Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: January 12, 2026 To January 18, 2026

Judgments

While Bail Is Not To Be Refused Mechanically, It Must Not Be Granted On Irrelevant Considerations: Supreme Court

Case Details: X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 36

The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to a man in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly committing rape and sexual assault on a minor girl. The Court noted that the bail order was perverse, unreasonable, and ignored the relevant material.

“It is settled law that the mere filing of a chargesheet does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an application for bail. However, while assessing such an application, the Court is duty-bound to have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation. The offences alleged in the present case are heinous and grave involving repeated penetrative sexual assault upon a minor victim committed under armed intimidation and accompanied by recording of the acts for the purpose of blackmail. Such conduct has a devastating impact on the life of the victim and shakes the collective conscience of society.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while allowing the appeal of the complainant/victim against the bail order.

The prosecution's case was that the accused, known to the victim, along with his friends, had sexually assaulted the minor repeatedly over six months. The assaults were allegedly committed under the threat of a country-made pistol (katta), and the acts were recorded on a mobile phone to blackmail the victim. The FIR was registered on December 02, 2024, after initial police reluctance.

When Can Shares Received After Company Amalgamation Be Taxed As Business Income : Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: M/S Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi – Ii, New Delhi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 37

The Supreme Court has ruled that shares received in a corporate amalgamation are immediately taxable as business income under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act if they represent a "real, commercially realizable benefit."

“where the shares of an amalgamating company, held as stock-in-trade, are substituted by shares of the amalgamated company pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, and such shares are realisable in money and capable of definite valuation, the substitution gives rise to taxable business income within the meaning of Section 28 of the I.T. Act.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.

The dispute arose from a scheme of amalgamation under which Jindal Ferro Alloys Limited (JFAL) merged into Jindal Strips Limited (JSL). The assesses had held shares of JFAL and, upon amalgamation, were allotted shares of JSL in substitution. The controversy centred on whether this allotment constituted a taxable event when the original shares were held not as investments (capital assets), but as trading assets (stock-in-trade).

Workers Hired Through Contractors Can't Claim Equal Status As Regular Employees : Supreme Court

Case Details: Municipal Council v. K. Jayaram and Others Etc.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 38

The Supreme Court held that contractual workers engaged through third-party service providers are not entitled to equivalent employment benefits as regular employees, observing that such parity would undermine the foundational principles of public recruitment and transparent hiring processes.

“If the persons who are employed through a contractor, and have come to work, are given equal benefit and status as a regular employee, it would amount to giving premium and sanction to a process which is totally arbitrary as there is no mode prescribed in any contract as to how the contractor would employ or choose the persons who are to be sent, except for the basic qualification, i.e., knowledge in the field for which they are required.”, the Court observed.

The court observed that regular employment under a State entity is a public asset and cannot be equated with contractual engagement through contractors. It held that if distinctions between regular and contractual employees are blurred, the very purpose of different modes of hiring would be defeated. While regular appointments are governed by transparent procedures ensuring equal opportunity to all eligible candidates, engagement through contractors is left to the contractor's discretion, making the two categories fundamentally distinct in law.

Appeal Won't Abate For Not Adding Legal Heirs If Interest Of Deceased Is Sufficiently Represented By Others : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kishorilal (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. v. Gopal & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 39

The Supreme Court (January 12) ruled that mere non-substitution of one of the legal heirs of a deceased party wouldn't render the suit abated if the deceased party's interest is adequately represented by other legal heirs.

A bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which declared the appeal against the specific performance decree as abated, merely because one of the legal heirs of the deceased vendor was not substituted, although his interest was adequately represented by other legal heirs.

The Court took reference from the recent case of Shivashankara vs HP Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261 where it was observed that “where the estate of a deceased party is sufficiently represented by his legal heirs on record, proceedings would not abate if some of the heirs are left out.”

Vendor Is Necessary Party In Specific Performance Suits Even If He Has Transferred Property To Third Party: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kishorilal (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. v. Gopal & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 39

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled legal position that the vendor is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, even if he has transferred his interest in the property to a third party.

“The law is thus settled that the vendor is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, notwithstanding that vendor has transferred his interest in the subject matter of the agreement to a third party.”, observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan.

"In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immovable property, vendor is a necessary party notwithstanding he has transferred his interest in the property to a third party. As a sequitur, a suit or an appeal emanating from such a suit would abate if, upon death of the vendor, his legal heirs/ representatives are not substituted," the Court added.

NCDRC Decree Against Builder Company Can't Be Executed Against Directors/Promoters Without Personal Liability Fixed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) v. M/S Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 40

The Supreme Court (January 12) observed that the homebuyers cannot execute a decree, obtained solely against a builder company, against its directors or promoters personally, unless a specific finding of liability was made against them in the original proceedings.

“It is trite that a decree cannot, by process of execution, be employed to shift or enlarge liability so as to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, while dismissing the homebuyer's plea, who sought enforcement of the decree against the directors and promoters of the building company.

The appeals stemmed from the long-pending grievance of flat buyers in the 'Ansal Crown Heights' project in Gurugram. The builder, M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. (ACIPL), failed to deliver possession. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in 2022 passed an order directing only ACIPL to either complete the project or refund the invested amounts with interest.

Hindu Daughter-in-Law Who Becomes Widow After Father-in-Law's Death Entitled To Maintenance From His Estate : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 41

The Supreme Court has held that a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from his estate under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, while dismissing a batch of civil appeals, ruled that the expression “any widow of his son” under Section 21(vii) of the Act is unambiguous and includes all widowed daughters-in-law, irrespective of whether the son died before or after the father-in-law.

Background

General Provident Fund | Succession Certificate Not Necessary For Nominee To Collect PF Amount Above ₹5,000 : Supreme Court

Case Details – Union of India & Anr. v. Paresh Chandra Mondal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 42

The Supreme Court held that even where the General Provident Fund balance exceeds ₹5,000, a valid nominee is entitled to receive the amount without being required to first produce a succession certificate, probate, or letters of administration, and that insisting on such documents would render the concept of nomination otiose.

“Consequently, this Court is of the view that in cases of a valid nomination, the amount in the provident fund account of the deceased depositor or subscriber is required to be released to the nominee”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan dismissed a plea filed by the Union of India against a Calcutta High Court judgment which had upheld the release of General Provident Fund amounts to a nominee without insisting on a succession certificate, even where the amount exceeded the threshold of ₹5,000 provided in the Provident Fund Act, 1925.

'Protects Dishonest Public Servants' : Why Justice Nagarathna Struck Down S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act

Case Details – Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 43

Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is unconstitutional, concluding that the requirement of prior approval before even initiating an inquiry or investigation is contrary to the object of the anti-corruption law and effectively shields corrupt public servants.

“While the patent purpose of the provision is for the purpose of protecting honest public servants and preventing them from being subject to unjustified, frivolous and vexatious investigations, the latent object is that Section 17A should function as a shield that, in fact, protects the dishonest public servants. Blockading any form of enquiry or investigation at the very outset by making the same conditional on grant of approval results in corrupt officers receiving undue protection and finding ways to scuttle the investigation and the criminal justice process”, she held.

