Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: February 2, 2026 To February 8, 2026

Judgments

No Point In Prosecution Multiplying Witnesses On One & Same Issue, Says Supreme Court While Granting Bail Due To Trial Delay

Case Details: Chintan Rajubhai Panseriya v. State of Maharashtra | Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 439/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 99

The Supreme Court released a petitioner on bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(NDPS Act), after finding that he had spent more than three years in undertrial custody, with 159 witnesses left to be examined.

The petitioner has been arrested by the Anti-Narcotic Cell, Worli Unit, under Sections 8(b), 22(c), 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, for possessing 2428 kg of Mephedrone.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, in the order passed on January 28, stated that despite the seriousness of the alleged offence, the Court had to exercise discretion in granting bail in an NDPS case because the Trial Court took more than three and a half years to frame charges.

IBC | Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Corporate Entities Which Are Intricately Linked : Supreme Court

Case Details: Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col. Gautam Mullick & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 100

In a relief to homebuyers, the Supreme Court (February 2) held that in real estate projects, a single insolvency petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code is maintainable against more than one corporate entity if they are intrinsically connected in the execution and marketing of the project.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran upheld the NCLAT's ruling, which has permitted a joint Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against two corporate entities that were intrinsically connected to the real estate project.

The insolvency proceedings arose from the failure of the developers to hand over possession of commercial units to homebuyers despite long delays. The NCLT admitted the petition filed by the allottees, a decision later affirmed by the NCLAT. The developers and their directors approached the Supreme Court, contending that the insolvency proceedings were legally unsustainable as initiating a joint CIRP is impermissible under the IBC.

When Arbitration Agreement Is Alleged To Be Forged, Dispute Is Not Arbitrable : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee (With Connected Appeal)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 101

The Supreme Court (February 2) observed that the parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate when the very existence of the contract containing the arbitration clause was alleged to be fake.

“…in a case where plea is taken with regard to non-existence of an arbitration clause or agreement, the same would amount to serious allegation of fraud and would render the subject matter of an agreement non-arbitrable.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, pointing that the allegations of fraud going to the very existence of the contract containing the arbitration clause must be first decided by the civil court.

“when an allegation of fraud is made with regard to arbitration agreement itself, such a dispute is generally recognised as a dispute, which is in the realm of non-arbitrability and the court will examine it, as a jurisdictional issue only to enquire whether the dispute has become non-arbitrable due to one or the other reason.”, the court said.

Temple Trust Not An 'Industry' As Per Industrial Disputes Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Indravadan N. Adhvaryu Pipala Fali Modhvada v. Laxminarayan Dev Trust

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 102

Holding that a temple trust does not qualify as an “industry”, the Supreme Court upheld the termination of an accountant employed by the trust, despite the absence of a formal inquiry and after more than twelve years of service.

“the respondent-Trust is a temple and as such, it would not fall within the four corners of the expression “industry”.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale.

However, acknowledging the uninterrupted and continuous service rendered by the Appellant and he was terminated without holding any inquiry, followed by a transfer to a far-off location, the Court directed the Respondent-trust to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs).

Armed Forces Tribunal Can Hear Appeal Against Findings Of ICC Under POSH Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: 42605-B Cdr Yogesh Mahla v. Union of India & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 103

The Supreme Court ruled that an army personnel aggrieved by the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act can file an appeal before the Armed Forces Tribunal.

“Section 14 of the AFT Act, 2007 when read in juxtaposition with Section 18 of the POSH Act, we find that the appellant herein had rightly approached the Tribunal so as to assail the report as well as the recommendations of the ICC. The Tribunal ought to have considered the correctness of the said report in accordance with law.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan while setting aside the Delhi High Court's decision, which held that the army personnel has no right under Section 18 of the POSH Act to approach the AFT against ICC's findings.

The case arose from a complaint of sexual harassment made against the appellant, pursuant to which an ICC was constituted under the POSH Act. After conducting an inquiry, the ICC submitted a report recommending disciplinary action. Relying on this report, the Naval authorities issued a show cause notice dated March 5, 2025, under Regulation 216 of the Navy Regulations read with Section 15(2) of the Navy Act, 1957, proposing termination of his services.

Litigants Who Approach Court After Long Delay Noticing Others' Success Can't Claim Similar Relief As Right : Supreme Court

Case Details: Damor Nanabhai Manabhai & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors (With Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 104

The Supreme Court held that parity-based relief cannot be claimed after prolonged delay merely because similarly situated employees have succeeded, as such claims would reopen settled issues.

“Those who seek to claim the benefit after long delay, merely upon noticing that others have succeeded, cannot as a matter of course demand similar relief.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

This was the case where the tribunal's direction for the reinstatement of the petitioners was set aside by the State Government in exercise of its review power under Section 24(4) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. The state government's decision was upheld by the High Court and remained undisturbed by the Supreme Court in 2014.

Award Passed After Arbitrator's Mandate Expiry Not Void If Court Extends Time: Supreme Court

Case Details: C. Velusamy v. K Indhera

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 105

In a notable development, the Supreme Court (February 3) held that where an arbitral award is rendered beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 29A, such an award, though rendered after the tribunal's mandate has technically terminated, can be given effect if an application is filed before the competent court under Section 29A seeking extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate.

“…we are of the opinion that provisions of the Act, particularly Section 29A, must not be interpreted to infer a threshold bar for an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator even when an award is passed, though after the expiry of the mandate.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar.

The dispute stemmed from three sale agreements, leading to the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Madras High Court on April 19, 2022. After pleadings concluded on August 20, 2022, the 12-month period under Section 29A commenced and was extended by six months with the parties' consent, fixing February 20, 2024 as the deadline.

Supreme Court Directs Centre To Constitute Tribunal To Decide Pennaiyar River Dispute Between Tamil Nadu And Karnataka

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka and Anr., Orgnl.Suit No. 1/2018

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 106

The Supreme Court directed constitution of a Tribunal for resolving disputes pending between the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over sharing of Pennaiyar river water resources.

The Court ordered the constitution of a Water Disputes Tribunal by the Central Government within 1 month.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and NV Anjaria delivered the judgment, after having reserved its decision in December last year. In September, 2025, the Court was informedthat a Tribunal was required to be constituted for resolution of the dispute.

S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act Won't Apply To Cases Of Demand Of Illegal Gratification : Supreme Court

Case Details: Anil Daima Etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 108

The Supreme Court has held that the protection under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be extended to cases involving demand of illegal gratification by public servants, holding that the provision is confined to decisions or recommendations taken in the discharge of official duties.

“Section 17-A came to be enacted with a particular object. Section 17-A talks about enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. Section 17-A by any stretch of imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice SC Sharma.

Section 17A mandates that prior sanction from the Government is required to launch an investigation against the public servant "where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties."

Party Who Accepted S.11 Order For Arbitrator Appointment Can't Later Question Validity Of Arbitration Clause Under Pre-2015 Regime: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 109.

The Supreme Court (February 4) reiterated that under the pre-2015 amendment regime, once a party consents to a court order appointing an arbitrator, they cannot subsequently challenge the existence or validity of the arbitration clause before the arbitral tribunal or in proceedings under Section 34.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan heard an appeal arising from an arbitration dispute under the pre-2015 amendment regime.

Under the Pre-2015 Amendment regime, the Chief Justice or designated judge under Section 11 performed a judicial function and was obliged to decide on jurisdictional issues, including the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. This decision was final and binding on the parties under Section 11(7). It was impermissible to challenge the existence and validity of the arbitration clause before the arbitral tribunal or a court under Section 34, after having accepted a Section 11 order appointing an arbitrator, as held in SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Limited & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 618.

Paying Primary Teachers Rs 7000 Monthly For Ten Years Is Bonded Labour: Supreme Court Asks UP Govt To Pay 17K

Case Details: U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh,State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Anurag and Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 110

The Supreme Court (February 4) criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for engaging in “unfair practices,” subjecting the state's primary school teachers/instructors to a form of 'begar' by paying them a meager fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,000 per month for over a decade.

Finding that the wages received by teachers were stagnant and low, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale directed the state government to pay an honorarium of Rs. 17,000 per month to all such teachers, effective from the financial year 2017-18, with arrears to be cleared within six months.

“…part time contractual instructors/teachers appointed in the Upper Primary School in the State of U.P. are entitled to revision of their honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month which was initially fixed for the contract period of eleven months in the year 2013 and that the said revision has to take place, if not annually then periodically as per the discretion of the PAB. Since the PAB for the year 2017-18 had determined the said honorarium to be Rs.17,000/- per month, all instructors/teachers appointed under the scheme are entitled for the payment of the same at the above rate of Rs.17,000/- per month with effect from 2017-18 till further revision takes place.”, the court said.

