JudgmentsExcessive Land Acquisition Compensation To Some Landowners Cannot Invalidate Others' Compensation : Supreme CourtCase Details: Niraj Jain v. Competent Authority-Cum-Additional Collector, Jagdalpur & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 83The Supreme Court (January 27) observed that an excessive disbursement of compensation to some beneficiaries in collusion with officials would...
Judgments
Excessive Land Acquisition Compensation To Some Landowners Cannot Invalidate Others' Compensation : Supreme Court
Case Details: Niraj Jain v. Competent Authority-Cum-Additional Collector, Jagdalpur & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 83
The Supreme Court (January 27) observed that an excessive disbursement of compensation to some beneficiaries in collusion with officials would not invalidate the compensation awarded to other beneficiaries.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran heard the case arising out of the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision that had set aside the land acquisition compensation awarded in favour of the Appellant, merely because excessive compensation was disbursed to a handful of people.
The case arose from the acquisition of land for the Rowghat–Jagdalpur railway line, notified in August 2017. Compensation awards were passed on February 12, 2018, in favour of around 550 landowners. Following an inquiry by the Collector, it was alleged that a handful of landowners had received compensation far in excess of market value in collusion with revenue officials. FIRs were lodged against those officials and specific beneficiaries.
Confession Without Corroboration Cannot Be Basis For Conviction : Supreme Court
Case Details: Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 84
The Supreme Court (January 27) set aside the conviction in a murder case, upon finding that the conviction was based on the uncorroborated confessional statements made by the accused, in absence of a legal aid, before the magistrate.
“…a confession can form a legal basis of a conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. However, it was also held that a Court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the Meghalaya High Court's judgment that reversed the Trial Court's acquittal, despite the fact that the accused were not represented by any counsel when their confessional statements were recorded.
The case arose from the alleged murder of a man in Meghalaya, in which the Appellants were charged under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. While the Trial Court had acquitted them, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused, placing considerable reliance on their retracted confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
S.175(4) BNSS | Superior's Report Must If Offence Was During Public Servant's Duties : Supreme Court Advises Magistrates
Case Details: Xxx v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 85
The Supreme Court (January 27) prescribed the procedure for Magistrates to order an investigation against a public servant under Section 175 (4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) when the alleged offense arises "in the course of the discharge of his official duties."
Unlike Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which does not require a Magistrate to seek a report from the superior officer when the accused is a public servant before directing an investigation, Section 175(4) of the BNSS provides such a procedure.
The Court noted that the provision uses the word 'may' and it has to be read as 'may' itself and not "shall".
Complaint Under S.175(4) BNSS Against Public Servant Must Comply With Conditions Under S.175(3) : Supreme Court
Case Details: Xxx v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 85
The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot entertain a complaint against a public servant under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) unless the complainant first complies with Section 175(3), which requires the Magistrate to be satisfied that the complainant has already approached the Superintendent of Police with a written complaint supported by an affidavit.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan considered the issue of whether Section 175(4) operates independently, allowing a Magistrate to act even on an oral complaint, or whether it is a procedural extension of Section 175(3), thereby importing the safeguards recognised in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.(2015), which mandate a written complaint accompanied by an affidavit.
The Court held that Section 175 BNSS sub-clause (4) is not a standalone provision and must be read harmoniously with preceding sub-clause (3). This means no direct complaint can be filed against a public servant before the magistrate under Section 175(4) to seek an investigation, unless the threshold requirement for a sworn affidavit supporting the complaint (as established in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.) under Section 175(3) is fulfilled.
Prior Written Demand Not Necessary For 'Industrial Dispute' To Exist; Apprehended Dispute Can Be Referred : Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Premium Transmission Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 86
The Supreme Court (January 27) observed that a trade union is not obliged to serve a formal “charter of demands” on the management before approaching the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Court observed that the Industrial Disputes Act is both preventive and remedial in character, and therefore a trade union or a worker is entitled to invoke its machinery as soon as a dispute exists or is apprehended, without being compelled to first place their demands before the management. It held that insisting on such a requirement would defeat the very object of the Act, particularly in situations where approaching the employer directly may expose workers to the risk of victimisation or termination.
The statute expressly empowers the appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute that exists or is apprehended. Reading a mandatory requirement of prior demand would render the word 'apprehended' otiose, the Bench observed.
Industrial Court Proper Forum To Decide Issues Regarding Contract Labour : Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Premium Transmission Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 86
The Supreme Court observed that the Industrial Court established under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the proper forum for adjudication of the dispute concerning the employment and termination of employment of the contract labour.
“…the proper forum is the Industrial Court/Court for adjudicating issues concerning the employment and termination of employment of contract labour.”, observed a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Steel Authority of India Limited and others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others (2001) 7 SCC 1.
The Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's judgment, which had upheld the Labour Commissioner's decision to refer the dispute, concerning the alleged sham nature of the contract, to the Industrial Court for adjudication. It emphasized that the adjudication of the dispute between the parties, i.e., whether the contract between the management and the labour contractor is genuine or a sham, is a judicial function, which must be decided by the Industrial Court.
Ex-Contract Workers Must Get Preference When Principal Employer Replaces Contract Labourers With Regular Workmen : Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Premium Transmission Private Limited v. Kishan Subhash Rathod and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 87
The Supreme Court held that when an employer intends to employ regular workers in place of contract labour, then the employer must give first preference to the erstwhile contract workers.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti outlined the modes and methods of re-employment if discontinuation of the labour contract is valid:
"a. If the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen for the work previously done by contract labour, they must give preference to the erstwhile contract labourers.
Waqf Tribunal Can't Entertain Claims Over Properties Not Specified In 'List Of Auquf' Or Not Registered Under Waqf Act : Supreme Court
Case Details: Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 88
The Supreme Court (January 28) ruled that Waqf Tribunals have jurisdiction only over properties notified in the “list of auqaf” or registered under the Waqf Act, and not over disputes concerning unregistered properties.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Telangana High Court's judgment, which affirmed the grant of an injunction by the Waqf Tribunal in relation to the property unregistered under the Waqf Act.
Disagreeing with the impugned judgment, the Court observed:
Only Civil Court Of Original Jurisdiction Can Extend Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate, Not Referral Courts : Supreme Court
Case Details: Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 89
The Supreme Court (January 29) held that applications for extending an arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed exclusively before the 'Court' as defined in Section 2(1)(e) i.e., the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, regardless of which authority appointed the arbitrators.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan set aside the Bombay High Court's decision which invalidated the Commercial Court's decision to extend the time limit under Section 29A (4). The High Court held that the application seeking an extension of the time limit needs to be filed before the 'Court', which had appointed the arbitrator.
