Judgments'Ideological Drivers Of Alleged Conspiracy' : Why Supreme Court Denied Bail To Umar Khalid & Sharjeel ImamCase Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1The Supreme Court, while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case held that their roles were not episodic...
Judgments
'Ideological Drivers Of Alleged Conspiracy' : Why Supreme Court Denied Bail To Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam
Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1
The Supreme Court, while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case held that their roles were not episodic but “architectural”, placing them at the top of the chain of command of the alleged conspiracy.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria made a distinction between the roles attributed to them and the other co-accused. It stated that while the allegations against Khalid and Imam indicate a "central and directive role" in "conceptualising, planning and coordinating" the alleged larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots of February 2020, the roles of co-accused Gulfisha, Haider and others are merely subsidiary or facilitative in nature.
As per the judgment authored by Justice Kumar, the Imam and Khalid are the alleged masterminds of the larger conspiracy and the materials by the prosecution in this regard are "direct, corroborative and contemporaneous".
Delay In Trial Not A 'Trump Card' For Automatic Grant Of Bail In UAPA Cases : Supreme Court
Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1
The Supreme Court while dismissing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, observed that the ground of delay in trial would not operate as a trump card to automatically grant bail for offences punishable under Unlawful (Activities) Prevention Act, 1967.
“In prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint. Rather, delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, stating that the outcome of the bail pleas in UAPA offences must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally relevant considerations.
Delhi Riots UAPA Case : Supreme Court's Bail Conditions Bar Accused From Sharing Posts Digitally & Attending Gatherings
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1
While granting bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, the Supreme Court imposed a stringent set of conditions, including prohibitions on attending rallies or public meetings and on circulating posters, banners or other campaign material in any form.
The Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria specifically barred the accused from participating in any public meetings or gatherings and from circulating posts, handbills, posters or banners, whether physically or through electronic or digital platforms.
The Bench also deniedbail to co-accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
In UAPA Bail Hearing, Defence Not To Be Considered; Only See If Prosecution Has Shown Prima Facie Case : Supreme Court
Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1
The Supreme Court, in denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, held that a bail hearing under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is not a forum for evaluating defences or weighing evidence. The Court's role, it ruled, is limited to determining whether the prosecution's material, taken at face value, prima facie discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria laid down certain propositions governing the application of Section 43D (5) of UAPA while considering bail pleas:
"First, the provision embodies a deliberate legislative departure from ordinary bail jurisprudence, premised upon the distinctive nature of offences under Chapters IV and VI of the Act.
Supreme Court Denies Bail To Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam; Grants Bail To 5 Others In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case
Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1
The Supreme Court (January 5) denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, observing that the materials showed a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
At the same time, the Court granted bail to some of the other accused in the case - Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.
As regards Khalid and Imam, the Court said that they can renew their bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from today. The Court observed that the prosecution materials prima facie disclosed "a central and formative role" and "involvement in the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction extending beyond episodic and localised acts."
UAPA | 'Terrorist Act' Not Confined To Conventional Violence; Includes Conspiracy To Disrupt Essential Supplies Through Any Means : Supreme Court
Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1
The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy on the grounds that prima facie, they were the architects of the alleged conspiracy. It granted bail to the other five accused persons-Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad, reasoning that their roles were merely facilitative in nature.
In its judgment delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, the Court interpreted Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, to encompass forms of violence that threaten the sovereignty and security of the nation, even where such acts destabilise civic life and societal functioning without immediate physical violence.
The judgment authored by Justice Kumar reasoned that Section 15 is not restricted to only a conventional form of violence that intends to threaten or be likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, including economic security or sovereignty of India, or with the intent to strike terror in people or any section thereof.
Supreme Court Flags Reluctance Of Trial Judges To Grant Bail Due To Fear Of Disciplinary Action
Case Details – Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 2
The Supreme Court flagged that trial court judges are increasingly reluctant to exercise discretion in granting bail due to a lurking fear of disciplinary action, warning that such an atmosphere undermines judicial independence and burdens higher courts with bail matters.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan observed that initiation of departmental proceedings against judicial officers on mere suspicion or for alleged wrong exercise of discretion is one of the primary reasons why judges at the district level hesitate to grant bail even in deserving cases.
“Initiation of departmental proceedings on mere suspicion is one of the primary causes why trial court judges are reluctant when it comes to exercising discretion for the purpose of grant of bail. It should not happen that because of the lurking fear in the mind of a trial court judge of some administrative action being taken that even in deserving cases well within the principles of law, bail is declined. This is one reason why the High Courts are flooded with bail applications. The same is the scenario in the Supreme Court”, he said.
'No Disciplinary Action Against Judge For Mere Error In Judgment' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal Of Judicial Officer
Case Details – Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 2
The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of a Madhya Pradesh judicial officer, holding that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against members of the district judiciary merely for passing allegedly incorrect or erroneous judicial orders.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan allowed the appeal filed by Nirbhay Singh Suliya, who had been removed from service in 2014 while serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge on allegations of corruption and adopting a “double standard” in deciding bail applications under the Excise Act.
The action followed a departmental inquiry initiated by the High Court after allegations that he had adopted a double standard while deciding bail applications in cases registered under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act. It was alleged that he granted bail in certain cases involving seizure of more than 50 bulk litres of liquor, while rejecting bail in several other similar cases on the ground that bail cannot be granted as the seized quantity is more than 50 bulk litres.
Supreme Court Issues Directions To Curb False And Frivolous Complaints Against Judicial Officers
Case Details – Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 2
The Supreme Court issued directions on how High Courts should deal with complaints made against judicial officers of the district judiciary, drawing a distinction between false and frivolous complaints and those found to be prima facie true.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan held that strict action must be taken against persons found to be filing or engineering false and frivolous complaints against members of the district judiciary. The Court said that such action should include, in appropriate cases, initiation of proceedings for contempt of court.
The Court further directed that where the person filing or engineering a false complaint is a member of the Bar, the High Court should, apart from initiating contempt proceedings, make a reference to the Bar Council concerned for disciplinary action.
Law Cannot Change With Change Of Bench; Coordinate Bench's Decision Binding : Supreme Court
Case Details: Adani Power Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 3
Whilegranting customs dutyexemption to Adani Power for electricity from a Gujarat SEZ, the Supreme Court faulted the Gujarat High Court for violating the principle of stare decisis, holding that it wrongly ignored a binding coordinate bench ruling and reiterating that the law cannot change with a change in Bench.
“The discipline of precedent is not a matter of personal predilection; it is an institutional necessity. Stare decisis et non quieta movere which means to stand by what is decided and not to disturb what is settled, is a working rule which secures stability, predictability and respect for judicial outcomes. The law cannot change with the change of the Bench.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, while allowing the Adani Power Ltd.'s appeal against the Gujarat High Court's 2019 order which failed to follow binding precedent laid down by a High Court's coordinate bench in 2015 on the legality of customs duty levied on electricity supplied from a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA).
Briefly put, in 2015, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court had struck down the levy of customs duty on electricity supplied from an SEZ to the DTA, holding the levy to be ultra vires and unconstitutional. That judgment was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, thereby attaining finality.