RTE Act | State Can't Justify Low Pay To Teachers Citing Centre's Failure To Release Funds : Supreme Court

Case Details: U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh,State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Anurag and Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 110

The Supreme Court has held that a State Government cannot justify paying meagre honorarium to teachers by citing the Central Government's failure to release its share of funds, ruling that the primary responsibility to implement the Right to Education Act rests with the State, which must pay teachers first and may recover the Centre's contribution later.

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, while directing the Uttar Pradesh Government to pay Rs.17,000 per month as honorarium to part-time instructors engaged under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and Samagra Shiksha schemes, relied on Section 7(5) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which casts an overriding duty on States to fund implementation of the Act.

The Court said that “the initial burden to pay honorarium to the instructors/teachers is upon the State Government who is free to recover the contribution of the Central Government from the Union of India on the principle of “pay & recover.”

Husband's Duty To Maintain Ex-Wife After Divorce Won't End Merely Because She Is Educated Or Has Parental Support : Supreme Court

Case Details: Y v. X

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 111

The Supreme Court observed that a husband cannot evade from his duty to maintain his ex-wife after divorce, on the ground that she is educated or has parental support.

"Marriage, as an institution in our society, is founded on emotional bonding, companionship, and mutual support, which cannot be evaluated in purely monetary terms. A woman often enters matrimony with legitimate aspirations of a stable and dignified life

When such a marriage breaks down, the obligation of the husband to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity does not come to an end merely on the ground that she is educated or has parental support. Post-divorce, the wife is entitled to live a life consistent with the standard of living she was accustomed to during the subsistence of the marriage.”, observed a bench of Justices SVN Bhatti and R Mahadevan, while allowing the wife's plea against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which refused to entertain her plea against the quantum of maintenance amounting to Rs. 15,000/- per month decided by the Family Court.

Arbitration Act | S.37 Court Cannot Recalculate Damages Awarded By S. 34 Court Without Finding Arbitrariness Or Perversity : Supreme Court

Case Details No. – Civil Appeal Nos. 12892-12893 of 2024 With Civil Appeal Nos. 12894-12895 of 2024

Case Details – M/S Saisudhir Energy Ltd. v. M/S Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. With M/S Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. v. M/S Saisudhir Energy Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 112

The Supreme Court held that a court exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot re-calculate or substitute its own assessment of compensation once a Section 34 court has fixed a reasonable award within the terms of the contract.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar restored a Delhi High Court single judge order awarding ₹27.06 crore as liquidated damages to NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited for delay in commissioning a 20 MW solar power project by Saisudhir Energy Limited under a power purchase agreement executed in 2012.

“In our view, the Division Bench exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 when it proceeded to re-work and re-calculate the amount of reasonable compensation to which NVVNL was entitled. The learned Single Judge having determined the amount of reasonable compensation by relying upon Clause 4.6 of the PPA and thereafter awarding 50% of the amount so determined, in the absence of this determination being shown to be beyond the terms of Clause 4.6 of the PPA or arbitrary or perverse, no interference with such determination was called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act of 1996. In fact, the Division Bench has not recorded any finding that such determination of reasonable compensation by the learned Single Judge suffered from arbitrariness or that it travelled beyond what was provided by Clause 4.6 of the PPA”, the Court held.

'No Mechanical FIRs For Harsh Political Posts' : Supreme Court Upholds Telangana HC Guidelines For Cases Over Social Media Posts

Case Details – State of Telangana v. Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 113

The Supreme Court upheld the guidelines framed by the Telangana High Court regulating registration of FIRs in cases arising out of social media posts and directing the police not to mechanically register FIRs over "harsh, offensive, or critical political speeches".

The High Court had held that in case of social media posts FIR for promotion of enmity, threat to public order, or sedition can be registered only if there exists a prima facie case.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a batch of pleas by the State of Telangana challenging the judgment of the High Court which had quashed three FIRs and laid down detailed guidelines for police and Magistrates while dealing with criminal cases arising out of social media posts.

BNSS | Arrest Under S. 35(6) Must Be Based On Fresh Material, Not On Grounds In S.35(3) Notice : Supreme Court

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 114

While affirming that issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is mandatoryfor offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the Supreme Court clarified that an arrest under Section 35(6) can be made even after such notice only based on fresh materials that were not available to the police officer at the time the Section 35(3) notice was issued.

"While making an arrest under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, after the stage of issuing a notice seeking presence under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, the circumstances and factors that were in existence at the time of issuing the said notice shall not be taken into consideration by a police officer while making an arrest subsequently. In other words,for effecting an arrest under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, it must be based upon materials and factors which were not available with the police officer at the time of issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023,” the Court clarified.

Section 35(3) of BNSS mandates the police official to send a notice to an accused to appear before the police. Section 35(6) BNSS empowers the police to arrest a person who fails to comply with Section 35(3) BNSS notice, i.e., to appear before the police officer or fails to identify himself to the police.

Arrest Exception, Not Rule For Offences Punishable Up To 7 Yrs; S.35(3) BNSS Notice Mandatory In Such Cases : Supreme Court

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 114

The Supreme Court held that serving of notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is mandatory by the police to accused persons alleged to have committed an offence punishable up to seven years of imprisonment.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said that no arrest could be made for offences which are punishable with less than 7 years' imprisonment unless the mandatory requirement of serving a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS is complied with.

The Court was considering the seminal issue - Whether notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are to be mandatorily issued in all cases, qua an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years?.

Welfare Of Child Paramount But Not Sole Consideration In Custody Disputes: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mohtashem Billah Malik v. Sana Aftab

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 115

Emphasising that child custody decisions cannot rest on welfare alone, the Supreme Court held that courts must also take into account a range of other relevant factors, including the conduct of parents, their financial capacity, standard of living, and the comfort and education of the children.

Setting aside a Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment that restored the custody of two minor children to their mother, a Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti observed that while the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, it is not the sole factor governing custody adjudication.

"...there is no dispute with the proposition that in matters of custody, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the children but nonetheless there are a host of other factors which weigh before the court while passing the final order of custody. These host of factors may include the conduct of the parties, their financial capacity, their standard of living, as well as the comfort and education of the children. Therefore, it may not be entirely correct on the part of the High Court in holding that such factors are not very relevant and that the custody of the minors has to depend upon their welfare alone," the Court observed.

High Court Cannot Reject Plaint Under Article 227 : Supreme Court

Case Details: P.Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 116

The Supreme Court has ruled that the High Court cannot reject a plaint in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

“…once the specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is available, the High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off the plaint.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria.

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant seeking a permanent injunction, claiming ownership over the suit property by way of inheritance. The defendants contested the claim, alleging that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff was fabricated and that the suit itself was fraudulent.

Mere Leasing Of Apartment Does Not Bar Flat Buyer's Consumer Complaint Against Builder: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vinit Bahri and Another v. M/S Mgf Developers Ltd. and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 117

The Supreme Court has observed that mere leasing or renting of a residential flat does not automatically exclude the owner from the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, unless it is proved that the dominant intention at the time of flat purchase was commercial.

The Court clarified that the burden lies on the builder or service provider to prove that the dominant intention behind the purchase was commercial.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria delivered the judgment.

Difficult To Believe Married Woman Was Induced Into Sex With False Marriage Promise : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

Case Details: P N v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 118

The Supreme Court (February 5) quashed criminal proceedings against a Chhattisgarh advocate accused of repeatedly raping a married woman colleague on the false promise of marriage.

“It has been time and again settled by this Court, that the mere fact that the parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case. An offence under Section 375 of the IPC could only be made out, if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's order that refused to quash the rape case against the Appellant.

The complainant, also a 33-year-old advocate and a married mother with a pending divorce petition, had alleged that the Appellant established a physical relationship with her starting in September 2022 on the assurance of marriage. She claimed the relationship continued until January 2025, during which she became pregnant and was forced to undergo an abortion. After a confrontation with his family turned hostile, she lodged an FIR in February 2025 under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, which prescribes enhanced punishment for rape committed "repeatedly on the same woman."

Properties Acquired By 'Karta' Presumed To Be Joint Hindu Family Assets Unless Contrary Proved: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 119

The Supreme Court (February 5) observed that once the existence of an ancestral, income-yielding property is established, any subsequent acquisition made by the Karta during the subsistence of a joint Hindu family is presumed to be joint family property, unless the person claiming self-acquisition discharges the burden of proof with cogent evidence.

