Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: February 16, 2026 To February 22, 2026

Judgments

Post-Bail Conduct Not Valid Consideration In Appeal Against Grant Of Bail : Supreme Court

Case Details: Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 158

The Supreme Court observed that the conduct of an accused after a grant of bail cannot be a valid consideration while deciding an appeal against a grant of bail.

“…post-bail conduct is never a valid consideration while dealing with an appeal against grant of bail, and such conduct is only relevant in an application for cancellation of bail.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, while setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which granted an anticipatory bail to an absconding accused.

Against the High Court's order, the complainant moved to the Supreme Court.

Regularisation Can't Be Denied To Casual Workers If Other Similarly Situated Daily Wagers Were Regularised : Supreme Court

Case Details: Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Applying the principle of parity, the Supreme Court has regularized the services of four sweepers, noting that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently once regularisation has been granted to others who are similarly situated.

A Bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, holding that it had erred in declining to interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's refusal to regularise the appellants' services, despite the appellants having performed work of a perennial nature for more than a decade

Briefly put, the appellants were engaged between 1993 and 1998 as sweepers and a cook in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior. Their engagement followed Employment Exchange sponsorship and interviews, and they continued working for several years on a daily-wage basis.

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 160

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

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

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

"what has to be considered in the instant case is the right of the minor child to continue a pregnancy which is ex facie illegitimate in as much as she is a minor and has to face this unfortunate situation of having the pregnancy owing to a relationship that she had.

Condonation Of Delay Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right; Entirely Court's Discretion : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 161

The Supreme Court has reiterated that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it was entirely the discretion of the Court.

The Court made this observation while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Odisha as time-barred.

In the judgment, the Court pulled up the State of Odisha for its lethargic approach in filing a time-barred appeal with a substantial delay of four months, rejecting the State's plea for condonation that was founded on a weak and routine excuse of procedural delay in securing approval from higher authorities.

Punjab Regional Town Planning Act | Illegal 'Change Of Land Use' Permission Can't Be Post Facto Legalised : Supreme Court

Case Details: Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 162

The Supreme Court has observed that the 'Change Of Land Use' permission granted under the Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act without legal authority on the date of its issuance, cannot be rendered lawful by a later, ex post facto approval, unless the statute expressly provides for such retrospective validation.

A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling that had validated an ex post facto approval issued by the Town and Country Planning Department, which permitted conversion of land in Sangrur district, Punjab, from a rural agricultural zone to an industrial zone for the establishment of a cement industry.

The case arose from the proposed establishment of a cement grinding unit in Sangrur district, Punjab, by Shree Cement North Private Limited on land classified as a rural agricultural zone under the operative Master Plan. Despite this, a Change of Land Use (CLU) permitting industrial use was granted on December 13, 2021, followed by environmental consent on December 14, 2021.

'No Disability Pension For Brain Stroke Caused By Smoking' : Supreme Court Rejects Ex-Army Officer's Claim

Case Details: Sarevesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 163

The Supreme Court has dismissed the disability compensation claim of a former Army personnel, holding that a disability attributed to his habit of smoking around ten beedis a day could not be linked to military service.

Referring to Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and paragraph 6 of the Guide to Medical Officers, 2002, the Court observed that “compensation cannot be awarded for any disablement or death arising from intemperance in the use of alcohol, 'tobacco' or drugs or sexually transmitted disease, as these are the matters within the member's own control.”

The bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, noting that the medical records clearly indicated the appellant was in the habit of smoking ten bidis per day.

S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Made Outside Police Custody Not Admissible : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 164

The Supreme Court (February 17) acquitted a man convicted of murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter, ruling that a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of evidence is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act only if the accused was in police custody at the time of making the statement.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran noted that the discovery of the deceased bone remnants based on the accused's disclosure statements can't be admitted in evidence, as the accused was not in custody while making such disclosure statements.

"Section 27 of the Evidence Act clearly speaks of information received from a person accused of any offence while in the custody of the police leading to a discovery of a fact being enabled of proof in the trial. The accused at the time of the statement was not in the custody of the police and hence it is removed from the ambit of Section 27."

'National Security Paramount': Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of BSF Officer For Cattle Smuggling Across Indo-Bangladesh Border

Case Details – Bhagirath Choudhary v. Border Security Force

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 165

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the dismissal of a Border Security Force Sub-Inspector convicted by a General Security Force Court for facilitating illegal cattle smuggling at the Indo-Bangladesh border.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that when national security is paramount, infractions by officers manning the borders cannot be viewed lightly.

“When the national security is paramount, any infraction thereof that too by the officers or the concerned who would be manning the Borders cannot be viewed lightly and it is for this reason, the punishment permissible under Section 48(1)(c) of the BSF Act, 1968 has been imposed on the appellant”, the Court stated.

Actress Prathyusha's Death : Supreme Court Rules Out Murder; Convicts Siddhartha Reddy For Abetment Of Suicide

Case Details: Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy v. State C.B.I. | Crl.A. No. 457/2012 and P Sarojini Devi V.Cbi | Crl A 894-895/2012

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 166

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea filed by Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy, who challenged his conviction on the charge of abetment to suicide in 23 years old case of the suicide of Telugu/Tamil actress Prathyushya.

A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan pronounced the judgment. The bench also dimissed the plea by Prathyushya's mother Sarojini Devi who alleged that death was due to murder.

It ruled out murder by strangulation and observed that the overwhelming ocular and medical evidence proves death due to poisoning.

Surviving Partner In Mutual Suicide Pact Liable For Abetment :Supreme Court

Case Details: Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy v. State C.B.I. | Crl.A. No. 457/2012 and P Sarojini Devi V.Cbi | Crl A 894-895/2012

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 166

The Supreme Court has held that a surviving partner in a suicide pact can be held guilty of abetment of suicide, ruling that mutual commitment to die together provides the psychological impetus necessary to attract liability under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC.

The Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan affirmed the conviction of Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy for abetement of suicide of famous Tamil/Telugu actress Prathyusha in 2002.

The case arose from the 2002 death of actress Pratyusha, who died after consuming organophosphate pesticide along with the accused amid opposition to their proposed marriage.

Is There 'Deemed Sanction' To Prosecute If Decision Delayed? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Details: State v. M. Muneer Ahmed and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 167

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether sanction to prosecute a public servant can be “deemed” to have been granted if the competent authority fails to take a decision within a stipulated time. The Court stayed a direction issued by the Madras High Court which had provided for such deemed sanction.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against a November 22, 2024 order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court

High Court's Direction On Deemed Sanction

'No Foreign Expressions ' : Supreme Court Calls For Guidelines Rooted In Indian Social Fabric To Sensitise Judges On Sexual Offences

Case Details: 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) 168

The Supreme Court has directed the National Judicial Academy to frame comprehensive draft guidelines to inculcate sensitivity and compassion in judicial handling of sexual offence cases, stressing that such norms must reflect India's social fabric and not be borrowed from foreign jurisdictions.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the suo motu case taken by the Supreme Court in 2025 over a controversial order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had held that grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama and trying to drag her beneath a culvert would not come under the offence of attempt to rape. The High Court had observed that the acts would prima facie constitute the offence of 'aggravated sexual assault' under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which carries a lesser punishment.

While setting aside the High Court's order as erroneous, the Supreme Court considered the broader issue of laying down guidelines to ensure that Judges deal with sexual offences in a sensitive manner, without social prejudices and patriarchal notions.

'Erroneous': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Verdict That Grabbing Minor's Breasts, Loosening Pyjama String Wasn't Rape Attempt

Case Details: 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) 168

The Supreme Court has set aside the controversial judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had held that allegations of grabbing a minor girl's breast and loosening the string of her pyjama did not amount to an attempt to commit rape, but only to “preparation”.

Holding that the High Court misapplied settled criminal law principles, the Supreme Court restored the original summons issued by the Special Judge under Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

Noting that it was only due to the interference of third persons that the accused did not commit rape, the Court held that the acts were not mere 'preparation' but 'attempt'.

