Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: July 27, 2026 To August 02, 2026

Art. 311(2) | Confirmed Public Servant Can't Be Terminated Over Alleged Illegal Appointment Without Inquiry: Supreme Court

Cause Title: DEBASHISH MOHAPATRA & ORS. VS. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, JAGATSINGHPUR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 721

The Supreme Court has ruled that a public servant whose service is confirmed cannot be terminated from the office merely because there was an alleged illegality in appointment. The Court said that a termination without holding a departmental inquiry would be violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

“Confirmation in service is not a mere administrative formality but it confers upon an employee a substantive status carrying with it enhanced security of tenure and the protection of constitutional safeguards available to a civil servant. Once the appellants had attained the status of confirmed employees, their services could not have been terminated by a simpliciter administrative order founded upon allegations touching the validity of their appointments. Whether the appointments suffered from illegality, whether the appellants had any role to play therein, and whether such illegality warranted termination were all matters requiring adjudication in accordance with the procedure contemplated by Article 311(2).”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while reinstating a service of a Copyist in a office of District & Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, Orissa who was terminated from the service in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

What Does Article 311(2) of the Constitution Say on Termination of a Public Servant?

S. 38 BNSS | Advocate Of Accused Cannot Remain Present Throughout Police Interrogation : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Clarifying the scope of Section 38 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Supreme Court (July 27) held that the provision entitles an arrested person to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation but does not contemplate continuous physical presence throughout the interrogation.

“A plain reading of the provision makes it clear that the right guaranteed thereunder is the right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation. It does not, by any means, contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session, whatever be the visual or audible distance maintained.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the High Court's decision to put a mandatory condition of nominating two advocates to be present at the prison during the respondent-accused's police custody. Moreover, one advocate was permitted to remain present 'at any given point of time during the accused's interrogation'.

New Criminal Law Allows Police Custody Beyond First 15 Days : Supreme Court Explains S.187(2) BNSS

Cause Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Observing that police custody under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not confined to the initial fifteen days of remand and may be sought in parts within the statutory period, the Supreme Court (July 27) set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's condition prohibiting extension of the accused's police custody beyond the first fifteen days of remand.

“Section 187(2) and (3) BNSS, unlike the erstwhile Section 167 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enlarges the window during which police custody, in the aggregate not exceeding fifteen days, may be sought by the investigating agency, such custody being available in parts, during the first forty or sixty days of the total permissible period of detention, rather than being confined to the first fifteen days of remand alone.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The case arises from the alleged custodial death of one-Gade Sai Krishna, who was apprehended by police personnel on May 6, 2026, and allegedly brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada. According to the prosecution, the victim was never produced before a Magistrate and subsequently went missing. His body remains untraced.

IBC Moratorium Against Company Doesn't Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters, Directors : Supreme Court

Cause Title: TEJAS J. SHAH & AMISHA T. SHAH & ORS. VERSUS MANTRI TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT.LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS BUOYANT TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT.LTD.) & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 723

The Supreme Court (July 27) observed that an operation of a moratorium under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against a residential project development company would not be a ground to reject the consumer complaints against its promoters/directors.

“In the present case, Respondent No.1 alone is the corporate debtor against whom the CIRP has been initiated. No independent moratorium or independent protection operates in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 7. In the absence of any legal bar against continuation of proceedings qua the said respondents, the NCDRC was not justified in rejecting appellants' prayer to proceed with the complaint against the rest of the respondents.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while setting aside the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) order which rejected the Appellant's application seeking the continuance of the consumer complaint proceedings against the other respondents.

The Court said that since the moratorium was in operation against the Respondent no. 1-company, it would not bar the continuation of a consumer complaint against other respondents. [See Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 284]

S.457 CrPC | Registration Certificate Alone Not Sole Factor For Interim Release Of Seized Vehicles: Supreme Court

Cause Title: KRISHNAN NARAYANA VERSUS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 724

The Supreme Court (July 27) held that registration certificate alone are not determinative of entitlement to interim custody of vehicles under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC.

“Registration is a relevant factor, but it is evidentiary and not conclusive of entitlement to interim possession.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while dismissing an appeal of a company's director who challenged the interim release of vehicles in favour of the Respondents.

The appellant was a director of M/s Pure Minerals and also an 80% shareholder of the respondent company, M/s Earth Stein Private Limited. The subject vehicles one Bolero City Pick-up, three Excavators, and one Ashok Leyland Tipper were purchased in the name of M/s Pure Minerals between 2014 and 2022.

GST | 'ITC Available To Buyer Only If Supplier Paid Tax', Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of S. 16(2)(c) Of CGST Act

Cause Title: Bhandari Scrap Traders v. Union of India & Ors. (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 725

The Supreme Court has affirmed the Gujarat High Court's judgment, which held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) can be availed only if the supplier has actually paid the tax to the government.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva dismissed a batch of petitions filed against the Gujarat High Court's judgment, which had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which requires that a buyer cannot claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) unless the seller has actually paid the collected tax to the government.

“…the High Court was fully justified in holding that no grounds were made out to declare Section 16(2) (c) of the CGST Act as unconstitutional or read down the provisions thereof. We find ourselves in complete and respectful agreement with the views expressed by the High Court of Gujarat and affirm and uphold the impugned judgment.”, the Court said.

Res Judicata Applies To Successive Impleadment Applications Under Different CPC Provisions: Supreme Court

Cause Title: SANJIV KUMAR VERSUS SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 726

The Supreme Court (July 27) held that where an application for impleadment has been rejected on merits under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, a subsequent application seeking the same relief under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, provided it is based on the same cause, between the same parties litigating under the same title, and is decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

"Where the Order I Rule 10 application was considered and rejected on its merits i.e., the court actually examined the transferee's claim, the genuineness/bona fides of the transfer, and the nature of the interest, and that order was not appealed or reviewed, a second application under Order XXII Rule 10 raising the claim based on the same transfer, same interest, same facts would ordinarily be barred by the principles of res judicata as issue has been decided on merits and attained finality.”, the Court observed.

The Court, however, clarified the bar of res judicata would not be applicable on a subsequent application for an impleadment, when the rejection of an earlier application “…was on a technical or procedural ground without an adjudication on the merits of the transferee's interest, or there is a fresh devolution or assignment after the rejection of an application under Order I Rule 10, giving rise to a distinct cause not earlier considered, or when the earlier order is itself under challenge and has not attained finality.”

Evidence Act | Section 27 Recoveries Alone Can't Sustain Conviction : Supreme Court Restores Acquittal In 1988 Murder Case

Cause Title: Khalil Pasha & Ors. Versus Abdul Rasheed & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 727

The Supreme Court (July 28) restored the acquittal of six men in a 1988 murder case, observing that recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 23 BSA) cannot, by itself, form the basis of a conviction unless the recovered material is clearly connected with the offence through independent evidence.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the prosecution had relied on the recovery of a weapon at the instance of Accused No. 4 and the seizure of clothes belonging to Accused No. 2. Although forensic examination detected human blood on these articles, the prosecution failed to establish that the blood was that of the deceased or otherwise connect the recovered articles with the murder.

The case related to the murder of one Qavi on February 14, 1988. The deceased's brother had challenged the acquittal before the Bombay High Court through a criminal revision petition. After an earlier remand by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds, the High Court had again directed the trial court to reconsider the evidence of eyewitnesses, recoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the chemical analysis report, while upholding the trial court's rejection of the alleged dying declarations.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Mechanism For Urgent Hearings Beyond Regular Hours, Says E-Filing Allows Anytime Access

Case Title: MAHERAVISH REIN v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 376/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 728

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking an institutional mechanism for urgent hearing of cases involving life and personal liberty (outside regular court hours).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted that the grievance of the petitioner stood adequately addressed in view of the existing institutional and procedural framework governing access to constitutional courts.

The Court however left it open for the petitioner, or any other stakeholder, to make a representation before the Registrar General of the concerned High Court, or the Chief Justice of India/Chief Justice of High Court (as the case may be) in case of individual grievances experienced in practice, which shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

National Scheduled Castes Commission Has No Adjudicatory Role; Only Advisory : Supreme Court Quashes Order In Service Dispute

Cause Title: MUMBAI PORT AUTHORITY VERSUS NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Observing that the National Commission for Schedule Caste (NCSC) is a recommendatory and advisory body having no authority to pass an adjudicatory order, the Supreme Court (July 28) declared the NCSC order to be non-binding, in which the NCSC had ordered payment of arrears and other reliefs in a service-related matter.

“The powers entrusted to NCSC are limited in nature. Clearly NCSC and its other compatriots under Articles 338A and 338B are Constitutional Bodies with a socially beneficent purpose but quite apparently, the Legislature has prescribed a role that is recommendatory and advisory, but certainly not adjudicatory. They are not meant to be bodies taking over adjudicatory functions.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, which had upheld the NCSC order passed while adjudicating a service-related dispute.

