Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: August 03, 2026 To August 09, 2026

Judgments

Court Fees Act | Appeals Against Statutory Benefits In Land Acquisition Compensation Attract Ad Valorem Court Fees : Supreme Court

Cause Title: TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS S.P. SINGH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 751

The Supreme Court held that an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, confined exclusively to the grant of statutory benefits without challenging the determination or enhancement of compensation, would attract ad valorem court fees on a decretal amount under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

“An appeal under Section 54 seeking reduction or exclusion of any such component (statutory benefits) is an appeal against the decree of the Reference Court relating to compensation and consequently attracts ad valorem court fee under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act. We therefore find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the memorandum of appeal was liable to be accompanied by ad valorem court fee and that payment of a fixed court fee was contrary to law. The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, warrants no interference.”, observed a bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Manmohan, while affirming the Uttarakhand High Court's decision to order the Appellant to pay ad valorem court fees in an appeal filed seeking an exclusion of a statutory benefits in a decretal amount of land acquisition compensation.

The case relates to the grant of land acquisition compensation for the rehabilitation of the Tehri Dam oustees. Against the determination of the compensation and seeking an enhancement, the oustees approached the Reference Court besides claiming the statutory benefits under the Act.

Inadequate Grounds Of Arrest Don't By Themselves Vitiate Arrest, Prejudice To Accused Must Be Shown: Supreme Court

Case: State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu | SLP (Crl.) No. 11944/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 752

Drawing a distinction between complete non-service of grounds of arrest and inadequate communication of the reasons for arrest, the Supreme Court held that while the former would vitiate an arrest, in the latter case the Court must examine whether prejudice has been caused to the accused.

On this reasoning, the Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, holding that the Meghalaya High Court and the Trial Court erred in granting her bail on the ground that she was not supplied with valid grounds of arrest.

Supreme Court Extends S.498A IPC To Live-In Relationships Which Are 'Relationships In The Nature Of Marriage'

Cause Title: Dr LOKESH BH & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Observing that excluding women in live-in relationships which are “in the nature of marriage” from the protection of Section 498A IPC would amount to discriminatory treatment, the Supreme Court (August 3) held that a man in such a relationship can be prosecuted for domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court however clarified that this ruling is applicable to "live-in relationships" which qualify as "relationships in the nature of marriage", where the intent to marry is established.

The Court ruled that distinguishing between a legally married woman and a woman in a relationship akin to marriage, for the purpose of protection against cruelty, is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14.

Hiding Number Plate Not Cheating Offence Though Motor Vehicles Act Violation : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MOHAMMED ABDUL AHAD SHAKER VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 754

The Supreme Court quashed a cheating case registered against an individual for allegedly covering the rear number plate of his vehicle. The Court held that a mere apprehension on the part of the police that the number plate was concealed to evade traffic challans does not constitute the offence of cheating.

“The mere apprehension of the police that the rear number plate was covered in order to avoid challans, or that in case a crime was committed, it would be difficult to trace out the offender is at best, speculative…The only allegation against the appellant is that he was travelling on his Activa scooty with a black mask covering his rear number plate. There is no material on record to show that such an act was done with a dishonest intention, or that such an act induced a person and caused any wrongful gain or loss.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The Court said that concealing or hiding the number plate would, at best, invite penalty under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ("MV Act"), but cannot be categorised as a criminal offence.

'Village's Common Land' : Supreme Court Restores 280 Acre Gurugram Land To Wazirabad Gram Panchayat

Cause Title: Suraj Bhan and others versus Ashvarya Estate Pvt. Ltd. and others (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 755

The Supreme Court (August 3) restored the ownership of approximately 280 acres of land in Gurugram to the Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad, holding that the land constituted shamilat deh and was vested in the Panchayat under the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed a batch of appeals filed by the Gram Panchayat and original defendants, overturning a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had recognized ownership claims of private parties over 436 bighas and 18 biswas of land situated in the uninhabited village of Haiderpur in Gurugram.

“The Division Bench as well as the authorities failed to attach due importance to the Sharat-wajib-ul-arz, which recorded in clear terms that, in Haiderpur, the total area of the shamilat deh was 444 bighas 4 biswas, of which 436 bighas 18 biswas was ghair mumkin pahar, johar, nala, etc., in the possession of makbuja malkan (joint possession). Once this extent of 436 bighas 80 biswas was not shown to be in actual and separate cultivating possession of the proprietors individually, the land invariably constituted shamilat deh and could not be treated as allotted to anyone in particular.”, the Court observed.

'For Child Victims, Consider Impact On Future' : Supreme Court Awards ₹83.38 Lakhs For Accident Leaving Infant Paralysed For Life

Cause Title: GAYATREE PATTNAIK FOR SHREEJITA PATTNAIK VERSUS ARUNDHATI SAHOO AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 756

Observing that compensation in motor accident cases must be based on the actual impact of an injury on a victim's earning capacity and not merely the percentage of medical disability, the Supreme Court (August 3) enhanced the compensation awarded to a minor who suffered 100% functional disability due to spinal cord injuries from ₹45.40 lakh to ₹83.38 lakh.

“…where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head 'loss of future earnings' would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. Therefore, what is required to be assessed is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured… a minor who suffers permanent disability cannot be equated with a non-earning individual merely because he was not gainfully employed on the date of the accident. While dealing with child victims, the law must take into account the future which has been lost and not merely the status which existed at the time when the accident occurred.”, observed a bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N.V. Anjaria.

The bench modified the Orissa High Court's judgment which had awarded ₹45.40 lakh compensation to the kid, treating her permanent disability based on the medical reports to be 90%, without considering her functional disability.

Mere Breach Of Contract Not Cheating Unless Fraudulent Intention Existed From Beginning: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case

Case : G Saminathan & Another v The State

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 757

Holding that a mere breach of contractual obligations cannot be prosecuted as the offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown from the inception of the transaction, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against two landowners accused of cheating a real estate developer in a failed joint development project.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the dispute arose out of a failed Joint Development Agreement and was essentially civil in nature, making the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Madras High Court's order refusing to quash the case and quashed the FIR, chargesheet and all consequential criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 read with Sections 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The dispute concerned a 2012 Joint Development Agreement under which the developer paid a refundable security deposit of ₹3 crore to the landowners for developing a residential project in Chennai. The project could not proceed after the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority rejected planning permission on the ground that the property formed part of an unapproved layout. Subsequently, the landowners cancelled the General Power of Attorney and sold the property to a third party, prompting the developer to initiate criminal proceedings alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust.

Specific Performance Of Agreement To Sell Can Be Denied If There Is Long Time Lapse : Supreme Court

Case :  V.N.A.S Chandran v S Venila and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 758

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell is not an automatic consequence of a valid contract and can be refused if the purchaser fails to continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract throughout the litigation. The Court also held that a long lapse of time between the agreement and the final adjudication is a relevant factor that may disentitle a party from obtaining the equitable relief of specific performance.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Anjaria made the observations while allowing appeals filed by a property owner against a Madras High Court judgment which had directed specific performance of a 2004 agreement to sell. The Court restored the trial court's decree refusing specific performance and instead directed refund of the advance amount with interest.

The dispute arose out of an agreement dated April 1, 2004, under which the appellant agreed to sell a property in Udhagamandalam for ₹2.25 crore. While the trial court held that the purchasers had paid an advance of ₹85 lakh, it refused the discretionary relief of specific performance. The Madras High Court reversed that finding and ordered execution of the sale deed.

Comprehensive/Package Motor Insurance Covers Vehicle Occupants: Supreme Court Explains Different Types Of Policies

Case Details: National Insurance Co Ltd v Smt Thungala Dhana Laxmi

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 759

The Supreme Court has held that a comprehensive motor insurance policy covers the owner and occupants of the vehicle and cannot be treated on par with a basic third-party insurance policy, while also recommending that insurers adopt a standardised "opt-in" mechanism enabling customers to choose additional covers at the time of purchasing insurance.

The judgment came in an appeal filed by National Insurance Company against a Telangana High Court decision awarding compensation to the family of T. Ramu, who died in a road accident involving his own Maruti 800 car.

Ramu was returning from Tirupati to his native village on July 13, 1996, when an unidentified lorry allegedly rammed into his car from behind near Singarayakonda. He succumbed to the injuries during treatment. Since the offending lorry could not be traced, his legal representatives sought compensation under the comprehensive insurance policy covering his own vehicle.

Consider If Vehicles Without Insurance Can Be Denied Fuel : Supreme Court Tells Union, IRDA

Case Details: National Insurance Co Ltd v Smt Thungala Dhana Laxmi

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 759

In a significant judgment towards ensuring road safety, the Supreme Court has directed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) to evolve a pilot project whereby vehicles can be linked with insurance status to ensure that vehicles at the petrol pumps can be checked for valid third-party insurance.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a slew of important directions relating to the importance of third-party insurance.

In this case, the Court formed two primary issues. First, the non-compliance with Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which requires all vehicles to have valid third-party insurance. Second, whether there should be a uniform motor-vehicle policy structure covering all occupants of the vehicles, in addition to the third-party risk coverage.

Supreme Court Directs Increase Of Third Party Insurance Of Cars To 4 & Two-Wheelers To 6 Years

Case : National Insurance Co Ltd v Smt Thungala Dhana Laxmi

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 759

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has directed to increase the term of third-party motor vehicle insurance for new cars to four year and for new two-wheelers for six years.

