made by Afroz in police custody. It has imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakh on the government for passing the illegal preventive detention order. The costs have to be handed over to the petitioner.

While pronouncing the order, Justice Datta paid tribute to his law clerk who passed away before his 27th birthday. Justice Datta dedicated the judgment to him.

Preventive Detention Can't Be Solely Based On Custodial Confession: Supreme Court

Case: Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 012534 / 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 999

The Supreme Court today(September 29) held that authorities can't pass a preventive detention order solely relying on the confessional statement of the accused. It thereby quashed the detention of Mulla Afroz, who was accused of being the mastermind behind the 2024 Sambhal violence, under the National Security Act, 1980.

"Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that a confessional statement made before a police officer cannot, by itself, and in the absence of any independent material lending support thereto, constitute a basis for forming the subjective satisfaction necessary to sustain an order of preventive detention. To permit such a course would be to allow a detention order to rest upon a foundation which the law itself regards with suspicion and excludes from evidentiary consideration."

In this case, the accused was arrested 54 days after the violence had erupted. During custody, a confessional statement was recorded by the police, based on which a 0.32 bore pistol was allegedly recovered. Quashing[[LINK: his illegal detention]], a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that since the confessional statement solely formed the basis for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, it is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

O. 2 R. 2 CPC | Omitted Relief Remains Barred Despite Order 23 Liberty To File Fresh Suit : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Bombay Garage Ahmedabad Limited & Ors. Versus J P Iscon Private Ltd. & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 29) has observed that an injunction suit simpliciter filed without the Court's leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while omitting the relief of specific performance, cannot be withdrawn to file a fresh suit seeking that omitted relief under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC.

The Court held that even where leave to file a fresh suit is obtained under Order 23 Rule 1 at the time of withdrawal of the initial suit, a second suit seeking the relief omitted in the initial suit would not be maintainable, on account of the bar under Order 2 Rule 2. This is because the plaintiff's failure to obtain the Court's leave under Order 2 Rule 2 at the time of filing the initial suit, permitting the omitted relief to be claimed in a subsequent suit, would bar the second suit seeking that omitted relief.

Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the CPC states that if a person is entitled to more than one relief based on the same cause of action, they may sue for all or any of those reliefs, but if they omit to sue for any of them without the court's permission (leave), they cannot file a later suit to claim the omitted relief.

Accused Entitled To Seek Production Of Prosecution's Unrelied Documents At Appropriate Stage In Trial : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Anil Dixit

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1001

The Supreme Court has clarified the manner in which an accused can seek access to documents seized during investigation but not relied upon by the prosecution, holding that while an accused is entitled to documents available with the prosecuting agency to shape his defence, the stage at which such documents can be sought would depend on the nature of the documents.

The Court made the observations while setting aside orders of the Special Court and the High Court directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to produce certain documents sought by accused Anil Dixit under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The case concerned an application filed by Dixit seeking several categories of documents, including seizure memos, CBI registers, source information reports, unrelied documents seized during investigation, minutes of Building Committee meetings, recordings and minutes of evaluation committee meetings, technical bids and appointment files of two persons who were named in the FIR but not chargesheeted.

Hearing Of Accused Necessary When Cognizance Taken After BNSS Came Into Force, Though Complaint Filed Earlier: Supreme Court

Case:Umar and Anr v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Case Title: Umar and Anr v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1002

The Supreme Court recently held that where a Magistrate applied judicial mind and found a prima facie case only after the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) came into force, cognizance is deemed to have been taken on that date. The accused, therefore, had to be heard first, as the proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS requires.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside a Special Judge's order to the extent it found a prima facie case and took cognizance.

The Court framed the issue as “whether 'cognizance' has been taken in the protest petition filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ([[LINK:Cr.PC]]) before or after the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2024.”

Judges Must Avoid Personal Views On Morality While Hearing Bail Pleas Or Criminal Trials: Supreme Court

Cause Title: KANHA @ KANHAIYA SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1003

While hearing a bail plea or even in a criminal trial, the personal views or value judgment of the presiding judge on morality must be avoided, observed the Supreme Court.

“We are of the view that Courts should refrain from imposing the personal views or value judgment of the Presiding Judge on morality or otherwise while adjudicating a matter relating to bail, or even a criminal trial of an accused.”, observed a bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar, while setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which had declined to grant bail, taking the view that granting of bail may have ramifications on the social order and the “morals” of the victim's family.

The accusation against the appellant was that he was a tenant residing in the neighbourhood of the victim. Despite being a married person, he attempted to abduct the elder sister of the victim leading to registration of the FIR under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for an alleged offence of abduction of a minor belonging to a reserved caste, and sexual exploitation.

Compromise Decree Obtained Without Impleading Necessary Party Is Nullity : Supreme Court

Cause Title: GEETA BAI & ORS. VERSUS K. ARJUN SINGH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

A compromise decree obtained in a suit for partition of coparcenary property without impleading the necessary party is a nullity; thus the omitted necessary party is entitled to file a recall application against the compromise decree before the court that passed it, observed the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard a case where the Appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased daughter of a property owner, who died intestate, sought 1/4th equal shares in the property of their maternal grandfather, as per the Hindu Succession Act, being devolved equally amongst his four children, including the Appellant's deceased mother.

A compromise decree was passed by the Telangana High Court based on a compromise entered between the parties, after the rounds of a litigation before the trial court, but the Appellants being legal heirs of the deceased daughter of the property owner remained unimpleaded during the entire litigation.

Orders and Other Developments

With No Foreigners Tribunals In West Bengal, Supreme Court Allows Illegal Migrants To Approach Magistrate For Bail Condition

Case: Ms Maja Daruwala and Anr. v. Union of India | T.C.(Crl.) No. 1/2013

The Supreme Court on August 31 clarified a May 2025order which directed the West Bengal government to identify and release on bail illegal foreign migrants languishing in the state prisons despite lapse of 3 years since completion of their post-conviction sentence.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana added the term 'jurisdictional trial court' besides 'Foreigners' Tribunal' in the order, after it was pointed out that two of the bail conditions recorded in the order contained the term 'Foreigners' Tribunal' but there is no such Tribunal in West Bengal.

The bench passed the order after Advocate Soutik Banerjee sought clarification.

Journalist Who Reported Ram Temple Donation Theft Moves Supreme Court Against UP Police Notice For X Account Data

Case: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who first reported on the Ayodhya Ram temple donation theft scam, has approached the Supreme Court seeking an immediate stay and quashing of a notice issued by the Ghaziabad Crime Branch asking social-media platform X to provide extensive digital information relating to his X account.

The application, filed in his writ petition challenging the UP Police FIR over a road rage incident, challenges a notice dated August 22 issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the Crime Branch Investigation Unit, Ghaziabad. According to the application, X's legal department informed Upadhyaya by email on August 26 that it had received a request from the Ghaziabad Crime Branch for information concerning his account, @upadhyayabhii. X said it was notifying him to enable him to take appropriate legal action to protect his interests.

Last week, the Supreme Courthad stayed coercive action against Upadhyay on the FIR.

'Those Attacking Doctors Don't Deserve Bail' : Supreme Court Questions Shiv Sena Corporator In Hospital Assault Case

Case Title – Ramesh Sukrya

Mhatre v. High Court of Judicature At Bombay

The Supreme Court questioned Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre over the assault of doctors at the Shastrinagar Hospital in Kalyan, observing that attacks on medical professionals inside hospitals could not be treated lightly.

The Court indicated that it was inclined to uphold the Bombay High Court's staying the bail granted to Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre booked for assaulting three doctors at the Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation run hospital.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing Mhatre's challenge to the Bombay High Court's July 18 order staying the bail granted to him and its order imposing stringent bail conditions. The orders were passed in suo motu proceedings initiated after the Magistrate granted bail to him and his associates.

4 States Urge Supreme Court To Quash FIRs Over Student Protests; Cite Centre's Commitment To CJP

The States of Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Assam have approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of 116 FIRs registered in connection with student protests held in July over the NEET exam paper leak, citing the Central Government's commitment given to the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) on July 25 that the cases would be withdrawn if the agitations were called off.

The States have urged the Court to invoke its special powers under Article 142 to quash the FIRs. The Centre had filed a similar application to quash the Delhi police FIRs against protesters, and sought permission to register a single FIR against 2873 persons who had grave criminal antecedents.

These applications have come ahead of the CJP announcing a fresh protest in Delhi on September 5, contending that the Centre had not honoured its commitment to honour the cases.

Why Can't Totalizer Method Be Used To Count Votes Instead Of Booth-Wise Counting? Supreme Court Asks Union, ECI

Case: Yogesh Gupta v. Election Commission of India WP(C) 422/201, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr W.P.(C) No. 927/2017 and Imran Khan v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 585/2014

The Supreme Court asked the Union government to state its position on introducing a “totalizer” system for counting votes recorded through EVMs, a proposal aimed at preventing candidates from determining the voting pattern of individual polling booths.

The Court specifically sought to know if there are any impediments to introducing such a mechanism and if there would be any negative impact because of it. The Election Commission of India has also been asked to submit its proposal to the Union.

The Court sought to know if a provision akin to Rule 59A of the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 - which allows use of a totalizer in ballot paper counting in certain circumstances - can be incorporated, as proposed by the Law Commission in its 255th Report. The Court sought the Union's views since it has the power to amend the Conduct of Election Rules.

Supreme Court Closes Suo Motu Case Over NCERT Textbook Chapter On 'Corruption In Judiciary'

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

The Supreme Court closed the suo motu proceedings concerning a controversial chapter on “Corruption in Judiciary” that had appeared in an NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook, after the chapter was subsequently withdrawn.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order noting that the chapter has been replaced based on the revisions suggested by an expert panel constituted by the Centre. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed that the textbooks with the new chapter are in circulation.

The Court had earlier taken strong objections to the previous chapter, and had ordered a ban on the textbooks containing the same. Contempt notices were also issued to the NCERT and Ministry officials who approved the chapter.

Withdrawing September 5 Protest : CJP Leader Saurav Das Tells Supreme Court As Centre Acts To Withdraw Cases

The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) withdrew its proposed September 5 protest march in Delhi, with its spokesperson Saurav Das telling the Supreme Court bench that the decision had been taken in view of steps initiated by the Centre to withdraw cases registered against protesters.

Das appeared before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana and informed the court that the organisation had decided to call off the proposed march.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the bench that the Centre(Delhi Police), and the States of Bihar, Assam, West Bengal and Maharashtra have filed applications seeking to quash the FIRs linked to student protests, and assuring that no future FIRs would be registered in respect of the protest related events from July 20 to July 25. The SG said that the applications have been filed to honour the assurance made by the Centre to the CJP leaders on July 25.

Supreme Court Quashes FIRs Across Country Over Student Protests; Bars Future FIRs

Case Title: Yashovardhan Azan and Others v. Union of India and Others (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court ordered that the FIRs registered across the country, in any State or Union Territory, over the student protests held between July 20 to July 25, should not be pursued or investigated and must be treated as closed for all intents and purposes.

The Court also quashed the FIRs over student protests which were specified in the applications filedby the Centre (Delhi Police), Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Assam.

Though only the Centre and the above-said four states filed the applications seeking to quash the FIRs, the Court extended the application of the order pan-India. The Court said that it was passing the order considering the future of the students who bona fide came to the protests.

Supreme Court Pulls Up MCD, ASI As Newspaper Reports Contradict Claims Of Preserving Heritage Structures

Case: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court has pulled up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for allegedly placing incorrect or misleading facts about the condition and encroachment status of several heritage structures before the court.

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh condemned the “total callousness” and “suppression of facts” on the part of the MCD after photographs published in the reports of The Hindustan Times and The Times of India newspapers appeared to contradict claims made by the civic body in an affidavit filed before the court.

The Court has been monitoring the preservation and upkeep of heritage monuments in Delhi in the proceedings arising out of a 2019 judgment of the Delhi High Court. Although the case initially concerned the Gumti of Shaikh Ali, the Court expanded the proceedings to cover the entire heritage sites in Delhi.

Undertrial Prisoner Release : Supreme Court Directs States To Ensure Effective Functioning Of District Committees

Case Details: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Supreme Court flagged non-compliance with the Centre's Standard Operating Procedure for the 'Support to Poor Prisoners' Scheme, directing all States to ensure that District Level Empowered Committees (DLECs) meet regularly and take timely decisions on cases of undertrial prisoners placed before them for consideration of release.

“We have also taken note of the fact that the meetings of the District Level Empowered Committees (DLECs) are not being regularly held, as mandated in the revised SOP dated 02.12.2025. Hence, it is directed that all the DLECs shall meet regularly, as mandated, and also take decisions on the cases that are pending consideration before them. The compliance of the above must be made and reported to the learned Amicus before the next date of hearing.”, the Court directed.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was hearing a miscellaneous application arising out of a lead case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577, where the court directed the creation of a mechanism for the release of the eligible undertrial prisoners so that they are not unnecessarily kept in custody.

Can Accused Inspect Evidence Not Relied By Prosecution Before Trial? Supreme Court Reserves Order

Case Details: State NCT of Delhi v. Devangana Kalita, SLP(Crl) No. 12447/2026, Diary No. 38990/2026

The Supreme Court reserved its order on a plea filed by the Delhi Police challenging the Delhi High Court order permitting Devangana Kalita, an accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, to inspect unrelied documents kept in the malkhana.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the matter.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, argued that an accused is entitled to receive the list of unrelied documents but cannot seek their inspection before the charges are framed. He submitted that the trial commences only after the framing of charges and that the right to seek inspection arises at a later stage.

Most HCs Agree To Raise District Judges' Retirement Age, Many States Undecided: Supreme Court Told

Case Title: All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

The Supreme Court was informed that most High Courts are in favor of enhancing the retirement age of district judges to 62 years, while several States and Union Territories are either opposing the move or are yet to take a final decision on it.

The opposition of the States/UTs was stated to be rooted in 3 issues - (i) additional burden on State exchequer (ii) "heartburn" among other employees of the State/UT, and (iii) effect on legitimate aspirations of young entrants in judicial service.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the All India Judges Association case, in which the Court had directed all States/UTs to consider enhancing the retirement age of district judges to 61/62 years after consulting their respective High Courts.

Supreme Court E-Committee To Consider Plea To Allow Compounding Of Traffic Offences In V-Courts Portal Without Pleading Guilty

Case: Prabhjot Singh Dhillon v. E -Commitee Supreme Court of India and Anr. Diary No. 31698-2026

The Supreme Court forwarded to its E-Committee a plea seeking modifications to the V-Courts portal managed by the Committee, so that citizens do not have to enter a plea of guilt when compounding traffic offenses.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Maninder Singh (for petitioner-Prabhjot Singh Dhillon). The order recorded that the issue raised was of paramount importance for better functioning of the V-Courts portal.

The petition was filed by Dhillon, through AoR Prabhas Bajaj, seeking a direction to the Supreme Court E-Committee to update the V-Courts portal (managed by the E-Committee) to include a clear and independent option for compounding offenses that do not require the user to enter a plea of guilt. It alleged that the portal had dark patterns and a confusing interface, which incorrectly equated fine payment with a plea of guilt, resulting in convictions for compoundable offenses.

Supreme Court Issues Directions For Faster Election Of New Bar Council Of India Members; Asks BCI To Involve AG & SG For Policy Decisions

Cases: M. Varadhan v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1049/2026; Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1092/2026

While hearing petitions challenging the continued tenure of Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra as the Chairperson of the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Supreme Court laid down concrete timelines for the composition of State Bar Councils, so that the election of new office-bearers of the BCI can be conducted soon.

Observing that the issues raised against Mishra's continuation at the BCI's helm can be addressed if the long-due BCI elections are expedited, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued the following directions :

The Court stated that it will consider the issue of composition of the BCI after the above exercise is complete.

'You Don't Continue To Be Democratically Elected, Only A Pro Tem Chairman Of BCI' : Supreme Court To Manan Kumar Mishra

Cases: M. Varadhan v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1049/2026; Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1092/2026

The Supreme Court reminded Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra that he is only a pro tem Chairman and not a democratically elected office-bearer, and hence, he can only manage the day-to-day affairs of the BCI.

The Court said that before taking any major policy decisions, the BCI must involve the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India, who are permanent ex-officio BCI members.

The observations came while hearing pleas challenging the prolonged continuation of Mishra as BCI Chairman as beyond the tenure prescribed under the BCI Rules.

Supreme Court Questions BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust : 'How Can BCI Office-Bearers Be Permanent Trustees Beyond Their Term?'

Cases: M. Varadhan v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1049/2026; Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1092/2026

The Supreme Court questioned the legality of provisions in the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust Deed that allow the current office-bearers of the Bar Council of India, including its Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, to continue as permanent trustees of the PEARL FIRST Trust even after they cease to be the office-bearers of the Bar Council of India (BCI).

The Court asked how an elected statutory body could create a trust with permanent trustees.

The issue arose before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, which was hearing petitions challenging the prolonged continuation of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and raising concerns regarding the functioning and administration of the BCI-PEARL FIRST [Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education (Legal and Professional) and Reforms in Law and For Improvement of Research and Social Training] Trust.

Supreme Court To Hear Centre's Plea To Clarify Judgment That Parental Salary Alone Can't Decide OBC Creamy Layer Status

Case Title – Union of India v. Rohith Nathan and Anr.

The Union Government has moved the Supreme Court seeking clarification regarding the implementation of its March 11 judgment holding that the creamy layer status of an Other Backward Class (OBC) candidate cannot be determined solely on the basis of the parents' salary income, and that the category of posts held by them have also to be considered.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan issued notice on the Centre's clarification application and kept the matter for hearing on 17th September, 2026.

The Centre has raised concerns about the consequences of applying the judgment retrospectively. It has stated that such an interpretation could affect recruitments and admissions already undertaken by the Central Government, 18 States and Union Territories,

Shiv Sena Row | SC Judgment Didn't Rule Out 'Legislative Majority Test' To Determine Real Party : Shinde To Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde, SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (And Connected Case)

In the Shiv Senacase, the Eknath Shinde faction argued before the Supreme Court that the Constitution Bench decision in Subhash Desaidid not completely rule out the legislative majority test for determining which side among two rival factions constitutes the majority.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena , made the submission before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. He was responding to the appeal filed by Uddhav Thackeray challenging the decision of the Election Commission of Indiato allot the official party symbol to the Eknath Shinde-led group.

"It's factually and legally incorrect to say that Subhash Desai said that in Symbols Order, legislative party has no mention and thus no place and can't be looked at. Subhash Desai says under Symbols Order, seats and votes secured are important considerations for freezing a symbol and for a political party to get symbol. Relying on Sadiq Ali, it says that legislative majority test is a relevant test under para 15", he said.

'Client Doesn't Care About Beautiful Judgment On Law; Lawyer's Focus Must Be To Secure Relief': Justice BV Nagarathna

Case Title – M/S Tara Techno Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Shree Rathi Steel Ltd.

Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court observed that the primary aim of a lawyer should be to secure relief for the client rather than pursue a “beautiful judgement” on a legal issue.

“See the attitude of the Counsel must be to get relief for the party rather than getting a beautiful judgement on maintainability. This law, that law, this doctrine, that doctrine – it is all meant for you (advocates) and us (judges), but the client will be saying 'what is there for me?',” Justice BV Nagarathna observed.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan dismissed an SLP challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition against an arbitral award granted to the petitioner, an MSME named M/s Tara Techno Machines Pvt. Ltd.

'Move HC' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Assault On Lawyers Protesting Against BCI Chairman

Case: Kunal Yadav and Others v. Manan Kumar Mishra and Others

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged assault of lawyers who were protesting outside the premises of the Bar Council of India (BCI) on August 21 seeking the resignation of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to appraoch the High Court.

The matter was orally mentioned by Advocate Prashant Bhushan before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for urgent listing.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Curbs On Entry To Government Schools Amid CJP Campaign

Case Details: Priya Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S). 1095/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the restrictions imposed by education authorities in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh on the entry of outsiders, journalists, YouTubers, social-media users and civil-society representatives into government schools, as well as curbs on photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming.

The petition filed by Priya Mishra was heard by a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, which refused to entertain it. "We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India."

The petition assumed significance in the wake of the “School Thik Karo” campaign being undertaken by the Cockroach Janat Party to expose the deficiencies in government school infrastructure. It specifically challenged an August 16, 2026 circular issued by Rajasthan's Director of Secondary Education, which requires outsiders to obtain prior permission from the principal before entering the premises of government schools. It also requires prior written permission for photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming.

Supreme Court Suspends Contempt Sentence Imposed By Delhi High Court On YouTuber For Remarks Against Judges

Case Details: Gulshan Pahuja v. High Court of Delhi | Diary No. 37740 / 2026

The Supreme Court (September 3) suspended the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment imposed by the Delhi High Court on YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja for making videos scandalising the judiciary.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu passed the order while issuing notice on Pahuja's appeal after hearing Advocate Manish. The bench has ordered that the petitioner be released from custody immediately.

The High Court had initiated suo motu contempt against the YouTuber. A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja in May observed that Pahuja had shown “no regret” or “course correction” despite being found guilty of criminal contempt.

Bar Councils Have No Disciplinary Power Over Law Students; BCI Chairman's Directions Against NALSAR Bad In Law: Supreme Court

Case: Mihira Sood v. Bar Council of India | W.P.(C) No. 1040/2026

The Supreme Court held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils have no statutory power to take disciplinary action against law students. The Bar Councils get disciplinary control over law students only after they enrol as Advocates.

The Court clarified that disciplinary power over students vests only with their parent institution, or the authority prescribed under the regulations or byelaws governing such institution.

