Judgments
Consensual Premarital Physical Relationship Cannot By Itself Reflect Poor Character : Supreme Court Allows Police Appointment
Case Title: Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board & Ors
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 606
The Supreme Court has directed the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a candidate whose selection as a police constable was cancelled due to his involvement in a criminal case arising from a failed romantic relationship, holding that a consensual premarital relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as a reflection of poor moral character.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan allowed the appeal filed by Gajula Thirupathi and restored a Telangana High Court single judge's order directing reconsideration of his appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC).
The appellant had been provisionally selected for appointment as a police constable. However, his candidature was cancelled after the Recruitment Board found that he had earlier been involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The case stemmed from allegations by a woman, who was his neighbour, that he had maintained a relationship with her for several years on a promise of marriage but later married another woman. The criminal case was eventually compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015.
S.27 Evidence Act | Panch Witness Turning Hostile Not Fatal If Recovery Proved By Other Evidence: Supreme Court
Cause Title: UPERNDRA KHARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 607
The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction, noting that mere turning hostile of the panch witness would not be fatal to the prosecution's case to create doubt over the recovery evidence based on the accused's disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act when the recovery evidence was proved otherwise by other corroborative evidence.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale affirmed the concurrent findings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Sessions Court, which had convicted the Appellant for an offence of murder, after finding that the alleged recovery based on the disclosure statements of the accused was sufficiently proved by the Investigating officer's testimony alone, despite the panch witnesses turning hostile.
“Though an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the appellant to submit before this Court that the recovery at the instance of the present appellant is not proved because the panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama turned hostile. We are unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the simple reason that this Court had consistently taken a view that merely on account of the panch witnesses turning hostile cannot be a ground to discard this important piece of evidence, if the recovery is proved through the investigating officer.”, the court observed.
Civil & Criminal Remedies Can Be Invoked For Same Cause, But There Shouldn't Be Inordinate Time Gap Between Them: Supreme Court
Cause Title: NAZIBUL RAHIM KHAN & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 608
The Supreme Court held that an unreasonable and inordinate delay in registering the FIR, after institution of a civil suit on the same set of facts/circumstances, can justify the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
“…it is important to indicate that it is no longer res integra that upon the same cause of action and based on the same set of facts/circumstances, both civil and criminal proceedings can be maintainable. However, if the aggrieved person wishes to invoke civil as also criminal remedies, there should not be an unreasonable or inordinate gap between instituting the two.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan, while quashing a criminal proceeding registered by the Respondent No.2 against the Appellant, after 23 years of the filing of the civil suit.
The Court was not persuaded by the Respondent No.2-complainant's submission that there exists no limitation period for initiating criminal proceedings. The Court questioned that when the complainant instituted the civil suit in 2001 disputing the role of the Appellant in the power of attorney to execute the sale deed of her land, then what precluded her from not registering the FIR immediately within few days of the institution of the civil suit, and why did she waited for 23 years to register the FIR only in 2024, on the same set of facts/allegations, on which the civil suit was instituted.
Supreme Court Summarises Law On Approver's Testimony, Says Corroboration Not Mandatory For Accomplice's Evidence
Cause Title: GOPI CHAND @ PAPPU VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 609
The Supreme Court observed that even where an accomplice's testimony is not independently corroborated on material particulars, it may still form the basis of a conviction if the court finds it credible, trustworthy, and reflective of a full and truthful account of the events surrounding the commission of the offence.
“One of the necessary tests is that his (approver) testimony must be inculpatory and not exculpatory. However, if his testimony is not entirely exculpatory and makes a full and complete disclosure of the events qua commission of the crime, which inspires confidence i.e., appears truthful in the context of proven circumstances, his testimony cannot be discarded as one lacking credibility merely because he does not implicate himself to the extent he implicates the other co-accused.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra.
The Court clarified that though Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 renders an uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice to be sufficient to sustain a conviction, however, the same cannot be read in isolation, as illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act adds a note of caution that testimony of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless it is corroborated in material particulars.
Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Suit Can Be Decreed On Admission Only If It's Clear, Unequivocal And Unconditional: Supreme Court
Cause Title: PUSHPA & ORS. versus DAYAWATI & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 610
The Supreme Court held that unless an admission is clear, categorical and unconditional, a judgment on admission cannot be sustained under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court said that a mere referencing of inconsistencies in the statements may not amount to an admission when there exist disputed factual circumstances, which require adjudication in a full-fledged trial.
"The term “admission” has been defined under Sections 17 and 18 of the Evidence Act, 1872, an admission is a statement which suggests any inference as to a fact in issue or relevant fact and is made by a party to the proceeding or by a person authorised by such party however every statement made by a party cannot automatically result in a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. Thus, the admission must be categorical, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal."
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard an appeal arising from a Hindu family dispute concerning the distribution of sale proceeds from a jointly owned agricultural property. The property was sold for approximately ₹15.31 crore, and each co-owner was entitled to a 1/6th share, amounting to approximately ₹2.55 crore. In his written statement, defendant No. 3 admitted that under a family settlement, each party had received ₹3 crore from the sale proceeds.