Supreme Court Allows Customs Duty Exemption To Adani Power For Electricity Taken From Gujarat SEZ
Case Details: Adani Power Ltd. and Anr.V Union of India and Ors | SLP(C) No. 24729/2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 3
The Supreme Court (January 5) allowed an appeal preferred by Adani Power Limited against the Gujarat High Court's 2019 order, which refused to exempt the company from payment of the customs duty on electrical energy removed from the Special Economic Zone(SEZ) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) by its coal-based thermal power plant situated in Mundra Port.
The petitioner(Adani Power) is engaged in the activity of generating, transmitting and selling electrical energy from the SEZ to the DTA. In 2010, the Government levied custody duty with retrospective effect from 26.6.2009, which the Gujarat High Court in 2015 held to be arbitrary and illegal.
It held that the petitioner was exempted from the levy of customs duty for the period 26.6.2009 to 15.9. 2019 as the levy of customs duty on electrical energy can only be levied prospectively through a substantive law. The High Court also stated that it amounted to double taxation as the petitioners had paid duty on raw materials.
Mere Participation In Arbitration Won't Bar Challenge To Arbitrator's Eligibility, Waiver Must Be "Express & In Writing" : Supreme Court
Case Details: Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Airports Authority of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 4
The Supreme Court has ruled that a party's involvement in arbitral proceedings does not, in itself, constitute a waiver of its right to object to an arbitrator's eligibility. The Court clarified that the right to object can only be waived by an express written agreement, rejecting any notion of a "deemed waiver" arising from conduct alone under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
“The words “an express agreement in writing” in the proviso to Section 12(5) means that the right to object to the appointment of an ineligible arbitrator cannot be taken away by mere implication. The agreement referred to in the proviso must be a clear, unequivocal written agreement.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan.
The Court endorsed the Delhi High Court's decision in Govind Singh v. Satya Group Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 37, where it was held that “it is not necessary to even examine whether the appellant had raised an objection. Even if the appellant had participated in the proceedings without raising any objection, it cannot be said that he had waived his right under Section 12(5) of the Act, 1996.”
O 1 R 10 CPC | Plaintiff Is 'Dominus Litis', Can't Be Compelled To Add A Defendant In Suit : Supreme Court
Case Details: Nak Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 5
The Supreme Court (January 5) dismissed a litigant's plea to be included as a defendant in the suit, stating that the plaintiff, being master of the suit, cannot be compelled to sue a party against whom no relief is claimed.
“This apart, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) who have instituted the suit are dominus litis and it is for them to choose their adversaries. If they do not array the proper and necessary parties to the suit, they do it at their own risk. However, they cannot be compelled to add a party to defend a suit against their wishes.”, observed a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, while upholding the Bombay High Court's decision which set aside the trial court's order impleading the Appellant as defendant in a money recovery suit despite neither being a necessary party nor a proper party.
This was a case where the original suit was instituted by the legal heirs of the property owner against M/s Kishore Engineering Company, a partnership firm, seeking recovery of unpaid service charges for furniture and fixtures in a commercial premise in Mumbai. The firm was occupying the premises as a sub-tenant.
Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Given For Sale Agreement Impermissible When Buyer & Seller Are At Fault : Supreme Court
Case Details: Subhash Aggarwal v. Mahender Pal Chhabra & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 6
The Supreme Court observed that when both the buyer and seller were at fault in performance of a contract, it would be impermissible to order forfeiture of the earnest money deposited by the buyer, as it would unjustly enrich the seller.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the buyer's appeal against a Delhi High Court ruling which, while setting aside the trial court's decree of specific performance for lack of readiness and willingness, permitted forfeiture of the earnest money.
The dispute stemmed from a January 22, 2008 agreement to sell a 300 sq. yard property in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, for ₹6.11 crore. The buyer paid ₹60 lakh as earnest money and ₹30 lakh subsequently. Although the trial court in February 2021 decreed specific performance, the High Court in September 2025 reversed the decision, holding that the buyer failed to prove financial capacity to pay the balance ₹5.21 crore, allowing forfeiture of the earnest money but ordering refund of the additional ₹30 lakh with interest.
Right To Speedy Trial Not Defeated By Gravity Of Offence; Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Becomes Punishment: Supreme Court
Case Details: Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 7
The right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence, the Supreme Court held, observing that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, effectively converts pre-trial detention into a form of punishment. The Court made these observations while granting bail to former Amtek Auto promoter Arvind Dham in a money-laundering case.
The Court, relying on the judgment in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, underscored that if the State, any prosecuting agency, or even the court concerned has no wherewithal to secure or protect an accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, then the State or such agency cannot oppose a plea for bail merely on the ground that the alleged crime is serious.
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the Delhi High Court's order denying bail, a Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sanjay Kumar ordered the release of Dham on bail in proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Amtek Group Promoter Arvind Dham In Money Laundering Case
Case Details: Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 7
The Supreme Court granted bail to Arvind Dham, promoter of the Amtek Group, in a money laundering case arising out of alleged bank fraud running into about Rs. 27,000 crores.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed Dham's plea challenging the Delhi High Court's order refusing to grant him regular bail. The Court granted him bail on the ground of long incarceration of almost 17 months, observing -
The case against Dham arises from two ECIRs registered by the Enforcement Directorate on the basis of FIRs lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation in December 2022. The FIRs were registered on complaints by the Bank of Maharashtra and IDBI Bank, alleging diversion and misuse of loan funds by group companies of the Amtek Group.
Reserved Category Candidate Who Availed Relaxation In Prelims Can't Seek Unreserved Seat Based On Final Rank : Supreme Court
Case Details: Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors. (And Connected Matter)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 8
The Supreme Court (January 6) refused to consider the appointment of a Schedule Caste category candidate in the unreserved cadre of the Indian Forest Service because the candidate had availed relaxation at the stage of preliminary examination.
“once relaxation has been taken by a reserved category candidate, they cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies.”, observed a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, while allowing the Union of India's plea against the Karnataka High Court's decision which had allowed the appointment of the Respondent-SC category candidate to the unreserved category merely because he had secured higher final rank than the General category candidate, while ignoring the fact that the Respondent had availed the relaxation.
The dispute arose from the 2013 IFS examination, conducted in two stages, the Preliminary Examination and the Main Examination with an interview. In the prelims, the general cut-off was 267 marks, while the relaxed cut-off for SC candidates was 233. G. Kiran (SC) qualified with 247.18 marks by availing the relaxed cut-off, whereas Antony S. Mariyappa (General) qualified on the general cut-off with 270.68 marks. However, in the final merit list, Kiran ranked 19, and Antony ranked 37. However, during cadre allocation, Karnataka had only one General Insider vacancy and no SC Insider vacancy. The Union allotted the General Insider post to Antony and allocated Kiran to the Tamil Nadu cadre. Kiran challenged this before the CAT and the Karnataka High Court, both of which ruled in his favour on the ground that he had secured a higher final rank.