Presently, it is 3 years for cars and 5 years for two years, following the Supreme Court's 2018 direction. The Court noted that despite this direction issued eight years ago, several vehicles remain uninsured. Therefore, the Court directed the increase of the term for new policies, despite the objection by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India and the General Insurance Council.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih ordered :

Solid Waste Management Rules 2026 : Supreme Court Directs Centre To Frame Guidelines On Environmental Compensation

Case : Amravati Municipal Corporation v Ganesh Dadarao Anasane and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 760

The Supreme Court laid down a comprehensive set of principles to guide the determination of environmental compensation under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, while directing the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to formulate detailed guidelines for imposing and collecting such compensation.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the directions while hearing appeals concerning solid waste management. The Court said that with the notification of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, the focus must now shift from merely framing laws to ensuring their effective implementation through robust institutional mechanisms.

"Our endeavour is to institutionalise the process of solid waste management for our country," the Bench observed, adding that constitutional courts and the National Green Tribunal have a continuing duty to ensure that statutory mandates are translated into an effective enforcement system.

Employee Who Accepts Benefits Of Resignation Cannot Later Revoke It Claiming Its Acceptance Was Invalid : Supreme Court

Cause Title: DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY VERSUS B.S. RAWAT (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 761

The Supreme Court has held that an employee who voluntarily resigns, accepts all consequential benefits and secures fresh employment on the strength of that resignation cannot later seek reinstatement by pointing to a technical defect in the authority that initially accepted the resignation.

The Court ruled that while an unauthorized acceptance of resignation can be cured through subsequent ratification by the competent authority, an employee who has treated the resignation as final is also barred from challenging it after having altered his position.

The Court delivered the ruling while deciding disputes involving Bharat Singh Rawat, who had resigned from Delhi Technological University (DTU) and later sought re-appointment on the ground that the resignation was not accepted by the comeptent authority.

Courts Should Adopt Liberal Approach In Condoning Delay In Appeals Filed By Convicts: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Arjun Jani @ Tuntun Versus State of Orissa

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 762

The Supreme Court has held that constitutional courts should adopt a liberal and proactive approach while considering applications for condonation of delay in appeals filed by convicts, observing that procedural delays should not stand in the way of a prisoner's right to challenge a conviction affecting his liberty.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made the observation while setting aside the conviction of an Odisha man who had spent 22 years in prison in a triple murder case. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and criticised the Orissa High Court for rejecting his delayed jail appeal at the threshold.

The Court opened its judgment by expressing anguish over the Orissa High Court's earlier refusal to condone a delay of 3,157 days in filing the jail appeal, despite the convict having already undergone 12 years of imprisonment at the time.

Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict After 22 Years In Jail, Flags Collective Failure Of Criminal Justice System

Cause Title: Arjun Jani @ Tuntun Versus State of Orissa

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 762

The Supreme Court (August 4) expressed displeasure with the collective failure of the criminal justice system, where the trial court failed to evaluate the evidence properly, and the High Court remained a mute spectator, leading to the convict spending cumulatively 22 years in jail and being subjected to third-degree torture in custody to make out a confession based on a mere suspicion.

In a strongly worded observation, the Bench remarked that the case reflected multiple institutional failures.

"Three lives were snuffed out, having been bludgeoned to death, a person taken into custody on mere suspicion from whom a confession,though not admissible was extracted employing third-degree methods, the trial court fails to evaluate the evidence properly and the High Court remains a moot spectator while adding to the tally of disposals; cumulatively resulting in 22 years being erased out of a person's life without any reliable evidence.”, the Court observed.

Failure To Add Company As Accused In Cheque Dishonour Case Can't Be Cured By Summoning It Under S.319 CrPC : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MANJULA KAPOOR VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 763

The Supreme Court has held that the failure to arraign a company as an accused in a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a fatal defect that cannot be cured by subsequently summoning the company as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the trial.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi ruled that where a cheque is drawn on a company's bank account, prosecution of the company is a mandatory precondition for fastening vicarious liability on its directors or authorised signatories under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the High Court erred in directing the trial court to invoke Section 319 CrPC to implead the company after the trial had commenced.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Manjula Kapoor against an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The complaint alleged that M/s Cine Prime Entertainment owed the complainant Rs. 5 lakh and had issued a cheque signed by Kapoor, its authorised signatory. After the cheque was dishonoured, the complainant initiated proceedings only against Kapoor without making the company an accused or issuing the statutory demand notice to it. The High Court however allowed the complainant to cure this defect by summoning the company as an additional accused under S.319 CrPC. Challenging this, the director approached the Supreme Court.

Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Parameters On Recall Of Witness : Supreme Court Explains

Cause Title: K. BHARATHAMMA VERSUS BANDARU SAKKU BAI AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 764

The Supreme Court (August 4) reiterated that the power of the Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC only permits recall of witnesses for examination by the Court itself, not for cross-examination by either of the parties

“…the scope and object of Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC, was to enable the court to clarify doubts regarding evidence led by the party. It was further stated that the provision was not meant to fill up the omissions in the already adduced evidence. It was held that the power to recall a witness who has been examined earlier cannot be exercised for further examination-in-chief or for adducing additional material or evidence, for, such nature of power was available under Order XVIII Rule 17A, CPC, which has been since deleted.”, observed a bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria.

The Court summed up the position on Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC in the following terms:

Cheque Dishonour | Defence That Complainant Lacks Financial Capacity Ought To Be Raised In Accused's Reply Notice : Supreme Court

Cause Title: KUNTEGOWDA VERSUS THURUBAIAH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 765

The Supreme Court has held that the initial burden of raising a defence that the complainant lacked the financial capacity to advance a loan rests on the accused and must ordinarily be taken in the reply to the statutory demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. If no such plea is raised at that stage, the complainant cannot later be expected to lead evidence proving his financial capacity while presenting his case.

The Supreme Court (August 4) held that a complainant's financial incapacity to extend the loan ought to be specifically pleaded in a reply to a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

“…the failure of the accused to respond to the statutory notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act gives rise to an inference that the complainant's version carries merit. The initial burden of raising a defence that the complainant lacked the financial capacity to advance the loan rests upon the accused and ought to have been specifically pleaded in the reply to the demand notice.”, observed a bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the Karnataka High Court's decision to acquit the Respondent in a cheque dishonour case.

Judgments Are Retrospective Unless Expressly Made Prospective : Supreme Court

Cause Title: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. VS. SRI DEVRAJ URS MEDICAL COLLEGE (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 766

The Supreme Court has reiterated that unless its judgment expressly states that the decision would apply prospectively, it shall apply retrospectively.

“If a decision of the Apex Court does not expressly provide its application to be prospective, then it is settled law that all decisions of this Court are retrospective in application…”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.

The bench made this observation while setting aside that part of the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had directed the Appellant, Union and State Governments to release the subvention amount for the entire 5 years even after academic year 2002-03, ignoring the fact that the scheme, which introduced the subvention amount in 1995 was declared to be unconstitutional by a 11-judge bench in TMA Pai Foundation & Ors vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.

Central Excise | 'Mere Grouping And Unpacking Does Not Attract Excise Duty', Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue's ₹17.86 Crore Demand Against Xerox

Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-IV VERSUS M/S XEROX INDIA LTD. & ORS. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 767

The Supreme Court (August 5) held that a mere grouping and fitting together of imported photocopier modules for dispatch to customers does not amount to “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, 1944, to attract an excise duty.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the Customs Excise & Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT) order to set aside the central excise demand of ₹17.86 crore raised against Xerox India Ltd. for grouping imported modules and accessories according to customer specifications before dispatch.

“By grouping the parts of a complete copier with printer or without printer, assigning the parts in each set a unique number using a computer, we hold, does not amount to manufacture. There is no conversion of an incomplete machine into a complete machine in the warehouse to attract the Section Note 6 of Section XVI.”, the Court approved the CESTAT reasoning, while rejecting the revenue's contention that the activity amounted to a manufacture to attract the excise duty.

'Washed-Off Theory' Doesn't Apply While Deciding If Employee Is Fit To Be Retained : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SUSHIL SHARMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 768

The Supreme Court (August 6) held that while assessing the employee's suitability for retention in service, the employer is not obligated to take a decision based on the recent service record of the employee; rather, the decision shall be guided by the entire service record of the employee.

This means the "washed-off theory", which wipes out adverse entries once an employee is promoted, has no application when assessing an employee's suitability for retention in service.

“…while the “washed-off theory” may operate in matters relating to promotion, it has no application where the competent authority assesses the suitability of an employee for continued retention in service.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, while upholding the compulsory retirement of the ex-CISF personnel, who challenged his compulsory retirement on the ground that compulsory retirement assessments shall not be based on the "entire service record”.

Arbitration | Involvement In Performance Of Underlying Contract A Factor To Decide If Non-Signatory Bound By Agreement : Supreme Court

Cause Title: KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Ashiesh Shukla and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 769

The Supreme Court (August 5) held that the involvement of a non-signatory in the performance of the contract would be a factor to consider if they would be bound by the arbitration agreement.

“…the participation of a non-signatory in the performance of the underlying contract is the most important factor to be considered as the conduct of the non-signatory parties is an indicator of the intention of those parties to be bound by the arbitration agreement.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, while setting aside that part of the Delhi High Court's decision which had excluded the Respondent No.1 from the ambit of the arbitration proceedings merely because he was non-signatory to the contract, thereby ignoring his involvement in performing the underlying contract.

The dispute arose out of a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) under which the Appellant company agreed to acquire another company and its sister concern for a settlement consideration of ₹8 crore.

National Highways Act | Reference Court Can Incidentally Determine Title For Compensation Entitlement : Supreme Court

Cause Title: K. VENKATASWAMY & ORS. VS. GOWRAMMA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 770

The Supreme Court ruled that a Reference Court under the National Highways Act can incidentally determine questions of title for determining entitlement to compensation.