This was the case where the Respondent No. 3, a Scheduled Caste employee of Mumbai Port Authority, was promoted under a 2002 Office Memorandum (OM). However, the 2002 OM superseded the 1997 OM on seniority.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Two UAPA Accused In Jail For 12 Years, Says Slow Trial Violated Article 21

Cause Title: MOHD. SAQUIB ANSARI VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 730

The Supreme Court has granted bail to two accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), observing that their continued incarceration for nearly 12 years with no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial amounted to a violation of their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the release of Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar on bail in connection with FIR No. 54 of 2011 registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court and provided they are not required in any other case.

The petitioners had challenged a common judgment of the Delhi High Court dated April 24, 2026, which upheld the trial court's rejection of their bail applications under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

MRTP Act | Denying Refund Of Unused Additional FSI Premium For Housing Projects Arbitrary : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Prasad Pandurang Tapkir and another versus The Assistant Director of Town Planning, Pune District, Pune and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 731

The Supreme Court has held that housing project owners cannot be denied a refund of the premium paid for unutilised additional Floor Space Index (FSI) merely because there is no specific legal provision permitting such a refund. The Court said that when the benefit of refund is extended to educational institutions, medical institutions and star-category hotels, not extending the same to the housing projects is against the principle of right to equality.

The FSI Regulations were framed in exercise of powers under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

The Court directed the Maharashtra government to refund the premium paid by landowners for additional Floor Space Index (FSI) that was never utilized, holding that the State cannot unjustly retain such amounts merely because the statutory regulations do not expressly provide for a refund. The Court ruled that such a distinction was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

O VII 7 CPC | Lesser Relief Can Be Decreed, But Not Totally Different Claim : Supreme Court Declines To Allow Partition In Title Suit

Cause Title: Maragadham versus Periyaraja and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 732

Declining to grant the relief of partition in a suit seeking a declaration of title, the Supreme Court clarified that while Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the grant of a lesser or alternative relief flowing from the facts already pleaded and proved, it cannot be invoked to award a relief such as partition, which is based on a distinct cause of action and requires a separate factual foundation.

“…we may note that Order VII Rule 7 CPC authorizes the Court to grant a smaller relief than the larger relief claimed, if entitlement therefor is made out on facts. However, such discretion would not be available when a plaintiff sets up an altogether different case from the one ultimately found established on facts and in law by the Court.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.

The Appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession based on the gift deed executed in her favor by her grandfather. The trial court decreed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the same, whose decision was upheld by the High Court.

Service Benefits Can't Be Denied Citing Absence Of ACRs Not Attributable To Employee: Supreme Court

Case : High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v Abhay Jain

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 733

The Supreme Court has held that a judicial officer who was wrongfully discharged from service cannot be denied Selection Scale and Super Time Scale merely because Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were unavailable for the period when he was under wrongful discharge.   Holding that an employer cannot take advantage of its own wrong, the Court ruled that where the absence of ACRs is attributable to the employer, the officer's entitlement must be assessed on the basis of the remaining valid ACRs.

"We hold that where the non-availability of the requisite ACRs is attributable to the employer, the employee's entitlement to the promotion/pay in question is required to be assessed on the basis of the remaining valid ACRs," the Court stated.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed the ruling while deciding an application filed by the Rajasthan High Court seeking clarification of the Supreme Court's March 15, 2022 judgment, which had quashed the discharge of Additional District Judge Abhay Jain and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service, seniority, all consequential benefits and 50% back wages.

Supreme Court Holds OTIS Liable For RAW Officer's Death Due To Lift Malfunction, Says Elevator Makers Have High Duty Of Care

Cause Title: M/S OTIS ELEVATOR CO. (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS RASHMI HANDA & ORS. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 734

The Supreme Court (July 29) upheld the liability of OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd. for the death of a Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) officer who was crushed to death in a lift malfunction at the RAW headquarters in New Delhi in 2003.

Dismissing OTIS's appeal against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held OTIS, being a manufacturer as well as comprehensive maintenance contractor, liable for the officer's death due to malfunction of the lift caused by fluctuation in the voltage, which remained unaddressed by the Elevator company for about eight months.

“A party that undertakes the comprehensive maintenance of a machine, which is in the nature of a vehicle, owes a heightened duty of care towards its users. OTIS was not a stranger to the defect that culminated in the accident. It was cognizant of the problem, and it had itself proposed the remedy. Having done so, its failure to ensure that the remedy was implemented, or, alternatively, to render the lift safe by other means pending its installation constitutes deficiency of service.”, the Court held.

Centre Can Allow Post-Facto Environmental Clearance Only By Statutory Notification : Supreme Court Quashes 2021 OM Prospectively

Case: Vanashakti v. Union of India

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1394/2023 (Diary No. 50009/2023)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 735

The Supreme Court held that while the Central Government has the power to provide for the grant of post-facto environmental clearances (ECs) through valid statutory notifications issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, it cannot do so through a mere administrative office memorandum.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi accordingly quashed the Union government's 2021 Office Memorandum (OM), which created a mechanism for granting environmental clearance to projects that had commenced operations without obtaining prior EC. However, the Court gave the ruling prospective effect and protected clearances already granted under the impugned regime.

The Bench held that the 2021 OM was ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 because it sought to alter the existing environmental clearance framework through an administrative order rather than a statutory notification.

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Sentences Of Imprisonment For Remainder Of Natural Life Without Remission

Cause Title: RAMASREY @ FAKKAD VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 736

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of sentences directing imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's natural life, dismissing a batch of writ petitions that challenged such punishments as unconstitutional and contrary to the statutory remission framework.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih rejected petitions filed by four sets of convicts, including death row prisoners whose sentences had either been commuted by constitutional authorities or modified by courts to imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives.

The petitioners argued that the Indian Penal Code (IPC) recognized only two punishments for murder under Section 302 - death and life imprisonment - and did not contemplate a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission. They also contended that such sentences defeated the statutory remission powers available under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Supreme Court Criticises High Court Judge For Dealing With Case Of Former Client

Cause Title: PRATEEK RESORTS AND BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS PUNEET AGRAWAL & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 737

Observing that judges should not entertain proceedings either for or against their former clients, the Supreme Court disapproved the conduct of a single judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, who, while hearing a writ petition on an unrelated issue, expanded the scope of the proceedings to examine matters concerning land owned by his former client.

The Court noted that the Judge had earlier represented Prateek Resorts & Builders Private Limited, and the land involved in that previous case was the very same land which is the subject matter of enquiry before the said Judge in the present proceedings. The Bench also noted that the company had moved an impleadment application before the High Court, which was still pending consideration.

Disapproving the conduct of the Judge, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed : “…in the interest of judicial propriety, the learned Judge ought not to have entertained and passed orders in the matter. Trite to state, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Passing orders either in favour of or against a former client, a private entity, does not further that cause.”

Supreme Court Deprecates Political Pressure Dictating Prosecution Sanction, Raps Rajasthan Govt

Case Details: State of Rajasthan & Ors v Dev Kant Meena|Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2951 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 738

The Supreme Court criticised the State of Rajasthan for changing its stance, under the influence of political dictate, on granting prosecution sanction which was earlier declined. It remarked that prosecution sanctions are meant to safeguard innocent public servants from frivolous harassment and can't resemble the dilemma in Hamlet's Soliloquy: to be or not to be.

"The decision-making process under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot resemble the dilemma in 'Hamlet's Soliloquy': 'to be or not to be', though expressed in a different context. If there is ambivalence, it could be presumed that extraneous considerations weighed and here is a case where political dictate is blatantly displayed."

The observations were made in a case concerning an accusation of bribery against a government doctor. Initially, the State declined sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, under "extraneous considerations", the State changed its position and granted sanction for prosecution.

PC Act | Decision To Refuse Prosecution Sanction Can't Be Reviewed On Same Materials : Supreme Court

Cause Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Dev Kant Meena

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 738

The Supreme Court observed that an order denying sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be reviewed by the appropriate authority unless fresh material emerges which was not available at the earlier instance.

"A mere change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for review or reconsideration of an earlier order, refusing to grant sanction.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while affirming the Rajasthan High Court's decision to quash the reviewed sanction order granted against the Respondent Doctor.

The Court cited various precedents, including State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti (2009) 17 SCC 92 where it was held that "when a decision is taken to decline sanction by the appropriate authority, reviewing such order on the very same material would not be appropriate or permissible."

Supreme Court Grants Uttarakhand Deputy Collectors Seniority Benefit From Initial Ad Hoc Promotion

Cause Title: THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VERSUS JAGDISH CHANDRA KANDPAL & ORS., JAGDISH CHANDRA KANDPAL & ORS. V. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.,

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 739

The Supreme Court has held that Deputy Collectors in Uttarakhand who were promoted on an ad hoc basis in 2007 are entitled to count their continuous officiating service towards seniority, ruling that the State Government cannot deny them the benefit because of its own failure to consult the Public Service Commission as required under the rules.