In her separate opinion delivered in a split verdict by a bench comprising herself and Justice KV Viswanathan, Justice Nagarathna said the core issue was not who should grant approval under Section 17A, but whether such prior approval was required at all.

Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Validity Of S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act Mandating Prior Sanction For Investigation

Case Details – Centre For Public

Interest Litigation v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 43

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, inserted by the 2018 amendment, which mandates that there should be a prior sanction from the Government to launch an investigation against a public servant under the Act.

While Justice BV Nagarathna held that Section 17A is unconstitutional, Justice KV Viswanathan refused to do so and instead read it down to hold that the question of sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or the Lok Ayukta. In view of the divergence of opinion in the bench, the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate bench to decide the issue.

Justice Nagarathna observed that the provision was an attempt to "protect the corrupt."

Section 19(b) Specific Relief Act Cannot Override Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Once Suit Is Filed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 44

The Supreme Court ruled that where a property is transferred during the pendency of a suit, the protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act is no longer available, since such a transaction is governed by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The Court clarified that Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act protects only a bona fide purchaser who buys the property in good faith and without notice of any prior contract between the vendor and the original purchaser. However, where a party acquires the property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance, with knowledge of such proceedings, the benefit of Section 19(b) is no longer available. In such circumstances, the transaction becomes subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

“Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act would be available to a party to a contract who suffers a subsequent transfer of property…the moment a suit or proceeding is instituted by a party to the contract where after there is transfer of the suit property, Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act would have to give way to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act in which event the doctrine of lis pendens would come into force.”, observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan while dismissing the appeal filed by the subsequent purchaser, who sought resistance to specific performance decree under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, claiming her to be a bonafide purchaser.

Order XXI Rule 102 CPC | Transferee Pendente Lite Has No Right To Obstruct Execution Of Decree : Supreme Court

Case Details: Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 44

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a purchaser who acquires property during the pendency of litigation, as a transferee pendente lite, has no right to obstruct the execution of the decree and remains bound by the outcome of the proceedings, holding the transfer strictly subservient to the decree.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the Bombay High Court's ruling dismissing the appeal filed by a transferee pendente lite, who had challenged the rejection of his objections to the execution of a decree for specific performance under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Court held that a transfer made during the pendency of a suit is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and remains subject to the litigation's outcome. Since the appellant bought the property during the pendency of specific performance suit, the decree in favour of the buyer prevailed, leaving the appellant with no independent rights over the property, as well as to resist the execution of the decree due to the specific bar contained under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC. (See Tahir V. Isani vs. Madan Waman Chodankar)

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Effectively Implement 25% RTE Quota In Pvt Schools, Directs States To Frame Rules

Case Details: Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 10105/2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 45

The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions for the effective implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which mandates that private unaided schools must admit 25% of their strength from students belonging to economically weaker sections for free education.

The Court observed that the concept of "neighbourhood schools" are envisaged to break barriers of class, caste and gender.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar pronounced the judgment, underscoring that the effective implementation of Section 12 of the RTE Act can truly be transformative.

RTE Act Envisages Children Of Judges & Street Vendors Studying Together; Advances Fraternity & Equality: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 10105/2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 45

The Supreme Court has held thateffective implementation of the 25 percent admission mandate for children from weaker and disadvantaged sections in neighbourhood unaided schools under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, has the potential to transform India's social structure and must be treated as a national mission.

The Court said that the statutory mandate of Section 12 of the RTE Act is normatively ambitious in the sense that it envisages a common school system whereby all children, irrespective of their class, caste and gender, would attend the same neighbourhood school and learn together in an integrated, non-segregated environment.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chadurkar observed :

Right To Education Act | Ensure Admission Of Poor Students For Free Education In Private Schools : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 10105/2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 45

The Supreme Court (January 13) interpreted Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, to state that appropriate State governments and local authorities are obligated to ensure that there is no denial of admissions in the neighbourhood schools to students belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections of the society.

It also said that the neighbourhood schools are equally obligated to ensure that they admit such students to the extent of 25% as mandated in the RTE Act, read with Article 21A(right to education) of the Constitution.

Consequently, the Court has issued a slew of directions and has kept the matter pending for compliance. It has also impleaded the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights as a party and has asked it to file an affidavit.

Supreme Court Bats For Including Disability Rights In Corporate Social Responsibility

Case Details: Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited | C.A. No. 120/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 46

The Supreme Court has said that the rights of persons with disabilities have to be viewed through the prism of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to protect the human rights of individuals belonging to such groups. It is through this that true equality at the workplace can be achieved.

These observations were made by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan while hearing the case of an appellant who was denied the right to employment by Coal India Limited (CIL) just because she suffered from multiple disabilities.

While directingthat the CIL must create a supernumerary post for her, the bench emphasised the importance of reading CSR with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to further the rights of persons with disabilities. It relied on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011, on the aspect of corporate responsibility to respect human rights.

Supreme Court Directs Coal India To Appoint Candidate With Multiple Disabilities

Case Details: Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited | C.A. No. 120/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 46

The Supreme Court (January 13) directed the Chairman of Coal India Limited to create a supernumerary post for one person, who was denied employment after having qualified for the interview in 2016 because she suffered from multiple disabilities. The vacancy advertisement did not mention multiple disabilities, and therefore, she had applied as a visually handicapped candidate.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, however, clarified that the order was passed in peculiar facts and circumstances and must not be treated as a precedent.

The appellant, Sujata Bora, is to be given a desk job with a separate computer and keyboard as per the universal standards of disability rights and must be posted at NorthEastern Coal Fields, Coal India Limited, having an office at Margherita, Tinsukia, State of Assam.

Arbitration | Arbitral Award Can't Be Interfered With Just Because Another Interpretation Of Contract Is Possible : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 47

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that an arbitral award cannot be set aside under Section 34, nor can it be interfered with in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, merely because the arbitrator has not adopted an alternative or second possible interpretation of the substantive contract.

A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal set aside the Madras High Court Division Bench judgment, which had allowed the appeal against the Single Judge's order refusing to set aside the arbitral award. The Division Bench had justified its intervention on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal failed to adopt what it considered to be a “better” interpretation of the contract, treating this as a ground for interference on the premise that the award was contrary to the substantive provisions of law.

Disagreeing with the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal stated that a different interpretation of the contract by in itself cannot be a ground to interfere with an award.

Motive Insignificant When Direct Evidence In Form Of Dying Declaration Exists : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaman Lal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 48

The Supreme Court (January 15) restored the conviction of a man for committing murder of her wife, observing that absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution when there is clear and credible direct evidence, such as a dying declaration.

“Motive assumes significance, primarily in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Where there is direct evidence in the form of a credible and trustworthy dying declaration, the absence of strong proof of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while setting aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision which, while acquitting accused in 2014, had questioned the prosecution case on the ground that motive was not established.