Compensation To Victim Not Substitute For Punishment In Grave Offences : Supreme Court

Case Details: Parameshwari v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 169

The Supreme Court has deprecated the trend amongst certain High Courts to reduce the sentence of imprisonment in heinous offences by increasing the amount of compensation payable to the victim.

The Court said that such a practice will give a wrong message that accused can get away from punishment by paying a monetary compensation.

"Compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature, and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment," the Court said. The Court set aside a Madras High Court order that had reduced the sentence of two attempt to murder convicts to the two months they had already served, in exchange for an enhanced fine of ₹1 lakh.

Principles For Bail In Heinous Crimes Must Apply To Serious Economic Offences : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta, Alias Sonu Chaudhary & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 170

The Supreme Court has observed that the principles governing bail in heinous offences apply with equal force to serious economic offences, as such crimes directly undermine the economic well-being and quality of life of citizens.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench order, which granted bail to an accused, who is a habitual offender in committing financial crimes. The bench noted that the High Court erred in granting bail solely based on a principle of parity without necessarily weighing the relevant factors, such as his active role in the commission of the crime, and his indulgence in the same activities time and again.

The Court said although earlier precedents such as Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2014) 16 SCC 508 and Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 4 SCC 781, which put restrains on a grant of bail owing to the factors such as potential threat to witnesses and disturbance of law and order, arose from heinous and violent crimes, the underlying principles enshrined therein equally apply to the present case involving offences of financial fraud.

'Nepotism Anathema To Democracy' : Supreme Court Cancels Deluxe Flat Allotments To Haryana Officials

Case Details: Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Highlighting nepotism in the allotment of the flats in a Haryana government housing society, the Supreme Court (February 17) cancelled the allotment of flats, holding that governing body members abused their positions to benefit themselves and their subordinates.

“Nepotism and self-aggrandizement are anathema to a democratic system, more so when it happens within a society comprising members of the government service…”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran, while set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which had refused to intervene in the allotment process.

The case arose from a challenge by one Dinesh Kumar, a member of the HUDA, Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organization (HEWO), against the allotment of two high-end super deluxe flats that became available after earlier memberships were cancelled. Instead of following a transparent draw of lots, the governing body decided to give preferntial allotment. In this process, one flat was effectively allotted by a senior officer to himself despite his ineligibility on the cut-off date, and the second was allotted to his subordinate, whose application was incomplete and outside the prescribed pay-band criteria.

Interest Act | Interest Can't Be Claimed On Delayed Payment If Contract Bars It : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kerala Water Authority & Ors. v. T I Raju & Ors. (With Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 172

The Supreme Court has observed that when the contract doesn't stipulate for payment of interest on a delayed payment, a party is not entitled to the same.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh set aside the Kerala High Court's decision, which had upheld the award of interest on delayed payments in favor of the Respondent.

The case arose from a contract executed in April 2013 between the Kerala Water Authority and the Respondent-contractor for the construction of a sewage treatment plant at the Government Medical College, Calicut. The work was completed in July 2014, but the principal amount of ₹86.64 lakh was released only in March 2016 following a writ petition.

Degrees Obtained Before University Was Declared Defunct Remain Valid : Supreme Court

Case Details: Priyanka Kumari and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 173

In a significant relief to Bihar-based librarians whose services were terminated solely because the university from which they obtained their degrees was later declared defunct, the Supreme Court (February 18) ordered their reinstatement, holding that degrees earned when the governing law was in force and recognized cannot be invalidated due to subsequent legal developments.

A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Patna High Court's decision, which upheld the termination of the Appellants.

The controversy traces back to the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 (2002 Act), under which several private universities were established, including the University of Technology and Science, Raipur. The appellants completed their B.Lib degrees in 2004, at a time when the university was functioning under a State statute, and its courses had received Central recognition.

S.7 IBC | Corporate Debtor's Ability To Pay Debt Not To Be Considered Before Admitting Insolvency Petition : Supreme Court

Case Details: Power Trust (Promoter of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd.) v. Bhuvan Madan (Interim Resolution Professional of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd.) & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 174

The Supreme Court (February 18) reaffirmed that the remedy under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is not discretionary but mandatory, leaving the adjudicating authority with no option but to admit the application once the existence of a debt and a default is established.

"The Adjudicating Authority is not required to go into the inability of a corporate debtor to pay its debt. This is a clear departure from the scheme of winding up envisaged under Section 433(e) of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 which required the Adjudicating Authority to come to a finding with regard to the inability of the company to pay the debt and thereby arrive at a requisite satisfaction whether it is just and equitable to wind up the company. The Code restricts the scope of enquiry for admission of an insolvency process by a financial creditor merely to the existence of default of a debt due and payable and nothing more," the Court observed.

The Court reiterated that "when the financial creditor initiates the insolvency process for the purposes of admission, the Adjudicating Authority is only to ascertain the existence of a default from the records of the information utility or the evidence furnished by the financial creditor within fourteen days from the receipt of such application."

Motor Accident | Insurer Be Asked To 'Pay & Recover' If Deceased Was Gratuitous Passenger In Goods Vehicle : Supreme Court

Case Details – Kaminiben & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 174

The Supreme Court held that even if an insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in an accident involving a passenger in a goods vehicle, it can be directed to first pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the amount from the vehicle owner, if the vehicle was hired for carrying goods and travel was only incidental.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria restored a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order requiring an insurer to first pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, in a case arising out of a fatal accident involving a goods vehicle hired for Ganesh idol immersion.

“In the present case, the deceased was travelling in the subject tempo along with Ganesh Idol, which was taken for immersion in Narmada River. Thus, the dominant purpose for hiring the vehicle was not for travelling but for carrying the Ganesh idol for immersion. Travelling in the vehicle was only incidental, therefore, at best, the deceased can be treated as gratuitous passenger travelling with his goods (Ganesh idol)”, the Court observed.

Limitation To Execute Mandatory Injunction 3 Years From Decree Date If No Performance Date Fixed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Babu Singh (D) Thr. Lrs & Anr. v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 175

The Supreme Court observed that when a decree for a mandatory injunction does not specify a date for performance, the limitation period for enforcement is three years from the date of the decree.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan heard the case where a mandatory injunction was issued in favour of the petitioners by the First Appellate Court vide order dated 06.01.2005; however, the order doesn't stipulate the date of enforcement of the mandatory injunction.

The petitioners approached the Executing Court on 12.08.2010 seeking implementation of the mandatory injunction part of the decree, which resulted in dismissal of their execution application. The Executing Court dismissed their application to be time barred, as it was filed beyond the limitation period of three years, stipulated under Article 135 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

'Travesty Of Justice To Keep Convict In Jail For Years Pending Appeal' : Supreme Court Quotes 1977 Judgment, Suspends Murder Sentence

Case Details: Muna Bisoi v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Observing that excessive delay in hearing an appeal against the conviction entitles a convict to the benefit of a suspension of a sentence, the Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Odisha High Court, which refused to suspend the life sentence of a murder convict, whose appeal against the conviction filed in 2016 is yet to be disposed of by the Odisha High Court.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma clarified that even though an individual is convicted for committing a heinous offence like murder, their entitlement to seek a suspension of sentence cannot be discarded, especially when there's a huge delay in hearing an appeal against the conviction, and no cogent grounds being brought to decide otherwise.

The appellant, Muna Bisoi, was convicted by a Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Murder), and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Courts Must Ideally Answer Every Issue Raised, Instead Of Focusing On A Single Decisive Point : Supreme Court

Case Details: Hemlata Eknath Pise v. Shubham Bahu Uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 177

The Supreme Court has observed that it is incumbent upon the Courts to decide on all issues that arise in a matter and must not confine its enquiry to a single decisive issue.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench order, which had “faltered” by focusing on only one issue and ignoring several others that went to the root of the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant.

