Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: May 4, 2026 To May 10, 2026

Judgments

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 451

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 452

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 453

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 454

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 454

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 455

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

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

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

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

Cause Title: SAHIL MANOJ MACHARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 456

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 457

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 458

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 459

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 460

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 461

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

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

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

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

Cause Title: RAJADURAI VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 462

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 463

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 463

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 464

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 464

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 465

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

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

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

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

Cause Title: HABBAN SHAH VERSUS SHERUDDIN

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 466

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 467

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

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

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

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

Case: Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath & Ors

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 468

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 469

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 470

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 471

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 472

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

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

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

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

Cause Title: ARJUN JANI @ TUNTUN VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 473

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 474

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 475

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 476

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

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

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

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

Case : Anand Narayan Shukla v Jagat Dhari

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 477

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 478

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 478

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 478

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 479

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

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

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

Orders and Other Judgments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Title – Christian Michel James v. Union of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court on Monday(May 4) called for creation of an institutional mechanism to address recurring issues arising from reduction of qualifying cut-off percentiles in NEET-PG, observing that the problem arises every year and requires a structured solution.

“This is happening every year that the academic sessions go on, counselling continues, and young people face a lot of trouble while a large number of seats remain unfilled. Perhaps the system needs to be tweaked. The method needs to be institutionalized”, the court observed.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a plea challenging the decision to lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Post Graduate (NEET-PG) examinations.

Use Of AI-Generated Fake Judgments : Supreme Court Urges BCI To Form Expert Panel To Examine Issue

Case Title – Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao

The Supreme Court today asked the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee of experts, including field experts, to examine issues arising from the use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings, in a case where a trial court relied on non-existent judgments cited by a litigant.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said that the committee should submit a report, while clarifying that no formal order was being passed at this stage.

The Court was dealing with an SLP challenging a trial court order in a suit for injunction. The trial court had dismissed objections to an Advocate Commissioner's report and relied on four decisions purportedly reported as Subramani v. M. Natarajan (2013) 14 SCC 95, Ramasamy (1071) 2 SCC 68, Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha (2006) 5 SCC 551, and Gajanan v. Ramdas (2015) 6 SCC 223.

Supreme Court Asks Sambhal Mosque Committee Factions To Resolve Dispute After 2 Petitions Filed Against Same HC Order

Case Details – Committee of Management Jami Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025 (AoR Anil Kumar) and Committee of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal, Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) 21599/2025 (AoR Fuzail Ahmad)

'This Matter More Important' : Supreme Court Refuses Union's Adjournment Request In Plea Challenging Election Commissioners' Law

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

The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a request made by the Union Government to adjourn the hearing of the petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta requested a two-judge bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta to adjourn the hearing, saying that he was occupied with the Sabarimala reference hearing before the 9-judge bench.

Justice Datta then referred to thecomments made by the 9-judge bench yesterday that the PIL seeking entry of women in Sabarimala temple should not have been entertained in the first place. Justice Datta seemed to indicate that the present matter is more important, as the 9-judge bench reference arose out of a PIL which was not maintainable in the first place.

Constitution Didn't Intend To Give Religious Denomination Higher Rights Than Believer : Darius Khambata In Sabarimala Reference

Case : Goolrookh M Gupta v. Sam Chothia | SLP(c) 18889 of 2012

In the Sabarimala reference matter before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Darius J. Khambata argued that an interpretation giving primacy to Article 26(b) over Article 25(1) will annihilate religion, as it would enable denominational groups to trample upon the rights of individual believers

He is representing Goolrook Gupta, who is challenging the practice of preventing Zoroastrian women who married outside the community from entering Aghyaris. The petition was also tagged along with the Sabarimala reference, since similar constitutional questions arise in both matters.

Yesterday, during the hearing, the 9-judge bench had raised questions about the practice, saying that it appeared to be gender discriminatory.

MP Bar Council Election : Supreme Court Gives Time To Advocates Excluded From Voters' List To Rectify Defects

Case Title: DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, KATNI & ANR. VERSUS BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS., WP(C) No(s). 564/2026

The Supreme Court recently allowed members of a District Bar Association in Madhya Pradesh to take remedial steps against their exclusion from the State Bar Council's electoral rolls, whereupon their claims shall be reconsidered by the Election Committee to be allowed to vote in the elections.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with a plea filed by District Bar Association, Katni and one of its members. The petitioners sought inclusion of names of the excluded advocates in the electoral rolls for the upcoming MP State Bar Council elections.