Supreme Court Allows West Bengal Part-Time Teachers Seeking Equal Pay As Full-Time Teachers To Make Fresh Representation
Case Details: Gurupada Bera and Ors. v. Binod Kumar and Ors., Diary No. 18826-2025 ()
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 9
Disposing of a contempt petition, the Supreme Court allowed certain part-time teachers in the State of West Bengal to make a fresh representation before the School Education Department Secretary for pay parity with full-time teachers teaching in non-government aided higher secondary schools. It ordered that the competent authority shall pass a reasoned order on the representations within 4 months.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment.
Reading the operative part in open Court, Justice Mehta said,
Public Sector Enterprise Can't Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Retired Employee If Rules Don't Expressly Enable It : Supreme Court
Case Details: Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 10
The Supreme Court (January 6) ruled that a public-sector corporation cannot initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings against an employee after retirement in the absence of an express enabling provision in its service regulations.
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi quashed the post-retirement disciplinary action taken against a former employee of the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation nearly eleven months after his retirement.
Noting that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ('1982 Pension Rules') and Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 don't include an enabling provision to launch disciplinary proceedings against the retired employee, the Court allowed the ex-employee's appeal, holding that “the Corporation had no jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings against the appellant for the alleged misconduct and to direct recovery against him applying 1982 Pension Rules.”
Single FIR Permissible In Mass Cheating Cases Arising From One Conspiracy : Supreme Court
Case Details: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 11
The Supreme Court has held that in cases alleging a single criminal conspiracy resulting in cheating of a large number of investors, the registration of one FIR and treatment of other complaints as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is legally permissible. The Court set aside the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court in 2019, which had mandated separate FIRs for each individual investor.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the appeal filed by the State (NCT of Delhi) and held that the High Court's answers in the criminal reference were unsustainable.
Background
Sports Quota Admissions To MBBS/BDS: Supreme Court Quashes Midstream Policy Change In Punjab 2024 Session
Case Details: Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 12
The Supreme Court has set aside the midstream expansion of the zone of consideration for sports quota admissions to MBBS and BDS courses in Punjab, holding that altering admission criteria after the process has commenced violates settled principles of fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed a batch of civil appeals arising from orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed challenges to the inclusion of sports achievements from Classes IX and X, in addition to Classes XI and XII, for admissions during the 2024 session.
Background
S. 138 NI Act | Cognizance Can't Be Taken Of Time-Barred Cheque Dishonour Complaint Without First Condoning Delay : Supreme Court
Case Details: S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 13
Cognizance can't be taken on a cheque dishonor complaint filed belatedly unless the delay is condoned by the Court, observed the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision, which upheld the trial court's decision to take cognizance of a cheque dishonor complaint filed belatedly, even without condoning the delay.
“we have no hesitation in holding that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognisance of the respondent's complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, even before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned.”, the court held.
'Rules Of Game Can't Be Changed Midway' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Midway Criteria Change In BPSC Asst. Engineer Recruitment
Case Details: Abhay Kumar Patel & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (And Connected Matter)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 14
Reaffirming that the “rules of the game cannot be changed midway”, the Supreme Court (January 6) set aside the Patna High Court's decision which had upheld the State Government's mid-process amendment of recruitment rules, a move that adversely affected candidates who had qualified under the written examination.
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi allowed the batch of appeals filed by the candidates, who appeared in the BPSC examination conducted for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers, where the sole criterion for selection was the written examination. However, after the written examination was conducted and the provisional merit list was released, the state government amended the recruitment rules by granting weightage for contractual experience, along with age relaxation, and gave effect to the amendment retrospectively.
Candidates selected under the original criteria challenged the move, but the Patna High Court dismissed the challenge, treating the amendment as a policy decision and holding that no vested right flowed from a provisional merit list, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Exoneration In Disciplinary Proceedings Doesn't Bar Criminal Prosecution On Same Charge In All Situations : Supreme Court
Case Details: Karnataka Lokayukta Bagalkote District v. Chandrashekar and Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 15
The Supreme Court has held that exoneration of a public servant in departmental disciplinary proceedings does not automatically warrant quashing of a criminal prosecution, particularly in corruption cases arising from trap proceedings, reiterating that the two processes operate independently and on different standards of proof.
A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed an appeal filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta and set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment which had quashed criminal proceedings against an Executive Engineer accused of demanding and accepting a bribe.
Background
Judge Can't Be Presumed To Be Biased Merely Because Litigant's Relative Is Police Constable Or Court Staff: Supreme Court
Case Details: Prasanna Kasini v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 16
In a significant ruling on transfer petitions grounded on allegations of bias, the Supreme Court on January 6 set aside an order of the Telangana High Court transferring a criminal case from Sangareddy to Hyderabad, holding that such allegations cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the official positions held by relatives of a litigant.
A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed an appeal filed by the wife, against an ex parte order by which proceedings in a criminal case initiated on her complaint were shifted from the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy, to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, at the instance of her husband.
The Court noted that the transfer was ordered without hearing the wife, who was impleaded as a respondent in the transfer petition but had not appeared. It took exception to the High Court's approach, particularly given the personal circumstances highlighted by the appellant, including the difficulty faced by a woman with two children in prosecuting proceedings far from her hometown.
Customs Act | Statutory Tariff Headings And HSN Notes Prevail Over Common Parlance In Customs Classification : Supreme Court
Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. M/S Welkin Foods
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 17
The Supreme Court (January 6) observed that the 'Aluminum Shelves' imported for mushroom cultivation cannot be classified as 'parts of agricultural machinery' but are liable to be classified as 'aluminium structures', attracting a customs duty.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan resolved the long-standing dispute over the classification of aluminium shelving systems used in mushroom farms for the purpose of attracting custom duty on the import of aluminium shelving. Moreover, the bench fundamentally restructures how goods are classified for customs duty and laid down seven-point mandatory framework by downgrading the routine reliance on the “common parlance” or “trade parlance” test and affirmed the primacy of express or implied statutory guidance flowing from tariff headings, section and chapter notes, HSN Explanatory Notes, and technical expressions used in the tariff entries.
The dispute was that the respondent-importer had imported the aluminium shelving to be used in mushroom cultivation and had claimed classification of the imported item under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 84369900, covering “parts of agricultural machinery”, which attracts nil customs duty.
State Must Abandon Colonial Mindset : Supreme Court Criticises Governments Retracting Assurances To Industries
Case Details: Ifgl Refractories Ltd. v. Orissa State Financial Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 18
The Supreme Court strongly criticised the States for moving back on its promises to investors, holding that industrial incentive policies must be interpreted liberally and purposively, and that the State cannot evade its commitments through technicalities or retrospective amendments, as such conduct erodes investor confidence and defeats the very purpose of industrial policies.
“Where the Government has offered an incentive of exemption to a new industry, and where an industry has been established in reliance on such representation in order to avail the benefit, that new industry may legitimately contend that the exemption cannot thereafter be withdrawn.”, observed a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, while allowing an industry's appeal against the Odisha High Court's decision that had upheld the Odisha State Financial Corporation's withdrawal of its assurance to grant subsidies after the appellant set up the industrial unit.