Applying this legal position, the Court declared that the directions issuedby the Bar Council of India Chairman [which were subsequently withdrawnby the BCI itself] to bar the enrolment of the 2026 graduating batch of the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, and seeking an inquiry against the students and faculty for their campaign against the CJI, were bad in law.

Supreme Court Asks SCBA Election Committee To Examine Complaints Against Results

The Supreme Court requested the Election Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association to examine the complaints raised against the counting process and the results of the held SCBA elections.

The Court declined to consider on its judicial side theapplications filedby six candidates who challenged the results of the SCBA Executive Committee Members' elections. The bench led by the Chief Justice of India observed that the issue can be raised before the Election Committee comprising five Senior Advocates and headed by Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta.

The bench was considering, on an oral mention, the interim application filed by six candidates. The applicants alleged various malpractices and discrepancies with respect to the counting process.

NEET-SS | Will Return All Unfilled Super-Speciality Seats To Tamil Nadu, Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Anr v. Uoi | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 771 of 2026

The Supreme Court was (September 3) orally informed that the Union Government has decided to give back all unfilled seats to Tamil Nadu in the Super Speciality admissions matter. The Union stated that it will take a call on the quantum of reduction of percentile and inform the Court.

This comes after a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, on July 28, directed the Directorate General of Health Services to return to the State only 50% of the unfilled seats reserved out of 151 for in-service candidates if the State decides to reduce the qualifying percentile after the second round of counselling.

Subsequently, theTamil Nadu Medical Officers Association filed an application seeking modification of the said order, praying that 100% of the unfilled in-service seats be returned to the State Government.

NEET PG 2026 : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Re-Test With Costs, Chides Petitioner & Counsel

The Supreme Court (September 3) dismissed a PIL filed seeking a re-conduct of the NEET-PG 2026 exam, and made strong critical remarks agaainst the petitioner and the advocate for filing such a plea to disrupt the exam process.

The petitioner sought re-examination for all students, alleging violation of the May 2025 order wherein the Court had orderedNEET PG to be conducted in a single shift.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe made strong oral observations against the advocate and the petitioner and remarked that they have become "full-time litigants". The bench orally expressed that it would take the matter with the Bar Council of India regarding misuse of the writ jurisdiction by the advocate. However, it ultimately dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs. 25,000.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On MBBS Student's Plea For Degree Certificate After NIA Seizes Fees Allegedly Paid By Maoists

Case: SLP(C) No. 29658/2026 Diary No. 43833 / 2026 Puja Kumari v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on an MBBS student's plea seeking direction asking Chettinad Academy of Research and Education to grant her course completion certificate and MBBS Degree Certificate without insisting on repayment of the fee which was seized by the NIA for alleged terror links.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta will hear the matter on 13th October.

The SLP has been filed by a student named Puja Kumari, against the order of a division bench of the Madras High Court, which upheld a Single Judge order refusing to direct the college and medical council authorities to release her course completion certificate and MBBS degree.

CCTVs In Police Stations | Don't Let Existing Funds Lie Dormant Citing Pending Modernization Scheme : Supreme Court To Centre

Case Title – In Re: Lack of Functional Cctvs In Police Stations

The Supreme Court asked the Union Government to ensure that funds already available under the Assistance to States and Union Territories for Modernisation of Police (ASUMP) scheme are utilised to address shortfalls in CCTV infrastructure in police stations, instead of allowing the funds to remain unused while the Centre works on a new police modernisation scheme.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the suo motu case concerning the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across the country.

The issue of funding was raised by Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave with reference to the affidavit filed by the Union of India on August 31, 2026.

Supreme Court Orders Allahabad HC To Initiate Preliminary Inquiry Against Judicial Officer For Failing To Report Trial Progress

Case:Farid Ahmad Khan v. Gyan Chand Mogha (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sree Chandrashekhar directed so while hearing a matter that relates to a 2020 order of the Supreme Court, by which the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within one year. However, the trial remained unconcluded years later, which prompted the Supreme Court to intervene again.

In January 2026, the Supreme Court noted that despite the 2020 order, the trial was yet to be concluded. Hence, the trial court was directed to submit a report. The report was not submitted even by February 2026, following which the Supreme Court granted a further two weeks time to do the same. When the report still was not filed, the Court again recorded the default in March 2026.

Due to the continued non-compliance, the Supreme Court had directed the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to apprise the trial court for sending a report immediately, after which a report was finally received on 12.05.2026, when the Supreme Court also directed that the trial be completed within the next six months. The trial court was also required to file its first status report on or before 21.08.2026.

Supreme Court Expresses Shock At 8 Year Custody Of Undertrial, Denies Bail Citing Antecedents; Fast-Tracks Trial

Case:Lisham Ibungotomba Singh v. State of West Bengal

The Supreme Court (01.09.2026) has declined to grant bail to an undertrial prisoner who has been in judicial custody for over eight-and-a-half years in a burglary case, holding that his antecedents involving offences of a similar nature to the present case weighed against exercise of the Court's discretion. However, taking note of the prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of trial, the Court directed the trial court to complete the entire trial within six months.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court's judgement by which his bail plea had been rejected. He, thereafter, approached the Supreme Court

The appellant, alongwith the other accused persons, was traced by the Anti-Dacoity Section of the Detective Department, Kolkata Police. The case relates to burglary inside a jewellery shop, in commission of which the accused persons assaulted the shop owner and his employees to take all the jewelleries kept in the display boxes. It is alleged that 752.100 grams (then amounting to Rs 21,66,048) of gold jewelleries were taken away in the said act. Appellant's bail plea was rejected by the Calcutta High Court, subsequent to which he approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Flags Off 26 Mobile eSewa Vans to Take eCourts Services, Legal Aid To Citizens' Doorsteps

The Supreme Court eCommittee, in collaboration with the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the Department of Justice, flagged off 26 Mobile eSewa Vans aimed at taking eCourts services, legal aid and dispute resolution facilities directly to citizens in remote and underserved areas.

The vans were flagged off at the Supreme Court's Administrative Buildings Complex in New Delhi as the first tranche of a planned fleet of 73 Mobile eSewa Vans to be progressively deployed across designated High Court and district court jurisdictions.

The initiative is part of the eCourts Project and is intended to address barriers faced by citizens who have limited access to physical court infrastructure, particularly those living in villages, tribal regions and other far-flung areas.

UP Police Team Entered Former Delhi Mayor's House Looking For Me : Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay Tells Supreme Court

Case: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has alleged in the Supreme Court that a Uttar Pradesh Police team entered the residence of former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri in Nizamuddin East during the intervening night of August 22–23 while purportedly searching for him.

In an additional affidavit filed on September 3 in his pending writ petition, Upadhyay relied on a publicly available report about the alleged incident. As per the report, Suri had approached the police seeking registration of FIR against the police personnel. He clarified that he was not personally present at Suri's residence and has sought official records to establish what the police team was doing there.

Upadhyay has asked the court to call for records including the authorisation for the Delhi visit, movement details of the police personnel and vehicles, communications with Delhi Police, and CCTV/body-camera and other electronic records.

Listing Case Under 'For Dismissal' Caption Improper : Supreme Court Criticises AP High Court

Case: K Ravi v. State of Andhra Pradesh | Diary No. 40946/2026

The Supreme Court has taken exception to the Andhra Pradesh High Court listing a case in the causelist under the caption "For Dismissal".

The Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar noted that such a practice is improper as it suggests that the Court had pre-decided the matter before hearing.

“We find that the High Court had listed the related criminal revision case under the caption 'For Dismissal' and thereafter dismissed the revision, though the matter was heard on merit on 21.11.2025. Listing of a case under such a caption itself indicates that a decision has already been taken before actual pronouncement of the order. This is not proper, more particularly in criminal matters,” the Court said.

Supreme Court Rejects ED's Plea Against Bail Granted To Ex-DMK Member Jaffer Sadiq, Expresses 'Reservations' About HC Order

Case Title – Assistant Director v. Jaffer Sadiq Etc.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Madras High Court's order granting bail to former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq and brother Mohamed Saleem in a money laundering case, while making it clear that it had “reservations” about the High Court's decision.

The prosecution has alleged that Sadiq was involved in money laundering arising out of three predicate offences for illegal export of narcotics.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih, however, said that since the High Court order had been passed more than a year ago, it was not inclined to interfere with it. The Court also directed that the High Court's decision would not be treated as a precedent.

Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From Union For Deputing IPS Officers In CAPFs Despite 2025 Judgment

Case: Mahendra Singh Deo v. Govind Mohan and Others

The Supreme Court has sought a detailed explanation from the Ministry of Home Affairs on the deputation of 46 Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to five Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), despite its earlier direction to progressively reduce deputation posts in the CAPF cadres.

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar passed the order on September 2 while hearing a batch of contempt petitions filed against the Ministry of Home Affairs Secretary Govind Mohan over alleged non-compliance with the Court's May 23, 2025 judgment in Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Court was examining compliance with its earlier directions and had specifically asked the Secretaries of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to file affidavits detailing the steps taken to implement the 2025 judgment.

Investigation Failures Under Spotlight As Supreme Court Overturns Three Murder Convictions In September First Week

In the first week of September, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction in three murder cases arising from markedly different crimes: a six-year-old child's murder, a broad-daylight killing, and a kidnapping-for-ransom case that culminated in murder, but shared a common thread i.e., the prosecution's failure to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In Dhrub Singh Etc. v. The State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 883, the Court on September 1 set aside the murder conviction of six accused persons, in connection with an alleged broad-daylight murder case in Bihar during the 2017 election day, after questioning the very foundation of the prosecution's case and the faulty investigation by the police.

Since the prosecution's case was built on the fact that the accused persons have opened up an indiscriminate firing, resulting in a death of a deceased, the failure of the police to recover the cartridges from the crime scene, coupled with the non-recovery of the alleged weapons and a failure to send the blood-stained earth collected from the scene for chemical analysis, proved fatal to the prosecution's case.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea To Stop Perks To Judges Resigning To Avoid Removal

Case: Pratik Vira v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 1086/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL assailing grant of perks and amenities to constitutional functionaries like judges who resign from their post to avoid proceedings for removal.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order.

Briefly put, the petitioner seeks a declaration under Article 32 that any Constitutional functionary who tenders their resignation to avoid being removed shall not be entitled to any perks, amenities, facilities or entitlements.

Supreme Court Suspends Sentence Of Naga Insurgent Hopeson Ningshen Considering 17 Years Of Jail Term

Case Details: Hopeson Ningshen v. Central Bureau of Investigation | Criminal Appeal No(S). 455/2020

The Supreme Court (September 7) suspended the sentence of Hopeson Ningshen, a former self-styled Lieutenant Colonel of the Naga insurgent group National Socialist Council-Isak Muivah of Nagaland (IM). Ningshen was sentenced to life imprisonment for the 2009 abduction and murder of three government officials in Manipur.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale passed the order granting him bail on the condition that he can't leave Delhi during the pendency of his appeal. Previously, the bench had asked the CBI to take instructions on whether his sentence can be suspended in light of prolonged incarceration and on the condition that Ningshen will not leave Delhi.

The Manipur government opposed the plea, stating that the case involves sensitivity. However, the Court granted conditional suspension of sentence, weighing his prolonged incarceration of more than 17 years.

Supreme Court Asks Vivo Executive To Get Chinese Consulate Guarantee On India-Return If Allowed To Travel To China

The Supreme Court (September 7) granted one month to Guangwen Kuang, an executive of Vivo Mobile Communications, to approach the Chinese Consulate to furnish a guarantee that he would come back to India to face prosecution after visiting his ailing father in China.

Kuang,who is facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, approached the Court after the Delhi High Court refused to permit him to travel to Guangzhou, China, to see his 82-year-old ailing father.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva heard the matter. Appearing for Kuang, the counsel submitted that he is merely an employee. At the outset, Justice Kumar said the Court is willing, but it needs a guarantee that he will come back: "All we need is a guarantee that you will come back and [face prosecution]...Why don't you ask your consulate to support you and give a guarantee as they did in the other case? You are a Chinese national; tell them[your consulate] that your father is 82 and ailing. Without a guarantee...You want to leave the country without semblance of a guarantee?...You can [continue] having video calls with your father."

Supreme Court Requests Calcutta HC To Decide Soon Trinamool Congress Plea Against Removal Of Board From Party Office

Case: All India Trinamool Congress v. State of West Bengal and Ors. SLP(C) No. 31472/2026

The Supreme Court requested the Calcutta High Court to expeditiously decide a petition filed by the All India Trinamool Congress challenging the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's removal of billboards from the party's office in Kolkata.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by Trinamool Congress challenging Calcutta High Court's denial of interim relief regarding the alleged illegal removal of a billboard from atop the party office at Kolkata's Camac Street.

At the outset, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the State of West Bengal, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, saying that there was a remedy of writ appeal.

'Why Information About X Account Needed In Road Rage FIR?' : Supreme Court Asks UP Police In Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay's Plea

Case: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026

The Supreme Court asked the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to file an affidavit explaining what information is sought to be obtained from the social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter) in connection with the FIRs against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who reported the Ayodhya Ram temple donation theft allegations.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing dealing with Upadhyay's plea challenging Ghaziabad Police's FIR against him over an alleged road-rage incident. In the petition, he filed an application challenging a notice issued by the UP Police to 'X' seeking information regarding his social media account.

The bench directed the police to explain what the information regarding his social media account was sought in connection with the road-rage FIR or any other FIR.

'Same Group Again Assaulting Doctors': Supreme Court Refers To Another Hospital Violence While Hearing Shiv Sena Member's Bail Plea

Case Title – Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre v. High Court of Judicature At Bombay

The Supreme Court expressed concern over a fresh incident of alleged assault on doctors in Maharashtra while hearing the bail plea of Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre in connection with an alleged attack on doctors at a hospital in Kalyan, observing that such incidents appeared to be recurring among the petitioner's associates.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pointed out that another similar incident has been reported involving the same group of people, referring to alleged assault on a private hospital in Palghar by Shiv Sena workers on Saturday. As per media reports, the alleged incident happened following a dispute over the discharge of five men who were injured at a Dahi Handi event.

"There seems to be a propensity amongst the peers of the petitioner", Justice Mehta remarked.

Supreme Court Rejects Six-Month Extension For Aravalli Hills Expert Panel Report, Sets November 30 Deadline

Case Title – In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues

The Supreme Court has rejected a request by the High-Powered Committee examining the definition and protection of the Aravalli Hills for a six-month extension to submit its report, directing the panel to complete its work and file the report by November 30, 2026.

The Committee had sought time until February 28, 2027, but the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined the request and made it clear that no further extension would be granted.

During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant remarked that the request appeared to suggest that the Committee was waiting for his retirement.

Alarmed Over Rising Narcotic Cases, Supreme Court Directs Steps To Create More NDPS Courts

Case Title: In Re: Creation of Special Exclusive Courts Versus, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026

Alarmed by the “unfortunate alarming increase” in offences under the NDPS Act across the country, the Supreme Court directed the Centre and States/Union Territories to take steps to establish the requisite exclusive special courts for expeditious trial of narcotics cases, preferably within six weeks.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the suo motu case related to the setting up of exclusive Courts under the special statutes like NIA Act, NDPS Act etc.

Regarding the setting up of exclusive special courts for expeditious trial of cases under Section 11 of the NIA Act, the Supreme Court was informed that a total of 22 NIA courts have been established across the country.

What Is Union's Legal Obligation To Search For Indian Missing After Hostile Attack In Another Country? Supreme Court Asks

Case: Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 943/2026

In the caserelated to an Indian seafarer Deepak Kumar Gupta who went missing after cargo vessel MV AGN Ragnar was attacked in the Black Sea near Ukraine, the Supreme Court questioned the petitioner about the statutory provision for his prayer seeking investigation.

The matter was before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner alleged that Indian authorities have not taken any steps so far as investigation into the incident was concerned. However, SG Mehta countered the submission as unfair, saying that he has furnished details about how Indian authorities are following up the investigation with the Romanian and Ukraine authorities.

Supreme Court Agrees To List Plea To Fix Timeline For Centre To Act On Collegium Recommendations

Case: Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India | WP(C) 895/2018

The Supreme Court agreed to list a petition filed by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, pending since 2018, seeking strict timelines for the Centre to act on the recommendations by the Collegium for the appointment of judges.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing, pointing out that the matter has not been listed since December 2023 after the retirement of Justice SK Kaul.

Supreme Court Restrains Appointment Of Teachers In Schools/Colleges Without Prescribed RTE, NCTE, UGC Qualifications

Case - Rajesh Chauhan and Anr. v. Unio of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1102/2026

The Supreme Court has passed an interim order restraining the appointment of teachers in schools and colleges unless they possess the qualifications prescribed under the Right to Education Act, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana directed, as an interim measure, that no teacher shall be appointed or continued in service in schools or colleges without the requisite qualifications prescribed under the applicable statutory framework.

“As an interim measure, no teacher shall be appointed/observed in schools/colleges unless possessing requisite prescribed qualification under Right to Education Act/NCTE Act/UGC Act,” the Bench ordered.

Centre Urges Supreme Court To Transfer Anil Ambani's Plea Against Black Money Act From Bombay High Court

Case: Union of India v. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani | T.P.(C) No. 2551-2552/2026

The Union Government has approached the Supreme Court seeking to transfer thepetition filedby industrialist Anil Ambani in the Bombay High Court challenging the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, to the Delhi High Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Jusice V Mohana, while hearing the transfer petition, asked the Union why transfer to the Delhi High Court is being sought.

"Why should we prefer one High Court over another?" CJI Surya Kant asked.

Supreme Court Questions UP Govt Over NSA Detention Of Sambhal Violence Accused, Reserves Order

Case: Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 012534 / 2026

The Supreme Court questioned the Uttar Pradesh government on whether a preventive detention order under the National Security Act can be passed on the basis of a confession allegedly made by a person in police custody, in a petition challenging the detention of a man in the aftermath of the November 2024 Sambhal violence.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu reserved order on the on the plea by Mulla Afroz, accused of being the mastermind of the 2024 Sambhal violence, challenging this preventive detention under the National Security Act.

The Court questioned the relevance and value of the alleged custodial confession and asked whether such a confession can form the basis of the “subjective satisfaction” required for passing a preventive detention order.

Supreme Court To Examine Delhi Satya Niketan Building Collapse, Amicus Seeks Directions To Inspect PGs & Hostels

Case Details: Loganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 17103/2026

The Supreme Court will hear the matter involving the collapse of a five-storeyed building being used as a boys' paying guest accommodation in Delhi's Satya Niketan, which left seven persons dead.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan listed the matter after Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha, who is the Amicus Curiae in the case concerning rampant violations of building bye-laws and unauthorised conversion of residential premises into commercial establishments across the country, sought an early hearing.

Sinha has filed a status report placing the September 6 incident before the Supreme Court. He has sought further directions from the Court, including a time-bound inspection and safety audit of PG accommodations, private hostels and similar student accommodation establishments in and around colleges and universities across Delhi.

'Will Summon Secretary If No Decision Taken On Dara Singh's Remission': Supreme Court Pulls Up Odisha

Case Details: Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. State of Odisha | Diary No. 11407-2024

The Supreme Court pulled up the Odisha government for failing to take a decision on the premature release of Dara Singh, also known as Rabindra Kumar Pal, who is serving a life sentence for the murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons.

A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi expressed strong displeasure after the Odisha government sought a four-week adjournment, citing the illness of its Advocate-on-Record (AoR).

The Court questioned why the matter was being delayed despite its earlier direction to the State to take a decision on Singh's remission.

Swatantra Bhardwaj's Admissions Show Police Allowed Violent Persons To Infiltrate Student Protests : Petitioner To Supreme Court

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 44078/2026 (And Connected Cases)

In thestudent protests matter, the petitioner side has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that in view of Swatantra Bhardwaj's public admissions of assault on a Cockroach Janta Party protestor's father, it is clear that persons with violent tendencies were allowed to infiltrate the Jantar Mantar protests.

The affidavit says that the July 20 protest march to Parliament was intended at peacefully protesting against government policies, but the Delhi police forcibly halted it by "engineering" a law and order situation through introduction of "chaotic" elements and using disproportionate force.

"...the police deliberately infiltrated chaotic elements into the peaceful procession - individuals such as Swatantra Bhardwaj and others, armed with sticks and clubs with the intent to incite violence- to engineer unrest. This was done to fabricate a pretext for deploying forcible measures such as lathi charges, pellet guns, tear gas, and water cannons, with the sole objective of crushing the peaceful demonstration against the government's flawed education policies", the affidavit states.

Supreme Court Extends Tenure of Three NGT Members Till Fresh Appointments, Centre Asked To Expedite Process

The Supreme Court directed the continuation of three members of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) whose tenure was due to expire, allowing them to remain in office as an interim measure until fresh appointments are made.

The direction was issued by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana after the Court was informed by the NGT Bar Association that the functioning of the NGT could otherwise be affected by the expiry of the members' tenure.

The three members comprise two judicial members and one expert member.

Supreme Court Exempts Actor Rajpal Yadav From Surrender In Cheque Bounce Cases Subject To ₹5 Crore Deposit

Case: Rajpal Naurang Yadav and Another v. M/S Murli Projects Pvt Ltd | SLP(Crl) 16923/2026

The Supreme Court granted actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav interim exemption from surrendering in connection with a series of cheque dishonour cases, subject to his depositing ₹5 crore with the Registry of the Court by tomorrow.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order after the petitions filed by Yadav and Radha Rajpal Yadav were orally mentioned by AoR Saurabh Trivedi.