“The jurisdiction exercised by the Reference Court under Section 3H (4) is, therefore, wide enough to incidentally determine questions of title insofar as such determination is necessary for deciding the person entitled to the compensation arising out of the acquisition. Any contrary interpretation would frustrate the legislative scheme and compel parties to simultaneously pursue independent civil suits for declaration of title, thereby defeating the very object of referring the dispute to the principal civil court.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The bench set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had interfered with the Reference court's decision to declare Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 as the absolute owners of the acquired land to receive the entire compensation amount arising out of the acquisition proceedings

Grant Reservation To Military Cadets Disabled 40% Or More During Training Under Ex-Military Personnel Quota : Supreme Court To States/UTs

Cause Title: IN RE: CADETS DISABLED IN MILITARY TRAINING STRUGGLE

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 771

To strengthen the welfare and rehabilitation of cadets discharged from military training due to disabilities, the Supreme Court has directed States and Union Territories to consider granting reservation to such “out-boarded” cadets with 40% or more disability under the Ex-Military Personnel (Ex-MP) quota, while affirming their entitlement to reservation benefits under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Out-boarded cadets are those who are discharged from the military service owing to the disability sustained during the training. While hearing the suo motu case, a bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan directed the States/UTs to consider the grant of reservation benefits to such out-boarded cadets under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, which mandates reservation of at least four percent of vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities.

“We find that the out boarded cadets ought to be entitled to the benefit of the said provision and make their applications for employment accordingly in the reserved category in terms of the aforesaid Act...The States are directed to consider granting reservation to out boarded cadets in the quota of “ExMilitary Personnel (Ex-MP)” so that the prospects of employment of these persons in the reserved category would be enhanced in the States and Union Territories within the respective cadres of posts in the services under the States.”, the Court said.

Civil Courts Can Adjudicate Succession Disputes Between Non-Tribals In Scheduled Areas Of Andhra Pradesh : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MUKKERA VENKATA RATNAM & ORS Versus VANTASALA CHINA VENKATESWARLU & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 772

The Supreme Court (August 6) held that the Civil Courts under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act 1972 are empowered to adjudicate the civil disputes of succession between the non-tribal parties in Schedule Areas.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the Telangana High Court's decision, which held the jurisdiction of the civil court would be barred under the AP Civil Courts Act (“Act”) to adjudicate the disputes between the non-tribal parties living in the Schedule Areas.

As per the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred to adjudicate civil disputes between the tribal parties because of the non-extension of the Act to Scheduled Areas. The Court said that the Act doesn't bar the civil courts jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between the non-tribal parties even though they are living in schedule area.

Public Trusts Registered Outside MP Entitled To Exemption Under M.P. Accommodation Control Act : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SCINDIA DEVESTHAN TRUST VERSUS JAMUNA PRASAD SARASWAT (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 773

The Supreme Court has held that, in view of the Madhya Pradesh Government's 2018 notification, public trusts registered outside Madhya Pradesh are entitled to exemption under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Consequently, such trusts are not subject to the restrictions and protections available to tenants under the Act while pursuing eviction proceedings.

“In the light of the subsequent notification dated 02.07.2018 which was in continuation to the earlier notification dated 07.07.1989, the finding of the High Court under the impugned order that the notification dated 07.07.1989 would bar the suits being prosecuted by the trust which are registered outside the State of Madhya Pradesh would not hold water.”, observed a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

The Court set aside the MP High Court's order, which rejected the Scindia Devesthan Trust eviction suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC against the Respondent-tenants, for want of its locus to file an eviction suit, since the trust, despite holding several properties in the State of MP, is registered outside MP.

Supreme Court Approves Guidelines On Judicial Sensitivity In Sexual Offence Cases; Directs All Courts To Follow

Case: In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad In Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 And Ancillary Issues | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

Citation : 2026 Livelaw (SC) 774

The Supreme Court approved a report placed before it by the National Judicial Academy's Expert Committee containing guidelines on judicial sensitivity in sexual offense cases.

Further, it directed all Courts in the country to strictly follow the expressions used in the approved guidelines/handbook.

As per the order, the approved guidelines/handbook shall be uploaded on the websites of the Supreme Court, all High Courts as well as District Courts (where such websites exist). They shall also be circulated to the National and all State Judicial Academies, as well as National Law Universities and Law Departments of other Universities.

Preventive Detention | Failure To Inform Right To Represent Fatal; It's Not Cured Even If Detenu Sends Representation: Supreme Court

Cause Title: ALFIYA.A VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 775

The Supreme Court has held that a preventive detention order would be rendered illegal if the detaining authority fails to inform the detenu of his right to make a representation before it, even if the detenu independently submitted such a representation.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, upon finding that the detaining authority failed to inform the detenu about his right to make a representation before the authority.

“The fact that the detenu nevertheless addressed one of his representations to the Detaining Authority cannot cure the failure to inform him of that constitutional right. The obligation was upon the authority to communicate the right and could not depend upon whether the detenu independently became aware of it… The detenu was not informed of his right to represent to the Detaining Authority who had made the order… These infirmities violate Article 22(5) of the Constitution and are sufficient to render the continued detention of the detenu illegal.”, the Court observed.

Mere Marking Of Document As Exhibit Is Not Proof Of Contents : Supreme Court

Cause Title: S. SANGEETHA & ORS. VERSUS TMT. P. PONNI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 776

The Supreme Court (August 7) held that objections to the admissibility of a document that is prima facie relevant to the adjudication of a suit cannot ordinarily be decided at the threshold stage merely because the document has been exhibited.

The Court said that a mere exhibition of a document, during the initial stage of a trial, does not amount to proof of its contents; as such, exhibited documents need to be proved in accordance with law.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard the case arising out of a Madras High Court's decision to dismiss the Appellant-defendant's plea against the refusal of the High Court to exercise powers under Order XIII Rule 3 of CPC to eschew certain documents exhibited by the Respondent-plaintiff in their proof affidavit in a probate proceeding.

Lawyers Must Act Decently Not Only With Own Clients But Also With Opposite Parties : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SUDHENDU PRAKASH GAUTAM VERSUS S.L. CHAUDHARY

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 777

The Supreme Court advised lawyers to represent themselves decently within the court's premises not only with their client(s), but also with the opposite counsel(s) and their client(s).

“…behaviour of a lawyer in the Court premises is one such important factor which attracts the allegation of misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. Every lawyer has a duty to act decently in the Court premises not only with his own clients but, also towards the lawyers appearing from the other side and also to the parties against whom he is appearing. Any indecent behavior inside the Court premises can be taken cognizance of by the concerned State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India, as the case may be, and the case would not be thrown out only on this ground alone.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.

The matter pending before the Court since October 2012 came for final disposal only this year.  The Appellant-an advocate was aggrieved by the Bar Council of India's decision to suspend his bar license for a period of one year for misconduct. Since 2012, the interim stay on the suspension of the Appellant's bar license has been in operation.

Retrospective Tax Liability Valid, But Not Retrospective Penalty : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ASIA SUGAR & CHEMICAL CO., DEVANGERE VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 778

The Supreme Court has held that while a tax liability can validly be imposed retrospectively through legislative amendment, penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively on a dealer who had complied with the law as it stood when the transaction took place.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale made the distinction while upholding the constitutional validity of a 2001 amendment to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, which retrospectively restricted the exemption available to sugar to sugar “produced or manufactured in India”.

The Court held that Karnataka was competent to retrospectively withdraw the exemption and that the principal tax liability arising from the amendment could be recovered. However, it ruled that dealers who had not collected tax because the commodity was exempt under the then-existing law could not subsequently be subjected to penalty merely because the Legislature retrospectively altered the legal position.

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Dismisses Brinda Karat's Review Plea Against Supreme Court's Clean Chit To BJP Leaders In Hate Speech Case

Case : Brinda Karat v State of NCT of Delhi | RP No. 416/2026

The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat against the April 29 judgment which held that no cognizable offence was made out against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over their alleged hate speeches during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign.

"We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration," observed the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta in the order passed. The review petition was considered in chamber, as open court listing was refused.

The review petition challenged the portion of the judgment in which the Court, after holding that prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not required for a Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3), nevertheless agreed with the conclusion that no cognizable offence was disclosed by the speeches.

Student Protest : Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Action Against Organisers & Community Service Penalty For Minors Who Posted Abuses

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea seeking action against the organisers of the July 20 "Sansad Chalo" student protest for allegedly inciting violence.

The petition also proposes that minors who posted abusive content against the Prime Minister on social media should be made to perform community service instead of facing criminal prosecution.

Advocate Rizwan Ahmed mentioned the petition, filed by a retired Air Force Officer, before the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for urgent listing.

CJI Surya Kant Says Committee Constituted To Examine Hearing Sequencing Issue

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant informed that the Full Court has decided to constitute a three-judge committee to examine concerns regarding the sequencing of cases for hearing, following submissions by Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia highlighting the difficulties faced by lawyers due to last-minute changes in the daily cause list sequence.

Mentioning the issue before the Bench, Bhatia said there was a broad consensus among members of the Bar that the present system was creating uncertainty.

"Today also the sequence was issued at 10:30 a.m. and 10:29. I have spoken to a lot of advocates and there is a broad consensus," Bhatia submitted.

Thiruparankundram Hill Row : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Tamil Nadu Govt Plea Against Madras HC Order On Lamp Lighting

Case : Commissioner v. Rama Ravikumar | Diary No. 36337/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Government challenging the Madras High Court's directionallowing the lighting of the lamp atop a stone pillar near a Dargah at the Thiruparankudram hill in Madurai district.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul Pancholi issued notices to the respondents (writ petitioners in the High Court, ASI, TN Waqf Board, Sikkander Badushah Durgah). The bench however turned down the State's plea to stay the High Court's order ex-parte, and issued notice on the stay application.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, for the State, argued that the High Court had invented a tradition, as the lamp was not traditionally lit at another spot.