The dispute dates back to 1992, when the Appellant set up a Magneco Metrel Plant under the 1989 Industrial Policy with fresh registration, separate infrastructure and new machinery, commencing production on 21 November 1992. Subsidy applications were filed in 1993, the unit was recognised as a new industrial unit in 1998, and subsidies were sanctioned in 2003. However, the amounts were never released and were ultimately rejected in 2008 on the basis of a 1994 executive instruction and a 2008 retrospective amendment imposing an overall subsidy cap. The Odisha High Court upheld the rejection in 2018, leading IFGL to approach the Supreme Court.
Power To Condone Delay Lies Only With Courts, Not Tribunals Unless Statute Expressly Permits: Supreme Court
Case Details: Property Company (P) Ltd. v. Rohinten Daddy Mazda
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 19
The Supreme Court (January 7) reiterated that the Company Law Board or Tribunal cannot condone delays in filing appeals unless the law expressly grants them such power, clarifying that the authority to condone delay lies with courts and not with quasi-judicial bodies unless specifically provided under their governing framework.
“The provisions of the (Limitation) Act, 1963…would only apply to suits, applications or appeals, as the case may be, which are made under any law to 'courts' and not to those made before quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals, unless such quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals are specifically empowered in that regard.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while setting aside order of the Calcutta High Court which upheld the Company Law Board's decision to condone a 249-day delay in filing an appeal under the Companies Act, 2013.
The dispute arose when the company refused to register the transmission of shares claimed by the respondent under his mother's will. Although probate was granted in 1990, the respondent sought transmission only in March 2013, which the company rejected in April 2013.
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act | Service Of Notice under S. 10(5) On Person In Actual Possession Is Mandatory : Supreme Court
Case Details: Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia v. State of Gujarat & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 20
The Supreme Court of India has held that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 would abate under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 if the State failed to take actual physical possession of the excess land in accordance with law, including by serving mandatory notice on the persons in possession under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act.
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed a civil appeal filed by sub-plot holders from Surat, Gujarat, and set aside a 2014 judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had branded them as “illegal occupants” and denied them relief.
Background
Arbitral Proceedings Commence On Respondent Receiving Notice Invoking Arbitration Clause, Not On Arbitrator's Appointment : Supreme Court
Case Details: Regenta Hotels Private Limited v. M/S Hotel Grand Centre Point and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 21
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the arbitral proceedings are set to commence on the date of receipt of notice invoking the arbitration clause by the respondent.
“...the date on which the respondent receives a notice or request invoking arbitration is the moment at which the arbitral proceedings commence under Section 21 of the Act. It further clarified that a valid invocation requires the notice to articulate the dispute sought to be referred but once such notice is received, commencement is complete and effective for all legal purposes including limitation, maintainability of the Section 11 Petition and the legal efficacy of any pre-arbitral measures.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, while setting aside the Karnataka High Court's order which considered the date of commencement of arbitration from the date of appointment of an arbitrator.
The dispute arose out of a franchise agreement executed in March 2019 between Appellant and a partnership firm operating a hotel in Srinagar. Following internal disputes among the partners of the firm, one of the partners allegedly interfered with the hotel's operations, prompting Appellant to seek interim protection.
Validly Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Seek Higher Bids Later: Supreme Court
Case Details: Golden Food Products India v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.18095-18096 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 22
The Supreme Court held that once a person is declared the highest bidder in an auction for a plot, it crystalises the future rights and obligations between the parties.
The bidding authority then has a duty to issue the allotment letter, and expectation of a higher bid in a subsequent auction can't be a reason to cancel an auction held in accordance with law, as it would amount to cancelling the auction based on irrelevant considerations and therefore, arbitrary, whimsical and irrational.
"In our view, there cannot be any imprimatur of the Court to such arbitrary cancellation of auction by an instrumentality or agency of the State in the absence of there being any fraud, collusion, suppression etc. Merely because the smaller plots measuring 123 to 132 square metres were auctioned and sold at a higher price as compared to the subject plot measuring 3150 square metres which is a large sized plot, could not have been the basis for cancelling theauction insofar as the subject plot is concerned."
Supreme Court Explains Test For Grant Of Bail To Accused Added During Trial Under Section 319 CrPC
Case Details: Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. State of Jharkhand (And Connected Matter)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 23
The Supreme Court has laid down a rule for granting bail to a person added as an additional accused in the middle of the trial, stating that bail shouldn't be denied unless there's strong and convincing evidence showing serious involvement.
“…the court must be satisfied that there is strong and cogent evidence of the person's complicity at the threshold i.e. much higher than that required for framing charges against the original accused.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, while setting aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision which denied bail to the appellant, who was arrayed in the middle of the trial.
"When a person is added as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that person is ultimately arrested and prays for bail, the relevant consideration at the end of the court while considering his plea for bail should be the strong and cogent evidence than mere probability of his complicity,” the Court observed.
Fresh Notification Of Vijayawada ACB As 'Police Station' Not Required After Andhra Pradesh Bifurcation : Supreme Court
Case Details: Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Anti-Corruption Bureau, A.P. & Anr. Etc. v. Dayam Peda Ranga Rao Etc.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 24
The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had quashed a batch of FIRs registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, holding that the High Court adopted an impermissibly hyper-technical approach that resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the appeals filed by the Joint Director, Rayalaseema, ACB and others, restoring the FIRs relating to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and permitting continuation of investigations across the State.
The Court held that the High Court erred in concluding that the ACB's Central Investigation Unit at Vijayawada was not a “police station” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, merely because a specific notification had not been issued post-bifurcation of the State.
Supreme Court Asks High Courts To Prioritise Disposal Of Matters Which Stayed Trials In Heinous Offences
Case Details: Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 25
Expressing concern over a criminal revision remaining pending for more than 23 years due to the operation of an interim order, the Supreme Court (January 8) asked all the High Courts to promptly take up cases where trials in heinous offences such as murder, rape, and dowry death have been stayed because of interim orders passed by the High Courts.
“If criminal trials in such serious offences remain pending for years together on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Courts, it would lead to nothing but mockery of justice. Justice has to be done with all the parties. Justice cannot be done only with the accused persons. Justice has to be done even with the victim and the family members of the victim. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan.
The bench requested “the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to ensure that the petitions wherein interim orders are passed holding up the trials should be immediately taken up for hearing, more particularly in sensitive and serious matters like murder, dowry death, rape etc.”
Studying In Govt Institute Doesn't Give Automatic Right To Govt Job : Supreme Court Rejects 'Legitimate Expectation' Claim
Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Bhawana Mishra (And Connected Matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 26
The Supreme Court has held that mere admission to and completion of a course in a government institution does not create a legitimate expectation of automatic appointment to a government post, particularly when there is a change in policy and recruitment framework.
A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan allowed the State of Uttar Pradesh's plea against the Allahabad High Court's decision to grant appointment to the Respondents just because they had a legitimate expectation to be employed after getting admission to the training course. In essence, the court ruled that candidates admitted to a government training course acquire no vested right to merely because of past practice, especially when a subsequent policy change and a massive increase in the number of eligible candidates fundamentally alters the recruitment landscape.