Demolition Of Private Property Must Be Based On Clear Statutory Grounds & Consideration Of All Factors : Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. Jogen Chowdhury & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 90
Holding that a demolition order affecting property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution must be founded on clear, cogent, and site-specific evidence of illegality, the Supreme Court (January 29) set aside the Calcutta High Court's direction to demolish a fully constructed residential building in Santiniketan, after finding that no material had been placed on record to establish that the construction stood on “khoai” land.
“Any interference with privately owned property, including by way of demolition or deprivation of its beneficial use, must therefore rest on a clear statutory foundation and be preceded by due consideration of all relevant factual and legal circumstances, which exercise, appears not to have been undertaken in the present case.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, adding that the public interest litigation cannot be filed on mere conjectures, and surmises, rather a cogent scientific evidence is necessitated to seek demolition of an illegal structure.
“The District Magistrate's report is based merely on conjectures and surmises and was submitted without the concerned official even bothering to undertake a proper site inspection or getting a spot verification done through an expert. Hence, in the absence of reliable scientific material establishing the “khoai” character of the subject plot, the foundational premise on which the High Court proceeded to issue the directions (for demolition) cannot be said to be conclusively borne out from the record…In the absence of clear, specific, and contemporaneous scientific evidence establishing that the subject plot was of “khoai” nature, the invocation of public interest jurisdiction to assail the construction undertaken by Aarsuday Projects cannot be sustained, particularly where similarly situated constructions within the same tract of land were left unchallenged.”, the court observed.
After Client Withdrew Complaint, BCI Disciplinary Committee Couldn't Have Imposed Penalty On Advocate : Supreme Court
Case Details: Monty Goyal v. Navrang Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 91
The Supreme Court (January 29) set aside the Bar Council of India Disciplinary Committee's order holding an advocate guilty of professional misconduct, holding that disciplinary proceedings could not be sustained after the complainant-client had unequivocally withdrawn his complaint and expressed satisfaction with the advocate's conduct.
“Once the respondent complainant himself expressed complete satisfaction with the professional services rendered by the appellant-advocate and categorically sought to withdraw the complaint, the very substratum of the disciplinary proceedings ceased to exist. In these circumstances, the order holding appellant-advocate guilty of professional misconduct is considered wholly unsustainable in facts as well as in law.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, while allowing the Advocate's appeal.
The appellant-advocate was engaged to file a quashing petition, which the High Court allowed subject to costs. Delay in depositing the amount led to dismissal and revival of criminal proceedings, though the order was later recalled on an application filed by the advocate, with enhanced costs. Alleging negligence, the client approached the State Bar Council, but the dispute was subsequently settled: the High Court waived the costs and finally quashed the FIR.
Mere Presence Of Advocate In Professional Capacity Of Giving Advice Can't Amount To Criminal Intimidation : Supreme Court
Case Details: Beri Manoj v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 92
The Supreme Court quashed a criminal intimidation case against an advocate, holding that advice or suggestions given to a client in the course of professional duties cannot be construed as criminal intimidation.
“…the mere presence of a lawyer (appellant in the instant case) in his capacity of discharging professional duty of either giving advice or suggestion cannot amount to intimidation.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale.
It was the case where the complainant, a victim in a sexual offence case, had alleged that the Appellant-advocate had threatened and criminally intimidated her. The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix, in her Section 164 statement, alleged that the uncle of accused No. 1 along with two aunts had threatened her to falsely support the main accused in the sexual assault case.
Stem Cell Therapy Can't Be Used As Treatment For Autism; Can Be Used Only For Clinical Trial : Supreme Court
Case Details: Yash Charitable Trust and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 369/2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 93
The Supreme Court (January 30) held that offering Stem Cell Treatment(SCT) therapy as a clinical service for curing Autism Spectrum Disorder(ASD) amounts to malpractice. This is because the SCT as a treatment for ASD lacks scientific support and has not been recognised as a sound medical practice backed by empirical evidence.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, however, added that SCT can still be approved for monitored clinical research trials.
The bench framed two issues for consideration:
Unproven Treatment Cannot Be Demanded By Patient As A Matter Of Right : Supreme Court
Case Details: Yash Charitable Trust and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 369/2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 93
The Supreme Court observed that to seek Stem Cell Treatment(SCT) as a cure for Autism Spectrum Disorder(AST) cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the patients.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan disapproved the use of SCT for ASD as regular clinical treatment. It stated that medical practitioners and clinics engaging in such unscientific treatment amount to malpractice.
While holding so, the Court also answered whether patients can exercise autonomy in stating that they would still like to choose a particular treatment and give consent for the same. On this, the Court categorically stated that this treatment can't be demanded as a matter of right by the patient because there is no adequate information about it.
Menstrual Health Fundamental Right Under Article 21; Ensure Girls Get Free Sanitary Pads In Schools : Supreme Court
Case Details: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1000/2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 94
Declaring that the right to menstrual health is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions to ensure that every school provides biodegradable sanitary napkins free of cost to adolescent girls.
The Court also issued directions to ensure that schools are equipped with functional and hygienic gender-segregated toilets.
The Court directed the pan-India implementation of the Union's national policy, 'Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School-going Girls' in schools for adolescent girl children from Classes 6-12.
Menstruation Should Not Be Source Of Shame; School Boys Also Must Be Sensitised About It : Supreme Court
Case Details: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1000/2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 94
The Supreme Court (January 30) underscored the role of male teachers and staff in schools and men in general in ensuring that an ecosystem of stigma is not associated with menstruation so that adolescent girls can be equal participants in schools and have access to other opportunities.
It said that even if schools have gender-segregated toilets and access to menstrual hygiene management, unless menstruation is not treated as a taboo by the school and its ecosystem, infrastructural efforts would remain underutilised.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, while observing that the right to menstrual hygiene is a part of Article 21, has held that menstruation as a topic should not only be shared in hushed whispers. Young boys must be educated about the biological realities.
State Cannot Deny Regularisation Of Long-Serving Contract Staff Appointed On Sanctioned Post By Due Process : Supreme Court
Case Details: Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (With Connected Matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 95
The Supreme Court (January 30) observed that the State, being a modal employer, cannot deny regularization to the contract workers just because they were appointed on a contractual basis. The Court said that the workers who have been granted repeated yearly extensions for a couple of years are entitled to seek regularization in terms of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
“…we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State's contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants' engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants' services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
The Court allowed the the appeal of contractual workers, whose tenure was extended for ten years, and “deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions.”