“Where acquisitions are made during the subsistence of the joint family, and where ancestral properties yielding income are shown to exist, properties acquired in the name of the Karta are ordinarily regarded as joint family properties unless the contrary is proved.”, the court said.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the case where a dispute arose between two brothers regarding the partition of a joint Hindu family property.

DA Must Be As Per Formula In Rules : Supreme Court Directs To Refix Dearness Allowance Of Bengal Employees For 2008-19

Case Details –State of West Bengal v. Confederation of State Government Employees, West Bengal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 120

The Supreme Court held that West Bengal government employees are entitled to Dearness Allowance as per the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 2009 for the period of 2008-2019, calculated using the All-India Consumer Price Index.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that once DA is defined by linking it to the All-India Consumer Price Index as in the statutory rules, the State could not modify the manner of calculating DA through later office memoranda.

“DA, by its very nature, is non static, fluid and subject to change. How that change is to be carried out is through the AICPI. The first memorandum as also subsequent memoranda fall prey to the fatal flaw that they do not make reference to the AICPI which is absolutely essential to the determination the DA which, in turn is indispensable to the computation of the total amount of existing emoluments. As a necessary follow up thereto, it would be observed that the incorporation of AICPI cannot be termed as a one-time measure, and once DA was defined using it, to take a different path would be impermissible in law”, the Court held.

State Govt Employees Can't Claim Dearness Allowance Twice A Year Unless Rules Permit : Supreme Court

Case Details –State of West Bengal v. Confederation of State Government Employees, West Bengal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 120

While deciding the State of West Bengal's challenge to directions on payment of Dearness Allowance under the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 2009, the Supreme Court held that state government employees are not entitled, as a matter of right, to payment of DA twice a year.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held –

The issue of twice-yearly payment of DA arose after the Tribunal directed the State to evolve norms for payment of DA under the ROPA Rules, 2009 and observed that DA can be paid at least twice in a year. When the State challenged that decision, the Calcutta High Court upheld the Tribunal's direction observing that once the State had adopted a pattern of ascertaining and paying DA twice a year, abrupt deviation could not be sustained.

Trial Courts Must Record Offer Of Free Legal Aid To Accused Before Examination Of Witnesses : Supreme Court

Case Details: Reginamary Chellamani v. State Rep By Superintendent of Customs

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 121

The Supreme Court (February 5) passed an important order directing the High Courts to pass on an instruction to the trial courts within their state to inform the accused of their right to legal aid in the event they cannot afford a counsel. The response of the accused to the offer of free legal aid must be recorded.

“It is incumbent upon the trial Courts dealing with criminal proceedings, faced with such situations, to inform the accused of their right to legal representation and their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel in the event they cannot afford a counsel. The trial Courts shall record the offer made to the accused in this regard, the response of the accused to such offer and also the action taken thereupon in their orders, before commencing examination of the witnesses.”, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran ordered.

Background

Supreme Court Rejects TN Cadre IPS Officer's Claim For Rajasthan Cadre Vacancy Of 2004

Case Details – Rupesh Kumar Meena v. Union of India & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 122

The Supreme Court rejected a 2004 batch Tamil Nadu Cadre IPS officer's plea seeking appointment against an insider vacancy for the same year in the Rajasthan Cadre after two senior candidates declined to join.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar noted that appellant Rupesh Kumar Meena raised the claim six years later in 2010, and observed that interfering after more than 20 years since the vacancy year would render the cadre allocation process fluid indefinitely.

“In our view, such a process cannot be adopted. It will result in the process of allocation or change of cadres fluid for all times to come. The result thereof may be, that after shifting of the appellant from Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan, in terms of the merit list for the 2004 Selection, a candidate below the appellant may claim change of cadre, who otherwise may have been allocated to some other State. This may also have effect on appointment against any 'insider' vacancy. Finality has to be attached to the process of selection. Before us, no material has been produced to show that the aforesaid 'insider' vacancy for the year 2004 was still lying vacant for the period of more than 20 years that have passed.”

Statutory Authorities Can Intervene If Housing Society Delays Membership Decisions : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shashin Patel and Anr. v. Uday Dalal and Ors. (With Connected Case Details)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 125

The Supreme Court has observed that the statutory authority can step into the affairs of the co-operative housing societies' matters when the society refuses to decide or keeps the matter pending for a long time.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter that relates to the delay in granting of the membership to the flat owners in one Malboro House Co-operative Housing Society Limited of Mumbai, despite they being residing peacefully in their flat for the past several years.

The flat owners have approached the co-operative society; however, upon noting a delay in the grant of the membership benefit, they approached the Divisional Joint Registrar under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, who in turn, ordered that membership should be granted.

Quasi-Judicial Authorities Lack Review Power Unless Statutorily Empowered : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 126

The Supreme Court (February 6) held that the quasi-judicial authorities aren't empowered to exercise review jurisdiction unless statutorily empowered to do so.

A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh overturned the Calcutta High Court's decision that had sustained the Revenue Officer's exercise of review jurisdiction. The Court held that the vesting of the disputed land in favour of the respondent, done pursuant to the State Minister's instructions, was impermissible, particularly when the land had earlier stood vested with the State government.

“…we hold that the review undertaken by the Revenue Officer culminating in the fresh order dated 07.05.2008 was wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The WBEA Act, 1953, does not confer any power of substantive review upon the Revenue Officer, either expressly or by necessary implication.”, the court held.

PMLA | Special Court Can't Order Confiscation U/ S.8(7) When Appeal Against Attachment Confirmation U/S 8(3) Is Pending : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 127

In an important judgment interpreting Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court (February 6) ruled that once an appeal against the confirmation of the attachment order is pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the Special Court cannot decide upon the confiscation proceedings.

“…once an order under Section 8(3) of the PMLA is challenged before a higher forum (under Section 26 of PMLA), a deemed embargo operates on the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 8(7) of the PMLA. Hence, the Special Court cannot go into the issues which the higher forums have been entrusted with. When an appeal is provided for under the statute, it gives a vested right to any aggrieved person to exhaust the same.” observed a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh.

The bench stated that "there is a deemed stay on the proceedings under Section 8(7) of the PMLA until the confirmation order attains finality."

Photocopy Of Document No Evidence Unless Conditions To Produce Secondary Evidence Proved : Supreme Court

Case Details: Tharammel Peethambaran and Another v. T. Ushakrishnan and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 128

The Supreme Court has set aside the sale undertaken on the strength of a photocopied Power of Attorney, noting that a photocopy of a document, being secondary evidence, is not evidence unless it falls under the conditions set out in Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

Section 65 of the Evidence Act permits the production of secondary evidence (copies, oral accounts) when the original document cannot be produced under Section 64. This applies if the original document/evidence is lost, destroyed, rests in possession of an adverse party, or is a public document.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti heard the case where the core controversy centred on the nature and scope of authority granted under a PoA executed by the plaintiff in 1998.

Orders and Other Judgments

Pune Porsche Case : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Three Accused Of Swapping Blood Samples Of Juvenile Passengers

Case Details – Ashish Satish Mittal v. State of Maharashtra Along With Aditya Avinash Sood v. State of Maharashtra and Connected Case Details.

The Supreme Court granted bail to three accused alleged to have conspired to swap blood samples, following the 2024 Pune Porsche accident that killed two persons.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ordered the release of Ashish Satish Mittal, Aditya Avinash Sood and Amar Santhosh Gaikwad, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court, noting their prolonged incarceration of 18 months.

They were accused of swapping the blood samples of two minor occupants of the car (other than the alleged minor driver), who were allegedly under the influence of alcohol, with their own blood samples. They are booked under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act for forgery, evidence tampering, and bribery.

'Relevant Issue' : Supreme Court Asks Centre To Examine Concerns Over Self-Verification Of Caste In Census 2027

Case Details: Aakash Goel v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 77/2026

The Supreme Court directed the Union Government and the Census Operations Directorate to consider the suggestion raised by a petitioner that caste enumeration in the forthcoming Census 2027 should be done based on a verifiable mechanism instead of mere self-declaration.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, acknowledging that the petitioner has raised a "relevant issue", refrained from considering the matter judicially, observing that it was to be looked at by the authorities under the Census Act 1958.