The appellant was dismissed from service by the respondent-management following disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2017. Challenging her dismissal, she approached the School Tribunal, Nagpur, which in August 2019 set aside the termination and ordered her reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Homebuyer Can't Be Compelled To Accept Possession Without Occupancy Certificate Obtained By Builder : Supreme Court

Case Details: Parsvnath Developers Ltd. v. Mohit Khirbat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 178

The Supreme Court (February 20) reiterated that homebuyers cannot be compelled to accept possession of a property in the absence of an Occupancy Certificate. Such a failure by the developer, the Court held, constitutes a statutory deficiency in service, entitling consumers to receive compensation from the developers.

“Obtaining such certificate is a statutory pre-condition integral to lawful delivery of possession.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while dismissing a real estate developer's appeal who had delayed in obtaining an occupancy certificate and possession of the flat to the Respondents' home buyers.

The Court rejected the developer's attempt to offer possession on an “as is where is” basis without securing the Occupancy Certificate.

S. 27 Evidence Act | Discovery Based On Accused's Statement Forms "Formidable Link" In Circumstantial Evidence Chain : Supreme Court

Case Details: Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 179

The Supreme Court (February 20) upheld the conviction in a ransom murder case, relying on the convict's disclosure statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi heard the case that rested purely on circumstantial evidence, however, the Appellant-convict's disclosure statements under Section 27 played a decisive role in completing the chain of circumstances to connect the Appellant to the crime.

The case dates back to July 2009, when the deceased victim went missing in Indore. Shortly after, her husband received ransom calls demanding ₹5 lakh from her mobile number. The police investigation led them to the appellant, who had sold the victim's mobile phone to a third party. Following his arrest, Appellant's disclosure statement led the police to recover the victim's Scooty from a parking lot, and tragically, her body from a well near the Indore Bypass Road.

Cooperation With Investigation Doesn't Mean Self Incrimination: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite Refusal To Surrender Mobile

Case Details – Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 180

The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to one Vinay Kumar Gupta in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, despite not surrendering his mobile phone to police.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed that cooperation with investigation does not extend to violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

“It is for the State to complete the investigation in accordance with due procedure but, in that regard, it cannot insist upon the appellant incriminating himself. Cooperating with the investigation does not extend to violation of the Constitutional right against self-incrimination”, the Court held.

Offences Under Chapter IV Of Drugs And Cosmetics Act Triable Only By Sessions Court, Not Magistrate: Supreme Court

Case Details – M/S SBS Biotech & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 181

The Supreme Court held that offences relating to manufacture and sale of drugs under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 cannot be tried by a Magistrate and must be tried by a Court not inferior to a Sessions Court.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed –

“Now, Section 32(2) specifically provides that no Court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under this Chapter (Chapter IV). Thus, it can be said that for the offences punishable under Chapter IV, the Court inferior to the Court of Session shall not try such offences”, the Court held.

Supreme Court Issues Directions For Proper Enforcement Of Solid Waste Management Rules 2026

Case Details: Bhopal Municipal Corporation v. Dr Subhash C. Pandey & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 6174/2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 182

The Supreme Court issued a comprehensive set of directions across the country for the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules(SWM Rules), 2026, which is set to come into force from April 1, 2026. It flagged the lack of compliance with the 2016 rules, particularly segregation of waste into wet, dry, and hazardous waste, in urban and rural areas and active massive dumpsites across metropolitan cities.

While issuing the directions, the Supreme Court orally remarked that India, as a country, has many tourist places that are 2000 years old, but due to poor waste management, people are discouraged from visiting those places.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti passed the order on February 19, in a civil appeal preferred by the Bhopal Municipal Corporation against the National Green Tribunal's order, levying environmental compensation of Rs. 1.80 crores and Rs. 121, respectively, for alleged lapses in compliance with waste management norms.

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench To Hear Reference Over 'Industry' Definition On March 17

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

The Supreme Court will hear the 9-judge bench reference on the definition of 'industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on March 17.

The reference is against the 7-judge bench judgment rendered in 1978 in the Bangalore Water Supply v. A Rajappa case, which laid down an expansive definition of 'industry' so as to include government undertakings, public utilities, hospitals, educational and research institutions, professions and clubs.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that the following broad issues emerge

Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench To Hear Sabarimala Reference Issues From April 7

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

The Supreme Court 9-judge bench will commence hearing of the issues referred in the Sabarimala review on April 7, 2026. The hearing is proposed to be concluded on April 22.

The composition of the 9-judge bench will be notified by the Chief Justice of India separately through an administrative order.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the orders for the listing of the reference before the 9-judge bench.

'Why Should Youngsters Suffer?': Supreme Court Dismisses Delhi Govt Challenge To Retrospective Pay Hike For HC Law Researchers

Case Details: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Rushant Malhotra and Ors. | Diary No. 6259-2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Delhi Government challenging the Delhi High Court directions issued in October 2025 to increase the Law Researchers' honorarium retrospectively.

The High Court ordered retrospective payment of enhanced remuneration of Rs. 80,000 per month to its law researchers with effect from October 01, 2022.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi refused to entertain the matter in the "peculiar facts and circumstances". The bench however left the question of law open.

Supreme Court Rejects Abu Salem's Plea For Release On Claim Of Completing 25 Years' Imprisonment

Case Details: Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., Diary No. 60531-2025

The Supreme Court (February 16) dismissed an application filed by convicted terrorist Abu Salem, who had sought premature release in terms of an Extradition Treaty entered into between the Indian and Portuguese governments. Saleem was convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (TADA) Act for the 1993 Bombay Blast case. The Court has, however, granted him liberty to approach the High Court.

Salem filed an application claiming the benefit of 3 yrs and 16 days jail-earned remission (for good conduct) in the computation of a 25-year jail sentence, upon completion of which he shall be eligible for pre-mature release. He cited the Supreme Court's decision of July 2002, which relied on the treaty with Portugal and held that Salem will have to be released on completion of 25 years in jail. However, the State of Maharashtra has maintained that Salem has not completed 25 years.

Earlier, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta had asked Salem to produce any rules prevailing in Maharashtra, as per which remission can be granted to someone convicted under the TADA.

'Some Creases To Be Ironed Out,' Supreme Court Refers Pleas Challenging DPDP Act Amendment To RTI Act To Larger Bench

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on the pleaschallenging certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025 over their amendment of the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

Agreeing that the issue required consideration, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi referred the matter to a larger bench.

The bench was dealing with three writ petitions - one filed by Venkatesh Nayak, another by digital news platform The Reporters Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi, and the third one filed by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI). The petitioners have essentially challenged to the Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amending Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act giving a blanket exemption to the disclosure of personal information. Before the amendment, personal information could have been disclosed if there was an overriding public interest.

Supreme Court Asks Petitioners Seeking Hate Speech FIR Against Assam CM To Approach High Court, Requests HC To Expedite Hearing

Case Details: Annie Raja v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 72/2026 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court asked petitioners, who approached it under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for offences related to hate speech, to approach the Gauhati High Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi expressed reluctance to invoke Article 32, and said that the petitioners should first approach the jurisdictional High Courts.

The Chief Justice expressed strong disapproval of the trend of parties directly approaching the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Courts.

'Don't Trust Anyone' : Supreme Court Advises Caution In Physical Relations Before Marriage

Case Details – Y K V.

State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Chhattisgarh Gram Sabha's Hoardings Banning Entry Of Pastors, Converts Into Tribal Village

Case Details: Digbal Tandi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., Diary No. 64814-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment which upheld a Gram Sabha's action of erecting 'hoardings/notice boards' at certain village entry points, whereby the entry of Christian Pastors and converted Christians was barred.

Apparently, the Gram Sabha action was intended to prevent religious conversion of villagers through coercion or inducement.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves (for petitioner) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Why Rules Under Shariat Application Act Not Framed? Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Union, UP Govt

Case Details: Smt. Gohar Sultan v. Sheikh Anis Ahmad & Anr.