Upon hearing the parties, the Court noted that initially about 235 advocates, who were members of the petitioner-Association, were excluded from the electoral rolls. After the Bar Association made a representation, 183 names were re-included but 52 advocates remained excluded.

Present Law Ensures 'Prime Minister's Man' Is Appointed As Chief Election Commissioner : Petitioners Challenging CEC Act Tell Supreme Court

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

The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court today that the Election Commissioners Act, 2023 ensures that the persons suggested by the Prime Minister will be appointed as Election Commissioners, making it impossible for any alternative candidate to be selected and undermining the independence of the Election Commission.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 Act, which provides that the section committee to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and other ECs will comprise the Prime Minister, a minister nominated by the PM, and the Leader of the Opposition (LoP).

The matter came before this bench after CJI Surya Kant recused from the hearing, as the petitioners are challenging a law which removes the CJI from the selection panel.

What Happens To Indian Civilisation If Every Religious Practice Is Questioned In Courts? Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

On the thirteenth day of the hearing in the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about the breaking of India's civilisation if the judiciary starts interfering with religious disputes indiscriminately.

The 9-judge bench was hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, who is representing the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, challenging the power of the Dai (religious head) of the Dawoodi Bohra community to excommunicate persons. Ramachandran argued that the excommunication power has been exercised arbitrarily in many instances, treating the believers as slaves, and this violated the fundamental rights of the believers.

During the course of the arguments, the bench asked if the power of excommunication is not protected under Article 26(b), as per which a religious denomination has the right to manage its own affairs. The senior counsel contended that Article 26(b) cannot be used to destroy the rights under Article 25(1), and that both the rights must be harmoniously interpreted.

Supreme Court Appoints Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud As Mediator In Rani Kapur-Priya Kapur Dispute Over Sunjay Kapur's Estate

Case Title: RANI KAPUR Versus PRIYA SACHDEV KAPUR AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 13943-13945/2026

After a nudge from the Supreme Court, late industrialist Sunjay Kapur's mother Rani Kapur and widow Priya Kapur today agreed for mediation of their dispute in relation to the Rani Kapur Family Estate. Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud will be mediating the dispute between the parties.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan passed an order referring the parties to mediation after they gave mutual consent for the same. The bench advised the parties to explore mediation with an open mind and requested that they refrain from making statements in public and/or go on social media.

"It's a family dispute, let it be confined among the family only. It should not be a source of entertainment", said Justice Pardiwala. The remark came in response to a request by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Priya Kapur, that Rani Kapur be asked to not "wash dirty linen" on national TV.

Wish Judges Were Appointed As Speedily As Election Commissioners : Supreme Court

While hearing petitions challenging the law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, the Supreme Court on Wednesday remarked that it wished judges too were appointed with the same speed as Election Commissioners.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma is hearing the petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023, as per which the ECs will be appointed by a selection panel comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, for one of the petitioners, argued that the appointment of ECs were carried out in a swift manner without any effective consultation with the Opposition Leader. He told the bench that in 2024, an application was filed to restrain the appointment of Election Commissioners as per the new law. Preempting the hearing of the application in the Court, the Union hurriedly took steps to appoint the ECs, Hansaria claimed.

Supreme Court Questions Delhi HC Ruling Against Debarring Law Students Over Low Attendance, Asks BCI Why It's Not Challenged

Case Title: PRAKRUTHI JAIN v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, Diary No.47760/2024 (and connected case)

The Supreme Court today expressed disapproval of a Delhi High Court judgmentwhich, while dealing with some law students' case, held that the shortage of attendance shall not act as a bar on their continuing academic pursuits.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a PILfiled by two final year law students from NALSAR University, who assailed circulars issued by the Bar Council of India in September 2024 mandating criminal background check, declaration of simultaneous degree or employment and compliance with attendance norms before enrolling of candidates for legal education or practice.

During the hearing, Justice Nath asked BCI counsel, Advocate Radhika Gautam, whether the Delhi High Court judgment observing that students cannot be barred on the basis of low attendance has been challenged. The judge remarked that the judgment has created "chaos" and become a serious concern for the National Law Universities.

Female Genital Mutilation Affects Health; Can't Be Compared With Circumcision : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court on Thursday orally voiced concerns about the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) among sections of the Dawoodi Bohra community.