Supreme Court Requests Calcutta High Court To Expeditiously Decide Abhishek Banerjee's Plea To Travel Abroad For Eye Treatment

Case : Abhishek Banerjee v State of West Bengal | Diary No.44012/2026

The Supreme Court requested the Calcutta High Court to consider at the earliest Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee's pending application seeking permission to travel abroad for specialised treatment of an eye condition.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard Banerjee's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's refusal to urgently permit his foreign travel.

Appearing for Banerjee, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the application before the High Court was a limited one seeking modification of an interim protection order only to enable overseas travel for medical treatment.

Student Protests : Supreme Court Clarifies States Can Close/Withdraw FIRs Against Protesters

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 44078/2026 and connected cases

The Supreme Court on August 3 clarified that the States are at liberty to close or withdraw the FIRs, in accordance with law,  against students over their participation in the student protests.

The Court clarified its July 28 order,which had observed that the States can proceed with the investigation in the FIRs. The Court made the clarification after petitioners pointed out that the July 28 order can impede the withdrawal of FIRs, which was a commitment made by the Union to the Cockroach Janata Party leaders as a condition to end the protests.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana also clarified that the term "criminal antecedents" in the July 28 order means only "grave and heinous offences". In the July 28 order, the Court had barred coercive action against students who did not have "criminal antecedents". The Court clarified the expression after it was told by the petitioners that the term was vague and could cause difficulties to students who may have petty offences.

Supreme Court Asks ED If Trinamool Congress Can Be Allowed Funds From Frozen Accounts To Manage Daily Affairs

Case Title: ALL INDIA TRINAMOOL CONGRESS AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Case No.: SLP (Crl) 13322/2026

In the Trinamool Congress' plea seeking to operate its bank accounts frozen by the Enforcement Directorate, the Supreme Court proposed that some amount be left with the High Court-appointed Administrator for managing the party's day-to-day affairs.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale was dealing with TMC's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's July 20 interim order whereby itrefusedto permit the party to operate 3 HDFC bank accounts frozen by the Enforcement Directorate as part of a money laundering investigation under the PMLA.

The ED has frozen 3 TMC bank accounts allegedly containing around ₹440 crores. According to the agency, the action forms part of its money laundering investigation into alleged transfers of funds to Carewell Aviation India and an associated entity between April 2023 and June 2026 in connection with the purported acquisition of an aircraft and a helicopter.

'Important' : Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Against Allowing Protests At Delhi's Jantar Mantar

Case : SATISH CHAND KAUSHIK Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 930/2026

The Supreme Court sought the response of the Union and the Delhi Governments on a plea contending that Jantar Mantar is no longer a suitable venue for holding protests and demonstrations in the national capital, citing concerns over public safety, access and basic amenities.

The petitioner Satish Chand Kaushik seeks directions to designate an alternate site in the national capital for protests.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , termed the issue "important", and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to obtain instructions from the Centre on the issues raised in the petition.

Transgender Amendment 2026 Cannot Cancel Vested Rights, Says Supreme Court Orally; Seeks Centre's Response

The Supreme Court told the Union Government to consider the impact of the2026 amendment to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act on persons who were in the middle of sex reassignment therapies or who have already received Transgender cards.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana orally observed that the rights already vested in Transgender persons should not be disturbed. However, the bench refrained from passing an order to this effect, after Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that he will examine the issues.

Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, for one of the petitioners, fervently requested the passing of an order of status quo for persons who have already been issued Transgender cards. She added that the national portal for transgender persons, on which persons have to apply for the new ID card, was now defunct. "The ones who have already got the TG card, their benefits cannot be discontinued", she submitted.

Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Judgment Declaring Candidate Winner 10 Years After Election

Case Title: I. S. INBADURAI v. M. APPAVU AND ORS., Diary No. 35961-2026

The Supreme Court stayed arecent judgment of the Madras High Court, which declared a candidate as a winner ten years after the election, when the term of the relevant Legislative Assembly was already over.

The High Court's order was passed in the election petition filed by M Appavu (DMK), who challenged the election of his rival AIADMK candidate Inbadurai in the 2016 assembly elections. The High Court decided the election petition only in May 2026, since the matter remained pending due to a Supreme Court's stay which remained in force from 2019. The High Court, while granting notional relief to Appavu and directing the stoppage of MLA pension for Inbadurai, also criticised the Supreme Court for causing the delay.

Issuing notice on Inbadurai's petition against the High Court's order,  the bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan ordered an interim stay of the operative part of the High Court order.

Will Lay Down Protocol On Use Of Pellet Guns, Says Supreme Court

Case Title: Yashovardhan Azan and Others v. Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 917/2026

The Supreme Court said that it would lay down a protocol governing the use of pellet guns by law enforcement agencies while hearing a petition challenging their use for crowd control.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a writ petition seeking a ban on the use of pellet guns against civilian assemblies and compensation for two protesters who suffered pellet injuries during the student protests in Delhi on July 20.

Last week, while hearing the petition, the benchhad opined that the regulations which permit the use of pellet guns will have to be challenged. Advocate Vrinda Grover, for the petitioners, submitted that there was no standing order authorising the Delhi police to use pellet guns and that the weapon was inherently unsuitable for deployment against civilians.

Demarcate Footpaths So That Walkers Have Encroachment-Free Space : Supreme Court To Authorities

Case Details: IN RE: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO WALK AND FOOTPATH BY COURTS MOTION Versus MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS|5, 18 W.P.(C) No. 844/2026 PIL-W

The Supreme Court (August 3) directed that the governments must ensure that there is proper demarcation so that walkers have footpaths which are free from encroachments.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a suo moto case regarding the right to access safe and well-demarcated footpaths. In its June 19th order, the Court held that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right and issued a slew of directions.

When the matter was taken up, the bench adjourned it for two weeks. But it suggested that Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj instruct all authorities to demarcate footpaths for the walkers. Justice Narasimha stated that this direction wouldn't require any investment.

Supreme Court Summons Arunachal Chief Secretary, Home Secretary As CBI Alleges Non-Cooperation In Probe Against CM Pema Khandu

Case Title: Save Mon Region Federation And Anr v. The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors., MA 2216 - / 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 54/2024

Following CBI's report alleging non-cooperation in a case pertaining to Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu, the Supreme Court summoned the state's Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary (Home) to explain the non-compliance with court directions.

While issuing notice to the two officers, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ordered that they shall remain present in court on the next date, alongwith their response to the CBI report.

"A perusal of the same reflects that there is no cooperation at the end of the State Government in providing the necessary records as was directed vide judgment and order dated 06.04.2026. As such, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, making it returnable on 24.08.2026...Both the aforesaid officers shall remain present before this Court along with their response to the afore-mentioned report of the C.B.I. and also explain as to why there is non-cooperation and non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court" the order stated.

“Pharmacy Council Of India An Obsolete Institution”: Supreme Court Suggests Replacing PCI With Statutory Commission

Case Title – Pharmacy Council of India v. SLS College of Pharmacy

The Supreme Court remarked that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) should not continue to function in its present form, and asked the Centre why it could not be replaced with a new statutory commission on the lines of the National Medical Commission.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the Council's challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment which held that once approval is granted to a pharmacy course under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the institution cannot be required to seek continuation of that approval annually.

At the outset of the hearing, the bench asked why the PCI cannot be replaced like the Medical Council of India was replaced with the National Medical Commission.

Supreme Court Directs MEA To Trace Indian Seafarer Missing After Drone Attack On Ship Near Ukraine

Case Title –SANDEEP KUMAR GUPTA Vs UNION OF INDIA

The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to use diplomatic channels to trace an Indian seafarer who went missing after a cargo vessel was attacked by drones in the Black sea near Ukraine.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition concerning Deepak Kumar Gupta, who was serving as an ordinary seaman on MV AGN Ragnar.

The Court noted that conflicting reports had emerged about the fate of the missing seafarers.

Supreme Court Asks CEC To Examine Environmental Issues Concerning Himachal Pradesh

Case Title: IN RE: ISSUES RELATING TO ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 758 of 2025

The Supreme Court referred to the Centrally Empowered Committee certain environmental issues pertaining to Himachal Pradesh, including the notified green belt areas of Shimla.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ordered that the CEC shall examine the issues in a phased manner and file interim reports while dealing with three issues at a time.

For the said purpose, the Committee shall hold meetings with the State's instrumentalities and would be at liberty to call for records, data, etc. from the state authorities and/or any other agency, as deemed fit. The State and its instrumentalities, on their part, shall accord full cooperation to the CEC in terms of manpower, logistic support and information.

NEET-SS : Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Seek Retention Of Entire Unfilled Seats With State, Urge Supreme Court To Modify Order

Case Details: TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION & ANR v UOI|WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 771 OF 2026

The Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association has moved the Supreme Court seeking modification of its July 28 order directing that only 50% of the unfilled super specialty medical seats be reverted to the State if the NEET-SS qualifying percentile is reduced after the second round of counselling. The Association has sought a direction that all the remaining unfilled seats should instead revert to Tamil Nadu for allotment to eligible in-service candidates.

The application seeks modification of the order which it directed that if the State decides to lower the qualifying percentage to fit 151 super speciality medical seats after the second round of counselling, then 50% of that should go to the Directorate General of Health Services(DGHS).