The Public Interest Litigation was filed by Aakash Goel, raising concerns over the proposed caste enumeration in the forthcoming Census 2027, particularly the reliance on self-declaration without a verifiable mechanism.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Against Appointment Of Temple Priests From State-Recognised Thanthra Vidyalayas In Kerala

Case Details:

The Supreme Court issued notice in petitions challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment which held that temple shanthis (priests) need not be appointed from any particular caste or lineage, and that those who have studied from the 'Thanthra Vidyalayas' recognised by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB) can be appointed to such posts.

The Court was considering the petitions filed by Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and Agnisarman Vasudevan Bhattathirippad challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment, which dismissed their challenge to 'Thanthra Vidyalayas' recognised by the State agencies.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while issuing notice on the petitions, ordered that any appointments done in the meantime will be subject to the outcome of the petition.

Private School Fee Regulation Law Won't Be Enforced In 2025-26 : Delhi Govt Tells Supreme Court

Case Details – Rohini Educational Society v. Directorate of Education and Connected Cases

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the Delhi Government, informed the Court that the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixing and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, which was notified in December last year, would not be enforced in the current academic year.

The Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by various private school managements challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to stay the implementation of the Act.

Last month, the Supreme Court had raised concerns about the enforcement of the Act in the middle of the academic year, even while acknowledging that private school fee has gone to exorbitant levels.

West Bengal Govt Questions Maintainability Of ED's Petition In Supreme Court Over I-PAC Raid

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026

In the Enforcement Directorate's pleaassailing West Bengal authorities' interference with its raid at IPAC office, the state government has filed a counter affidavit contesting maintainability of the ED's writ in view of the pendency of similar proceedings before the Calcutta High Court.

The State has contended that ED does not have fundamental rights enabling it to file a writ petition before the Supreme Court. It further claims that there has been a violation of right to privacy under Article 21. The State also questioned the "parallel proceedings" before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.

The counter affidavit argues that ED does not have the power to conduct omnibus search and seizure, and that no effective notice was given before the IPAC search. It further raises averments regarding ED's violation of privileged communications.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Punjab Minister Bikram Singh Majithia In Corruption Case

Case Details: Bikram Singh Majithia v. State of Punjab, SLP(Crl) No. 20469/2025

The Supreme Court granted bail to Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia in a corruption case involving alleged accumulation of over Rs.540 crores in disproportionate assets.

On the last date, Majithia had prayedfor interim bail citing an apprehension of threat to life.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar (for Majithia) and Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for the State).

Supreme Court Declines To Entertain Sakshi TV's Plea Alleging Blocking By Andhra Pradesh Authorities; Leaves Issues Open Before TDSAT

Case Details – M/S. Indira Television Limited & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a writ petition filed by news channel Sakshi TV alleging that its broadcast was blocked across Andhra Pradesh, after noting that the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) will hear the matter on 12th February.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe stated in the order, “The Tribunal has taken up the matter for hearing. In this view of the matter we are not inclined to entertain the Article 32 petition at this stage. We would however keep all questions open to the petitioner for being raised and contested before the Tribunal.”

Justice Narasimha said that it would not be proper to continue the proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution once the Tribunal's jurisdiction has been invoked.

Supreme Court Stays Cancellation Of Arunachal Pradesh IAS Officer Talo Potom's Bail In Suicide Case

Case Details: Talo Potom v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 1699/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the Gauhati High Court order which cancelled the bail granted to Arunachal Pradesh IAS officer Talo Potom in the suicide case of 19-year old Gomchu Yekar.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra (for Talo Potom). It directed that Potom shall cooperate with the investigation.

To recap, the case arises out of the tragic demise of 19-year old Gomchu Yekar, who is stated to have died by suicide at his rented house in Lekhi village on 23.10.2025. As per claims, the deceased left behind suicide notes disclosing systematic mental harassment, sexual exploitation, corruption-related activities, and exposure to HIV/AIDS by the accused persons.

'Parents To Be Blamed For Drunken Driving Accidents Caused By Kids' : Justice BV Nagarathna

Case Details – Ashish Satish Mittal v. State of Maharashtra and Connected Cases

Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court made strong oral observations on parental responsibility, while hearing bail pleas connected to the 2024 Pune Porsche accident in which two persons were killed.

After dictating an order granting bail to three accused alleged to have conspired to swap blood samples in the case, Justice Nagarathna squarely placed the spotlight on parents who hand over cars and money to their children without exercising control.

Noting the seriousness of the incident and the subsequent attempt to cover up, she remarked that the accused got bail only on the ground of liberty, as there was long incarceration. “We have much to say on this. Two innocent lives were lost and then all these machinations. But the only thing in your favour is that there is a long incarceration. So liberty versus all that, ultimately,” Justice Nagarathna said.

National Council Of Churches In India Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Anti-Conversion Laws Of 12 States

Case Details: National Council of Churches In India v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 98/2026

The National Council of Churches of India has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the anti-conversion laws enacted by twelve states :  Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana, and Rajasthan.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi tagged the matter with other similar petitiions related to religious conversion laws. The petitions will be heard by a three-judge bench.

The NCCI stated that it is made up of 32 Member Churches, 17 Regional Christian Councils, 18 All India Organisations and 7 Related Agencies and that it represented about  14 million people in India.

Sonam Wangchuk Was Instigating Nepal-Like Gen-Z Protest, Gandhian References Just Facade : Centre To Supreme Court

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

The Union Government argued that Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk instigated the younger generation of Ladakhis to get inspired by Gen-Z movements in neighbouring countries of Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka if the demand of the Sixth Schedule is denied to Ladakh. Wangchuk was detained under the National Security Act on September 26, 2025, after the Ladakh protest for statehood turned violent.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale continued hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk's wife Dr Gitangli Angmo. Angmo has challenged Wangchuk's detention under the National Security Act, 1980, as illegal.

At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta(for the Union) submitted that Wangchuk's speech, in which he refers to Gandhian principles here and there, is deliberate to cover its inflammatory contents, where he is seen to have instigated the younger generation towards protests, including violent methods including self-immolation.

'You Can't Play With Data Of Indians': Supreme Court Questions Meta & WhatsApp Over Privacy Policy

Case Details: Meta Platforms, Inc v. Competition Commission of India and Ors. | C.A. No. 301-302/2026 & Whatsapp Llc v. Cci C.A. No. 366-367/2026

The Supreme Court made strong critical remarks against Meta Platforms and WhatsApp LLC regarding their privacy policy and said that the Court will not allow them to exploit the personal data of Indians.

The Court was hearing the appeals filed by Meta Platforms and WhatsApp LLC challenging the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)which had upheld the ₹213.14 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) over WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy.

There was also a cross-appeal filed by the Competition Commission of India challenging the NCLAT's order to the extent it allowed Meta and WhatsApp to share users' data for advertising purposes after finding that there was no abuse of dominance by them.

'Only 7 Witnesses Examined In 7 Years' : Supreme Court Slams J&K UT For Delay In Trial; Seeks Details Of Pending Criminal Cases

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

The Supreme Court (February 3) came down heavily on the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir for keeping an undertrial prisoner in custody for seven years. It called out the prosecuting agency for examining only 7 witnesses in the past 7 years. Considering the facts and circumstances, it granted bail to the undertrial.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan has also directed the Home Secretary, Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, to appear online on the next date of hearing. It has also asked the Secretary to place on record the pending criminal trials where the accused has been under custody for more than 5 years.

The petitioner, accused of the offence of murder, approached the Supreme Court for the grant of bail. When the matter was heard on January 29, the bench called for an explanation from the Trial Court and the prosecuting agency on the flagrant delay. The bench went through the report, which showed a sorry state of the prosecuting agency.

Supreme Court Questions UP Police For Not Invoking Hate Crime Offences In FIR Over Attack On Muslim Cleric In Noida

Case Details: Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 391/2021

In a Noida-based Muslim cleric's pleaconcerning an alleged hate crime, the Supreme Court questioned the State of Uttar Pradesh as to why provisions such as Section 153B and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were not invoked in the FIR lodged by police authorities in 2023.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with the plea of one Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, who claims to have been attacked by a group over his Muslim identity. The petitioner approached the Court seeking a fair investigation and action against police officials who refused to pursue his complaint.

Sr Adv Vivek Tankha Agrees To Withdraw Defamation Case Against Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan

Case Details – Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Vivek Krishna Tankha

The Supreme Court disposed of Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan's plea seeking quashing of the criminal defamation case filed against him by Congress MP and senior advocate Vivek Tankha in view of a settlement between the parties.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh recorded the withdrawal of the proceedings by Tankha and closed the case pending before the Court.