It was argued by the Respondent-candidates that when the past practice offered automatic employment to the erstwhile candidates who were admitted to the Ayurvedic Nursing training course, then there arose a legitimate expectation that they would also be offered employment as staff nurses pursuant to their admission to the training course.
Motor Vehicle Act | Excavators, Dumpers, Etc Used Inside Factories Are Not Motor Vehicles To Attract Road Tax : Supreme Court
Case Details: Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 27
The Supreme Court has ruled that Heavy Earth Moving Machinery (HEMM) and construction equipment like Excavators, Dumpers, Loaders, and Dozers used exclusively within a factory or enclosed premises are not "motor vehicles" under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicle Act and hence not liable to pay road tax.
Allowing the Ultratech Cement Ltd. plea, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale set aside the Gujarat High Court's decision that had upheld the state's demand for crores in road tax on such machinery, despite these HEMM's being used in the enclosed premises to facilitate an operation of the Ultratech's plant sites.
“we are of the conclusive opinion that the vehicles used by the appellants are vehicles of special types, precisely construction equipment vehicles which are suitable and are meant for use for operation and use within the industrial area/factory premises/ defined enclosed premises and are not meant for use on roads or public roads. They are off-road equipments and as such stand excluded not only from the purview of the “motor vehicle” as defined under Section 2 (28) of the Act but also from tax as Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution only authorizes taxation of vehicles suitable for use on roads only. They are not even chargeable to road tax in view of Schedule I to Section 3 (1) of the Gujarat Tax Act which do not prescribes any tax for such kind of vehicles i.e., construction equipment vehicles.”, the court held.
Companies Act | Private Complaint Not Maintainable Against Fraud; Can Be Filed Only By SFIO : Supreme Court
Case Details: Yerram Vijay Kumar v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 28
The Supreme Court (January 9) held that complaints alleging fraud under the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be initiated through private complaints, as cognizance can be taken by a Special Court only on a complaint filed by the Director of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) or an officer authorised by the Central Government under Section 212(6) of the Act.
The Court, however, clarified that an individual is not remediless, and can approach the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 213 of the Act to demand an investigation by Serious Fraud Investigation Office in to the allegations of fraud, upon satisfying the eligibility to register the complaint.
“As such, the offence under Section 448 of the Companies Act is an 'offence covered under Section 447' as mentioned in Section 212(6) of the Companies Act and therefore, the bar against taking cognizance under the second proviso of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, unless specific conditions are met, is attracted in the present case. Cognizance, therefore, in such a case, cannot be taken merely by filing of a private complaint by the Complainant. However, it is not to say that the Complainant is left absolutely remediless. The right recourse for a person, who makes an allegation of fraud in the affairs of a company is to file an application under Section 213 of the Companies Act before the NCLT upon satisfying the eligibility under Section 213(a) and 213(b) of the Companies Act.”, observed a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and K Vinod Chandran, while quashing criminal proceedings against former directors of a company for offenses under Sections 448 (false statement) and 451 (repeated default) of the Companies Act.
Supreme Court Urges Union To Bring 'Romeo-Juliet' Clause In POCSO Act To Shield Consensual Adolescent Relationships From Prosecution
Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 29
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has suggested that the Union Government consider introducing a “Romeo-Juliet” clause in the POCSO Act to exempt adolescents who engage in consensual relationships from criminal prosecution, despite being below the age of consent (18 years) and having only a minor age difference.
“Considering the fact that repeated judicial notice has been taken of the misuse of these laws, let a copy of this judgment be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this menace inter alia, the introduction of a Romeo – Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle scores etc.”, ordered a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh, as a post-script in a judgment delivered in a matter arising out of a Allahabad High Court's decision, which while granting bail to the juvenile had issued sweeping directions to the investigative agencies to conduct medical tests, such as ossification tests, at the very outset of investigation to determine the age of victims.
Setting aside the High Court's sweeping directions, the Top Court found it to be against the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which prescribes a mandatory procedure under Section 94 to determine the age of the victim. The provision says that age is to be determined first on the basis of a matriculation or equivalent certificate, failing which a birth certificate issued by a municipal authority or panchayat is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of these documents can medical tests such as ossification tests be ordered.
Preventive Detention Can't Be Used To Override Bail, Must Prove 'Public Order' Threat : Supreme Court
Case Details: Roshini Devi v. State of Telangana and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 30
The Supreme Court quashed the preventive detention under the Telangana 'Goonda Act', ruling that simply declaring the detenu a 'habitual drug offender' was not sufficient for preventive detention unless shown how detenu's actions specifically threatened public order.
“Mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order unless there is material to show that the narcotic drug dealt with by the detenu was in fact dangerous to public health under the Act of 1986. This material is found to be missing in the order of detention.”, observed a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, while setting aside the Telangana High Court's decision which upheld the District Magistrate's detention order detaining Appellant.
Since the Appellant was granted bail in NDPS cases, the State invoked the provisions of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, known as 'Goonda Act', to not let her free.
Arbitration | Lack Of S. 21 Notice Not Fatal If Claim Is Otherwise Valid & Arbitrable : Supreme Court
Case Details – M/S Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 31
The Supreme Court set aside a Kerala High Court judgment which had held that an arbitral tribunal cannot decide disputes beyond a specific issue referred to it and that a party cannot raise additional disputes without issuing a separate notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court set aside a judgment of the Kerala High Court and restored an arbitral award in favour of M/s Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd in a contractual dispute with the State of Kerala arising out of road maintenance works under the Kerala State Transport Project.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan held that the High Court had erred in concluding that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide disputes beyond one specific issue and in holding that the contractor was barred from raising other issues for want of a separate notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Bombay HC's 'Central Warehousing' Judgment Does Not Bar Arbitration Clauses In Leave & License Agreements : Supreme Court
Case Details – Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited v. Santosh Cordeiro and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 32
The Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court order appointing an arbitrator in a dispute arising from a leave and licence agreement for office premises of Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited at Malad, Mumbai, holding that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the High Court was right in allowing the application filed by the licensor and appointing a sole arbitrator, as the court's jurisdiction at that stage was confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court rejected the licensor's objections based on Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 at the stage of appointment of arbitrator.
S.126 Indian Contract Act | Promoter's Undertaking To Infuse Funds Won't Amount To 'Guarantee' : Supreme Court
Case Details: UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Electrosteel Castings Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9701/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 33
The Supreme Court has held that a contractual clause obligating a promoter to arrange infusion of funds into a borrower to meet financial covenants does not amount to a contract of guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. At the same time, the Court clarified that approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not automatically extinguish unsustainable debt against third-party security providers unless the plan expressly provides so.
Interpreting Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, the Court held that for an obligation to be construed as a guarantee, there must be a direct and unambiguous obligation of the surety to discharge the obligation of the principal debtor to the creditor.
“A 'See to it' guarantee in English Common Law refers to an obligation upon the guarantor to ensure that principal debtor itself, performs its own obligation and the guarantor, therefore, is in breach as soon as principal debtor fails to perform. However, a 'See to it' guarantee does not include an obligation to enable the principal debtor to perform its own obligation. Such an arrangement would not be a guarantee under Section 126 of the Act”, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe observed.