UGC Regulations Override State Law On Search Committee For University VC Appointment: Supreme Court
Case Details – Dr. S. Mohan v. Secretary To Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University, Puducherry & Ors Etc.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 96
The Supreme Court held that the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of a University Vice-Chancellor is part of the standards governing higher education falling within Parliament's exclusive legislative domain under the Union List, and any deviation from the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018, renders the appointment process illegal.
With this reasoning, the Court upheld the Madras High Court's judgment striking down Section 14(5) of the Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019 and holding that the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Puducherry Technological University as per the Act was illegal.
“Section 14(5) of the PTU Act, to the extent it prescribes a composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee contrary to the mandate of the UGC Regulations, 2018, has to be declared ultra vires the UGC Regulations, 2018, which have been framed under a Central enactment traceable to Entry 66 of List I, which occupies the field and therefore, possess overriding effect.”
'Targeted Vendetta' : Supreme Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On Union Govt For Blocking IRS Official's ITAT Appointment For A Decade
Case Details: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 97
The Supreme Court imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the Union Government for what it described as "rank procrastination" and deliberate obstruction in the appointment of a former Indian Revenue Service officer as Member (Accountant) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), despite his selection being recommended as far back as 2014.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the petitioner, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, was subjected to “grave injustice, rank high-handedness ”, and directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to reconstitute the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) within four weeks after excluding an "officer" who had earlier faced contempt proceedings at the petitioner's instance.
The bench expressed dismay over government's “sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala fide actions and protracted persecution” to deny appointment to the petitioner, noting that “at every stage of proceedings, the respondents have deliberately created hurdles in the path of the petitioner by either putting up cooked-up charges or failing to ensure compliance with the orders passed by various fora.”
Polluting Company's Turnover Can Be Relevant Factor To Determine Environment Damage Compensation : Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S. Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde & Ors. (With Connected Matter)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 98
The Supreme Court (January 30) observed that the company's scale of operation (like turnover, production volume, or revenue generation) can be a decisive factor in determining the environmental damage compensation.
“If a company has a high turnover, it reflects the sheer scale of its operations. Such a company, if found to contribute generously to environmental damage, its turnover can have a direct co-relation with the extent of damage that is caused. Thus, in our considered opinion, to contend that turnover can never form a relevant factor in quantifying compensation to match the magnitude of harm is fallacious.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi, while upholding the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) decision to impose heavy penalties on the real estate developers for the environment damage caused due to their illegal and unauthorized construction.
The appeals arose from separate orders of the NGT imposing compensation of ₹5 crore on Rhythm County and approximately ₹4.47 crore on Key Stone Properties for violations of environmental laws during the execution of large residential projects in Pune. The NGT took into consideration the developer's scale of operation to determine the compensation.
Orders and Other Developments
Supreme Court Dismisses JioStar's Challenge To CCI Probe On Alleged Abuse Of Dominance In Kerala Cable TV Market
Case Details: Jiostar India Private Limited v. Competition Commission of India and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 2867/2026
The Supreme Court (January 27) dismissed a challenge made by Jiostar Private Limited against the Kerala High Court's order holding that the allegations of abusing dominance in the Kerala television industry must be looked into by the Competition Commission of India.
Asianet Digital Network Limited(ADNPL) has accused Jiostar of abusing its dominance in the television broadcasting space in Kerala in contravention of the Competition Act, 2002, by providing discriminatory discounting payments and preferential treatment to Kerala Communicators Cable Limited (KCCL).
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere, stating that the investigation is at the preliminary stage.
Plea In Supreme Court Challenges UGC Regulation Defining 'Caste Discrimination', Seeks Caste Neutral Provision
Case Details: Vineet Jindal v. Union of India and Anr. | Diary No. 5196 of 2026
A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging Regulation 3(c) of the newly enacted University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 on the ground that the protection accorded by it against caste-discrimination is non-inclusionary.
As per Regulation 3(c) of the UGC Regulations, "caste-based discrimination" means "discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes".
The petitioner, Advocate Vineet Jindal, avers that the provision, in its present "exclusionary form", denies grievance redressal and institutional protection to persons belonging to non-SC/ST/OBC categories.
'Do They Have Their Own Aircraft?' : Supreme Court Questions BCI Over Denying Travel Allowances To Ex-Judges Monitoring Elections
The Supreme Court questioned the Bar Council of India for not paying adequate honorarium and travel allowances to the retired High Court Judges who are part of the High-Powered Election Committees monitoring the conduct of State Bar Council elections.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took up the matter on an oral mentioning by Senior Advocate V Giri, a member of the High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee.
Giri submitted that the honorarium must be befitting the status of the members of the Election Committee, who were previously High Court Chief Justices or Judges. "When this was suggested to the Bar Council of India, we got a reply that it was too much and it may not be possible for them to do that," Giri submitted.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against 'VIP Dharshan' At Ujjain Mahakaleshwar Temple
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the practice of 'VIP Dharshan' at the Shri Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain, observing that it is not a matter for the Court to decide.
After the Court expressed disinclination to entertain the petition, the petitioner chose to withdraw it, with liberty to file a representation before the concerned authorities.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by Darpan Awasthi challenging the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing his petition challenging the preferntial treatment given to VIPs to enter the Garbhagriha (innermost sanctum) to offer water to the deity, while denying access to the general public.
Supreme Court To Examine If UP Gangsters Act Is Repugnant To Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Case Details: Siraj Ahmad Khan & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No.452/2024
The Supreme Court asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to respond to the issue of repugnancy between various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (UP Gangster Act), and Section 111(organised crime) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a writ petition filed by various persons accused under the UP Gangster Act. On January 22, when the matter was heard for the first time, Senior Advocates Amit Anand Tiwari, Siddhartha Dave, Vinay Navare, Amit Kumar and Sanjai Kumar Pathak both raised the issue of repugnancy between the State Act and the central law.
These writ petitions have challenged Sections 3(penalty), 12(trial by special courts to have precedence) and 14(attachment of property), 15, (release of property), 16(inquiry into the character of acquisition of property by court), and 17(order after inquiry) of the UP Gangster Act and Rules 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3) and 40 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. In arguendo, it has also been argued that these provisions are violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Indian Constitution.
Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Reduce Loan Dues Of Widow
Case Details: Sumaiya Parveen v. Branch Manager Central Bank of India & Anr. SLP (Civil) No(S). 29289-29290 of 2024
The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to reduce a loan sum in a case where the woman was unable to pay the loan amount after her husband died during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order considering the unusual and unfortunate circumstances which prompted the Court to invoke its powers to do complete justice on equitable consideration. However, it clarified that the order was passed in peculiar circumstances and shall not be treated as precedent.