It was the prosecution's case that the Respondent No.1, husband had set ablaze her wife leading to her death. The wife has recorded the dying declaration in the presence of the executive magistrate, taking name of his husband, accusing him for setting her ablaze.

AP Stamp Act | Stamp Duty Leviable On Agreement To Sell Only When Possession Follows It : Supreme Court

Case Details: Vayyaeti Srinivasarao v. Gaineedi Jagajyothi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 49

The Supreme Court (January 15) ruled that a stamp duty, as per the Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act, is not payable on an 'agreement to sell' which doesn't stipulates delivery of possession.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan delivered a ruling in the context of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act (“Act”), while setting aside the High Court's decision, which held that an agreement to sell amounted to a conveyance and required payment of stamp duty and penalty under Explanation I to Article 47A of Schedule I-A of the Act.

The case arose from a long-standing landlord-tenant relationship. The appellant had been a tenant in the suit property for over fifty years. In 2009, the respondent-landlady entered into an agreement to sell the property to him for ₹9 lakhs, of which ₹6.5 lakhs was paid as an advance. When disputes arose and the landlady denied the agreement, the tenant filed a suit for specific performance.

'Transaction Designed For Tax Avoidance' : Supreme Court Denies Income Tax Relief To Tiger Global In Flipkart-Walmart Deal

Case Details – Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and Others v. Tiger Global International II Holdings and Connected Cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 50

The Supreme Court ruled on a tax dispute arising from the 2018 sale of Flipkart's Singapore holding company to Walmart, in which Mauritius-based Tiger Global entities had earned substantial capital gains from the transaction.

The Court held that the Authority for Advance Rulings was justified in rejecting, at the threshold, Tiger Global's applications seeking a ruling on the taxability of those gains, after finding that the transaction was prima facie designed for tax avoidance. The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment which had set aside the AAR decision.

The appeals before the Supreme Court were filed by the Authority for Advance Rulings against Tiger Global International II Holdings, Tiger Global International III Holdings and Tiger Global International IV Holdings - private companies incorporated under the laws of Mauritius.

In Tiger Global Case, Supreme Court Explains Distinction Between 'Tax Planning' & 'Tax Evasion'

Case Details – Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and Others v. Tiger Global International II Holdings

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 50

The Supreme Court has held that while an assessee is permitted in law to plan transactions to avoid tax, such planning must strictly conform to the framework of the Income Tax Act, the applicable rules, and notifications.

The Court said that once a transaction structure is found to be illegal, sham, or lacking commercial substance, it ceases to be permissible tax avoidance and becomes impermissible avoidance or tax evasion, entitling the Revenue to closely examine and tax the transaction.

“Though it is permissible in law for an assessee to plan his transaction so as to avoid the levy of tax, the mechanism must be permissible and in conformity with the parameters contemplated under the provisions of the Act, rules, or notifications. Once the mechanism is found to be illegal or sham, it ceases to be “a permissible avoidance” and becomes “an impermissible avoidance” or “evasion”. The Revenue is, therefore, entitled to enquire into the transaction to determine whether the claim of the assessees for exemption is lawful”, the Court held.

'Tax Sovereignty Must Not Be Compromised' : Supreme Court Suggests Safeguards While Entering Into International Tax Treaties

Case Details – Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and Others v. Tiger Global International II Holdings

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 50

In his concurring opinion in the Tiger Global–Flipkart tax dispute, Justice JB Pardiwala stressed that tax sovereignty is an essential facet of India's economic independence and warned against ceding taxing rights through international treaties or external pressures.

Justice Pardiwala fully agreed with the reasoning and conclusions reached by Justice R Mahadevan, who authored the main judgment deciding the issues raised in the appeals, while adding a few observations focusing on the concept of tax sovereignty.

Justice Pardiwala said tax sovereignty has assumed particular importance in the present global economic climate fraught with trade wars, tariff conflicts, and international economic uncertainty. He outlined a detailed set of safeguards that India should adopt while entering into international tax treaties to protect its tax sovereignty, including anti-abuse provisions, preservation of source-based taxation rights, flexibility to renegotiate or exit treaties, and alignment with domestic law and constitutional principles.

Residents Welfare Association Or Homebuyers' Society Can't Intervene In Insolvency Petition Against Builder : Supreme Court

Case Details: Elegna Co-Op. Housing and Commercial Society Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 51

The Supreme Court (January 15) held that Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) representing homebuyers cannot intervene in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process unless the RWA itself has disbursed funds or is directly a party to the financial transaction, as only then can it claim the status of a financial creditor.

“A society or Resident Welfare Association, not being a creditor in its own right and not recognised as an authorised representative of allottees under the IBC, has no locus standi to intervene in proceedings arising out a Section 7 petition.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while dismissing a homebuyer's association plea who sought intervene in the Section 7 IBC proceedings.

The case arose from an attempt by the Appellant-Elegna Co-operative Housing and Commercial Society Ltd., representing 189-unit holders of a completed tower in the “Takshashila Elegna” project situated in Ahmedabad, to intervene in Section 7 IBC proceedings initiated by Edelweiss ARC against the corporate debtor, Takshashila Heights India Pvt. Ltd.

'To Safeguard Homebuyers' Interests' : Supreme Court Issues Directions For CoC In Insolvency Cases Against Builders

Case Details: Elegna Co-Op. Housing and Commercial Society Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 51

The Supreme Court (January 15) issued a set of directions regarding the functioning of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, noting that while the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount, such power must be exercised with responsibility, transparency and proper application of mind, particularly in real estate insolvencies where homebuyers' interests are deeply involved.

“While the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is paramount and is not ordinarily amenable to judicial review, the width of powers vested in the CoC carries with it a corresponding duty of responsibility. Any extraordinary or non-routine decision taken by the CoC must, therefore, be supported by cogent reasons duly recorded in writing.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.

Supreme Court Flags Prolonged Service Litigations Blocking Appointments, Calls For Judicial Introspection

Case Details: Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yati Jain and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Warning that prolonged and recurring service litigation is pushing public recruitment into a state of “perpetual flux”, the Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered on January 15, underscored the need for courts to interpret service rules in a manner that ensures timely completion of selection processes and appointment of the most suitable candidates.

The Court observed that a substantial number of service-related disputes across the country are aggravated by repeated rounds of litigation, leaving candidates trapped in uncertainty for years. The judiciary, it said, must remain alive to these practical realities while deciding service matters, and avoid interpretations that prevent recruitment processes from attaining finality.

