Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: April 06, 2026 To April 12, 2026

Judgments

Calling Someone 'Bas**rd' Not Offence Of Obscenity Under S.294 IPC : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sivakumar v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police (With Connected case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 329

The Supreme Court (April 6) observed that mere abusive or vulgar language, without a sexual or prurient element, does not constitute an offence of obscenity under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the conviction of two accused under Section 294(b) IPC, who had allegedly used the word “bastard” during a heated altercation arising out of a family property dispute.

“…mere use of the word 'bastard', by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person. More so, when such words are commonly used in modern era during heated conversations. We are, therefore, of the view that conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and is hereby set aside.”, the Court observed.

NEET | Medical Seat National Resource; Seat Rendered Vacant Due To Fraud Must Be Allotted To Next Candidate : Supreme Court

Case Details: Secretary National Medical Commission v. Sanjana Thakur & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 330

The Supreme Court has upheld the admission of a NEET-UG candidate to a seat that became vacant after the originally selected candidate was found to have secured admission using a forged marksheet. The Court observed that when a seat falls vacant under such circumstances, authorities are duty-bound to allot it to the next eligible candidate in merit.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the National Medical Council's appeal against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision to restore the seat to the Respondent No.1 at Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Govt. Medical College in Himachal Pradesh, who was denied the benefit despite being the next candidate in line, after the seat remained vacant on account of forgery committed by the selected candidate in his scorecard.

The Court stressed that restoration of the vacant seat cannot be denied to the next in line candidate, as it would be tantamount to wastage of a precious medical resource due to administrative lethargy.

Surgeon Best Judge To Choose Which Procedure To Adopt : Supreme Court Quashes Medical Negligence Case

Case Details: Dr. S. Balagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 331

The Supreme Court of India (April 6) quashed criminal proceedings against a paediatric surgeon who had performed an orchidectomy (removal of the testicle) on a 1.5-year-old child, amid allegations by the father that no consent had been given for the procedure.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the matter in which the child's father contended that he had consented only to orchidopexy, a procedure to reposition an undescended testicle, but the surgeon proceeded to perform an orchidectomy instead, allegedly without his approval, contending that the consent form was interpolated to include the permission to perform an orchidectomy.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision refusing to quash the case, the surgeon appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the consent form was not interpolated, nor was orchidectomy added to the form after filling out the consent form. The surgeon defended the operation, saying that the consent form contained an option either to perform orchidopexy/orchidectomy. Also, his decision to proceed with orchidectomy was supported by the Medical Board's opinion, he added.

'Failure To Develop Allotted Land Bars Equitable Relief', Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of Lease In Piaggio's Favor

Case Details: M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 332

The Supreme Court of India (April 6) upheld the forfeiture of a lease granted to Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., observing that the company failed to undertake construction or develop the industrial plot within the stipulated time, and was therefore not entitled to any equitable relief.

“…there is no escape from the conclusion that, right from the date of the grant of lease…the appellant company failed to demonstrate any convincing effort or bona fide intent to establish a full-scale industrial manufacturing unit on the plot in question.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, stressing that non-adherence to the terms of the lease deed do not warrants equitable relief to the company.

“…delaying development of the industrial plot by almost six to seven years, as against the mandatory period of six months prescribed under the lease deed, would equally disentitle it to discretionary relief.”, the court observed.

Supreme Court Orders CBI Preliminary Inquiry Into Allotment Of Contracts To Arunachal CM Pema Khandu's Kin

Case Details: Save Mon Region Federation and Anr v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 54/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 333

The Supreme Court (April 6) directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the alleged irregular allotment of public contracts by the Arunachal Pradesh Government to companies owned by relatives of Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu.

The Court has directed the CBI to submit a report within 16 weeks as to whether an independent investigation is warranted. The CBI is directed to examine contracts awarded from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2025. The CBI shall, however, not be precluded from examining the work contracts beyond the above period.

"Having regard to the principles set out above and the material placed on record, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where an independent investigation is necessary. The record discloses repeated resort to non-tender methods in relation to public works, repeated absence of recorded reasons explaining why competition was dispensed with, and repeated nonproduction of vouchers and tender-related documentation in relation to projects of substantial value. Such circumstances raise legitimate concerns not merely of administrative irregularity but of possible abuse of public office, manipulation of procurement processes, and concealment or destruction of official records, matters which require investigation by an independent agency vested with statutory powers of criminal investigation."

Even Single Instance Of Award Of Public Work Through Tainted Process Violates Article 14 : Supreme Court

Case Details: Save Mon Region Federation and Anr v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 54/2024

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 333

The Supreme Court (April 6) ordered a preliminary enquiryby the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) into the allegations of favouritism and patterns of repeated departures from open and competitive tendering in the allotment of work contracts by the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Pema Khandu, to his relatives and close associates.

The Court observed that the decisions on awarding public contracts are subject to Article 14 of the Constitution and the State is expected to act in a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary manner in order to secure public interest. One of the safest ways of doing that is by inviting competition through tenders. In cases where the allegation is of conflict of interest or related party benefit, the State can't argue that the overall percentage of work awarded is numerically small.

"A constitutional violation in public contracting is not diluted by statistics. Even a single instance, if established, undermines equality, the rule of law and public confidence in fair administration."

Sajjadanashin Of Dargah & Mutawalli Of Waqf Not Same : Supreme Court

Case Details: Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri & Ors. Etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 13345 - 13346 of 2015

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 334

The Supreme Court reiterated that the office of a Sajjadanashin of a Dargah is fundamentally distinct from that of a Mutawalli of a Waqf, emphasizing that the former is primarily a spiritual position while the latter is a secular administrative role.

A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi made this observation while deciding a dispute concerning succession to the office of Sajjadanashin of a Dargah in Karnataka.

The Bench observed :

S.528 BNSS | Criminal Proceedings Can Be Quashed When Reliable Material Disproves Allegations : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sajal Bose v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 335

The Supreme Court (April 6) held that where the prosecution fails to rebut credible and unimpeachable material which effectively undermines the factual foundation of the complaint, the Court would be justified in exercising its power to quash the proceedings.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria quashed the criminal proceedings against Appellants who were booked for assaulting an old man, noting that CCTV footage proved to be significant as it contradicts the complainant's version which was not countered by the prosecution.

“Where reliable and unimpeachable material demonstrably displaces the factual basis of the accusations and the prosecution is unable to effectively counter the same, the Court would be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice. Such an approach not only accords justice to the accused but also obviates the wastage of precious judicial time on proceedings which, on the admitted material, do not hold a reasonable prospect of culminating in conviction.”, the Court observed.