“My client and Mr Tankha met at the Parliament and settled the matter amicably. Mr. Tankha will withdraw the civil suit for defamation against my client and the criminal defamation complaint”, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani for Chouhan informed the Court.

'You Bring As Members Who Can't Even Hold A Bat?': Supreme Court Asks Maharashtra Cricket Association

Case Details: Maharashtra Cricket Association v. Kedar Mahadeo Jadhav | SLP(C) No. 001833 - 001840 / 2026

The Supreme Court, while hearing the issue of Maharashtra Cricket Association elections, observed the need for retired cricketers to be part of such Associations to ensure expert inputs.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing a challenge against the Bombay High Court, which stayed the proposedelections of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA), which were scheduled to take place on January 6 till further orders.

The High Court bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad opined that it was 'necessary' for the court to intervene in the election process of the MCA, which is marred by controversy of 'nepotism' and 'favouritism.'

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Former Chhattisgarh Excise Minister Kawasi Lakhma In Liquor Scam Cases

Case Details: Kawasi Lakhma v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 16980/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to former Chhattisgarh excise minister and present Congress MLA Kawasi Lakhma in two cases connected with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam.

The Court granted him relief in the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act being handled by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau as well as the connected money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.

As part of the bail conditions, Lakhma is prevented from entering the State of Chhattisgarh, except to attend the Court proceedings. When the Court was told that he was a sitting MLA and that he is required to attend the Assembly meeting, the Court said that the Speaker can take a decision on that after chargesheet/prosecution complaint is filed or after the Court has taken cognizance.

Supreme Court Asks NCLAT To Take Fresh Decision On Whether Probe Needed Against Flipkart Under Competition Act

The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the National Company Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in 2020 directing a probe by the Director General on whether there was any violation of the Competition Act 2000 by Flipkart.

The Court remanded the matter to the NCLAT for fresh consideration, after considering Flipkart's argument that the NCLAT passed the order relying on the observations made by an Assessment Officer in income tax proceedings which were set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

The Court clarified that it has left open all issues for fresh consideration by the NCLAT.

Accused Cannot Be Said To Be Delaying Trial By Legally Challenging Trial Court Orders : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kawasi Lakhma v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 16980/2025

The Supreme Court orally commented that an accused cannot be said to be delaying trial by taking steps to legally challenge an order passed by the trial court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the petition filed former Chhattisgarh Excise Minister Kawasi Lakhma in relation to the liquor scam case.

When the bench expressed inclination to grant interim bail, considering the incarceration of the petitioner for over one year and the delay in the commencement of trial, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the Enforcement Directorate, submitted, "so far as the dealy is concerned, it is because of the accused. They have challenged the cognizance order."

'Are Eyewitnesses Supposed To Measure Injuries?': Supreme Court On Bombay HC Order Granting Bail In Murder Case

Case Details: Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 12440/2023

The Supreme Court deprecated a Bombay High Court order granting bail to 2 persons accused of assaulting and causing death of a Scheduled Caste member over a land dispute.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a plea filed by the deceased man's wife, assailing the grant of bail to the respondent-accused. After hearing the counsels for the parties, the bench reserved its orders.

"What's the reason given by High Court? Specific allegations not there? How can bail be granted in such a case? There are 8 injuries and 6 assailants. Indiscriminate beating in the middle of the market. How does it expect? Eyewitnesses have photographic memory? They are suppose to measure the injuries?" remarked Justice Mehta.

'Must Be Cured' : CJI Surya Kant On Delay In Pronouncing Judgments, To Raise Issue At High Court Chief Justices' Conference

Case Details: Pila Pahan@ Peela Pahan v. State of Jharkhand | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000169 / 2025

The Chief Justice of India repeated his concerns about the delay on the part of certain High Court Judges in delivering judgments after reserving them for several months.

CJI Surya Kant said that he will address the issue in the upcoming conference of High Court Chief Justices scheduled to take place on February 7-8. "This is also one of the agenda which we have already flagged and would like to discuss," CJI Surya Kant said.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing a writ petition filed by four convicts aggrieved by the delay on the part of the Jharkhand High Court in delivering verdict in their appeals for over three years. Earlier, after the Court's intervention, the High Court delivered the judgments. The Court also had expanded the scope of the case to address the issue across all High Courts, andhad called for reports from all High Courts regarding pending judgments. In a hearing held in last November, the Court had proposed that the High Courts publish the information regarding the number of judgments reserved.

Supreme Court Directs States/Union Territories To Release Pending Compensation To Acid Attack Victims By March 10

Case Details – Acid Survivors Saahas Foundation (Ngo) v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed states and Union Territories to release funds for payment of compensation to acid attack victims whose applications have already been approved, after being informed that court orders allowing compensation were remaining ineffective due to non-release of funds by governments.

“Wherever approval has been granted for payment of victim compensation to the victims of the acid attack and communication has been made by the District/State Legal Services Authority or the Union Territory Legal Services Authority to the respective departments of the state government, steps shall be taken for releasing the outstanding amounts to the victims whose applications have been cleared on or before 10th March 2026, and an affidavit in that regard shall be filed”, the Court ordered.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while hearing a PIL seeking strict implementation of the guidelines laid down in Laxmi v. Union of India and adequate compensation and rehabilitation for acid attack survivors.

Wife Files Writ Petition In Supreme Court To Restrain Husband's Divorce Proceedings In USA

An Indian woman has approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging divorce proceedings initiated by her husband before a Family Court in the State of Rhode Island in the United States, alleging that the foreign proceedings are without jurisdiction and violate her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.

“The foreign divorce proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction, oppressive, and constitutionally impermissible. They are being employed as an instrument of coercion, extortion, and-economic abuse, directly violating the law laid down by this Honble Court in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451, which mandates that matrimonial disputes must be adjudicated by courts of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the governing personal law and domicile of the parties”, the plea states.

The writ petition has been filed by a resident of Kanniyakumari district in Tamil Nadu though Advocate on Record Subhasish Bhowmick. She has arrayed the Union of India, her husband, and the Embassy of the United States of America in India as respondents.

SC Collegium Approves Appointment Of 5 Retired Judges As Ad Hoc Judges Of Allahabad High Court Under Article 224A

In a significant development, the Supreme Court Collegium approved the appointment of retired Judges as ad hoc Judges of the Allahabad High Court in terms of Article 224A of the Constitution, a rarely invoked provision.

The approval is given for appointment for a period of two years.

The following are the retired Judges who have been recommended for appointment as ad hoc Judges :

Supreme Court Criticises ED & CBI Probe In ADAG Bank Fraud Case; Anil Ambani Undertakes Not To Leave India

Case Details: Eas Sarma v. Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025

The Supreme Court criticised the "unexplained delay" on the part of the Enforcement Directorate in investigating the alleged bank loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) companies.

The Court also criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for registering only a single FIR with respect to the complaints received from various banks. The Court noted that one FIR was registered in 2025 on the basis of a complaint from the State Bank of India, and the subsequent complaints from other banks and financial institutions are also being investigated by enlarging the scope of the first FIR. The Court commented that the "said approach adopted by the CBI does not seem to be in conformity with the procedural law" as each complaint is a separate transaction, warranting a separate FIR.

The Court directed the CBI to investigate the possibility of collusion on the part of bank officers as well.

NEET-PG 2025 : Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Against Reduction In NEET Cut-Off Percentile

Case Details – Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging the decision of the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences to reduce the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025-26.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe will hear the matter.

The petition assails the notice dated January 13 issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences reducing the qualifying cut-off. The petitioners contend the cut-off has been lowered to abnormally low levels, including zero and negative percentiles.

Consumer Protection Act | Can Legal Heirs Be Held Liable After Death Of Person Found Negligent? Supreme Court Reserves Verdict

Case Details: Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Thr Lrs & Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (C) Nos. 33646-33647/2018

The Supreme Court on February 3 reserved for judgment the issue of whether, for the negligence by a person, the estate of such person should be held liable for compensation through legal heirs.

It said that the Court will deal with the limited issue of whether the cause of action against the legal heirs survives or not, and not whether they would be entitled to compensation. It may be noted that Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant was appointed as the amicus curiaeto address this issue.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a special leave petition filed by a consumer, who alleged negligence by the doctor under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. His complaint was allowed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum but was set aside by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. When he approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(NCDRC), the doctor died. Subsequently, the consumer also died.

Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over High Courts Delaying Decision In Bail Pleas,Asks HCs To Submit Details Of Pending Matters

Case Details: Sunny Chauhan v. State of Haryana | SLP(Crl) No. 1613/2026

Taking a serious view of the long pendency of bail petitions in the High Courts, the Supreme Court on Wedesday called for reports from all High Courts regarding the pendency of such matters.