To briefly state, the wife has challenged the Madras High Court's order, which disallowed her to repay the loan amount after the expired one-time settlement offer. Her husband had taken a loan of Rs. 50 lakhs against which he had mortgaged a residential house.
BCI Rule Disqualifying Advocates With Two Or More Pending Criminal Cases From Elections Challenged In Supreme Court
Case Details: Srinivas G v. Bar Council of India & Ors. | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S).32/2026
The Supreme Court has sought responses from the BCI and the Bar Council of Telangana in a plea challenging the BCI Rule of 2023, which disqualifies advocates from contesting Bar Council Elections if they have two or more serious criminal cases pending against them.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed to consider the matter.
The plea challenges the constitutionality of Rule 4 of Bar Council of India Rules (for Qualification/Disqualification and procedure for election and code of conduct for the elections of S.B.C/B.C.I.), 2023
Acid Attack : Supreme Court Suggests More Stringent Punishment, Asks Why Can't Assets Of Convict Be Attached
Case Details: Shaheen Malik v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025
The Supreme Court suggested that legislative intervention by the Union Government may be necessary to introduce more stringent punishment and a reversal of the burden of proof in acid attack cases, on the lines of provisions applicable to dowry death offences.
The oral observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik, seeking recognition and statutory protection for victims who were compelled to consume acid.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel informed the Court that all accused persons in Malik's case had been acquitted and that she had filed a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal. Taking note of her circumstances, the Bench offered legal aid assistance.
'Social Media Must Not Treat Courtroom Exchanges As Final Decisions', Justice Manmohan
Supreme Court Judge Justice Manmohan expressed concern over the rise of “social media justice”, where judicial decisions are shaped by viral narratives instead of being sustained through reasoned judgments.
Speaking at a panel discussion at a legal conference, he spoke about the transformational shift taken place in recent years regarding courtroom reporting, stating that “there is hunger for court news” and “everyone wants to be the first person to know what is happening in court.”
Justice Manmohan was speaking on the topic "Justice in the age of Social Media" at the International Legal Conference organised by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association at Goa on January 24.
UAPA | Can Remand Report Satisfy Mandate To Supply Grounds of Arrest In Writing? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Details: Union of India and Ors. v. Thokchom Shyamjai Singh and Ors., Diary No. 64391-2025
The Supreme Court issued notice on the Union's challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment which ordered release of self-styled Army Chief of the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and his two associates in a UAPA case.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Additional Solicitor General SV Raju. The ASG argued that there cannot be blanket order to immediately supply grounds of arrest in writing, as in some situations, it may not be practical.
Notably, the case raises a question as to whether the constitutional mandate of supplying grounds of arrest "in writing" to an accused [Article 22(1)] is duly satisfied if all relevant facts and specific roles are specified in the remand application filed before a court?
NEET-PG | 'No Logic' : Supreme Court Questions NBE's Policy On Non-Disclosure Of Question Papers And Answer Keys
Case Details – Aditi v. National Board of Examination In Medical Sciences and Connected Cases
The Supreme Court expressed doubt about the logic behind policy of non-disclosure of NEET PG question papers and answer keys followed by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences.
A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing a batch of pleas seeking disclosure of answer keys and question papers of NEET-PG. While the NBE has published question IDs and the correct answers, the questions have not been published.
Last week, the Court had sought the report of the expert committee which had opined that no one except examinees should read the contents of the test.
Supreme Court Requests Jharkhand HC CJ To Consider Plea To Enhance Retirement Age Of Judicial Officers
Case Details: Ranjeet Kumar v. State of Jharkhand | W.P.(C) No. 000034 / 2026
The Supreme Court , while refusing to entertain a plea seeking enhancement of superannuation age of Jharkhand District Judges from 60 to 61 years, asked the Chief Justice of the High Court to consider the issue on the administrative side.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan was hearing plea filed by District Magistrate Mr Ranjeet Kumar.
As per the Jharkhand Service Rules, the age of retirement of the judicial officers is 60 years.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Increase Judge To Population Ratio
Case Details: Forum For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 48/2026
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking to ehance the judge to population ratio to 50 judges per million to curb case pendency across the country.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan was hearing the PIL filed by Forum for Fast Justice.
At the outset, the CJI, seemingly disinclined to entertain the plea, pointed out that the matter to be considered by the administrative side of the Court.
'Promotes Discrimination Against General Classes' : Lawyer Seeks Urgent Hearing Of Plea In Supreme Court Against UGC Regulations
A petition filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing.
Orally mentioning the matter for urgent listing, the counsel submitted, "The urgency is, there are certain provisions in the regulations that have the effect of promoting discrimination against people belonging to the general classes."
"We are also aware of what is happening," CJI Surya Kant said.
Manipur Violence| Supreme Court Extends Tenure Of Justice Gita Mittal Committee Till July 2026
The Supreme Court extended the tenure ofthe 3-member committee headed by Justice Gita Mittal, which was constituted to oversee the humanitarian aspects of the Manipur ethnic violence incident, till July 2026.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed to grant the extension.
Sr Advocate Vibha Makhija, the appearing for the Committee, informed the bench that the tenure of the committee had expired in July 2025. She added that so far, 42 reports on various aspects have been submitted by the committee from time to time, and more would be submitted soon.
'Fraud' : Supreme Court On General Candidates Seeking Medical Admission As Buddhist Converts, Asks How Minority Certificates Given
Case Details: Nikhil Kumar Punia and Anr V.Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 21/2026
The Supreme Court of India expressed serious doubts over the conversion of two upper-caste candidates to Buddhism, observing that the move appeared to be an attempt to secure admission under the minority quota for postgraduate medical courses.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by two persons from Haryana seeking directions to admit them in medical Post Graudate course under the Buddhist minority quota in the Subharti Medical College, in Uttar Pradesh, which is declared to be a Buddhist minority educational institution.
The petitioners claimed that they had converted to Buddhism, and produced certificates issued by a Sub Divisional Officer stating that they belonged to Buddhist minority community.
Supreme Court Seeks TN Govt Response On Plea Seeking Action Against Protests Targeting Justice GR Swaminathan
Case Details: G.S. Mani v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors | WP(C) 536/2025
The Supreme Court (January 28) issued notice in a public interest litigation seeking actionsagainst the protestors who allegedly spread defamatory remarks against Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Judge of the Madras High Court, subsequent to his order to light the Karthigai Deepam on the Deepa Thoon (lamp pillar) at the Thiruparankundram Subramaniya Swamy Hill Temple, Madurai.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale heard the matter. Notices have been issued to the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, Home Secretary, Director General of Police, and the Commissioner of Police, Chennai.