The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Union Government and the State of Uttar Pradesh on why rules under Section 4 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 have not been framed.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice to the Union of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh, calling for clarification on whether Section 4 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 has been effectively implemented in Uttar Pradesh.

The Court noted that in the absence of such rules, a Muslim would be unable to file the declaration contemplated under Section 3 effectively. As per Section 3, a Mulsim can file a declaration before the prescribed authority that he/she wished to be governed by the Shariat law in matters related to marriage, maintenance, inheritance, guardianship etc. Once such a declaration is filed, and the prescribed authority accepts it, the person and his/her descendants would be governed by the Shariat law.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 'Logical Discrepancy' Category Applied By ECI In West Bengal SIR

Case Details: Md Zimfarhad Nowaj v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 000161 / 2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the writ petition challenging the 'logical discrepancy' category in the West Bengal SIR.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the plea.

At the outset, the CJI declined to entertain the plea on the basis of the limitation of Article 32 jurisdiction. The CJI asked :  "In Article 32, you want us to decide who is your father, your mother, your brother?"

Supreme Court Directs Production Of Pendrive Given To Sonam Wangchuk In Custody, Doubts Accuracy Of Union's Transcript Of Speeches

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

The Supreme Court (February 16) directed the Jodhpur Jail Superintendent to produce before it in a sealed cover the pen drive given by the Union authorities to Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk, while he was in detention on September 29, 2025.

This was after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, Wangchuk's wife who has challenged his detention under the National Security Act, argued that the four videos of his speeches, which were cited by the detaining authority in the detention order, were not present in the pendrive which was handed over to Wangchuk in custody. Sibal therefore argued that the detention order was vitiated due to the non-supply of the relevant materials.

The Court ordered: "Heard Kapil Sibal, learned counsel. For further arguments, listed on Thursday. The learned senior counsel would submit that the pendrive furnished to detenue on 29th September, 2025, is in his custody. As such, we direct the same pen drive in his custody shall be obtained in a sealed box by the jail authorities, which shall be sealed in his presence and be forwarded to this court in a sealed box by the superintendent of jail, and Additional Advocate General, appearing for Rajasthan, shall ensure compliance with the same."

Most Union SLPs Come With 100 Days Of Delay, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(A)(2) v. Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) Pvt Ltd | Diary No. 4194 / 2026

While hearing a matter, the Supreme Court orally remarked that the Union Government continues to file belated special leave petitions. It said that there is a minimum delay of at least 100 days in SLPs preferred by the Union without any explanation.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a matter in which Additional Solicitor General of India appeared for the Union. Although the Court dismissed the matter, Justice Datta noticed 251 days of delay after the first initial 90-day period for filing the special leave petition.

The SLP is filed against the February 12, 2025, order passed by the Karnataka High Court.

Supreme Court Extends Tenure Of DRAT Allahabad Chairman, Seeks Union's Action Plan On Tribunals

Case Details: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India | Diary No. 4420-2026

The Supreme Court extended the tenure of the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal(DRAT), Allahabad. The Court also asked the Union to submit a proposal in compliance with the directions in the Madras Bar Association case in 4 weeks.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the application filed by the  President of the DRAT Bar Association, Allahabad, Mr Shalinder Kumar Pandey.

The President of the DRAT Bar Association, Allahabad, had filed the application seeking the extension of the Chairperson's tenure, which is due to expire on February 17, 2026.  Presently, Justice Rajesh Dayal Khare is serving as the DRAT Chairman.

2-Judge Bench Created Unnecessary Uncertainty : CJI Surya Kant On Judgment Against Post-Facto Environmental Clearances

Case Details: Vanashakti v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1394/2023 and Connected Cases.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed displeasure with the May 2025 judgment of the Supreme Court in the 'Vanashakti' case which barred the grant of post-facto Environmental Clearances, saying that the verdict unnecessarily created uncertainty.

Observing that the Supreme Court itself was leading to unpredictability, the CJI said that the 2-judge bench ought to have considered the entire case law before taking a view.

In November 2025, a 3-judge bench (by 2:1 majority), in review, had recalled the May 2025 judgment and restored the matters to the file. The matters were listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi.

Supreme Court Allows Karnataka High Court To Notify Civil Judge Appointments

Case Details: Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary and Ors | C.A. No. 1867/2006

The Supreme Court allowed the Karnataka High Court to notify the appointments of Judicial Officers (Civil Judge) in the State.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the Malik Mazhar Sultan vs UP Public Service Commission case, in which it has been passing various orders from time to time regarding the filling up of judicial vacancies in trial courts.

The bench was informed that the selection process for the Karnataka Civil Judges was complete and only the result has to be declared.

'We Understand Political Battles' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Quashing Of SC/ST Case Against Telangana CM Revanth Reddy

Case Details: N Peddi Raju v. State of Telangana and Anr. Diary No. 61734-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging theTelangana High Court's judgment which quashed a 2016 case against the present Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that the High Court has rightly quashed the case since no prima facie case was found to proceed against Reddy. The bench orally commented that it appeared to be a case of using the Courts for a "political battle."

The allegation was that upon alleged instigation by Reddy,  other accused broke into the Razole Constituency S.C. Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and vandalised the society property with JCB trucks, and hurled casteist remarks at the complainant N Peddi Raju when he tried to stop the attack.

2007 CRPF Camp Attack Case : Supreme Court To Hear UP Govt's Appeal Against Acquittal Of 4 Death Row Convicts

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @ Anwar @ Ali Etc. Etc., SLP(Crl.) No(S).1206-1209/2026

The Supreme Court is set to consider Uttar Pradesh government's challenge to the acquittal of 4 death row convicts in the 2007 CRPF camp terror attack case. Eight personnel had lost their lives in the said attack.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta granted leave in the four Special Leave Petitions filed by the State in the matter.

By the impugned judgment, the Allahabad High Court had set aside the 2019 death sentence of four men - Mohd Sharif, Imran Shahjad, Mohd Farooq and Sabauddin. The Court had also set aside the life term of another accused-Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba convicted under Section 302 IPC.

NEET-PG 2025 Cut-Off Reduction Made 95,913 More Candidates Eligible, NBEMS Informs Supreme Court

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

The National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences told the Supreme Court that it had no role to play in the reduction of the qualifying percentile of the NEET-PG 2025.

In the counter-affidavit filed in response to petitions challenging the lowering of the NEET-PG cut-off, the NBEMS the decision fell within the exclusive domain of the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission ('NMC').

The NBEMS said that its role is limited to conducting the NEET-PG exam, evaluating the results and handling over the results to the NMC. On January 9, 2026, the Ministry informed the NBEMS of the decision to reduce the qualifying percentile for the third round of NEET-PG counselling. In compliance with the Ministry's decision, the NBEMS revised the cut-off and published the revised results on January 13.

Political Leaders Must Foster Fraternity In Country; Elections Must Be Fought On Mutual Respect : Supreme Court

Case Details: Roop Rekha Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 199/2026

The Supreme Court orally observed that political parties must foster fraternity in the country, and that all political parties must follow constitutional morality and fight elections on the basis of mutual respect.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by nine individuals seeking guidelines to prevent 'Constitutionally unbecoming' speech by persons who hold Constitutional offices. The petition was filed in the wake of speeches of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and a video posted by BJP Assam which sparked controversies after they were precieved as targeting a specific community.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioners, submitted, "We need to do something. Only your lordships can do something. This is becoming very toxic. This petition is not qua any individual."

All High Courts Equal, Can't Encourage Practice Of Transferring Matters From Other HCs To One HC : Supreme Court

Case Details: Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. Union of India | D No. 30664/2024

The Supreme Court orally expressed that it cannot encourage the practice of transferring petitions from High Courts to one particular High Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the transfer petitions filed by turf clubs seeking to consolidate the petitions pending in High Courts against the levy of Goods and Services Tax to any one High Court.

Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, for the petitioners, submitted that the GST Act has been amended to make horse racing and any supplier of actionable claims liable to tax. Hence, any provider of a platform for actionable claim is deemed to be supplier and made liable to pay duty. He explained that petitions are pending in four High Courts challenging the validity of the GST levy. He requested that the petitions be transferred to one High Court.

Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Lawyers Using AI-Generated Fake Citations

The Supreme Court flagged the issue of lawyers submitting AI-drafted petitions that contain fake case citations.

The exchange happened before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice BV Nagarathna.

"We are alarmed to reflect now- some of the lawyers have started AI to draft. It is absolutely uncalled for," said Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Justice Nagarathna added that she came across a citation "Mercy v. Mankind", which never existed.

Fodder Scam | Supreme Court To Hear CBI's Appeal Against Suspension Of Lalu Prasad Yadav's Sentence On April 22

Case Details – State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav

The Supreme Court will hear in April a batch of appeals against the order of the Jharkhand High Court suspending the sentence of former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and other convicts in the fodder scam case.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh kept the matters for final disposal on April 22, 2026.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted that the case involves a question of law and the High Court violated settled principles governing post-conviction suspension of sentence. He argued that the sentence could not have been suspended and Lalu Yadav and other accused persons were illegally out.

Supreme Court Asks UP DIG To Go Before Hyderabad Forensic Lab For Voice Comparison With Hate Speech Clip

Case Details: Islamuddin Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crl) No. 14997/2025

The Supreme Court directed the Telangana Forensic Sciences Laboratory to submit before it in a sealed cover the report on the forensic analysis of the voice sample and the alleged audio clip of an Uttar Pradesh Police officer who is accused of making anti-Muslim remarks.

The Court directed Uttar Pradesh DIG Sanjeev Tyagi (earlier Superintendent of Police, Bijnor) to be present before the Director, TGFSL, Hyderabad, on 09.03.2026 at 11.00 a.m to give his voice sample.

The Court also allowed petitioner Islamuddin Ansari, whose phone contained the alleged audio clip of Sanjeev Tyagi with the problematic remarks, to be present at the TGFSL on the same day to help the forensic officials in locating the audio clip.

'Classic Case Of Suicidal Hanging' : Supreme Court On Alleged Political Murder During 2018 West Bengal Post-Poll Violence

Case Details: Gaurav Bhatia v. State of West Bengasl | W.P.(Crl.) No. 185/2018

The Supreme Court (February 17) heard a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia as petitioner in person, alleging political murders by the members of the ruling Trinamool Congress in the State of West Bengal after the 2018 Panchayat elections. He has sought an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI). The Court has allowed him to file a rejoinder within two weeks.

The petitioner alleged that three ghastly murders had taken place in West Bengal, and it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by him. The Court had earlier issued notice to the West Bengal State Government and sought their reply. As per their reply, the investigation was transferred to the CID, and a closure report has been filed.

At the outset, Bhatia(now representing the deceased's brother) submitted before a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta: "...what had happened was, a 32-year-old[Dulal Kumar], he was going with his brother.  The brother gives a complaint, after much resistance from the police station, that my brother has been abducted by five or six persons of a particular party, which is the ruling party of the state. And therefore, he registered an FIR. They don't register an FIR, your Lordship. And the next morning, the body was found hanging from a high-tension wire."

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Affidavit On TET Requirement For Special Educators To Secondary Classes

Case Details: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 132/2016

The Supreme Court asked the Union of India to file an affidavit on the requirement for a special educator to qualify the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) in order to teach students of secondary classes (Classes 9 to 12).

The Court further called on all States/Union Territories to ensure compliance within 1 month of its earlier directions regarding pay parity and service conditions of contractual teachers.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, after hearing Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, Amicus Curiae-Rishi Malhotra and Senior Advocates Ramkrishna Viraraghavan and Manish Singhvi.

No Conversion Angle In Suicide Of Tamil Nadu School Girl In 2022 : CBI Informs Supreme Court

Case Details: Director General of Police v. Muruganantham | SLP(Crl) No.1053-1056/2022 | Crl Appeal 5011/2025

The Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted before the Supreme Court the chargesheet filed by it in the case relating to the suicide of a school girl at a Christian missionary-run school in Thanjavur District in Tamil Nadu in 2022.

The death of the girl had hit the headlines nationwide following allegations that she resorted to suicide following pressure from the school to convert to Christianity. However, the CBI's chargesheet found no evidence to establish the allegations of forceful conversion bid.

"Allegation pertaining to the attempt of conversion by the Convent Sisters and Teachers of Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Michaelpatti, could not be established," the chargesheet filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchirappali, in December 2023, stated.

'ED Has Been Weaponised', 'No, ED Was Terrorised' : Exchange In Supreme Court Plea Against Mamata Banerjee

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

In ED's case against West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and others over the IPAC office search, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted before the Supreme Court that the agency has been "terrorized".

The remark was a response to a submission by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra that the agency must justify its "weaponization". "It [ED] has not been weaponized, it has been terrorized", said the ASG.

The Court posted the case to March 18.

Anjel Chakma Murder : Supreme Court Asks Attorney General To Examine Plea Seeking Guidelines Against Racial Violence

Case Details: Anoop Prakash Awasthi v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 2/2026

The Supreme Court disposed of a public interest litigation seeking guidelines to curb identity-based and racial violence against persons from the North-East, requesting the Attorney General for India to examine the issues raised.

The plea was filed in the wake of the alleged racially motivated murder of Tripura youth Anjel Chakma in Uttarakhand last December. The petitioner, Advocate Anoop Prakash Awasth, who appeared in person, highlighted incidents of racial discrimination and group-based violence faced by individuals from the North-Eastern states.

Before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, the petitioner pressed the relief seeking a nodal agency in States to deal with grievances regarding identity-based discrimination.

Supreme Court Restrains Exhumation Of Tribal Christians' Dead Bodies In Chhattisgarh For Re-Burial Away From Their Villages

Case Details: Chhattisgarh Association For Justice and Equality and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, Diary No. 54722-2025

The Supreme Court passed an interim order restraining forcible exhumation and re-location of tribal Christians' dead bodies away from their village grounds in Chhattisgarh.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria passed the order, while issuing notice on a public interest litigation assailing the forcible exhumation and re-location of tribal Christians' dead bodies in the state.

"In the meantime, it is provided that no further exhumation of buried bodies shall be permitted", the bench ordered, after Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, for petitioners, pressed for interim relief while alleging that the State was supporting the removal of the corpses.

Rs 1270 Crores Contracts Given To Arunachal CM's Kin, Alleges Petitioner Seeking Probe; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

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

The Supreme Court on February 17 reserved judgment in a public interest litigation seeking a probe by a Special Investigation Team(SIT) into the alleged irregular allotment of public contracts to companies owned by relatives of Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu.

The petitioners have alleged that contracts and tenders of the State have been awarded to firms associated with the Chief Minister, his spouse, mother, and nephew.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta reserved the judgment after brief arguments by Advocate Prashant Bhushan. Bhushan referred  argued that in the last 11 years, contracts have been awarded to 'Brand Eagles' owned by the Chief Minister's wife and 'Frontier Associates' owned by the Chief Minister himself. As per the petitioners' claims, around 15 firms are closely associated with the CM and need to be investigated. He argued that all this reeks of corruption and should be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case : Supreme Court To Hear Khalid Saifi's Bail Plea, Rejects Claim For Parity With Co-Accused Given Bail

Case Details: Abdul Khalid Saifi @ Khalid Saifi v. State (NCT of Delhi) | Diary No. 7493 / 2026

The Supreme Court (February 18) issued notice in a plea filed by United Against Hate member Khalid Saifi, challenging the denial of bail by the Delhi High Court in connection with a case of a larger conspiracy into the Delhi riots of 2020, involving charges under the Indian Penal Code and UAPA.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale however orally said that Saifi cannot claim parity with the Supreme Court's January judgment which granted bail to five co-accused.