Supreme Court Rejects Justice Yashwant Varma's Challenge To Lok Sabha Speaker's Formation Of Inquiry Committee In Impeachment Motion

Case Details: X v. O/O Speaker of the House of the People | W.P.(C) No. 1233/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 53

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to form an inquiry committee as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, in the impeachment motion moved against him in relation to the discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma pronounced the judgment. Judgment was reservedon January 8 after hearing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Verma, and Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

The main point raised in the petition is that despite impeachment notices being moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day (July 21), 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 Criticises Rajya Sabha Secretary General For Commenting On Merits Of Impeachment Motion Against Justice Varma

Case Details: X v. O/O Speaker of the House of the People | W.P.(C) No. 1233/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 53

The Supreme Court (January 16) criticised the procedure adopted by the Secretary General of Rajya Sabha, which became the basis on which the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha rejected the impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court. Statedly, the Secretary General made a substantive assessment of the notice of motion, whereas the law only contemplates that administrative formalities must be met.

This observation was made by the Court while rejecting Justice Varma's plea seeking to declare the Lok Sabha's three-member Inquiry Committee as illegal on grounds of procedural irregularities. It may be recalled that Justice Varma was involved in a controversy after burnt cash was found at his official residence during a fire incident. Subsequent to the in-house procedure adopted by the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Varma had refused to resign, and an impeachment motion was moved in both Houses of the Parliament.

Justice Varma filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the Lok Sabha's Inquiry Committee constituted as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, on the grounds that since the motion was 'given' in both Houses simultaneously, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha were to constitute the Inquiry Committee jointly.

Specific Relief Act | Suit For Mandatory Injunction Simpliciter Not Maintainable When Plaintiff's Title Is Disputed : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sanjay Paliwal and Another v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Through Its Executive Director

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 54

The Supreme Court held that a suit for mandatory injunction simpliciter is not maintainable where there are serious disputes relating to title, possession, and identity of the property. The Court held that in such circumstances, the plaintiff must seek a comprehensive remedy by filing a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, rather than attempting to secure relief through a standalone injunction.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N. Kotiswar Singh upheld the Uttarakhand High Court's dismissal of the Appellant's Second Appeal, holding that a suit seeking a mandatory injunction simpliciter cannot be maintained without first exploring remedies for declaration of title and recovery of possession, particularly when the plaintiff's title to the property is disputed.

A suit seeking mandatory injunction simpliciter was instituted by the Appellants against Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), seeking demolition of a boundary wall allegedly constructed by BHEL on their land. According to the Appellants, the wall obstructed their access to a public road from their property.

Contract To Hire Global Speakers For Media Summit Not Subject To Service Tax As 'Event Management' : Supreme Court

Case Details: HT Media Limited v. Principal Commissioner Delhi South Goods and Service Tax

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 55

In a major relief for the media and event organizers, the Supreme Court (January 16) held that the fees paid to high-profile speakers through international booking agencies do not attract Service Tax under the category of "Event Management Service".

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan set aside the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order which upheld the tax demand of over ₹60 lakhs on Hindustan Times Media Ltd. for its annual Leadership Summit, where it called international speakers including former UK PM Tony Blair, Former US Vice President Al Gore, and renowned astronaut Jerry Linenger through international booking agencies.

The Court held that HT Media's contract with the international booking agencies was solely for securing speakers for their event and did not constitute 'event management' services. Since service tax applies only to event management services, booking a speaker through an agent does not attract service tax.

Report Student Suicides Immediately; None Should Be Barred From Classes, Exams For Delay In Scholarship Disbursal : Supreme Court

Case Details: Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 56

The Supreme Court saidthat it is deeply saddened and disturbed to acknowledge the increasing number of unfortunate incidents of suicides in higher educational institutions(HEIs) across the country. To prevent such incidents, it has issued some interim directions, which include that all HEIs must report incidents of suicide irrespective of whether it takes place in the hostel, paying guest accommodation or happens to an online student, and they must have round-the-clock access to qualified medical help.

It has also been directed that no institution can prevent a student from appearing in an examination, or be barred from attending classes or have their documents withheld, just because the student hasn't been able to pay the fees due to the delays in disbursal of scholarships. Consequently, it has strictly directed that all pending scholarship disbursements must be cleared within four months by the relevant central or State authorities.

These observations were made by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan in follow-up to its March 24, 2025, orderwherein the Court constituted a National Task Force (NTF) address mental health concerns of students and to prevent the rising suicides in higher educational institutions. Its mandate is to investigate and prevent the increasing suicide rates in college students. Chaired by former Supreme Court Judge Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, the NFT monitored suicide cases in various educational institutions across the country.

Fill All VC, Faculty & Staff Vacancies In Higher Educational Institutions : Supreme Court

Case Details: Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 56

Holding that chronic faculty shortages and prolonged vacancies in institutional leadership directly contribute to academic pressure, poor mentorship and student distress, the Supreme Court has issued a firm direction that all vacant teaching and non-teaching posts in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) be filled within four months, and that key administrative posts such as Vice-Chancellors and Registrars be filled within one month of arising.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan made it clear that retirement dates are known well in advance and that leadership and faculty voids cannot be allowed to persist at the cost of student well-being. The Court further directed that priority be given to filling posts reserved for marginalised and underrepresented communities, including persons with disabilities, and permitted special recruitment drives to clear long-standing backlogs.

The directions were issued after considering an interim report submitted by a National Task Force constituted by the Court to examine the alarming rise in student suicides across the country.

Govt Can Exclude Candidates With Higher Qualification From Post Requiring Lower Qualification: Supreme Court

Case Details: Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 57

Observing that the States are empowered to decide the minimum eligibility requirement for a public post, the Supreme Court (January 16) upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014, which prescribes 'Diploma in pharmacy' as the minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of 'Pharmacists' in the State.

Affirming the Patna High Court's decision, a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the plea filed by the B.Pharma/M. Pharma degree holders, who challenged their exclusion from the recruitment drive for 2,473 posts of Pharmacists in the State, merely because of not holding the essential eligibility requirement, i.e., Diploma in Pharmacy.

The Appellants argued that Rule 6(1) was repugnant to the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, which recognize both Diploma and Degree holders as qualified pharmacists. Moreover, they challenged the constitutional validity of the Rule, arguing it to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16, creating an irrational "micro-classification" among equally registered professionals.

States Cannot Prescribe Qualifications Beyond Those Laid Down In Union Law: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Haryana & Ors. v. Krishan Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 58

When a field prescribing a qualification for a public post is occupied by the Union, then it is impermissible for the States to impose additional qualifications, observed the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard the batch of appeals concerning the challenge to the power of the State Government to prescribe the essential qualifications for the position of Drug Inspector, different from the qualifications prescribed by the Union Government under Rule 49 of the Drug Rules, 1945 (“Rules”).

Invoking the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the States of Haryana and Karnataka have prescribed different qualifications from those already prescribed by the Union Government under the Rules framed under the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Alone Not Enough For Conviction Unless Chain Of Evidence Is Complete : Supreme Court

Case Details: Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (And Connected Matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 59

The Supreme Court (January 16) set aside the conviction in a murder case, noting that a conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of “so-called confessional statements” made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the police and an alleged discovery arising from such confessional statements, especially when the chain of circumstantial evidence remains incomplete.