The PIL has been filed by Advocate G.S. Mani, belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party, alleging that caste- and religion-based defamatory remarks have been made against Justice Swaminathan, with an intention to disturb social harmony and provoke law and order and communal unrest.
Supreme Court Appoints Justice Kaul As Mediator In Devarajaswamy Temple Dispute
Case Details: S. Narayanan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. | SLP(C) No. 2855/2026 & Connected Matters
The Supreme Court appointed Former Judge, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul as Principal Mediator to decide 120 years old dispute between two sects over performing rituals at the Sri Devarajaswamy Temple, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a challenge to the Madras High Court's decision dismissing a writ petition seeking permission for the Vadakalai sect of Sr Vaishnavas to recite prayers in the sanctum sanctorum of Sri Devarajaswamy Temple, Kanchipuram.
Sr Advocates CS Vaidyanathan ( assisted by Adv. Ronak Shankar Agarwal) with Satish Parasaran and Arvind P. Datar, S.R. Rajagopal, Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the petitioners.
Explainer: UGC's 2026 Regulations For Tackling Discrimination In Colleges & Surrounding Controversy
On January 13, the University Grants Commission notified its much-awaited Regulations for tackling caste-discrimination in college campuses - the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026.
The UGC framed these Regulations following a PILfiled before the Supreme Court in 2019 by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi respectively, seeking a mechanism to end caste-based discrimination in campuses. Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi both reportedly died by suicide over caste-discrimination faced in their universities.
In early 2025, the top Court toldthe Union that it was looking to create a "very strong and robust mechanism" for "really" tackling the unfortunate issues. It further gave liberty to the petitioners and other stakeholders to give suggestions for incorporation in UGC's draft regulations. After considering stakeholder suggestions, UGC finally notified the Regulations in January this year, which had the effect of superseding its earlier 2012 Regulations.
Supreme Court Seeks ECI Response On Plea To Extend Directions Issued For West Bengal SIR To Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court sought the response of the Election Commission of India on an application seeking extension of the Court's earlier directions on publication of the 'logical discrepancy' list to the State of Tamil Nadu.
The application urges thatthe directions issued by the Court in the contextof the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal be made applicable to Tamil Nadu as well, particularly with respect to disclosure of the list of persons who were issued notices citing logical discrepancies during the revision exercise.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application filed by RS Bharati, Secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal. Sibal submitted that the last date for filing of claims and objections in Tamil Nadu is January 30.
'Passport Issuance Also Outsourced To Private Agencies', Supreme Court Tells Petitioner Opposing Aadhaar Use In SIR
Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 634/2025
The Supreme Court questioned objections to the use of Aadhaar as a verification document in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, observing that even the issuance of passports has been outsourced to private agencies.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions challenging the ongoing SIR exercise, including a plea filed by Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a nationwide revision of electoral rolls in all States.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, opposed the Court permitting Aadhaar to be used as a document for verification in the SIR process. Last year, the Supreme Court had directed the ECI to include Aadhaar also as a document which can be submitted for SIR enumeration.
'How Can HC Set Up Enquiry Commission In Bail Application?' Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order
Case Details: Chidambaram Palaniappan v. Thannermalai and Ors | Diary No. 1797-2026
The Supreme Court (January 28) issued notice on a plea challenging an anticipatory bail order in which the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court set up an enquiry commission to inquire into the allegations.
A bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria stayed the operation of the order to the extent that the High Court directed the setting up of an enquiry commission. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal appeared for the petitioner.
The petitioners are said to be trustees and are alleged to have swindled Rs. 1.75 crores and 17.5 kgs of gold. Vide an order dated December 15, 2025, the High Court ordered: "This Court intended to investigate by appointing a Commission. After consultation with all the parties, this Court is constituting a Commission by appointing Mr.Rajarajeshwaran, who is a Chartered Accountant to verify the accounts and Hon'ble.Mr.Justice.V.Sivagnanam (Retired) as a Judge Commissioner to verify the following:.."
SIR | Lack Of Formal Appeals Doesn't Mean There Were No Wrongful Deletions : Yogendra Yadav To Supreme Court
Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India
Political activist Yogendra Yadav told the Supreme Court that the lack of formal appeals against deletions during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls does not mean that there were no wrongful exclusions. Yadav said that in Bihar, many wrongfully excluded voters had to include their names as new voters on the rolls by filing Form 6 applications.
Yadav, who is one of the petitioners challenging the Bihar SIR, said the absence of formal appeals under Section 24(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 did not mean there were no attempts by wrongly excluded voters to seek inclusion. He described the Commission's claim as a play on language.
He said that many people had approached officials to get their names back on the rolls through available mechanisms rather than filing formal appeals. Yadav said many people used the only mechanism available to them – often re-registration through Form 6 with booth level officers – to return to the final rolls.
'Politically Backward Classes Not Same As OBCs' : Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Maharashtra's Banthia Commission Report
Case Details: Youth For Equality Foundation v. State of Maharashtra | W.P.(C) No. 000078 / 2026
The Supreme Court agreed to consider a plea challenging the findings of the Banthia Commission and seeking the constitution of a fresh committee to determine 'Politically Backward Classes' for purposes of reservations in Maharashtra's local body elections.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan issued notice in the matter. Sr Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan appeared for the petitioners.
The writ petition is filed by the NGO named Youth for Equality Foundation which seeks directions for fresh evaluation of 'political backwardness' in all local bodies in Maharashtra.
'Stray Dog Attacks On Beaches Affect Tourism' : Supreme Court
Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', Smw(C) No. 5/2025 (And Connected Cases)
During the hearing of the stray dogs case, the Supreme Court took note of incidents of dog attacks against tourists on beaches in Goa and Kerala.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. Justice Sandeep Mehta commented that dogs are attracted to beaches due to the presence of carcasses of fish and flagged the impact of dog attacks on tourism. "That(stray dog problem) affects tourism also," Justice Mehta said.
The bench expressed agreement with the suggestion made by Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal (Amicus Curiae) that stray dogs picked up from beaches cannot be released back there.
Supreme Court Seeks Union, ECI Response On Plea Seeking Postal Ballot For Students Away From Home
Case Details: Jayasudhagar J v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 52/2026
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and the Election Commission of India on a public interest litigation seeking a holiday or postal ballot facility to enable students living away from home constituencies to cast their votes in elections.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (for petitioner). The senior counsel argued before the Court that unless a person is a member of defense force, or a Union government employee stationed outside the country, or a person under preventive detention, etc., they are not entitled to postal ballot facility. Therefore, students who earned voting right after lowering of age of adult suffrage from 21 to 18 years, stand excluded.