The Registrar Generals of all High Courts have been directed to give the details of all bail applications, both regular and anticipatory, filed after January 1, 2025, including the date of filing, the date of decision (if any) or the date of next hearing. If petitions filed before January 2025 are pending, those details are also to be given. The details of pending petitions seeking suspension of sentence are also to be included.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the direction while hearing a petition filed over the long adjournments in a bail petition filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

'Bengal Is Targeted, We Aren't Getting Justice' : Mamata Banerjee Argues In Supreme Court Against SIR

Case Details: Mamata Banerjee v. Election Commission of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 129/2026

Dramatic events unfolded in the Supreme Court, with West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee making submissions in the writ petition filed by her challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in the State.

This is the first time a sitting Chief Minister has personally appeared before the Supreme Court to make oral submissions.

Although Senior Advocate Shyam Divan represented the West Bengal CM and addressed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi on legal issues, Banerjee also made brief submissions.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras High Court's Stay Of Tamil Nadu University Law Amendments, Directs Fresh Hearing

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. K Venkatachalapthy Kutty. SLP(C) No. 17220/2025, T.P.(C) No. 1511/2025

The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's order passed in May 2025which stayed the operation of the 10 amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly to remove the Governor as the Chancellor of certain State Universities.

The Court asked why a vacation bench of the Court acted in a "tearing hurry" to stay the laws.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the High Court's stay order. The State also filed a transfer petition seeking to transfer the matter from the High Court.

'Sonam Wangchuk's Health Not Good' : Supreme Court Urges Centre To Rethink His Detention On Medical Grounds

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

The Supreme Court (February 4) orally asked the Union Government to rethink continuing detention of Ladakhi social activist Sonam Wangchuk, considering his deteriorating health.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk's wife Dr Gitanjali Angmo, challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980, as illegal. Wangchuk was detained on September 26 and brought to Jodhpur after the protests in Ladakh demanding statehood turned violent.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Justice Varale asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj if the Union could rethink whether Wangchuk's preventive detention needs to be continued. It may be noted that Angmo had moved an application that Wangchuk may be examinedby a specialist doctor after he complained of frequent stomach aches. The Court had allowed the application pursuant to which a medical report was submitted to the Court on last hearing.

West Bengal SIR | Supreme Court Asks ECI To Be 'More Sensitive' In Issuing Notices Over Name Spelling Mismatches

Case Details:

While hearing the West Bengal SIR matter, the Supreme Court told the Election Commission of India to instruct its officers to be more "sensitive" while issuing notices to persons citing "logical discrepancy" due to minor mismatches in name-spellings.

CJI Surya Kant conveyed this to ECI following the submissionsby CM Mamata Banerjee, who appeared in person, on the inconvenience caused to electors in West Bengal due to ECI's notices over "logical discrepancies" as well as on considering the plea of renowned poet Joy Goswami, who was reportedly characterized as "umapped" in the SIR process.

Insofar as CM Banerjee's claim about micro-observers taking over the process and deleting voters, while leaving no power with EROs, the CJI also assured the State that if necessary, the bench will pass directions for every document to be signed by the Booth Level Officers, who are actually authorized.

'Why You Didn't Go For Auction When NCR Property Prices Rising?' : Supreme Court Questions Banks' OTS Of 5 Star Hotel's Dues

Case Details: Infrastructure Watchdog v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 001659 - / 2026

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the plea seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Central Vigilance Commission into the One Time Settlement (OTS) between Asian Hotels(North), Bank of Maharashtra and Punjab National Bank.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the challenge to the Delhi High Court order which dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for a CBI & CVC investigation into the One Time Settlement (OTS) deals entered into by Respondent No.6, Asian Hotels (North) Pvt Ltd with Bank of Maharashtra (BoM), and Punjab National Bank or PNB.

It is the case of the petitioner, NGO Infrastructure Watchdog, that the OTS between the two banks and Asian Hotels to settle pending dues was against the existing laws.

IBC Being Misused, Companies' Assets Undervalued & Sold To Family Or Friends : CJI Surya Kant

Case Details: Eas Sarma v. Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025

During the hearing of the ADAG Bank Fraud Case, the Chief Justice of India expressed serious concerns over the increasing instances of misuse of the IBC process by bankrupt companies. The CJI flagged the issue of companies auctioning their assets to family members/ friends at undervalued rates.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by EAS Sarma, former Union Government Secretary, seeking a Court-monitored investigation into the matter.

The plea seeks a probe into bank collusions in the alleged bank loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) companies.

Court's Permission Necessary For Further Investigation After Filing Final Report : Supreme Court

Case Details: Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

The Supreme Court has held that the police can't proceed with further investigation on their own, and it is mandatory to obtain a leave of the court before doing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC/Section 193(9) of BNSS.

A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi allowed an appeal filed by the accused persons, setting aside a 2023 Allahabad High Court judgment that had permitted the continuation of a "further investigation" by police authorities in a decade-old rape case.

The issue before the court was whether after submitting a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC, the police/investigating agency can conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC without obtaining the leave of the Magistrate/Court concerned?

Supreme Court Orders Inquiry Against 6 Gujarat Ayurved Colleges For Admitting Students Who Didn't Qualify NEET

Case Details: Surpalsinh Bharatsinh Khant & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 27252-27256/2023

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Gujarat High Court's judgment, which denied relief to students who were granted conditional admissions to the courses of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery(BAMS) and the Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery(BHMS) courses by colleges in Gujarat.

The students, who appeared in NEET-UG 2019-20, did not qualify the minimum NEET percentile prescribed by the amended 2018 AYUSH Regulations, but were given conditional admissions by colleges on the presumption that the Central Government might reduce the cut-off later, as had happened in some cases previously. As per the Regulations, in order to secure admission to the BAMS/BHMS courses, a minimum cut-off percentile in the unreserved category is 50%.

The matter first went to the Single Judge, who said that the admissions of students could not be sustained as they had not challenged the amended AYUSH Regulations. The Judge also stated that the conditional admission clearly mentioned that the admission is subject to AYUSH's approval of a reduction in cut off-marks.

Jamiat Flags Assam CM's Speech On 'Miyas', Seeks Supreme Court Directions To Regulate Comments By Constitutional Office Holders

Citing the speeches made by the Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, Islamic clerics' group Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind has urged Supreme Court to issue directions to restrain persons holding Constitutional posts from making divisive comments.

In the written submission filed in the petition filed by Jamiat in 2021 seeking directions to regulate hate speeches, Jamiat referred to the speech made by Sarma, on January 27, that "four to five lakh Miya voters would be removed" after the Special Revision Exercise in Assam. According to Jamiat, Miya is a derogatory term to address Muslims in Assam.

The petitioner said that it was not the solitary instance of the Assam CM making such speeches.

Jan Suraaj Party Moves Supreme Court Challenging Bihar Elections, Questions Direct Transfer Of Rs 10K To Women

Case Details: Jan Suraaj Party v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 107/2026

The Jan Suraaj Party floated by Prashant Kishore has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Bihar Assembly Elections, 2025 on account of illegal practices and seeking fresh elections. The party particularly challenges direct transfers of Rs.10,000 to women voters in the state while the Model Code of Conduct was allegedly in force.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will hear the matter tomorrow.

Briefly put, the writ petition filed under Article 32 seeks a declaration that the addition of fresh beneficiaries in the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana, and payments made to them during subsistence of the Model Code of Conduct, was illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21, 112, 202 and 324 of the Constitution.

After Supreme Court Order, Samay Raina & 4 Other Comedians Organize Shows To Raise Funds For Persons Affected By Spinal Muscular Atrophy

Case Details: M/S. Cure Sma Foundation of India v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 460/2025

Following Supreme Court's directions, Samay Raina and other comedians have filed affidavits before the Court stating that they organized events in Mumbai to generate public awareness about Spinal Muscular Atrophy and raise funds for supporting those inflicted by it.

It may be recalled that while dealing with Cure SMA Foundation's plea against insensitive jokes made by some comedians against the disabled, a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had directed last year that comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagadish Tanwar telecast programs in their shows about the success stories of persons with disabilities to generate funds for the treatment of disabled persons, especially those suffering from SMA.

The Court had ordered that such programs be held at least twice a month. It was further said that the comedians can invite specially abled persons on their platforms to promote the cause of generating funds to provide timely treatment to those suffering from rare diseases. The comedians were asked to do so as a reparation for their insensitive jokes about the disabled.