Saifi has come against the September 2, 2025, order of the Delhi High Court denying bail to him. In January, the Supreme Court granted bail to five other accused in the case, while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

Cricketer Md Shami's Wife Approaches Supreme Court To Transfer DV Act, Maintenance Cases From Kolkata To Delhi

Case Details:

The Supreme Court issued notice on pleas filed by cricketer Mohammed Shami's wife seeking transfer from Kolkata to Delhi of the cases filed by her under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the CrPC.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan passed the order.

To recap, the petitioner, Hasin Jahan, married Md. Shami on 7 April 2014 in accordance with Islamic rituals and customs. A daughter was born to the couple on 17 July 2015.

Allowing Famous Person Like Elvish Yadav To Use A Voiceless Victim Gives Bad Message : Supreme Court In Snake Venom Case

Case Details – Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth v. State of Up and Anr.

The Supreme Court said it will examine whether there is adequate material to implicate YouTuber Elvish Yadav in the snake venom case under the Wildlife Protection Act, observing that it gives a very bad message that a popular person used a voiceless snake for publicity.

“There are 2 things we will consider. What is your role and is there anything to implicate you on the alleged offence. At the same time, we have to see what is the action that is required to be taken under the Wildlife Protection Act. We could have disposed even today itself. It will send a very bad message outside if a person like you know who is otherwise a person who is popular is allowed to use a hapless victim which is voiceless. It gives a very, very bad message”

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing Yadav's plea challenging the Allahabad High Court's order dated May 12, 2025, which had dismissed his petition against the chargesheet and summoning order issued in a case under various provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, IPC, and NDPS Act.

Supreme Court Asks 'Baba Khatarnak' To Approach Authorities With Plea To Protect Ganga From Sewage

Case Details: Badaravada Venugopal @ Baba Khatarnak v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S).171/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to curb the sewage waste disposal into the Ganga River and around Manikarnika Ghat. The court has allowed the petitioner to approach the authorities or the High Court.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the writ petition filed by a monk named 'Baba Khatarnak' who appeared in person.

The main grievance of the petitioner was related to the real-time discharge of untreated raw human excreta and sewage, resulting in sanitation failure within Manikarnika Kshetra, Manikarnika Tīrtha, Manikarnika Mahāśmaśāna, and the adjoining reaches of the River Ganga.

Anil Ambani Files Affidavit In Supreme Court, Undertakes Not To Leave India & To Cooperate With ED-CBI Probe

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

Industrialist Anil Ambani has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court undertaking that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court and will fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement and the Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with the Anil Dhirubai Ambani Group companies.

The affidavit has been filed in response to the writ petition filed by EAS Sarma seeking a Court-monitored investigation into the alleged loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by ADAG companies.

In his affidavit, Ambani adopted the undertaking given on his behalf by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi to the Court on February 4.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Filmmaker Vikram Bhatt & Wife In Cheating Case Over Movie Deal, Sends Parties To Mediation

Case Details: Shwetambari Bhatt and Another v. State of Rajasthan | SLP(Crl) 2647/2026

The Supreme Court granted bail to film director Vikram Bhatt and his wife Shwetambari Bhatt in an alleged multi-crore cheating case over a dispute regarding the making of the biopic of the late wife of Ajay Murdia, owner of Indira IVF.

Bhatt and his wife were arrested from Mumbai by the Rajasthan Police last December and were lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail. Last week, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to Shwetambari Bhatt.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi set aside the Rajasthan High Court's order which denied bail to the Bhatts. Granting them regular bail, the bench said that it expected the parties to make earnest efforts to settle the dispute through mediation.

'Why Cash Transfer Schemes Just Before Elections?' Supreme Court Slams 'Freebies' Culture, Says Nation Building Hampered

Case Details:Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 158/2026

The Supreme Court made oral comments deprecating the trend of various State Governments announcing 'freebies' just ahead of elections.

The Court wondered how long this trend will go, and said that it would hamper the long term economic development of the country. The Court said that indiscriminately doling out State benefits to persons, without drawing any distinction between those who can afford and those who cannot, is nothing but appeasement, which is not conducive to the economic development of the country.

The Court said that it is aware of what happened in some states in the elections, where welfare schemes were suddenly announced just ahead of the elections. If direct cash transfer schemes are announced, will people work anymore, the Court asked.

Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Halting TN Waqf Board's Functioning For Not Including 2 Non-Muslims & 2 Other Members

Case Details – Tamil Nadu Waqf Board v. State of Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court (February 19) stayed the order of the Madras High Court which halted the functioning of the Tamil Nadu State Waqf Board on the ground that the mandate of including two non-Muslim members, nominating a Bar Council member, and a person with professional experience was not followed.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the interim order while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the TN Waqf Board against the Madras High Court's order.

The Supreme Court asked the Board to place before it a proposal for the constitution of the Board.

Can't Say Mamata Banerjee Took Away Only TMC's Confidential Files Amidst I-PAC Raid : ED Tells Supreme Court

In its pleaassailing West Bengal authorities' interference with its raid at IPAC office, the Enforcement Directorate has filed a rejoinder affidavit opposing West Bengal government's claim that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee took away material from the search premises without the agency's objection.

The affidavit further says that once the material were taken away from the premises being searched, it was difficult to determine whether the material taken away was only confidential material of Trinamool Congress or also pertained to the offence being investigated by ED.

On maintainability of its writ petition, the ED has said that its petition canvasses the fundamental rights of 2 categories of persons - (i) the general public (having fundamental right to public order and rule of law) and (ii) officers and functionaries of ED (having fundamental right to personal liberty and to move freely in discharge of their duties).

Supreme Court To Start Hearing Petitions Challenging Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 From May 5

Case Details: Indian Union of Muslim League v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1470/2019 and Connected Cases.

The Supreme Court on Thurdsay posted the petitions challenging the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 for hearing in the week commencing on May 5, 2026.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi were considering the petitions for procedural directions. The matter was last listed nearly two years ago, on March 19, 2024.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising requested that the petitions relating to Assam and the other North-Eastern states be considered separately, since there are issues arising out of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act and the interline permit. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed that as per the order passed in January 2020, the matters related to Assam and Tripura are to be separately categorised from the other matters.

Supreme Court Orders Inquiry Into Missing Record Of Proceedings From Case Paperbook; Notes There's A 'Trend'

Case Details: State of Goa Through Chief Secretary and Ors. v. Goa Foundation and Ors., SLP(C) No. 20683/2023

The Supreme Court ordered its Secretary General to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the issue of missing Record of Proceedings/Order Sheets from case paperbooks.

"This has become common everyday that we find all material ROPs from the paperbooks are missing. A trend which is being followed by the Registry. It seems to be a deliberate attempt for some obvious reasons. In the case at hand also, the order dated 8 September 2025 is the one which gives way forward but the same is conspicuously missing", noted a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi.

The bench directed the Secretary General to hold a fact finding inquiry and submit a report to the CJI on administrative side. The development came while the bench was dealing with a case pertaining to the proposed Goa Tiger Reserve.

'Infructuous': Supreme Court Disposes Of Plea Seeking SIR In Assam Instead Of Special Revision Of Electoral Rolls

Case Details: Mrinal Kumar Choudhury v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1191/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of as infructuous a writ petition challenging ECI's decision to conduct a “Special Revision” of electoral rolls in Assam instead of a “Special Intensive Revision” ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria (for petitioner) and Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu (for ECI).

During the hearing, Hansaria argued that the only reason given by ECI for not conducting SIR in Assam is that there is NRC (National Register of Citizens) in the state, which is being monitored by the Supreme Court. However, there is no case pending as such. Naidu, on the other hand, informed that the exercise of revision of the voter list in Assam is already complete and therefore the case has been rendered infructuous.