The petitions challenging FGM are tagged along with the Sabarimala reference, since the Constitutional issues relating to Articles 25 and 26 considered by the 9-judge bench have an impact on this matter.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Lutha, appearing for the petitioners opposing FGM, told the bench that the practice is done on young girls aged 7 years, and it causes an irreversible change in their bodies, which will affect their sexual and reproductive health. He argued that many families follow the practice because of the fear of excommunication if they do not adhere to it.

SC Shouldn't Have Totally Struck Down Law Banning Excommunication : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court on Thursday orally commented that the 1962 judgment in 'Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb vs The State Of Bombay' was wrong for absolutely striking down of the Bombay law prohibiting excommunication.

The Court opined that the judgment ought to have applied the doctrine of severance, or should have adopted the method of reading down, to hold that excommunication of a member for reasons other than religious cannot be permitted. In other words, the judgment should have permitted excommunication only for breach of religious diktats, and should not have permitted excommunication of members for their activities in secular or social spheres.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who is heading the 9-judge bench, made these observations.

SC Judgment Didn't Say Law On Election Commissioners Must Be Made In A Particular Manner : Supreme Court During Hearing

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

The Supreme Court today questioned the basis of challenge to the law governing appointment of Election Commissioners, observing that the ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India was only meant to fill a vacuum until Parliament enacted a law and did not mandate any particular structure for such a law.

“Anoop Baranwal judgment was only to fill the vacuum till the law is made. There is no observation in the judgment that the law should be framed in a particular manner. Don't only take the ground of violation of the 5-judge judgment in Anoop Baranwal”, Justice Dipankar Datta said.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing petitions challenging the statute which provides that the selection panel for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners will comprise the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of Opposition.

Gomchu Yekar Suicide: Supreme Court Upholds Arunachal Pradesh IAS Officer Talo Potom's Bail In Abetment Case

Case Title: TALO POTOM Versus THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 1699/2026

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

As per allegations, Gomchu Yekar was employed in the State Public Works Department. The job was given to him by Potom. In his suicide note, Yekar accused Potom and another (engineer in the Rural Works Dept) of sexually assaulting him, which led him to get infected with HIV/AIDS.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order, after hearing counsel for the complainant.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Relating To AIIMS' Allotment Of PG Medical Seats On Institutional Preference

Case Title: DR. SUKRIT NANDA M. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR., Writ Petition (C) No. 464 of 2024

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the AIIMS' alleged practice of allotting over 50 percent medical seats of a particular discipline in post-graduation by way of 'Institutional Preference'.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe passed the order, observing that it was not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The question of law was however left open.

The petitioner, a 23-year old aspirant of a post-graduate medical course, filed the petition contending that the allotment of over 50% seats by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences by way of "Institutional Preference" was contrary to the Court's judgments in AIIMS' Students Union v. AIIMS and Ors. (2002) and Saurabh Chaudri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2003).

Sringeri Votes Recount Row Reaches Supreme Court; Raje Gowda Challenges Karnataka High Court Order

Case : TD Rajegowda v. DN Jeevaraja and others | Diary No. 27809/26

TD Raje Gowda, a Congress leader from Karnataka, has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Karnataka High Court's order directing a recount of postal votes in the Sringeri constituency.

Following the recount, Gowda, who had won the Sringeri seat in the 2023 assembly polls, lost it to BJP candidate DN Jeevaraja, by 52 votes.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat mentioned Gowda's appeal before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing. Kamat submitted that his client got unseated following the High Court's order.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On AAP Plea Against Suspension Of Gujarat Unit's Instagram & Facebook Accounts

Case Title – Aam Aadmi Party Secretary v. Union of India

The Aam Aadmi Party has approached Supreme Court challenging the suspension of the Gujarat unit's Instagram handle “@aapgujarat” and its Facebook page.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice on plea to the Union today and tagged it with other petitions involving similar issue.

The Court tagged it with Software Freedom Law Center, India v. Union of India, a PIL challenging the blocking of social media accounts/posts without issuing notice to the user.

Didn't Go For Judicial Service At Career Start As A Judge Advised ''Bar Is Waiting For You" : CJI Surya Kant Recalls

Case : Prerna Gupta v. Registrar General of Delhi High Court | SLP(C) No. 12677/2026

The Supreme Court on Friday witnessed a personal moment from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who shared how a senior High Court judge once advised him against joining the judicial service at the start of his profession and encouraged him instead to pursue litigation, telling him that “the Bar is waiting for you.”