The application has been filed in the pending writ petition concerning 151 unfilled super specialty seats earmarked for in-service candidates in Tamil Nadu. According to the petitioners, these seats form part of the State's 50% reservation for in-service doctors under G.O. Ms. No. 462 dated November 7, 2020, a policy whose constitutional validity was upheld by the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India (2021).

Wife Of Indian Captain Missing After Hormuz Strait Ship Attack Moves Supreme Court

The wife of Merchant Navy Captain Ashish Kumar, who was feared to have died in a missile/drone attack on the merchant vessel M.T. Skylight in the Strait of Hormuz on March 1, 2026, has approached the Supreme Court claiming that he is alive and is held in illegal captivity by foreign actors.

She has filed a habeas corpus writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Union of India, through the Ministries of External Affairs and Home Affairs, to trace, locate and produce Captain Ashish Kumar by utilising all available diplomatic, consular and intelligence channels.

According to the petition, Captain Ashish Kumar's vessel was anchored near Khasab Port in Oman before allegedly coming under a missile/drone attack on March 1 amid the regional conflict involving the United States, Iran and Israel. Out of 20 crew members, 18 were rescued, while Captain Ashish Kumar and another Indian national were reported missing.

NEET-UG 2026 : 6 Candidates Move Supreme Court Alleging OMR Sheet Discrepancy

Six NEET UG 2026 candidates have approached the Supreme Court alleging discrepancies between the answers they had originally marked in their OMR sheets and the copies of the OMR sheets made available by the National Testing Agency (NTA) after the declaration of the examination results.

The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with the petitioners seeking an early hearing before the commencement of the counselling process.

Mentioning the writ petition, the counsel submitted that the case concerns six students who have secured scores above 600 and 650 marks but claim that the OMR sheets now reflected by the NTA differ from what they had actually marked during the examination.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Plea Challenging CAPF Act Allowing IPS Deputation Contrary To SC Judgment

Case : Sanjay Prakash And Ors. V. Union Of India And Ors. | Diary No. 29938-2026 &. Bibhor Kumar Singh (Shaurya Chakra) And Ors. V. Union Of India And Ors | W.P.(C) No. 873/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026, contending that it amounts to an impermissible legislative override of the Court's earlier judgment barring the deputation of IPS officers in the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF).

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was considering a petition filed by 34 officers. The bench also considered another petition filed by 890 CAPF officers.

The plea seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution as well as the doctrine of separation of powers.

Asaram Doesn't Require Hospitalization: AIIMS Tells Supreme Court In Plea To Suspend Rape Sentence

Case Title: ASHA RAM @ ASHUMAL Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN, SLP(Crl) No. 11761/2026

The All India Institute for Medical Sciences has filed a report before the Supreme Court stating that self-styled godman Asaram does not require hospitalization for treatment of his ailment(s). The report however adds that he requires assistance by trained caregivers round the clock.

The report also mentions ailments that Asaram has been found to be suffering from, including coronary artery disease, osteoporosis, chronic hyponatremia, thalassemia, and recurrent gastro incidents involving blood loss.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale has been dealing withAsaram's challengeto the Rajasthan High Court judgment which upheld his conviction and life sentence under Section 376 IPC for committing rape of a woman at his ashram in 2013.

Supreme Court Asks Lok Sabha MP To Approach Union With Plea Seeking Municipalities In Scheduled Tribal Areas

Case : Rajkumar Roat v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 910/2026

The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Rajkumar Roat, Lok Sabha MP belonging to the Bharat Adivasi Party, seeking directions to create municipalities in urban areas falling within Scheduled Tribe areas, asking him to approach the Union Government.

Observing that it was a matter within the legislative policy domain, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana disposed of the matter, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Ministry.

During the hearing, the bench commented that the petitioner, being a Member of Parliament, can pursue the matter in the legislature by moving a private member bill. The bench asked why the petitioner has approached the Court for a matter falling within the competence of the legislative wing.

Does 2-Child Policy Require Reconsideration? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Details: MANGALA BHIMRAO INGLE PRATIK v THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DIVISION AND ORS.|SLP(C) No. 30772/2025

The Supreme Court (August 4) reserved judgment on a petition challenging the bar on persons with more than two children from contesting elections to the Panchayat and other local bodies in Maharashtra. The Court orally stated it will consider whether Javed v State of Haryana(2003) requires reconsideration by the present bench or requires a reference to a larger bench.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a petition about disqualification incurred by a former Sarpanch at the Kakoda Gram Panchayat, Mangala Bhimrao, under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, on the birth of her third child. The 1959 Act imposed a cap of more than two children from September 13, 2000, when the amendment to the legislation was enforced.

While hearing the matter on the last occasion, the bench orally expressed that the Javed judgment, where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which disqualified candidates with more than two living children from contesting local elections, needs reconsideration.

Bar Council Elections : Supreme Court Allows HC CJs To Co-opt 2 Women Members From Ex-Judges Or Advocates

Case Title – M. Varadhan v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed that the two women members to be co-opted to State Bar Councils shall be nominated from among former women High Court judges or senior women members with a fair standing at the Bar, holding that such a mechanism would bring "objectivity, independence and transparency" to the functioning of the councils.

The Court allowed the Chief Justice of the concerned High Courts to nominate the two co-opted members.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a batch of matters concerning various issues arising out of State Bar Council elections, including implementation of women's representation, the method of co-option and the system of transferable votes. The Court had earlier mandated 30% women's reservation in Bar Councils, while clarifying that 10% members could be co-opted. However, there remained confusion regarding how to implement the co-option, and the Court had directed theBCI to finalise a proposal on it after taking the views of all stakeholders.

Supreme Court Extends Stay On NCP MLA Manikrao Kokate's Conviction In 1995 Cheating Case Till Bombay High Court Decides Revision

Case Title: Manikrao Shivaji Kokate v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court disposed of NCP MLA Manikrao Kokate's plea seeking a stay on his conviction in a 1995 cheating case, asking the Bombay High Court to decide his revision petition within six months. The Court continued the interim stay on his conviction until the revision is decided.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the order.

The case concerns allegations that Kokate and his brother Vijay obtained two government flats under a scheme for weaker sections of society by falsely declaring that their annual income was below the eligibility ceiling of Rs 30,000.

Digital Arrest Scams: Supreme Court Issues Directions For Prevention, Compensation & Grievance Redressal

Case title – In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents

The Supreme Court issued a series of directions to strengthen the prevention, investigation and redressal mechanisms relating to the growing menace of "digital arrest" scams, including directing the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to adopt a standard operating procedure (SOP) for banks, operationalise grievance redressal and money restoration mechanisms, and asking an inter-departmental committee to examine a framework for shared liability and victim compensation.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the directions in the suo motu proceedingsconcerning digital arrest scams, after hearing Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate NS Nappinai.

Bench expresses satisfaction with reduction in cases, but stresses on continued vigilance

NEET-PG 2025 Cut-Off Reduction : Expert Committee Formed To Examine Issue, Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: HARISHARAN DEVGAN AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 136/2026

The Supreme Court (August 4) adjourned the batch of pleas challenging the reduction in the cut-off percentile for NEET-PG 2025-26 for eight weeks after it was informed by the Union that the Government has set up an Expert Committee to examine the issues.

In earlier hearings, 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.

The bench had recommended that the government form a committee to study the issues raised. The Court was informed by Additional Solicitor General Aiswarya Bhati that an Expert Committee comprising various stakeholders has been formed.

Supreme Court Urges States/UTs To Consider Reservation For Military Cadets Injured During Training In Quota For Ex-Military Personnel

Case : IN RE: CADETS DISABLED IN MILITARY TRAINING STRUGGLE | SMW(C) No. 6/2025

The Supreme Court urged the Union of India to frame a scheme for the welfare of cadets outboarded by the armed forces on account of disabilities incurred during military training.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan called on ASG N Venkataraman (for Union) to obtain necessary instructions, noting that provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 may not apply to such cadets, particularly those benchmark disability is less than 40 percent.

The Court also directed the respondent-departments to re-consider the recommendations made by the Sabharwal Committee report, keeping in view the fact that the Court has taken up the present case for amelioration of the conditions of outboarded cadets. "We expect that certain favorable recommendations would be emanating from the respondent-departments in this regard", the Court said.

Won't Allow Release Of Tertiary Water Into Jojari River : Supreme Court

Case: In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8 of 2025

In the suo motu case taken up over industrial river pollution in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court categorically said that no tertiary water (treated wastewater) would be allowed to be released into Jojari river of the state.

"Not even a drop of that tertiary water can be allowed in the river. Steel industry is now starting re-use treated water. Tell us whether textile industry is in a position to re-use that water? If you can't use it for dyeing and printing purposes, how do you expect it to be allowed to go into the river where it mixes into drinking water? As on date, no tertiary water will be allowed. You rest assured. We'll not even hear arguments on that. With great difficulty, the river has started breathing. Let it breathe. We will not allow any attempt to kill it again" Justice Sandeep Mehta said.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Mehta listed the matter for delivery of orders. However, during the hearing, it was not convinced with pleas related to discharge of accumulated wastewater. It questioned how the wastewater could be permitted to be released in the river water which was to be utilized for drinking, when the industries were not willing to re-use the same water for industrial purposes.

Computer-Based NEET In 2 Stage Like JEE Under Active Consideration : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Details : Federation of All India Medical Association v. Union of India | WP(c) 651/2026

The Union Government has informed the Supreme Court that it has undertaken a comprehensive overhaul of the National Testing Agency's (NTA) examination processes following the controversy surrounding the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, and has asserted that a multi-layered security architecture has now been put in place to ensure the integrity of national entrance examinations.