The Bench directed that notice be issued and made the matter returnable on September 15, 2026.

CJI Surya Kant Supports Need For National Legal Education Commission

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 453/2025

The Chief Justice of India voiced support for setting up a Legal Education Commission for the regulation of legal education in the country.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay's PILseeking establishment of a Legal Education Commission as well as challenging the 5-year tenure of law courses (bachelor level).

Law Protects Intrinsic Character Of Ancient Monument : Sambhal Mosque Committee Tells Supreme Court

Case Details – Committee of Management Jami Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025 (Aor Anil Kumar) and Committee of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal, Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) 21599/2025 (Aor Fuzail Ahmad)

The intrinsic religious character of an ancient monument must be preserved under law, the Sambhal Jama Masjid Committee told the Supreme Court , arguing that the statutory protection afforded to protected places of worship cannot be overridden by a claim seeking access to the monument for performing religious ceremonies and offering prayers.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Committee of Management Jami Masjid, Sambhal, submitted before a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe that the Hindu plaintiffs' reliance on Section 18 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, which deals with the right of access to protected monuments, overlooks the more fundamental protection contained in Section 16.

Ahmadi argued that Section 16 protects a protected place of worship from misuse, pollution and desecration and, where an ancient monument has a religious character, requires that character to be maintained.

Appointment Of Officer As Jharkhand DGP 1 Day Before Retirement Violated SC Guidelines : Amicus To Supreme Court

Case: Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) No. 310/1996

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, the Amicus Curiae in the DGP appointments matter, has filed a report before the Supreme Court stating that the appointment of Ms. Tadasha Mishra as Jharkhand DGP (Head of Police Force) one day prior to her retirement was in violation of the Prakash Singh guidelines.

The Report also states that Jharkhand's 2025 Rules pertaining to DGP appointments confer "broad discretionary power" to the State government to remove a DGP (HoPF), which could result in undue political pressure on the officer and undermine the independence provided by the statutory two-year tenure. The Amicus suggests that the Rules should be interpreted as requiring the State to act in accordance with rules related to service conditions.

Further, according to the Amicus, if an amendment to Jharkhand's 2025 Rules have the effect of extending an officer's residual tenure of less than 6 months, by taking into consideration the period of service spent as DGP/AGP after completing 30 years of service, the same would be in violation of the Court's Prakash Singh judgment (which contemplated actual residual service period of 6 months when considering appointment as DGP).

Freebies To Doctors | Supreme Court Reserves Order In Plea Seeking Regulation Of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices

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

The Supreme Court reserved order on a plea seeking statutory regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices, after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the Union government will constitute a three-member committee to examine whether a statutory framework is needed to regulate unethical practices by pharmaceutical companies.

“However, there is a need of strengthening mechanism to ensure that pharmaceutical companies do not indulge in any unethical practices. The detailed discussions having taken place and with a view to find out the possible solution, it is decided to constitute a 3-member committee requesting them to provide their report on the issues as to whether and if yes what can be the statutory framework to ensure that pharmaceutical companies also do not indulge into such unethical practices”, Mehta told the Court.

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

'How Dare Magistrate Issue Notice To Student Despite Our Order?' : Supreme Court Slams Greater Noida Officer's Action Over CJP Protest

The Supreme Court questioned the notice issued by the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita against a student for allegedly campaigning for participation in the student protests proposed by the Cockroach Janata Party.

The Court asked how the Executive Magistrate could issue the notice when the Supreme Court has quashed the FIRs over the student protests and barred any future coercive action against any student over the CJP protests.

The matter was brought to the attention of a bench led by the Chief Justice of India through the oral mentioning of Senior Advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya. He submitted that the Executive Magistrate issued notice to a second-year student of the Gautam Buddha University, asking him to show cause for not furnishing a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh to ensure that he will preserve peace. As per press reports, the notice was later withdrawn, the lawyer submitted.

Journalist Ravi Nair Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Challenging Gujarat FIR Over Article On Adani-LIC Investments

Case: SLP(Crl) No. 16444/2026 Diary No. 51490 / 2026 Ravi Nair v. State of Gujarat

Journalist Ravi Nair withdrew his SLP against the order of the Gujarat High Court refusing to quash the Forgery FIR against him by Adani Ports and SEZ Ltd. over a Washington Post article alleging that the LIC made investments in the Adani Group on the instructions of the Central Government.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted before the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta that Nair would raise all the contentions once charge sheet is filed. "I have advised my client that as and when charge sheet is filed, we will raise all these points. It is better", he said.

Accepting his submission, the Court allowed Nair to withdraw his plea. "Learned Senior Counsel on instructions says that this petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, leaving it open for the petitioner to raise his grievances at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum", the Court recorded in the order.

'Touch Your Mother's Feet & Apologise For Your Sins' : Justice SC Sharma To Son In Property Dispute

In a property dispute between a mother and her son, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma reminded the son of the importance of the mother in Hinduism. He orally asked the son to apologise to his mother and ask for her forgiveness.

In this case, the mother and her husband are the sole owners of the property and, out of love and affection, permitted the son and his wife to occupy the first floor on a permissive basis as licensees, without paying any rent. However, the son, along with his wife, allegedly started harassing the parents and exerted pressure on them to transfer the suit property in their favour. The Trial Court and the Delhi High Court ordered in favour of the parents. Against this, the son appealed to the Supreme Court.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Sharma and Justice NK Singh. While dismissing the matter, Justice Sharma orally said: "You should go and touch your mother's feet and apologise. Seek apology for all your sins."

Supreme Court Declares September 11 Holiday For BRICS Summit; November 28 To Be Working Saturday Instead

The Supreme Court will observe a holiday on September 11, 2026 (Friday), in view of arrangements connected with the BRICS conference in the national capital.

According to a circular issued by the Supreme Court's Administrative General Branch, the Full Court has declared September 11 a holiday for both the Supreme Court and its Registry. The circular also states that September 12 (Saturday) will be a holiday for the Registry.

The decision follows an Office Memorandum dated September 3, 2026, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, which directed that the Central Government offices in Delhi should be shut in view of the 18th BRICS Leaders' Summit.

Will Challenge Allahabad High Court Order Against Noida DM Over Student's NSA Detention : Solicitor Tells Supreme Court

The Solicitor General of India said in the Supreme Court that the Allahabad High Court's judgment quashing the Noida District Magistrate's order detaining a student of the Delhi University under the National Security Act in connection with the Noida workers' protest will be challenged.

While quashing the detention order, the High Court had also directed the grant of Rs 5 lakh compensation to the student, which has to be recovered from the personal salary of Noida DM Medha Roopam. The High Court had harshly criticised the DM's action in issuing the detention order, observing that her conduct is "worthy of derision", as the coercive action was passed without any application of mind.

SG Tushar Mehta said that this order was being challenged. The SG made this statement before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India during a discussion related to a show-cause notice issued by the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate against a student of the Gautam Buddha University over a campaign for the CJP protest.

Student Moves Supreme Court Challenging Greater Noida Officer's Notice Over CJP Protest, Terms It Attempt To Circumvent SC Order

Case Title –Akshat Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors.

A Gautam Buddh University student filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging a notice issued by the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate asking him to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh and two sureties of the same amount for allegedly encouraging fellow students to join a proposed Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) dharna.

The notice was issued to petitioner Akshat Tripathi on September 4, 2026. In the petition, he has contended that the proceedings violate his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 and are contrary to the Supreme Court's September 1 order quashing FIRs against student protestors. The plea contends that the proposed dharna mentioned in the notice relates to the same protests that were considered by the Supreme Court in its September 1 order.

It argues that allowing such proceedings would enable authorities to circumvent the Supreme Court's directions by resorting to preventive proceedings before Executive Magistrates.

'All Matters Treated Equally': Supreme Court To Complainant Alleging Delay In Hearing Rahul Gandhi Matter

Case Details: Rahul Gandhi v. State of U.P. and Anr | Diary No. 31445-2025

The Supreme Court said that “all matters are treated equally before us” after Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for a complainant in a defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, alleged that the Opposition Leader's matter was not being listed.

The reference was made to Gandhi's Special Leave Petition challenging criminal proceedings arising from his alleged remarks concerning the Indian Army and the Chinese attack in the context of the 2020 Galwan clash. The Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta had in August 2025 stayed the proceedings against Gandhi. The matter was last listed on April 23.

'Will Lord Be Pleased By This?' : Supreme Court To Jain Sects Litigating Over Mahaveer Ji Jain Temple Administration

Case Details: Prabandhkarini Committee Digambar Jain Atishya Kshetra Shri Mahaveerji v. Shri Sanjeev Palliwal | SLP(C) No. 23209-23210/2026

The Supreme Court (September 9) reserved for orders a case concerning a dispute between the Shvetambara and Digambara sects of the Jain religion over the management of the Mahaveer Ji Jain Temple in Rajasthan.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran reserved it for orders, while directing the parties to file their written submissions within 8 days. Senior Advocates Aryama Sundaram(for petitioner) and Shyam Divan(for respondent) appeared in this matter and made brief arguments.

Divan argued that there is no claim seeking conversion of the place of worship and therefore, the Places of Worship(Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is not applicable.

Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal Of 63 Himachal Pradesh MP/MLA Cases Linked To Covid-Era Protests

Case: State of Himachal Pradesh Represented By Its Additional Secretary (Home) v. Court On Its Own Motion SLP(Crl) No. 2770/2026

The Supreme Court has permitted the Himachal Pradesh government to withdraw prosecution in 63 criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs that were registered in connection with public demonstrations and dharnas during the Covid-19 period.

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana allowed the State's plea to withdraw prosecution in the cases, observing that there was no reason to deny the request where the allegations did not involve heinous offences or bodily injury.

Earlier, the Himachal Pradesh High Court had permitted withdrawal of prosecution in 15 of the cases. Out of the 45 cases for which withdrawal of prosecution was not permitted, 4 resulted in discharge/acquittal. Two were disposed of as they were wrongly mentioned.

How Can Husband Be Prosecuted For Rape Of Wife When Marital Rape Exception Exists In Law? Supreme Court Asks

Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 4063-4064/2022 (And Connected Cases)

In the pleas challenging the marital rape exception under IPC/BNS, the Supreme Court questioned whether the Courts can prosecute a husband for 'rape' of his wife pending a verdict on the constitutional validity of the exception.

The Court raised this query in reference to a Karnataka High Court Judgmentwhich held that the exception is not absolute, and a husband, who forces non-consensual sex on his wife, was liable to be prosecuted under Section 376 IPC.

"Till we take a call on the constitutional vires of the exception, can a prosecution [for marital rape] be permitted? We will definitely protect the victims. But is it within the domain of a prosecutor to prosecute a person where there is a clear definition of an exception in S. 375 IPC (or corresponding BNS provision)?" Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked.

FSSAI's 'Two-or-More' Nutrient Trigger For Food Package Warning Label Unscientific : Petitioner Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: 3s and Our Health Society v. Union of India and Anr | MA 1177/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

The petitioners in a public-interest litigation before the Supreme Court have objected to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India's (FSSAI) proposal to initially require front-of-pack warning labels only on packaged foods that are high in two or more of the specified nutrients - sugar, salt and fat.

In a rejoinder filed before the Supreme Court, 3S and Our Health Society argued that a product excessively high in even one of these nutrients should carry a warning, contending that the proposed “two-or-more” threshold could leave products with potentially harmful levels of a single nutrient without any warning.

The objection relates to FSSAI's proposed red-hexagon warning-label regime for foods high in fat, sugar and/or salt (HFSS). The petitioners have welcomed the move towards a warning-label format, but said the proposed trigger substantially limits its effectiveness.

Supreme Court Grants 10-Day Interim Bail To Man Accused In Syria War Conspiracy Case After Nearly 6 Years In Custody

Case Title – Ahamed Abdul Cader @ Kaka v. National Investigation Agency

The Supreme Court granted 10 days' interim bail to a man accused of being part of a criminal conspiracy to wage war against the Government of Syria, taking note of the fact that he has been incarcerated for 5 years and 11 months and that his brother has to undergo surgery.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih granted him interim relief on the ground that the petitioner wanted to be with his mother and hearing-impaired child while his brother, who looks after them, undergoes surgery.

“The fact remains that the child has been suffering from the ailment from quite some time. The petitioner wants to be with his child and mother as the brother has to undergo surgery. Add to it the fact that he has been incarcerated for 5 years and 11 months. We grant him interim bail for 10 days from 11th September”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Asks Sikkim District Judge To Approach High Court Against HC's Show-Cause Notice

Case Title: Prajwal Khatiwada v. High Court of Sikkim and Ors.

Case No.: WP(C) No.1119/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea filed by a sitting district judge at Sikkim challenging a show-cause notice issued to him purportedly after his complaint against a judge of the High Court (since retired).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana however gave the petitioner-judge, Prajwal Khatiwada, liberty to approach the Sikkim High Court.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Manoj Goel, for the petitioner, claimed that the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by his junior, not the Full Court/High Court Committee, and it was marked only to the petitioner, not even the Registrar General. "I am the Registrar General serving under the [retired] Chief Justice. The day after retirement, I am sent out, I am shunted. Day thereafter, a complaint made against me, which is made the basis of show-cause notice and issued by a person who is not [competent]", the senior counsel argued.

Supreme Court Dismisses Gangster Abu Salem's Plea For Premature Release In 1993 Bombay Blasts Case

Case: SLP(Crl) No. 12871/2026 Diary No. 41145 / 2026 Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by gangster Abu Salem, sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, seeking premature release

Salem approached the court contending that his earned prison remission and undertrial custody should be counted towards the 25-year imprisonment cap flowing from India's extradition assurances to Portugal.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pronounced the verdict. The Court held that Salem continues to serve life imprisonment and the 25-year stipulation flowing from the extradition assurance did not convert his life sentence into a fixed-term sentence.

'Matter Concerning Millions' Health' : Supreme Court Rejects PIL Questioning HPV Vaccine Program

Case: Universal Health Organisation v. Union of India | D No. 37256/2026

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) raising concerns over the implementation of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme for adolescent girls, particularly allegations relating to adverse effects and the absence of a compensation mechanism.

The Court cautioned against making claims about vaccines without adequate scientific research, observing that such assertions could undermine or derail a public health programme. The petition was thereafter withdrawn.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Universal Health Organisation.

Supreme Court Seeks UP Response On Plea Challenging State Law Providing Pension To MLAs & MLCs

Case Title – Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by NGO Lok Prahari challenging the constitutional validity of provisions granting allowances, allied benefits and pensions to sitting and former Uttar Pradesh MLAs and MLCs.

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

Lok Prahari has challenged the Allahabad High Court's judgment which dismissed its PIL challenging provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members' Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980.

Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Abhishek Banerjee's PA Sumit Roy In Salboni Land-grab case

Case: Sumit Roy v. State of West Bengal | Diary No. 46817/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Sumit Roy, personal assistant to Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee, in connection with the alleged Salboni land-grabbing case.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, observing that the Court was not inclined to grant relief in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court had earlier stayed Roy's arrest and directed him to appear for interrogation and cooperate with the investigation, while considering Roy's petition challenging the Calcutta High Court's August 3 order rejecting his plea for anticipatory bail.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (along with Standing Counsel Nishant Awana), for the State of West Bengal, submitted that Roy had been evasive during interrogation and that cash deposits of around ₹15 crore were allegedly connected to him.

Attack On Child CJP Protester : Supreme Court Takes Serious View; Seeks Report On FIR, Directs Security

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 44078/2026 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court took serious note of allegations that a 14-year-old girl associated with the protests by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) had been intimidated and that her residence was subjected to stone pelting.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that allegations concerning the intimidation of a minor could not be taken lightly and stressed that no person could be permitted to browbeat a victim or her family for pursuing criminal proceedings.

The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana , orally sought status reports from Uttar Pradesh and Delhi concerning the FIR registered at the behest of the victim, the security arrangements made for her and her family, and the action taken against those allegedly involved in the assault and intimidation.

Officer Who Issued Notice To Student Over CJP Protest Suspended : Solicitor Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Akshat Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors.

The officer who issued a show-cause notice to a student in Greater Noida, asking him to show cause for not furnishing a personal bond of Rs 5 lakhs over his alleged campaign for a protest by the Cockroach Janata Party, has been suspended, said the Solicitor General of India in the Supreme Court.

The law officer made this statement while responding to a writ petitionfiled by the student, Akshat Tripathi of the Gautam Buddh University, challenging the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate's notice issued under Section 130 of the BNSS.

Senior Advocate PV Dinesh mentioned the petition before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India during the hearing of the other mattersconnected to the July student protests. "A strong message must go to the officers," the senior counsel said, urging the bench to take the petition on board. The notice mentioned that he was indulging in "anti-government misleading talks" among the students and asked him to furnish a bond, Dinesh underscored.

Student Protest Violence | Supreme Court Unwilling To Reconstitute Enquiry Committee After Petitioners Doubt Member's Independence

The Supreme Court expressed reluctance to reconstitute the High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) constituted to inquire into the violence surrounding the student protests, responding to submissions that the presence of a former Director General of Police (DGP) on the panel raised apprehensions of bias.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said that the Court would not proceed on a presumption that a committee constituted by the Supreme Court was biased. The bench, however, said it would examine the specific reservations raised regarding the former DGP's membership.

It was by the order dated August 18 that the Supreme Court constituted a 5-member Committee chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy to independently examine allegations of violence during the student demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, and other locations across the country in July.

Satya Niketan PG Collapse | Supreme Court Seeks Reports From Civic Autorities Of State/UT Capitals On Building Law Violations

Case Title – Loganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court flagged wider instances of building and land-use violations beyond the PG accommodation at the centre of the Satya Niketan building collapse, after Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha told the Court that similar concerns could arise in gyms, coaching centres and BPOs.

Sinha told a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan that the Delhi High Court proceedings concerning the Satya Niketan collapse were moving in the right direction, with action including demolition of unauthorised structures having commenced. He submitted, however, that the Supreme Court's earlier directions covered a broader range of issues, including illegal construction and misuse of land, and were not confined to PG accommodations.

The Amicus referred to gyms, coaching centres and BPOs as other establishments where similar violations could arise. He also informed the Court that inspections had found buildings in Saidulajab where around 500 people were being employed.

Will Consider Warning Labels On Foods High In Any Single Nutrient Of Concern : FSSAI Revises Stand In Supreme Court

Case Details: 3s and Our Health Society v. Union of India and Anr | MA 1177/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) told the Supreme Court that it will consider introducing front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products that are high in any one nutrient of concern such as sugar, salt or fat.

FSSAI changed its position after the Supreme Court questioned its earlier proposal to mandate warning labels only for products that are high in two or more nutrients of concern. Responding to the Court's query on why the proposed warning labelling was to be introduced only if the packaged item was high in "two or more" nutrients of concern, FSSAI said it would instead make the warning applicable in a single phase to products that are high in even one nutrient of concern.

The submission came during the hearing of a public interest litigation concerning FSSAI's proposal to introduce red-coloured, hexagonal warning labels on packaged foods containing high levels of these nutrients.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea To Regulate Children's Use Of Social Media Platforms

Case: Just Rights For Children Alliance v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1120/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre on a PIL filed by 'Just Rights for Children Alliance' seeking safeguards against use of social media and other digital platforms by minors.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate HS Phoolka (for petitioner). During the hearing, the bench orally observed that certain safeguards are required to be put in place. "There should be some firewalls", said Justice Bagchi.

The plea raises concerns about minors being allowed to create and maintain social media accounts despite their inability to contract as per Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act. It stresses that the absence of an effective mechanism for verification of age and legal authority of users tends to expose children to risks such as online grooming, sexual exploitation, digital trafficking, sextortion, age-inappropriate content, etc.

Supreme Court Stays Reinstatement Of IAS Officer Who Emptied Delhi Stadium To Walk Her Dog

Case Details: Union of India v. Rinku Dhugga | SLP (C) No. 25799/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the reinstatement of an IAS officer, Rinku Dhugga, who was given compulsory retirement by the Government following a controversy that she and her husband, also an IAS officer, emptied the Delhi Thyagaraj Stadium so that she could walk her dog.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice to the respondent officer on the plea by the Union Government challenging the Delhi High Court which set aside her compulsory retirement. It also passed an interim order, which says: "In the meantime, the reinstatement of the respondent shall remain stayed."

Dhugga had challenged the compulsory retirement before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ordered her reinstatement. This was upheld by the Delhi High Court on April 15.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Contempt Proceedings Against Law Secretary For 'Outburst' In Bombay HC Over Judicial Vacancies

Case Title – Dilip S Ghumare v. High Court of Judicature At Bombay

The Supreme Court refused to stay the contempt proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court against the Maharashtra Law Department Secretary and senior judicial officer Dilip S. Ghumare for his alleged outburst before the High Court. The Court, however restrained the High Court from passing a final order in the contempt proceedings until September 28.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice on Ghumare's pleaagainst the High Court's contempt proceedings and listed it on September 28, 2026. Ghumare faced the contempt action after he allegedly blamed the High Court for the delay in filling up of judicial vacancies, when he appeared before it in his capacity as the Law Department Secretary.

In the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Ghumare, submitted that the issue arose because judicial posts had been sanctioned but had not been filled by the High Court. Singh submitted that there were 1,101 sanctioned posts in Maharashtra but only 385 had been filled.

Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Centre & States On Plea Seeking Social Security Measures For Private School Teachers

Case Title : Ligimol George v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking a comprehensive national policy and statutory framework for the welfare, social security and post-retirement protection of private school teachers across India.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Union Government, States, Union Territories and other authorities, including the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), and posted the matter after four weeks.