S.138 NI Act | Multiple Complaints Can Be Filed Over Dishonour Of Several Cheques From Same Transaction : Supreme Court
Case Details: Sumit Bansal v. M/S Mgi Developers and Promoters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 34
The Supreme Court has held that the dishonour of multiple cheques arising from the same underlying transaction can give rise to separate causes of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that such prosecutions cannot be quashed at the threshold merely on the ground of multiplicity.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside a judgment of the Delhi High Court which had quashed the cheque bounce complaints on the reasoning that parallel prosecution for the same liability was impermissible.
Disagreeing with the High Court's view, the Supreme Court observed :
'Harsh To Send Him To Jail At This Age' : Supreme Court Reduces Sentence Of 80-Year-Old Convicted For Homicide
Case Details: Shrikrishna v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 35
The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of a man convicted for causing the death of another person during a village clash in 1992 to the period already undergone, citing his advanced age of over 80 years.
A Bench of Justices N. V. Anjaria and K. Vinod Chandran upheld the conviction of Shrikrishna under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, but modified the sentence imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Order and Other Developments
Bar Council Elections : Supreme Court Reduces Nomination Fee For Specially Abled Advocates, Asks BCI To Ensure Their Representation
Case Details: Pankaj Sinha v. Bar Council of India and Ors W.P.(C) No. 1261/2025 and S. M. Vetrivel v. Secretary, Bar Council of India | SLP(C) No. 036061 - / 2025
Taking note of the fact that the election process to various State Bar Councils has already commenced, the Supreme Court refrained from passing directions mandating reservation for specially abled advocates in Bar Councils at this stage. However, the Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to initiate steps to amend the relevant provisions to ensure that specially abled lawyers have adequate representation in future elections.
The Court also ordered a substantial reduction in the nomination fee for specially abled advocates, lowering it from Rs. 1.25 lakh to Rs. 15,000 for contesting Bar Council elections.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The Bench underlined that the objective of the Court was to ensure that advocates belonging to the specially abled category have an effective and meaningful presence in the decision-making bodies of the BCI.
Supreme Court Onboards Bhutanese Law Clerks Under MoU With Supreme Court Of Bhutan
The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, welcomed two law clerks from Bhutan who would be working at the Supreme Court, pursuant to an MoU between the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of Bhutan.
While introducing the law clerks, the CJI mentioned that they would be paid at par with the other law clerks of the Supreme Court and would be part of the Court's functioning for 3 months.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Practice Of Prime Minister Offering Chadar At Ajmer Sharif Dargah
Case Details: Jitender Singh v. Union of India, Diary No. 74179/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the extension of State-sponsored ceremonial honour and symbolic recognition to Islamic scholar and mystic Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti and to the Ajmer Dargah by the Union and its instrumentalities. The petitioner had also sought to bar the Prime Minister from offering chadar at the Ajmer Dargah.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition, saying that the "the relief sought is not justiciable."
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the custom of offering chadar started only in 1947. CJI Surya Kant said that the bench will not make any comment as the issue is not justiciable.
Slain BSP Leader Armstrong's Wife Seeks Transfer Of Her CBI Probe Plea From Madras High Court To Supreme Court
Case Details: Porkodi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., T.P.(Crl.) No. 1121/2025
Wife of BSP leader and prominent Dalit activist K Armstrong, who died following an attack by armed assailants in 2024, has approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer from Madras High Court of her petition praying for CBI probe in her husband's murder case.
The transfer is sought on the ground that similar issue (that is, transfer of investigation to CBI) is pendingbefore the Supreme Court in the State's appeal against the High Court order transferring probe to CBI. Therefore, the High Court cannot pass any orders in the petitioner's case.
The matter was listed before a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar, which tagged it with the State's plea against transfer of investigation to the CBI. The cases are next likely to be listed on January 13.
Supreme Court Questions Maintainability Of Telangana's Writ Petition Challenging Andhra's Polavaram Irrigation Project
Case Details: State of Telangana v. Union of India and Ors W.P.(C) No. 1258/2025
The Supreme Court questioned the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the State of Telangana against the Union and Andhra Pradesh Government, challenging the expansion of the Polavaram Multipurpose irrigation project.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by the State of Telangana against the Union's extension of financial assistance to Andhra Pradesh to expand the Polavaram Project, also known as Polavaram –Banakacherla” Link Project.
The writ petition also challenges the grant of environmental clearance for the project and alleges that the Detailed Project Report (DPR) violated the Central Water Commission's recommendations.
Plea In Supreme Court Alleges Paper Leak In CLAT 2026; Seeks Probe
Case Details: Lalit Pratap Singh v. Consortium of National Law Universities, Diary No. 407/2026
A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking a Court-monitored, time-bound probe into alleged leak of the 2026 Common Law Admission Test question paper and answer key ahead of the exam (held on December 7).
The petitioners seek a re-examination in case the allegations are found to be true.
Filed by a ground of CLAT aspirants from Scheduled Caste, Other Backward Class and economically weaker sections categories, apprehending prejudice, the plea is triggered by videos, images, etc. circulating on social media platforms, prima facie indicating that the question paper got leaked ahead of the exam.
'First Show Us Compliance With Afforestation Directions': Supreme Court To DDA On Plea To Fell Trees In Delhi Ridge
Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda, Dairy No. 21171-2024
The Supreme Court asserted that it will allow the Delhi Development Authority to cut further trees in the ridge area only after it is satisfied thatprevious directionson aforestation and restoration have been complied with.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application filed by the DDA seeking permission to cut 473 trees to complete the road widening project that links to CAPFIMS Hospital. The DDA also seeks directions for translocating 2519 saplings of trees and shrubs and the diversion of 2.97 hectares of Forest Land for road construction.
Notably, on May 28, 2025, the Court had directed that every notification or order regarding afforestation, road construction, tree felling or any activity with potential ecological effect must explicitly mention the pendency of the relevant proceedings before this Court. The Court had also passed other directions regarding afforestation.
Is S.17A PC Act Sanction Needed When FIR Initially Mentioned Only IPC Offences? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Details: State of Karnataka By Wilson Garden P.S. v. D.S. Veeraiah and Anr., Diary No. 64940-2025
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether prior approval in terms of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory in a case registered invoking only IPC offenses against unknown persons, who are later found to include public servants.
The development comes as a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice on Karnataka government's challenge to an orderthat quashed a criminal case against former-MLC DS Veeraiah over alleged misappropriation of Rs 47.1 crores from the D Devaraj Urs Truck Terminal Limited (DDUTLL) during his term as its Chairman in 2021.
Briefly put, the case was initially lodged against unknown persons invoking only IPC offenses. Later, finding involvement of public servants, the prosecution invoked offenses under the PC Act. It was claimed that due sanction was obtained subsequently, but the High Court quashed the case against Veeraiah noting that offenses under the two statutes [Section 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(a) of PC Act] were same in essence and the prosecution attempted to avoid rigors of Section 17A of the PC Act. It was held that registration of an FIR under IPC for acts relatable to a public servant's duty required prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.