Supreme Court Upholds 2023 Election Of Karnataka Congress MLA K Y Nanjegowda, Notes He's Winner Even After Recount

Case Details: K.Y.Nanje Gowda v. K.S Manjunath Gowda and Ors. | C.A. No. 12371/2025

The Supreme Court upheld the election of Congress member K Y Nanjegowda as Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the Malur constituency (Kolar district) in the Karnataka assembly elections of 2023.

Noting that even after the recount of the votes, Nanjegowda secured 250 more votes than his opponent KS Manjunath Gowda from BJP,  the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment of Septemer 2025 which annulled his election.

During the 2023 assembly election, Nanjegowda won by a margin of 248 votes against BJP candidate KS Manjunath Gowda. The BJP candiate later filed the election petition in the High Court seeking recount of the votes, alleging irregularities. The High Court, while setting aside the election, ordered a recount of the votes and a fresh declaration of results.

Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of Free Land Allotment For International Arbitration & Mediation Centre

Case Details – International Arbitration and Mediation Centre v. Koti Raghunatha Rao & Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld a Telangana High Court judgment that quashed the free allotment of government land in Hyderabad to the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC).

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SVN Bhatti rejected the special leave petitions filed by IAMC against the judgment.

“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court; hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed”, the Court held.

Supreme Court Approves BCI's Nomination Fee, Asks HCs Not To Interfere With State Bar Council Elections On Fee Challenge

Case Details: Bar Council of India v. Prahlad Sharma and Ors. T.P.(C) No. 3577-3590/2025

The Supreme Court approved the nomination fee of Rs 1.25 lakhs fixed by the Bar Council of India for contesting elections to the State Bar Councils.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also directed that no High Court should interfere with the ongoing Bar Council Elections on account of any challenge to the prescription of the election fee. The bench declared that all writ petitions pending in the High Courts on this issue will be deemed to have been dismissed.

The bench observed that the Bar Council of India is incurring expenses for elections, and it needed to raise funds.

Supreme Court Refers Plea Challenging Chhattisgarh Bar Council Elections To Justice Dhulia Committee

Case Details: Bar Council of India and Anr. v. Chandra Prakash Jangade and Ors. T.P.(C) No. 100-101/2026

The Supreme Court requested the High Powered Committee headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia to inquire into the alleged malpractices in the Chhattisgarh State Bar Council elections that took place in September 2025.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymaly Bagchi was hearing a transfer petition by BCI seeking transfer of a pending writ petition challenging the Chhattisgarh Bar Council elections to the Top Court.

The writ petition before the High Court was filed by candidates aggrieved of alleged corrupt practises and horse trading in the election to the post of office bearers of the Chhattigarh Bar Council. Sr Advocate Hufeza Ahmadi, assisted by AoR Pranjal Kishore, appeared for the respondents, while BCI was represented by its Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.

Supreme Court To Examine If Pupil -Teacher Ratio Fixed In Maharashtra Is Contrary To RTE Act

Case Details: Sindhuduurg Zilla Shikshan Sanstha Chalak Mandal, Pandur (Registered) v. State of Maharashtra and Others | SLP (C) No. 2479/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition challenging a 2024 Government Resolution(GR) issued by the State of Maharashtra under the Right of the Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009(RTE Act). As per the GR, the State has modified the criteria for sanctioning the teachers' posts based on the number of students in primary, upper primary, and secondary schools in the State of Maharashtra.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice on January 23 to the State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Education.

The petitioner, that is, an association of private educational institutions, has challenged the GR dated March 15, 2024, as defeating the purpose of the RTE Act.

'If People Reject, You Approach Judicial Forum' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Of Prashant Kishor's Party Against Bihar Elections

Case Details: Jan Suraaj Party v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 107/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the writ petition filed by Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj Party challenging the Bihar Assembly Elections, 2025  and seeking fresh elections.

When the Court expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, the petitioner chose to withdraw it, with liberty to approach the High Court. Granting such liberty, the bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

In the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the party particularly challenged direct transfers of Rs.10,000 to women voters in the state while the Model Code of Conduct was in force.

'Court Cannot Compel Any Woman To Complete Pregnancy': Supreme Court Allows Termination Of Minor's 30-Week Pregnancy

Case Details: A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra | SLP(C) No. 4774/2026

Observing that a Court cannot compel a woman, much less a minor, to continue an unwanted pregnancy, the Supreme Court permitted the medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a girl who had become pregnant while she was a minor.

A Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that reproductive autonomy of the pregnant girl must be given due weight, particularly in circumstances where she has clearly expressed her unwillingness to continue the pregnancy.

In its order, the Court observed that what required consideration was the right of the minor child to continue the pregnancy, which, on the face of it, was “illegitimate” as she herself was a minor and was facing the pregnancy due to an unfortunate situation arising from a relationship. The Bench clarified that the issue was not whether the relationship was consensual or the result of sexual assault.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Questioning Madras HC Collegium Resolution For Not Including Justice Nisha Banu

Case Details: A. Prem Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 135/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the recommendations stated to have been made by the Madras High Court in November 2025,  observing that the issue was not justiciable.

The writ petition was filed A. Prem Kumar, contending that the High Court Collegium's recommendation was void, as the then second senior judge of the High Court, Justice Nisha Banu, was not included in the meeting. It may be noted that on October 14, 2025, the Centre had notified the transfer of Justice Banu from Madras High Court to Kerala High Court. However, despite the transfer order, she continued in the Madras High Court andjoinedthe Kerala High Court only on December 19, 2025, after a reminder by the President. The issue was, whether, during the time she continued in Madras High Court even after the transfer order, she had to be included in the Collegium meeting in view of her seniority position.

Senior Advocate Rachna Srivastava, for the petitioner, submitted before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the collegium composition was wrong, as Justice Banu was then a judge of the High Court. "The composition of the collegium itself was...she continued to be a judge, she had not joined the transferee High Court," she submitted.

Decide Remaining Disqualification Petitions In Three Weeks Or Face Contempt : Supreme Court Warns Telangana Speaker

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

The Supreme Court(February 6) issued another last warning to the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly, directing him to "positively" decide the remaining disqualification petitions within three weeks in connection with the defection of ten MLAs from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi to the Indian National Congress.

It added that if the decision is not taken this time, the Court will be compelled to issue contempt orders. After the order was pronounced, the Court orally asked the petitioner not make reels on this matter.

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

NEET-PG 2025 | 'Our Conscience Must Be Satisfied' : Supreme Court Asks NBEMS To Explain Reasons To Reduce Qualifying Percentile

Case Details – Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India and Connected Matters

The Supreme Court asked the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to file an affidavit explaining the reason behind the reduction of qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025-26.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing pleas challenging the notice dated January 13 issued by the NBEMS reducing the qualifying cut-off percentiles.

During the hearing, Justice Narasimha observed that the issue involves competing considerations which are required to be balanced. “On the one hand we have this competing value to protect that seats should not go to waste. At the same time there is a pressure that candidates are not coming so please reduce the cut off,” he said. He added, “Then argument will be that the standards are being lowered and the counter argument is that seats are going waste. So somewhere there has to be a balance.”

West Bengal SIR | CM Giving Provocative Speeches, EC Officials Facing Threats : Election Commission To Supreme Court

Case Details: Sanatani Sangsad v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 1216/2025

The Election Commission has filed a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court raising concerns about alleged incidents of violence, intimidation and obstruction of election officials performing duties in the Special Intensive Revision process for West Bengal.

The ECI has alleged reluctance on the part of state machinery to address threats against election officials and/or register FIRs on complaint of Booth Level Officers (BLOs). It has further claimed that West Bengal is the only state where election officials performing SIR duty are facing such obstruction, while the process is going on fairly smoothly in other states.

Pertinently, the ECI has also accused West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of making fear-mongering, provocative speeches. It says that the speeches have had the effect of creating an intimidating environment among election officials so much so that some have written to the CEO to withdraw from SIR duties.

Supreme Court Dismisses Advocate's Writ Petition Seeking Intra-Court Appeal Against His Contempt Conviction

Case Details: Mathews J Nedumpara v. Supreme Court of India | WP(C) No. 592/2025

The Supreme Court refused to hear a writ petition by Advocate Mathew J Nedumpara seeking directions to allow an intra-court appeal against his 2019 conviction in a criminal contempt case. The Court noted that a writ petition could not be maintainable for challenging a coordinate bench's decision.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition under Article 32.