The petition has been filed by Ligimol George, National Coordinator of the All-India Teachers Federation through Advocate on Record Deepak Prakash. The plea seeks directions to the Union Government to examine and formulate, within a time-bound period, a comprehensive National Policy and appropriate statutory, administrative or executive framework for private school teachers.

Whether Writ Petitions Should Be Classified As 'Civil' & 'Criminal'? : Discussion In Supreme Court

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Meghraj Singh, SLP(Crl) No. 16835/2026.

The Supreme Court witnessed a discussion on whether writ petitions before constitutional courts ought to be categorised as "civil" and "criminal", with Justice Dipankar Datta observing that, ideally, all such matters should simply be classified as writ petitions, while acknowledging that the nature of the subject matter may have consequences for the maintainability of an intra-court appeal.

The discussion arose during the hearing of Directorate of Enforcement v. Meghraj Singh, when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to a order of the Rajasthan High Court concerning the practice of registering matters as "criminal writ petitions".

The Solicitor General referred to the Rajasthan High Court's judgment in Jiya & Ors v. Government of Rajasthan, where a Division Bench had directed the Registry not to register cases as "criminal writ petitions", observing that there was no such concept under the Constitution.

Supreme Court To Examine If Closing Metro Services During Protests Is Proportionate

Case: Sparsh Kant Nayak v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1066/2026

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union on a writ petition challenging the closure of 17 Delhi Metro stations during the July student protests as an illegal and disproportionate measure. The petitioner contended that there is no legal provision enabling the shutting down of a public utility to curb protests.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter along with other petitions concerning the student protests. The bench orally observed during the hearing that although Courts ordinarily defer to the executive on law-and-order measures, judicial scrutiny may be warranted when the exercise of such discretion becomes disproportionate. Responses were also sought from the Delhi Police, NCTD Government and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Sanjiv Narang argued that the issue was not about the rights of protesters, but about the constitutional standards governing the shutting down of a public utility and restrictions imposed on the public.

On Hindi Diwas, Supreme Court Announces Service To Give Judgment Summaries, Audio-Video Bulletin In Hindi

The Supreme Court announced the launch of a new public information service in Hindi to provide citizens with simple summaries of important judgments and orders of the Court.

The announcement was made on the occasion of Hindi Diwas.

Under the new service, selected important judgments and orders of the Supreme Court will be accompanied by simple Hindi summaries. A daily Hindi audio and video bulletin of around 15 to 30 minutes will also be made available. The link to the relevant official judgment will be provided along with the summary.

'100% Case For Dismissal': Supreme Court On Ex-Punjab DIG HS Bhullar's Bail Plea In Corruption Case

Case : HARCHARAN SINGH BHULLAR @ H.S. BHULLAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION | SLP(Crl) No. 16596/2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday prima facie indicated that it may dismiss the bail plea filed by suspended Punjab Police DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar, who is accused in a corruption case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing Bhullar's challenge to an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court[[LINK: denying him regular bail]] in the case.

During the hearing, Bhullar's counsel submitted that the complainant and a material witness had not yet been examined. The counsel also urged the Court to permit the examination of two shadow witnesses.

Supreme Court Urges Centre To Extend Terms Of Present Tribunal Members Till Fresh Appointments

The Supreme Court on Tuesday urged the Centre to consider extending the terms of existing tribunal members on an ad hoc basis until fresh appointments are made, cautioning that tribunals should not become defunct due to vacancies.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the Madras Bar Association matter concerning vacancies in tribunals. A counsel mentioned an application filed by the DRAT Calcutta Bar Association, relating to the imminent retirement of the Presiding Member of the DRAT bench,for urgent listing.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the process for filling vacancies had been set in motion and suggested that the interlocutory applications may no longer be entertained.

Supreme Court Asks Ex-Mayor To Approach Delhi Police For FIR Against UP Police Over Raid For Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay

Case Title: FARHAD SURI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 359/2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a writ petition filed by former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri seeking an FIR against Ghaziabad Police officials for allegedly conducting an illegal raid at his residence in search of journalist Abhishek Upadhyay.

The Court asked the petitioner to avail the regular statutory remedies seeking FIR instead of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution at the first instance. The Court also refused to entertain the alternate prayer in the petition seeking guidelines regarding inter-state police raids.

Giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies under the BNSS for FIR, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana disposed of the matter.

NSE Co-Location Scam: Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Chitra Ramakrishna's Prosecution Under Prevention Of Corruption Act

Case : CHITRA RAMKRISHNA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. | SLP(Crl) No. 16425/2026 II-D

The Supreme Court today (September 15) refused to interfere with the[[LINK: Delhi High Court's recent order]], which held that the National Stock Exchange performs a vital economic function in the public interest, and therefore its officers are said to be performing public duty for the application of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Delhi High Court had dismissed the plea of the former CEO of the NSE, Chitra Ramkrishna, challenging the PC Act charges. It observed that NSE performs a public duty, which is well within the definition of 'public servant' under the PC Act. Therefore, Ramakrishna, in the internal management of the NSE, can be said to be performing a public duty, and how far she was in charge of the day-to-day functioning and general policy decisions of the NSE, including the act or contract complained of in the chargesheet, are matters of evidence in the trial.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran today upheld these observations, disposing of Ramakrishna's challenge to the High Court's order, observing that the issue whether she was performing a 'public duty' can be raised before the Trial Court.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Union Education Secretary Over Plea To Regulate Religious Education Institutions

Case : ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs T.K. ANIL KUMAR | Diary No. 48593 / 2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a contempt petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay against Union Education Secretary T.K. Anil Kumar, alleging non-compliance[[LINK: with an earlier direction]] to consider his representation to regulate institutions imparting religious education to children below the age of 14 years.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu also dispensed with the personal appearance of the Education Secretary and directed that the matter be listed after four weeks.

The contempt plea relates to Upadhyay's representation seeking registration and monitoring of institutions providing secular or religious education to children below 14 years of age. The petition alleges that the Union Education Secretary failed to take a decision on the representation despite the Court's earlier directions.

Actor Rajpal Yadav Seeks More Time To Deposit ₹5 Crore In Supreme Court

Case : Rajpal Naurang Yadav and another v. M/s Murli Projects Pvt Ltd | SLP(Crl) 16923/2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav a “last opportunity” to deposit ₹5 crore with the Court Registry, extending his interim protection from surrender until October 5 in connection with seven cheque dishonour cases.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing Yadav's plea challenging his conviction and three-month jail sentence in the cheque-bounce cases [[LINK:ordered ]]by the Delhi High Court.

The Court[[LINK: had earlier protected Yadav]] from surrendering, subject to his depositing ₹5 crore with the Registry.

'Red Signal Not Enough' : Supreme Court Suggests Speed Breakers & Rumble Strips Near Delhi High Court Road Crossing

Case Details: S.RAJASEEKARAN v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

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

The Supreme Court today(September 15) asked the Union Government to take a decision to add speed breakers and rumble strips near the Delhi High Court crossing, which is also near the National Zoological Garden.

It may be recalled that last year, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan raised concern over the [[LINK:absence of a pedestrian crossing near the High Court ]]in a 2013 public interest litigation filed by orthopaedic surgeon Dr. S. Rajaseekaran on road safety reforms. The Court pointed out a serious safety lapse that can endanger the lives of people who cross the busy stretch every day without traffic signals, foot overbridges, or other safety measures.

Today, Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal pointed out that the Union Government has now put a red light signal at that crossing. He said that there was no pedestrian crossing, so a lot of High Court employees would get down on the left side of the road to cross to the right side manually. He stated that there is no construction possible on that side due to the Purana Quila. However, he said that it is not enough and suggested that speed breakers and rumble strips be added. He further proposed that the Union should constitute an expert committee to examine vehicular movement and traffic to see what remedial measures should be adopted.

Supreme Court Asks UP To Clarify That Motor Vehicle Offences With Mandatory Imprisonment Never Got Abated

Case Details: S.RAJASEEKARAN v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to clarify through an Ordinance that prosecutions for non-compoundable offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including offences carrying mandatory imprisonment and repeated offences, were never deemed to have been abated under the State's 2023 law.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan was hearing an Interlocutory Application concerning the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) Act, 2023, under which the State Government had proposed to abate trials for offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, pending as of December 31, 2021.

The Court's suggestion came after the amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Guarav Agarwal, reiterated his objection to the State's proposed amendment, arguing that it would not resolve the constitutional challenge to the legislation.

Shiv Sena Row | ECI Considered Party-Wide Discontent, Not Just Legislative Split : Shinde To Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde, SLP(C) Nos. 1644-1662/2024 and connected case

In the Shiv Sena [[LINK:case]], the Eknath Shinde faction today told the Supreme Court that the 2022 dispute was not confined to a split in the party's legislature wing, but reflected discontent in the political organisation and its cadre, making it open to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to determine which faction represented the real Shiv Sena under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the Shinde faction, was responding to the [[LINK:Uddhav Thackeray faction's argument]] that the ECI had no basis to assume jurisdiction under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order merely because some Shiv Sena MLAs had split from the legislature party.

Kaul defended the [[LINK:ECI's February 17, 2023]] decision recognising the Shinde faction as the Shiv Sena and allotting it the bow-and-arrow symbol. The Thackeray faction has challenged that decision before the Supreme Court. The same bench is also hearing Sunil Prabhu's challenge to Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar's January 10, 2024 decision refusing to disqualify MLAs of either faction under the Tenth Schedule.

Can PMLA Adjudicating Authority Be Single Bench? Is Judicial Member Necessary? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case :Mukesh Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 32234/2026 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved judgment on a batch of petitions raising the question whether the Adjudicating Authority, constituted under Section 6 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which confirms attachment orders passed by the Enforcement Directorate, must include a judicial member and whether it can function as a single-member bench.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a batch of cases pertaining to (a) constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5 PMLA and (b) vitiation of proceedings on account of non-compliance with Section 5(1) or Section 8(1) relating to furnishing of "reasons to believe", etc.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi, noting that the Adjudicating Authority has to confirm a provisional attachment within 180 days, asked Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik if the Authority can be expected to adequately apply mind given the huge number of cases that come to it.

Kashi Mutt Dispute : Supreme Court Allows Successor Of Mathadipathi To Pursue Execution Proceedings

Case Title – Raghavendra Thirtha Swami v. Srimad Samyamindra Thirtha Swamiji

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by Raghavendra Thirtha Swami challenging [[LINK:a Kerala High Court ruling]] that allowed his rival, Srimad Samyamindra Thirtha Swamiji, to continue proceedings seeking possession of the Kashi Math Samsthan's deities and other articles from him.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed Raghavendra's plea at the admission stage, holding that there was no good ground to entertain it.

“We do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Refuses To Reconstitute Committee Probing Student Protest Violence, Says Allegations Are Mere Conjectures

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 44078/2026 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court has refused to reconstitute the [[LINK:High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) constituted]] to probe allegations surrounding violence during student protests, observing that the allegations against the panel were based on “conjecture and preconceived notions” even before it had commenced its enquiry.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana [[LINK:refused to entertain]] the applications filed by some of the petitioners, raising reservations about the members of the committee.

During the hearing on September 10, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, backed by Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Dr AM Singhvi, had [[LINK:raised doubts]] about the committee, especially one member, a retired DGP from a north-eastern state, on the ground that he was proximate to a high functionary in the Union Government. On that day itself, the Cour[[LINK:t had made it clear that]] it will not entertain such contentions.

Centre Moves Supreme Court Against P&H High Court Judgment Striking Down S.147A Income Tax Act

The Union Government has approached the Supreme Court challenging the[[LINK: Punjab and Haryana High Court's recent judgment]] which struck down Section 147A of the Income Tax Act as unconstitutional.

Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman mentioned the Union's Special Leave Petition before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing.  CJI Surya Kant agreed to list the matter urgently.

"One batch of tax matters, 99.9% of the assessee community is following the law, both prior and post...this has created a huge hiatus. We have filed an SLP against the Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment. We want it to be listed on Friday, because it has created a huge vacuum in law," the ASG submitted.

'You File PIL Every Week, Don't Pile Us With Petitions' : Supreme Court Chides Lawyer

Case Details:NARENDRA KUMAR GOSWAMI Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 849/2026 Diary No. 39674 / 2026

The Supreme Court today (September 16) dismissed a writ petition filed by an Advocate raising the issue of fake and forged medical degrees. The petitioner, appearing in person, sought for the auditing of the medical regulations and the constitution of an expert committee to look into the issue.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe discouraged the petitioner from routinely filing such petitions for publicity.

Justice Narasimha said: "You file one PIL per week. What kind of petitions do you drafting? You have made it a factory. That's what, every week you file writ petition. You draft the moment you see news. Look at your prayers. Do you ever apply your mind?"

Supreme Court Allows Lawyer To Approach Social Media Platforms To Take Down Clips Of His Arguments In Court

Case Title: BHANU PRATAP SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1137/2026

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a lawyer's plea against social media intermediaries and news portals for circulation of audio-video clips of his arguments in Court. The Court granted him liberty to approach the social media platforms seeking take down of the clips.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the plea of a lawyer who apparently offered to furnish his bar license as surety for his father's bail. He was aggrieved by the publication of audio-video recordings of his appearance in the matter on digital platforms/social media.

The petitioner sought directions to certain news portals and 'X', Google, Meta etc. for takedown/deletion of the posts related to his appearance. He also sought measures to prevent leak or circulation of the audio-video clips of judicial proceedings on dark web and other illicit digital channels.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Sridevi's Chennai Property, Issues Notice To Boney Kapoor, Janhvi & Kushi On Rival Claim

Case Details: M.C.SIVAKAMI AND ANR. v BONEY KAPOOR AND ORS|SLP(C) No. 23267/2026

The Supreme Court today (September 16) issued notice on a plea to revive a suit raising a claim over late actor Sridevi's property near East Coast Road in Chennai.

The petitioners, MC Sivakami & MC Natarajan, have approached the Court challenging the [[LINK:Madras High Court's order which rejected]] her suit [[LINK:on an application]] by Sridevi's husband Boney Kapoor and daughters Janhvi and Kushi Kapoor.

A bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Pillai today issued notice to Boney Kapoor, Janhvi and Kushi Kapoor on the petition and ordered a status quo till the next date of hearing.

Supreme Court Allows Students Of Derecognized College Of Physicians & Surgeons Mumbai To Appear For Exams

Case Details: COLLEGE OF PHYSICIAN AND SURGEON CPS HOUSE Vs SUHAS HARI PINGLE|SLP(C) No. s-13081/2025

The Supreme Court today(September 16) directed the authorities to conduct exams for 962 students who completed their course long back but couldn't appear for the examination after the Bombay High Court upheld the derecognition of all postgraduate medical courses offered by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Mumbai ("CPS").

It may be recalled that subsequent to the derecognition of the CPS, petitions were filed by various categories of students. Subsequently, the Supreme Court requested the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, to intervene and arrive at a "viable solution" to secure the future of students.

By order of November 13, 2025, the Court divided the aggrieved students into three categories whose interests have been addressed. Category I comprises 852 students who were enrolled up to the 2022-2023 academic year; Category II comprises 239 students enrolled in academic year 2023-2024 onwards and the last category comprises students who were enrolled prior to 2022-2023. While the Court allowed category I students to sit for the final examination, it didn't extend relief to category II because these students were unauthorised admissions. The interest of category III was also met.

Unclaimed Motor Accident, Labour Compensation : Supreme Court Issues Notice To UP Over Delay In Dashboard Creation

Case Details: IN RE COMPENSATION AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WITH MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALS AND LABOUR COURTS |SMW(C) No. 7/2024

The Supreme Court today (September 16) issued notice to the Secretaries of the Uttar Pradesh Transport Department and Labour and Industry Department, seeking effective compliance with directions to create a dashboard displaying live updates on compensation amounts lying deposited in connection with motor accident claims and labour court cases.

It may be recalled that in April 2025, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan [[LINK:issued a slew of directions]] after a letter was addressed by a retired District Judge, BB Pathak, to the Court raising concern that huge amounts of compensation are lying unclaimed before Courts.

It directed that compensation paid to claimants under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is to be directly credited to their bank accounts. One of the directions was that the High Courts, with the help of State governments, shall create a dashboard on which the information regarding amounts lying deposited in connection with the compensation shall be established and regularly updated with details.

Aarey Forest Area: Mumbai Tree Authority Seeks Supreme Court's Permission To Fell 124 Trees For Film Institute Project

Case: IN RE FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST (MAHARASHTRA) Versus, SMW(C) No. 2/2019

The Supreme Court today issued notice on an application filed by the Tree Authority of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai(MCGM) seeking permission to fell 124 and translocate 333 trees for a film institute development project near the Aarey Forest area.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocates Dhruv Mehta (for Tree Authority), Maninder Singh, and Arundhati Katju (for NGO-Vanashakti). The petitioners/intervenors and State of Maharashtra shall file their response in 2 weeks.

At the outset of the hearing, Mehta submitted that the project was of "national importance" and the land from which trees were sought to be translocated/fell did not fall in the Aarey Forest area. He contended that the permission was being sought only as a measure of abundant caution, as the Court has necessitated prior permission for felling of trees by way of its January 2025 order.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Centre's Decision To Introduce Charges On UPI Transactions Above ₹2,000

Case : Anjan Datta v. Union of India | WP(c) Diary No. 57387/2026

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking quashing of Gazette notifications issued by the Union Ministry of Finance on September 14 and 15, announcing charges on commercial UPI transactions above ₹2,000.

The petition has been filed by Advocate Anjan Datta, who has challenged the notifications on the ground that the newly introduced charges would ultimately affect the common citizen.

The plea has been filed against the Union government, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) and the UPI & Services Steering Committee.

Dahej Industrial Accident: Supreme Court Asks Gujarat HC To Initiate Suo Motu Case To Identify Victims To Disburse Compensation

Case: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S BHARAT RASAYAN LIMITED (UNIT-II) v. ADITYA ROOP SINGH CHAUHAN, MA 2714/ 2026

The Supreme Court today asked the Gujarat High Court Chief Justice to register a suo motu case for identification of victims of the 2022 industrial accident in Gujarat and payment of compensation to them.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after being informed that an amount of Rs. 3.27 crores was lying deposited with the court registry, which had to be disbursed to the victims/families but the victims/families could not be identified.

Until the victims/families are identified, the Court directed its Registry to renew for one year the Fixed Deposit in which the amount is lying. Upon verification of the beneficiaries, it said, the High Court shall send the beneficiaries' particulars to the Supreme Court Registry, alongwith a requisition. The SC Registry will then transfer the amount to the High Court for disbursal.

Comedian Pranit More Moves Supreme Court For Relief In FIRs Over 'Rs.370 Biryani' Controversy

Case: Pranit More v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., WP(Crl) No. 367/2026

After facing severe backlash over the 'Rs.370 biryani' controversy, comedian Pranit More has approached the Supreme Court for clubbing of FIRs lodged against him in Maharashtra and Haryana.

The petition filed by More impleads the Union of India and the States of Maharashtra and Haryana. The case is likely to be listed on September 21.

To recap, More came under severe public scrutiny after an audience member in his show, namely Himanshu Jangra, made a misogynistic remark suggesting that he expected sexual intimacy in return for having spent Rs. 370 over chicken at a date.

Shiv Sena Row | Why Didn't ECI Allot Neutral Symbol To Eknath Shinde Side? Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde, SLP(C) Nos. 1644-1662/2024 and connected case

In the Shiv Sena [[LINK:case]], the Supreme Court today questioned why the Election Commission of India, if it found limitations in the competing tests for determining which faction represented the Shiv Sena, did not adopt a neutral course of allowing both factions to contest on their own strength instead of giving one group the advantage of the existing party name and symbol.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the challenge made by Uddhav Thackeray to the [[LINK:Election Commission's decision]] recognising the Eknath Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul for the Shinde faction, submitted that the ECI did not assume jurisdiction under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order merely because of the 2022 split in the party's legislature wing and had considered other material concerning the political organisation before deciding which faction represented the party.

Graham Staines Murder : Dara Singh's Remission Plea Rejected, Odisha Govt Informs Supreme Court

Case Details: RABINDRA KUMAR PAL @ DARA SINGH Versus STATE OF ODISHA | Diary No. 11407-2024

The Supreme Court was informed today(September 17) that the Odisha State Sentence Board Review has rejected the plea for premature release of Dara Singh, also known as Rabindra Kumar Pal, who is serving a life sentence for the murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons.

A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was informed by the Odisha State counsel that an order was passed on August 31 rejecting his plea for remission.

Following this, the bench adjourned the hearing, granting liberty to the petitioner to amend the writ petition to incorporate challenge to the rejection of remission.

Delhi SIR : Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Disclosure Of Voters Issued Notices, Grounds For 'Logical Discrepancies'

Case : Anjali Bharadwaj & another v. Election Commission of India and others

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the alleged failure of the Election Commission of India and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer to disclose the names of voters issued notices during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, along with the specific reasons for issuing such notices.

The petition, filed by Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri through Advocate Prashant Bhushan, also seeks disclosure of the criteria, definitions, algorithmic parameters and operational guidelines governing the classification of voters under the category of 'Logical Discrepancies'.

The petition was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India today for urgent listing. During the mentioning, Bhushan submitted that apart from the 47 lakh people excluded from the draft electoral roll, notices have allegedly been issued to another 33 lakh voters on grounds including logical discrepancies and being 'unmapped'.