The CJI narrated the anecdote while hearing a plea filed by an Advocate-on-Record relating to the Delhi Judicial Service Exam. Advocate Prerna Gupta, who appeared in person, filed the petition challenging the alleged alteration of the exam marks. The CJI told her that revaluation is permissible only if the rules expressly allow it, and expressed reluctance to entertain her matter.

On getting to know that the petitioner is an AoR in the Supreme Court, the CJI asked, "They why you want to become a judicial officer?".

Lakhimpur Kheri Case : Supreme Court Expresses Disappointment At Non-Examination Of Witnesses, Asks Trial Judge To Ensure Their Presence

Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed disappointment over the slow pace of trial in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, particularly the non-production of witnesses for examination over the past two months, and directed the trial court to take lawful measures to secure their presence while also ensuring compliance with the witness protection scheme.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the bail plea of Ashish Mishra, son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, who is accused in the case relating to the killing of five persons in October 2021 after vehicles allegedly linked to his convoy ran over protesting farmers during the agitation against the farm laws. Mishra is continuing on interim bail pursuant to the earlier orders of the Court.

During the hearing, the State counsel informed the Court that in the first trial concerning the main incident, 44 witnesses had been examined while 15 witnesses had been discharged, leaving 72 more witnesses to be examined. In the second trial, out of 35 witnesses, 26 had already deposed and only nine remained.

MP Minister Vijay Shah Probably Wanted To Praise Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, But Ended Up Saying Something Else : SG Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: KUNWAR VIJAY SHAH Versus THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 8449/2025

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta on Friday proposed to the Supreme Court if a lenient view can be taken towards Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah in the criminal case over his objectionable remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.

The Solicitor General said that probably the Minister intended to praise the officer, but ended up saying something else as he could not articulate the message properly. He added that he was not defending the statements of the Minister, which were described as "unfortunate."

The SG clarified that it was his personal view, and not the stand of the State of Madhya Pradesh, whichwas directed by the Courtin January to decide on granting sanction to prosecute the Minister within two months.

“May Be I Was Cheated” : Anil Ambani Tells Supreme Court As Petitioner Questions His Non-Arrest In Bank Fraud Case

Case Title: EAS Sarma v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025

The Supreme Court on Friday heard a PIL seeking investigationinto the alleged loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crore by companies of the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, during which Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Anil Ambani, told the Court that “maybe he was cheated” by officials, even as petitioner's counsel questioned why Ambani had not been arrested despite serious allegations in the probe agencies' findings.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that multiple investigations by the CBI and ED were underway.

Placing a status note before the Court, the SG said two FIRs had been registered against Reliance Telecom on complaints by SBI, while nine regular cases had been registered in total. Of these, seven were under investigation and two had already been chargesheeted. He added that the total loss in the seven cases under probe was Rs 27,337 crore.

Punjab Drug Menace Terrible, Police Only Catching Small Peddlers: CJI Surya Kant

Case Title: IN RE: CREATION OF SPECIAL EXCLUSIVE COURTS Versus, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026

The Supreme Court today pulled up Punjab State authorities over their failure to tackle drug abuse and trafficking in the state. The Chief Justice of India commented that the State Police arrests small-level peddlers for publicity, but fails to act against persons running the rackets, including some influential persons.

"In Punjab, condition is terrible. There are instances now surfacing in public domain...an old woman, more than 60 years...crying because she lost her 5th son to drug addition. All of her 5 children have died, one after the other. Look at the plight of that mother. This is the second instance that has happened in last 2 weeks. What is the State doing?," CJI Surya Kant commented.

Stressing the importance of catching the "bigger sharks", CJI said :

SCBA Election | Supreme Court Suggests Creation Of Second Vice President Post From 2027 Onwards For Women

Case Title – Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik

The Supreme Court today said that the earmarking of the post of Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for women members will continue for the 2026 elections, while also proposing the creation of a second Vice-President post to be reserved for women from 2027 onwards.

“The SCBA and members of the bar who are present in court have graciously agreed that for the upcoming election for 2026-27 also, the earmarking of the post of Secretary for the women members of the Bar shall continue. Meanwhile, the General Body Meeting may be convened where the desirability of creation of one more post of Vice President be considered. Such second post of Vice President shall then be exclusively earmarked for the women members of the Bar from next from the year 2027-28 onwards”, the Court stated.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Vishwanathan was hearing pleas concerning issues related to SCBA elections and reforms in the association.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Mizoram Inheritance Law For Excluding Mizo Women Marrying Non-Mizo Men

Case Details: Lalsangliani Colney v. State of Mizoram, Law and Judicial Department Principal Secretary

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments introduced through The Mizo Marriage and Inheritance of Property (Amendment) Act, 2026, alleging that the law discriminates against Mizo women who marry non-Mizo men and adversely affects the rights of their children.