Supreme Court Asks Haryana Govt If Case Against Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad Can Be Closed
Case Details: Mohammad Amir Ahmad @ Ali Khan Mahmudabad v. State of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025
The Supreme Court suggested that the State of Haryana take a lenient view and deny sanction to prosecute Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in the criminal case over his social media posts in the context of Operation Sindoor, as a one-time magnanimity.
The Court also said that if the state is willing to show such leniency, it was crucial that Mahmudabad also 'behave responsibly' in future.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the matter.
TMC MP Derek O Brien Moves Supreme Court For Extension Of West Bengal SIR Deadline; Alleges Procedural Irregularities By ECI
Case Details: Derek O Brien v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 737/2025
Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Derek O'Brien has filed an application before the Supreme Court assailing procedural actions of the Election Commission during its Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal.
Among other things, he alleges that the ECI has been issuing instructions to Booth Level Officers and others through informal channels, like WhatsApp, thereby making impossible any audit trail of a process striking at the fundamental democratic rights of citizens.
"The ECI has, in effect, substituted its formal system of statutory communication with what is being informally described at the field level as a “WhatsApp Commission”, wherein critical instructions, warnings and consequences of alleged non-compliance are communicated exclusively through messaging platforms...This will in fact have the effect of absolving decision-makers of accountability...several of the aforesaid informal instructions are not only inconsistent with the formal instructions issued by the ECI, but are also wholly dehors the Constitution and the statutory scheme governing electoral roll revision."
Delhi-NCR Air Pollution : Supreme Court Slams CAQM For Lax Approach, Seeks Report On Causes & Long Term Solutions
Case Details – MC Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985
The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) for what it termed an "unserious" approach towards addressing the persistent air pollution crisis in Delhi NCR, and directed the statutory body to urgently convene a coordinated meeting of domain experts and place a comprehensive report on record and in the public domain.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that expert bodies were at variance on the identification of sources and the proportionate contribution of various factors leading to deterioration in air quality.
The Bench observed in its order that different expert institutions, including technical bodies such as the Indian Institute of Technology, had attributed widely varying percentages to emission sectors. As an illustration,the Bench noted that the contribution of the transport and emission sector to worsening AQI in the NCR ranged anywhere between 12 percent and 41 percent, depending on the expert body.
Supreme Court Frowns Upon Practice Of Rich Accused Raising Constitutional Challenges To Avoid Trial
Case Details: Gautam Khaitan v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000516 / 2025
The Supreme Court frowned upon the plea by a lawyer challenging S. 44(1)(c) of the PMLA and observed it to be an attempt to 'bypass the system' by 'affluent persons' facing trial in relation to the AugustaWestland Scam.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by lawyer Gautam Khaitan challenging the validity of S. 44(1)(c) of the PMLA.
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA mandates that when a money-laundering offence is connected with a scheduled offence, both cases should, as far as practicable, be tried together by the same Special Court.
Supreme Court Seeks Report From HCs On Formation Of Committees Across Courts/ Tribunals & Bar Bodies To Address Sexual Harassment
Case Details: Geeta Rani v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 001245 / 2025
The Supreme Court sought status reports from the Registrars General of various High Courts on whether gender sensitisation committees and Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) have been constituted in High Courts, District Courts and Bar Associations to address complaints of sexual harassment against women and transgender persons.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition seeking directions for effective implementation of the Vishaka Guidelines, including the setting up of Internal Complaints Committees across High Courts and District Courts in the country.
Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, appearing for the petitioners, placed before the Court a chart indicating significant gaps in compliance. She submitted that as many as seven High Courts had neither framed guidelines nor constituted Internal Complaints Committees. It was further pointed out that no mechanism had been implemented in Patna, while in Jharkhand, an ICC existed only at the High Court level, with district courts remaining outside its ambit. Similar deficiencies were highlighted in the district courts of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi.
OBC Youth Forced To Wash Another's Feet | Supreme Court Orders Release Of Accused Detained Under National Security Act
Case Details: Anuj Pandey v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 20650/2025
In the casepertaining to a young man from the OBC community, who was allegedly forced to wash another's feet due to caste discrimination, the Supreme Court directed immediate release of one of the accused who was detained by invoking the National Security Act.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order in the petitioner-accused's challenge to a High Court suo motu order which directed the State police to proceed against all present at the time of the incident under the NSA.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the ingredients of Section 3 of the NSA were not made out in the case. He also contended that even before the order issuing mandamus for invocation of NSA was uploaded on the High Court website, a preventive detention order was passed and the petitioner detained.
We Have Constitutional Duty To Ensure Electoral Rolls Don't Have Foreigners; SIR Isn't NRC : ECI To Supreme Court
Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 and Connected Matters
In the challenge to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out across states, the Election Commission of India yesterday told the Supreme Court the Indian Constitution was 'Citizen-centric', and it is the constitutional duty of the ECI to ensure that no foreigners remain on the electoral rolls. The ECI also said that it was not concerned with 'rhetorics' run by political parties on the issue.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the batch of pleas challenging the validity of SIR.
Sr Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, commenced his arguments yesterday.
Pune Porsche Hit & Run Case | Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Pleas Of Two Businessmen Accused Of Replacing Blood Samples
Case Details – Ashish Satish Mittal v. State of Maharashtra Along With Aditya Avinash Sood v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court issued notice on bail pleas of businessmenn Ashish Mittal and Aditya Sood, accused in the 2024 Pune Porsche hit and run case in which two persons were killed after being hit by a unregistered Porsche Taycan car allegedly being driven by a minor under the influence of alcohol.
Mittal and Sood are accused of swapping the blood samples of two minor occupants of the car (other than the alleged minor driver), who were allegedly under the influence of alcohol, with their own blood samples. They are booked under various sections of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act for forgery, evidence tampering, and bribery.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice in their pleas against the Bombay High Court order rejecting bail.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Court-Monitored Probe Into Alleged CLAT 2026 Question Paper Leak
Case Details – Lalit Pratap Singh v. Consortium of National Law Universities
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking a court-monitored, time-bound probe into the alleged leak of the 2026 Common Law Admission Test question paper and answer key ahead of the examination held on December 7.
A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe declined to entertain the petition, noting that the examination process had already concluded.
As per the plea, on December 6, about 15 hours before the exam, images carrying date and time stamps began circulating online. These images allegedly contained admissions from students who had been able to illegally obtain the paper and messages from a person offering the paper in exchange for payment.