Supreme Court Expresses Shock Over Unnatural Deaths In Manipur Relief Camps, Issues Directions For Probe

The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 17) expressed shock over reports of unnatural deaths in relief camps in Manipur, including an incident allegedly involving sexual assault, and directed the State Chief Secretary to file a comprehensive report explaining the circumstances of the deaths and measures taken to ensure the safety and dignity of internally displaced persons.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Mohana passed the directions while hearing a batch of petitions concerning the investigation and trial of sexual violence cases arising from the 2023 Manipur ethnic violence .

The Court took note of a report submitted by the Committee headed by former Jammu and Kashmir High Court Chief Justice Gita Mittal, which highlighted the issue of compensation and referred to reports concerning deaths in relief camps.

'Chennai Shouldn't Alienate Delhi & Vice-Versa': Supreme Court Urges Tamil Nadu To Shed Opposition To Navodaya Schools

Case : The State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumari Maha Sabha and others | SLP(c) 33459/2017

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Tamil Nadu government to comply with i[[LINK:ts December 15, 2025 order ]]requiring identification of land in each district for establishing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, while urging the State and Centre to resolve their differences through dialogue.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing Tamil Nadu's plea challenging the Madras High Court's 2017 direction to establish Navodaya schools in every district. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the State, submitted that the newly formed TVK government was seeking recall of the December 2025 order passed when the DMK government was in power.

The bench granted the State three months to identify suitable land and directed representatives of the State and Central governments to hold further discussions regarding the policy for establishing the schools. The matter has been posted for December 14.

'You Think Women Can't Lift LPG Cylinders?' : Supreme Court Awards Compensation To Woman Denied Job Based On Gender

Case Details: SUMITRA Vs INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.|SLP(C) No. 19874/2026

In a one-of-a-kind order, the Supreme Court ordered the Indian Oil Corporation to pay compensation of Rs. 12 lakh to a woman who was denied the job for the post of refilling helper at the LPG bottling plant despite being eligible because of her gender. Since she has attained the age of retirement, the Court deemed it fit to award her compensation for the discrimination she suffered.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi came down heavily on the corporation for denying equal opportunity to the woman and remarked that its affront to her dignity.

At the outset, Advocate Himanshu Jain(for the petitioner) sought an adjournment, but the Court stated that it was going to decide it today. The corporation's counsel stated that the list of names was merely a recommendation and that it didn't carry a binding force. He added that the authorities must have found her not suitable, considering that the job requires manual labour as the helper is required to lift the LGP cylinders, and there are night shifts also.

Supreme Court Again Asks CBSE To Consider Exempting Present Class 6 Students From 3-Language Policy

Case: Yashica Bhandari Jain and others v. Union of India and others, W.P.(C) No. 694/2026 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 17) reiterated that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) should consider granting a one-time relaxation to Class VI students from the newly introduced third-language requirement, observing that the policy should not be introduced as a surprise to children and their families during the academic year.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observations while hearing petitions challenging CBSE's third language policy.

The Court indicated that the relaxation could be considered for the current Class VI batch, while the revised arrangement could be made mandatory for students entering Class VI from January 2027. The bench clarified that such a measure would be without prejudice to the petitioners' legal contentions regarding the validity of the policy.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Claim That Bengali Woman Was Pushed Out To Bangladesh Without Nationality Verification

Case Title - Sahin Fakir v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No. - WP(Crl) No. 372/ 2026

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a son's petition alleging that his mother was "pushed-out" from India to Bangladesh without any verification of nationality. The plea seeks protection of the woman from any adverse action as well as her immediate repatriation to India.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order. Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar appeared for the petitioner-son.

The habeas corpus plea refers to the petitioner's mother as 'Pushoutee' instead of detenu (as she is alleged to have been 'pushed-out'). It states that she is an Indian citizen, with permanent residence in Gobindapur, District North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. She had travelled to Mumbai about 20 years ago with her husband in search of work and was working there as a domestic worker.

Dharavi People Showed Exemplary Understanding During Covid Pandemic : Supreme Court

Case Details: SECLINK TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|SLP(C) No. 6090/2025

During the hearing on the redevelopment of the Dharavi Slums Redevelopment Project, the Supreme Court appreciated the exemplary wisdom and understanding shown by the Dharavi slum residents and the corporation officers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While hearing a plea filed by SecLink Technologies challenging the [[LINK:Bombay High Court decision]] cancelling the tender award to SecLink and upholding the tender awarded to Adani Properties for the slum redevelopment, Justice PB Varale orally praised the courage shown by the residents by maintaining social distancing in an area where population density is so high per square.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Varale was hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta(for the State of Maharashtra) on SecLink's challenge to the Maharashtra Government's decision to cancel the tender in favour of SecLink. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium appeared for the petitioner.

People Voted For United Shiv Sena, How Can 2019 Vote Shares Be Evidence Of Support For Shinde Faction? Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (and connected case)

In the Shiv Sena [[LINK:case]], the Supreme Court on Thursday questioned whether votes cast for a united Shiv Sena in the 2019 elections could subsequently be treated as evidence of support for the Eknath Shinde faction, after the latter relied on MLA and vote-share figures to defend the Election Commission's decision recognising it as the real Shiv Sena.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the challenge made by Uddhav Thackeray to the [[LINK: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.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the Shinde faction, defended the ECI's reliance on legislative majority test to recognise it as the Shiv Sena, arguing before the Supreme Court that pending disqualification proceedings could not retrospectively erase the electoral strength of the legislators supporting the faction.

All Medical Graduates, Whether Indian Or Foreign, Must Get Stipends On Parity, Says Supreme Court

Case Title: Abhishek Yadav and others v. Army College of Medical Sciences | W.P.(C) No. 730/2022

The Supreme Court today(September 17) asked the National Medical Commission to ascertain whether stipends have been paid to foreign medical graduates from the States of Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Gujarat and Jharkhand.

It also orally said that it will pass comprehensive directions that all undergraduate medical graduates, irrespective of whether they are Indian medical graduates or foreign medical graduates, should be paid a stipend and that too should be on parity between them. Further, it expressed that it will see whether retired judges are required to be appointed by the State governments exclusively to deal with non-payment of stipends.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice M. Pancholi passed an order directing NMC to clarify its position after a submission was made that the NMC has filed a false affidavit, as in 13 writ petitions, the foreign graduates are yet to receive the stipend.

'You Represent The Nation, Don't Convert Issues Into PILs Overnight': Supreme Court Advises Young Lawyer

Justice PS Narasimha today advised a young lawyer, who filed a writ petition, to think carefully before filing such petitions. He reminded her that young lawyers represent the future of the nation and are also responsible for the advancement of the profession.

A young advocate filed a petition before the Supreme Court raising an issue regarding the need to increase the retirement age of teachers. The matter came before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.

At the outset, Justice Narasimha questioned how, as an advocate, she is concerned about an issue that is a policy decision of the State. "How are you, as an advocate, concerned? Are you a party in person?

“By the Time We Dismiss the Matter, Your Car Will Be Charged”: Justice PS Narasimha Advocates EV Charging Stations at Supreme Court

Case Details: SHRI SWAMI SAMARTH AGENCIES PHARMACEUTICAL AND CONSUMER DISTRIBUTORS v M.I.D.C. AND ORS.|Diary No. 53282-2026

During the hearing of a case, Justice PS Narasimha orally stated that installing electric vehicle charging point facilities in the Supreme Court would encourage more people to switch to electric cars. He stated that by the time the Court proceedings are underway, their vehicles would be fully charged.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a matter where Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu was appearing in a matter where the issue of EV charging was raised. During the hearing, Justice Narasimha told Naidu that he was suggesting to someone to switch to electric cars, but then his friend stated that there aren't charging facilities around.

He said: "I was suggesting to someone who was wanting to buy a car. I said now it's better to buy an EV car. He said it's very good and simple for you to say, but in my place, wherever I go, where is the charging point? There are no charging points, and because there are no charging points people are not buying electric cars."

Supreme Court Stays P&H High Court Judgment Striking Down S.147A Income Tax Act

The Supreme Court today (September 18) stayed the[[LINK: Punjab and Haryana High Court's recent judgment]], which struck down Section 147A of the Income Tax Act as unconstitutional, on a plea filed by the Union.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran stayed the judgment until the final disposal of the special leave petition preferred by the Union Government.

It ordered: "The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court shall remain stayed on the condition that the assessment proceedings shall not proceed further till the final disposal of the main matter. Notify for final hearing on December 3, 2026.

NEET-UG Paper Leak: Supreme Court Mulls Visiting NTA Office, Seeks Affidavit From Nilekani Committee On Reforms

Case Details: FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 651/2026 and others

The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 18) indicated that it may visit the National Testing Agency's (NTA) permanent office at Minto Road, New Delhi, to assess its functioning and monitor the progress of reforms following the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing petitions filed by the Federation of All India Medical Association (represented by Advocate Tanvi Dubey) and United Doctors Front (represented by Advocate Charu Mathur), seeking structural reforms in the NTA in the wake of the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.

At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, informed the Court that a new High-Powered Task Force headed by Nandan Nilekani had extensively consulted the High-Level Committee of Experts (HLCE) headed by Dr. K. Radhakrishnan.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks 30% Women Representation In Bar Council Of India Like State Bar Councils

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to ensure at least 30% representation of women in the Bar Council of India (BCI), contending that the gender-representation reforms recently directed by the Court for State Bar Councils should be extended to the apex statutory body governing the legal profession.

The application has been filed by Yogamaya M.G. in the pending proceedings concerning elections to the State Bar Councils. It seeks further directions for the expeditious reconstitution of the BCI and for ensuring gender-inclusive governance of the apex regulatory body.

The applicant, pointing out that the State Bar Councils are being constituted with 30% women representation as mandated by the Supreme Court, seeks replicating the same measure in the BCI.

Young Lawyers Starting Offices Without Training Under Seniors Miss Learning 'Niceties' Of Legal Profession : Justice BV Nagarathna

Case Title – Puja Films, now known as M/S. Puja Entertainment (India) Ltd. v. Tips Industries Pvt. Limited, also known as Tips Music Limited

Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna on Thursday said young lawyers who start independent practice immediately after obtaining their law degrees may not learn the “real skills of advocacy”, “soft skills” and the “niceties” of the legal profession without training under senior advocates.

The observations came during the hearing of a dispute between Puja Entertainment (India) Ltd. and Tips Industries Pvt. Ltd. over the songs “Chunnari Chunnari” and “Ishq Sona Hai”, featured in the Varun Dhawan-starrer “Hai Jawani Toh Ishq Hona Hai”.

During the hearing, an exchange took place between the Senior Advocate appearing for Puja Entertainment and counsel appearing for Tips Industries over what had happened in proceedings before the Bombay High Court.

West Bengal SIR | 37 Lakh Appeals Pending; Less Than 3% Disposed By Appellate Tribunals : ECI Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (and connected cases)

In the[[LINK: West Bengal SIR matter]], the Election Commission has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that over 97% of the appeals filed before Appellate Tribunals are pending disposal.

The affidavit, filed on September 16, mentions that a total of over 38 lakh (38,20,683) appeals were filed before the Appellate Tribunals. Out of these, only 1,02,231 (roughly 2.68%) have been disposed of, while 37,18,452 remain to be decided.

Notably, the Commission has not furnished bifurcated data to the Court on the number of appeals filed against exclusions vis-a-vis the number of appeals filed against inclusions. On the last hearing date, the petitioners, based on RTI information, had told the Supreme Court that over 80% of the appeals have been filed by third-parties challenging the inclusion in voters lists, and the appeals filed by excluded voters form only about 20%.

Mamata Banerjee Moves Supreme Court Against ECI Order Freezing Trinamool Congress Name & Symbol

Case : Mamata Banerjee v Election Commission of India | Diary No. 58005/2026

Former West Bengal Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress founder Mamata Banerjee has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to freeze the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) name and its reserved 'Flowers & Grass' election symbol amid a dispute between rival factions of the party.

The writ petition, challenging the ECI decision, was filed on September 18. The ECI and the rival faction's head, Ritabratra Banerjee, are made respondents.

The Commission had on September 17 passed the interim order after it concluded that there were two rival groups, one led by Mamata Banerjee and the other by Ritabratra Banerjee, each claiming to be the real Trinamool Congress.

Mamata Banerjee Urges Supreme Court To Urgently List Plea Against ECI Freeze On Trinamool Symbol

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on Monday mentioned before the Supreme Court a plea filed by Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to freeze the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) name and its reserved 'Flowers & Grass' election symbol amid a dispute between rival factions of the party.

Seeking urgent listing of the matter, Sibal questioned the ECI's decision to freeze the party's identity while its proceedings were underway.

"They issue a notification and in the middle of notification, they freeze the symbol. What is going on? We want urgent listing," Sibal submitted.

Telangana MLA Danam Nagender Moves Supreme Court Against HC Judgment Disqualifying Him For Defection

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi on Monday mentioned before the Supreme Court a plea filed by Khairatabad MLA Danam Nagender challenging the [[LINK:High Court's judgment ]]disqualifying him from the Telangana Legislative Assembly under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant agreed to list the matter on Wednesday.

The High Court had held that Nagender incurred disqualification under the anti-defection law after he contested the 2024 Lok Sabha elections as a Congress candidate while continuing to be a sitting MLA elected on a Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) ticket.

'Rs 370 Biryani' Controversy : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Comedian Pranit More's Plea To Club FIRs

Case: Pranit More v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., WP(Crl) No. 367/2026

The Supreme Court today issued notices to the Union Government, the States of Maharashtra and Haryana on a writ petition [[LINK:filed ]]by comedian Pranit for clubbing of FIRs registered against him over the 'Rs.370 biryani' controversy.

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

The counsel appearing for More submitted that all the FIRs were identical over the very same allegations. "I have tendered a public apology. Before NCW, I was submitting my apology which they did not accept. I was just the host. I understand the gravity. I am ready to face the trial. I deleted the video before FIR. PR team did not take my approval before publishing the video. I was travelling," the counsel submitted.

Supreme Court Declines To Extend LLB Students' Attendance Relief To PhD Law Scholars

Case Details: SLP(C) No. 28533/2026 Diary No. 49157 / 2026 KSHITIJ MADEKAR Vs KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea seeking extension of the temporary relief granted to LL.B students against being debarred from appearing in examinations on account of shortage of attendance to PhD law students.

A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and AG Masih was hearing the plea seeking similar protection for PhD scholars.

The Bench clarified that the relief granted by the Court in the case concerning law students was specifically confined to students pursuing BA LLB or LLB courses and could not be extended to PhD students.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Report On NCLT Benches' Infrastructure Facilities

Case : IN RE: APPOINTMENT OF JUDICIAL AND TECHNICAL MEMBERS AND INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE IN NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL (NCLT) AND ANCILLARY ISSUES | SMW(C) No. 16/2026

The Supreme Court on Monday called for a status report from the Centre on the infrastructural facilities available to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) benches.

The Court also directed the Union Government to identify the basic amenities urgently required by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) after discussing with the NCLT President.

Hearing an application filed by the NCLT Principal Bench Bar Association, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the following order :

NHAI Urges Supreme Court To Clarify Direction To Remove Stray Animals, Says Primary Responsibility With Local Administration

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has approached the Supreme Court seeking [[LINK:clarification of its May 19, 2026 judgment ]]in the stray animals matter, stating that the primary statutory responsibility for removing, impounding and sheltering stray animals on national highways rests with State authorities, local bodies and Highway Administrations, and not with NHAI independently.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta mentioned the NHAI's application before the CJI for urgent lisitng. The Chief Justice agreed to list the matter before the special bench which passed the directions.

The application has been filed in the suo motu proceedings titled In Re: “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price. NHAI has specifically sought clarification of Direction G of the judgment, which requires it to formulate and implement, in coordination with States and Union Territories, a comprehensive mechanism to address stray cattle and other animals on National Highways and National Expressways.

Gurugram Building Site Collapse: Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Probe, Safety Standards for Construction Workers

Case : National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour v Union of India & Ors (Diary No. 52458/2026)

The Supreme Court today (21.09.2026) issued notice to the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment and Haryana government officials on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an independent inquiry into the March 9 construction-site collapse in Gurugram that killed seven workers. The petition also seeks nationwide safety standards for high-risk construction work and a national record of construction fatalities.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohanna issued notice to the respondents on the PIL filed by the National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code should prescribe specific safety standards for construction workers. He said the petitioner had suggested guidelines in line with the standards prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).

Ram Temple Donation Theft Case : Will File Chargesheet In 2 Days, UP SIT Tells Supreme Court

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

The State of Uttar Pradesh informed the Supreme Court on Monday that the chargesheet in the Ayodhya Ram Mandir donation theft case will be filed within two days.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta made this statement before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, which was hearing a bunch of petitions seeking independent investigation into the scam.

SG Mehta said that the period of ninety days from the date of the first arrest will be over on September 25, and if the chargesheet is not filed before that, the accused will get default bail.

Supreme Court Criticises TN Govt For Insisting On SASTRA University's Eviction Instead Of Accepting Alternate Land Offer

Case Details :SHANMUGHA ARTS SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH ACADEMY (SASTRA) v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU | SLP(C) No. 2359-2360/2026

The Supreme Court, noting that the government land allegedly encroached upon by SASTRA University has been used for establishing an educational institution, today asked the State of Tamil Nadu to explore whether alternate land could be accepted in lieu of the disputed land.

The Court termed the State's demand to evict them as "obstinate", and prodded it to accept the offer of alternate land to set up its open jail project.

During the hearing, the Court stressed the need to balance equities, observing that it would have "thrown out" the encroacher had the land been used for commercial purposes rather than a public purpose such as providing education. The Court also questioned the State's failure to implement the open-air jail project since 1985 merely because the land earmarked for the project had become embroiled in litigation.

West Bengal SIR | Of 38 Lakh Appeals, 22 Lakh Filed By Excluded Voters : ECI To Supreme Court

Case: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (and connected cases)

In the[[LINK: West Bengal SIR matter]], the Election Commission of India has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that over 22 lakh appeals before Appellate Tribunals were filed by persons whose names were deleted from the electoral rolls.

The affidavit states that out of the 38,31,429 appeals filed before the Tribunals, 22,21,118 were filed by voters whose names were deleted/excluded. As against these, 16,10,311 appeals were filed challenging voter inclusion.

The ECI affidavit further suggests an increase in the number of Appellate Tribunals, in a manner that corresponds with the number of parliamentary constituencies in the State, so that the appeals can be disposed of expeditiously. It adds that the software developed by it is "location-agnostic", which enables the judicial officers presiding over the Tribunals to decide the appeals from any place of convenience. ECI claims that the software employed facilitates speedy disposal, without requiring the judicial officers to remain physically present at a Tribunal location.

Central Government Can Authorise Any Officer Other Than SFIO Director To File Fraud Complaints Under Companies Act: Supreme Court

Case Title – Union of India v. State of Telangana and Ors.

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the Union government's review petition against its judgment holding that a Special Court for Economic Offences cannot take cognizance of offences under the Companies Act, 2013 relating to fraud on the basis of a private complaint.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, however, clarified that the Union government can authorise an officer to institute such a complaint under the second proviso to Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, in addition to the Director of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).

“Since, in the case in hand, complaints were filed by private individuals, we are of the view that the judgment under reference does not require any reconsideration. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the Union of India shall be at liberty to invoke its powers under second proviso of Section 212(6) and authorise any officer by a general or special order in writing to institute the complaint in addition to the Director, SFIO”, the Court said.

'We Expect No Criminal Consequences On Person Not Singing Vande Mataram For Religious Reasons' : Supreme Court To Centre

Case : TM Krishna v Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1183/2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the response of the Union Government on the writ petition filed by Carnatic musician TM Krishna challenging the constitutional validity of the [[LINK:2026 amendment to the ]]Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which extends penal protection to the National Song, Vande Mataram, as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs' directions mandating the singing of the complete six stanzas of the song at official functions.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the writ petition.

During the hearing, the bench orally observed that it is not within the remit of the Court to decide what the "National Song" is; however, the Court said that it will examine if the right of a conscientious objector to not sing it, as recognised in the "Bijoe Emmanuel" case, is protected. The bench said that it expected that the precedent in 'Bijoe Emmanuel' will be followed, and that a person who does not sing it for religious reasons will not be subjected to penal consequences.

Dr Muralidhar Objects To Solicitor General's 'Naxalite' Remark During Vande Mataram Hearing

Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar raised a strong objection in the Supreme Court to the "Naxalite" remark made by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta during the hearing of the [[LINK:Vande Mataram matter]].

Muralidhar was appearing for TM Krishna, who challenged the recent amendment to the Prevention of Insults to the National Honour Act giving 'National Song' the same protection as the 'National Anthem', as well as the Centre's circulars mandating the singing of the six stanzas of Vande Mataram, which include devotional hymns to deities, at official functions.

Before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Muralidhar contended that the amendment was hastily passed without building any national consensus, and without sufficient thought, as the amendment did not even define what the "National Song" was.  "Ideally, these things should evolve as the building up of a public opinion," he submitted, adding that a law-making process following a "top down approach" was not desirable.

Delhi SIR | 'Notices Seem To Be Mechanically Issued, Logical Discrepancy Needs Clarification': Supreme Court Tells ECI

Case : Anjali Bharadwaj & another v. Election Commission of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 1188/2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday told the Election Commission of India that notices to voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Delhi's electoral rolls appeared to have been issued "almost mechanically", and that the basis for identifying a "logical discrepancy" required clarification.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a[[LINK: petition ]]alleging the failure of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer to adequately disclose the names of voters issued notices and the specific reasons for issuing them. The petition, filed by Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, also seeks disclosure of the criteria, definitions, algorithmic parameters and operational guidelines governing the classification of voters under the category of 'Logical Discrepancies'.