Responding to petitions seeking structural reforms of the NTA, the Centre detailed the measures adopted pursuant to theCourt's May 29, 2026 orderdirecting it to explain how the conduct of NEET examinations would be institutionalised to preserve lessons learnt from previous cycles and prevent future lapses.

Computer-based testing under consideration

News Outlets Can Report Court Proceedings Without Sharing Audio-Video Clips : Supreme Court Clarifies

Case : Harshita Grover v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 751/2026

The Supreme Court has clarified that its recent interim order restricting the sharing and uploading of audio-video clips of court proceedings does not prohibit recognised news organisations from reporting on hearings. The Court said that the restriction is limited to the use of audio and video clips of court proceedings in news reports.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued the clarification while hearing a batch of petitions concerning live streaming and recording of court proceedings.

The clarification came after the Court noted that "some confusion persists" regarding paragraph 11 of its July 24 interim order, which had said that the bar on sharing of clips of hearings will not bar reporting by recognised news outlets.

'Tomorrow Gen Alpha, Beta Will Come' : Petitioner Urges Supreme Court Not To Allow Withdrawal Of Cases Against Student Protesters

Case : MANEESH KUMAR SOLANKI Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 958/2026

"Tomorrow Generation Alpha, Beta, Delta will come," a petitioner warned the Supreme Court while opposing any political decision to withdraw criminal cases against the Gen Z student protesters, arguing that doing so would set a dangerous precedent for future agitations. The plea seeks directions restraining the Union Government and States from withdrawing rioting cases arising out of the recent student protests solely on the basis of any political understanding.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana tagged the matter along with other cases concerning the student protests, in which the Court on August 3 clarified thatthe FIRs registered against the protesters can be withdrawn.

The petition filed by Maneesh Kumar Solanki sought fixing of accountability on the organisers of the protests. Advocate Rizwan Ahmed, appearing for the petitioner, submitted, "It [the protest] was about accountability of the Minister and the police; we accept that. 15 days have passed. What about the accountability of the organisers? They are going from channel to channel giving provocative statements and refusing to douse the fire."

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against SCBA Resolution Supporting Sonam Wangchuk, Allows To Invoke SCBA Process

Case :   ASHISH GOPAL GARG Vs SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION | W.P.(C) No. 948/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a resolution passed by the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association expressing solidarity with the hunger strike held by Sonam Wangchuk in support of the student protests over the exam paper leak issue.

The Court disposed of the petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue "democratic processes" available as per the SCBA Rules. When the petitioner pointed out that the Executive Committee was no longer in existence, the Court clarified that the Election Committee can be approached.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana observed that it will be a dangerous precedent if the Court interferes with the views expressed by the Bar Association. Members having a contrary opinion can call for another general body meeting to express their views, the bench suggested, expressing reluctance to interfere in the issue.

States Cannot Cite Financial Burden To Oppose Raising Judicial Officers' Retirement Age : Supreme Court

Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

The Supreme Court held that States cannot oppose enhancement of the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years on the ground of additional financial burden, or citing the reason that the retirement age of government servants was different.

Rejecting both these reasons as "untenable", the Court directed all States that have opposed enhancement of the retirement age to revisit the issue independently and take a fresh decision at the earliest within two weeks. The Court clarified that the States will not be precluded from approving the enhancement of retirement age merely because the jurisdictional High Court has taken a contrary view. The objections of the High Courts will be considered at an appropriate time, the Court stated.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made these observations while hearing the All India Judges Association case concerning enhancement of the retirement age of members of the district judiciary.

Is Partial Relaxation For Certain Crackers Possible Regarding Noise Levels? Supreme Court Asks CPCB

Case Details: ARJUN GOPAL & ORS v UOI &ORS

The Supreme Court directed the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to get instructions from the Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB) as to whether a partial relaxation can be made for allowing certain types of crackers.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale directed: "Learned ASG is directed to get instructions from the Central Pollution Control Board on the query of the Court as to whether a partial relaxation with respect to certain types of crackers may be possible, with specific reference to noise."

The directions were passed in a long-standing writ petition filed by three infants highlighting the grave health hazards caused by firecrackers during Diwali. In 2016, the Supreme Court then passed a series of orders imposing a ban on conventional firecrackers and their manufacturing and selling. In 2017, it directed the CPCB and the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation to set up standards with regard to air pollution caused by firecrackers and banned certain chemicals used for making crackers.

Shiv Sena Case | Political Party's Decision Must Prevail Over Legislative Party's Majority, Says Supreme Court In Hearing

Case : Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (and connected case)

In the Shiv Senadispute, the Supreme Court orally said that as per existing law, a political party has subsisting control over a legislature party and any decision of the political party would prevail over the will of the majority of the legislature party.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the plea filed by Uddhav Thackeray faction member Sunil Prabhu challenging the Maharashtra Speaker's refusal to disqualify MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction under the 10th Schedule. Another petition, filed by Uddhav Thackeray, was also listed before the bench, which challenges the ECI decision that recognized the Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena and allowed it the use of the 'bow and arrow' symbol.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed :

When Can ECI Choose Not To Hold Bye-Election? Supreme Court To Interpret S.151A RP Act

Case Title: ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA Versus SUGHOSH JOSHI AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 200/2024

The Supreme Court is set to consider issues pertaining to the interpretation of Section 151A of the Representation of People Act, which provides that bye-polls be conducted to fill up within 6 months a post that falls vacant in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha or the State Legislative Assemblies/Councils.

Notably, Section 151A contains a proviso, as per which ECI need not hold bye-elections for a vacant seat if the remainder of the term in relation to the vacancy is less than 1 year. One of the issues arising in the case therefore is - from what date the 1-year period is to be reckoned: the date the post falls vacant, a date after the expiry of the 6-month period, or any other date?

On Augsut 4, A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard y the ECI's challenge to a Bombay High Court order, which held that the 1 year period is to be reckoned from the date when the post falls vacant and ECI must conclude the elections within the 6 month period.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Chhattisgarh Businessman In Alleged Manpower Commission Scam; Directs Him To Stay Outside State

Case Title – Anwar Dhebar v. State of Chhattisgarh

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Chhattisgarh businessman Anwar Dhebar in a corruption case arising out of an alleged commission racket involving manpower agencies engaged by the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL).

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana directed Dhebar to remain outside Chhattisgarh while on interim bail. However, it permitted him to enter the State for the trial or to attend court proceedings.

The Court passed the order while hearing Dhebar's plea challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal to grant him regular bail.

Judicial Officers Are Not Government Servants; They Can Have Different Retirement Age : Supreme Court

Case Title – All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court observed that judicial officers are not government servants and constitute a distinct and separate class, while considering the proposal to increase the retirement age of District Judges from 60 to 62 years.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observation while dealing with one of the objections raised by some State governments to the proposed enhancement.

The Court had on July 22 asked the High Courts to take a time-bound decision on increasing the retirement age of judicial officers. As an interim arrangement, it had said that where a State government and the jurisdictional High Court concurred on increasing the retirement age, the judicial officers concerned could be allowed to continue in service until the enhanced age of retirement. The Court had also clarified that any eventual decision on enhancement would relate back to superannuation taking place on or after April 1, 2026.

Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of Abhishek Banerjee's Aide Sumit Roy In Salboni Land-grab case

Case : SUMIT ROY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL | Diary No. 46817/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the arrest of Sumit Roy, Personal Assistant of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee, in the Salboni land-grabbing case.

The Court however directed him to appear for interrogation and cooperate with the investigation. "The petitioner to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation. He should not be accompanied by any advocate or any other person. He shall remain available for any investigation from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the usual breaks. However, his arrest will remain stayed," the Court ordered.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the interim order while considering Roy's petition challenging the Calcutta High Court's August 3 order rejecting his plea for anticipatory bail.

Supreme Court Takes Note Of Lucknow Coaching Centre Fire, Issues Contempt Notice To LDA Vice Chairman

Cause Title: LOGANATHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

The Supreme Court has taken serious note of the Lucknow coaching centre tragedy that claimed 15 lives in June, and issued a contempt notice to the Vice-Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) for alleged non-compliance with its directions to identify and act against residential premisesbeing misused for non-residential purposes.

During the hearing, a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was informed by Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha, Amicus Curiae, that the building where the fatal incident occurred had been the subject of a demolition order passed on May 10, 2016. However, the order was reportedly recalled by the authority itself less than two months later on technical grounds, after which no further action was taken.

The Court was told that the residential premises continued to be used for commercial and educational activities until the recent tragedy resulted in the deaths of 15 students.

Supreme Court Flags Coaching Institutes Running In Commercial Areas In Jaipur

Cause Title: LOGANATHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

The Supreme Court expressed concern over coaching institutes continuing to operate from commercial areas in Jaipur despite the availability of dedicated buildings constructed for their relocation, and ordered that any allotment of such buildings to other persons or institutions would remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan passed the direction while monitoring compliance with its earlier orders concerning illegal constructions, violations of Master Plans and unauthorized land use across the country.

The Court was informed that although the Government had constructed dedicated multi-storeyed buildings to relocate coaching institutes, those institutes continued to function from commercial areas. Instead of shifting the coaching centres to the designated premises, the authorities were reportedly allotting those buildings to other institutions.

Supreme Court Allows Asaram To Engage Caregiver In Prison; Deprecates Obtaining Of Parole From HC By Suppressing Plea In SC

Case Title: ASHA RAM @ ASHUMAL Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN, SLP(Crl) No. 11761/2026

The Supreme Court allowed self-styled godman Asaram, who is in jail following conviction in a 2013 rape case, to avail round-the-clock services of a trained caregiver of his choice.