The petition challenges amendments made to Sections 2, 3(m), 25 and 26(1) of The Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014. According to the plea, the amended Section 2 restricts the applicability of the Act to marriages where both spouses are Mizo or where only the husband is Mizo. Consequently, a Mizo woman marrying a non-Mizo man is excluded from the statutory framework, while a Mizo man continues to remain covered irrespective of the identity of his spouse.

"The amendment thus introduces a gender-based classification founded on the identity of the male spouse and the matrimonial choice of the woman, resulting in manifest arbitrariness and discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India," as contended in the petition.

Supreme Court Takes Cognisance Of SCBA Resolution Against AP HC Judge Ordering Custody Of Young Lawyer Mid-Hearing

Case Title – Supreme Court Bar Association v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh

The Supreme Court today took cognisance of a representation and resolution passed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) condemning the recent incident in which a young advocate was directed to be taken into judicial custody for 24 hours during court proceedings by Andhra Pradesh High Court.

The Court registered the writ petition after the association urged the Chief Justice of India to take “appropriate institutional cognizance” of the matter and consider corrective and administrative measures appropriate to preserve public confidence in the judiciary and maintain cordial Bar-Bench relations.

The writ petition was registered following the controversy in proceedings before Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, where a young advocate was directed to be taken into judicial custody for 24 hours during the hearing of a writ petition.

Plea In Supreme Court To Direct TN Governor To Invite Vijay's TVK Party To Form Government

Case Title: Ezhilarasi P v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Tamil Nadu

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Governor of Tamil Nadu not to invite anyone other than actor and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief C Joseph Vijay to form a government in Tamil Nadu.

The petition has been filed by Advocate Ezhilarasi P, claiming to be a member of TVK. The plea seeks directions to the Governor of Tamil Nadu to invite Vijay to form the government and swear him in as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

TVK secured the highest number of seats (108 out of 234) in the recent assembly elections, the results of which were announced on Monday, May 4th. However, so far, the Governor has not invited anyone to form the new government.

Supreme Court Closes Case Over West Bengal VC Appointments, Approves Candidates For Remaining 3 Universities

Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

After about 2.5 years, the Supreme Court today finally closed the matter pertaining to appointment of Vice Chancellors for Universities in West Bengal. The Court approved recommended candidates for the remaining 3 Universities and ordered that their appointments be made soon after the Governor's approval.

This order puts an end to the "marathon exercise", as the Court termed it, of appointing Vice-Chancellors to 36 Universities in the State of West Bengal. Due to a deadlock between the State government, headed by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, and the State Governor (also the Chancellor), the Court had appointed a Search-cum-Selection Committee headed by former CJI UU Lalit. Pursuant to recommendations made by this Committee, names of candidates were cleared in a phased manner for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. Today, the Court closed the matter as Vice Chancellors for all the Universities stood appointed/approved.

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

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Alleged Bangladeshi Man Accused Of Transborder Human Trafficking

Case Title: AMOL CHANDRA DAS @ AMOL DAS @ SUJIB Versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, SLP(Crl) No. 5567/2026

Considering a custody period of about 2.5 years, the Supreme Court today granted bail to a man accused of being a Bangladeshi national and facing offences under the Indian Penal Code for allegedly trafficking persons into India from Bangladesh and Myanmar.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, while imposing stringent conditions on the petitioner-accused and requested the trial court to expedite the trial.

Briefly put, the allegation against the petitioner is that he is a Bangladeshi, serving as part of a syndicate indulging in transnational human trafficking of persons from Bangladesh and Myanmar into India. He is an accused in the case registered by the NIA for offences under Sections 370(3) and 120B of IPC along with Sections 14, 14(A)(B) and 14(C) of the Foreigners Act and Section 3 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920 read with Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950.

Supreme Court Directs Centre To Form 1 Exclusive NIA Court For Every 10-15 Cases, Urges To Complete At Least 1 Trial Per Month

Case Title: IN RE: CREATION OF SPECIAL EXCLUSIVE COURTS Versus, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026

To enable timebound disposal of trials in cases under special statutes like the UAPA, the Supreme Court yesterday directed setting up of exclusive Courts under Section 11 of the NIA Act. It stipulated that atleast 1 such court be setup for upto 10 pending trials under a High Court, 2 for over 15 pending trials, and 3 courts for over 25 pending trials.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the suo motu caseconcerning the creation of exclusive courts to tackle cases under special statutes like UAPA, NDPS, etc.