Horizontally Reserved PwD Post In Unreserved Category Open To SC/ST/OBC Candidates With Disabilities : Supreme Court

Case Details: West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co.Ltd & Ors. v. Dipendu Biswas & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 336

The Supreme Court (April 7) observed that when a horizontal reservation is applied to an unreserved seat, then it is open to all candidates possessing that horizontal attribute to fight for the unreserved seat, regardless of whether they belong to SC, ST, OBC, or the general category.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh heard the case where one post of Junior Civil Engineer in West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. was notified under UR (PWD-LV), an unreserved post horizontally reserved for Persons with Disabilities (Low Vision/Blindness). The Respondent No.3, belonging to an OBC-A (Most Backward) with PWD-LV attributes, was denied selection by the Calcutta High Court for the post despite scoring more marks than the UR (PWD-LV) candidate.

The High Court had held that since a UR-PWD candidate was available, the post must be filled by him, irrespective of comparative merit.

Personal Hearing Of Borrower Not Necessary Before Banks Declare Account 'Fraud' : Supreme Court Clarifies 'Rajesh Agarwal' Verdict

Case Details: State Bank of India v. Amit Iron Private Limited & Ors. (With Connected case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 337

The Supreme Court (April 7) held that borrowers have no legal right to a personal (oral) hearing before their account is classified as "fraud" by banks under the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India(RBI). However, the court said that defaulters must be given the full forensic audit report to respond effectively.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan set aside the Calcutta High Court's ruling, which had relied on the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal to direct the appellant bank to grant the respondent a personal oral hearing before declaring his account as fraud.

The bench was hearing appeals filed by State Bank of India and Bank of India against the rulings of various High Courts requiring banks to grant borrowers a personal (oral) hearing and to provide the entire forensic audit report before declaring accounts as fraud.

Cheque Dishonour Complaint Can't Be Quashed At Pre-Trial Stage Once Section 138 NI Act Ingredients Are Met : Supreme Court

Case Details: Renuka v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 338

The Supreme Court has observed that when the basic ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are fulfilled, a cheque dishonour case cannot be quashed at the pre-trial stage upon concluding that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt.

The court said that whether the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or not is a matter of trial, and cannot be decided at the pre-trial stage.

“…when the basic ingredients of Section 138 stand duly satisfied and the statutory presumption under Section 139 gets triggered, coming to a conclusion that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt at the pre-trial stage itself without granting an opportunity to the complainant to substantiate her case by leading evidence would amount to ignoring the statutory presumption that the cheque had been issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. As a consequence, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act gets washed away even prior to commencement of the trial.”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Questions Insurance Company For Not Filing Complaint Over Forged Policy; Orders SIT Probe

Case Details: National Insurance Company Limited v. K. Saravanan, SLP (C) No. 1003/2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 339

While dealing with a case of insurance policy fabrication, the Supreme Court ordered Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu to constitute a Special Investigation Team to probe the matter.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan passed the order with a view to ensure that Insurance Companies, which deal with substantial amount of public funds contributed by policyholders, discharge their obligations with due vigilance.

The bench noted that the issue seemed to be widespread across the country. It further opined that when it comes to the knowledge of an Insurance Company that a policy has been fraudulently obtained and cannot be acted upon, it is incumbent upon it to take action and make a complaint to the police, as policy fabrication constitutes an offense.

Supreme Court Faults UCO Bank's Attempt To Stall Employee's VRS By Issuing Show Cause Notice

Case Details: Uco Bank & Ors. v. SK Shrivastava (With Connected case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 340

The Supreme Court (April 7) observed that an employer cannot prevent an employee from taking voluntary retirement merely by issuing a show-cause notice, without formally initiating disciplinary proceedings and refusing permission within the prescribed notice period.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was dealing with a case where a bank employee was served a show-cause notice while his application for voluntary retirement was pending. Although a decision on the VRS request was required within three months, the bank failed to take any such decision and instead issued a show-cause notice regarding certain transactions, without initiating formal disciplinary proceedings.

The respondent employee had submitted a notice for voluntary retirement on October 4, 2010, under the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, which required a three-month notice period. This period expired on January 4, 2011.

Appeal's Dismissal Gives Fresh Starting Point To Limitation Period For Decree Execution : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gajanan v. Pralhad

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 341

The Supreme Court has held that an execution petition filed within 12 years from the dismissal of an appeal for default (owing to non-appearance) is maintainable, as such dismissal triggers a fresh limitation period.

The court rejected an argument that the 12-year limitation period for filing an execution petition should be calculated from the date of the passing of a decree, especially when an appeal against a decree was pending. In essence, the dismissal of an appeal would provide a fresh limitation period for the decree holder to seek its execution, the court said.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside the order of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed the appellant–decree holder's execution petition on the ground of limitation. The High Court said that the dismissal of the judgment-debtor's appeal for default, would not gave decree holder a fresh limitation period to file an execution petition.

Courts Must 'Nip In The Bud' Proceedings By Unlicensed Money Lenders; Investigation Against Them Need Not Await New Law : Supreme Court

Case Details: Raj Kumar Santoshi v. Prashant Malik, Miscellaneous Application No. 1176/2026 In SLP(Crl) No. 5485/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 342

The Supreme Court clarified that its earlier order closing the suo motu proceedings on unauthorised money lending should not be construed to mean that no law presently exists on the subject or that enforcement actions must wait for fresh legislation by States or Union Territories.

The Court clarified that existing provisions under the State money lending laws and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita be invoked against unlicensed money lenders.

The Court stated :

Motor Accident Claim | No Deduction From Salary Just Because Deceased Was On Verge Of Retirement : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sushila & Ors. v. Sudhakar & Anr., SLP (Civil) No. 21717 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 343

In a motor accident claim compensation case, the Supreme Court disapproved of a 50 percent deduction made in the salary of the deceased on account of the fact that he had only 6 months of service left.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi enhanced the compensation amount payable to the claimants (deceased's family members), holding that the High Court and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 50% from the deceased's salary while computing the compensation amount.

"In the case at hand before us, both the Tribunal as well as the High Court had made a deduction of 50% from the salary of the deceased on account the fact that only 6 months of service of the deceased was remaining. In our considered opinion, the Courts below have erred in coming to such an unreasonable conclusion", it said.

CCS Pension Rules | Gratuity Can Be Withheld During Pendency Of Criminal Or Disciplinary Proceedings Against Employee : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bikram Chand Rana v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 344

The Supreme Court has observed that an employer is entitled to withhold the payment of gratuity to an employee against whom a judicial or disciplinary proceeding is pending.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed an appeal filed by an ex-Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Clerk, whose gratuity was withheld by the transport corporation because of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him.

Post-superannuation, the Appellant's gratuity was withheld by the Respondent department as a result of the pendency of a criminal proceeding against him for his alleged involvement in the leak of the question paper of the Combined Pre-Medical Test, 2006.

S. 27 Evidence Act | Recovery Of Weapon Meaningless Without Proof Linking It To Crime : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gautam Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 345

The Supreme Court has set aside the murder conviction, after finding that the prosecution's recovery of evidence based on the accused's disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was riddled with inconsistencies, hostile witnesses, and a lack of forensic linkage.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed that mere recovery of the evidence intrinsic to the commission of a crime based on the disclosure statements would not be sufficient for conviction, unless the recovery process is legally reliable, thereby meeting the standards required under Section 27.