A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe allowed the appeal filed by the promotee officers while dismissing the appeals preferred by the State Government and direct recruits. The Court directed the State Government to grant the promotees regular appointment to the post of Deputy Collector with effect from October 1, 2007 and issue a revised seniority list within three months.

The dispute arose after a batch of Tehsildars was promoted as Deputy Collectors on an ad hoc basis on October 1, 2007 due to an acute shortage of Civil Service officers in the State. They continued in the post until their regular promotion in May 2012. Direct recruits appointed in 2009 challenged the claim of the promotees to count their ad hoc service for seniority, contending that the initial appointments were merely stop-gap arrangements made dehors the statutory rules.

Reach Stacker Is Not A 'Motor Vehicle' Under MV Act, Accident Victim Can't Approach MACT: Supreme Court

Case : Container Corporation of India Ltd v Rishi Ranjan Mishra

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 740

The Supreme Court has held that a Reach Stacker, a heavy container-handling machine used within Inland Container Depots (ICDs), is not a "motor vehicle" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and therefore a compensation claim arising from an accident involving such a machine is not maintainable before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed an appeal filed by the Container Corporation of India Limited (CONCOR) and restored the MACT's order dismissing a compensation claim filed by an accident victim.

The case arose from an accident at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, where the claimant was run over by a Reach Stacker in September 2013, resulting in severe injuries and amputation of his right leg. He sought compensation of ₹75 lakh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. While the MACT held that the claim was not maintainable, the Delhi High Court reversed that decision, holding that a Reach Stacker was a motor vehicle. The Supreme Court has now set aside the High Court's ruling.

Indian Succession Act | How Does Wife's Property Devolve After Death? Supreme Court Explains Christian Inheritance

Cause Title: SHAKUNTALA & ORS. VERSUS ROBERT ANTHONY & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 741

The Supreme Court (July 30) clarified that under Christian succession law, a property purchased by a husband in the name of his wife remains the wife's exclusive property. Consequently, upon her death, succession to such property must be determined based on her ownership and cannot be treated as the husband's estate for the purpose of applying Section 33 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard an appeal filed against a Chhattisgarh High Court judgment which treated property standing in the name of a deceased wife as part of her husband's estate and applied Section 33 of the Indian Succession Act.

Section 33 of the ISA provides that where a male intestate leaves a widow and lineal descendants, one-third of his property goes to the widow and two-thirds to lineal descendants.

Supreme Court Highlights Consequences Of Driving With Expired License, Urges Centre To Spread Awareness

Cause Title: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VERSUS OM PARKASH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 742

Observing that the insurer would not be held liable when the driver did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident, the Supreme Court (July 30) urged the Union Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to undertake nationwide awareness campaigns to emphasize the importance of valid driving licenses and streamline the process of issuance and renewal.

“The Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India, as also the respective counterparts of the States should, we may suggest, undertake campaigns through all mediums such as awareness drives, social media, etc. to drive home this importance; introduce measures to ensure strict compliance; and also streamline the process of issuance/renewal of licenses. Other issues such as regulation of driving schools, the affordability thereof, and accessibility in terms of regional languages, when it comes to applications and tests, etc. also need urgent attention.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

The aforesaid observation of the bench came while hearing an appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment, which held the insurer liable to pay compensation to the claimants despite the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle whose driver lacked a valid driving license.

Administrative Action Cannot Be Struck Down Merely Because It Was Not Issued As A Formal Order : Supreme Court

Cause Title: S. P. CHANDRAKAR VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 743

The Supreme Court (July 30) held that when an authority possesses a power under a relevant statute to take an action, the mere fact that the action is styled as a "circular" or "communication" rather than a formal "order" does not invalidate it.

“Once the power exists and it is clear that this particular power has been exercised, the style under which it was exercised would not denude or weaken the authority enabling it to exercise such power.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

In this case, the Appellant, a district cooperative bank employee holding a technical post of Assistant Engineer, was promoted to the post of Additional Manager, following a circular issued by the Registrar deleting the Rule 5(3)(a) of the Chhattisgarh District Cooperative Central Bank Employee Service (Employment, Terms and their Working Conditions) Rules, 1982 that created a bar on the promotion of a technical post holder to the post of Additional Manager.

Appeal Won't Lie Under S.374 CrPC/415 BNSS Against Sessions Court's Reversal Of Acquittal : Supreme Court

Cause Title: VISHNU KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 744

The Supreme Court (July 30) held that no statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC would be maintainable before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, overturning the trial court's decision of acquittal. The Court said that the only remedy would be to file a revision petition before the High Court against the Sessions Court decision of reversing an acquittal.

“…an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is not maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court. The only remedy which is available, is that of filing a revision under Section 397 r/w 401 (corresponding to Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).”, observed a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

The Court reasoned that since the decision of the Sessions Court to reverse the trial court's decision of acquittal was not passed 'on a trial' but by exercising an Appellate jurisdiction, a remedy of a statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC cannot be invoked to file a statutory appeal against the Sessions Court order of reversing an acquittal.

Compassionate Appointment Policy Can't Exclude Married Daughters : Supreme Court

Case: Sayara Khatoon @ Shajara Khatoon & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11623 of 2026.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 745

The Supreme Court has held that a compassionate appointment policy cannot restrict eligibility to only divorced or deserted daughters while excluding other married daughters, ruling that such a classification is unconstitutional and violative of the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale struck down the relevant condition in the Bihar Government's policy dated December 10, 2014, while allowing the appeal filed by a woman whose claim for compassionate appointment following the death of her father had been rejected on the ground that she was neither divorced nor deserted.

The Court observed that it has consistently held that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is unconstitutional.

Supreme Court Flags Stray Cattle Menace On Roads, Says States Must Compensate Victims

Case : Nisha v. Municipal Council Sangrur

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 746

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the growing number of road accidents involving stray cattle and urged the Centre and State Governments to strengthen enforcement of existing laws while introducing a comprehensive mechanism to prevent such incidents and compensate victims.

Observing that bovine-related accidents are "not few and far between", the Court said stray cattle wandering on roads and highways pose a serious threat to both human and animal life.

"They are not meant to be natural speed breakers, placed willy-nilly on the National Highways, roads and streets," a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh remarked while deciding an appeal arising from the death of a man who was attacked by a stray bull in Punjab.

People Abandon Cattle On Roads, But Feel Offended If They Are Used For Food : Supreme Court

Case : Nisha v. Municipal Council Sangrur

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 746

The Supreme Court remarked on what it described as a contradiction in society's treatment of cattle, observing that while people often abandon animals after their economic utility diminishes and allow them to roam freely on roads without concern for their safety, they simultaneously take deep offence if those animals are used for food. The Court made the observation while examining the larger issue of stray cattle-related accidents and suggesting measures for the Centre and State Governments to address the problem.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh observed that owners who choose to rear animals should ideally care for them throughout their lives.

"We have already touched upon the issue of animals being let go as their utility dwindled.In a perfect world, this would not be the case. All those who have chosen to bring an animal home shall see to it that they are looked after for their whole life. But the reality is that we live in a deeply flawed, human world," the Bench said.

Witness Testimony Recorded Without S.299 CrPC Order Can't Be Later Used Against Accused Who Absconded : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mahendra Singh Versus The State of Chhattisgarh

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 747

The Supreme Court (July 31) observed that evidence recorded in a trial against one accused cannot be used against an absconding accused in a subsequent trial unless an order under Section 299 Cr.P.C. / Section 335 BNSS was passed establishing the two jurisdictional facts, i.e., the accused was absconding and that there was no immediate prospect of arresting him.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the murder conviction of the appellant, who had absconded during the trial against his co-accused in 1999 and was later convicted in a separate trial. His conviction was based on the testimony of a deceased witness whch was recorded in the previous trial against the co-accused.

The Court held that since no formal order under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. was passed to establish the jurisdictional facts, namely, that the accused was absconding and that there was no immediate prospect of his arrest, the testimony of the deceased witness recorded in the earlier trial could not be used in a trial against the appellant, following his arrest in 2017.

S. 125 CrPC | Wife Can Be Denied Interim Maintenance If Husband Ex Facie Shows Her Adulterous Relationship : Supreme Court

Cause Title: HIMANSHU CHORDIA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 748

The Supreme Court (July 31) held that an interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. can be denied to the wife once the husband ex facie establishes the wife's adulterous relation at the stage of an interim maintenance.

“…we are of the view that if a husband files an application under Section 125(4) and is, at the first instance, able to establish the charge through evidence ex facie, then only, there can be said to be a bar to interim maintenance.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, while allowing the appeal filed by a husband whose application under Section 125(4) alleging adultery was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the issue could only be decided at the stage of final adjudication.

The appellant, husband, married to the Respondent No. 2, wife, in 2014. Due to strained relations, the wife left the matrimonial home in 2020, along with the child and valuables. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance.