At the outset, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioners, submitted that the process was going on in a "shocking" manner as over 33 lakh voters got notices on flimsy reasons.

Muttil Tree Felling Case : Supreme Court Transfers Cheating Case Against Augustine Brothers To Forest Court

Case: Roji Augustine v State of Kerala (Diary no. 57617/2026)

The Supreme Court today transferred the cheating case against Kerala businessmen Anto Augustine, Roji Augustine, etc., over the Muttil tree felling case to the Special Forest Court, which is trying the offences under the Kerala Forest Act.

The Court passed directions on the interplay between the offences committed under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and the offence committed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) in the Muttil tree-felling case in Wayanad, transferring the cheating case from the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC, Chottanikkara) to the Special Court established under the Kerala Forest Act. It has also clarified that the two cases are to be tried one after the other, not simultaneously, and evidence in both the cases are to be recorded separately.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed directions in the petition filed by Roji Augustine, one of the accused in the Muttil tree-felling case, against the Kerala High Court's order dismissing his plea seeking stay of trial in the cheating case pending before the JMFC Chottanikkara.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 2018 SC/ST Act Amendment Restoring Stringent Provisions

Case Title: Brijbhushan Saini and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No.: WP(C) 1211/2026

The Supreme Court today rejected a PIL challenging the 2018 amendment to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which restored the bar on anticipatory bail and dispensed with preliminary enquiry before FIR and prior approval for arrest of an accused.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the petition filed by Brijbhushan Saini, noting that the 2018 amendment was already upheld by the Supreme Court in[[LINK: ]]Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (February 10, 2020). The bench noted that sufficient safeguards have been laid down in the 2020 judgment.

The bench did not accept the petitioner's request to reconsider the 2020 judgment.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Society's Writ Petition Over Karnataka-TN Cauvery River Water Dispute

Case : CAUVERY NADHI RAKSHNA SAMITHI v. UNION OF INDIA Diary No. 34488-2026

The Supreme Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a society seeking reallocation of 70 TMC of Cauvery river water to the State of Karnataka from the share allocated to Tamil Nadu.

The Court observed that the dispute over the allocation of Cauvery water is already being contested by the two States before the appropriate forums and there was no reason to entertain a separate petition filed by a society seeking alteration of the inter-State water-sharing arrangement.

"If we start entertaining the society regarding disputes between two States, then there will be no end," a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed.

Ayodhya Ram Temple Donation Theft | 105 Instances Of Unauthorised Currency Removal Found : SIT Tells Supreme Court

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

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the alleged theft and misappropriation of donations at the Ayodhya Ram Mandir on Monday told the Supreme Court that it found 105 instances of unauthorised removal or concealment of currency from the temple's counting room.

“It has also been canvassed that CCTV footage from the counting room situated in the PFC building, along with other relevant digital data, have been secured and subjected to detailed examination. That examination has revealed 105 instances of unauthorized currency removal or concealment from the counting room, involving assistance from other individuals participating in the counting process”, the Court recorded in the order.

The SIT has identified eight accused and found that some of the alleged instances involved assistance from other persons participating in the counting process. It has also estimated the amount allegedly misappropriated by each accused.

Lakhimpur Kheri Case | Victims Raise Doubts About Trial Judge, Supreme Court Asks Allahabad High Court To Examine

Case: Ashish Mishra alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022

In the[[LINK: Lakhimpur Kheri violence]] case involving Ashish Mishra, the Supreme Court today forwarded an application levelling allegations against the trial judge to the Allahabad High Court for appropriate action.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered the Registry to forward an application filed by the complainant flagging concerns about the change in the Public Prosecutor and conduct of the trial judge. The bench orally asked the State of UP, represented by Advocate Ruchika Goel, to ensure that a senior PP is entrusted with prosecuting the case.

"Registry is directed to forward a copy of the application to Allahabad High Court with a request to look into the matter and take appropriate remedial action. High Court will forward a report to this court in sealed cover pursuant to action that may be taken by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.", the bench ordered.

Supreme Court 7-Judge Reserves Judgment On States' Power To Levy Surcharge/Additional Tax On Sales Tax

Case:Arjun Flour Mills v State of Odisha(Civil Appeal No. 8763 of 1994)

The Supreme Court's Seven-Judge Constitution Bench today (22 September) reserved its judgment in a long-pending reference on the legislative competence of State legislatures to impose a surcharge, additional tax, levy or cess calculated on the basis on a validly levied sales or purchase tax.

The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice KV Viswanathan, Justice SV Bhatti, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice NV Anjaria, and Justice V Mohana is examining the question referred in 1999 in Arjun Flour Mills v State of Odisha, arising out of a challenge to Section 5A of the Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 which was inserted in 1997, prescribing an additional tax of 10% for dealers with annual turnover between Rs 10 Lakh and Rs 1 Crore, and 15% where the turnover exceeded Rs 1 Crore.

The reference traces back to Arjun Flour Mills, challenging the validity of Section 5A. In Hoechst Pharmaceuticals, the Supreme Court had upheld a surcharge under the Bihar Finance Act as being a sales tax falling within Entry 54 of the State list. The petitioner in Arjun Flour Mills contended that Hoechst Pharmaceuticals proceeded on a concession that the levy was relatable to Entry 54, and relied on the seven-judge bench decision in India Cement v State of Tamil Nadu, which had struck down a cess and surcharge connected with mining royalty on the ground that the State could not legislate outside the field assigned to it under the Seventh Schedule. Later, in S Kodar v State of Kerala, a five-judge bench had upheld an additional sales tax under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, rejecting the contention that the levy was a tax on income.

'Cancer Medicine Sold At ₹ 27,000 Though Retailer Cost Is 2700; Patients Extorted' : Supreme Court Flags Gaps In Drug Price Control

Cases: W.P.(C) No. 794/2023 Diary No. 25176 / 2023 Kishan Chand Jain v. Ethics And Medical Registration Board (EMRB) (Erstwhile Medical Council Of India) and W.P.(C) No. 717/2026 Diary No. 25121/2026 Dr. Sanjay Kulshresthra v. Union of India

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the huge difference between the price at which medicines are sold by manufacturers to retailers and the maximum retail price (MRP) printed on them, observing that allowing a medicine bought for Rs 2,700 to be sold at an MRP of Rs 27,000 amounted to “extortion”.

“If that is not extortion, what else it is? People sell their houses, people sell their ornaments for getting the medicines” Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked during the hearing of petitions seeking regulation of medicine prices.

The Court noted that medicines were sold to retailers at a fraction of their printed MRP and questioned why manufacturers should be permitted to fix MRPs several times higher than the actual sale price. “Why this disparity at all? A medicine which is, as a matter of fact, sold by the manufacturer to the retailer at 10% of its MRP, why it has got this high MRP? Why should there be such disparity?” Justice Mehta asked.

Supreme Court Restrains Regularization Of Unauthorized Constructions In Karnataka Using Premium FAR Scheme

Case: CITIZENS ACTION FORUM Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 32316/2026

The Supreme Court today restrained the regularization of any unauthorized construction in Karnataka by virtue of the 'Premium Floor Area Ratio' scheme.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, while issuing notice to the State on Citizen Action Forum's plea challenging the Premium FAR scheme contained in Section 18B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act as arbitrary. The order recorded:

"Issue notice...Meanwhile, the Premium FAR shall not be used for the purpose of regularizing unauthorized construction. Similarly, the utilization of Premium FAR shall be subject to the final outcome of this petition."

'Taxpayers Footing Inflated Medicine Prices Reimbursed To Hospitals Under Govt Schemes': Supreme Court

Cases: W.P.(C) No. 794/2023 Diary No. 25176 / 2023 Kishan Chand Jain v. Ethics And Medical Registration Board (EMRB) (Erstwhile Medical Council Of India) and W.P.(C) No. 717/2026 Diary No. 25121/2026 Dr. Sanjay Kulshresthra v. Union of India

The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that charging patients for medicines at prices far above the price at which they are sold by manufacturers amounted to a “clear-cut case of fraud”, particularly when hospitals later receive reimbursement from government health schemes.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observation while hearing petitions seeking regulation of medicine prices and raising concerns over the wide disparity between the price at which manufacturers sell medicines to retailers and the MRP printed on them.

The Court's observation came during submissions on the pricing practices of corporate hospitals.

Bar Council Of India Decisions, Including NALSAR Action, Taken Without Discussions With Members : BCI Member Tells Supreme Court

Case : Yogamaya MG v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) NO. 1092/2026

A member of the Bar Council of India has told the Supreme Court that important decisions and communications have repeatedly been taken or issued in the name of the BCI without deliberation with its members, while the Attorney General for India and Solicitor General of India, who are ex-officio members of the Council, have not been provided notice and agendas of its meetings.

BCI member N Manoj Kumar, in his reply affidavit filed in the [[LINK:writ petition moved ]]by advocate Yogamaya MG challenging the continuation of Manan Kumar Mishra as BCI Chairman, has substantially supported the concerns raised in the petition regarding the functioning, governance and finances of the apex statutory body of advocates.

BCI decisions taken unilaterally

After Supreme Court Nudge, Centre Proposes Skill Training Courses For Cadets Discharged From Military Training Due To Disability

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

The Centre has proposed a scheme for job-oriented skill training for cadets discharged from military training due to disability, whose disability is below 40% and who therefore do not fall within the scope of the reservation provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The Ministry of Defence, in an affidavit filed in response to the Court's [[LINK:direction]] to prepare a suitable welfare mechanism for such cadets, has proposed 8-10 week structured courses to help such cadets transition from military training to corporate and administrative employment.

The affidavit has been filed in the [[LINK:suo motu case]] concerning cadets disabled during military training.

Lawyer Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi High Court Judgment Upholding GST Department's Seizure Of Office Computers

An advocate has approached the Supreme Court challenging the [[LINK:Delhi High Court's judgment]] holding that a lawyer's office can be searched by law enforcement agencies if there is any prima facie involvement that the legal professional has committed any offence.

The High Court had thereby upheld the search and seizure conducted by GST Department at the office of Advocate Puneet Batra. Challenging this High Court's judgment, the lawyer has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court

Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and N Hariharan mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for urgent listing.

Plea Seeking FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma Mentioned In Supreme Court

A petition seeking the registration of FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma [[LINK:over the cash-at-home row]] was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for urgent listing.

Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara mentioned the matter, saying that the Registry was refusing to list the matter.

"The matter has to be listed, your lordship can dismiss the matter. But let the Registry number and list it," he urged. Another petitioner, appearing in person, submitted that the charges against Justice Varma has been proved by the Lok Sabha Enquiry Commmittee, and hence, there should be no impediment in the registration of FIR. "Let there be equality and equal treatment, this Court has the power to order the registration of FIR," he submitted.

'How Can BCI Regulate Law Colleges?What Do They Know About Legal Education?' Supreme Court Asks

Case:  GIRISH MITTAL Vs BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1115/2026

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that it will examine whether the Bar Council of India (BCI), as a statutory regulator of the legal profession, has the power to control and regulate law colleges or universities.

The Court questioned how the BCI could be considered an expert body to regulate legal education, observing that eminent law scholars and academics were better placed to deal with academic matters. The Court orally said that while the BCI could lay down general guidelines, such as prescribing whether a law course should be of four or five years' duration, it could not exercise control over legal education.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing pleas challenging the functioning of the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust and the establishment of law institutions by the Trust.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Case Over Patna HC Verdict That Bid To Remove Salwar & Pressing Chest Isn't Rape Attempt

Case: IN RE: ORDER DATED 09.07.2026 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 775/2013 AND ANCILLARY ISSUES Versus, SMW(Crl) No. 5/2026

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the[[LINK: Patna High Court's judgment]] which held that allegations of attempting to remove a woman's salwar and physically molesting by pressing her chest do not constitute 'attempt to rape'.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted that some of the observations of the High Court were offensive.

"There are some offending observations," CJI Surya Kant told Bihar Advocate General SD Sanjay. "We will be able to set aside only after hearing the accused...you please make sure through local police that he is served," CJI added.

Supreme Court Rejects Objection To Justice Jaishree Thakur's Co-Option To Punjab & Haryana Bar Council

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an objection raised against the co-option of former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Justice Jaishree Thakur as a member of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.

The objection was raised on the ground that Justice Thakur had earlier served as the Returning Officer for the State Bar Council elections and that election petitions arising from the electoral process are pending before an Election Tribunal headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Hima Kohli.

The issue arose before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana which is overseeing the constitution of Bar Councils after the recently held elections.

Speaker Expected To Expediously Decide Disqualification Petitions Against Trinamool Rebel MPs : Supreme Court

Case : ABHISHEK BANERJEE v. HONBLE SPEAKER LOK SABHA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 1033/2026

The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally observed that the Lok Sabha Speaker was expected to take an expeditious decision on the petitions filed by Trinamool Congress General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee seeking the disqualification of 20 rebel TMC MPs under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the writ petition filed by Banerjee seeking a time-bound decision by the Lok Sabha Speaker.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for Banerjee, submitted that although notices were issued by the Speaker to the rebel MPs in August, they had not filed their replies within the initial 14-day period. He said the Speaker had subsequently extended the time for filing replies until September 22, but the MPs had again sought an extension.

Supreme Court Rejects PIL To Remove "Anti-Government" & "Anti-Judiciary" Social Media Content

Case: Hitendra Kumar Parsottambhai Gadhiya v. Union of India, Diary Number 49072/2026

The Supreme Court today dismissed a PIL seeking removal/blocking of social media posts which incite "anti-government" and "anti-judiciary" sentiments.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order. "Don't give so much importance to these people (who are publishing such social media posts)", CJI conveyed to the petitioner's counsel. The judge added that the petitioner may pursue the concerned authorities.

The petition was moved by a social worker aggrieved by the circulation of "anti-national slogans and speeches/statements" on Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, etc. It stated that "the security threats caused by unruly mobs across the country under the banner of the so-called "CJP", coupled with the circulation of fake messages through SMS and various social media platforms, resulted in the National Capital and and the Capitals of several states being held hostage".

Supreme Court Pulls Up States/UT For Not Responding To Plea To Distribute Sanitary Napkins Via Fair Price Shops

Case: SAROJ BALA v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS., WP(C) No. 691/2026

The Supreme Court recently issued show-cause notices to the Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories over their failure to file reply/compliance affidavits in a matter pertaining to distribution of sanitary napkins through Fair Price Shops.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, calling on the Chief Secretaries to show cause as to why cost of Rs. 25000 be not imposed on the states/UTs over their failure to file the affidavits.

Briefly stated, the case pertains to distribution of sanitary napkins through Fair Price Shops. The petitioner, a social worker, seeks directions to ensure that Jan Aushadhi Suvidha oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins, manufactured and supplied under the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaudhadhi Pariyojana, are made available for distribution through the Fair Price Shop network to ration card holders covered under the National Food Security Act, 2013.

Hope Bar Council Of India Will Have Women Representation : Supreme Court

Case: YOGAMAYA M.G. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Misc. Application in WP(C) No. 581/2024

While issuing notice on a[[LINK: plea]] seeking 30 percent representation of women in the Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court today expressed that it was looking forward to a voluntary resolution from the BCI itself.

"We are eagerly looking forward that a resolution will come from them (BCI) resolving that," Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said.

Noting that 30% women's representation has been implemented in the State Bar Councils following the directions of the Supreme Court, the CJI said that BCI is also expected to reflect it, being the apex body. "It can't happen that in State Assembly, there is a woman Member, but in Parliament there is none," the CJI commented in a lighter vein.

Supreme Court Reserves Order On Noida DM Medha Roopam's Plea To Stay Allahabad HC Judgment Quashing Student's NSA Detention

Case Details: MEDHA ROOPAM v AKRITI CHAUDHARY AND ORS|Diary No. 56202-2026 |

UPDATE -[[LINK:Supreme Court Stays Allahabad HC Order Quashing Student's NSA Detention & Slamming Noida DM Medha Roopam]]

The Supreme Court today(September 23) reserved order on the grant of interim relief in the petition filed by Gautam Buddh Nagar District(Noida) Magistrate Medha Roopam challenging the[[LINK: Allahabad High Court order]], which directed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to be paid from her salary for the detention of student Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act in connection with the Noida workers' protest.

The Court also heard a separate petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the High Court's order quashing the NSA detention of the student.

DGP Appointments: Amicus Raju Ramachandran Objects To Odisha AG's Comment That He's Arguing Like Petitioner's Counsel

Case: PRAKASH SINGH AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 310/1996 (and connected cases)

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, the Amicus Curiae in the DGP Appointments matter, today took serious objection to a comment made by Odisha Advocate General Pitambar Acharya that he (Amicus) was arguing the matter as though he was appearing for the petitioner.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with pleas challenging actions of the Odisha government in respect of DGP appointment this year. The petitioners allege that the process violated the Supreme Court's directions in Prakash Singh case.

During the hearing, the Odisha AG commented that the Amicus seemed to be presenting arguments as though he was appearing for the petitioner side. "He is presenting as if he's representing [petitioner]...the very first day, without looking at the brief he makes...", he said.

Supreme Court Stays Allahabad HC Order Slamming Noida DM Medha Roopam Over Student's NSA Detention

Case Details: MEDHA ROOPAM v AKRITI CHAUDHARY AND ORS|Diary No. 56202-2026 |

Update on September 24 - [[LINK:Supreme Court Revises Order In Noida DM Medha Roopam's Case; Specifies Stay Is Only On HC's Strictures & Compensation Direction]]

The Supreme Court today(September 23) stayed the [[LINK:Allahabad High Court's order ]]directing Gautam Buddh Nagar District(Noida) Magistrate Medha Roopam to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakh from her salary for the detention of student Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act in connection with the Noida workers' protest.

The Court also stayed the operation of the judgment which quashed the student's detention.

Petition Seeks Contempt Action Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar For Alleged Violation Of Supreme Court Judgments

A Supreme Court advocate has sought the Attorney General for India's consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging wilful disobedience of Supreme Court judgments governing the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Advocate Brajesh Singh, in a letter addressed to Attorney General R Venkataramani on September 24, has invoked Section 15(1)(b) read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.

The request follows a[[LINK: September 23 report by The Indian Express]] which stated that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over the preceding 10 months to decisions taken by the poll panel without their knowledge or approval. The report said the objections related, among other things, to changes in Form 6, addition and deletion of names from electoral rolls, and centralisation of access to the electoral-roll database.

Supreme Court Dismisses Karnataka Plea Against HC Order To Pay Rs 5 Lakh Compensation For Illegal Arrest

Case:State of Karnataka v Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal(SLP (Crl) No. 16734/2026)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (22 September) dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Karnataka against a [[LINK:Karnataka High Court order ]]which had declared the arrest of a homestay owner illegal and directed the State to pay him compensation of Rs. 5,00,000.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the Karnataka government's challenge to the[[LINK: judgement dated July 15, 2026,]] passed by a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court.

“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment/order of the High Court. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed,” the bench observed.

Supreme Court Dismisses Danam Nagender's Plea Challenging Telangana HC Judgment Disqualifying Him As MLA For Defection

Case : DANAM NAGENDER Vs ALLETI MAHESHWAR REDDY | SLP(C) No. 33735-33736/2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by former Khairatabad MLA Danam Nagender challenging the Telangana [[LINK:High Court's judgment ]]disqualifying him from the Telangana Legislative Assembly under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution for defection from the Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) party to the Indian National Congress.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the High Court's judgment is based on a correct interpretation of law, and no interference was called for.

As soon as the matter was taken up, Justice Bagchi, referring to the petitioner, who was a BRS MLA in 2023,  contesting as a Congress candidate for the Lok Sabha elections in 2024, commented in a lighter vein, "You had a fixed deposit as MLA, you tried for share market as MP, and now you lost the Fixed Deposit."

'We've Seen What Delay Does In Shiv Sena Case' : Supreme Court Says ECI Must Decide Trinamool Symbol Dispute Soon

Case : Mamata Banerjee v. Election Commission of India | Diary No. 58005/2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 24) asked the Election Commission of India to inform how much time would be required to decide the symbol dispute between the Mamata Banerjee and Ritabrata Banerjee factions in the All India Trinamool Congress party.

Observing that an early decision was necessary, the Court asked the ECI to propose a timeline, and adjourned the matter till next week.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the Writ Petition filed by former West Bengal Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress founder Mamata Banerjee challenging the ECI's September 17[[LINK: decision]] to freeze the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) name and its  'Flowers & Grass' election symbol amid a dispute between rival factions of the party.

Cauvery Water Dispute | Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka's Response To TN Plea For Making Good Past Shortfall

Case: MA 2445/2026 in C.A. No. 2453/2007 Diary No. 46527 / 2026 STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of Karnataka to Tamil Nadu's application seeking directions for release of water to make good the alleged shortfall in Karnataka's supply of Cauvery water to the neighbouring State.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi directed the respondents to file their response within a week and posted the matter for hearing in October.

Tamil Nadu has claimed that Karnataka owes it around 16 TMC of water as a shortfall during the current irrigation year. In its application, Tamil Nadu has sought directions for the release of the deficit water on a pro-rata basis.

Supreme Court Revises Order In Noida DM Medha Roopam's Case; Specifies Stay Is Only On HC's Strictures & Compensation Direction

Case Details: MEDHA ROOPAM v AKRITI CHAUDHARY AND ORS|Diary No. 56202-2026 |

The Supreme Court has revised its interim order passed in the petition of Gautam Buddh Nagar District(Noida) Magistrate Medha Roopam, specifying that the stay is only on the adverse comments of the Allahabad High Court against the officer and its direction to pay compensation to student Akriti Chaudhary, who was under the National Security Act in connection with the Noida workers' protest.