Supreme Court Notes 'Some Infirmity' In Forming Inquiry Committee On Justice Yashwant Varma; Will See If It's Grave Enough
Case Details: X v. O/O Speaker of the House of the People | W.P.(C) No. 1233/2025
The Supreme Court orally observed that there is "some infirmity" in the Lok Sabha Speaker's constitution of the Inquiry committee to probe the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, and that it will consider whether the infirmity is so grave so as to warrant the termination of the proceedings.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court challenging the legality of the Parliamentary Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, for inquiry against him over the discovery of unaccountedcash currencies at his official residence. On December 16, 2025, the Court had issued notice to the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker in the writ petition
The main point raised in the petition is that despite impeachment notices being moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla proceeded to constitute the committee on his own, without awaiting the Rajya Sabha Chairman's decision on admission of the motion or holding the mandatory joint consultation prescribed by law. It is argued that this procedure is contrary to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,
Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Singer Neha Rathore In Case Over Posts On PM Modi, Pahalgam Attack
Case Details: Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 21174/2025
The Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest to folk singer Neha Singh Rathore in connection with an FIR lodged against her for allegedly making objectionable posts on social media regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pahalgam terror attack.
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order saying that no coercive steps shall be taken, while issuing notice on Rathore's plea challenging the Allahabad High Court order which denied her anticipatory bail.
The Court however added that Rathore shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called, firstly on January 19. Non-appearance, if any, would be viewed seriously.
Manipur Violence | Supreme Court Orders Forensic Examination Of Entire Audio Clip & Admitted Voice Recordings Of Ex-CM Biren Singh
Case Details – Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union of India
The Supreme Court directed that the entire 48-minute audio recording allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh in the 2023 ethnic violence, along with his admitted voice samples, be forwarded to the National Forensic Science University, Gandhinagar, for forensic examination.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the direction in a plea seeking a court-monitored investigation into the audio recordings. The Court also asked the NFSU to expedite the process and submit its report to the Court in a sealed cover.
“The entire 48 minutes of the conversation in question along with the admitted voice recordings of the former Manipur CM are available…All the voice recordings furnished to the respondents by the learned counsel for the petitioner shall also be included therewith and forwarded to the National Forensic Science University Gandhinagar…NFSU to expedite the process and submit the report to this court in sealed cover”, the Court directed.
'Why Stray Dogs Needed In Institutions? Can Anyone Identify Which Dog Is In A Mood To Bite?' Supreme Court Asks
Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 ()
The Supreme Court heard the stray dog matter extensively, primarily examining the issue of stray dogs in institutional premises, with the Bench questioning whether spaces such as courts, schools and hospitals should have canine presence at all.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, heard the matter for the entire first half of the day. The hearing saw submissions from victims of dog attacks, animal welfare organisations, senior law officers and representatives of educational institutions.
On November 7, the Court had directed the removal of stray dogs from institutional premises including schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and railway stations. The Court had ordered that such dogs be relocated to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination and specifically directed that dogs picked up from institutional areas should not be released back at the same location.
EPF Wage Ceiling Limit Revision Requires Active Consideration : Supreme Court Asks Union To Decide In 4 Months
Case Details: Naveen Prakash Nautiyal v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1134/2025
Dealing with a public interest litigation, the Supreme Court allowed a litigant to approach the Union government with a representation for revision of wage ceiling limit under the Employees Provident Fund scheme.
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chadurkar heard the matter and ordered that the respondent-government(s) take a decision within 4 months. The petitioner can file the representation within 2 weeks, whereafter the government(s) shall take a call in the stipulated time.
"we find that issue requires active consideration by the Union of India to address the grievance as posed in the grounds mentioned in this petition. However, at this stage, we are not entertaining the petition and relegate the petitioner to file a representation before the appropriate authority within a period of two weeks and place the order of this Court passed before the said authority. On receiving such representation, the authority shall place the matter at appropriate level and take a decision in accordance with law within a period of four months."
Sonam Wangchuk's Speech Appealing For Peace Suppressed From Detaining Authority : Sibal Tells Supreme Court; Plays Video Of Speech
Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025
The Supreme Court heard in detail the habeas corpus petition filed by Dr. Gitanjali Angmo challenging the detention of her husband and Ladakh-based social activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, 1980, following recent protests in Ladakh that allegedly turned violent.
A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna Varale heard the matter for the entire second half of the day. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioner.
Sibal submitted that the detention order dated September 26, 2025, was founded primarily on four videos relied upon by the detaining authority. According to him, the videos were dated September 10, September 11, and two videos dated September 24. However, while the grounds of detention were supplied on September 29, the four videos were not furnished to the detenue.
Stray Dogs Case: PETA, Animal Welfare Groups Urge Supreme Court To Permit Release Of Dogs At Place Of Capture
Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 ()
In the Stray Dogs case, the Supreme Court commented on the municipal authorities' failure to tackle threat of stray dogs. It further voiced concern that dogs can smell fear and attack someone who is afraid or has been bitten before.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. The hearing will continue tomorrow, for which Justice Mehta has asked all parties to come prepared after reading a report published by a news portal on December 29 titled "On the roof of the world, feral dogs hunt down Ladakh's rare species".
The Court is considering applications seeking modification of the order passed in November last year, as per which strays found in the premises of public institutions, bus stations, schools, hospitals, campuses etc., must be captured and should not be released at the same location after vaccination/sterilisation.
Supreme Court Asks Women Dog Feeders Alleging Harassment And Assault By 'Vigilantes' To Lodge FIRs, Approach High Courts
Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 ()
While hearing the Stray Dogs case, the Supreme Court orally asked women dog feeders levelling allegations of harassment and assault by "anti-feeder vigilantes" to lodge FIRs and move jurisdictional High Courts for relief.
The bench highlighted that the acts amount to a criminal offense and asked the aggrieved individuals to approach the authorities for registration of FIR. It reasoned that the Supreme Court cannot sit over all individual cases.
A bench of Justices Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. It refused to address the claim of violence against women dog feeders and care-givers at the top Court level, saying it's a law and order problem and remedies are available to the aggrieved under penal law.
Supreme Court Restrains Declaration Of Result For J&K Cricket Association Elections Over Alleged Fraud, Electoral Roll Manipulation By BCCI Sub-Committee
Case Details: Youth Cricket Club and Ors. v. Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 17/2026
The Supreme Court yesterday restrained declaration of election results for the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA), pursuant to allegations of fraud and manipulation of electoral roll levelled against members of Sub-Committee of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria passed the order, while issuing notice on a plea filed by 19 out of 25 Cricket Clubs. The Court said that the elections may be held on the stipulated date, but the results shall not be declared (until further orders).
It may be recalled that on October, 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a special leave petition, directed that elections of JKCA be conducted within 12 weeks “in terms of the approved constitution of JKCA”.
ED Moves Supreme Court Alleging Interference By WB CM Mamata Banerjee In I-PAC Probe
The Enforcement Directorate has moved the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging interference by the West Bengal government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in its investigation into the I-PAC coal scam.
The plea follows events from last week when ED officials were conducting searches at the office of Indian Political Action Committee or I-PAC in Kolkata in connection with the probe. During the operation, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee allegedly reached the I-PAC office along with senior party leaders and confronted ED officials. The ED has also alleged that the Chief Minister took away certain files from the premises during the raid, which it claims further impeded the investigation.
According to the ED, the Chief Minister's presence at the search site and the alleged removal of documents had an intimidating effect on officers and seriously compromised the agency's ability to discharge its statutory functions independently. The agency has alleged repeated obstruction and non-cooperation by the state administration.