Supreme Court Suggests Making Of Law To Regulate Private Detectives

Cause Title: HIMANSHU CHORDIA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 748

The Supreme Court (July 31) urged the Union Government and the Law Commission of India to consider framing a legal framework to regulate the functioning of private detective agencies, observing that the absence of statutory safeguards raises concerns over privacy violations and misuse of investigative powers.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi said there is an urgent need for a mechanism that lays down professional standards for private investigators while also providing remedies for individuals whose rights may be infringed.

“Checks and measures are perhaps required, drawn from the areas of the law, law enforcement, privacy experts, etc., that can deal with issues arising out of such endeavours, including acting as a grievance redressal forum for any individual who may be aggrieved by the actions of the private investigator having overstepped professional bounds and gone into violating the rights of the individual… the need to develop our mechanism for dealing with these scenarios cannot be underscored enough. The legislature would obviously need to undertake its own examination of all relevant issues and frame rules/regulations in accordance with the prevalent norms and conditions, but can also make reference to other jurisdictions where laws of similar nature exist, for example, the State of Queensland in Australia, the Province of Ontario and Canada, the Netherlands, Singapore, etc.”, observed the Court.

IBC | PF Dues Protected, But Uncrystallised Interest & Damages Can Be Excluded From Resolution Plan : Supreme Court

Case Title: Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Rachna Jhunjhunwala & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 9768 of 2026 @ Diary No. 18254 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 749

The Supreme Court held that unadjudicated claims for interest and damages under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which had not been determined before the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), need not be provided for in a resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed an appeal filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) challenging a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment which had upheld the approval of a resolution plan that excluded EPFO's claims towards interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B of the 1952 Act.

S. 44B Income Tax Act | Cruise Voyages Remain Shipping Business Though Providing Entertainment & Hospitality Services : Supreme Court

Case Title: Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation). v. M/S Star Cruises (India) P. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 750

The Supreme Court held that a foreign cruise ship operator that provides hospitality and entertainment services during a voyage would still qualify as a shipping business under Section 44B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, its taxable income would be computed on a presumptive basis at 7.5% of the specified receipts by an assessee under the provision.

Dismissing the Revenue's appeal, a bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that the expression “carriage” under Section 44B of the Income Tax Act cannot be given a restrictive interpretation limited merely to the transportation of passengers. The Court observed that a cruise vessel remains engaged in the business of carriage even when it provides hospitality, and entertainment services during the voyage, and would therefore continue to be taxable under the presumptive taxation scheme prescribed under Section 44B.

Orders and Other Developments

'Peaceful Protests Constitutionally Protected, Mere Agitation Can't Justify Lathi-Charge': CJI Surya Kant In Pleas Over Jantar Mantar Police Action

Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors. Diary no. 44078/2026 (and connected case)

The Chief Justice of India Surya Kant orally observed that the right to peaceful and lawful protest is constitutionally protected and that mere agitation cannot justify a lathi-charge.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observations on mentioning of a batch of petitions before the Supreme Court, alleging excessive use of police force against students participating in protests across the country over the issue of examination paper leaks.

The Court further observed that allegations of police excess should be independently examined and stressed the need for uniform police protocols for handling demonstrations across the country.

Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha Moves Supreme Court Over Bihar Police Firing On NEET Protesters, Seeks FIRs Against Errant Officers

Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Kumar Jha has approached the Supreme Court seeking registration of FIRs over the alleged use of excessive police force against students who protested July 20 onwards against NEET paper leaks following a call by the Cockroach Janata Party.

The matter filed through AoR Ujjwal Singh was mentioned by Advocate Fauzia Shakil before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

"We have filed a writ petition with comprehensive information, including Bihar firing," Shakil said.

Surendra Gadling Bail Plea: Kapil Sibal Asks Supreme Court To List Matter Before Another Bench After Third Judge's Recusal

Case Title: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No. 3742/2023

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal requested the Supreme Court to assign lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling's bail plea in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case to a different bench, after Justice Shree Chandrashekhar recused from hearing the matter.

The request was mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.

Referring to the earlier listing, Sibal submitted, "I mentioned the other day, Bhima Koregaon, he was granted bail. My Lords listed it, but one of the judges recused."

Transition Of NEET To Computer-Based Testing Requires Consideration: Supreme Court On RJD MP Sudhakar Singh's Plea

Case Details : SUDHAKAR SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 675/2026 Diary No. 30906 / 2026

The Supreme Court (July 27) briefly postponed the hearing of a petition concerning conduct of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) 2026 through a Computer-Based Test (CBT) mode, instead of the existing pen-and-paper format.

The bench hadinitially refused to order National Testing Agency (NTA) to conduct the NEET-UG 2026 re-exam, scheduled on June 21, though CBT. The Top Court had however kept the matter open for the larger issue regarding the transition.

Reiterating that the larger issue requires consideration, a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said that it would hear the matter with two other writ petitions seeking structural reforms within the NEET.

1993 Mumbai Serial Blasts Case: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Abu Salem's Plea Seeking Premature Release

Case: SLP(Crl) No. 12871/2026 Diary No. 41145 / 2026 ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYOOM ANSARI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court reserved orders on a plea filed by gangster Abu Salem, sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, seeking premature release after briefly hearing arguments on whether his earned prison remission and undertrial custody should be counted towards the 25-year imprisonment cap flowing from India's extradition assurances to Portugal.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta orally asked Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for Salem, whether he wanted "a detailed judgment or dismissal simpliciter." The Court, however, reserved its order and permitted the parties to file written submissions and supporting judgments within a week.

Malhotra submitted that despite the TADA Court's categorical direction granting him the benefit of set-off for the period spent as an undertrial, the jail authorities had failed to extend that benefit.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Kapil Sibal's Petition Challenging 10th Schedule Interpretation Allowing Defections As Mergers

Case Details: Kapil Sibal v. Union of India | Diary No. 42846/2026

The Supreme Court (July 27) issued notice to the Union Government in a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal as a party-in-person challenging the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution that permits legislators to avoid disqualification under the anti-defection law by taking the route of a political party merger.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe briefly heard Sibal before issuing notice. At the outset, Justice Narasimha questioned why the Article 32 route has been taken.

Sibal submitted that there are huge repercussions on the polity because, due to mergers, the electoral majority can be turned into a minority verdict. He referred to the Goa matter pending before the Court. "Electoral verdict can be changed through this process. A majority can become minority and a minority can become majority."

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Union Minister Suresh Gopi's Plea Against Kerala HC Refusing To Dismiss Petition Against His Election

Case : Suresh Gopi v. Binoy AS | SLP(c) 18200/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by Union Minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suresh Gopi challenging the Kerala High Court's refusal to dismiss an election petition questioning his 2024 Lok Sabha election from the Thrissur constituency.

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe sought the response of the election petitioner, Binoy AS, an All India Youth Federation leader and a voter from Thrissur, who has challenged Gopi's election.

The appeal assails an April 1 judgment of the Kerala High Court delivered by Justice Kauser Edappagath, which held that the election petition was maintainable and should proceed to trial.

'Why Don't States Provide Protective Gear To Police?' Supreme Court On Pleas Alleging Attack On Cops During Student Protests

In pleas seeking action over alleged police brutality during student protests over NEET paper leaks and irregularities, the Supreme Court indicated that it may enquire from States/UTs as to why adequate safeguard measures, like protective helmets, are not provided to police personnel when handling large demonstrations.

The development came when the pleas were mentioned before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

While the cases were directed to be listed tomorrow, Justice Bagchi responded to a plea by some policemen's families, saying that questions may also be posed to State authorities.

Ayodhya Ram Mandir Theft Case : Supreme Court Asks UP Govt To Include Forensic Auditor In SIT, Seeks Status Report

Cases: Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 790/2026; Ajay Kumar Rai and another v. Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust | WP(Crl) 241/2026; Sudhakar Singh v. Union of India and others | WP (Crl) 256/2026; Hindu Dharma Parishad v. The Union Of India And Ors. | WP(C) No. 827/2026

The Supreme Court asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to include a forensic auditor in the Special Investigation Team constituted by the State to investigate the allegations of embezzlement of the donations received by the Ayodhya Ram Temple Trust.

The Court also directed the SIT to submit a status report regarding its ongoing investigation.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a bunch of petitions seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the allegations of embezzlement of donations received for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir and audit of the temple Trust finances.

Supreme Court Raises Concern Over Recurring Manual Scavenging Deaths, Issues Contempt Notices To 5 State Chief Secretaries

Case Details: DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,|W.P.(C) No. 324/2020

The Supreme Court (July 27) issued notices to the Chief Secretaries of five States asking them to showcause why contempt should not be issued against them for their failure to prevent manual scavenging deaths.