During the hearing, responding to the Court's earlier queryas to whether Union's funding to set up exclusive Courts will extend to the Special Courts set up by the States under Section 22 of the Act (which handle cases prosecuted by State agencies), Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said that at this stage, such extension would dilute the financial grant.

Supreme Court Expresses Surprise At Delhi Heritage Sites Being Leased To Private Parties; Directs Police To Ensure Monuments' Protection

Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India and others SLP (c) 12213/2019

The Supreme Court recently expressed shock over historical and heritage structures in Delhi being handed over to private entities such as the Delhi Golf Club and the Panchsheel School, and observed that several such monuments appeared to have been “totally neglected”, despite prohibitory orders and preservation obligations.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N Kotiswar Singh passed stringent directions to the Delhi Police to ensure protection of monuments and warned that local SHOs could face suspension if encroachments, vandalism or theft at heritage sites continued unchecked.

The Court was hearing the long-pending matter concerning preservation of heritage structures in Delhi. During the hearing, the bench considered a report submitted by historian Dr. Swapna Liddle pursuant to an earlier order dated April 13, 2026. The report flagged rampant encroachment, pilferage and damage to ancient structures, supported by photographs placed on record.

'Malicious' : CJI Surya Kant Denies False Casteist Remark Attributed To Him, Warns Strict Action

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant took strong objection to a false casteist statement attributed to him by certain social media handles, and warned that strict action would be taken against those propagating such  “vile, brazen and mischievous” posts.

“To manufacture a fictitious quote and attribute it to the highest judicial office of the country is an act of utter dishonesty, deliberate social provocation, and contempt for constitutional values,” CJI Surya Kant said.

“Such irresponsible conduct undermines the very foundation of public confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law,” the CJI added.

'Custom Inconsistent With Constitution Must Be Quashed' : Brahmin Scholar Seeks Intervention In Supreme Court Sabarimala Reference

A 94-year-old Brahmin scholar and author from Kerala has moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the pending Sabarimala reference proceedings, contending that customs inconsistent with constitutional principles must be struck down.

S. Parameswaran Nampoothiri, a freedom fighter, traveller and author belonging to the Kerala Namboothiri Brahmin community, filed the intervention application in the proceedings arising out of the Sabarimala temple entry dispute. He argued that there is “nothing in Articles 25 and 26” of the Constitution that justifies banning the entry of women of any age into the Sabarimala temple.

“Religion, customs, usage and spirituality are not free from the test of constitutional validity. If any custom or religious practice is a violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, the same needs to be tested and quashed to the extent of illegality inconsistency with the provisions of the constitution,” the application states.

RTE Act Mandate On Reservation Of Private School Seats For Poor Students Enforced? Supreme Court Asks States, UTs

Case Details: MD IMRAN AHMAD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.|WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 141/2023

The Supreme Court recently asked ten States and three Union Territories to show whether they have implemented Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education(RTE) Act, 2009. On the failure to show the faithful implementation of Section 12(1)(c), the Court will be compelled to summon the Principal Secretaries of the Education Department of the said States/UTs.

The present petition was filed in 2023 by one Md Imran Ahmad seeking the implementation of the said provision. Section 12(1)(c) requires non-minority private unaided schools to reserve at least 25% of their entry-level seats to children belonging to disadvantaged sections of the society.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has been hearing the matter. In a recent hearing on May 7, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid(for the petitioner) placed a chart of all States and UTs that have failed to implement Section 12(1)(c).

Rajasthan Admits Prima Facie Inaction On Illegal Mining Complaints In Dausa, Forms High-Level Committee After Supreme Court Warning

Case Title –Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan government has told the Supreme Court that it has constituted a high-level committee to identify officials responsible for alleged inaction over illegal mining and stone crushing activities in Dausa district, after the Court warned that the Chief Secretary would have to personally appear if substantive action was not shown.

The State has further admitted that, prima facie, no effective or substantive action appeared to have been taken by field-level authorities on complaints made by villagers regarding illegal mining and stone crushing.

“as per the facts presently known and on a perusal of the record presently available, it does prima facie appear that no effective or substantive action was taken by the field authorities concerned for ascertaining the correctness of the complaints of illegal mining and stone-crushing made by the villagers of the area, including the sister of the Petitioner, at the relevant point of time”, the affidavit states.