'Law Will Take Its Course If Anybody Tries To Mess With Court' : CJI On Rajasthan MLA Questioning SC Order

The Chief Justice of India took serious objection to a Rajasthan MLA criticising in the Legislative Assembly the order granting interim bail to filmmaker Vikram Bhatt's wife.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant warned that the "law will take its own course if anybody tries to mess with the Court." The CJI added that merely because somebody is speaking in the Assembly, it cannot be assumed that they won't face any consequence.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the petition of Vikram Bhatt and Shwetambari Bhatti seeking bail in a cheating case. After the bench dictated theorder granting them bail, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, for the petitioners, told the bench about the comments made in the Rajasthan assemblyabout the interim bail granted to Vikram Bhatt's wife last week.

Sonam Wangchuk Was Only Shown Thumbnails Of Folders, Never Got Chance To Watch Videos : Sibal Tells Supreme Court

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

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued in the Supreme Court that Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk was only shown the thumbnail of the folders containing the materials on which his detention is based.

It may be recalled that the Union Government had submitted that Wangchuk is lying to the Court that he has not been furnished the materials on which the detention is based, particularly four videos containing his alleged inciteful speeches. It was told that the DIG had gone to meet Wangchuk and shown him the contents of the detention order and the materials relied upon by the detaining authority, and this whole exercise was videographed.

Responding to this, Sibal pointed out that this is the first time the other side has argued that there is a video of the DIG furnishing the materials to Wangchuk. Secondly, he denied that Wangchuk was shown the contents of those videos. In arguendo, he stated that the law requires that those materials be supplied to him. Showing him the contents is not enough.

Supreme Court Allows Open Court Hearing Of Review Petitions Against 3-Year Practice Rule For Judicial Service

Case Details: Chandrasen Yadav v. Union of India and Others | Diary No(S).33086/2025

The Supreme Court has allowed an open court hearing of the review petitions challenging its judgmentmandating a minimum of three years' practice at the Bar for entry-level posts in the judicial service.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the order on February 10 permitting the review petitions to be heard in open court.

Ordinarily, review petitions in the Supreme Court are decided in chambers without oral arguments. Open court hearings in review proceedings are allowed only in exceptional circumstances.

'No Justification In Barring Bar Association Officer Bearers From Bar Council Elections' : Supreme Court Asks BCI To Reconsider Rule

Case Details – Dhanya Kumar Jain v. Bar Council of India

The Supreme Court directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider its rule which bars office bearers of Bar Associations from contesting elections to State Bar Councils.

With this direction, a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi disposed of a writ petition challenging Chapter III of the Bar Council of India Uniform Rules (and Mandatory Guidelines) for the Elections of Bar Councils, 2016.

The impugned provision states that an advocate who is an office-bearer of any Bar Association, except the Supreme Court Bar Association, shall not be eligible to contest the election of a State Bar Council. It further provides that the Returning Officer shall reject the nomination papers of any such person who was or is an office-bearer of any Bar Association on the date of notification of elections of the concerned State Bar Council.

Supreme Court Relaxes Waiting Period To Reapply Senior Advocate Designation After Rejection/Deferment

The Supreme Court has relaxed certain conditions under the'Guidelines for Designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India, 2026', allowing advocates who were earlier unsuccessful or whose cases were deferred to reapply within a shorter timeframe.

Subsequently,considering representations made by the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, the Full Court, at its meeting held on February 19, 2026, resolved to grant a one-time relaxation of specific provisions of the 2026 Guidelines.

The relaxation pertains to paragraphs 9(iv), 21 and 22 of the Guidelines, which prescribe the eligibility conditions and cooling-off periods for reapplication.

Supreme Court Seeks Inputs In Suo Motu Case For Strengthening Bar Associations

Case Details: Re: Strengthening and Enhancing The Institutional Strength of Bar Associations v. The Registrar General & Ors.

The Supreme Court of India on February 11, 2026, directed stakeholders to place before it agreed terms of reference in the suo motu proceedings titled Re: Strengthening and Enhancing the Institutional Strength of Bar Associations, which were initiated by a coordinate bench in July 2024.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order after hearing senior advocates, representatives of bar bodies and the amicus curiae.

Background

'Cruelty Of The Highest Order': Supreme Court Raps Husband For Depriving Wife Access To 6-Month Old Twins

In a matrimonial dispute, the Supreme Court came down heavily on a man for depriving his wife access to their 6-month old twins and driving her out of the house.

"Cruelty of the highest order. Could the father take care of just born twins? She did not walk away - she was turned out of the house! The husband has acted extremely cruelly. Children aged 6 months deprived of the custody of the mother, sorry! Absolutely unacceptable. Big no. She has been turned out of the house. She is running here and there to get custody of her own children. That's the travesty" said Justice Sandeep Mehta.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter and called for the parties to appear in chamber on the next date, alongwith the children.

Supreme Court To Examine TN Power DisCom's Challenge Against Electricity Rule Mandating That Tariff Should Reflect Cost

Case Details – Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition filed by Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited challenging Rule 23 of the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi questioned State of Tamil Nadu's policy of absorbing electricity distribution losses.

The Court asked counsel for the parties to assist it in understanding the fiscal policy of other states regarding losses incurred in power distribution. “We are issuing notice. We would like you to help us in understanding that what is the fiscal policy of other states about this power distribution”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Ban Building Babri Masjids Or Any Mosque In Babur's Name

Case Details: Devkinandan @ Devki Nandan Pandey v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 63/2026

The Supreme Court rejected a public interest litigation seeking a nationwide restraint on the construction of, or naming of, any mosque or other religious structure after Babur or “Babri Masjid”.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta declined to entertain the plea.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that no mosque should be constructed or named after Babur, describing him as an “invader”. It was also submitted that Babur had referred to Hindus as slaves and that action ought to be taken against persons allegedly engaging in such activities.

'Police-Politician Nexus' : Supreme Court Raps Andhra Police For Lax Probe In Murder Case Against YSRCP MLC Udaya Bhaskar

Case Details: Anantha Satya Udaya Bhaskara Rao Anantha Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh | Crl.A. No. 2260/2022

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Andhra Pradesh police for its lethargic investigation in the 2022 murder case against YSRCP MLC Ananta Satya Udaya Bhaskar, terming that the police "were hobnobbing with the accused" and had made "all efforts to offer default bail to him on a platter."

The Court expressed serious disappointment over the fact that the investigation in the case has not so far been completed. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was considering the appeal filed by Bhaskar in 2022 seeking bail. In December 2022, the Supreme Court had granted him interim bail, and he has been enjoying it since then.

The bench pulled up the State Police for the manner in which the investigation was being carried out, saying that there was "complete connivance" by the investigating officers with the accused.

Increasing Green Cover Effective Solution For Delhi's Poor AQI, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court orally commented that planting of more trees can improve the Air Quality Index of Delhi-National Capital Region.

The Court made this observation while passing an order in relation to the constitution of the expert committee to oversee the afforestation program to compensate for the tree felling in Delhi's ridge.

Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, the amicus curiae in the case, mentioned the matter before the bench led by the Chief Justice of India, for the replacement of the expert committee member Mr.Ishwar Singh, who was appointed as a member of the National Green Tribunal. Kumar suggested two names, out of whom chose Mr MD Sinha, retired Indian Forest Service officer.

'Only To Embarrass State Govt Before Elections' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Flex Boards In Kerala

Case Details: Human Rights Foundations v. State of Kerala | D No. 57646/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking the regulation of the use of PVC flex boards in the State of Kerala. During the hearing, the Court orally commented that the petition seemed to be a "political battle" and the prayers sought seemed to "embarrass the State Government before the elections."

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi however granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies, including intervening in the other proceedings in the High Court in relation to flex boards.

The petition was filed by an NGO, Human Rights Foundation, challenging the High Court's refusal to entertain the petition seeking to address the issue of pollution caused by plastic products, particularly PVC flex boards.