The case arose from the alleged murder, where the Trial Court had convicted the appellant, and his conviction was affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.

When Sentences Of Imprisonment For Multiple Offences Run Concurrently, Fine Also Run Concurrent : Supreme Court

Case Details: Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 346

The Supreme Court (April 8) observed that where sentences imposed for different offences are directed to run concurrently, a fine cannot be imposed separately for each offence.

The Court held that fine imposed separately as part of the punishment of two offences would be liable to be treated concurrent along with the sentences of imprisonment.

“Section 53, IPC  also includes fine as a punishment to be part of sentence. In that view when the sentence is directed to run concurrently, the appellant cannot be made to pay fine twice.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N. V. Anjaria while granting a relief to the Appellant from payment of a separate fine for punishment that were directed to run concurrently for two offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“Act”).

'Matrimonial Battle Of Mahabharata', Supreme Court Dissolves 10-Year Estranged Marriage, Quashes 80+ Cases Between Couple

Case Details: XXX v. YYY

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 347

The Supreme Court (April 8) dissolved a marriage between a couple who were living apart for the last 10 years, and have filed over 80 cases against each other, their relatives and counsel, in what it described as bringing an end to the “matrimonial battle of Mahabharata”.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta strongly criticized the conduct of the respondent-husband, a lawyer by profession, observing that he had deliberately prolonged the litigation by misusing his legal expertise. The Court noted that he went to the extent of targeting the wife's legal counsel, filing nine cases against them across various forums to intimidate them, besides initiating proceedings against relatives.

“…the respondent-husband was exploiting his knowledge as a law professional to frustrate the proceedings and to intimidate the advocates appearing for the appellant-wife…”, the court noted.

Motor Accident Claim | Insurance Company Impleaded As Party Can Raise All Grounds, Contest Quantum Of Compensation : Supreme Court

Case Details: National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gauri Gurudas Gaonkar, SLP (C) No. 11439 of 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 348

The Supreme Court allowed an Insurance Company's plea against a Bombay High Court decision preventing it from raising submissions on the quantum of motor accident claim compensation.

The Court observed that when an Insurance Company is impleaded as a party-respondent to a motor accident claim compensation case, it has a right to contest the claim on all available grounds. That is, there is no restriction to raise only the grounds contained in Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (such as, breach of policy condition, non-disclosure of material fact, etc.)

"the Insurance Company, when impleaded as a respondent in the claim petition, has the right to contest the claim on all available grounds, without any restriction to grounds available under Section 149(2) of the 1988 Act", a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi observed.

S.142 NI Act | Signing Of Board Resolution Doesn't Mean Director Was Aware Of Company's Day-To-Day Affairs : Supreme Court

Case Details: Saroj Pandey v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 349

The Supreme Court has held that merely signing a Board Resolution does not establish that a director was in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of a company, and therefore cannot by itself justify prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Allowing the appeal of a company director, the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih quashed criminal proceedings initiated against her in a cheque dishonour case, observing that there was no specific allegation demonstrating her active role in the conduct of the company's business.

Background

'Abandonment Of Service Not Voluntary Retirement', Supreme Court Denies Pensionary Benefits To SBI Clerk

Case Details: K.G. Seshadri v. Trustees of State Bank of India and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 350

The Supreme Court has held that an employee who abandons service shortly before retirement cannot seek pensionary benefits by claiming it to be a voluntary retirement.

“…we have noticed that the present case is not of voluntary retirement, rather of voluntary abandonment of the services, wherein from 24.01.1998 to 11.12.1998, the appellant, without informing and availing leave, started remaining absent for a long time…”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria, while dismissing the appeal filed by former State Bank of India clerk, who had remained absent for nearly 11 months before his services were treated as abandoned.

The Court clarified that, under the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955, pensionable service is to be calculated from the date of confirmation in service and not from the initial appointment, meaning the probation period is excluded, and that the mandatory requirements of completing at least 20 years of service and opting for voluntary retirement must be strictly satisfied.

'Don't Eat Up Court's Time To Show Off Skills' : Supreme Court Cautions Lawyers For Arguing Against Settled Precedents

Case Details: Roma Ahuja v. State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 351

The Supreme Court (April 9) cautioned lawyers against consuming the Court's valuable time by arguing cases that contradict settled legal positions solely to showcase their argumentative skills.

“As the courts are bound by the law of precedent and to follow the law laid down in the binding judgment of the Constitution Bench, the lawyers are also expected to respect the strong-operated precedent emanating from a judgment holding the field unless exceptional grounds exist to distinguish the decision are available. Merely for the purpose of demonstrating the argumentative skill, the lawyers ought not to eat up the valuable public time of the court by making the submissions, which are worthless against binding precedent.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.

The aforesaid observation came in a matter where the core legal issue revolved around the relevant date for computation of the limitation period for taking cognizance in a criminal case under Section 468 Cr.P.C., i.e., whether it is the date when the criminal complaint is filed or the date when the Court/Magistrate takes cognizance.

Stranger Affected By Interim Order Entitled To Impleadment In Writ Proceedings : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Chopra Hotels Private Limited v. Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 352

The Supreme Court has observed that a stranger to the proceedings, not being a party to the original Writ proceedings, cannot be denied impleadment if the order passed in the proceedings has a direct bearing on the stranger.

“In writ proceedings, where the Court is called upon to interpret the scope and operation of an interim order already passed by it, a person who is shown to be directly and demonstrably affected by that order cannot be shut out merely because such person was not an original party to the principal challenge.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

The matter came, wherein the Appellant, being directly prejudiced by the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order staying certain provisions of the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025, suffered rejection of its revised building plans by the Municipal Authorities.

Court Cannot Substitute Its Decision In Place Of Authority's Discretion : Supreme Court Sets Aside Direction To Governor

Case Details: State of Uttarakhand v. Sarita Singh and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 353

The Supreme Court (April 9) held that the grant of an extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981, is subject to the discretion of the Governor.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's decision, which had ordered the state government to grant an extraordinary pension to the widow of the deceased doctor, who died during harness. The Court said that when the Governor had not examined the issue of grant of an extraordinary pension, then it was impermissible for the High Court to assume the discretionary authority of the Governor to grant a benefit to the Respondent No.1.

“Under Rule 4, award of extraordinary pension under the Rules of 1981 is only with the sanction of the Governor…the High Court by the impugned judgment itself proceeded to take a decision in the matter of grant of extraordinary pension without the Hon'ble Governor having an occasion to exercise discretion and take a decision in accordance with the Rules of 1981. For these reasons, we find that the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in issuing a writ of mandamus and directing the appellants to grant extraordinary pension to the first respondent is unwarranted and thus, deserves to be interfered with.”, the court observed.

Title Suit Hit By 'Constructive Res Judicata' If Plaintiff Omitted It In Earlier Injunction Suit Where Title Was Disputed : Supreme Court

Case Details: Channappa (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Parvatewwa (D) Thr. Lrs.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 354

The Supreme Court clarified (April 9) that a subsequent suit for declaration of title would be barred under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC (constructive res judicata) if the plaintiff had omitted to seek title declaration in the earlier suit for permanent injunction where title was under dispute.

The Court held that since the claim to title could and should have been raised in the primary suit, the party is barred from re-litigating that issue in a new suit.

The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard a case involving a respondent who sought an injunction against the appellant's interference with their peaceful possession of a property, yet failed to seek a declaration of title to establish ownership in the primary suit. Instead of addressing the title issue in the primary suit, the respondent filed a second suit for title declaration, a claim that could and should have been raised in the initial proceedings.

'FSSAI Is There' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Court-Monitored Committee To Enforce Food Safety Standards

Case Details: Dr. K.A. Paul @ Kilari Anand Paul v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 355

The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking court-monitored effective compliance with food safety enforcement measures across the country by constituting a National Task Force.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the PIL that raised the issues of unsafe and unhygienic food being provided to the citizens of the country. To support, the petitioner, Dr KA Paul, had relied on several newspaper reports highlighting instances of alleged unhygienic and unsafe food dispensation to the affected people.

The Court found the PIL to be lacking credible evidence of non-compliance with food safety measures to seek the Court's interference. It added that merely relying on newspaper reports would not justify judicial scrutiny unless corroborated by independent and reliable data.

General Reference To Tender Document Containing Arbitration Clause Will Not Amount To Its Incorporation In Contract : Supreme Court

Case Details: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Msedcl) & Ors. v. R Z Malpani

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 356

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a general reference in a Letter of Intent to an arbitration clause contained in a tender document cannot form a valid arbitration clause to seek an appointment of an arbitrator.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Bombay High Court order that had appointed an arbitrator in a construction dispute. The High Court had originally allowed the Respondent's plea for arbitration by concluding that a valid agreement existed. It reached this conclusion because the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued by the Appellant made a general reference to tender documents that contained an arbitration clause.

However, the Supreme Court overruled this, holding that a mere general reference in an LOI of a tender document containing an arbitration clause is insufficient to specifically incorporate an arbitration clause from a separate document unless a specific reference to incorporate an arbitration clause from the tender document into the LOI was made.

Investments Of Multi State Co-Operative Societies Must Align With Society's Own Business As Per Bye-Laws: Supreme Court

Case Details – M/S Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Ravi Sethia & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 357

The Supreme Court has held that a multi-state co-operative society can invest in another company, including as a resolution applicant under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, only if the target company is either its subsidiary or engaged in the “same line of business”.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan clarified that Section 64 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, which governs how such societies can invest their funds, restricts investments to specific categories and requires that any investment in another institution must align with the society's own line of business as defined in its bye-laws.

“it becomes evident that the expression “any other institution in the same line of business” under Section 64(d) is not to be construed in an expansive manner. It requires that, before deploying its funds, an MSCS must satisfy a threshold condition that the proposed investment aligns with its own line of business as reflected in its bye-laws. This requirement keeps a check on the manner in which funds of members of MSCS are being utilised and is intended to prevent diversion into activities that are unrelated or only remotely connected to the core business that an MSCS is entitled to do as per its bye-laws. Consequently, the determination of eligibility under Section 64(d) must involve an examination of the objects and functions contained in the bye-laws of the MSCS and a comparison thereof with the business activities of the target institution, so as to ascertain whether there exists a predominant or substantial sameness between the two”, the Court observed.

Veil Of Partnership Can Be Lifted To See If It's Device To Cloak Illegal Sub-letting : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented By Legal Heirs v. M/S. Mahendra Watch Company Represented By Its Partners & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Observing that a partnership arrangement cannot be used as a device to conceal unlawful transfer of possession, the Supreme Court on April 10 held that courts are entitled to tear the veil of partnership to ascertain whether it is merely a cloak for unauthorised sub-letting.

The Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision, which had set aside the trial court's eviction order.

The trial court ordered the eviction of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the premises which was originally rented to Respondent No.1(a partnership firm), upon finding that the original tenant had divested its possession and control over the property, and sub-let the property to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under the pretext of a partnership arrangement, a strategic move intended to mask an unlawful sub-letting in their favor, as neither individual was a party to the lease deed executed with the original tenant.

Public Recruitment | Supreme Court Cautions Courts Against Entertaining Challenges To Rejection Due To Errors In Online Applications

Case Details: Poonam Dwivedi v. State of Up and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 359

The Supreme Court on April 10 observed that in large-scale public recruitment processes conducted through online systems, even minor errors in applications or supporting documents can legitimately lead to rejection of candidature, and courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering with such decisions as it may delay recruitment and adversely affect numerous other candidates.

Highlighting the systemic implications of judicial intervention in recruitment disputes, the Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B. Varale stated that challenges to rejection of candidature arising from application errors should not normally be entertained because doing so could stall the timely completion of recruitment processes.

“In matters of public recruitment, where large number of candidates participate, application forms are submitted online along with the scanned eligibility documents, certificates, etc. Such applications are processed through computer applications/ software and therefore, any error in the application is bound to result in rejection of the candidature.”

Granting Pensioners Lower Dearness Relief Than Employees' DA Is Arbitrary, Violates Article 14: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar & Ors. (And Connected case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 360

The Supreme Court (April 10) observed that granting higher dearness allowance (DA) to serving employees than dearness relief (DR) to pensioners is arbitrary and violates Article 14, ruling that both benefits share a common objective, i.e., neutralising the impact of inflation.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B Varale dismissed appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), thereby upholding the Kerala High Court's decision striking down the differential rates.

“…once pension is admissible and, based on inflation, DR is admissible on it, announcing DR at a rate lower than at what DA is provided, when both are linked to inflation and serve a common object, would be nothing but discriminatory as well as arbitrary. Therefore, in our view, the High Court was justified in holding the same to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14.”, the court held.

Right To Contest Co-operative Society Elections Subject To Statutory Limitations : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ram Chandra Choudhary & Ors v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited and Others, Civil Appeal No. 4352 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 361

The Supreme Court reiterated that neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right. The two rights are distinct from each other, and the right to contest is subject to stricter regulations, such as, in terms of qualifications, disqualifications, and institutional requirements.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the observation while dealing with an election dispute related to District Milk Unions in Rajasthan.

The judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan observed :

Independent Cooperative Societies Not 'State' Under Art 12; Their Election Process Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ram Chandra Choudhary & Ors v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited and Others, Civil Appeal No. 4352 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 361

In a dispute pertaining to election of the Management Committee of District Milk Unions in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that District Milk Unions are independent co-operative societies not amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Courts.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan observed that the Rajasthan High Court erred in entertaining pleas challenging bye-laws framed by the District Milk Unions, as the District Milk Unions cannot be characterized as "instrumentalities of State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

"In the present case, the District Milk Unions are autonomous, member driven bodies governed by the provisions of the Act, 2001, the Rules framed thereunder, and their bye-laws. They are neither departments of the State nor owned, financially controlled, or administratively dominated by the State in a manner that would render them instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12" it said.

IBC | NCLT Not To Examine If 'Pre-Existing Dispute' Will Succeed While Considering S.9 Application Of Operational Creditor : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gls Films Industries Private Limited v. Chemical Suppliers India Private Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 362

The Supreme Court has reiterated that it is impermissible for the adjudicating authority under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code to examine the merits of the dispute while considering an application for CIRP under Section 9 by an operational creditor. It added that once the authority is satisfied that there exists a plausible pre-existing dispute, the Section 9 application would be non-maintainable.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the NCLAT's judgment, which had interfered with the NCLT's decision to dismiss the Respondent's application under Section 9 as non-maintainable because of a pre-existing dispute.

The Respondent-Operational Creditor sought insolvency proceedings over an alleged debt of ₹2.92 crore. The Appellant-Corporate Debtor contested this, citing a history of defective solvent supplies and claiming that, after adjustments, the Creditor actually owed them money.

Orders and Other Developments

'Project Will Be Lifeline For Kerala' : Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To EC For Wayanad Tunnel Construction

Case Details: Wayanad Prakrithi Samrakshana Samithi v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 10154/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Environmental Clearance(EC) granted for the Kozhikode-Wayanad tunnel construction in Kerala.

Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal if there was any violation of the conditions of the EC during the construction of the tunnel, the Court rejected the challenge.

During the hearing, the Court observed that the project was of "national importance" and would give a new "lifeline" to the people of Kerala, where there is immense congestion in roads due to high population density and difficulty in procuring land.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Adani's Resolution Plan For Jaiprakash Associates; Urges NCLAT To Hear Vedanta's Appeal On Priority

Case Details – Vedanta Limited v. Bhuvan Madan and Ors.

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which refused to accept the plea of Vedanta Ltd to stay the implementation of Adani Enterprises' resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.

The Court declined interference noting that the NCLAT has posted Vedanta's appeal for hearing on April 10. The Court however requested the NCLAT to hear Vedanta's appeal out of turn on April 10 itself or on the next immediate working day if arguments do not conclude.

The Court further observed that if the monitoring committee needs to take any major policy decision, it must first take the leave of the NCLAT.

NCERT Book Row : Blacklisted Academics Request Supreme Court To Hear Them

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

The three academics, who were blacklisted by the Supreme Court for writing a chapter on corruption in judiciary in the Class 8 Social Science textbook of the NCERT, appeared through their lawyers before the Court, seeking an opportunity of hearing.

They have filed personal affidavits, explaining the context in which they wrote the chapter.

On March 26, the Court had barredthe academics- Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar - who were involved in the preparation of the controversial chapter, from associating with any future academic projects of public institutions. The Court had also passed strong adverse comments against them, observing that "they either do not have reasonable informed knowledge about the Indian Judiciary and/or they deliberately and knowingly have misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian Judiciary to students of Class 8."

Should Biren Singh Be Asked To Give Voice Sample? Supreme Court Asks After NFSU's Inability To Verify Clips

Case Details: Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 702/2024

The Supreme Court (April 6) expressed frustration over the inability of the central forensic laboratories to authenticate the audio clips allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh in the State's ethnic violence. It has asked the Union Government to explore whether Singh could visit the National Forensic Science University (NFSU), Gandhinagar, Gujarat, to give a voice sample.

In Februarylast year, the Court had passed an order seeking production of the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati, in a sealed cover. In May, a bench comprising former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, after expressing dissatisfaction with the report submitted by the Central FSL, had asked for afresh FSL report. In August, the Court directedthe NFSL to take up the exercise after the report of the CFSL indicated no clear findings. Later, in January this year, the Courtdirectedthe National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU) to examine the entire 48-minute clip and compare with the admitted voice of Singh.

When a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran took up the matter, it asked why no central laboratory is able to come up with conclusive findings.

CCTVs In Police Stations | Supreme Court Directs Appearance Of Union Home Secretary ; Asks Why 'Kerala Model' Can't Be Followed

Case Details:

In the suo motu proceedings concerning the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations, the Supreme Court directed the personal presence of the Union Home Secretary on the next date of hearing to assist the Court in issuing directions for effective monitoring of CCTV installations across States. The Court also questioned why other States were not adopting the "Kerala Model" of live monitoring.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the matter.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave, the amicus curiae in the matter, informed the Bench that while most States had complied with the requirement of installing CCTV cameras, significant work remained in establishing dashboard systems for monitoring. He submitted that the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Kerala were "outstandingly good" in this regard. Dave further highlighted that Kerala had developed the most efficient system so far, enabling police officers to directly log in through their phones and monitor police stations in real time, describing it as a "live monitoring" set up.

West Bengal SIR | Nandalal Bose's Grandson Deleted From Electoral Roll; Supreme Court Asks Him To Approach Appellate Tribunal

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 and Connected Cases

The 88-year-old grandson of Nandalal Bose, who illustrated the Indian Constitution, approached the Supreme Court after he was excluded from the electoral roll in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in West Bengal.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, for the applicant, told the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi about the plight of the applicant.

The bench allowed the applicant to approach the Appellate Tribunal against the deletion. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, for the Election Commission of India, assured the bench that necessary assistance will be given to the Tribunal to decide the matter.

'Serious Allegations Against State Police' : Supreme Court Directs NIA To Investigate Judges' Gherao During West Bengal SIR

Case Details – In Re: Safety and Security of Judicial Officers Deputed For Work Relating To SIR of Electoral Rolls In The State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues

The Supreme Court directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over the investigation into incidents involving the gherao of judicial officers in a village in Malda district in West Bengal during Special Intensive Revision (SIR) duty last week.

The NIA has been directed to take over the investigation in the 12 FIRs registered by the local police over the incident, irrespective of the provisions under which the FIRs have been registered. In other words, regardless of whether the scheduled offences under the NIA Act are attracted or not, the NIA can investigate these matters.

The direction was passed after noting that there were serious allegations against the members of the State police.

Judges' Gherao During SIR | Supreme Court Censures West Bengal Chief Secretary, DGP; Drops Further Action

Case Details: In Re: Safety and Security of Judicial Officers Deputed For Work Relating To SIR of Electoral Rolls In The State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues | SMW(C) 3/2026

The Supreme Court dropped action against West Bengal officials over the violence in Malda last week, when seven judicial officers were held hostage during SIR duties.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi had last week, taking suo motu case over the judges' gherao, directed the personal appearance of the Chief Secretary, the DGP, Home Secretary, Malda Collector and SSP, to explain their inaction. These officers were present online.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India questioned the Chief Secretary over the lack of responsiveness. "What is the problem? You don't even entertain the call of the Chief Justice?" CJI asked.

WB SIR | Appeals May Take Time, But Can't Order Interim Inclusion Of Deleted Voters Just Because They're Earlier Mapped: Supreme Court

Case Details – Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court declined to permit the interim inclusion of voters, who failed verification by judicial officers during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, when their appeals are pending.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the appellate process may take some time but the Court cannot allow inclusion of some persons on that basis merely because they appeared in the 2002 roll.

“Persons aggrieved are entitled to file an appeal. Appellate authorities will formulate a fair procedure and natural justice is followed and the final order is passed. That may take a month, that may even take 60 days. We cannot on that contemplation allow some people because they were earlier mapped”, he said.

'There Can't Be Untouchability For 3 Days A Month', Justice Nagarathna On Article 17 Application In Sabarimala Case

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court, on the issue of application of Article 17, remarked that a woman cannot be treated as "untouchable" for three days in a month and then cease to be considered untouchable on the fourth day.

Justice Nagarathna made this comment when Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta criticised the observation in the 2018 Sabarimala judgmentthat the exclusion of women in the age group of 10-50 years from the temple was a form of 'untouchability', violating Article 17 of the Constitution. Article 17 prohibits the practice of untouchability in any form.

In the Sabarimala case, Justice DY Chandrachud's judgment held that the bar on women entry on the notion of menstrual impurity was a form of untouchability, which was prohibited by Article 17.

CCTVs In Police Stations | Attorney General Assures Supreme Court Of Positive Steps In 2 Weeks

Case Details:

In the suo motu case concerning lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations, Attorney General R Venkataramani assured the Supreme Court that positive steps would be taken within 2 weeks.

Representing the Union Home Secretary, whose personal presence was directed by the Court, the AG said he has taken stock of the matter and will hold meetings with the Amicus Curiae (Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave), the Union Home Secretary and other concerned officers to resolve the issues.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.

Supreme Court Questions Non-Implementation Of National Commission For Allied & Healthcare Professions Act; Summons Officer

Case Details: Dr. Dayal Institute of Paramedical Technology v. State of Rajasthan | SLP(C) No. 31145/2025

The Supreme Court flagged the non-implementation of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021, noting that regulations governing paramedical courses under the statute have not yet been framed even five years after its enactment.

A Bench led by Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that the absence of regulations cannot be a ground to stall the enforcement of a Parliamentary statute.

Justice Narasimha remarked, "You can't stop enforcement of an Act just because regulations aren't notified."

India Not Patriarchal Or Gender Stereotyped As The West Understands : Solicitor General To Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Case Details: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr.Its General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija and Ors., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 In W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, submitted before the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala reference that India cannot be characterised as a patriarchal or gender stereotyped society in the manner understood in Western discourse, while opposing the extension of constitutional doctrines such as untouchability to gender-based temple entry restrictions.

Addressing the 9-judge Bench, the Solicitor General stated:

"India is not that patriarchal or gender stereotyped that the West understands."

NEET PG 2025-26 : Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Challenging Cut-off Reduction On April 28

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

The Supreme Court will hear the batch of pleas challenging reduction in the cut-off percentile for NEET-PG 2025-26 on April 28, 2026.

On the previous date, a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe had said it would examine whether the sharp reduction in the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025-26 affects standards in postgraduate medical education.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, for the petitioners, submitted that sufficient number of students qualified NEET PG to fill all available seats without necessitating a reduction in cutoff. However, the available qualified candidates are unable to take admission in the vacant seats because of high fees, he said.

Judgment Allowing Women Entry In Sabarimala Temple Wrong: Centre Tells Supreme Court In 9-Judge Bench Reference

Case Details: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr.Its General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija and Ors., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 In W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Union Government told the Supreme Court that the 2018 judgment permitting entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple was wrongly decided and deserves to be declared a wrong law.

Appearing for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a 9-judge bench that the 2018 ruling requires reconsideration and reversal on legal grounds.

"It is my case that it is wrongly decided and deserves to be declared a wrong law," the Solicitor General stated during the hearing of the Sabarimala reference.

Not Reviewing Sabarimala Verdict In Reference; Only Considering Constitutional Questions, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr.Its General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija and Ors., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 In W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

The Supreme Court (April 7) began hearing the Sabarimala temple reference, which has raised larger questions of law, including on religious denomination and essential religious practice.

The arguments were opened by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who clarified the Union's position that the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, allowing all sections of women to enter the temple, was wrongly decided. But the bench said that since the contour of the present reference is about the interpretation of Articles 25(Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and 26(Freedom to manage religious affairs), the merits of the Sabarimala judgment won't be examined.

Before the hearing commenced, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the original writ petitioners, submitted that her understanding was that the nine-judge Bench was not examining the review petitions, and that the review would be decided separately by the five-judge Bench after the reference questions were answered. The Chief Justice of India indicated that Jaising's understanding was correct and observed that the fate of the review petitions may ultimately depend on the answers rendered in the reference.

'Will Consider If There's Institutional Damage' : Supreme Court Reserves Order In Yatin Oza's Contempt Case

Case Details: Yatin Narendra Oza v. Suo Motu, High Court of Gujarat and Anr., Crl.A. No. 669/2020

The Supreme Court reserved orders in Senior Advocate Yatin Oza's appeal against the Gujarat High Court orderof 2020 which convicted him for criminal contempt over his levelling allegations of maladministration of justice against the High Court.

While reserving orders, Justice JK Maheshwari said that the Court will watch the videos of the subject incident and examine the case from the lens of the "institution" (High Court).

"What the Court is considering is whether damage is to an individual or the institution? Once institutional damage is there, then we have to think in a different manner" said Justice Maheshwari.

Gurugram Child Rape Case : Max Hospital Doctor Gives Explanation To Supreme Court, Denies Changing Medical Opinion

Case Details: Xxx v. State of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2026

In the rape caseof a 4-year old minor girl from Gurugram, a doctor of Max Hospital, who was issued a show-cause notice, submitted before the Supreme Court that she did not change her medical opinion with regard to the child's condition.

Dr Babita Jain, Principal Director and Head of Department (Paediatrics), Max Healthcare, Gurugram, who interacted with the 4-year old victim and prepared her case sheet, categorically denied having been influenced to change her medical opinion.

"I have not changed my medical opinion in any manner through report dated...Any submission to the contrary given by any party to the present case is incorrect", she said in her affidavit.

Supreme Court Directs Sealing Of 44 Unauthorised Properties In Meerut, Pulls Up Officer For Defying Demolition Orders

Case Details: Lokesh Kumar Khurana v. Rajendra Kumar Barjatya, Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 877/2025 In C.A. No. 14604/2024, Bimalendu Pradhan v. State of Odishaand Connected Cases.

The Supreme Court (April 7) directed the immediate sealing of 44 properties in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, after discovering that residential plots had been illegally converted into commercial establishments, schools, and hospitals, many operating without sanctioned plans or basic fire safety measures.

While hearing a contempt petition in a matter relating to the unauthorized conversion of residential premises into commercial establishments without approved layouts, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan took serious exception to the conduct of the former Meerut Divisional Commissioner, Rishikesh Bhaskar Yashod, who was personally present in Court.

The bench questioned under what authority he chose to disregard earlier judicial directionsagainst unauthorised construction by issuing an order stating that certain commercial establishments in Meerut's Central Market area would not be demolished “at present.”

Sabarimala Reference | Never Understood What Transformative Constitutionalism Is : Solicitor General Questions 'Constitutional Morality'

Before the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court hearing the Sabarimala reference, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta questioned the use of concepts such as transformative constitutionalism and constitutional morality as standards to adjudicate claims under Article 25 of the Constitution.

He submitted that constitutional morality cannot be a ground of judicial review and expressed difficulty in understanding the doctrine of transformative constitutionalism.

"Transformative constitutionalism, I have not been able to understand it. I have been hearing this for some years, but in my limited understanding, I couldn't understand," SG Mehta submitted.

How Can Non-Devotees Of Lord Ayyappa Challenge Sabarimala Custom? Supreme Court Asks

The 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court, hearing the reference on the Constitutional questions arising from the Sabarimala temple women-entry case, asked how persons who are not devotees of Lord Ayyappa could challenge the temple custom.

It was on a Public Interest Litigation filed by an organisation named "Indian Young Lawyers Association" that the Supreme Court in 2018 struck downthe restriction on the entry of women in the age group of 10-50 years to the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa temple.

Justice BV Nagarathna, part of the 9-judge bench, asked if the petitioner was an organisation of devotees. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta replied that they were not.

Sabarimala Reference | Judicial Review Over Superstitious Practices Not Barred, Says Supreme Court In Hearing

Case Details: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr.Its General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija and Ors., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 In W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

While hearing the Sabarimala Reference, the Supreme Court verbally expressed that Courts cannot be barred from striking down practises or 'superstition' if they violate public order, morality or health, even if the legislature has powers to make laws for reform of religion under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.

The Court also remarked that any 'Essential Religious Practice' (ERP) has to be seen from the philosophical lens of the particular religion in question alone.

The 9-judge Constitution bench led by CJI Surya Kant, and comprising Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the reference.

Sabarimala Reference | Centre Questions Verdicts Decriminalising Adultery & Homosexuality For Applying 'Constitutional Morality'

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India in the Sabarimala review proceedings, has criticised the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment in Joseph Shine striking down the offence of adultery under Section 497 of the IPC, arguing that it reflects an impermissible expansion of judicial review through reliance on “constitutional morality”.

He has said that constitutional morality has been erroneously used in some judgments to “exercise the power of judicial review when no other ground is found to invalidate a legislative or executive action.”

“It is pertinent to note that 'constitutional morality' is not textually present in the Constitution, rather it is a judicially evolved, vague and indeterminate concept. Hence, the expansion of the term 'morality', which is explicitly referred to in the Constitution to mean and include 'constitutional morality', amounts to not only judicial overreach but an amendment of the Constitution”, he has further contended.

Don't Take Child Trafficking Lightly, Gangs Operating Across Country : Supreme Court Tells State Home Secretaries

Case Details – Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

The Supreme Court implored States and Union Territories to not take child trafficking lightly, stressing that the issue involves serious law and order concerns and requires urgent action at the level of State authorities.

“Kindly take this issue very very seriously. Child trafficking is at a rampage. There are gangs operating across the country. If you all don't pay attention to this things will be beyond control. And it is only the state government and its Home Department that can act vigilantly in this regard. As a court we can monitor, but ultimately the action has to be on the part of the state government, the police, the other agencies. Therefore this is our humble request”, Justice JB Pardiwala said.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan while interacting with Home Secretaries appearing online, said trafficking networks are operating across the country and stressed that effective action must come from State machinery.

'Forest Guard Run Over In Chambal Sanctuary While Attempting To Stop Tractor Carrying Sand': Amicus Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: Illegal Sand Mining In The National Chambal Sanctuary and Threat To Endangered Aquatic Wildlife Versus, SMW(C) No. 2/2026

An urgent mentioning was made before the Supreme Court regarding the alleged murder of a forest guard in Madhya Pradesh's National Chambal Sanctuary region when he attempted to stop a tractor carrying illegally mined sand.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took note of the incident, stated to have taken place, based on an application filed by the Amicus Curiae in the suo motu case taken up over illegal sand mining in the region. The matter will be heard next week.

As per reports, forest guard-Harkesh Gurjar, 33, attempted to stop the tractor during a patrol, but he was run over by the vehicle and died on the spot.

Supreme Court Orders Demolition Of Illegal Setbacks In 859 Meerut Properties Within 2 Months; Bars Compounding

Case Details: Lokesh Kumar Khurana v. Rajendra Kumar Barjatya, Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 877/2025 In C.A. No. 14604/2024, Bimalendu Pradhan v. State of Odisha and Connected Cases.

In a continuation of its crackdown on unauthorized and widespread illegal constructions in Uttar Pradesh's Meerut, the Supreme Court (April 9) ordered the demolition of all unauthorized setbacks across 859 properties within two months, while pulling up the Uttar Pradesh authorities for allowing schools, hospitals, and even nationalized banks to operate from buildings that were "absolutely illegal and unauthorized."

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan made it clear that the "rule of law cannot succumb to public hue and cry," as it directed the authorities to demolish all setbacks, i.e., the mandatory open spaces around buildings that had been illegally encroached upon, across every single one of the 859 properties in the Shastri Nagar scheme area.

The proceedings arise from a contempt petition where the Court has been examining large-scale illegal constructions in Meerut's Shastri Nagar area. It may be recalled that on the last date of hearing on April 6, 2026, the Court had pulled up the former Meerut Divisional Commission for its earlier order halting the demolition of the illegal structure in defiance of the Court's order. The Court was informed that there were a total of 859 unauthorized structures, out of which 44 were used for commercial purposes.

'Infiltrators Getting Aadhaar Cards' : PIL In Supreme Court Seeks To Limit Aadhaar Enrolment Only For Children Below 6 Years

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

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking that an Aadhaar Card 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.

The PIL has been filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay impleading the Union of India, the States/Union Territories and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). It seeks a direction to the UIDAI to issue new Aadhaar card 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.

Further, the petitioner seeks directions for the conspicuous display of punishment for obtaining government documents by filing false documents. He also seeks installation of a 'Display Board' at Common Service Centres and other places, mentioning that 'Aadhaar is proof of Identity only, Not of Citizenship, Address and Date of Birth'.

Sampradayas Attached To Temple Must Be Followed While Visiting It: Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

In the course of hearing the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court observed that while Hinduism does not impose a rigid denominational structure, devotees visiting a particular temple are required to adhere to the sampradayas or customs associated with that temple.

A 9-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the reference.

Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, who appeared for organisations including the Nair Service Society, Ayyappa Seva Samajam and Kshetra Samrakshana Samiti, submitted that Hinduism does not have a strict structure, and has various pluralistic practices within.

Excluding Other Denominations From Temples Will Affect Hinduism : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court commented that the exclusion of other denominations from denominational temples will affect Hinduism.

The comment was made by Justice BV Nagarathna, who is part of the 9-judge bench which is hearing the Constitutional issues referred in the Sabarimala review matter.

Justice Nagarathna made the observation while Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, who is appearing for the Nair Service Society and religious organisations from Kerala, was making his submissions. Vaidyanathan put forth an argument that Article 26(b) - which gives the right to a religious denomination to manage its own affairs - would prevail over Article 25(2)(b) - which allows the State to make law for reform within a religion or to throw open all Hindu religious institutions of public character to all sections of Hindus.

There Are Temples Where Only Women Can Go : Centre To Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Case Details: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr.Its General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija and Ors., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 In W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

The Union Government argued that there can be either male or female-centric restrictions imposed by the religions, and it has nothing to do with gender stereotypes or patriarchy. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta(for the Union) concluded his arguments on the Sabarimala reference being heard by a nine-judge Constitution bench on the larger issues of religious freedom.

Mehta told the Court that the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, which allowed entry of women of all ages to the temple, is wrong as it proceeds on the presumption that men are superior and women are on a lower pedestal. Whereas, the restriction has nothing to do with gender.

"In my written submissions...I have given instances of temples where men are not allowed because it is a Devi Bhagwati temple, and there are some faith and beliefs. I have mentioned the details that there are male priests are under a religious mandate to wash the feet of women devotees. There are temples, like Pushkar temple, the only Brahma temple, in the country where married men are not allowed."

'Don't Rush To Court' : Supreme Court To Advocate Who Filed 25 PILs

Case Details: Sachin Gupta v. Union of India WP(C) 444/2026

The Supreme Court, in a single stroke, dismissed 25 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions filed by one advocate as party-in-person.

As soon as the matter was taken, the petitioner, Sachin Gupta, told the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi that he wanted to withdraw the matters.

"You should approach the authorities make them wiser on certain issues instead of rushing to the court. When appropriate stage will come we will entertain your petitions," the CJI told the petitioner.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Stop Caste Census, Questions 'Badtameezi Ki Language' In Petition

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Union Government to stop the proposed caste census, link redistribution of resources to population responsibility, and frame policies to provide economic incentives to families with a single child.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi refused to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner appearing in person.

During the hearing, the Court expressed strong disapproval over the language used in the petition.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea To Repatriate Indians Allegedly Forced By Russia To Fight Ukraine War

Case Details: Divya v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000451 / 2026

The Supreme Court sought the response of the Union Government on a habeas corpus petition filed seeking directions to facilitate the safe repatriation of 26 Indian nationals who are allegedly detained in Russia and forced to fight the war against Ukraine.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi issued notice to the Centre after the Solicitor General sought time to obtain instructions in the matter. The Court directed that the notice be made returnable within one week.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners submitted that there had been "continuous and uninterrupted inaction" on the part of the authorities, and alleged that the stranded individuals were being compelled to participate in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Tamil Nadu SIR | Supreme Court Rejects Plea Of Candidate Deleted From Electoral Roll; ECI Says 'It's Too Late'

Case Details: C Geetha v. Chief Electoral Officer | SLP(C) No. 13042/2026

The Supreme Court rejected a plea filed by a person whose name was deleted from the electoral roll following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Tamil Nadu, after the Election Commission of India (ECI) opposed the request on the ground that the challenge was belated.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition filed by C Geetha.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the deletion of the petitioner's name was unjustified as she had been on the electoral roll continuously since 2007 and possessed multiple identity documents demonstrating eligibility. He told the Court that the petitioner held a passport, Aadhaar card, and earlier Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC), and questioned what further proof could be required to establish his entitlement.

Supreme Court Stays Criminal Proceedings Against Pastor For Saying Christianity Is Only True Religion

Case Details: Vineet Vincent Pereira Alias Father Vineet Vincent Paresh v. State of U.P. | Diary No. - 20718/2026

The Supreme Court (April 10) issued notice on the plea of a Christian pastor challenging the Allahabad High Court's order, which observed that preaching that one's religion is the only true religion would attract the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs).

According to the High Court, it was wrong for any person to claim in secular India that a particular religion is the "only true religion", as doing so implies a 'disparagement' of other faiths and the same.

Issuing notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh on the plea against the High Court's order, the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also stayed the further proceedings against Reverend Father Vineet Vincent Pereira, the petitioner.

Supreme Court Slams Ghaziabad Police Over Faulty Probe In Rape-Murder Of 4 Yr Old, Flags Hospitals' Lapses

Case Details: W.P.(Crl.) No. 139/2026 | XXX v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to appear in person in a case concerning the rape and murder of a 4-year-old child, flagging the failure of the police to invoke sexual assault provisions and the refusal of two private hospitals to treat the child when she was still alive.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that the conduct of the private hospitals as well as the local police was inhuman and insensitive.

“This case also exhibits complete indifferent, inhuman and insensitive approach of two private hospitals as well as the local police”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Asks CBI To Investigate Wife's FIR Alleging Sexual Abuse Of Daughter By Husband Amid Matrimonial Dispute

The Supreme Court handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation the investigation of an FIR lodged by a woman against her husband alleging sexual offences against their 11-year-old daughter, after the husband won custody of the daughter.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan passed the order, keeping in mind the sensitivity of the case. It stated, "We want the First Information Report lodged by the mother, i.e., the respondent before us to be investigated in the right direction and in accordance with law. In such circumstances, we are of the view that we should direct the CBI to take over the investigation from the investigating agency in-charge of the investigation as on date."

Supreme Court Allows Transwoman To Apply As Transgender For Delhi Teaching Posts Regardless Of Gender Notified For Vacancy

Case Details: Jane Kaushik v. Lieutenant Governor, NCT of Delhi & Ors., SLP(C) No. 12480/2026

The Supreme Court came to the aid of a transgender person, who has been filing repeated petitions seeking protection of her employment rights, by allowing her, as an interim measure, to apply as a transgender person to teaching posts advertised by the Delhi Government regardless of the gender mentioned against a particular vacancy.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by Jane Kaushik, who was aggrieved by the Delhi Directorate of Education and the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) notifying teachers' posts only in either male or female categories. She has  registered as a 'transgender person' in the DSSSB's online Academic Registration System (OARS) portal.

She approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court disposed of her petition asking her to approach the Advisory Committee constituted by the Supreme Court in 2025, in another petition filed by Jane Kaushik herself.