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi overturned the Karnataka High Court's judgment, holding that it erred in reversing the Trial Court's acquittal solely on the basis of disclosure statements recorded under Section 27 to connect the accused with the offence, without doing an exercise to find out whether the prosecution was successful in completing the entire chain of circumstances to establish the Appellants connection with the crime.

“We are of the view that simply relying upon the so-called confessional statements of the accused, and discovery of dead body which is also not duly proved, conviction cannot be recorded. Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case the sole so-called eyewitness, PW-5, cannot be said to be reliable and the other circumstances upon which the prosecution has placed reliance are insufficient to conclude that the accused have committed the alleged offences. The prosecution has failed to complete the entire chain of circumstances from which it can be established that the accused had committed the alleged offences.”, the court observed.

Order and Other Developments

Producer Of Vijay-Starrer “Jana Nayagan” Moves Supreme Court Against Madras High Court Stay on CBFC Certification

Case Details: KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification Diary No. 1894/2026

The producer of the Tamil film "Jana Nayagan", starring actor Vijay, has approached the Supreme Court challenging an interim order passed by the Madras High Court that stayed the direction passed by a single bench of the High Court for the grant of CBFC certification for the film.

KVN Productions LLP, the film's producer, filed a Special Leave Petition this morning against the order passed by a division bench of the High Court last Friday.

The film, touted to be the last film of actor Vijay, who has now plunged into electoral politics by floating his own party TVK, and announced as a Pongal release on January 9, ran into trouble as the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Chairperson decided on January 6 to refer the film to the Revising Committee. This was after the Examining Committee of the CBFC's Chennai Regional Office agreed to give U/A 16+ certification for the film, subject to certain edits.

Supreme Court Directs Completion Of Bengaluru Municipal Corporation Elections By June 30

Case Details: State of Karnataka v. M. Shivaraju and Ors., SLP(C) No. 15181-15183/2020

The Supreme Court set a deadline of June 30, 2026, for the completion of the election process for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the State of Karnataka to publish the final ward-wise reservation by February 20, 2026.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the State of Karnataka, submitted that the work of notifying reservations will be completed within a month. The bench clarified in its order that no further time extension will be granted.

'Disgusting': Supreme Court Slams Judicial Officer Accused Of Urinating In Train Coach & Creating Ruckus, Stays His Reinstatement

Case Details: High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Navneet Singh Yadav and Anr., Diary No. 62653-2025

The Supreme Court stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which set aside the termination and directed reinstatement of a judicial officer who allegedly caused nuisance onboard a train, flashed a woman passenger and urinated in the compartment.

The Court orally remarked that the judicial officer's conduct amounted to "grossest grave misconduct" and that he should have been dismissed. The Court found the case to be shocking and remarked that the officer's conduct was "disgusting".

"He urinated in compartment! There was a lady present", noted Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Supreme Court Seeks ECI Response On TMC MPs' Plea Against SIR Process In West Bengal

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

The Supreme Court sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) on the applications filed by MPs from the Trinamool Congress challenging the procedural actions taken in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process of the electoral rolls in West Bengal.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the applications filed by MPs Derek O Brien and Dola Sen.

Sr Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for TMC MP Derek O Brien, stressed that instructions relating to the SIR are being issued through social communication platforms like WhatsApp, making BLOs act without any formally issued orders. He also pointed at the ECI has introduced a 'logical discrepancy' category of voters, who may be issued notice for a quasi-judicial hearing on their eligibility over errors or anomalies in the voter details.

Supreme Court To Examine If NCLT President Has Power To Transfer Cases Across States

Case Details: Anitha Rayapati v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Private Limited, SLP(C) No. 848/2026

The Supreme Court is set to examine the scope of National Company Law Tribunal President's power to transfer a case across states by way of an administrative order.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on a plea challenging the Gujarat High Court orderwhich held that the NCLT President has no authority to transfer cases from one State to another through administrative orders.

Issuing notice, the CJI's bench expressed prima facie doubt on the correctness of the High Court view. The issue that the Court has expressed inclination to examine was framed by the High Court thus:

Telangana Withdraws Writ Petition Filed Against Andhra's Polavaram Project; Supreme Court Allows Filing Of Suit

Case Details: State of Telangana v. Union of India and Ors W.P.(C) No. 1258/2025

The Supreme Court allowed the State of Telangana to withdraw its writ petition against the Union and Andhra Pradesh Government, challenging the expansion of the Polavaram Multipurpose irrigation project.

The Court allowed the State Government to raise the challenge in the form of a civil suit under Article 131 jurisdiction. 

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by the State of Telangana under Article 32 of the Constitution against the Union's extension of financial assistance to Andhra Pradesh to expand the Polavaram Project, also known as Polavaram –Banakacherla” Link Project.

Mumbai Coastal Road Land Given To Reliance For Development Should Ordinarily Remain Open To Public : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jipnesh Narendra Jain v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1166/2025

The Supreme Court emphasised that the reclaimed land near Mumbai Coastal Road (South), which has been given to Reliance Industries for landscape development, should ordinarily remain open to public.

With this observation, the Court disposed of a public interest litigation challenging the Expression of Interest (EoI) issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) inviting private agencies for landscaping work on reclaimed lands along the Mumbai Coastal Road.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandrakar heard the matter. It noted that the Court's 2022 order, which permitted development works related to the coastal road project (like landscaping of seaside promenade and road-median), took care of the concerns of the petitioner.

Sonam Wangchuk's Detention : Detaining Authority Didn't Apply Mind, Copy-Pasted SSP's Recommendation, Sibal Tells Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court (January 12) continued to hear arguments of petitioner Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, who has challenged the detention of the Ladakh social activist and her husband Sonam Wangchuk's under the National Security Act, 1980(NSA), as illegal. Wangchuk has been detained after the Ladakh protests for statehood turned violent since September 2025.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale has been hearing the matter.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Angmo) reiterated that the four videos which has been relied upon by the detaining authority have not furnished to him. This violates his right to effective representation, not just via the Advisory Board under the NSA but also via the government. He referred to Article 22(1) and 22(5) and stated that clause (1) ensures that no person is detained without being informed and that he cannot be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner. He added that the Courts have interpreted that 'legal practitioner' is not limited to a legal counsel and can include a friend, which in this case is his wife.

Can TADA Convict Seek Remission? Supreme Court To Consider In Abu Salem's Plea For Premature Release

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

The Supreme Court asked terrorist Abu Salem, who seeks pre-mature release in terms of an Extradition Treaty entered between the Indian and Portugal governments, to produce Maharashtra State Rules to ascertain if it allows remission to a convict under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (TADA) Act.

For context, Salem, who has been convicted in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case, claims the benefit of 3 yrs and 16 days jail-earned remission (for good conduct) in computation of a 25 year jail sentence, upon completion of which he shall be eligible for pre-mature release. He cites 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.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. It asked Salem to produce any rules prevailing in Maharashtra, as per which remission can be granted to someone convicted under the TADA.