AR Rahman Agrees In Supreme Court To Acknowledge Dagar Brothers' 'Shiv Stuti' Performance In 'Veera Raja' Song

Case Details: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 4742/2026

Music composer AR Rahman agreed before the Supreme Court to acknowledge the 'Shiva Stuti' performance of the Junior Dagar brothers in the 'Veera Raja Veera' song of Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan II.

Rahman and the makers of the film agreed to add the following line in the credits of the song :

"Composition inspired from the Dagarwani tradition Dhrupad, first recorded as 'Shiv Stuti' by late Ustad Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar and Ustad Nasir Zahiruddin Dagar, popularly known as Junior Dagar brothers. "

WB SIR : 'Trust Deficit' Between Bengal Govt & ECI Forces Supreme Court To Appoint Judicial Officers For SIR Duty

Given the "trust deficit" between the West Bengal Government and the Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court directed the appointment of judicial officers for the adjudication of claims and objections in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in the State.

The judicial officers are to perform the function of the Electoral Register Officers (ERO) in the process. The Court took this step in view of the dispute as to whether sufficient Group B officers in the rank of SDM have been provided by the State to the ECI to function as EROs. The State, on its part, objected to the ECI relying on the micro-observers and special roll observers appointed by it.

In the order, the bench observed that there was "an unfortunate blame game" and "allegations and counter-allegations", which indicated a "trust deficit between two Constitutional bodies, namely the democratically elected State Government and the Election Commission of India"

Supreme Court Asks Registry Not To Accept Petitions Relating To Bar Council Elections

Case Details: Shailaja Dhondiram Chavan v. Bar Council of India WP (C)203/2026 and Connected Matters

The Supreme Court expressly directed its Registry not to entertain any petitions relating to the ongoing State Bar Council Elections. The Court has asked all the aggrieved candidates or stakeholders to approach the High Powered Committee (HPC) headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing a writ petition challenging a communication issued by the Bar Council of India, mandating the adoption of a “single ballot system” for forthcoming Maharashtra Bar Council elections.

The petitioner also sought a direction that women candidates contesting under the reserved category should not be disadvantaged by any mid-process change in the ballot system that weakens the structural safeguards provided for their representation.

Delhi Ridge | Supreme Court Allows Felling Of 152 Trees, Diversion Of 2.97Ha Forest Land To Widen Road For Paramilitary Hospital

Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda and Ors., MA 1652/2025

In the Delhi Ridge tree felling contempt case, the Supreme Court yesterday permitted diversion of 2.97 hectares of forest land for construction of a road needed for "better operationalization" of the CAPFIMS paramilitary hospital.

It further granted permission for felling of 152 trees for the road widening project, while stipulating that atleast 5 times more saplings shall be planted as compensatory afforestation measure.

The Court also allowed translocation of 2519 saplings under direct supervision of the Expert Committee and at the instance of DDA. "Taking notice of the fact that mortality rate goes high in the case of translocation of saplings, the Expert Committee shall keep in mind as to how many additional saplings are required to be planted to ensure that eventually the morality rate remains zero", it added.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Bombay HC View That Magistrate Can't Order Takedown Of Online Content Under S. 69 IT Act

Case Details – Dhyan Foundation v. Google Llc & Anr.

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea against the Bombay High Court's prima facie observation that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct removal or blocking of online content under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

The High Court had made this observation while refusing to set aside revision proceedings initiated by Google in sessions court against a magistrate order directing it to remove alleged defamatory content against the petitioner.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi upheld the High Court order but clarified that the said observation will not affect any civil remedies the petitioner may want to seek.

Supreme Court Asks Madhya Pradesh High Court To Decide Challenge To 27% OBC Quota In 3 Months

Case Details: Yogesh Kumar Thakur v. Guru Ghasidas Sahitya Avam Sanskriti Academy and Ors | Civil Appeal No(S). 11442-11443/2025 and Other Connected Matters

The Supreme Court remanded a batch of appeals challenging the Madhya Pradesh Government's 27% reservation for the Other Backwards Classes(OBC) to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The petitions challenge the 2019 Act which raised the reservation for OBCs in services to 27% from 14%.

Since Scheduled Castes have 16% and Scheduled Tribes have 20% reservation in MP, raising the OBC reservation to 27% will take the reservation beyond the 50% ceiling. Along with the 10% EWS Quota, the total reservation will then become 73%.

Amicus Urges Supreme Court To Revise Draft Criminal Practice Rules In Light Of BNSS, BSA Changes

In the long-pending suo motu matter concerning deficiencies in criminal trials, the Supreme Court is set to consider a comprehensive compilation filed by Amicus Curiae Sidharth Luthra, seeking adoption of revised Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2026, in supersession of the 2021 framework.

The suo motu case, titled In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials, led to the 2021 judgment, where the Court framed Draft Rules of Criminal Practice and directed States and High Courts to implement them within six months.

With the coming into force of the new criminal codes, namely the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the amicus has urged the Court to recalibrate the 2021 Rules to align them with the new procedural and evidentiary architecture, particularly the technology-driven provisions introduced under the BNSS and BSA.

After Supreme Court's Criticism, UP Police Agree To Add Hate Crime Offences In Case Of Attack On Muslim Cleric

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

After Supreme Court's critical observations in the case, the Uttar Pradesh Police has agreed to investigate hate crime offenses in the matter of Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, a Noida-based Muslim cleric, stated to have been attacked in 2021 by a group over his religious identity.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was informed of the development by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj.

Pursuant to the last hearing, the ASG conceded before the Court that on a perusal of the allegations in the complaint, necessary ingredients of Sections 153B and 295A of IPC were made out and the FIR in 2023 ought to have invoked the same. However, he added, as the chargesheet has already been filed, the Investigating Officer would be better advised to move the trial court for return of the original file so that further investigation can be made invoking the Sections 153B and 295A.

Supreme Court Dismisses Uttarakhand Forest Officer's Plea Against Prosecution Sanction In Corbett Park Tree Felling Case

Case Details: Rahul v. State of Uttarakhand | W.P.(Crl.) No. 62/2026

The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed a writ petition filed by an Indian Forest Officer serving in Uttarakhand, named Rahul, challenging the sanction granted for prosecuting him in the case related to illegal razing of trees in the Corbett Tiger Reserve.

The case is being investigated by the CBI under the Court's monitoring.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

Law Firms Generating Unnecessary Litigation By Drafting Confusing Arbitration Clauses Is Professional Misconduct : Supreme Court

Case Details – Himadri Speciality Chemicals Limited v. Jindal Coke Limited

The Supreme Court last week (February 20) strongly criticised law firms for drafting “confusing” arbitration clauses that generate avoidable litigation in courts which are already overburdened, and remarked that this practice amounts to professional misconduct.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a plea raising the issue of conflict between a jurisdiction clause and an arbitration clause in the same agreement.

“These are all deliberately, mischievously, designed kind of clauses. These law firms and the offices have started doing it. Why can't you simplify the clause when you enter into agreement that arbitration proceedings will be conducted at so and so place, in the event of dispute arising out of arbitration proceedings, so and so court will adjudicate it? One line you can resolve but deliberately with the youngsters sitting in so and so law firm they all... this is absurd. To my mind this is professional misconduct, misguiding your party. Creating, generating litigation is part of a serious professional misconduct on the part of the law professionals, those who indulge in this”, Justice Kant said.

Supreme Court Disposes Plea Against Netflix Film 'Ghooskhor Pandat' After Director Agrees To Change Name

Case Details: Atul Mishra v. Union of India

The Supreme Court disposed of a petition filed against the Netflix movie 'Ghooskhor Pandat' after its director, Neeraj Pandey, informed by way of an affidavit that the objectionable title will be changed.

The director further stated that the new title has not been finalised yet. The petition was filed on the ground that the film's title was derogatory towards the entire Brahmin community.

The Court had also expressed its reservations with the film's title, asking why should a section of society be denigrated. The bench had asked the director to inform the stance on the new title.