In other words, the High Court's judgment quashing the detention of Chaudhary has not been stayed.

As per the[[LINK: order which was uploaded yesterday]], the entire High Court judgment was stayed, because it stated:  "Till the matter is heard on merits, the operation of the impugned judgment, particularly, para Nos. 27 to 33 shall remain stayed."

Journalist Ravi Nair Moves Supreme Court For Release From Custody In Adani Defamation Case

Case: Ravi Nair v. State of Gujarat and Anr. Diary No. 59498/2026

Journalist Ravi Nair has approached the Supreme Court seeking release in the Adani defamation case, after he was taken into custody in furtherance of a Gujarat Court's non-bailable warrant.

He has filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Gujarat High Court[[LINK: order]], which denied him interim relief.

Advocate Abhik Chimni mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India at 2 PM today seeking urgent listing. However, the CJI did not entertain the mentioning.

Include Rules For Execution Of Commercial Suits In Commercial Courts Act Schedule : Supreme Court Suggests

Case Details: PERIYAMMAL (DEAD THR. LRS.) AND ORS Versus V. RAJAMANI AND ANR. ETC|MA 1889-1891/2025 in C.A. No. 3640-3642/2025 Diary No. 59338 / 2025

The Supreme Court today(September 24) suggested that the government can bring an amendment to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to state the execution in commercial suits will be as per the Commercial Court Rules, which have remained unnotified since 2021. The Court proposed that the Rules can be made part of the Act by inserting a Schedule.

The draft Commercial Court Rules were not notified because the Union Government stated that it may be in conflict with certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Now, the Court has suggested that through an amendment in the 2015 Act, the draft Rules can be notified.

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, on[[LINK: March 6, 2025]], the Supreme Court asked the High Courts to collate data on the pendency of execution petitions across the District Courts nationwide. It appointed Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan as amicus in this case.

Supreme Court Seeks Data On Insurance Policies Issued To Persons With Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Multiple Disabilities

Case Title – Action for Autism v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to place on record data on the number of insurance policies issued by public and private sector insurers to persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Intellectual Disability and Multiple Disabilities.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan passed the order in a PIL which [[LINK:seeks measures]] to address alleged systemic failures in protecting the rights of persons with neurodevelopmental and other disabilities.

“Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority(IRDA) to seek instructions by way of presenting the data so far as the number of policies that have been issued by both Public Sector as well as the Private Sector Insurance Companies to insure the life of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities by the next date of hearing”, the Court ordered.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre For Not Informing Steps Taken To Remove Online Child Sexual Exploitation & Abuse Materials

Case Details: JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE AND ANR.v S. HARISH AND ORS|Diary No. 41028-2026

On September 24, the Supreme Court gave one last opportunity to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Law and Justice to file a response indicating the steps taken to curb the menace of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material(CSEAM) by social media intermediaries.

Emphasising the need for prevention, it has asked the ministries to indicate what preventive steps will be taken in future to prevent lapses by such intermediaries.

It may be recalled that on August 14, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice in an application filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance(JRCA) and the Bachpan Bachao Andolan in the wake of a media report alleging that social media intermediary Instagram has carried out paid advertisements promoting CSEAM. The application raised serious concerns over compliance with the [[LINK:Supreme Court's earlier directions ]]and the statutory obligations of the intermediaries.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Centre's Plea Seeking Prospective Application For Judgment On OBC-Creamy Layer

Case Title – Union of India v. Rohith Nathan and Anr.

The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 24) reserved judgment on an application filed by the Union Government seeking clarification regarding the implementation of its [[LINK:March 11 judgment holding]] that the creamy layer status of an Other Backward Class (OBC) candidate cannot be determined solely on the basis of the parents' salary income, and that the category of posts held by them has also to be considered.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan heard the matter.

The Centre has raised concerns about the consequences of applying the judgment retrospectively. It has stated that such an interpretation could affect recruitments and admissions already undertaken by the Central Government, 18 States and Union Territories,

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Tarun Tejpal's Plea Against Rape Sentence

Case Details: TARUNJIT TEJPAL Vs THE STATE OF GOA|Diary No. 50909 / 2026

The Supreme Court today(September 24) issued notice to the State of Goa on the petition filed by Tehelka Magazine's former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal challenging the[[LINK: Bombay High Court's judgment ]]sentencing him to ten years' imprisonment for the rape of a colleague in 2013.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale heard the matter.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for Tejpal submitted that it was a case where the acquittal was reversed by the High Court. "This is a case of reversal; there is a right of appeal, I have surrendered," Sibal said.

Supreme Court Asks Rajasthan District Judge To Approach HC Chief Justice Over Lack Of Facilities

Case : DINESH KUMAR GUPTA v. CHANCHAL MISHRA AND ORS. | CONMT.PET.(C) No. 735/2026 in W.P.(C) No. 1264/2025

The Supreme Court on Friday heard a plea filed by Rajasthan District Judge Dinesh Gupta (posted as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal) who is due to retire in four days, raising grievances over the lack of basic facilities at his court.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana took up the matter.

Appearing for Gupta, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted that Gupta is the senior-most District Judge in the State but has been functioning without even basic facilities, including a stenographer and an office.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Prosecution Of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, SIT Inquiry Into SIR Voter Deletions

Case : Shailendra Mani Tripathi v Union of India | Diary No.59734/2026

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking criminal prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged violations of statutory duties in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition also seeks a declaration that decisions, guidelines and software modifications allegedly undertaken by Gyanesh Kumar without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners are unconstitutional and void.

The petition has been filed days after The Indian Express[[LINK: reported that]] Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over decisions and orders concerning SIR, including changes to Form 6 and the management of electoral-roll data. The report said the objections related to decisions allegedly taken without their knowledge or against their recommendations.

Supreme Court Upholds HC Judgment That 'Dua' For Electoral Victory Doesn't Constitute Soliciting Votes On Religious Grounds

Case Title – Shaan E Hind Nihal Ahmed v. Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging the election of AIMIM's Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique from the Malegaon Central Assembly constituency in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections, upholding the Bombay High Court [[LINK:judgment]] which rejected the election petition filed by his rival Shaikh Asif Shaikh Rashid.

The Bombay High Court had held that performing 'Dua' for a candidate's electoral victory during a political congregation, with the audience responding 'Amen', did not amount to soliciting votes on religious grounds or constitute a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the appeal filed by Samajwadi Party candidate Shaan E Hind Nihal Ahmed.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Hindi As Official Language Of Apex Court

Case : BRAHMESHWAR NATH MISHRA Vs UNION OF INDIA | D No. 5290/2026

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea seeking directions to make Hindi the official language of the Supreme Court.

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

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Union could be directed to constitute a commission to make recommendations regarding the use of Hindi as the official language of the Supreme Court. The counsel said the relief was being sought on the basis of certain constitutional provisions.

Supreme Court Protects Advocate From GST Dept Action Over Office Seizure Till Sept 28

Case: Puneet Batra v Union of India (Diary No. 59119/2026)

The Supreme Court today (25 September) adjourned till Monday the hearing of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Advocate Puneet Batra challenging the [[LINK:Delhi High Court's judgment]] which upheld the search and seizure conducted by the GST Department (Goods and Services Tax Department) at the office of his cabin and law firm, Bass Legal LLP.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was to hear an SLP filed against the Delhi High Court judgment that held that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigating a lawyer's own conduct where the authorities place prima facie material suggesting that the lawyer may have acted beyond the role of a legal adviser and become involved in the affairs under investigation.

The High Court Division Bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain had dismissed Batra's petition, holding that the search was conducted pursuant to a valid authorisation under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (CGST Act).

Supreme Court Refers Plea To Increase State Bar Councils' Strength To Attorney General

Case Title – Chandramohan. K v. Union

of India

The Supreme Court today directed that its [[LINK:September 2 order]] requiring the issue of increasing the strength of a State Bar Council to be considered by the Attorney General for India will apply across the country.

The direction came while hearing a plea seeking an increase in the maximum strength of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu from 25 to 32 to accommodate 30% representation for women.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana held that the September 2 order concerning the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa would have a pan-India application.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Sambhal Mosque Committee's Plea Against Survey Order

Case Details – Committee of Management Jami Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025 (AoR Anil Kumar) and Committee of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal, Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) 21599/2025 (AoR Fuzail Ahmad)

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on the plea filed by the Sambhal Jama Masjid Committee challenging the Allahabad High Court's order which upheld the trial court's order to appoint an advocate commissioner to survey the mosque in a suit filed by Hindu plaintiffs.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard arguments from Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi and Advocate Nizam Pasha for the mosque committee, Advocate Hari Shankar Jain for the Hindu plaintiffs and Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The dispute arises from a civil suit filed by Hindu plaintiffs in 2024 seeking the right to access the Sambhal Jama Masjid for performing religious ceremonies on the claim that it was originally a Hindu temple which was demolished in the 16th century to build a mosque. The trial court [[LINK:had appointed]] an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local investigation of the mosque premises on November 19, 2024. The Allahabad High Court, in its May 19, 2025 order, [[LINK:upheld the survey order]] and held that the suit cannot be held to be barred by the Places of Worship Act at this stage.

Supreme Court Questions Upper Age Limit Set By BCI For Law College Admission

Case Title – Rishabh Duggal v. Bar Council of India through its Chairman

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) whether it will withdraw it resolution dated September 17, 2016 prescribing an upper age limit for admission to law degree courses.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a petition challenging BCI's prescription of an upper age limit for admission to law colleges.

During the hearing, Advocate Radhika Gautam for BCI submitted that she had instructions to leave the issue to the Court. She explained that the rationale for prescribing an age limit for the five-year integrated law course was that most of such courses are a residential courses in which young persons generally take admission.

Supreme Court Closes Punjab's Plea Against Governor Reserving Two Bills For President's Assent

Case Title – State of Punjab v. Union of India & Ors

The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of a [[LINK:writ petition]] filed by the State of Punjab challenging the Governor's decision to reserve two Bills for the President's consideration, after the State informed the Court that assent had been refused to one Bill and queries had been raised on the other.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing Punjab's plea seeking a declaration of deemed assent to the two Bills on account of alleged inaction by the President.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat for Punjab informed the Court that assent had been refused to one of the Bills, while queries had been sent to the state in relation to the other Bill.

Supreme Court Announces Advocates-on-Record Examination For December 2026; Applications Open Till October 15

The Supreme Court of India has notified the Advocates-on-Record (AOR) Examination for December 2026, with the examination scheduled to be held in New Delhi on December 19, 20, 22 and 23, 2026.

The notification, issued by the Registrar (J) and Secretary, Board of Examiners, AOR Examination, states that the examination will be conducted under Rules 5(i) and (ii) of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, read with Regulation 2 of the Regulations regarding Advocates-on-Record Examination.

The December 2026 examination is open to candidates who are eligible to re-appear under Regulations 11(i) or 11(ii) of the AOR Examination Regulations, including candidates seeking to avail themselves of the opportunity arising from the results of the June 2025 AOR Examination.

Delhi Riots UAPA Case : Supreme Court Relaxes Meeran Haider's Bail Condition On Attendance, Refuses To Lift Other Conditions

Case Details: MEERAN HAIDER Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI|MA 2837/2026 in Crl.A. No. 12/2026 Diary No. 54215 / 2026

The Supreme Court today(September 25) relaxed a bail condition as per which Meeran Haider, an accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, will had to mark his attendance twice a week at the Police Station Crime Branch, Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi. The Court has allowed him to mark his attendance once every Saturday.

He has also been exempted from marking attendance on 17th and 24th October on account of his marriage.

It may be recalled that [[LINK:Haider was granted bail ]]along with four other co-accused persons on January 5 by Justice Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria. The bench imposed 11 bail conditions, including that the accused persons can't post anything on social media, attend public gatherings, and circulate in any electronic or physical form any post or material.

Supreme Court Calls For GD Entries, CCTV Footage In Plea Alleging Assam Police Custodial Torture

Case Details:  RIMLY GOGOI SAIKIA v THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS|SLP(Crl) No. 7731/2026

The Supreme Court today(September 25) passed an order directing the Assam Government to place on record the GD diaries, CCTV footage from the police station, and the entire record from the Gauhati High Court in a plea filed challenging the Gauhati High Court's order refusing an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the alleged custodial torture of one Dipankar Gogoi.

Notice was recently issued to the Assam Government and five accused police officers in this case, and the petitioner, the sister of the deceased, was allowed to implead the CBI as a party. It had also stayed the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate for the time being.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva today briefly heard Advocate Shahrukh Alam for the petitioner. The Court was informed that the CBI is yet to file a counter. Shahrukh submitted that three inquiries against the police officers have taken place, including by the High Court and by the amicus, but the petitioner doesn't have any access to the records. She added that the Police Accountability Commission also did some inquiry, the report of which is also not shared.

'The Liver Doctor' Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Against Prescription Of Arsenic-Based Homeo Medicine For Covid Immunity

Case Title – Cyriac Abby Philips v. Union of India

Kerala-based physician-scientist Dr Cyriac Abby Philips (popularly known as 'The Liver Doctor') today withdrew his [[LINK:writ petition]], filed in 2022, before the Supreme Court against the administration of homoeopathic medicine 'Arsenicum Album 30' to children and elderly persons as a preventive measure against Covid-19 or for boosting immunity.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana took note of a letter dated August 2, 2026 sent by the petitioner's counsel and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

When the matter was called out, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the bench that there was a letter seeking withdrawal of the petition.

Over 18K Cases Pending In NCDRC As On July 31, 2026 : Report Before Supreme Court

Case: In Re Pay And Allowance Of The Members Of The U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission | W.P.(C) No. 1144/2021

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had 18,767 cases pending as on July 31, 2026, according to a report submitted to the Supreme Court after the Court raised concerns over delays in consumer dispute resolution.

The report shows that the NCDRC disposed of 23,268 cases between August 2023 and July 2026. During the same period, the Commission received 19,321 cases, including restored matters, and disposed of 15,810 cases during the period, while 18,767 remained pending at the end of July 2026.

The matter is being dealt with by a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana in the suo motu proceedings concerning the pay and allowances of members of consumer commissions.

Residential Premises Used For Commercial Activity Must Be Sealed; Don't 'Pick & Choose' : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Loganathan v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

In an important development, the Supreme Court has directed authorities across States to prioritise preventing commercial activities in areas earmarked exclusively for residential use, ordering that premises found to be used commercially in violation of sanctioned land-use permissions should, in the first instance, be sealed.

The Court said that where an area is specifically designated as residential and permission has been granted only for residential use, any commercial activity found there should, “in the first instance, be sealed.”

“If any commercial activity is found to be taking place in such areas, the premises shall, in the first instance, be sealed.”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Dismisses BJP MLAs' Plea Challenging Quashing Of Corruption Complaint Against Karnataka Energy Minister KJ George

Case:Ashwanathnarayan CN & Ors v State of Karnataka & Ors(Diary No. 14883/2026)

The Supreme Court on Friday (25 September) dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had [[LINK:quashed]] criminal complaint against Karnataka's Energy Minister KJ George and Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) officials over alleged irregularities in the tender procurement and installation of smart electricity meters in Karnataka.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran declined to interfere with the High Court's order, holding that there existed “no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.”

A criminal complaint was filed against Minister KJ George and BESCOM officials, by three MLAs (CN Ashwath Narayan, SR Vishwanath, and Dheeraj Muniraj) of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), alleging offences under Sections 314, 316, and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), in connection with the tender for smart meters. The MLAs had first approached the Lokayukta police before filing the complaint before the PC Act Special Court.

Adopting Canadian Model On Warning Labels For Packaged Foods High In Fat, Sugar Or Salt : FSSAI Informs Supreme Court

Case : 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has proposed adopting a red hexagonal warning label, broadly based on the Canadian model, for packaged food products high in nutrients of concern such as sugar, fat and salt.

FSSAI has informed the Supreme Court that it proposes to adopt a single-phase approach for implementing Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (FoPL) and expects to issue and finalise the draft regulations within approximately four months.

The proposal has been submitted before the Supreme Court in response to the[[LINK: Court's order dated September 10, 2026]] which sought responses from the Union and FSSAI on 13 specific aspects of the proposed framework, including the implementation timeline, nutrient thresholds, treatment of sweetened beverages, the colour and dimensions of the proposed red hexagon, use of pictorial representations, possible impact on food additives, voluntary compliance and nutritional literacy among schoolchildren.

Wrong To Say SIR Adjudicated Deletions Led To Trinamool Loss In 31 Bengal Seats: ECI Tells Supreme Court

Case : Derek O Brien v Election Commission of India | IA No. 171298/2026 in WP(c) 737/2025

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has disputed All India Trinamool Congress(AITC) MP Derek O'Brien's claim that deletions made during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls have affected the results in 31 West Bengal Assembly constituencies where the AITC lost, submitting before the Supreme Court that the figures relied upon by him improperly clubbed together different categories of deletions.

In its reply to[[LINK: O'Brien's application]], the ECI has specifically contended that the figures relied upon by the applicant include deletions of names belonging to Absentee, Shifted, Dead and Duplicate (ASDD) categories, which, the Commission stated, were not adjudicated by Judicial Officers. It said such removals cannot be equated with deletions made following adjudication by Judicial Officers.

The affidavit states that Derek O Brien's figures included names removed on account of 'ASDD' entries from the draft roll, "which were deleted only after due process and verification as contemplated under the SIR Order". Such deletions of "ineligible entries" could not be equated with adjudicated deletions by Judicial Officers, ECI contends.

Supreme Court Orders Demolition Of 16,726 Illegal Structures In Meerut; Appoints Justice Dhulia Commission To Probe Illegal Colonies

Cause Title: LOKESH KUMAR KHURANA VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR BARJATYA, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 877/2025 in C.A. No. 14604/2024, BIMALENDU PRADHAN v. STATE OF ODISHA and connected cases.

The Supreme Court has directed Meerut authorities to take prompt steps for the demolition of 16,726 unauthorised structures identified in Zone A and ordered the demolition of remaining illegal constructions in other parts of the city.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan directed that occupants of the identified illegal structures first be asked to vacate and that the structures thereafter be sealed and demolished.

“We direct the authorities to proceed at the earliest to take appropriate action against all these 16,726 illegal structures in Zone-A. The first step in the process is to ask the occupants to vacate the premises and to seal all these premises, i.e., the 16,726 illegal structures. We direct accordingly.”, the Court ordered.

Is ECI Correct In Saying Supreme Court Upheld Its New Form 6 Declaration?

After a controversy erupted over two Election Commissioners[[LINK: objecting to the changes made to the Form 6 ]][which is used to include new voters] during the Special Intensive Revision [SIR] process, the Election Commission of India yesterday issued a press[[LINK: statement]] seeking to justify its inclusion of a [[LINK:Declaration Form]] for new voters seeking enrolment via Form 6.

The ECI said that the Declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Supreme Court in [[LINK:its May judgment pertaining to the Bihar SIR]]. "The declaration attached to Form 6 has been upheld by the Supreme Court. For non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per the Rules [the Registration of Electors Rules 1960] will be used," the ECI stated. The suggestion is that the new Form Declaration, which is the subject of present controversy, has been approved by the Supreme Court.

However, this claim may not be entirely correct, as this specific Declaration Form introduced by the ECI was not examined by the Supreme Court in the Bihar SIR case. Let us examine if the Court really "upheld" it.

Keralam Power Crisis : State Urges Supreme Court To Urgently Hear Appeal Against APTEL Ruling

Case :  STATE OF KERALA Vs KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION KSERC | C.A. No. 9600/2025

The State of Kerala on Monday urged the Supreme Court to urgently hear its appeal challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) concerning long-term power purchase agreements, citing the ongoing power crisis and the financial burden caused by the State having to procure electricity from the market at higher rates.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the State submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that there was an immediate urgency in taking up the matter.

“The urgency is this that the power supply agreement, which was not approved by the APTEL, as a result of which the State has to buy power from the market at excessive rates,” Gupta submitted.

Supreme Court Urges West Bengal Speaker To Decide Disqualification Pleas Against 10 Rebel Trinamool MLAs By October 8

Case :SOHANDEB CHATTOPADHYAY Vs HONBLE SPEAKER WEST BENGAL LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY | W.P.(C) No. 1192/2026

The Supreme Court on Monday urged the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly to decide by October 8 the petitions filed by Trinamool Congress (Mamata Banerjee) member Sohandeb Chattopadhyay seeking the disqualification of ten MLAs of the Ritabrata Banerjee faction under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution for alleged defection.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana disposed of the writ petition filed by Sohandeb Chattopadhyay seeking expeditious decision by the Speaker.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioner, submitted that there was a pattern of delaying decisions on disqualification petitions, and the breakaway faction consequently getting a declaration that they were the real party.

Notice To Student Over Cockroach Janta Party Protest Withdrawn, Greater Noida Executive Magistrate Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Akshat Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors.

The Supreme Court on Monday was informed that a notice issued to a student, under the BNSS to furnish bonds, in connection with the proposed “Cockroach Janta Party” (CJP) protest in Greater Noida has been withdrawn.

The development came as a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a [[LINK:petition filed ]]by Gautam Buddh University student Akshat Tripathi challenging the S.126/130 BNSS notice issued against him by the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate.

The notice had directed Tripathi to furnish a personal bond of Rs.5 lakh and two sureties of the same amount for allegedly encouraging fellow students to participate in a proposed CJP dharna.