Supreme Court Appoints New Judge For Trial Of Coal Blocks Allocation Scam Cases

Case Details: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000120 / 2012

The Supreme Court appointed judicial officer Ms Sunena Sharma to take over charge as the presiding Special Court Judge in the ongoing trials pertaining to the Coal block scam.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application by the Delhi High Court seeking directions to relieve the presiding judge, Mr Sanjay Bansal, who has conducted the trial for over four and half years.

Justice SC Sharma Recuses From International Arbitration & Mediation Centre's Plea Challenging Cancellation Of Free Land Allotment

Case Details – International Arbitration and Mediation Centre v. Koti Raghunatha Rao & Ors.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma of the Supreme Court recused from hearing a plea filed by the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC) against a Telangana High Court judgment that quashed the free allotment of government land in Hyderabad to the IAMC.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma directed that the special leave petition may be listed before a Bench of which Justice Sharma is not a member.

"The special leave petitions may be listed before a Bench of which one of us (Satish Chandra Sharma, J.) is not a member", the Court ordered.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Exclusion Of Creamy Layer From SC/ST Reservations

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 001276 / 2025

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider the issue of whether reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be implemented excluding the creamy layer.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition seeking exclusion of the creamy layer from SC/ST reservations in the country.

The bench agreed to consider the matter and issued notice in the petition to the Union Government. The plea was tagged with another pending petition titled Ramashankar Prajapati And Anr. Versus Union Of India And Ors.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Challenging Lifelong Immunity Given To Chief Election Commissioner & Election Commissioners

Case Details: Lok Prahari v. Union of India and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 1150/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in a PIL challenging the immunity granted to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner under the CEC Act 2023.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a PIL by Lok Prahari challenging S.16 of The Chief Election Commissioner And Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service And Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Notably, S.16 states: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against any person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for any act, thing or word, committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty or function.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea To Declare AYUSH Doctors As 'Medical Practitioners' Under Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Ads) Act

Case Details: Nitin Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1278/202

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking the reading down of key provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, on the ground that the law has become constitutionally obsolete and operates in an arbitrary and disproportionate manner.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi considered the matter.

The petition challenges Sections 2(cc) and 3(d) of the Act, contending that they impose a blanket prohibition on medical advertisements, without distinguishing between misleading claims by quacks and bona fide dissemination of information by duly qualified and statutorily recognised practitioners, including those practising under AYUSH systems of medicine.

'Frivolous Petition' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Remove Savarkar's Portrait From Parliament

Case Details: Balasundaram Balamurugan v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 001095 / 2025

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over a plea seeking the removal of portraits of VD Savarkar from the Parliament and other public institutions. The Court warned of imposing costs for filing such 'frivolous petitions'.

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

The plea was filed by a retired IRS Officer, Balasundaram Balamurugan, who appeared as the petitioner in person.

Will Hold Authorities & Dog Feeders Liable For Every Stray Dog Attack, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 ()

The Supreme Court indicated that it may impose liability on both civic authorities and dog feeders for any injury or death caused by stray dog attacks.

The Court remarked that persons who are concerned about stray dogs must take them to their homes instead of letting them "loiter around, bite and scare" the public.

The oral observation came while the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the suo motu case related to the stray dogs issue.

Youth Must Shun Wealth Generated By Their Parents Through Corruption: Justice BV Nagarathna

Case Details – Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India

To curb the evil of corruption, Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court appealed to the youth of the country to shun wealth generated by their parents through corrupt means.

“The youth and children of this country ought to shun anything acquired beyond the known sources of income by their parents and guardians, rather than being beneficiaries of the same, this would be of seminal service rendered by them, not only towards governance, but also to the nation”, she said.

She observed, “One's attitude of greed and envy ought to be curbed and erased from one's mind. Otherwise, corruption and bribery, resulting in acquisition of wealth beyond the known sources of income cannot be reduced, nor removed from our governance. One of the ways in which such tendencies could be curbed is to develop and enhance a spiritual bent of mind, resulting in detachment from materialistic possessions and thereby inter alia focusing on service to the nation.”

'He Appears To Be A Rogue' : Supreme Court Pulls Up MP Police Officer For Using Stock Witnesses, Takes Him Off Work

Case Details: Anwar Hussain v. State of Madhya Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 14087/2025

The Supreme Court (January 13) orally raised concerns about the practice of using stock witnesses by the Madhya Pradesh police.

It also remarked that the Station House Officer(SHO) in this case appears to be a "rogue" after the Court was informed that the SHO had used two common witnesses in "195 cases" and "215 cases" respectively, and continued to do that even after he was summoned by the Court in the present matter.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan passed a strong order against the SHO Indramani Patel, directing that he may not be assigned any work till further orders of the Court. In case of any breach, the Police Commissioner, Indore, will be fully responsible for that.

Supreme Court Asks NIA To Show 'Hard Evidence' To Justify Detention Of Kashmiri Separatist Shabir Shah In Terror Funding Case

Case Details: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 13399/2025

Upon extensively hearing the bail plea of Kashmiri separatist Shabir Ahmed Shah in a terror funding case, the Supreme Court expressed that it will take a call on his bail on February 10.

The Court questioned the National Investigation Agency about its reliance on the statements of a co-accused Vani, noting that he was acquitted on the same allegation on which the agency booked Shah.

"We understand the sensitivity of the matter. But we just can't shut our eyes to the facts available. Prima facie, we can tell you, no sympathies with people who indulge in these things, but then facts have to be there to support the allegations. Show us hard evidence to justify his detention beyond 6 years", remarked Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Stray Dogs Protect Orphan Children On Streets, Make One Feel Safe: Advocate Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 ()

In the Stray Dogs case, one of the intervenors argued before the Supreme Court that stray dogs protect orphan childrens as their "last line of defence on streets", and hence, they must not be taken away. Instead of constructing shelters for dogs, authorities should endeavour to provide shelter to orphans, the lawyer suggested.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. The hearing will continue on January 20 at 2 PM.

Advocate Pavani Shukla, espousing the cause of orphan and vulnerable children, argued that stray dogs are homeless children's "last line of defence" on streets and must not be taken away. The same would amount to these children getting abandoned a second time, she said.

Can Right To Vote Be Taken Away Till Centre Decides Citizenship Of Doubtful Voters? Supreme Court Asks ECI In SIR Hearing

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 000640 / 2025

While hearing petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls across states, the Supreme Court asked the Election Commission of India(ECI) if the right to vote of a person can be taken away till the Central Government determines the question of citizenship.

The query from the bench came in response to the ECI's argument that it was competent to conduct an 'inquisitorial inquiry' into citizenship. ECI also said that it was empowered to strike down names from the rolls even if a doubtful case is pending reference before the Central Government.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the matter.

'Trial Likely To Take Time To Conclude' : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Accused In Mahant Narendra Giri Murder Case

Case Details: Aadya Prasad Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Criminal Appeal No. 195/2026

The Supreme Court on January 12 granted bail to Aadya Prasad Tiwari, an accused in the case relating to the death of Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad president Mahant Narendra Giri.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the October 14, 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court which had rejected Tiwari's plea for bail.

Tiwari was arrested on September 22, 2021 in connection with FIR No. 322 of 2021 registered at George Town police station, Prayagraj, initially under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment to suicide. Subsequently, the charge sheet filed on November 18, 2021 also invoked Sections 120-B and 302 IPC, alleging criminal conspiracy and murder.

Supreme Court To Hear ED's Plea Against Mamata Banerjee Over I-PAC Raid Tomorrow

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

The Supreme Court will hear tomorrow the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for allegedly obstructing the ED's search of the office of I-PAC, the political consultant of the All India Trinamool Congress.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi will hear the writ petition filed by the ED under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The petition has been filed against the State of West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, WB DGP Rajeev Kumar, Kokata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma and South Kolkata Dy Commissioner Priyabatra Roy.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain 'Jana Nayagan' Film Producer's Plea For CBFC Clearance, Asks Madras HC To Decide On Jan 20

Case Details: KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification Diary No. 1894/2026

The Supreme Court (January 15) dismissed the petition filed by the producer of Tamil film "Jana Nayagan", starring actor-politician Vijay, seeking clearance by the Central Board of Film Certification(CBFC).

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih refused to entertain the matter noting that the Madras High Court's Division Bench is scheduled to hear the matter on January 20.

The petition was filed by the film's producer, KVN Productions LLP, against the Madras High Court Division Bench's order, which stayed the Single Bench's direction to the CBFC to certify the film immediately.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea To Withdraw Life Support For Man In Permanent Vegetative State

Case Details: Harish Rana v. Union of India | MA 2238/2025 In SLP(C) No. 18225/2024

The Supreme Court (January 15) reserved the decision on the plea to withdraw life support for a 32-year-old man, who has remained in an irreversible permanent vegetative state for the past 12 years after falling from a building.

Two medical boards constituted by the Court has reported that the man has no chance for recovery.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a miscellaneous application of the father seeking to remove all life-sustaining treatment from his son. As per the guidelines laid down in the 2018 constitution bench judgment in Common Cause , as modified in the January 2023 order, which recognised the right to die with dignity, the Court has to get the opinions of Primary and Secondary Medical Boards before allowing his plea.

Kerala SIR : Supreme Court Asks ECI To Consider Extending Deadline To File Objections, Directs To Publish Deleted Names

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1136/2025

The Supreme Court directed that the names of persons excluded from the draft electoral rolls published after the Special Intensive Revision in Kerala be published in public offices and on the official website. The Court also asked the ECI to consider extending the deadline for filing objections to deletion of names

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the batch of pleas challenging the SIR Process in the state of Kerala.

On the last hearing, the bench was informed by the Election Commission of India that the original deadline for submission of enumeration forms, December 4, was extended till December 11. Further, following the Court's last order, the deadline was again extended till December 18.

'State Agencies Interfering With Central Probe Serious Issue' : Supreme Court In ED v. Mamata Banerjee; Stays WB FIRs

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

The Supreme Court issued notice on the plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and certain state police officers, for allegedly obstructing ED's search of the office of I-PAC, the political consultant of All India Trinamool Congress.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed that it was a "very serious issue" which the Court needs to examine.

"We are of the prima facie opinion that the present petition has raised a serious issue relating to the investigation by the ED or other central agencies and its interference by State agencies. According to us, for furtherance of rule of law in the country, and to allow each organ to function independently, it is necesary to examine the issue so that the offenders are not allowed to be protected under the shield of the law enforcement agencies of a particular state. According to us, larger questions are invovled in the present manner, which if allowed to remain undecided, would further worsen the situation and there will be a situation of lawlessness prevailing in one or the other state, considering that different outfits are governing diffferent places. True that any central agency does not have any power to interfere with the election work of any party. But if the central agency is bona fide investigating any serious offence, the question arises whether in the guise of taking shield of party activities, agencies can be restricted from carrying out power?," the bench observed.

'Is Courtroom Jantar Mantar?' : Supreme Court 'Disturbed' By Commotion In Calcutta HC Preventing Hearing Of ED Plea

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

During the hearing of ED's plea against West Bengal government's alleged interference with a raid at the I-PAC office, the Supreme Court expressed concern about the commotion that prevented the Calcutta High Court from hearing the matter on January 9.

It may be recalled that on January 9, the High Court had to adjourn the hearing of the Enforcement Directorate's plea due to a commotion.

The ED told a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi that prior to the January 9 hearing before the High Court, legal cell of the TMC circulated WhatsApp messages asking the cadres to gather in the Court.

'They Give Education' : Supreme Court Stays SASTRA University's Eviction From Thanjavur Public Land

Case Details: Shanmugha Arts Science Technology and Research Academy (SASTRA) v. State of Tamil Nadu | SLP(C) No. 002359 - 002360 / 2026

The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Madras High Court, which allowed the eviction of Shanmugha Arts, Science, Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA) from public land in Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu. The Court stated that due consideration has to be given to the fact that land was being used for the cause of education.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing the challenge to the Madras High Court order which dismissed a petition filed by Shanmugha Arts, Science Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA), a deemed university, challenging a government order that refused an alternate land offered by the University for setting up a prison and a subsequent eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur.

Sr Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and CS Vaidyanathan (assisted by Advocate Ronak Shankar Agarwal), appearing for SASTRA, mainly stressed that the petitioners had made 3 offers of alternative land to the State for executing its open-air prison project. The petitioners also stressed that the State tried to take possession when the campus houses over 5000 female students, and was concerned about their safety.

Solicitor General Objects To Lawyers Discussing Cases Handled By Them On Public Platforms

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

During the hearing of ED's plea concerning the I-PAC raid in West Bengal, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected to lawyers speaking on public platforms about cases handled by them.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who hosts a show on YouTube and has given press conferences on some important matters, countered the SG saying that Court judgments, once pronounced, are public property and can be discussed.

The exchange took place when Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra referred to the Court's newly introduced Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), which prescribes strict timelines for oral arguments in all post-notice and regular hearing matters. The judge was suggesting that the same ought to apply to the case at hand as well.

Should Candidates With Disabilities Be Exempted From 3-Year Practice Rule For Judicial Service? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 001110 / 2025

The Supreme Court asked all the High Courts and National Law Universities to file their suggestions on the issue of exempting Persons with Disabilities from the 3- year practice rule for entering judicial service.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vijay Bishnoi, was hearing a plea seeking exemption of the PwD lawyers from the 3-year practice rule to appear for judicial exams.

In May 2025, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran restored the condition that a minimum practice of three years as an advocate is necessary for a candidate to apply for entry-level posts in judicial service.

Justice SC Sharma Reveals He Was Targeted By Fake Traffic Challan SMS, Flags Cyber Fraud Menace

Case Details: Mukesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan | SLP(Crl) No. 767/2026

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma of the Supreme Court revealed that an attempt was made to defraud him by sending him a fake traffic challan through SMS. When he clicked the link, he was taken to a website which looked exactly like the official website.

Adding that he was able to detect the fraud, Justice Sharma remarked that if even judges are targeted by such well-organised frauds, it would be extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to protect themselves.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was dealing with a matter where the accused had deposited some money in the accounts of two police officers and then tried to commit fraud on them.

Supreme Court Signals Intention To Monitor Protection Of Neglected Heritage Sites In Delhi

Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 12213/2019

The Supreme Court expressed its intention to monitor the maintenance and upkeep of Delhi's heritage archaeological sites, which have suffered neglect from the authorities.

The Court was hearing a matter concerning the illegal encroachment on the Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500-year-old tomb of archaeological importance. The Gumti was illegally occupied by the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA), Delhi, and where the Municipal Corporation of Delhi(MCD) operated an unauthorised office and parking.

Last year, the Supreme Court passed a series orders for the removal of illegal encroachment and has also been monitoring the restoration of the monument.

Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Judgment Disqualifying Mukul Roy As Member Of West Bengal Legislative Assembly

Case Details: Subhranshu Roy v. Hon'ble Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly | Diary No. 72372/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the Calcutta High Court's judgmentwhich disqualified Mukul Roy from the West Bengal Legislative Assembly under the anti-defection law.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order while issuing notice on a petition filed by Subhranshu Roy, the son of Mukul Roy, challenging the High Court's order. The bench ordered that the operation of the High Court's judgment will be kept in abeyance.

Roy, who had won the 2021 Krishnanagar North seat on a BJP ticket, had allegedly joined the Trinamool Congress after the elections. The disqualification petitions were filed by BJP Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari and MLA Ambika Roy. After the Speaker refused to disqualify Roy, Adhikari approached the High Court.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Waqf Muttawalli's Plea Against Umeed Portal; Allows To Raise Grievances Before Authority

Case Details: Hashmat Ali v. Union of India and Ors | Diary No. 70413 / 2025

The Supreme Court (January 16) refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Waqf Muttawalli alleging that there were technical glitches in the UMEED Portal of the Central Government for the uploading of the details of the Waqf properties.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi however, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities to raise grievances. "We see no ground to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner may be well advised to approach the prescribed authority for clarification or addressing of grievances for which liberty is granted," the bench observed in the order.

Supreme Court Asks Telangana Speaker To Decide Remaining Disqualification Petitions In Two Weeks

Case Details: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025

The Supreme Court of India (January 16) issued a last warning to the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly, directing him to decide the remaining disqualification petitions within two weeks in connection with the defection of ten MLAs from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi to the Indian National Congress.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice AG Masih was hearing the compliance pursuant to the Court's July 31 order, wherein the Court had granted three months for the Speaker to decide on petitions seeking the disqualification of 10 BRS MLAs, who had allegedly crossed over to the Congress.

Since the Speaker refused to act within the timeline, contempt petitions were filed. After a stern warning from the Court, the Speaker, in last December, decided seven petitions, by rejecting them. However, three others are still pending.

NEET-PG : Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Lowering Of NEET-PG 2025-26 Qualifying Cut-Off Percentile

Case Details: Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India, Diary No. 3085/2026

A public interest litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the notice dated January 13 issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences which reduced the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025-26.

The PIL, filed by social worker Harisharan Devgan, neurosurgeon Saurav Kumar, Dr Lakshya Mittal (President, United Doctors Front) and Dr Akash Soni (Member, World Medical Association) points out that vide the impugned notice, the qualifying cut-off was reduced to abnormally low levels (even zero and negative).

Invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners raise a constitutional challenge, contending that reduction of the qualifying standards for PG medical education is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They claim that the lowering of the standards poses a risk to patient safety, public health and integrity of the medical profession.

Supreme Court To Consider Priya Kapur's Plea Seeking Certified Copies Of Divorce Settlement Between Sunjay Kapur & Karishma Kapoor

Case Details: Sunjay Kapur v. Karisma Kapur | MA 2691/2025 In T.P.(C) No. 214/2016

The Supreme Court (January 16) dealt with the application of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur's wife, Priya Kapur, seeking access to certified copies of the 2016 divorce proceedings between Sunjay Kapur and Karisma Kapoor. She has sought certified copies of the divorce settlement and custody arrangements between both parties.

The application was considered by Justice AS Chandurkar in chambers. Priya Kapur's counsel, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, stated that access to these documents would be necessary for the present estate litigation, where issues concerning financial provision, child support, and post-divorce obligations have been repeatedly raised before the Delhi High Court. It was opposed by Karishma Kapoor's counsel.

The Delhi High Court is currently hearing asuit filed by Karisma Kapoor's children, Samaira Kapur and Kiaan Raj Kapur, against their father's second wife, Priya Kapur and their son, as well as the deceased's mother, Rani Kapur and Shradha Suri Marwah, purported executor of a Will dated March 21, 2025. Sunjay Kapur passed away on June 12, 2025.

'Article 32 Is For Citizens, Those Around Delhi Misusing Article 32 Petitions' : Supreme Court

Case Details – Adil Ali Khalil Sulaiman v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court strongly deprecated the growing tendency of litigants to directly invoke Article 32 of the Constitution even when proceedings on the same issue are already pending before High Courts, terming such practice a “gross misuse” of the Court's jurisdiction.

A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 32, noting that a plea on the same subject was pending before the Bombay High Court.

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna expressed concern over what she described as the rampant misuse of Article 32, observing that the number of such petitions had “exponentially increased”. She remarked that for even routine grievances, including adjournments, litigants were approaching the Supreme Court directly.

Supreme Court Applies 30% Women Reservation Rule To Punjab & Haryana Bar Council Elections

Case Details: Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 581/2024

The Supreme Court directed to extend the 30% women reservations for the upcoming bar council elections in the state of Punjab & Haryana, which was earlier exempted for this year.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Baghchi was hearing application seeking directions for ensuring that adequate women representation is there before the onset of State Bar Elections across the country in a phased format. The application is filed by Advocate Yogamaya in her writ petition.

Previously, the Court directed that 30% of the seats in the State Bar Councils - where elections are yet to be notified- must be represented by women advocates.

Supreme Court To Examine Citizenship Claim Of Woman Deported To Bangladesh

Case Details: Musstt Aheda Khatun @ Musstt Aheda Khatoon v. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 2598/2026

The Supreme Court is set to examine the plea of a woman deported to Bangladesh after the Foreigners Tribunal declared her as a "foreigner of post-1971 stream".

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the woman's plea, limited to the purpose of examining genuineness of certain documents relied upon by her brother to prove Indian citizenship.

The petitioner is 44-year-old Musstt Aheda Khatun, a widow, who challenges the Gauhati High Court order of August, 2025, which dismissed her plea against the Foreigners Tribunal declaration that she was a "foreigner of post-1971 stream".