In a long-standing public interest litigation filed by Dr Balram seeking to prevent sewer cleaning and manual scavenging, in October 2023, the Supreme Court passed directions to eradicate the menace. It also enhanced the compensation in cases of sewer deaths to Rs. 30 lakhs. Then, in January 2025, it completely banned manual scavenging and sewer cleaning in six metropolitan cities. Since then, it has been monitoring the matter and issuing necessary directions to the authorities when those directions have not been implemented.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the matter on the developments that have taken place so far. Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar (amicus) submitted that despite the 2023 judgment and the further directions, deaths continue to take place. He submitted that 46 deaths have taken place in 2025, and 54 deaths in 2024 as per the data laid before the Parliament in one of the starred questions.

Kasol Rave Parties : Supreme Court Stays HC Direction For FIR Against Himachal Officers, Upholds Transfer

Case Title: ANURAG CHANDER SHARMA Versus HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS. Diary No. 42382-2026 (and connected case)

The Supreme Court stayed the Himachal Pradesh High Court'sdirectionfor registration of an FIR and constitution of an SIT for departmental proceedings against Kullu's Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police over the administration's 'tacit permission' to rave parties.

The Court however maintained the direction for the two officers' transfer, adding that the direction for transfer be implemented immediately. It was observed that the transfer was necessary for insulating the case from them.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the Kullu DC and SP's pleas against the Himachal Pradesh High Court order which observed that the two officers, as well as the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, failed in their duty of maintaining public order and rather, facilitated the organization of large-scale rave parties.

Delhi Protesters Allege Pellet Injury, Move Supreme Court For Ban On Pellet Guns

Case : Yashovardhan Azan and others v Union of India and others.

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions for decommissioning pellet guns(projectile action guns) by law enforcement for civilian crowd dispersal.

The Article 32 petition has been filed by a former IPS officer, Yashovardhan Azan and two other persons, Prasant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori. Singh and Mansoori claimed to have become victims of the pellets fired by the Rapid Action Force(RAF) during the Sansad Chalo demonstration organised by the Cockroach Janata Party on July 20 over the issue of exam paper leaks.

As per the petition, the Singh and Mansoor witnessed that the RAF had suddenly fired a pump action gun, releasing a wide spray of splinter-like pellets, which had penetrated their bodies, causing immediate pain and bleeding. It has been stated that they were taken to Lady Hardinge Medical College, where they received surgical intervention for removal of pellets lodged in their body. Singh said he had witnessed at least one more person come to the hospital with pellet injuries.

Advocate Moves Supreme Court Alleging Assault By Delhi Cops During Police Station Visit To Meet Detained Student Protesters

An advocate has approached the Supreme Court alleging that he was assaulted and abused by the Delhi police when he visited the Nizamuddin Police Station on July 23 for the release of students detained over their participation in the protests at Jantar Mantar over the exam paper leak issue.

The applicant is Advocate Manik Gupta, who has been practising in various Courts in Delhi, including the Supreme Court. Gupta sought intervention in the writ petition pending in the Supreme Court raising the issue of police force on protesters.

In the application, Gupta said that on the night of July 23, he visited the Nizamuddin station pursuant to the distress calls received from detained students. He alleged that the Station House Officer intimidated him and instructed the other officers to detain him as well. He was then allegedly taken to a room where a police officer pulled his neck, slapped and punched him. When he said that he was a lawyer, he was abused, and the police officer allegedly told him that he would be taught a lesson. As per the complaint, the SHO later called him and threatened to register an FIR against him. The SHO then called the lawyer's father and told him that he was roaming on the streets at night. He was released after his lawyer friends reached the station.

CJP Food Volunteer Junaid Malik Moves Supreme Court Alleging Police Harassment Of Family

Case: IA in Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 283 of 2026

Junaid Malik, who was a food volunteer during the Cockroach Janata Party student protests in Delhi, has moved the Supreme Court alleging that he was illegally detained and harassed by police officials and that his family members were subjected to coercive police action without due process.

Malik claims to be a law graduate and social worker who volunteered at the protest site for 35 days beginning June 20, 2026. According to the application, he coordinated the distribution of food and water but did not hold any formal leadership position in the agitation. The plea states that his work received media attention, following which he allegedly became the target of police action.

In his petition, Malik claims that, on July 24 midnight, when he was returning from RML hospital after taking an anti-rabies injection, he was picked up by police officials from Delhi and kept inside a vehicle for nearly five to six hours. During this period, he alleges that he was threatened and intimidated. His mobile phone was forcefully taken and the officials checked it after forcing him to unlock it.

Student Protest Violence : Supreme Court To Order SIT Probe; Allows States To Investigate FIRs, Bars Coercive Action

Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors. Diary no. 44078/2026 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court observed that there was a need for a fair and independent investigation into the allegations of injuries to the students and police officials during the student protests which took place across the country last week.

The Court hinted that it might constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by a former Supreme Court Judge for the investigation, and sought the responses of the Union, Delhi NCT and the States of Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Kerala.

The Court also passed various interim directions, especially for the release of children below the age of 18 years having no criminal antecedents arrested or detained over the participation in protests.

Transgender Advocate Moves Supreme Court Challenging 2026 Amendment To Transgender Rights Act

Case Details:  ANKANI BISWAS Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 883/2026 Diary No. 38493 / 2026

The Supreme Court (July 28) issued notice on a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the proviso to Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, which excludes those with self-perceived identities from the definition of 'transgender person'.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice to the Union Government. The matter has been tagged with the pending petitions challenging the 2026 amendment act. The matter was argued by Advocate Pritthish Roy.

The petitioner, a transgender advocate practising before the Calcutta High Court, has challenged the proviso to the amended Section 2(k), which says: "provided that it shall not include, nor shall ever have been so included, persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities".

MP Moves Supreme Court Against Police Use Of Facial Recognition Technology & Biometric Surveillance At Protest Sites

Case Details: AA RAHIM M.P. v UNION OF INDIA|Diary No.45049/2026

An Article 32 petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the deployment of facial recognition technology(FRT) and allied biometric-surveillance measures by the Delhi police during the Jantar Mantar protest led by the Cockroach Janta Party.

The petition has been filed by Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, AA Rahim from Communist Party of India(M), Kerala, seeking a declaration that such indiscriminate biometric surveillance in peaceful assemblies is unconstitutional and should be restrained until the Parliament enacts a law validating it.

The main grievance raised in the petition is that the Delhi police carried out surveillance in a complete legal vacuum. It has been argued that neither the Delhi Police standing orders governing protests, nor the Criminal Procedure(Identification) Act, 2022, authorises the biometric surveillance of persons in a civilian assembly.

Supreme Court Pulls Up CBI, Delhi Police EOW Over Failure To File Status Report On Indiabulls Probe

Case Title: CITIZENS WHISTLE BLOWER FORUM v. UNION OF INDIA, SLP(C) No. 2993/2025

The Supreme Court sharply criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW) for failing to update the Court on the progress of investigations into allegations of financial irregularities involving Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, now known as Sammaan Capital Ltd.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana expressed dissatisfaction over the agencies' inaction in a public interest litigation alleging serious financial misconduct, including round-tripping of funds, siphoning of money and violations of the Companies Act by the company's promoters.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the CBI's affidavit filed in January stated that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had already found instances of siphoning of funds. He pointed out that the Delhi Police EOW had registered certain FIRs and that the CBI was considering clubbing five cases flagged by the ED with the Yes Bank investigation.

Air India Crash: AAIB Tells Supreme Court Report Due By October; Pilot Federation Seeks Consideration Of US Firm's Findings

Case Title: PUSHKAR RAJ SABHARWAL AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1031/2025 (and connected cases)

In the Ahmedabad Plane Crash matter, the Supreme Court was informed that simulation tests have been conducted as part of the ongoing Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) enquiry and the final report of the agency would be ready by October.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was informed of the development by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The bench was dealing with a set of pleas seeking independent, Court-monitored investigation into the crash of Air India Flight, which took place shortly after its take off from Ahmedabad airport, killing 260 people, on June 12, 2025. One of the petitions has been filed by the father of pilot-Sumeet Sabharwal, who was flying the ill-fated Air India plane.

At the outset of the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for Sumeet Sabharwal's father and the Federation of Indian Pilots) referred to an application filed bringing on record the findings of a US-based law firm, which has apparently found some discrepancies in the flight data. He claimed that a foreign firm has conducted 10 simulations and found that the RAT, which gets deployed upon takeoff in emergency situation arising from hydraulic/thrust/electronic failure, got deployed on the Air India plane while it was on ground.

Supreme Court Seeks Reports From 5 High Courts On Creation Of Dashboards For Unclaimed Motor Accident & Labour Court Sums

Case Details: IN RE COMPENSATION AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WITH MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALS AND LABOUR COURTS |SMW(C) No. 7/2024

The Supreme Court (July 28) passed an order directing the Registrar Generals of High Courts of Delhi, Allahabad, Madras, Meghalaya and Telangana to file a compliance report regarding the creation of dashboards indicating live updates on amounts lying deposited in connection with motor claims or labour court compensations.

It may be recalled that in April 2025, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued a slew of directions after a letter was addressed by a retired District Judge, BB Pathak, to the Court raising concern that huge amounts of compensation are lying unclaimed before Courts.

It directed that compensation paid to claimants under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is to be directly credited to their bank accounts. One of the directions was that the High Courts, with the help of State governments, shall create a dashboard on which the information regarding amounts lying deposited in connection with the compensation shall be established and regularly updated with details.

Sambhal Mosque Dispute | HC Couldn't Have Upheld Survey Order Due To SC's December 2024 Order : Ahmadi Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JAMI MASJID, SAMBHAL Vs HARI SHANKAR JAIN| SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025(AOR Anil Kumar) and COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, JAMI MASJID SAMBHAL, AHMED MARG KOT SAMBHAL vs. HARI SHANKAR JAIN|SLP (C) 21599/2025 (AOR Fazail Ahmad)

The Supreme Court heard the challenge filed by the Committee of Management of the Jama Masjid in Sambhal against the Allahabad High Court's decision upholding the Trial Court's appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey the mosque, with the mosque committee arguing that the High Court ignored the apex court's December 12, 2024 order restrainingcourts from passing effective interim orders in disputes concerning places of worship.

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Jama Masjid Management Committee.

The bench is hearing the mosque committee's Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court's order, which held that the Hindu plaintiffs' suit against the mosque was not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and upheld the survey order.

Rs 8 Lakh Annual Income Limit For EWS Quota Prima Facie Reasonable, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: NEIL AURELIO NUNES AND ORS.  Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 961/2021

The Supreme Court on July 28 orally remarked that the Rs 8 lakh annual income limit for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation was prima facie reasonable.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing the petitons filed in 2021 challenging the National Testing Agency's 2021 notification providing for  27% quota for Other Backwards Classes and 10% for EWS under the AIQ for medical courses. In Janhit Abhiyan, the Supreme Court in 2022 upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendmentwhich introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.

"You Want Us To Say No Films Can Be Made On Hindu Gods?" : Supreme Court Refuses To Ban 'Mahaprabhu Jagannath' Movie

Case : ELE ANIMATIONS PVT. LTD. Vs MAHESH KUMAR SAHU | SLP(C) No. 23905/2026 Diary No. 41972 / 2026

The Supreme Court rejected the applications seeking a ban on the release of the animation movie 'Mahaprabhu Jagannath'.

The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan refused to modify its earlier order of July 17 which permitted the film's producer to release it after the conclusion of Lord Jagannath Rath Yatra in Puri on July 28. Rejecting the argument that the depiction of Lord Jagannath in cartoon form was offensive, the Court orally remarked that if some people are affected due to their sensitivity, then no art forms can be made on Ramayana and Mahabharata.

The temple trust and a devotee had filed the applications to modify the July 17 order seeking to stop the release of the film.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Trial Court's Order Summoning Ex-PM Manmohan Singh In Coal Block Case, Accepts CBI Clean Chit

Case : Dr Manmohan Singh v. CBI | Crl Appeal 562-563/2015

The Supreme Court quashed the 2015 order of a Special CBI Court summoning former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in a coal block allocation case, holding that the trial court had no justification to reject the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) closure report and take cognizance against him.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana allowed Singh's appeal, accepted the CBI's closure reports giving him a clean chit, and closed the proceedings.

Although Dr. Singh passed away in December 2024, the Court decided to examine the legality of the trial court's order because it contained adverse observations against him.

Supreme Court Dismisses Lokpal's Challenge To Delhi HC Quashing Enquiry Order Against Defence Secretary In NPC Promotion Case

Case Title: LOKPAL OF INDIA Versus RAJESH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 8888/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by the Lokpal of India against the Delhi High Court's quashing of its order for a CBI preliminary enquiry into alleged irregularities in recruitment and promotions within the National Productivity Council.

The High Court had quashed the order, holding that before forming a prima facie opinion regarding an action under Section 20(3) of the Lokpal and Lok Ayukta Act, the Lokpal must give an opportunity of hearing to the public servant. The High Court had set aside the Lokpal's order passed in July 2024 directing a CBI preliminary enquiry into the allegations against Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh during his tenure in 2023 as the Secretary of the DPIIT, under which the NPC functions.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the Lokpal's challenge to the High Court's view, after hearing Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar (for the Lokpal), Senior Advocate Vikas Singh (for the respondents) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

NEET-UG 2026 : Supreme Court Dismisses Candidate's Plea Challenging 6 Answers Of Re-Exam

Case Details: GAYATRI ARUN vs. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY|W.P.(C) No. 000898 / 2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate Gayatri Arun, challenging answers to six questions in the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination conducted on June 21.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the orders refusing to interfere with the results.

It observed: "Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on carefully perusing the material placed on record, we are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution."

'Model Code Of Conduct No Bar To Statutory Appointments': Supreme Court Directs To Fill Information Commissions Vacancies

Case Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ,W.P.(C) No. 436/2018

The Supreme Court said that the prevalence of Model Code of Conduct in a state/UT shall not act as an impediment to statutory appointments, such as, those to State Information Commissions.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a PIL raising the issue of vacancies in Information Commissions across the country.

It noted that in Himachal Pradesh, the selection process for ICs was stated to be completed, but the result was not notified on account of MCC imposed in connection with the municipal elections. In this backdrop, while directing the Himachal Pradesh government to make the appointments within 2 months, it said,

Paper Leak Protests : Bihar Congress Leader Moves Supreme Court Seeking Details Of FIRs Against Students & Restraint On Coercive Actions

An application has been filed by Dr Abul Farah Shazli, District Secretary of the District Congress Committee, Saharsa, Bihar, seeking intervention in the pending writ petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Manoj Kumar Jha concerning allegations of excessive police action during nationwide protests over the alleged NEET examination paper leak.

The intervenor has expressed support for the reliefs sought in the pending writ petition, which seeks an independent investigation into allegations of excessive use of force against student protesters, registration of appropriate criminal cases where warranted, and protection of the constitutional rights of peaceful demonstrators.

According to the proposed intervention, the application has been filed in the larger public interest and is intended to assist the Supreme Court without expanding the scope of the pending proceedings. It states that peaceful protest is an important constitutional freedom and that any allegations regarding disproportionate use of force by law-enforcement agencies deserve a fair, impartial and transparent examination in accordance with law.

Supreme Court Directs States Without Commissioners Under Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act To Make Appointments

Case Title: Rajive Raturi v Union of India and connected matters (Diary Number 9321/2005)

The Supreme Court (29.07.2026) directed several States and Union Territories that are yet to appoint State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities under Section 79 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act) to comply with the mandate within four weeks, warning that any laxity in compliance would be viewed strictly.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of petitions including, Rajive Raturi v Union of Union, on accessibility for persons with disabilities. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Rahul Bajaj pointed out that despite the mandate under Section 79 of the RPWD Act, several States and Union Territories are yet to appoint a State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities - Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Nagaland, Puducherry, Sikkim, and Tamil Nadu.

The Court directed all the States and Union Territories to ensure that a Commissioner is appointed in accordance with Section 79 of the RPWD Act within four weeks. Pressing on its significance, Justice Pardiwala stated, “This direction shall be strictly complied with and none of the states should exhibit any laxity. Laxity, if any, shall be viewed very strictly.” The Court further directed that the Commissioner so appointed must hold the post with independent charge.

Is TET Necessary For Special Educators? Supreme Court Asks Bihar Govt To Clarify

Case Title:Rajneesh Kumar PandeyvUnion of India and Ors., WP (C) No 132/2016

The Supreme Court (28.07.2026) asked whether the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for Special Educators, and directed the Bihar government to file an affidavit answering whether the rules requiring the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) and the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) were amended before notifying the advertisement for the posts of Special Educator in Bihar.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a batch of petitions concerning appointments of Special Educators across states, including Bihar.

Questioning the amicus curiae's contention that TET is a mandatory qualification, the bench observed that in the Bihar rules, there was no such condition prescribed. “Where is the requirement of TET in your rules?”, Justice Datta asked.. It questioned the amicus curiae's contention, observing that the TET requirement in the rules applies to a school teacher, not a special school teacher.

Plea To Ban Pellet Guns : Supreme Court Asks Delhi Govt To Ensure Treatment For Injured Protesters

Case Title: Yashovardhan Azan and Others v. Union of India and Others

While hearing a plea alleging the use of pellet guns by the Rapid Action Force against the student protests in Delhi last week, the Supreme Court passed an interim order directing the Delhi Government to ensure that the injured petitioners and other similarly placed persons are given adequate medical treatment.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the petition filed by former IPS officer, Yashovardhan Azad, and two other persons, Prasant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori. Singh and Mansoori stated that they were victims of pellets fired by the Rapid Action Force(RAF) during the Sansad Chalo demonstration organised by the Cockroach Janata Party on July 20 over the issue of exam paper leaks.

At the outset, Justice Bagchi told Advocate Vrinda Grover, for the petitioners,  that police regulations allow the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances, and without challenging the validity of those regulations, the reliefs might be barred.

TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee Moves Supreme Court Against Calcutta HC Order Denying Foreign Travel Permission For Eye Treatment

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

Trinamool Congress MP and the party's General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court's July 20 order refusing him permission to travel abroad for specialised treatment for an eye condition.

The plea challenges an order passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Sougata Bhattacharya, which declined Banerjee's request to travel overseas for eye treatment during the hearing of a criminal case relating to an alleged provocative speech made in connection with the concluded West Bengal Assembly elections. Rejecting the plea for immediate foreign travel, the High Court directed Banerjee to first undergo a medical examination by specialists at the state-run SSKM Hospital in Kolkata before any decision on overseas treatment could be considered.

The restriction on Banerjee's travel flows from an earlier order passed in the pending criminal case, in which the High Court had granted him protection from coercive action on the strict condition that he would not leave the country without obtaining prior permission from the Court.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann & AAP Leaders On Chandigarh Admin Plea To Revive FIR Over 2020 Protest

Case Title: U.T CHANDIGARH v. BHAGWANT MANN AND ANR., Diary No. 21434-2026; U.T. CHANDIGARH v. AMAN ARORA, Diary No. 40158-2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by the Chandigarh Administration challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decisionto quash an FIR against Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders in connection with a 2020 protest against the electricity tariff hike.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter and sought responses from the respondents.

Appearing for the Chandigarh Administration, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that the High Court had erred in quashing the criminal proceedings despite the allegations disclosing the commission of offences.

Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Review Petitions Challenging 3-Year Practice Mandate For Judicial Service

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and connected cases

The Supreme Court on July 28 reserved its verdict on a batch of review petitions challenging its earlier judgment which made three years of legal practice mandatory for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service through direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division).

The Court also heard a writ petition seeking the relaxationof the 3-year rule for persons with disabilities.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice August George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard submissions from various counsel, intervenors and the amicus curiae before reserving judgment.

Supreme Court Allows IIT Kharagpur Student's Transfer To IIT Roorkee On Medical Grounds

Case : XXX v. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and others | WP(C) 889/2025

The Supreme Court allowed an IIT Kharagpur student to transfer to IIT Roorkee on medical grounds, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan directed IIT Kharagpur to issue the necessary transfer/migration certificate and other documents within one week to enable the student to secure admission at IIT Roorkee. The Court noted that the student was undergoing treatment at Chandigarh for mental health.

The Court had earlier directed AIIMS, New Delhi, to medically evaluate the student and had also asked IIT Roorkee to keep one seat vacant pending consideration of his plea.

Supreme Court Specifies Plot To Be Allotted For Friday Namaz Near Bhojshala

Cases: QUAZI MOINUDDIN Versus HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE (REGD. TRUST NO. 976) AND ORS., Diary No. 32281-2026 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court clarified its earlier interim order in the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula dispute by identifying a specific plot of land adjacent to the disputed Bhojshala complex where members of the Muslim community may offer Friday namaz between 1 pm and 3 pm.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order while hearing an application filed by the Muslim side seeking an appropriate alternate site for offering Friday prayers after the Madhya Pradesh High Court declared the disputed Bhojshala premises to be a temple. The High Court's judgmenthas been challenged before the Supreme Court.

Earlier, while declining to restorethe earlier arrangement at the disputed site, the Supreme Court had directed the State to provide an alternate site near the Bhojshala complex for Friday prayers.

Election Commissioners' Appointment | Can't Presume Prime Minister Will Act Against Democracy : Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Title - Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

During the hearing of the petitions challenging the law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, the Union government argued before the Supreme Court that a constitutional court cannot begin with an assumption that the Prime Minister would act against democratic principles.

Appearing before a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that invalidating the composition of the selection committee on the premise that the Prime Minister and the executive would act in bad faith would undermine the constitutional trust reposed in elected institutions.

The Bench was hearing petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides that the selection committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners shall comprise the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The law was enacted after the Supreme Court in March 2023, in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, directed that until Parliament enacted a law, the Election Commissioners must be elected by a panel comprising the PM, the Opposition Leader and the Chief Justice of India. The petitioners have challenged the law on the ground that it was not an independent appointment process since the executive has a greater say in picking up the ECI members.

Challenge To Election Commissioners' Law : Supreme Court Reserves Order On Larger Bench Reference

Case Title - Dr.

Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases

The Supreme Court reserved its order on the preliminary issue of whether the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 should be referred to a larger Bench.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma reserved orders after hearing detailed submissions from the Union government and the petitioners on the question of reference.

The Centre urged the Court to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench, contending that the petitions raise substantial questions relating to the interpretation of Article 324 of the Constitution and the extent of Parliament's legislative power to prescribe the appointment mechanism for Election Commissioners.

Rape-Murder Of Ghaziabad Girl | Private Hospitals Which Denied Treatment To Victim 'Criminally Negligent', Says Supreme Court

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

In the rape and murder case of a 4-year-old girl in Ghaziabad, where an SIT probe was directed, the Supreme Court orally observed that the private hospitals which denied the minor victim treatment while she was alive were "criminally negligent".

The Court was further informed that the SIT has recommended in its report action against the two private hospitals as well as the Station House Officer concerned.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was apprised of the development by ASG Aishwarya Bhati. The ASG stated that the SHO concerned had been removed from their post and sent to police lines, the police station was taking steps for preservation of CCTV footage for 6 months and a drive had been conducted at the subject area (which was prone to antisocial activities) to clean it and hold activities so that the locals feel it's a recreational area.

Ex-TN Minister Senthil Balaji Moves Supreme Court For Anticipatory Bail In TASMAC Corruption Case

Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Former Tamil Nadu Minister and present MLA V Senthil Balaji has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's dismissal of his anticipatory bail plea in the case over alleged corruption in TASMAC.

The matter was mentioned (afternoon) before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana for urgent listing by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi and Amit Anand Tiwari. The bench agreed to list the matter tomorrow and asked to clear defects if any.

Appearing for Balaji, Sibal and Rohatgi highlighted that the underlying FIR, registered by DVAC, is said to be based on the disclosure of a cognizable offense in an affidavit filed by ED 2 years ago in a case pending before the Supreme Court, and the allegations pertain to the years 2021-2025.

Supreme Court Asks Karnataka Govt To Consider Suggestions Of INTACH & IIT-Roorkee On Preservation Of 2 Mysuru Heritage Buildings

Case Details: G. SATYANARAYANA GOURI SATYA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA., SLP(C) No. 26848/2023

The Supreme Court was (July 30) informed that the State of Karnataka has decided to restore two 19th-century heritage buildings, the Devaraja Market building and Lansdowne Building in Mysuru.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was informed by Dr Aditya Sondhi, Senior Advocate (for the petitioner journalist). The Court was further informed that the State has gone to the extent of inviting expression of interest for the purpose of undertaking necessary repairs and renovation.

The bench passed an order asking the State to look into the suggestions given by Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) and IIT Rorkee.

Reconsider Blanket Ban On Sharing Of Court Clips : RTI Activists Tell Supreme Court

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

The National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) co-convenor Anjali Bhardwaj and transparency activist Amrita Johri have moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the pending case concerning regulation of live-streaming and dissemination of court proceedings, contending that restrictions on sharing official court recordings should be narrowly tailored and must not undermine the constitutional principles of open justice, freedom of speech and the right to information.

The intervention application argues that the Supreme Court's interim order dated July 24, which prohibited extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting or hosting of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrars General of High Courts, has significant constitutional implications and requires reconsideration.

The applicants submit that while concerns regarding manipulation and misuse of court proceedings are legitimate, the solution lies in strengthening official live-streaming and archival mechanisms rather than imposing broad restrictions on citizens and the media.

Supreme Court Restrains MHADA From Issuing Work Order For Bandra Redevelopment Project

Case: M.I.G. Adarsh Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and connected matters

The Supreme Court directed that no work order shall be issued for the proposed MHADA cluster redevelopment project at Bandra Reclamation till 13th August while seeking responses from the State of Maharashtra and other respondents in a batch of petitions challenging the redevelopment scheme.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the respondents to file their counter affidavits within a week, permitted the petitioners to file rejoinders within a week thereafter, and posted the matter for hearing on August 13, 2026.

“Let counter affidavit be filed within a week. Rejoinder affidavit be filed within one week thereafter by petitioner(s). List on 13th August, 2026 to be listed immediately after the fresh matters. Till then, the work order shall not be issued”, the Court said.

'How Is UAPA Attracted Just Because Mob Burnt Police Station?' : Supreme Court Asks Uttarakhand Govt In Haldwani Violence

Case : State Of Uttarakhand Vs Abdul Malik | SLP(Crl) No. 12779/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed the Uttarakhand government's plea challenging the bail granted to Abdul Malik, an accused in the 2024 Haldwani violence case, while expressing serious reservations over the invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the case.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana declined to interfere with the Uttarakhand High Court's order granting bail to Malik, holding that even if the High Court's reasoning was deficient, there was no reason to interfere in a matter concerning personal liberty.

The case arose from the Uttarakhand High Court's April 16, 2026 order granting bail to Malik, who is facing charges under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the UAPA, the Arms Act and other penal statutes in connection with the February 8, 2024 Banbhoolpura violence in Haldwani. The High Court had noted that the investigation itself showed Malik was not present at the spot during the incident and that a co-accused, including his son Abdul Moied, had already been granted bail.

Supreme Court Directs All States/UTs To Constitute 'Board Of Visitors' For Prison Oversight

Case Details: IN RE: DISCRIMINATION INSIDE PRISONS IN INDIA Vs|SMW(C) No. 10/2024 Diary No. 48023 / 2024

The Supreme Court (July 30) passed an order directing the States and Union Territories to set up Board of Visitors (BoVs) in each district, to be headed by the Principal District Judge of that district, as per the Model Prison Manual, 2026.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a suo moto case regarding discrimination based on caste, gender, disability, etc., in prisons, arising from the landmark Sukanya Shantha judgment. Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar was appointed as amicus to continue monitoring certain directions, including that the caste column mentioned in prison details should be deleted.

Muralidhar submitted that a status report pointing out that none of the States and UTs has constituted BoVs, which, as per Clause 29.01 of the Model Prison Manual, 2016, is required to be formed in each district and sub-divisional prison as a principal mechanism of external prison oversight.

'They Have Embraced Freedom' : Omar Abdullah & Wife Agree To Dissolve Marriage, File Application In Supreme Court

Case Details: Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah SLP(C) No. 7427/2024

The Supreme Court was informed that Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir Omar Abdullah and his estranged wife Payal Abdullah have agreed to part ways and have filed an application invoking Article 142 of the Constitution seeking dissolution of their marriage on mutual consent.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe that the parties have "embraced freedom".   "Article 142 filed, my lords may grant divorce," Sibal said.

The bench was informed that the divorce application was filed on July 22. Hearing this, Justice Narasimha said the Court will pass orders accordingly.

Supreme Court Stays Senthil Balaji's Arrest In TASMAC Corruption Case, Asks Him To Cooperate With Probe

Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

The Supreme Court stayed the arrest of former Tamil Nadu Minister and present MLA V Senthil Balaji in the case registered by the Tamil Nadu Vigilance over alleged corruption in the TASMAC, subject to the condition that he cooperates with the investigation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order while hearing Balaji's plea challenging the  Madras High Court'sdismissalof his anticipatory bail plea in the matter. The bench further directed him to deposit his Passport and restrained him from influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Balaji, started by saying that it was a "strange case" and submitted that the FIR was filed in July after the new TVK government came to power, based on an enquiry by the Enforcement Directorate. "The events they say are of 2021-25. There's an affidavit filed by ED in 2025 in this court. The person who filed the affidavit has turned against...because the government changed. FIR filed on 28 July relying on that affidavit"

Indians Died In Russia-Ukraine War : Supreme Court Directs MEA To Aid Families To Bring Mortal Remains & Claim Compensation

Case : DIVYA v. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 451/2026

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to carry out DNA profiling so as to bring back and hand over to the concerned families the dead bodies of Indian nationals who died fighting the Ukraine war as part of Russian Forces.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a writ petition filed by the family members of 26 Indians, who were allegedly forced into the Russian-Ukraine war after they went to Russia in search of job opportunities.

As per allegations, when these nationals went to Russia, their passports and identity documents were illegally seized and they were forced to join the Russian Forces. Most of some of them died in the line of fire during the Russia-Ukraine war. Due to lack of verification, payment of requisite compensation to their families and bringing back of their mortal remains is pending.

Rohini Sindhuri IAS Approaches Supreme Court Against Karnataka HC Direction To Sanction Probe In Cloth Bag Scam

Case Details: ROHINI SINDHURI Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA|SLP(Crl) No. 6794/2026 Diary No. 20460 / 2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on Karnataka IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri's petition challenging the Karnataka High Court's order directing the State to grant sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to investigate the officer in the alleged 'eco-friendly cloth bags procurement' scam.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu issued notice to the State and the complainant.

Notably, the State Government told the Court that they are also opposing the High Court's order.

Supreme Court Raps States/UTs For Not Implementing Healthcare Professions Act Despite 2024 Direction, Sets September Deadline

Case: Joint Forum of Medical Technologists of India (JFMTI) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 983/2023

The Supreme Court has directed the Chief Secretaries and Health Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, along with the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions, to file compliance affidavits detailing the steps taken to implement the provisions of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that its directions issued nearly two years ago for implementation of the Act, including notification of councils and framing of rules and regulations, have still not been fully complied with.

The Court warned that if the directions are not complied with by the next date, the Court would be compelled to require the personal attendance of all concerned officers. The matter has been listed for hearing on September 22, 2026.

Supreme Court Stays CIC Order Holding NSE Amenable To RTI Act

Case Title – National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Central Information Commission & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice in an appeal filed by the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSE) challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment holding that it is a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The High Court had upheld a 2007 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing that the NSE be treated as a public authority under the RTI Act.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed an interim order directing that the operation of the CIC's order would remain stayed. The Court ordered, “Issue notice, returnable within four weeks. In the meantime, the effect and operation of the order dated 7th June, 2007, passed by the Central Information Commission, shall remain stayed” the Court held.

Student Injured In NEET-UG Protest Seeks Supreme Court Directions For Mandatory Police Name Badges, Uniform Crowd-Control SOP

Case Title: IA in Himanshu v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 279 of 2026

An IIT Patna student who claims to have been injured during the police action at the July 20 "Sansad Chalo" protest in New Delhi has moved the Supreme Court seeking directions for a uniform crowd-control protocol and mandatory identification of police personnel deployed at protests.

“The presence and participation of unidentified persons in the use of coercive force against citizens raises serious questions of transparency, accountability and institutional responsibility, particularly when such persons were allegedly acting alongside or in the presence of uniformed police personnel. The circumstances warrant an independent inquiry into the identity, authority and role of each person who participated in the use of force, so as to ensure that no individual responsible for the alleged assault is permitted to evade accountability on account of the absence of proper identification or uniform”, the plea adds.

The plea, filed through Advocate Neha Rathi, seeks to intervene in the pending writ petition concerning the alleged use of excessive force against students protesting over the NEET-UG 2026 controversy. The intervention application has been filed by one Toshiwa Yadav in Himanshu v. Union of India & Ors. pending before the Supreme Court.

Foreign National Can't Be Deported Without Acceptance By Home Country, Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 234/2020

The Union Government informed the Supreme Court that a foreign national whose nationality is unverified cannot be deported unless the person's home country confirms the nationality and agrees to accept them, stating that the deportation process cannot even be initiated without nationality verification.

The submission was made in an affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in the pending writ petition filed by Rajubala Das, which concerns persons declared to be foreigners whose nationality remains unknown. The affidavit has been filed in compliance with the Supreme Court's March 21, 2025 order.

ED Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts On Mere 'Suspicion', 'Reasons To Believe' Mandatory : Supreme Court Affirms Delhi HC Ruling

Cause Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Poonam Malik

The Supreme Court dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's plea against the Delhi High Court's decision which held that an order of freezing of a bank account under Section 17(1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2000 cannot be passed solely on "suspicion" rather a "reasons to believe," must be necessitated before passing an order of freezing.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu refused to interference with the Delhi High Court's interpretation that although Section 17(1A) PMLA does not explicitly use the words 'reason to believe' for freezing orders, the provision cannot be read in isolation from Section 17(1), which requires 'reasons to believe' for search and seizure, thereby necessitating the same standard for freezing orders.

Cauvery Dispute : DMK Moves Supreme Court Seeking Directions To Karnataka For Urgent Water Release

Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. State Of Tamil Nadu , Misc. Appln. in C.A. No. 2453/2007

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has moved the Supreme Court seeking urgent release of Cauvery River water by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu in compliance with the recent directions of the Cauvery Water Management Authority.

The CWMA recently upheld the direction of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee for Karnataka to release 3500 cusecs per day to Tamil Nadu, for 15 days, at the inter-state border at Biligundlu.

22 Years For Murder Trial, 22 More For Appeal: Supreme Court Disturbed By Delay, Seeks Report From Jharkhand Govt & HC

Case Details: Simon Soren v. State of Jharkhand | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 9856/2026

The Supreme Court sought detailed reports from the Jharkhand Government and the Jharkhand High Court over extraordinary delays in the conclusion of a murder trial and the disposal of the ensuing criminal appeal, observing that the lapse of over two decades at each stage was "very disturbing."

The case concerns a petitioner, Simon Soren, who was put to trial for the offence of murder along with the other accused persons in the year 1981. The Trial Court held him guilt in the year 2002 and thereafter his appeal against conviction was decided by the Jharkhand High Court only in 2024.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran lamented at the "disturbing" delay of 44 years in total.