Supreme Court Asks Centre To Explain Decision To Levy Charges On UPI Transactions, Refuses Stay

Case : Anjan Datta v. Union of India | WP(c) Diary No. 57387/2026

The Supreme Court on Monday called for an affidavit from the Union Government [[LINK:explaining the basis for the move]] to levy charges for transactions through Unified Payment Interface (UPI) above ₹2,000 from individuals to merchants.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate Anjan Datta challenging [[LINK:Gazette notifications ]]issued by the Union Ministry of Finance on September 14 and 15, announcing charges on commercial UPI transactions above ₹2,000.

At the outset, Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, for the Union, submitted that the charges will take effect only on October 15. He said that 96% of the transactions will not face the charge, and the charges for essential services have been capped as Rs 5. "It is neither a tax nor a fee," ASG said.

Sohrabuddin Shaikh Case | '92 Witnesses Turning Hostile Serious Concern' : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Acquittals

Case Title: RUBABUDDIN SHAIKH Vs THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Case Number: D No. 48619/2026

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a petition [[LINK:challenging the Bombay High Court order]] acquitting 22 accused, including 21 policemen (from Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh), in the 2005 encounter case of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi, and his aide Tulsiram Prajapati.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Baghchi and Justice V Mohana issued notices to the acquitted persons on the petition filed by Rubabuddin Shaikh, younger brother of the deceased Sohrabuddin Shaikh.

During the hearing, the bench expressed concerns about the fact that 92 witnesses turned hostile during the trial.

'These Are Just By-Elections': CJI Declines Urgent Hearing Of SIR Cases Ahead Of West Bengal By-Polls

The Supreme Court today declined urgent hearing of the West Bengal SIR matter ahead of the upcoming Rejinagar and Nandigram bypolls on October 6.

The matter was mentioned before a bench led by CJI Surya Kant for urgent hearing. The counsel said that the matter was slated to be heard on September 29, but it has not come in the cause list. He said that the next date is being shown as October 5, but the Rejinagar bypolls begin on October 6.

The counsel urged that there are thousands of appeals pending against voter exclusions and highlighted that many of these people were not able to vote in the earlier elections as well.

Supreme Court Asks ECI To Decide Trinamool Election Symbol Dispute Within 4 Months

Case : Mamata Banerjee v. Election Commission of India | Diary No. 58005/2026

The Supreme Court today set a timeline for the Election Commission of India to finally decide the election symbol dispute in the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) party involving the Mamata Banerjee and Ritabrata Banerjee factions under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

The Court asked both the parties to file their affidavits/counter-affidavits within four weeks. In other words, the pleadings should be completed within four weeks.

After that, the ECI must decide the matter within three months. Thus, effectively, the Court has directed that the matter be decided within a period of four months.

CBSE 3-Language Formula | Grant Class 6 Same Relaxation As Class 7: Supreme Court

Case : Yashica Bhandari Jain and others v. Union of India and others. W.P.(C) No. 694/2026 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to extend the same relaxation already available to Class 7 students to those in Class 6 regarding evaluation under the three-language formula.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the CBSE's 3-language formula.

At the beginning of the hearing, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the court that detailed discussions had taken place on the Court's [[LINK:earlier suggestion]] that present Class 6 students be exempted from the 3-language formula. He submitted that the government would persuade the bench to allow implementation for Class 6 from the current year.  Out of 28,819 schools, except for 1.2% of schools, the rest were compliant, textbooks and materials were available, and students had opted for the scheme, he said.

Supreme Court Dismisses Percept's Appeal Against ₹14.49 Crore Arbitral Award In Favour Of Sourav Ganguly

Case Title – Precept Talent Management Limited v. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly

Case No. - SLP(C) No. 24927/ 2026

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain an appeal filed by Percept Talent Management challenging a Calcutta High Court judgment which upheld a ₹14.49 crore arbitral award in favour of former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with Percept Talent Management Ltd.'s plea against the[[LINK: Calcutta High Court order which dismissed its appeal]] and upheld the arbitral award.

The dispute arose from a 2003 Player Representation Agreement between Percept and Ganguly.

Plea In Supreme Court To Suspend Gyanesh Kumar As CEC, Declare ECI Decisions Cannot Be Taken Unilaterally

Cause Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking, among other reliefs, the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as CEC and a declaration that decisions vested in the Election Commission of India cannot be taken unilaterally by its Chairman.

The petition has 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 petition, the two Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning steps which, according to them, were taken without the approval of the Commission

The petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks a direction requiring the CEC to "show under what authority he has acted, and continues to act" as though he is individually entitled to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 of the Constitution in the Election Commission.

Supreme Court Stays Delhi High Court's Judgment Upholding GST Dept Seizure Of Advocate's Office Computers

Case:Puneet Batra v Union of India(Diary No. 59119/2026)

The Supreme Court today (28 September) stayed the Delhi High Court's [[LINK:judgment]] which had upheld the search and seizure conducted by the Goods and Services Tax Department (GST Department) at the office of Advocate Puneet Batra and his law firm, Bass Legal LLP. It also directed Batra to appear for investigation on Wednesday (30 September), instead of today. The bench also questioned the GST Department over the reasons for the search, which it had not disclosed to the petitioner.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the Delhi High Court judgment that held that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigating a lawyer's own conduct where the authorities place prima facie material suggesting that the lawyer may have acted beyond the role of a legal adviser and become involved in the affairs under investigation.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain had dismissed Batra's petition, holding that the search was conducted pursuant to a valid authorisation under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (CGST Act).

'Why One Year Needed To Place Front-of-Pack Labels On Packaged Food?' : Supreme Court Asks FSSAI, Reserves Judgment

Case: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India | MA 1177/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 28) reserved its order in a [[LINK:PIL]] seeking the implementation of Front-of-Pack Labelling (FoPL) for packaged food products high in nutrients of concern such as sugar, fat and salt, while questioning the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over the proposed timeline for implementing the warning-label regime.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran questioned why FSSAI required a year-long voluntary compliance period under its latest proposal and why a fresh regulatory exercise involving stakeholder objections was necessary, given that the process had begun in 2022.

"Why voluntary compliance for a year? Why do you need so much time? Why do you want to start afresh with the exercise of hearing and calling for objections? You started in 2022, what did you do in the last 4 years," Justice Pardiwala asked FSSAI.

Make Rules To Regulate Children's Social Media Usage : Supreme Court Tells Centre

Case: Just Rights for Children Alliance v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1120/2026

The Supreme Court today expressed serious concerns about minors' access to social media platforms, saying that it will be compelled to pass directions under the Information Technology Act if the government does not address the issue.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a[[LINK: PIL]] filed by 'Just Rights for Children Alliance' seeking safeguards against use of social media and other digital platforms by minors.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that prima facie, the[[LINK: issue seemed covered]] by the DPDP Act. "Some provisions have been given to me, I would like to examine whether it is infact covered. Otherwise it's a genuine grievance", he said.

Blockades On National Highway 2 Removed : Manipur Govt Tells Supreme Court

Case: KUKI WOMEN ORGANIZATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, A WING OF KUKI ORGANIZATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TRUST (KOHUR) AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANR. W.P.(C) No. 961/2026

The Supreme Court was informed today by the Manipur government that the blockade on national highway 2 has been removed, while steps are underway for removing the blockades on other highways.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a PIL filed by the Kuki Women Organization for Human Rights seeking removal of blockade on NH2 and restoration of supply of essential services in the affected Manipur district.

At the outset, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed that the highway(s) had been opened.

Plea To Tackle Fake Medicines : Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Approach Centre

Case: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(Crl) No. 373/2026

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a PIL raising the issue of fake drug peddling. However, it directed forwarding of a copy of the petition to the Union for its consideration.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the PIL filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, raising the issue of circulation of fake cancer drugs and other life-saving medicines.

Briefly put, the petitioner sought directions for timely completion of investigations in fake medicine cases and a mechanism to tackle the issue under the organized crime legal framework. "Fake medicines constitute a grave threat to the fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The precious years, opportunities and lives can never be restored; the injury is accordingly graver than the loss of any material commodity", his plea said.

Kunal Kamra Seeks To Intervene In Supreme Court Reference On Legislative Privileges, Says Free Speech Must Prevail

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

Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra has approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the pending[[LINK: 7-Judge Bench Reference ]]concerning the scope and limits of legislative privileges, submitting that the exercise of such privilege cannot be used to stifle the speech of citizens.

Kamra, in his intervention application, has submitted that the Supreme Court's consideration of the interplay between legislative privilege under Article 194(3) of the Constitution and the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) has a direct bearing on breach of privilege proceedings pending against him before the Maharashtra Legislature.

"The exercise of legislative privilege to stifle the speech of citizens strikes at the heart of democracy," Kamra has submitted.

ECI Row : Supreme Court To Hear Next Week Plea Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar & SIR Decisions

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed early listing of a petition seeking, among other reliefs, suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and a declaration that decisions vested in the Election Commission of India cannot be taken unilaterally by its Chairman.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and sought early listing of the plea.

During the hearing, Singh submitted that the Election Commission is a multi-member body and that, under the statutory framework, its business is required to be transacted unanimously as far as possible, with differences being decided by majority.

Justice Dipankar Datta Pays Tribute To Law Clerk Who Passed Away, Dedicates Judgment To Him

Life can be fleeting, and yet we don't recognise its importance in our mundane lives. Today's morning pronouncement in Court 6 of the Supreme Court was unconventional, as the bench delivered its judgment, dedicating it to a young law clerk who recently passed away days short of his 27th birthday.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu expressed its deep sorrow over the untimely passing of Ritwik Deswal, who worked as a Law Clerk-cum-Research Associate to Justice Datta's office.

Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Datta said that the heading of the judgment begins with 'in memoriam'.

Supreme Court Stays Declaration Of Rajasthan Cricket Association Election Results

Case : MEGHA GAUR Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN | D No. 57576/2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to stay the Rajasthan Cricket Association (RCA) elections scheduled for 11:30 a.m. but directed that the results be kept in a sealed cover pending further adjudication.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order hearing a plea by Megha Gaur alleging the complete exclusion of women from the electoral process.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner and identifying herself as a former Indian woman cricketer, argued that the voter list contained “not a single woman voter” or woman candidate, in violation of the RCA's 2022 Rules (specifically Article 17), the Association's own constitution, the National Sports Code, and related orders. She contended that those currently running the association were pushing the polls through in undue haste.

Punjab Municipal Elections: Supreme Court Says All Wards Where Violence Took Place Must Go For Re-Election

Case Title: SEEMA SHARMA v. STATE OF PUNJAB, SLP(C) No. 3894/2025 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court yesterday said that all wards in Punjab, where a Fact-Finding Commission found that violence took place during Municipal Elections, must go for re-election.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observation while dealing with petitions filed by members of different political parties raising disputes qua the conduct of elections to the posts of Councilors/Members of the Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils, and Nagar Panchayats in Punjab.

The petitioners alleged inter-alia that members of the ruling party (AAP), police officials, and others prevented them from submitting their nomination forms; that those persons engaged in physical assault, tearing of clothes, and snatching of nomination papers of the petitioners; that despite orders of the Court, the nomination process was not recorded by audio-visual means; and, that elections for certain posts (including Mayor and Senior Deputy Mayor) were being conducted by an incomplete quorum.

Why Not Cap Medicines' MRPs At 16% Above Retailer Prices? Supreme Court Asks

Cases: W.P.(C) No. 794/2023 Diary No. 25176 / 2023 Kishan Chand Jain v. Ethics And Medical Registration Board (EMRB) (Erstwhile Medical Council Of India) and W.P.(C) No. 717/2026 Diary No. 25121/2026 Dr. Sanjay Kulshresthra v. Union of India

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Centre over the massive markups on cancer drugs and other medicines, asking why there should not be a uniform rule limiting the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) to no more than 16% above the price to the retailer (PTR).

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing petitions concerning regulation of medicine prices, generic prescriptions, and controls on medical devices under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order (DPCO), 2013.

Justice Mehta highlighted the stark disparity, noting that a cancer drug with an MRP of around ₹27,000 had a price to the retailer of only about ₹3,000. “Just see the drastic difference,” he observed, [[LINK:reiterating concerns raised]] in earlier hearings about markups reaching ten times or more.

S. 53 Patents Act | Should Patent Term Be Counted From Date Of Grant If There Was Delay In Deciding Application? Supreme Court To Decide

Cause Title: GUNJAN SINHA @ KANISHK SINHA & ANR. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea seeking consideration of a mechanism for Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) in India, raising the question whether a patentee should receive additional patent protection where a substantial portion of the statutory 20-year term is lost because of delay in granting the patent.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued a notice in a plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's judgment, which had upheld Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, under which the term of a patent is 20 years from the date of filing of the patent application.

The issue before the Court was whether a delay caused in granting the patent can justify extending the statutory patent monopoly beyond the 20 years calculated from filing.

'Who Heads NCPCR? How Can They Be So Indifferent?' Supreme Court Rebukes NCPCR Over 25% RTE Quota Implementation

Case Details:  DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|SLP(C) No. 10105/2017 Diary No. 8696 / 2017

The Supreme Court today(September 29) criticised the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for its indifferent resposne to a matter pertaining to the implementation of 25% quota for economically weaker students in private schools.

It therefore directed the Chairperson and the Director of the NCPCR to be physically present in the next hearing relating to the effective implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which mandates that private unaided schools must admit 25% of their strength from students belonging to economically weaker sections for free education.

It may be recalled that in January, the Court [[LINK:passed a slew of directions]] so that 25% seats are reserved for EWS students, observing that the concept of "neighbourhood schools" is [[LINK:envisaged to break barriers]] of class, caste and gender. The NCPCR was added as a party to monitor the implementation of the RTE Act, which already has a Standard of Procedure (SoP) in this regard.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Making Objectionable Posts Against Jharkhand CM's Wife Kalpana Soren

Case: Sahadev Uraon @ Sahadev Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, SL Crl. 15058/2026

The Supreme Court today granted bail to a 30-year-old security guard challenging the Jharkhand High Court's refusal to grant him bail in a case arising from allegedly obscene and derogatory Facebook posts against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren's wife, Kalpana Soren, who is a sitting MLA from Gandey.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that he has been incarcerated for over a year and the maximum sentence prescribed for the offences against him is three years imprisonment. The Court opined that custodial interrogation is not required.

The case arises from a Facebook account named "Adivasi Ladka Raju Oraon". According to the prosecution, the account was used to upload a photograph of Kalpana Soren along with obscene, vulgar and derogatory remarks. The prosecution case is that the post was noticed on August 28, 2025 and a police officer at the Cyber Crime Police Station, Ranchi, subsequently lodged the case on August 29, 2025 on the basis of his own statement.

Supreme Court Questions Registry For Deleting CAPF Contempt Matter From List

Case Details : Mahendra Singh Deo v Govind Mohan and others

The Supreme Court today(September 29) questioned the Supreme Court Registry why a [[LINK:batch of contempt petitions]] relating to the deputation of 46 Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to five Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) was struck off the cause list despite judicial orders to list the matters at 2 pm. It has passed an order directing that the contempt petitions be listed again tomorrow at 2 pm, and have sought an explanation from the registry as to why it was deleted from the today's causelist.

The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice AS Chandurkar at 2 pm. However, it was alleged that the matter was struck off the cause list around 12 pm without notice to the parties and without prior orders from the Court. Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar(for the contempt petitioners) brought this to the notice of the Court.

Guru Krishna Kumar told the bench: "My colleagues say that the instructions are from the listing branch [of the Supreme Court]. I don't know what's happening. It's a little unfortunate. We have informed the other side. Mylords, may recall they[respondents] filed an affidavit, they wanted to replace that affidavit. They did it after 12[pm], no notice nothing."

Curative Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Recall Of CEC Law Verdict Citing Justice SC Sharma's Son's Association With ECI

A curative petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking recall of the September 23[[LINK: split verdict]] on the validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The plea comes in the wake of[[LINK: judicial propriety concerns]] arising from the discovery that the son of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, who was part of the bench that delivered the split verdict, is Election Commission's standing counsel before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Filed by one of the petitioners in the matter, Dr Jaya Thakur, the plea invokes the ground of "reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety". It states that after the pronouncement of the split verdict, the petitioner became aware of Justice SC Sharma's son's connection with ECI from a LiveLaw [[LINK:article ]]titled 'Propriety Questions Emerge As Son Of Justice SC Sharma, Who Heard ECI & Medha Roopam Cases, Is Election Commission's Lawyer'.

CAPF Contempt Matter Shifted To Special Bench Of Justice Misra & Justice Bhuyan

After a bench led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan [[LINK:yesterday questioned]] the Supreme Court Registry for deleting the contempt petitions against the MHA Secretary over the IPS deputations in the Central Armed Police Forces, the matter has been listed before a special bench today.

Notably, the Special Bench is headed by Justice Manoj Misra with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan as the puisne judge. The Special Bench will hear the matter today at 2 PM.

Yesterday, the contempt petitions, alleging the violation of the Supreme Court's May 2025 judgment in[[LINK: ]]Sanjay Prakash v. Union of India [delivered by a bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Bhuyan (author of the verdict], were listed before a bench comprising Justice Bhuyan and Justice AS Chandurkar. Justice Bhuyan's bench [[LINK:had earlier directed]] the MHA to explain the deputations of 46 IPS officers in CAPFs after the May 2025 judgment.

'Will Dismiss It' : Supreme Court On West Bengal Plea Against Interim Bail To Congress Nandigram By-Poll Candidate Milan Pradhan

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to list for urgent hearing a plea filed by the West Bengal Police challenging the [[LINK:interim bail granted by the Calcutta High Court]] to Congress candidate Milan Pradhan, who is contesting the Nandigram Assembly by-election.

The matter was mentioned before the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with the State seeking listing of the challenge on Thursday itself (Friday is a holiday on account of Gandhi Jayanti). Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, submitted that it was a case where interim bail was granted in a murder case, and the matter would become infructuous if it was not heard before the election, which is scheduled to be held on Monday.

The Chief Justice, however, declined the request for an urgent listing and said that the matter could be listed on Monday.

Supreme Court Special Bench Criticises Manner Of CAPF Contempt Case Listing; Centre Says Request Was Made Before CJI

Case :Mahendra Singh Deo v Govind Mohan and others| CONMT.PET.(C) No. 37/2026 in C.A. No. 13106/2024.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised[[LINK: the manner in which]] contempt petitions concerning the deputation of IPS officers to Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) were removed from the cause list of a regular bench and subsequently listed before a special bench.

The matter was taken up by a [[LINK:special bench]] comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan after the contempt petitions were[[LINK: abruptly deleted]] from the cause list of the bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice AS Chandurkar on Tuesday. The petitions concern the alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court's [[LINK:May 25 judgment]] for progressive reduction and eventual phasing out of IPS deputation posts in CAPF cadres.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, objected to the manner in which the matter had been listed before the special bench, saying no notice had been given to them about the request for listing the matter before another bench.

Journalist Ajit Anjum Seeks To Intervene In Supreme Court Reference On Legislative Privileges

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

Senior journalist Ajit Anjum has approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the pending 7-Judge Bench Reference concerning the scope and limits of legislative privileges, submitting that legislative privileges and fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive and seeking standards for clear determination of when fair criticism of legislative proceedings may amount to a breach of privilege.

The senior journalist highlights the wider constitutional issues involved in the Reference, such as the relationship between legislative privilege, the public's right to information, freedom of press and the extent to which courts may examine questions concerning legislative privilege.

The application, filed through AoR Neha Rathi, emphasizes that legislative privileges are conferred to enable the House to discharge its constitutional and legislative functions effectively, and are therefore, intended to serve a functional purpose rather than operate as unrestricted powers.

Supreme Court Rules Out Complete Firecracker Ban, Proposes Approach Balancing Sentiments & Health

Case Title: Arjun Gopal v. Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 728/2015 Diary No. 32461 / 2015

The Supreme Court today indicated that it would not impose a complete ban on firecrackers or permit their unrestricted use, emphasising the need to balance religious sentiments with the adverse impact of air pollution on children, elderly persons and those suffering from illnesses.

“We make it very clear. Neither we are going to agree with you for total ban. Nor we are going to allow them to do it 24 hours. For two reasons. Total ban will have some sentimental effect, number one. Number two, allowing them throughout the day will have a huge impact on every other living beings including old people, sick people and the children. We need to find a solution whereby we can give specified time and we can specify what are the crackers to be used”, Justice MM Sundresh said.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the long-pending Arjun Gopal v. Union of India case filed by three infants highlighting the health hazards caused by firecrackers and seeking restrictions to curb air pollution.

Supreme Court Rebukes UP Police Over FIR Discrepancies, Summons Officer

Case Title: VEENA RANI SALUJA v STATE OF U.P. & ORS

Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 7980-7981/2026

The Supreme Court today(September 30) criticised the Uttar Pradesh police for registering a first information report against an unknown person in a case relating to harassment, despite the fact that the complainant had apprehended the suspect on the spot.

In a case before Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, the complainant appeared in person and alleged that despite her informing the UP Police about the alleged local politicians who trespassed into her private property and harassed her and her family members, the police registered an FIR under Sections 452, 323, 354, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons.

Therefore, they moved the Trial Court, which granted them anticipatory bail. The petitioner mentioned that she moved for cancellation before the High Court, which refused to cancel the bail granted to the two accused persons. Against this order, she preferred the present plea.

Whether IPC Prosecution Can Continue After Sanction Under PC Act Was Refused: Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Title: MS Raghavan & Ors. v. State represented by Inspector of Police

The Supreme Court today (30 September) reserved its judgement in a batch of petitions by former IDBI bank officials and government nominees on the bank's board, wherein they challenged their prosecution for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC, now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023/BNS 2023) after sanction to prosecute them under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) was declined.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the Madras High Court judgment which had refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners and their dismissal.