Briefly put, the petition has been filed by one Jayasudhagar J, impleading the Union of India, the Election Commission, and the University Grants Commission. He contends that the present framework disables students from exercising their constitutional right to vote and this omission is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21.
NEET-PG : Supreme Court Directs NMC To Include 49 Seats Of HIMSR In 2025-26 Counselling Amid Jamia Hamdard Affiliation Dispute
Case Details – Asad Mueed & Ors. v. Jamia Hamdard Deemed To Be University & Ors.
The Supreme Court permitted counselling for 49 postgraduate medical seats at the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research for the current academic year (2025–2026), despite the consent of affiliation not having been issued by Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that counselling for postgraduate students who had appeared in NEET-PG and secured ranks was scheduled to open from January 29, 2026.
“The NMC/respondent No.6 is directed to include these forty-nine seats in the seat matrix of the petitioner No.3-Institute so that the counselling of the eligible candidates could take place. We have passed the aforesaid order bearing in mind the interest of the eligible candidates or otherwise, as many as forty-nine PG seats in petitioner No.3/Institute will go waste if unfilled during the academic year 2025-2026”, the Court stated.
Rs 30 Lakhs Compensation For Manual Sewer Cleaning Deaths Before To 'Balram' Judgment If Unpaid : Supreme Court Clarifies
Case Details: Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 324/2020
The Supreme Court clarified that its judgment, in which compensation for death caused due to manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning was enhanced to Rs. 30 lakhs, would apply to cases in which deaths had occurred before the judgment, if compensation not been determined and paid. The Supreme Court in Balram's judgment, passed in October 2023, enhanced the compensation for manual scavening and sewer cleaning deaths from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 30 lakhs.
The clarification came in an application filed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), which argued that divergent views have been expressed by different High Courts on the quantum of compensation to be paid. While the Madras High Court in one case ordered a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs, the Delhi High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30 lakhs.
As per NALSA, two possible interpretations could arise- first, if death occurred prior to October 20, 2023(date of Balram judgment), and those who have already been paid compensation would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs 20 lakhs in terms of Balram's judgment. Second, if the death occurred prior to October 20, 2023, and has already been paid, they shall not be entitled to additional compensation.
Trade Unions Largely Responsible For Stopping Country's Industrial Growth; Many Units Closed Due To Them : CJI Surya Kant
Case Details: Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 42/2026
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that trade unionism was largely responsible for stopping the industrial growth in the country.
"How many industrial units in the country have been closed thanks to trade unions? Let us know the realities. All traditional industries in the country, all because of these jhanda unions have been closed, all throughout the country. They don't want to work. These trade union leaders, they are largely responsible for stopping industrial growth in the country. Of course exploitation is there, but there are means to address exploitation. People should have been made more aware of their individual rights, people should have been made more skilled, there were several other reforms which should have been done" CJI Kant observed.
A bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a PIL filed by Penn Thozhilargal Sangam and other unions seeking welfare measures for domestic workers. The petitioners, among other things, sought to bring domestic workers under the minimum wages notification.
'Capable Of Misuse, Vague': Supreme Court Stays UGC Equity Regulations 2026
Case Details:
The Supreme Court ordered that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, be kept in abeyance.
The Court expressed certain reservations about the Regulations, which are being challenged as discriminatory towards "general classes".
The Court suggested that the Regulations must be revisited by a committee comprising eminent jurists. The Regulations are prima facie "vague" and are "capable of misuse", the Court observed during the hearing.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC Order Disqualifying Ex-MLA KM Shaji From Elections For 6 Years
Case Details – Km Shaji v. Mv Nikesh Kumar
The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's 2018 direction disqualifying former MLA KM Shaji from contesting elections for six years, holding that the power to impose such disqualification rests with the President of India and not with the High Court.
“On a consideration of the respective submissions, we find that, having regard to the specific provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the power to pass an order of disqualification, rests with the President and not with the High Court, which has set aside the election of a successful candidate. On that short ground alone, Clause 2 of the operative portion of the order is set aside”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan partly allowed Shaji's appeal against the judgment of the High Court that had declared his election from the Azhikode Assembly Constituency in the 2016 Kerala Assembly elections void on the ground of corrupt practices and disqualified him for six years.
Tamil Nadu SIR | Supreme Court Directs Publication Of 1.16 Crore Names Served Notices Citing 'Logical Discrepancy'
Case Details: Rs Bharathi v. Election Commission of India W.P.(C) No. 1072/2025
The Supreme Court passed directions to ensure transparency in the verification of 'logical discrepancy' list published during the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that approximately 1.16 crores persons, who were included in the draft voter roll, have been served with notices by the officials of the Election Commission of India (ECI), citing logical discrepancies and seeking verification.
Essentially, the bench applied the order passed last week, in relation to the West Bengal SIR, to Tamil Nadu. The key directions are :
'Will US Authorities Cooperate If Indians Seek Information?' : Supreme Court Asks Pfizer On Plea To Access Indian Company's Docs
Case Details: Pfizer Inc and Ors. v. Softgel Healthcare Private Limited | SLP(C) No. 2868-2869/2026
The Supreme Court , while hearing a plea by US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, asked whether foreign courts and Western Authorities would cooperate in providing information to India, when it comes to abiding by the principle of reciprocity.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the challenge to the Madras High Court order, which refused Pfizer to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by a United States court to obtain documents and testimony from Chennai-based Softgel Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
During the hearing, the CJI flagged concerns over Indian sovereignty and remarked, "When you want to have information, you want to hijack information from any part of the globe. When the question comes of getting information, then you impose your superiority."
UGC Equity Regulations 2026 Can Divide Society; India's Unity Must Be Reflected In Educational Institutions : Supreme Court
Case Details:
While keeping in abeyancethe University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, the Supreme Court expressed that the Regulations can have a very dangerous impact and divide society.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. It called for the Union's response, noting that there are 4-5 questions involved insofar as constitutionality and validity of the Regulations are concerned.
When Senior Advocate Indira Jaising (who appears for petitioners in the 2019 PIL which led to notification of the UGC's 2026 Regulations) opposed the stay of the Regulations without proper chance of hearing to the other side, the CJI said,
Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas Questioning Legality Of SIR
Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 000640 / 2025
The Supreme Court reserved the decision on a batch of petitions challenging the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls done by the Election Commission of India across several states.
The Court is examining whether the ECI has the powers under Article 326 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Rules made thereunder to carry out the SIR in the present form.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi reserved the matter after a long-standing period of hearings since November 2025.
'Mere Installation Of CCTVs In Police Stations Not Enough, They Should Also Work Properly': Supreme Court In Suo Motu Case
Case Details:
In the suo-motu casetaken up over lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across Rajasthan, Justice Vikram Nath of the Supreme Court said that mere installation of CCTVs is not enough - the same should also work perfectly.
During the hearing, the Rajasthan government also apprised the Court that an additional budget of Rs.75 crores was sanctioned and each police station in the state will have 16 CCTVs, instead of 12, by March 31.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. It highlighted issues like connectivity, maintenance, data storage, oversight, etc. as key concerns. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (Amicus Curiae) on the other hand emphasized the importance of having a centralized dashboard.
Supreme Court Paid Rs 40,000 To Agency, Workers Got Only Rs 19K; Service Agencies Biggest Exploiters: CJI Surya Kant
Case Details: Penn Thozhilargal Sangam v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 42 of 2026.
The Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, strongly criticised service provider agencies for exploiting domestic workers, revealing that even the Supreme Court had paid Rs 40,000 per worker to an agency, the workers themselves received only Rs 19,000.
“I have personally and officially seen this. The Supreme Court paid to an agency for hiring a particular set of skilled employees, paying Rs 40,000, and actually those poor girls were getting only Rs 19,000,” the CJI said, adding that such agencies had emerged as the “real exploiters” in urban centres.
"In all major cities, service provider agencies have taken over. Now you only use the services of these entities, there is a word for them, which I cannot use in open court. In all major cities, these big entities are there, who are exploiting these people. They are the real exploiters," CJI Kant said.
Did Sonam Wangchuk Say Ladakh People Won't Help Army? Asks Supreme Court; Sibal Denies
Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025
The Supreme Court (January 29) passed an order allowing Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk to get examined by a specialist from a government hospital after he complained of frequent stomach aches. The Court has asked that a report of his medical examination be filed on or before Monday.
The order was passed by a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale in a habeas corpus petition filed by Dr Gitanjali Angmo. She has challenged the detention of her husband under the National Security Act, 1980(NSA), as illegal. Wangchuk has been detained after the Ladakh protests for statehood turned violent in September 2025.
Speech where Wangchuk appealed for peace not placed before detaining authority
Supreme Court Urges State Govts To Consider Plea Seeking Minimum Wages For Domestic Workers
Case Details: Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 42/2026
The Supreme Court urged all State Governments to consider the issue of notifying minimum wages for domestic workers, while considering a Public Interest Litigation seeking to include domestic workers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 which is now replaced by the Code of Wages,2019.
The Court refrained from passing a direction for the petitioners' relief, citing the principle of non-interference with the executive and legislative domains. It disposed of the PIL by expressing the hope that the Governments will evolve a suitable mechanism.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a writ petition filed by ten associations of domestic workers from various states. The Union Government and all State Governments/Union Terrirotories were added as respondents.
SIR Ordered In Chhattisgarh With Polls In 2028; Why Other 2028 Election States Left Out? Petitioners In Supreme Court
Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India
In the pleas before Supreme Court challenging the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in various states, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran questioned the urgency in conducting SIR in some states while excluding others.
He pointed out that Chhattisgarh goes to polls only in 2028 and asked what the urgency was there, and why other states also scheduled to go to the polls in 2028 were excluded from the exercise.
“They said Bihar is imminent so we are starting from Bihar. That is used for many states. Chhattisgarh goes to the poll in 2028 so what is the urgency there? And what is the reason for excluding other states that also going to poll in 2028?”, Ramachandran said.
Supreme Court Reserves Orders In Stray Dogs Case; Asks AWBI To Expedite Centres' Applications For Recognition
Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', Smw(C) No. 5/2025 (And Connected Cases)
"The only request to AWBI is whatever applications are pending, you must process them with expedience. Either you reject them within a specified time or grant them", the Court conveyed to AWBI.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. It may be recalled that a suo motu case on the stray dogs issue was taken up by the Supreme Court last year, following a news report regarding the tragic death of 6-year old Chavi Sharma following a dog bite incident. Following the same, many intervenors joined in to make submissions, including dog lovers, dog feeders, animal welfare organizations, NGOs, etc. as well as dog bite victims. Separate petitions were also filed and tagged alongwith the suo motu case.
On November 7, the Court orderedremoval of stray dogs from institutional premises and highways, and directed that they must not be released back in places from where they are picked up. Many intervenors argued for modification of these directions, while victims and other stakeholders prayed for extension of the directions to gated communities and housing societies.
Supreme Court Extends Deadline For Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh Election Till February 2
Case Details: M. Varadhan v. Union of India & Anr., WP(C) No. 1319/2023 (And Connected Cases)
The Supreme Court extended the deadline for conducting the elections of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for the Prayagraj district till February 2, 2026.
A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after an interlocutory application seeking extension of time was orally mentioned before the Court.
The application was filed on behalf of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, in a pending writ petition.
Supreme Court Protects Rank And Pay Of Rajasthan Principal District Judge Who Was Transferred 7 Times In 4 Years
Case Details – Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur & Anr.
The Supreme Court protected the substantive rank, pay, and administrative status of a Rajasthan Principal District Judge who has faced seven transfers since 2021 and has now been posted as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi granted the relief to Dinesh Kumar Gupta, a Principal District Judge in Rajasthan, who had approached the Court last year alleging that he was being targeted and repeatedly transferred in violation of the applicable transfer policy.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court's order requesting the HC to consider his representation, he had been posted as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Jaipur Metropolitan-cum-Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner, however, expressed apprehension that the posting was not commensurate with his rank, status, and stature as a Principal District Judge.
Supreme Court Raises 4 Questions On UGC Equity Regulations 2026, Asks Why Caste-Based Discrimination Separately Defined
Case Details:
The Supreme Court has framed four substantial questions of law in the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the University Grants Commisison (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the Regulations suffered from "certain ambiguities" and that the "the possibility of their misuse cannot be ruled out."
The Court noted that the Regulations defined both "caste-based discrimination" as well as "discrimination".
Supreme Court Orders Personal Presence Of Narcotics Control Bureau Director & Guwahati NCB IG Over Casual Handling Of NDPS Case
Case Details: Union of India v. Abid Pervez @ Azad Pervez
Voicing serious concern over the delay in a matter involving a commercial quantity of narcotics, the Supreme Court directed the personal appearance of the Director, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and the Inspector General, NCB, Guwahati on the next date of hearing.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed the order while hearing the NCB's challenge to the Gauhati High Court's decision granting bail to an accused allegedly found in possession of 1.045 kg of heroin. The bail was granted on the ground that the trial had been unduly delayed, as the case dated back to 2021 and none of the eight prosecution witnesses had been examined.
After the first date of hearing held on Dec. 17, 2025, the Court prima facie held the High Court's decision to grant bail to be in violation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and directed the Respondent-accused to surrender forthwith. It also directed the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police to affect the service to the Respondent.
After Supreme Court Raised Concerns, UP Govt Proposes To Amend Law To Abate Trials For Motor Vehicle Offences
Case Details:S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. & Ors. | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S). 295/2012
After the Supreme Court expressed concerns over the Uttar Pradesh law, which proposed to abate the trials for offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, pending till 2021, the Government proposed an amendment to the provision.
As per the proposed amendment, offences which are non-compoundable, or have mandatory imprisonment, or which are subsequent offences, will not be abated.
The issue is with respect to the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) Act as per which the MV Act cases pending as on 31.12.2021 would stand abated.
Supreme Court Expresses Dismay At Delay In Appointment Of National Safai Karamchari Commission Members
Case Details: Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 324/2020 and Connected Cases
The Supreme Court, on January 27, expressed its dismay over the lack of progress in the appointment of the Chairman and members of the National Safai Karamchari Commission. It noted that despite repeated assurances, there has been no compliance.
The National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (NCSK) is a statutory body of the Government of India set up to safeguard the rights, dignity, and welfare of Safai Karamcharis, particularly those engaged in sanitation work such as manual scavenging. It is constituted as per National Commission for Safai Karamcharis Act, 1993.
Noting that the appointments are moving at a "snail's pace," a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale gave one last opportunity of four weeks for such appointments to take place. Failing which, the Court will be forced to appoint an ad hoc Committee to take over the work of the Safai Karamchari Commission.
'Kerala HC Far Ahead, Developed Own Software Without Outsourcing': Supreme Court Lauds Kerala High Court's Case Management System
Case Details:
The Supreme Court lauded the Case Management System introduced by the Kerala High Court with a goal to achieve complete automation and a paperless court.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the suo motu case taken up over lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across Rajasthan, when Justice Mehta expressed appreciation for the High Court's initiative.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (the Amicus) suggested to the Court that the Union may be asked to come up with a software for a centralized dashboard, which can then be adopted by states.
Can Employer Claim Income Tax Deduction On Delayed PF-ESI Deposits? Supreme Court To Settle Conflicting Decisions
Case Details: Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited Director v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The Supreme Court agreed to examine the contentious issue under the tax law of whether an employer is entitled to claim income tax deductions for employees' Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) contributions that are deposited after the prescribed due date.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta issued notice in an appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's decision, which held that employees' PF and ESI contributions deposited by the employer after the statutory due date under the respective welfare laws are not eligible for deduction, even if paid before filing the income tax return.
At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of Sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
'After Getting Out, You Start Making Reels' : Supreme Court Rejects Savukku Shankar's Plea Against Madras HC's Bail Conditions
Case Details: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors | Diary No. 5538-2026
The Supreme Court (January 30) refused to interfere with the bail conditions imposed by the Madras High Court while upholding the interim bailgranted to YouTuber and Journalist Shankar @Savukku Shankar in connection with allegations of assault and extortion by a film producer.
The Madras High Court, while refusing to cancel his bail, stated that Shankar must not make any statement, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the case, including comments against the conduct of the officers. It has also asked Shankar not to interact with or intimidate the co-accused or the witnesses in the case. It restricted Shankar's movement, adding that any movement should be for the purpose of availing medical facilities or in connection with seeking legal assistance in the case.
The High Court had made it clear that any violation of the conditions shall be viewed seriously, and strict action will be taken against Shankar.
TP Chandrashekharan Murder : Supreme Court Seeks Medical Report On Convict Geothi Babu's Interim Bail Plea
Case Details: Geothi Babu v. State of Kerala | Crl.A. No. 2761-2762/2024
The Supreme Court sought a medical report on the health condition of Geothi Babu, one of the convicts in the TP Chandrashekharan murder case, after he sought interim bail on the grounds of kidney ailments.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma adjourned the matter, seeking the report of a medical board constituted by the Kannur Medical College regarding Babu's condition. The matter will be considered after ten days.
Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu, for Geoti Babu, submitted that he was aged nearly 65 years and his condition was very precarious as he was undergoing dialysis, and was in urgent need of a kidney transplant.
Supreme Court Seeks UP Govt's Explanation For Reducing Minimum Distance Between Liquor Shops & Schools Fixed By SC Judgment
Case Details – State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Bishop Johnson School and College & Ors.
The Supreme Court observed that the Uttar Pradesh government's 2010 decision to reduce the minimum distance required between liquor shops and sensitive public places, appeared to overreach an earlier binding judgment of the Court fixing the minimum distance.
“We are prima facie of the view that the State of Uttar Pradesh has overreached the judgment of this Court and the High Court was in error in returning a contrary finding. We are conscious that such contra-finding is not subjected to challenge. This is because the respondent-institution's interest has been protected. However, we cannot stand by and allow any illegality to be continued. A binding judgment of this Court is sought to be made ineffective by a rule making authority without removing the basis thereof”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih issued a suo motu notice to the State asking why the amended Rule 5(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Number and Location of Excise Shops Rules, 1968, should not be struck down on the ground of legislative overreach.
Steps Taken To Remove Objectionable Social Media Posts Against Justice GR Swaminathan, FIRs Registered : TN DGP Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: G.S. Mani v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors | WP(C) 536/2025
The Tamil Nadu Police has filed a response in the Supreme Court, stating that it has taken action against those who had spread defamatory remarks against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court.
This comes after the Supreme Court, on January 28, askedthe State Police to file an affidavit in a public interest litigation seeking actionsagainst the protestors who allegedly spread defamatory remarks against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madurai bench, subsequent to his order to light the Karthigai Deepam on the Deepa Thoon (lamp pillar) at the Thiruparankundram Subramaniya Swamy Hill Temple, Madurai.
With respect to objectionable social media postes, it is stated that the Cyber Crime Cell of the Greater Chennai Police registered Crime No. 14 of 2026 on January 28, 2026, under Sections 196, 221, 267, 353(1)(c), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Mamata Banerjee Files Writ Petition In Supreme Court Against Election Commission Over West Bengal SIR Process
Case Details: Mamata Banerjee v. Election Commission of India | WP(C) No.129/2026
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Election Commission of India, challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process ongoing in the State.
The petition was filed on January 28, stating that the ongoing process will result in "large-scale disenfranchisement" caused by "the opaque, hasty, unconstitutional and illegal actions of the ECI."
“The entire SIR exercise is an effort at disenfranchising the existing voters on the Electoral Roll by forcing them to prove their citizenship with “documentary” evidence against an arbitrary cut-off date of 2002. This violates the Constitution, the Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951,” the petition stated.