Notably, in 2019, a bench led by Justice RF Nariman held Nedumpara guilty of committing contempt.

Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh Bar Council Elections By April 30

Case Details: M Varadhan v. Union of India WP(C) 1319/2023

The Supreme Court has directed that elections to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh be conducted by April 30, 2026, noting that the elected body's original term had already expired in October 2025.

A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recorded the submission of the Bar Council of India that a six-month extension had been granted to the State Bar Council under Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961, to enable the holding of elections. Taking note of this, the Court ordered that the electoral process must be completed within the extended period.

To ensure free and fair elections, the Court directed that the polls be monitored and conducted by a High-Powered Election Committee headed by former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha.

Should News Reports Be Deleted On Discharge Of Accused? Supreme Court To Examine Scope Of 'Right To Be Forgotten'

Case Details – IE Online Media Services Private Limited v. N B

The Supreme Court held that a Delhi High Court order directing the digital platform of Indian Express to remove certain news reports concerning the arrest of a former banker in a money laundering case would not operate as a precedent in other cases.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a plea filed by IE Online Media Services Private Limited challenging the Delhi High Court judgment directing removal and de-indexing of certain articles, after the banker was discharged from the offence.

The Court issued notice on the plea and granted interim relief to Indian Express holding that that the impugned judgment shall not operate as precedent in subsequent cases.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges BNSS Provisions Allowing Judicial Officers To Head Directorate Of Prosecution

Case Details – Subeesh P. S. v. Union Of India

A practicing lawyer has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which allow judicial officers to be appointed as Director of Prosecution, Deputy Director of Prosecution or Assistant Director of Prosecution.

The plea contends that the impugned provisions blur the constitutionally mandated separation between the judiciary and the executive, and erode prosecutorial autonomy.

“By permitting serving or retired Judicial Officers to occupy prosecutorial leadership roles, the provision erodes prosecutorial autonomy and revives an impermissible fusion of powers. These features weaken institutional safeguards, compromise prosecutorial independence, and undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system”, the plea further states.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Gujarat High Court Order For Recovery Of 108 Hectares Gauchar Land Allotted To Adani Ports For SEZ

Case Details – Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court set aside a Gujarat High Court order directing the state to take back 108-22-35 hectares of land in Kachchh that had been allotted to Adani Ports for the purpose of development of a Special Economic Zone.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar remanded the matter back to the Gujarat High Court for fresh consideration.

The proceedings arose from a PIL filed in 2011 challenging the allotment of lands which had earlier been allocated to Gram Panchayats for gauchar in the villages of Goyarsama, Navinal and Luni in Kutch to Adani Ports for development of a Special Economic Zone. The grievance raised was that the Panchayats had limited gauchar land and further reduction would affect residents in a scarcity-hit region.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Duping Builders By Impersonating As SC Lawyer

Case Details: Poonam Charandas Khanna v. State of Maharashtra SLP (Crl) No. 21380/2025

The Supreme Court granted bail to a nearly 60-year-old woman accused of cheating multiple persons by falsely projecting herself as a lawyer practising before the Supreme Court and collecting money from them on that representation.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the Special Leave Petition filed by Poonam Charandas Khanna, setting aside a Bombay High Court order that had refused her regular bail.

The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 34 of 2020 registered at Kherwadi Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that she misrepresented herself as a qualified advocate and duped several persons into paying large sums of money by assuring legal relief.

Supreme Court To Examine If Kerala Joint Family Abolition Act Repugnant To Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005

Case Details: Radha Nambidi Parambath v. N.P. Rajani | Diary No. - 2622/2026

The Supreme Court (February 6) issued notice returnable four weeks in a plea challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment, which held that the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System(Abolition) Act, 1975 was repugnant to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti considered the matter. Notice has also been issued on an interim prayer seeking a stay of the High Court's judgment.

Following the declaration of repugnancy, the High Court had held that the daughter of a Hindu who died after December 20, 2004 (the date on which the Hindu Sucession Amendment Act took effect), would be entitled to an equal share in the Hindu Undivided Family(HUF) property in Kerala.

Can Third Party To Decree File Order IX Rule 13 CPC Application? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Details: N. Rajaram v. R. Murali & Ors.

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question whether a third party to a civil decree can maintain an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to set aside an ex parte decree.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran took note of conflicting decisions rendered earlier by coordinate Benches of the Court on the issue.

While a 2004 judgment in Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal & Ors. had held that a third party to a decree could maintain such an application, a later judgment in Ram Prakash Agarwal & Anr. vs Gopi Krishan (Dead) through Lrs. (2013) took a contrary view, without referring to the earlier ruling.

Acquittal Rate Of HCs In Death Penalty Case Four Times Confirmation Rate : Square Circle Clinic report

On February 4, the Square Circle Clinic at NALSAR released its latest Annual Death Penalty Statistics Report(2016-2025). The report confirms the global trend towards avoiding the granting of the death penalty due to varied reasons, including subjective discretion and non-adherence to sentencing guidelines.

As per the report, in the past decade, the acquittal rate of High Courts has been four times the confirmation rate. The Supreme Court's acquittal rate was twice the confirmation rate. For the third consecutive year, the Supreme Court did not confirm any death sentences. Moreover, the court acquitted 10 people in 2025, the highest number since 2016.

In the last 10 years, the Sessions Courts imposed 1,310 death sentences on 1,279 persons in 822 cases. Of these, the High Courts have decided 842 death sentences, and a staggering low of only 70(8.31%) were upheld. It resulted in 30.64% acquittals(258), 48% commutations(515) and only 8% confirmations.

'Constitutionally Improper' : Plea In Supreme Court Questions CM Mamata Banerjee Personally Arguing West Bengal SIR Case

Case Details: Mamata Banerjee v. Election Commission of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 129/2026

An application has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's personal appearance in the West Bengal SIR matter. Last week, Mamata Banerjeehad personally appeared in the Court and made submissions in the petition filed by her challenging the West Bengal SIR process.

The application is moved by Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha Vice-President Satish Kumar Aggarwal seeking intervention in the matter to assist the Court on the said aspect. A bench led by CJI Surya Kant will hear the West Bengal SIR matter tomorrow.

"That the present Intervention Application is filed exclusively to assist this Hon'ble Court on an issue of grave constitutional and institutional importance, namely, the impermissibility, impropriety, and adverse constitutional consequences of permitting the personal appearance of a sitting Chief Minister in proceedings invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India", the plea says.

Supreme Court Upholds NCLAT Order Directing NBCC To Complete Stalled Supertech Housing Projects

Case Details: Apex Heights Pvt. Ltd. v. Ram Kishor Arora C.A. No. 2626/2025 and Connected Cases.

The Supreme Court upheldthe order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) directing State-owned NBCC to expeditiously complete 16 stalled housing projects of debt-ridden real estate developer Supertech Limited.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi affirmed the NCLAT's December 12, 2024 order, which had brought NBCC on record for completion of the projects in the interest of homebuyers.

“We find that the order passed by the NCLAT on December 12, 2024, in bringing the NBCC on record for the completion of the pending housing projects is neither unfair nor contrary to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC),” the Court noted in its order.  In February 2025, the Court had stayedthe NCLAT order.

Supreme Court Lifts Ban On Anurag Thakur To Hold BCCI Office

Case Details: Board of Control For Cricket In India v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors. | C.A. No. 4235/2014

The Supreme Court lifted the ban imposed on BJP Leader Anurag Thakur from holding office in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application by BJP MP Anurag Thakur seeking the lifting of the ban which was imposed as per paragraph 25 (ii) of the 2017 Supreme Court Order.

In 2017, the bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur removed BCCI President Anurag Thakur and Secretary Ajay Shirke for continued defiance regarding the implementation of the Lodha panel reforms. Direction (ii) of the Court's 2017 order said : BCCI President Anurag Thakur and Secretary Ajay Shirke shall forthwith cease and desist from any work of the BCCI

UPSC Can Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against States Failing To Give Timely Proposals For DGP Appointments: Supreme Court

Case Details: Union Public Service Commission v. T Dhangopal Rao | SLP(C) No. 004668 - / 2026

The Supreme Court emphasised that State Governments should not delay sending proposals to the Union Public Service Commission for the appointment of Director General of Police.

Disapproving of the trend of appointment of 'Acting DGPs' in some states, the Court authorised the UPSC to send reminders to the States for sending proposals for DGP appointments. If there is a default by the States, the UPSC will be at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings.

According to the 2006 direction in the Prakash Singh case, the Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three seniormost officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission.