Judgments
'Justice Should Also Be Seen To Be Done' : Supreme Court Directs Another Disciplinary Authority To Decide After Employee Alleged Bias
Case Details: National Bal Bhawan & Anr. v. Khazan Chand & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 363
Reaffirming the foundational principle of procedural fairness, the Supreme Court has held that a disciplinary authority against whom an employee has previously levelled allegations of bias must recuse from the proceedings, stressing that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.
A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan upheld the invalidity of the disciplinary proceedings conducted by an authority against a delinquent employee, who had earlier expressed a lack of faith in her. The Court emphasized that where a disciplinary authority has already been the subject of allegations by the employee, the authorities must exercise caution to ensure that the process remains beyond reproach.
"We are reminded of the maxim that “justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done," the Court observed,
Courts Cannot Re-Adjudicate Settled Issues In Contempt Jurisdiction, Can Only Examine Compliance : Supreme Court
Case Details: Jalim Singh v. Nand Kishore & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 364
The Supreme Court has observed that, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, it is impermissible for the concerned courts to transgress their limits by re-adjudicating issues already decided in the original proceedings, and they must confine themselves to ensuring compliance with binding directions.
“The jurisdiction in contempt proceedings is confined to examining compliance with the directions issued and does not extend to re-adjudication of issues which stand concluded.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The Bench was hearing a matter where the appellant–employee, despite having secured a favourable order from the Allahabad High Court granting full salary and benefits for the suspension period, was not paid his retiral dues, compelling him to initiate contempt proceedings before the High Court. However, instead of limiting its inquiry to ensuring compliance with its earlier directions, the High Court dismissed the contempt petition by re-adjudicating the issues and holding the appellant ineligible for retirement benefits.
Discrimination Is The Other Name Of Injustice: Supreme Court Grants Promotion Relief To Employee Denied Relaxation
Case Details: Kamal Prasad Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 365
The Supreme Court has set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that denied promotion to a cooperative society employee, holding that the refusal to grant relaxation in educational qualification despite granting similar relaxation to others amounted to discriminatory treatment violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that “discrimination is the other name of injustice” and emphasized that substantive justice requires adherence to the doctrine of equality in public employment.
Spouse Cannot Withdraw Consent For Mutual Divorce After Agreeing For It In Settlement Of Claims : Supreme Court
Case Details: Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 366
The Supreme Court has observed that while a spouse is legally entitled to withdraw consent for the grant of divorce on mutual agreement, such consent cannot be withdrawn when the parties had earlier agreed to dissolve their marriage in full and final settlement of all disputes.
The Court made this observation while coming down heavily on a wife for attempting to back out of a court-approved mediation settlement.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing an appeal by the husband challenging an order of the Delhi High Court, which had permitted continuation of domestic violence proceedings despite a mediation settlement that expressly barred future litigation between the parties.
Supreme Court Suspends PC Act Sentence Of Ex-Jharkhand Minister Anosh Ekka; Flags 'Overlapping' CBI Prosecutions
Case Details: Anosh Ekka v. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 367
The Supreme Court (April 13) granted relief to former Jharkhand Cabinet Minister Anosh Ekka in a disproportionate assets case by releasing him on bail during the pendency of his appeal, after being apprised of dual prosecutions by the CBI based on the same set of allegations.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision, which refused to allow his Section 389 Cr.P.C. application seeking a suspension of sentence pending an appeal. The Court said that the High Court is expected to take note of the fact while hearing an appeal that whether two separate prosecutions could continue against the Appellant in light of overlapping allegations.
“A fervent contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant that two separate prosecutions were impermissible because the allegations in both the cases are overlapping. This aspect of the case would have to be gone into by the High Court while deciding the pending appeals.”, the court observed.
S.156(3) CrPC/S.175(3) BNSS | Magistrate's Order For Investigation Can't Be Quashed By Relying On Accused's Defence : Supreme Court
Case Details: Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of Karnataka & Anr. Etc.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 368
The Supreme Court has observed that High Courts, while exercising their inherent discretionary powers, cannot derail a police investigation directed by a Magistrate when the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence.
It held that at this stage, the Court must remain confined to the allegations in the complaint and the material placed by the complainant and cannot go beyond them to examine the defences put forward by the accused.
“…the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, should not travel beyond the allegations contained in the complaint and the material placed by the complainant by delving into the defences sought to be projected by the accused-respondents.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta while setting aside the Karnataka High Court's decision interfering with the ongoing investigation upon examining the defences put forth by the accused.
Law Does Not Favour The Indolent: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arbitration Initiated After 21-Year Delay
Case Details – State of West Bengal & Ors. v. M/S B.B.M. Enterprises
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 369
The Supreme Court quashed arbitration proceedings between the State of West Bengal and a contractor, holding that the claim was ex facie time barred as the notice invoking arbitration was issued after 21 years from completion of work.
“Arbitration though is an alternate dispute resolution system, which has to be encouraged, it cannot deviate from the fundamental principle that law favours the diligent and not the indolent”, the Court said.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was dealing with a dispute arising from a contract where the work had been completed on July 30, 2000. The contractor issued a notice seeking commencement of arbitration only on June 02, 2022.
Convicts Sentenced To Only Fine Also Entitled To Benefit Of Probation Of Offenders Act : Supreme Court
Case Details: Milind S/O Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 370
The Supreme Court has observed that offenders sentenced only to payment of a fine can still be granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ordered the release of convicts, who were convicted under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC for assault and were sentenced to only a fine of Rs. 500-2,000/- without any substantive punishment.
The Court rejected the 'narrow' construction of the term 'release' under Section 4 of the 1958 Act, stating that “'release' cannot mean release only from custody. It has to be read as releasing from the obligation to serve a sentence of payment of fine.”
Kerala Agriculture Income Tax | Amalgamating Company's Loss Can't Be Set-Off From Income Of Amalgamated Company : Supreme Court
Case Details: Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 371
The Supreme Court has observed that a loss suffered by an amalgamating company cannot be set off against the income of an amalgamated company upon amalgamation unless permitted by a statute.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a batch of appeals filed against the Kerala High Court's judgment, which declined the plea for setting off a loss of the amalgamating company out of the income of the amalgamated company.
The Court said in the absence of any provision contained under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991, a set-off of a loss of an amalgamating company is impermissible from the income of an amalgamated company.
Declaratory Decree Can't Be Set Aside Merely Because Plaintiff Didn't Seek Its Execution: Supreme Court
Case Details: Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 372
The Supreme Court has observed that the mere non-execution of a decree passed in a declaratory suit, particularly where the plaintiff is already in possession of the property, cannot be a valid ground to justify a delayed challenge to that decree.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Rajasthan High Court's ruling that had affirmed the remand of the respondent's appeal for fresh consideration, which had been filed after an inordinate delay of 31 years from the decree passed in favour of the appellant.
The decree was passed in 1975; however, the appeal was only filed in 2006, which was rejected on the grounds of limitation by the First Appellate Authority. However, the revenue board remanded the appeal for a fresh hearing, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court, prompting the plaintiff to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Appoints Former Madras HC CJ As Administrator To Clear Jaiput Udyog Ltd Workers' Dues
Case Details: Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, U.P. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 373
In a significant development, the Supreme Court (April 15) appointed former Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava as Court Administrator to verify and oversee the long-pending issue of unpaid dues along with PF claims of thousands of workers of Jaipur Udyog Ltd. (JUL), directing completion of the exercise by August 31, 2026.
“An exercise be carried out in a time bound manner for verification of dues of the workmen in order to clear that liability within a period of four months…Needful be done finally by 31.08.2026.”, the court ordered.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that the worker's dues can be settled from the proceeds of money out of the sale of the properties of JAL and its subsidiary M/s Jai Agro Industries Ltd. (JAIL).
Deposition Of Hostile Witness Acceptable To Creditworthy Extent : Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Kerala v. K.A. Abdul Rasheed
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 374
The Supreme Court (April 15) held that courts cannot discard the testimony of a hostile witness in its entirety and must instead identify and rely on the “creditworthy” portions of such evidence.
“…every court considering the deposition of a hostile witness has to look at the extent of the deposition, which is creditworthy to provide proof, of the case set up.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran while setting aside an acquittal in a corruption case, holding that the mere fact that the complainant turned hostile cannot justify acquittal when the demand and acceptance of a bribe are otherwise proved.
The case arose from allegations that Respondent, a Taluk Supply Officer (TSO), had demanded a bribe of ₹500 from the complainant for performing an official act, countersigning an abstract related to his work.
Bank Liable For Delay In Presenting Cheque : Supreme Court Upholds Penalty Under Consumer Protection Act
Case Details: Canara Bank v. Kavita Chowdhary
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 375
The Supreme Court (April 15) held that a failure of the bank to present the cheque within the prescribed validity period of the cheque without any reasonable explanation would amount to 'deficiency in service' under the Consumer Protection Act.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the liability of the Canara Bank for deficiency in rendering service to its customer, who had deposited the cheque with the bank, but the bank failed to present the instruments before the expiry of the validity period of the cheque, rendering the check to be dishonoured with the remark “stale cheque.”
“A bank receiving cheques for collection acts as an agent of the customer and is under an obligation to exercise due diligence in presenting the instruments within the prescribed validity period. Failure to do so resulting in the instrument becoming stale, in the absence of any reasonable explanation, would result in negligence in the discharge of banking duties which would constitute deficiency in rendering service within the meaning of the consumer protection law.”, the Court said.
Discharged Accused Stands On Better Footing Than One Acquitted After Criminal Trial : Supreme Court
Case Details: Ex. Sqn. Ldr. R. Sood v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 376
The Supreme Court has observed that an accused discharged of a criminal offence stands on a better footing than an accused acquitted after a trial, because discharge happens at the pre-trial stage due to the lack of evidence.
"Discharge signifies and reinforces the position that there is no material against the accused for him to stand trial," the Court observed.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard a case involving an ex-Air Force officer who was dismissed from service following a disciplinary inquiry initiated after his discharge in a criminal case.
Air Force Act | Disciplinary Proceedings Can't Be Initiated Against Officer Discharged In Criminal Trial On Same Charge : Supreme Court
Case Details: Ex. Sqn. Ldr. R. Sood v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 376
The Supreme Court (April 15) observed that once the defence forces have elected a continuation of criminal proceedings over the disciplinary proceedings, then acquittal in a criminal proceeding would bar the subsequent initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against a defence personnel.
Setting aside the Delhi High Court's Division bench judgment, a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice KV Viswanathan restored the honour of an ex-Air Force personnel, with granting consequential service benefits nearly after three decades, who was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry post-acquittal in a criminal proceeding.
“…the Air Force upon electing to have the alleged offence tried by the criminal court, it is clear (in view of the discussion above) that they then cannot fall back on either a court martial or any disciplinary action. Once the road is chosen, the traveller must walk it to the end.”, observed the court, emphasizing that “once the appellant has been discharged by the criminal court, that should mark the end of the matter.”
Distinction Between 'Seat' & 'Venue' Of Arbitration : Supreme Court Summarises Principles
Case Details: J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 377
The Supreme Court has reiterated that merely conducting arbitral proceedings at a place different from the designated seat of arbitration does not confer jurisdiction on the courts of that location.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's decision, which had refused to entertain the Appellant's Section 34 plea for challenging the award, merely because the arbitration proceedings were conducted in New Delhi, while ignoring the fact that the parties had mutually agreed to designate Srinagar as a seat of arbitration.
“The seat of arbitration is governed by the agreement of the parties and not by any stray recital in the award. Once the seat of arbitration is fixed, it remains immutable unless altered by an express agreement. In the absence of any agreement, the designation of Srinagar as seat of the arbitration continues to hold the field…Once such a designation was made, the legal consequence that inexorably follows is that courts at Srinagar alone would have supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral proceeding. The mere fact that arbitral tribunal for reasons of convenience, conducted proceeding at New Delhi or rendered the award at that place does not and cannot, alter the juridical seat of arbitration.”, the court observed.
'Rape Case Filed After Failed Rs 30 Crore Settlement' : Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To IT Entrepreneur
Case Details: Venu Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 378
The Supreme Court (April 16) granted anticipatory bail to a businessman accused of rape and sexual harassment, observing that the complaint against him appeared to have been filed after the failure of a proposed financial settlement of ₹30 crore between the parties.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeal filed by Kerala-based IT entrepreneur Venu Gopalakrishnan and set aside the Kerala High Court's order which had denied him anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered at Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam under Sections 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 64(rape), 74(outraging modesty of woman), 75(sexual harassment) and 79(insulting woman's modesty) read with Section 3(5)(common intention) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67A(transmitting sexually explicit acts) of the Information Technology Act.
The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail upon furnishing cash security of ₹1 lakh with two sureties, subject to cooperation with the investigation and a condition that he shall not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Supreme Court Issues SOP Mandating Strict Timeline Framework For Filing Legal Aid Appeals
Case Details: Shankar Mahto v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 379
The Supreme Court (April 16) issued a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prescribing binding timelines for translation, transmission, and filing of records in legal aid appeals, alongside directions for the creation of a unified digital platform to enable real-time monitoring.
The issue relates back to 2017, when the Supreme Court first took note of delays in legal aid appeals. Despite years of deliberations involving institutions such as the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) and the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), the problem persisted.
Data placed before the Court revealed that hundreds of legal aid applications remained pending, while systems failed to even track delays in filing appeals, highlighting structural inefficiencies in the legal aid framework.
Supreme Court Upholds COFEPOSA Detention Of Kannada Actress Ranya Rao In Gold Smuggling Case
Case Details: Priyanka Sarkariya v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 380
The Supreme Court upheld the preventive detention order passed by the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) against Kannada actress Ranya Rao alias Harshavardhini Ranya for allegedly smuggling gold into the country. The Court also upheld the detention of her aide Sahil Sarkariya Jain under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA).
A Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed the Special Leave Petitions challenging the detention orders dated April 22, 2025, which had earlier been upheldby the Karnataka High Court.
Background
Wife & Her Family Cannot Be Prosecuted For 'Dowry-Giving' Based On Her Complaint Against Husband For Taking Dowry : Supreme Court
Case Details: Rahul Gupta v. Station House Officer and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 381
The Supreme Court (April 16) held that a woman or his family members could not be subjected to proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act for 'giving' dowry based on the averments made by them in their complaint against the 'dowry takers'.
A bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed an appeal filed by a husband who sought to have an FIR registered against his wife and her family.
The husband argued that because his wife had admitted to providing dowry in her own legal complaint against him, she had effectively confessed to a crime under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act), which penalizes the "giving" of dowry. However, the court rejected his attempt to use her allegations as a basis for criminal proceedings against her.
High Courts Must Act As Guardians Of District Judiciary, Not Castigate Judges In Orders: Supreme Court
Case Details: Shuvendu Saha v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 382
The Supreme Court has cautioned that it has become a trend for High Courts to castigate judicial officers and record adverse remarks or strictures against them while exercising supervisory, appellate or revisional jurisdiction, stressing that such an approach is inconsistent with the institutional role of High Courts as guardians of the district judiciary.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that when infirmities are noticed in orders passed by judicial officers, the immediate reaction should not be to make disparaging observations in judicial orders, particularly because High Courts, being courts of record, are expected to protect and guide officers in the subordinate judiciary.
"Before parting, we may record a discordant note that it has become a recent trend to castigate Judicial Officers and record adverse remarks/strictures against them in judicial orders passed by the High Court in the exercise of supervisory, appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The High Court, being a Court of record in the State, is expected to act as the guardian of the Officers in district judiciary. While finding infirmities in the order passed by a Judicial Officer, the immediate reaction ought not to be to make adverse or disparaging observations against the concerned Judicial Officer in a judicial dispensation."
Plaint Can't Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 As Barred Under Order II Rule 2 CPC : Supreme Court
Case Details: S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 383
In a significant clarification regarding the Code of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court has held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC.
The Court observed that while deciding an application for rejection of plaint, the inquiry must be confined strictly to the averments made in the plaint. It is impermissible for courts at this stage to undertake a detailed comparison of pleadings or examine whether a subsequent suit is barred under Order II Rule 2, as such a determination requires evidence and cannot be decided at the threshold.
A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an appeal against the Madras High Court's decision to reject a subsequent suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The appellants challenged the High Court's approach of undertaking a detailed examination of pleadings and documents in both the earlier and subsequent suits at the threshold stage. They argued that the question of whether a suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC can only be determined on the basis of evidence during trial, and not at the preliminary stage by invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Even In Ex Parte Suits, Courts Must Frame 'Points For Determination' & Deliver Reasoned Judgments : Supreme Court
Case Details: Pramod Shroff v. Mohan Singh Chopra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 384
The Supreme Court has observed that although formal framing of issues may not be mandatory in ex-parte civil suits, courts are nonetheless required to identify and decide “points for determination."
Though framing of issues is not mandatory, if the omission to frame the same causes prejudice to the parties, then the same can vitiate the trial, the Court stated.
“…even in default or ex parte suits, the court should identify the legal points (even if obvious) and give a reasoned answer. Simply granting a decree on default is not enough under Section 2(9) of CPC doing so would be a “material irregularity”. Thus, points should be framed (or recited from existing pleadings) and addressed regardless of default.”, the court observed.
Landlord's Bona Fide Need To Be Assessed As On Date Of Eviction Petition Unless Subsequent Events Cause Material Change : Supreme Court
Case Details: Maria Martins v. Noel Zuzarte and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 385
The Supreme Court has reiterated that in eviction petitions, the adjudication of a landlord's bona fide need must ordinarily be assessed as on the date when the eviction suit was filed, unless a subsequent event materially changes the ground of relief. Applying this principle, the Court remanded a 31-year-old eviction dispute to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
A Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Bombay High Court's order dismissing the landlord's writ petition and held that the High Court failed to properly consider whether the subsequent developments relied upon by the tenant had a material bearing on the landlord's right to eviction.
Background
'Apply Preventive Detention Against Mining Mafia' : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Curb Illegal Mining In Chambal Sanctuary
Case Details: In Re: Illegal Sand Mining In The National Chambal Sanctuary and Threat To Endangered Aquatic Wildlife Versus, SMW(C) No. 2/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 386
In the suo motu case taken up over illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary region, the Supreme Court passed stringent directions for immediate compliance in order to curb illegal activities in the area.
Notably, it called on the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and UP to come up with effective measures to tackle the illegal mining activities and warned that in case of failure, the Court would be constrained to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to impose directions including - a complete ban on sand mining in MP and Rajasthan, heavy penalty on the states for failing to safeguard the critical habitats and deployment of paramilitary/central forces.
Among other things, the court ordered confiscation proceedings for vehicles/machinery found involved in illegal sand mining, imposition of environmental compensation on violators, constitution of joint patrol teams and deployment of security personnel equipped with modern equipment, protective gear and arms, development of Standard Operating Procedure by states, etc.
Duty To Maintain Spouse Primary; Loan Repayments For Asset Creation No Ground To Reduce Maintenance Liability: Supreme Court
Case Details: Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 387
The Supreme Court observed that deductions arising out of financial commitments such as loan repayments, particularly where they contribute towards creation of assets, cannot be treated on par with necessary expenditure so as to substantially reduce the liability of maintenance. The Court emphasized that the obligation to maintain a spouse is a primary duty and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih enhanced the maintenance payable to a wife from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 per month, holding that loan repayments leading to acquisition of assets partake the character of capital investment and cannot be equated with essential or unavoidable expenditure.
Background
Clause Saying 'Can Be Settled By Arbitration' Does Not Create Mandate To Arbitrate : Supreme Court
Case Details: Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 388
The Supreme Court (April 17) held that an arbitration clause employing the word “can” does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal filed against the Bombay High Court's decision, which held that Clause 25 of the Bill of Lading containing the arbitration agreement lacked the essential attributes of a valid arbitration agreement as it stated that the dispute 'can be settled by arbitration'.
“…the words used in the agreement should disclose a determination and obligation to go for arbitration and not only provide for the possibility of going to arbitration. When the word provides only a possibility, the same does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement.”, the court endorsed the observation made in Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander, 2007 (5) SCC 719.
Sale Of Accused's Property Can't Be Ordered As Bail Condition : Supreme Court
Case Details: Feroze Basha & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 389
The Supreme Court has held that bail conditions must not be punitive or determinative in nature and cannot deprive an accused of their right to use their property by requiring the sale of that property as a condition for bail.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside a Madras High Court order that had required the sale of immovable properties of the accused as a condition for the grant of bail in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case.
“…we are of considered opinion that neither Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 nor Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 would enable a Court at the stage of bail or investigation to direct the sale of immovable property belonging to accused for settlement of alleged claims.”, the court observed.
Ad Hoc Employees Appointed Without Recruitment Advertisements Or Interviews Cannot Be Regularised: Supreme Court
Case Details – Madan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 390
The Supreme Court partly set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had quashed a set of Haryana government policies aimed at regularising contractual, ad hoc and daily wage employees. The Court upheld the validity of two notifications issued on June 16, 2014 and June 18, 2014, but struck down two notifications issued on July 7, 2014.
A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar noted that the July 2014 notifications sought to regularise those ad hoc employees who were not appointed following a proper recruitment process initiated via a public advertisement, thus violating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006).
In the Umadevi judgment, the Supreme Court held that public employment must ordinarily be filled through a proper recruitment process and that contractual or ad hoc employees cannot be regularised as a matter of course. The Court had, however, permitted a limited “one-time measure” to regularise employees who had worked for over ten years as of April 10, 2006 without court protection.
Orders and Other Developments
Umar Khalid Files Review Petition Against Supreme Court's Bail Denial; Seeks Open Court Hearing
Case Details: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT Delhi | Review Petition__/2026
Umar Khalid has filed a review petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to review the January 5 order, which denied him bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The matter is listed.
It may be recalled that a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria had denied bail to Khalid and another co-accused, Sharjeel Imam, observing that the materials showed a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It stated that prosecution materials prima facie disclosed "a central and formative role" and "involvement in the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction extending beyond episodic and localised acts."
At the same time, the Court granted bail to some of the other accused in the case - Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.
Supreme Court Allows Lalu Prasad Yadav To Raise Issue Of S.17A PC Act Sanction During Trial Of 'Land-for-Railway Jobs' Case
Case Details - Lalu Prasad Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The Supreme Court allowed RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav to raise the issue of the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the alleged land-for-jobs case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation during the trial.
The Court also dispensed with his personal appearance during the trial.
Dictating the order, the Bench observed that it was not expressing any view on the issue of whether Section 17A operates prospectively or retrospectively. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise the legal issue at the time of trial. The Court further clarified that the earlier High Court order, which refused to quash the case, would not stand in the way of the petitioner raising the contention before the trial court.
Supreme Court 3-Judge Bench To Hear Teesta Setalvad's Plea To Release Passport Surrendered As Bail Condition
Case Details: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, MA 1233/2026 In Crl.A. No. 2022/2023
The Supreme Court (April 13) directed that the Miscellaneous Application filed by human rights activist Teesta Setalvad for the release of her passport be listed before a three-judge bench.
It may be recalled that Setalvad was granted regular bail in 2023 in the Gujarat police case over the alleged fabrication of evidence in the 2002 riots cases. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai(now retired), AS Bopanna(now retired) and Dipankar Datta quashed the Gujarat High Court's order, which denied her regular bail.
One of the conditions imposed for bail was that Setalvad's passport would continue to be in the custody of the Sessions Court.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Farmers' Plea Seeking MSP Fixation Based On Actual Cost Of Cultivation
Case Details: Prakash Gopalrao Pohare v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 384/2026
The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Union Government to accord effective weightage to the exact cost of cultivation, known as C2, proposed by respective State Governments while fixing the Minimum Support Price for agricultural produce.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard submissions from Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who argued that the issue was critical for farmers across the country, pointing to large numbers of farmer suicides and inadequate procurement mechanisms. He contended that MSP is often fixed even below the comprehensive cost of cultivation and that procurement at MSP is significant only for crops such as wheat and rice, leaving farmers cultivating other crops in acute distress.
Bhushan clarified that the petition does not seek payment of cost plus 50 percent profit margin, but only the actual cost of cultivation, referred to as C2. He submitted that these calculations are already made by the government itself, and that farmers should at least be assured recovery of the full cost incurred. He further argued that welfare measures such as free ration schemes should not come at the expense of ensuring that farmers receive remuneration covering their production costs.
Bar Council Elections : Supreme Court Requests Justice Dhulia Committee To Decide Manner Of Co-opting Women Members
Case Details: Siva Kumari v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 372/2026
In December last year, the Courthad directed that the Bar Councils must ensure 30% women's reservation. To address the contingency of inadequate women candidates competing, the Court had clarified that 10% of those positions can be filled up by way of co-option.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition which raised concerns about the misuse of the co-option method.
The Court noted that different options have been proposed by the petitioner/intervenor :
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Biometric Identification At Polling Booths To Prevent Electoral Malpractices
Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 383/2026
The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking implementation of fingerprint and iris-based biometric identification at polling stations to prevent electoral malpractices such as proxy voting, duplicate voting and bribery.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay under Article 32 of the Constitution.
"Prima facie, the nature of reliefs cannot be considered for the ensuing elections in some of the states. However, whether such a recourse deserves to be followed for the next parliamentary elections and/or elections of state legislatures needs to be examined," the Court observed.
Assam Police Move Supreme Court Against Telangana HC Order Granting Anticipatory Bail To Congress Leader Pawan Khera
Case Details: State of Assam v. Pawan Khera | Diary No. - 22236/2026
The Assam Police have moved the Supreme Court over thegrant of transit anticipatory bailto the official spokesperson of Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR filed by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma over Khera's allegations that she held multiple passports of different countries.
On April 10, Justice K Sujana of the Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to Khera for one week, subject to conditions, including that he will approach the Gauhati High Court to seek appropriate relief.
The Assam Government has challenged the bail order on the grounds that the anticipatory bail petition was filed in Hyderabad, whereas Khera has not shown any reason as to why he cannot come to Assam and file for anticipatory bail there.
West Bengal SIR |'If Winning Margin Is 2 % & 15% Couldn't Vote?' : Justice Bagchi Raises Concerns, Says ECI Deviated From Bihar Stance
Case Details: Quaraisha Yeasmin and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 462/2026
Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court raised certain concerns about the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in the State of West Bengal, emphasising the need to have a "robust appellate mechanism" to consider the appeals filed by persons who were deleted from the electoral rolls.
Justice Bagchi noted that when it came to West Bengal, the Election Commission of India deviated from the process in other states and introduced a new category of 'Logical Discrepancy'. Justice Bagchi also stated that the ECI deviated from the stand taken in the Bihar SIR matter that persons who were mapped in the 2002 electoral roll need not upload documents.
Justice Bagchi stated that judicial officers, who are performing SIR adjudication, cannot be expected to work with 100% accuracy amidst the high-pressure situation. When a person is dealing with over 1000 documents a day against a tight deadline, even an accuracy of 70 % would be deemed 'excellent', Justice Bagchi said. Hence, there was a need for a robust appellate mechanism, he stated.
Supreme Court Earmarks 4 Posts For Women AoRs In SCAORA Elections
Case Details: Vivya Nagpal v. Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 466/2026
With regard to the ensuing elections of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, the Supreme Court recorded in its order that the posts of Secretary and Joint Treasurer, as well as two Executive Members posts, may be earmarked for women AoRs.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, while invoking its power under Article 142, in a plea seeking adequate representation of women AoRs in the SCAORA Executive Committee.
During the hearing, both sides agreed to the Court's suggestion to earmark the abovementioned posts for women AoRs. The CJI, on his part, noted that the Bar has had a good experience with the election of AoR Pragya Baghel as Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Advocate Moves Supreme Court Challenging P&H High Court's Refusal Of Senior Designation
Case Details: Satish Chaudhary v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana | W.P.(C) No. 371/2026 Diary No. 17846 / 2026
The Supreme Court is set to hear a writ petition filed by Advocate Satish Chaudhary, challenging the non-inclusion of his name in the list of advocates designated as 'Senior Advocates' by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The petitioner had raised issues of transparency, objectivity and fairness in the process of senior designation of advocates by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is the petitioner's case that, despite securing higher marks, his name was not placed before the Full Court for consideration, while certain advocates who had secured lower marks were ultimately designated as Senior Advocates, without considering the fact that the Petitioner belongs to a marginalised community.
A reliance has been placed on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in 2017and 2023 Indira Jaising judgments on senior advocate designation.
Gherao Of Judges During West Bengal SIR | Supreme Court Asks If Instigators Had Political Background
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 sought to know the political background of the persons who instigated the gherao against seven judicial officers in Malda district on April 1, while they were performing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) adjudication.
Last week, the Court had directedthe National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate the FIRs registered by the State Police over the incident, after noting that there were serious allegations against the State Police.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the NIA will continue the investigation.
West Bengal SIR | Can't Allow Deleted Persons To Vote In 2026 Elections When Their Appeals Are Pending : Supreme Court
Case Details – Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors and Connected Cases.
The Supreme Court expressed reluctance to allow the persons excluded from the electoral rolls to vote in the upcoming West Bengal assembly elections while their appeals are pending before the appellate tribunals. A similar view was expressed by the Court last week as well.
The Court however indicated that it might consider the plea to allow the publication of supplementary rolls to include persons whose appeals are allowed before the assembly elections, which are to take place in two phases on April 23 and 29.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court that over 34 lakh appeals have been filed as on April 11.
'State Govts Failed' : Supreme Court Slams Rajasthan, MP Over Sand Mafia Rampage In Chambal Sanctuary
Case Details: In Re: Illegal Sand Mining In The National Chambal Sanctuary and Threat To Endangered Aquatic Wildlife Versus, SMW(C) No. 2/2026
The Supreme Court came down heavily upon the state of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh over the illegal digging near a bridge by the 'sand mining mafia' in the Chambal Sanctuary.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with the suo motu case taken up over illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary and the threat to endangered aquatic wildlife, including gharials.
During the hearing, the bench referred to the report of a forest guard being run over by a tractor, allegedly carrying illegally mined sand.
Plea Filed In Supreme Court Against S.44(3) Of DPDP Act, Seeks Interim Relief Against Masking/Deletion Of Available Data; Notice Issued
Case Details: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 358/2026
A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court against Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, which substituted Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act and exempted disclosure of any sort of "personal information" of a person.
The petitioners have also sought an interim relief against deletion/masking of data already made available on public portals in compliance of provisions of the RTI Act or other welfare legislations, as it would impair ground-level work that benefits from such information.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the plea after hearing Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan (for petitioners). On the petitioners' request, it also impleaded the State of Rajasthan as a party. The matter will be considered along with similar other pleas, which the Court has agreed to consider.
Frightening That Over 7.95 Lakh Execution Petitions Pending Beyond 6 Months: Supreme Court Seeks Mechanism For Speedy Disposal
Case Details – Periyammal (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr.
The Supreme Court noted that almost 8 lakh execution petitions pending across the country are more than six months old and described the situation as “very frightening and disappointing”.
“The position as on date appears to be very frightening and disappointing. We say so because as on date 7,95,981 execution petitions are pending across the country which are six months old”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal directed all High Court to inform it about the mechanism evolved in order ensure speedy disposal of execution petitions.
Supreme Court Disposes Plea Against Moratorium On Allied Health Courses After NCAHP Issues Guidelines For 2026-27
Case Details: Dr. Dayal Institute of Paramedical Technology v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 31145/2025
The Supreme Court on April 9 disposed of special leave petitions challenging a moratorium imposed on granting permission to start additional allied and healthcare courses, after taking note of a fresh framework issued by the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) to facilitate approvals for the academic year 2026-27.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe recorded that the regulatory mechanism under the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 is being put in place and that the directions issued by the NCAHP through its letter dated April 8, 2026 would enable institutions to seek permissions to offer additional courses.
The plea arises from writ petitions filed by the aggrieved Dr Dayal Institute of Paramedical Technology before the Rajasthan High Court, which were dismissed by the single Judge and the division bench of the High Court.
'We'd Examine' : Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Free Pre-Primary Education As Proposed By NEP 2020
Case Details: Haripriya Patel v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 361/2026
The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking provision of free and compulsory education at the pre-primary level as per the National Education Policy, 2020.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order. "We'd like to examine...", said the CJI.
Presently, the Right to Education Act mandates free and compulsory education only for children aged between 6-14 years old, and does not cover pre-primary education. The National Education Policy 2020aims to ensure that "all students, particularly students from underprivileged and disadvantaged sections, shall have universal, free and compulsory access to high-quality and equitable schooling from early childhood care and education (age 3 onwards) through higher secondary education (i.e., until Grade 12)"
Supreme Court Stops Outsourcing Of Tughlaqabad Fort Survey To Private Agency, Says Departments Can't Abdicate Responsibility
Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India and Others SLP (C) 12213/2019
The Supreme Court took an objection to the committee formed by the Delhi High Courtoutsourcing a survey relating to the encroachment of Tughlaqabad Fort. It remarked that outsourcing such a survey reeks of bureaucratic red-tapism.
The survey was ordered by the Delhi High Court in a 2001 public interest litigation concerning the illegal encroachment and settlement at the Tughlaqabad Fort. The High Court had constituted a committee for the survey, but the committee made a decision to outsource it to a private agency. The Supreme Court has now ordered that no private agency shall be hired for conducting the survey, and has asked the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi and the School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi, to work in tandem with the High Court's Committee.
The High Court's committee consisted of the following members :
Supreme Court Collegium Approves Appointment Of Three Judicial Officers As Karnataka High Court Judges
The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on April 14, 2026, has approved the proposal for appointment of three judicial officers as Judges of the Karnataka High Court.
The officers recommended for elevation are Smt. Rajeshwari Narayana Hegde, Smt. Kedambadi Ganesh Shanthi, and Shri Mahadevappa Brungesh.
The notification can be read here.
'We're Surprised' : Supreme Court Stays Telangana High Court's Transit Anticipatory Bail To Pawan Khera In Assam FIR
Case Details: State of Assam v. Pawan Khera | Diary No. - 22236/2026
The Supreme Court stayed the order passed by the Telangana High Court granting transit anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR registered by the Assam Police on Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, over Khera's allegations that she held multiple passports of different countries.
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petition filed by the State of Assam against the High Court's order.
The bench said that if Khera applies for anticipatory bail in the Court having jurisdiction in Assam, then the interim order passed by the Supreme Court will not have any adverse effect on the consideration of such an application.
Sabarimala Reference | Travancore Devaswom Board Disagrees With Nair Service Society's Argument On Articles 25(2)(b) & 26(b)
In the Sabarimala Reference hearing before the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the Travancore Devaswom Board disagreed with the argument advanced by the Nair Service Society and certain temple organisations from Kerala that Article 26(b) of the Constitution was subject to 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.
Article 25(2)(b) allows the State to enact law for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
As per Article 26(b), a religious denomination has the fundamental right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
'Go To HC': Supreme Court Rejects Savukku Shankar's Nephew's Plea Against 3rd Preventive Detention Order Under Goondas Act
Case Details: D Bharath v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 142/2026
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by YouTuber and journalist Savukku Shankar's nephew seeking quashing of a third detention order passed against Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter and asked the petitioner to approach the High Court. It also said that upon being so approached, the High Court may hear the matter expeditiously.
To recap, Shankar was arrested on 13 December, 2025 in connection with an extortion case registered under Sections 296(b), 353(lxc), 308(5), 61(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Following his arrest, his mother Kamala approached the Madras High Court seeking his medical treatment. A habeas corpus plea was also filed to forbear the police authorities from isolating Shankar from other prisoners.
Sabarimala Reference | Can't Hollow Out Religion In The Name Of Social Reform, Supreme Court Says In Hearing
During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court orally commented that in the name of social welfare and reform, one can't hollow out a religion.
Justice BV Nagarathna, part of the 9-judge bench hearing the matter, made this observation while hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi regarding Article 25(2)(b) and its interplay with the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs conferred as per Article 26(b).
Article 25(2)(b) allows the State to enact law for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Difficult To Declare Belief Of Millions Wrong : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing
During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court orally commented that it is difficult for a Court to declare the faith of millions of people wrong.
On the fourth day of the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi was addressing the 9-judge bench on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board.
Dealing with the seventh issue raised in the reference -whether the Court can entertain a Public Interest Litigation questioning a religious practice at the instance of a person not belonging to that religion- Singhvi advocated that the Courts should adopt a very high threshold to entertain such PILs.
Sabarimala | Visit Of Fertile Women Antithetical To Deity's Identity; They Can Visit Other Ayyappa Temples : TDB To 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
Duringthe Sabarimala Reference hearing, the Travancore Devaswom Board told the Supreme Court that excluding the category of menstruating women aged 10- 50 years from visiting the Sabarimala Temple was within the reasonable classification test.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, made submissions for the Board before the 9-judge bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and 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.
Notably, in 2018, the 5-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court permitted entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala temple, holding that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'.
'Constitutional Morality' In Religious Matters Like A Bull In A China Shop : Singhvi Tells Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the Supreme Court that the concept of 'constitutional morality' is fluid, warning that it is a dangerous proposition to rely on such a subjective standard to interpret religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution
He made this argument during the hearing of the Sabarimala reference before the nine-judge bench on April 15.
Singhvi stated that the Constitution framers consciously used the term 'morality' in Articles 25 and 26 and neither public nor constitutional morality. He added that it's a 'term of art' never envisaged to challenge legislation, and the Court can't rewrite it.
Sale Of Liquor In Tetra Packs: Supreme Court Allows Petitioner To Raise Concerns Before UP Authority
Case Details: Meenakshi Shree Tiwari v. Union of India | Diary No. 68730/2025
The Supreme Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation challenging the Uttar Pradesh excise policy which allegedly permitted the sale of wine in tetra packs.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that there was no material on record showing any express permission under the excise policy for sale of liquor in tetra pack packaging. The Court noted that an administrative decision dated February 4 appeared to have allowed such small packaging of liquor, but the relevant policy itself was not placed before the Court.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner raised concerns about the social impact of allowing liquor in small tetra packs, submitting that such packaging could make alcohol more accessible and normalized among children.
'Can't Compel People To Vote' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking To Make Voting Mandatory
Case Details:Ajay Goel v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 464/2026
The Supreme Court (April 16) rejected a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to introduce compulsory voting in India along with penal consequences for citizens who deliberately abstain from voting, observing that participation in elections cannot be enforced through coercive measures.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi remarked that while citizens are expected to exercise their franchise in a democracy governed by the rule of law, the State cannot compel individuals to vote.
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel suggested that the Court could direct the Election Commission of India to constitute a committee to frame guidelines for compulsory voting and consider restrictions on access to certain government amenities for those who fail to vote without valid reasons.
Supreme Court Dismisses Anil Ambani's Plea To Stay Fraud Classification Of Loan Accounts
Case Details: Anil D Ambani v. Bank of Baroda | SLP(C) No. 12943-12944/2026 and Connected Cases.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Anil Ambani seeking to stay the classification of his loan accounts as "fraudulent" by the Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank Ltd and the IDBI Bank Ltd in terms of the Reserve Bank of India's 2024 Master Directions.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that it saw no ground to interfere with thejudgment of the Bombay High Court Division Bench, which vacated the stayoriginally granted by the Single Bench.
The bench however clarified that the observations made by the High Court will have no bearing on the final adjudication of the suit filed by Ambani against the Banks over the accounts classification.
NEET PG 2025 | Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Special Stray Vacancy Counselling Round
Case Details – Education Promotion Society For India and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for conducting a Round 5 or Special Stray Vacancy Round for NEET-PG 2025 counselling and challenging the National Medical Commission's decision not to hold such a round.
A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to entertain the plea.
The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Ravi Bharuka, sought directions to the authorities to conduct a Round 5 or Special Stray Vacancy Round to fill vacant postgraduate medical seats under the All-India Quota for NEET-PG MD/MS/DNB-2025 after completion of the stray vacancy round. The petition stated that seats had fallen vacant on February 28, 2026, due to non-joining, non-reporting, or refusal by allotted candidates.
'Not New Practice' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging ECI Transfer Of Bengal IAS/IPS Officers Amid Elections
Case Details: Arka Kumar Nag v. Election Commission of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 12775/2026
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by Advocate Arka Kumar Nag against the Calcutta High Court's dismissalof his PIL challenging Election Commission's large-scale transfer of IAS and IPS officers, in West Bengal and elsewhere, after the March 15 election announcement.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi refused to interfere with the High Court's order. The Court however kept the question of law regarding the need for State concurrence open.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, for the petitioner, submitted that the ECI was acting contrary to the rules.
Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Plea Challenging Muslim Inheritance Law As Discriminatory Against Women
Case Details: Poulomi Pavini Shukla v. Union of India | D No. 67256/2025
The Supreme Court (April 16) issued notice to the Union Government on a writ petition challenging Muslim personal law provisions as discriminatory against women.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Advocate Poulomi Pavani Shukla, along with an organisation Nyaya Naari Foundation, represented by Aisha Jawaid.
On March 10, when the petition was previously heard, the bench had expressed concerns about judicial interference, saying that it might create a vaccum regarding Muslim personal law, since the Indian Succession Act is not applicable to followers of the Islam faith. The bench had also orally commented that the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code can resolve the issue. The Court had then adjourned the matter, suggesting that the petition be amended to include suggestions as regards the relief.
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking 50% Women Representation In Judicial Services, Govt Panels
Case Details: Mani Munjal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 400/2026
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking earmarking of upto 50 percent vacancies for women in judicial services as well as government panels. It however gave liberty to the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation to the concerned stakeholders.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi heard the matter and noted that it would not be expedient to take up the issue on judicial side, except when intervention is warranted in peculiar facts and circumstances.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain appeared for the petitioners.
West Bengal SIR : Supreme Court Allows Excluded Persons To Vote If Appeals Allowed Before April 21/27
Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India | WP(C) 1089/2025 and Connected Cases.
The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to issue a supplementary revised electoral roll to include voters whose appeals against deletion of their names are allowed by the Appellate Tribunals before specified cut-off dates, so that they can exercise their franchise in the upcoming phases of polling in West Bengal.
The Court has directed that the appellants, whose appeals against exclusion from the rolls are allowed by Appellate Tribunals before April 21 (for the first phase) or April 27 (for the second phase), should be included in the supplementary rolls, so that they can cast their vote on the respective polling dates - April 23 (for first phase) and April 29(for second phase).
The Court observed that if an appeal is allowed by the Appellate Tribunal and a conclusive direction for inclusion or exclusion is issued, such directions shall be duly effectuated before the State of West Bengal proceeds to polling on April 23 or April 29.
Kerala v. Tamil Nadu: Supreme Court Stays NGT Proceedings Against Kerala's Check Dam Construction In Border Village
Case Details: Chief Secretary To Government of Kerala and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Water Resources Organization and Ors., Diary No. 18144-2026
The Supreme Court stayed proceedings in a case before the National Green Tribunal, Chennai pertaining to construction of a 'check dam' by the Kerala government, which is alleged to have a potential impact on irrigation in Tamil Nadu.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta (for Kerala government). Notice has been issued to the State of Tamil Nadu.
The petition is filed by the Kerala government, stating that on 24.05.2024, NGT Chennai took suo motu cognizance of a news report, which alleged that Kerala government is constructing a check dam across the Silandhiyar stream, a tributary of the Amaravathi River, which could potentially affect irrigation in Tamil Nadu.
Supreme Court Declines Congress Leader Pawan Khera's Plea To Extend Transit Anticipatory Bail In Assam FIR
Case Details: State of Assam v. Pawan Khera | Diary No. - 22236/2026
The Supreme Court (April 17) declined Congress leader Pawan Khera's plea to vacate the stay imposed by it on the transit anticipatory bail granted to him by the Telangana High Court in the forgery and criminal conspiracy case lodged by the Assam Police on Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.
The Court also turned down Khera's plea to extend the transit bail till next Tuesday so that he can approach the Assam Court. The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar observed that if the concerned Court is not functioning, a request can be made to take up the matter, which be considered in accordance with the prevailing practice.
The bench also clarified that neither the observations in the High Court's order nor the Supreme Court's stay order should influence the concerned Court while considering Khera's application for anticipatory bail.
Women In South Avoid Temples During Menstruation As Matter Of Belief : Lawyer Tells Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference
Senior Advocate MR Venkatesh, appearing for Atman Trust, told the nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court that the practice of women voluntarily refraining from entering temples or puja rooms during menstruation is rooted in discipline and belief, and not in notions of discrimination.
Addressing the Constitution Bench hearing the reference arising out of the Sabarimala judgment, Venkatesh submitted that across South India, women traditionally observe self-imposed restrictions during menstruation as part of religious discipline.
He stated:
Supreme Court Issues Notice On CBI's Appeal Against Acquittal Of 4 Kerala Policemen In Udayakumar Custodial Death Case
Case Details – Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jitha Kumar K
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging a judgment of the Kerala High Court which set aside the convictions and acquitted all accused in the 2005 Udayakumar custodial death case.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice returnable on 19th May on CBI's SLP against four former police personnel who were tried in the case – Jitha Kumar K, T Ajith Kumar, EK Sabu and TK Haridas.
The case concerns the death of Udayakumar, a 28-year-old man, who was picked up by police personnel from Sreekandeshwaram Park, Thiruvananthapuram, at around 2:15 a.m. on September 27, 2005 and taken to the Fort Police Station.
Supreme Court Approves Environment Compensation Charge Hike For Commercial Vehicles Entering Delhi, Mandates 5% Annual Increase
Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No.13029/1985
The Supreme Court has approved a proposal to enhance the Environment Compensation Charge (ECC) on commercial vehicles entering Delhi, while mandating a 5% annual increase to maintain its deterrent effect against pollution.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, by order passed on 12/03/2026, approved the recommendations submitted by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to revise ECC rates with effect from April 1, 2026, observing that the recommendations were “reasonable, just, and fair.”
“We have considered the proposal submitted by the CAQM and find the same to be reasonable, just, and fair.”, the court said.
Supreme Court To Examine Validity Of Gangster Acts & Laws Against Organised Crimes
Case Details: Irfan Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh, W.P.(Crl.) No. 84/2026
The Supreme Court placed before a 3-judge bench a plea challenging certain provisions of the UP Gangster Act and Rules. Considering that the decision will have an impact on similar laws in States likes Gujarat, Maharashtra, NCT of Delhi and Karnataka, the Court decided to hear their Advocate Generals as well.
The Court also added the Union of India as a party, considering that an argument is rasied that the Gansgter Act is repugnant to Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita which defines 'organised crime'.
It also directed listing of other cases challenging vires of similar laws on organized crimes alongwith the plea.
Sabarimala Reference | Correct Test Is If Religious Belief Is Bona Fide, Not If It's Essential : Rajeev Dhavan To Supreme Court
In the Sabarimala Reference hearing, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued that the doctrine of essential religious practice is dangerous because Courts are asked to decide whether a religious practice is essential or not at the very threshold.
He clarified that he is not against judicial review of religious freedoms. Instead, he suggested that the correct test under Articles 25 and 26 should be whether a belief is bona fide or not, instead of whether it's essential. He cited the Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), where the Court protected the children following Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to sing the National Anthem.
Dhavan made this argument before a nine-judge bench hearing the Sabarimala reference, which raises larger issues having an impact on other religious faiths.
Highway Safety | No Parking Of Heavy Vehicles, No Unauthorised Dhabas : Supreme Court Issues Directions
Case Details: In Re: Phalodi Accident Versus, SMW(C) No. 9/2025
Recognizing the "safety of a commuter" as an integral facet of "right to live with dignity" under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court passed a slew of directions to address systemic and infrastructural issues plaguing national highways and expressways in the country.
It ordered inter-alia immediate removal of all unauthorized encroachments such as dhabas, eateries, etc. falling in the Right of Way of any national highway. It further directed provision of basic life support ambulances and truck lay-bye facilities at regular intervals on highways.
"A road, particularly a high-speed Expressway, must not become a corridor of peril due to administrative lethargy or infrastructural gaps. The loss of even a single life to avoidable hazards like illegal parking or blackspots etc., represents a failure of the State's protective umbrella. The 'Right to Life' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not merely a guarantee against the unlawful taking of life, but a positive mandate upon the State to ensure a safe environment where human life is preserved and valued", the Court noted.