While keeping his application for suspension of sentence pending, a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale further granted Asaram liberty to approach the Court again if his condition worsens. The bench passed the order considering a recent report filed by the AIIMS, as per which Asaram does not require hospitalisation for his ailments, but requires round-the-clock assistance from trained caregivers. Asaram was stated to be suffering from ailments such as coronary artery disease, thalassemia, osteoporosis, etc.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out to the court that Asaram obtained 20-day parole from the Rajasthan High Court(on medical grounds) by suppressing the present application. He stated that while the present case was suppressed before the High Court, the parole plea before the High Court was suppressed before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Proposes Transferring Tamil Nadu Bribery Case Against ED Officer To Central Agency

Case : Directore of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu W.P.(Crl.) No. 23/2024

The Supreme Court indicated that it may transfer the investigation into the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) bribery case against Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer Ankit Tiwari to an independent central investigating agency, while making it clear that it would not vacate the stay on the State's proceedings.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was hearing the writ petition filed by the ED in 2024 seeking to transfer the investigation of the bribery case against ED officer from the Tamil Nadu agency to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In January 2024, the Court had stayed theproceedings in the TN FIR.

Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar submitted that the State had moved an application seeking vacation of the stay. "Further proceedings against an ED officer were stayed. We have sought vacation of stay," Kumar submitted.

Home Loan Subvention Fraud : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Fasten CBI Probe & Prosecution Sanctions Against Bankers

Case Title – Himanshu Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court directed seven States to provide additional police officers to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) within 10 days for its probe into the alleged builder-bank fraud nexus in housing projects.

The Court also directed State Bank of India, UCO Bank, HDFC, ICICI and Sammaan Capital, among other financial institutions, to expeditiously process the CBI's requests for sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prosecute their officers and officials who have been prima facie found involved during the investigation.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the directions while dealing with petitions concerning alleged systemic failures by banks, housing finance companies and government authorities in housing loan subvention schemes.

Health-Tech Company Moves Supreme Court Seeking CBI Probe Into Cyber Attack & Data Theft

Case Title: VITRAYA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Diary No. 31408-2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition seeking a CBI/Court-monitored SIT probe into the alleged hacking and theft of citizens' personal and medical data stored at a health-tech company.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order on the plea of one Vitraya Technologies Pvt. Limited, which has a digital platform for real-time settlement of health insurance claims. Senior Advocate K Parameshwar appeared for the petitioner.

He submitted that the data breaches happened across six States. "I have been informing the authorities from day one. I filed my complaint in March 2025. It took them till August 2025 even to register an FIR," he submitted. He added that the FIR invoked only Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, which was inadequate. "I gave them the details of the Singapore server where the medical records of nearly 1.5 lakh Indian citizens have gone. Even today, the FIR is against unknown persons. How do I trust this investigation?," he submitted.

'Reservation Not Only Based On Economic Status' : Centre Opposes Plea In Supreme Court For Income-Based Sub-Quota Within SC/ST/OBCs

Case :Ramashankar Prajapati & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 682/2025

The Union Government has opposed apetition in the Supreme Court seeking directions to introduce an income-based sub-quota within reserved categories, contending that reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is founded on historical and social backwardness and not merely economic status.

In a counter affidavit filed through the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Centre argued that the petition seeks judicial directions to frame a policy on reservation, which falls within the executive domain and cannot be mandated through a writ of mandamus.

The petitioners have sought directions to the Union Government to evolve a more equitable reservation policy by introducing income-based preferences within SC, ST, OBC and EWS categories and by creating sub-classifications to ensure that economically weaker persons within each reserved category receive priority in the distribution of reservation benefits.

'Are Political Parties Not Supposed To Follow Democratic Principles Like Other Institutions?' Supreme Court Asks In Shiv Sena Hearing

Case : Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (and connected case)

In the Shiv Sena matter, the Supreme Court asked the Uddhav Thackeray faction if political parties are not supposed to abide by democratic principles the way constitutional institutions do.

"Your party constitution was based on democratic principles. And then you suddenly brought an amendment and created a complete...When we talk of democratic principles in institutions, a question would arise - as a political party, are you also not supposed to follow the principles?" the Chief Justice of India questioned.

In response, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the Uddhav faction, contended that there is a difference between institutions that discharge political functions and institutions that discharge constitutional functions. He said that while an erroneous political function can be corrected, a wrong decision by a constitutional authority like ECI can seldom be rectified. The senior counsel further underlined that the level of integrity expected from institutions discharging constitutional functions is way higher.

New Scheme For Modernization Of Entire Police Force Under Consideration: Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Details :

The Supreme Court was informed on August 5 by the Union that an umbrella scheme for modernization of the entire police force across the country is under consideration. The same has been sent to the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance for in-principle approval.

The Union further stated that the Assistance to States and Union Territories for Modernization of Police (ASUMP) scheme has been extended till March 31, 2027.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was apprised of the developments by ASG Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare during the hearing of the suo motu case taken up over lack of functional CCTVs in police stations.

Supreme Court Refuses To Reject Election Petition Against Ex-Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel

Case: Bhupesh Baghel v. Vijay Baghel, SLP(C) No. 24440/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel's plea seeking rejection of an election petition challenging his victory in the 2023 Chhattisgarh Assembly elections, while permitting him to raise all his legal objections during the trial before the High Court.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard Baghel's challenge to the maintainability of the election petition filed by his BJP rival Vijay Baghel.

The election petition alleges that Bhupesh Baghel violated the 48-hour silence period before polling by conducting a roadshow, amounting to a violation of Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

'Approach HC' : Supreme Court To NEET-UG 2026 Candidates Alleging OMR Discrepancy

Case Details: BUSHRA NAIM vs. UNION OF INDIA| W.P.(C) No. 964/2026

The Supreme Court (August 7) disposed of a writ petition filed by six NEET UG 2026 candidates alleging discrepancies between the answers they had originally marked in their OMR sheets and the copies of the OMR sheets made available by the National Testing Agency (NTA) after the declaration of the examination results.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe disposed of the writ petition and granted liberty for them to approach the Delhi High Court. The bench stated it can't entertain the petition because the re-examination has already taken place and the matter regarding institutionalisation of NTA is sub judice.

The petitioner's counsel, Advocate Sanjeev Malhotra, stated that they don't wish to interfere with the ongoing counselling and that their limited plea is for access to the OMRs to verify their marks.

'Freedom Fighters Took Bullets & You Fear Eggs?' : Supreme Court Refuses Mahua Moitra's Plea For Virtual Appearance Before Police

Case Details: MAHUA MOITRA Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL|SLP(Crl) No. 14405/2026 Diary No. 47058 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 7) refused to entertain a plea filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra challenging the Calcutta High Court's order directing her to appear before the investigating officer in a criminal case filed against her for allegedly offending religious sentiments.

On July 21, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya of the Calcutta High Court grantedMoitra interim protection from arrest but directed her to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer on August 14.

When the matter was taken up before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, the Court stated that she will have to face the investigation. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan submitted that she has no issue with appearing for investigation, but it can be done virtually. To this, Justice Datta orally remarked: "Just because you are an MP?"

Supreme Court Stays HC Proceedings In Pleas Of X Corp, Kunal Kamra & Others Against Sahyog Portal, Content Blocking Powers

Case : UNION OF INDIA & ANR v DIGIPUB NEWS INDIA FOUNDATION & ORS.| Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 2071-2074/2026

The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings in cases pending before the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the 'Sahyog Portal' and the powers under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 for take down of online content.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order on July 22 while hearing transfer petitions filed by the Union government.

The Centre has sought the transfer to the Supreme Court of four proceedings pending before the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts. Issuing notice on the transfer petitions, returnable on August 10, the Court directed:

Two Hospitals Agree In Supreme Court To Pay Compensation Over Lapse In Treating 4-Year-Old Rape Victim

Case Title : XXX v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, W.P.(Crl.) No. 139/2026

After a nudge from the Supreme Court, two private hospitals in Ghaziabad agreed to pay compensation to the family of a four-year-old girl who died after allegedly being denied timely medical treatment following a brutal rape. The Court also indicated that it would frame guidelines to ensure prompt medical care for victims of sexual assault and other medical emergencies.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the directions while hearing the suo motu case in which it had earlier constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the rape and murder of the child and had expressed concern over the conduct of the Uttar Pradesh authorities as well as the refusal of two private hospitals to admit and treat her.

As the bench was proposing to direct the payment of compensation, the hospitals agreed to voluntarily pay the sums. The order therefore recorded that  St. Joseph Mariam Hospital, Ghaziabad, would pay ₹10 lakh to the victim's family, while the second hospital agreed to pay ₹2 lakh. The amounts are to be paid through demand drafts within four weeks.

Can Waqfs Claim Court Fee Exemption In Waqf Tribuals? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: AHMEDABAD SUNNI MUSLIM WAQF COMMITTEE Vs GUJARAT STATE WAQF TRIBUNAL|SLP(C) No. 18353/2026 Diary No. 24045 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 7) issued notice in a plea raising the issue of whether waqf institutions can be exempted from payment of court fees in proceedings before State Waqf Tribunals.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi issued notice to the Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal after briefly hearing Senior Advocate Huzefa A. Ahmadi(for the petitioner).

Ahmadi took the Court through the Gujarat Court-Fees Act, 2004and argued that the Tribunal constituted under the Act doesn't have the same powers as the civil court.

Deepak Prakash Nominated As MLC, Can Continue As Minister : Bihar Govt Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 746 of 2026.

Bihar Minister Deepak Prakash has been nominated as a Member of the Legislative Council, and hence there was no bar on his continuation as a Minister, the Satte Government told the Supreme Court.

The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking to remove Prakash, an unelected member, from the Minister post on the ground that he has not become a member of the legislature within six months of his appointment as the Minister.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, informed the Court that the disqualification has been cured with Prakash's nomination as an MLC. Asking the State to produce the notification, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana adjourned the writ petition filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh.

Biren Singh Audio Clips Manipulated, Says NFSU Analysis; Supreme Court Allows Kuki Group To Access Report

Case Details:  KUKI ORGANIZATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS TRUST Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 702/2024 Diary No. 47024 / 2024

The Supreme Court directed that the latest forensic report prepared by the National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU) be shared with the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights who is seeking investigation into audio clips allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in the State's ethnic violence.

According to the second NFSU report, the audio clips examined were found to be altered, making it impossible to authenticate the recording or compare the voice with Biren Singh's admitted voice samples.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva passed the order while directing that the report should remain confidential and not be made public.

Noida Workers Protest : Law Student Approaches Supreme Court Alleging Police Harassment

Case Title: YOGESH MEENA Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

During the hearing of a case related to the Noida workers' protest, Advocate Shahrukh Alam flagged before the Supreme Court "abuse of process" against a student protestor by Uttar Pradesh police.

The advocate claimed that the petitioner, a first year law student, was arrested in 11 FIRs after the protest and was being harassed by the police on his alleged acquaintance with another person, a driver, who had been arrested over sharing of inciteful messages. She claimed that there was no material to support the police's allegation that the petitioner was the main conspirator and the driver was acting on his behest. It was further highlighted that the accused-driver had since been released on bail, but the petitioner continued to be in custody.

As per allegations, the petitioner was picked up by the police from outside his college, beaten up and subjected to casteist slurs.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Regulate Private Coaching Centres

Case Details:  NARENDRA KUMAR GOSWAMI v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 808/2026

The Supreme Court (August 7) dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to remove "unregulated, fee-driven private coaching" systems.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the writ petition filed by Advocate Narendra Kumar Goswani as petitioner-in-person. The petitioner urged that the notice may be issued to the Central Board of Secondary Education. However, the Court refused and stated that these matters are not where Article 32 should be invoked.

As per his writ petition, it has been stated that the fundamental rights of students have been violated across the nation because of such a private coaching ecosystem. The petitioner has relied upon the Central Consumer Protection Authority's 'Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in Coaching Sector, 2024' and the reports from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights about the proliferation of "dummy schools" and alarming spike in student suicides, particularly in coaching hubs like Kota, Rajasthan, linked directly to coaching pressure.

Bombay HC New Building: Will Complete Bid Process & Hand Over Remaining Land By December, State Tells Supreme Court

Case Details : IN RE: HERITAGE BUILDING OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND ALLOTMENT OF ADDITIONAL LANDS FOR THE HIGH COURT, SMW (C) No(s). 5/2024

The Maharashtra government informed the Supreme Court that it will complete the bid process for the construction of the new Bombay High Court buildi

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing the suo motu proceedings concerning the preservation of the Bombay High Court's heritage building and the allotment of additional land for expansion of the court's infrastructure.

Appearing for the State, Advocate General Milind Sathe apprised the Bench of the progress made in implementing the project.

Ukraine War | Missing Seafarers Could Not Be Located Despite Search : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. Union of India

The Union Government informed the Supreme Court that two Indian seafarers who went missing after cargo vessel MV AGN Ragnar was attacked in the Black Sea near Ukraine could not be located despite exhaustive search and rescue operations undertaken by the Ukrainian authorities, the Romanian Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC), the Romanian Coast Guard and associated rescue services.

“As regard to the latest status, it is pointed out that as per the information received up to 5th August 2026, extensive SAR operations undertaken by Ukrainian authority, Romanian MRCC, Romanian Coast Guard and associated rescue services were unable to locate Mr. Deepak Kumar Gupta and Mr. Ramachandra. It is stated that search operations presently remain suspended pending receipt of fresh information while DGMA continues to pursue all pending investigation and SAR reports and remains engaged with all concerned stakeholders”, the Court noted.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court asked the Centre to facilitate insurance claims for the families of the missing seafarers.

Supreme Court Refuses To Suspend Sentence Of Asaram's Son Narayan Sai In 2013 Rape Case

Case: NARAYAN @NARAYAN SAI @MOTA BHAGWAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. Diary No. 29992-2026

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a Gujarat High Courtorderwhich refused suspension of life sentence of self-styled godman Asaram's son, Narayan Sai, in connection with a 2013 rape case.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale passed an order requesting the High Court to decide Narayan Sai's appeal against conviction and sentence in 3 months.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan appeared for Narayan Sai.

MBBS : Supreme Court Suggests Uniform National Policy On Compulsory Rural Service By Medical Students

Case Details: ASHISH REDU Vs GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA|W.P.(C) No. 332/2024 Diary No. 22561 / 2024

The Supreme Court suggested that there should be a uniform policy regarding compulsory rural service to be rendered by medical students. The Solicitor General agreed to get instructions from the Centre regarding such a pan-Indian policy.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a writ petition challenging a notification issued by the Karnataka Government that required the medical students to fulfil one year of compulsory public rural service in order to be eligible for permanent registration with the Karnataka Medical Council.

At the outset, Justice Narasimha remarked that the policy is very important. He suggested that a uniform policy should be formulated in this regard as medical students have an obligation towards nation building also.

'Totally Incompetent': Supreme Court Slams Chhattisgarh DGP In Custodial Death Case, Warns Contempt

Case : LAHRA BAI TAMRE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Diary No. - 48963/2025

Taking note of laxity shown by senior police officials in a custodial death case, the Supreme Court came down heavily on Chhattisgarh police and slammed the Director General of Police as "totally incompetent".

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a writ petition filed by a man's wife and two daughters, alleging that their husband/father died in custody due to custodial torture. Though the death of the man took place in January 2024, an FIR was apparently registered by the police to probe his death on July 30, 2026.

The family had initially approached the High Court seeking a fair investigation into the custodial death as well as a compensation of Rs.50 lakhs. The High Court however disposed of the matter while awarding Rs.1 lakh as compensation, without passing any direction for registration of FIR or probe into the allegations.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma Over Cash Row

The Supreme Court (August 7) dismissed a writ petition seeking registration of FIR against Yashwant Varma, former judge of the Allahabad High Court, in thealleged unaccounted cash-at-home discovery during a fire incident.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the writ petition filed by advocate Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay, calling it a publicity interest litigation. It noted that the Court had earlier rejected similar petitions.

Upadhyay sought an FIR against Justice Varma, stating that since thejudge retired in April this year, he no longer has immunity against arrest under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The issue relates to the accidental discovery of a huge pile of currency notes at an outhouse of the official residence of Justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court, during a firefighting operation on March 14, 2025.

Supreme Court Allows SIR Appellate Tribunal Judge To Approach Calcutta HC For Enhanced Security

Case Title: Ananya Kanti Roy Saraswati v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to examine the plea for enhanced security filed by the son of former Calcutta High Court judge Justice Anindita Roy Saraswati, who is serving as the Appellate Tribunal for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.

“The matter pertains to adequate security to a former judge of the High Court who is presently performing the duties of Appellate Tribunal, Special Intensive Revision in the State of West Bengal. In our considered opinion, the petitioner may approach the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, whom we request to look into the matter and take necessary steps as may be required,” the Court ordered.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Advocates' Plea Challenging Gujarat District Judge Recruitment Results

Case Title: Mansi Jain & Anr. v. Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition filed by two advocates challenging the Gujarat High Court's recruitment process for District Judges under the 25% direct recruitment quota for the recruitment year 2024-25, in which none of the 113 advertised vacancies were filled despite two candidates qualifying for the viva voce stage.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice after briefly hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioners.

The petition challenges the final result dated July 9, 2026, and seeks directions to set aside the result insofar as it declares them unsuccessful and a fresh, fair and transparent evaluation process.

TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee Approaches Supreme Court Second Time Seeking Foreign Travel Permission For Eye Treatment

Case : Abhishek Banerjee v. State of West Bengal | SLP (Crl) 14489/2026

Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee has approached the Supreme Court challenging theCalcutta High Court's August 5 decision to reject his plea seeking permission to travel abroad for eye treatment.

The High Court's restriction on foreign travel was imposed as a condition for a stay on his arrest in the criminal case relating to an alleged provocative speech made in connection with the concluded West Bengal Assembly elections.

He had earlier approached the Court challenging the July 20 order of the High Court, which refused him travel permission, and instead asked him to undergo treatment at the state-run SSKM Hospital and the Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research (IPGME&R).

Supreme Court Directs Rajasthan To Constitute Inter-Departmental Group & River Authority To Tackle EnvironmentalIssues

Case: In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8 of 2025

In the suo motu case taken up to address industrial pollution in Rajasthan's rivers, the Supreme Court directed constitution of an Integrated Coordination Group, which shall work in consultation with the High Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee and present a comprehensive action plan for tackling ecological concerns.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order, calling for a resolution plan for prevention of environmental degradation, pollution abatement, ecological restoration, conservation of riverine ecosystems, protection of groundwater resources, preservation of biodiversity and strengthening of the institutional framework governing river basin management.

"The Resolution Plan shall identify the action points, the authority responsible for implementation, the implementation framework, measurable milestones and definite timelines for completion of each component", the Court said.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Appointment Of Chief Justices In Four High Courts

The Collegium has also recommended the transfer of Delhi High Court judge Justice V. Kameswar Rao as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court.

Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge, who is presently serving as the Acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, has been recommended as the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer of Two Orissa High Court Judges

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfer of two judges from the Orissa High Court to the Gujarat High Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court respectively.

The decisions were taken at a meeting of the Collegium held on August 6, 2026.

Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak has been recommended for transfer to the Gujarat High Court.