IBC | Delay In Re-Filing Defective Appeal After Curing Defects Cannot Be Condoned : Supreme Court
Cause Title: CA RAMCHANDRA DALLARAM CHOUDHARY VERSUS ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 611
The Supreme Court has observed that once the statutory limitation period of a maximum of 60 days prescribed under Section 62 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for filing an appeal, followed by a period of 28 days to cure the defects in an appeal under the Supreme Court Rules, gets over, then the right to re-appeal stands extinguished.
“…no litigant can be permitted to subvert the statutory scheme by seeking condonation of re-filing delay beyond the period of 28 (twenty-eight) days after having initially lodged a defective appeal. Once the window of 60 (sixty) days prescribed by the IBC, followed by the window of 28 (twenty-eight) days in re-filing the appeal upon curing of defects permitted by the SCR is shut, the right to appeal stands extinguished.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
In other words, the Court said:
Acquittal In Rape Case Doesn't Bar Scientific Determination Of Paternity : Supreme Court Upholds DNA Test Order
Cause Title: C VERSUS A& ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 612
The Supreme Court held that a DNA test may be directed in a paternity dispute even where the alleged father was previously acquitted in a criminal rape case, observing that scientific evidence becomes indispensable when no other evidence can conclusively resolve the question of biological parentage.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal filed by a man challenging concurrent orders of the trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court directing him to undergo DNA profiling to determine whether he is the biological father of a 27-year-old man who claims inheritance rights in his property.
The dispute traces its origins to 1999. The first respondent was born in September 1999, claims to be the son of the Appellant as a result of a relationship between the latter and his mother. The Appellant has consistently denied paternity.
'SARFAESI Timeline Mandatory' : Supreme Court Cancels Auction Sale After 16 Yrs Over 5-Day Delay In Payment Of Balance
Case : MR Vasumathi v The Authorized Officer
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 613
The Supreme Court has quashed a 16-year-old auction sale of a mortgaged property, holding that non-compliance with the mandatory timelines prescribed under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, rendered the sale legally unsustainable.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal filed by the daughter of a deceased guarantor whose property had been auctioned by Indian Bank under the SARFAESI Act.
The dispute arose from a loan availed by a borrower in 1984, for which G. Ramanujam had stood as guarantor and mortgaged his property. After default by the borrower and recovery proceedings, the bank initiated action under the SARFAESI Act in 2009 and auctioned the secured asset on March 11, 2010. The successful bidder purchased the property for ₹2.11 crore.
'Left Free To Live As Spouses' : Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Conviction After Convict & Victim Marry
Case Details: MARUTHUPANDI v STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 614
The Supreme Court set aside a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, after the accused and the victim arrived at a settlement by marrying each other and after the accused offered her compensation.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar set aside the conviction invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court took note of the peculiar circumstances of the case that the accused and the victim solemnised their marriage after the victim attained the age of majority. The Court also ordered the accused to pay Rs. 10,00,000 to the victim as compensation.
Clarifying that the order shall not be treated as precedent, the Court observed: "Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and on the basis of subsequent events the conviction and sentence as directed by Sessions Court confirmed by the High Court stand set aside. The appellant and the victim are left free to live their life peacefully in society as spouse."
Is 3rd Judge Hearing Criminal Appeal After Split Verdict Bound By Views Of Previous Bench? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench
Case Title: Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 615
The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench an important question concerning the powers of a third judge hearing a criminal appeal under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after expressing reservations about the correctness of its earlier ruling in Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 1 SCC 315.
The Court has referred to the larger Bench the question whether a third judge hearing a criminal appeal under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can overturn findings on which the two judges of a Division Bench had unanimously agreed while resolving a difference of opinion in the case.
As per Section 392 CrPC, if two judges of a division bench hearing a criminal appeal disagree on the outcome, the matter will be referred to a third judge.
Doctrine Of Forum Non Conveniens Rarely A Ground To Deny Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226(1): Supreme Court
Case: Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 616
The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens would not ordinarily apply when a litigant invokes the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226(1) of the Constitution, which allows writ petitions to be filed against authorities located within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court that otherwise has jurisdiction over a dispute to decline to hear it if another court is considered a more appropriate or convenient forum for adjudication.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the doctrine has limited application in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and would rarely justify a High Court refusing to entertain a writ petition where jurisdiction is invoked under Article 226(1).
CAPF Personnel Can Approach Delhi High Court For Service Disputes Though Cause Of Action Arose Outside : Supreme Court
Case: Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 616
The Supreme Court has held that members of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), including the Border Security Force (BSF), can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court in service matters even when the cause of action arises outside Delhi, owing to the location of the offices of the Union of India and the respective force headquarters in the national capital.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by BSF constable Baksish Ahmad, whose writ petition challenging his dismissal from service had been rejected by the Delhi High Court on the ground of "forum non conveniens".
The Court observed:
'Homemakers Are Nation Builders' : Supreme Court Quantifies Homemaker Contribution As Rs 30K Per Month In Motor Accident Claims
Case : SHISHUPAL @ SHISH RAM AND ORS. v. SURJEET AND ORS | SLP(C) No. 33915/2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 617
The Supreme Court has held that the loss of domestic care provided by a homemaker constitutes a distinct and compensable head of damages in motor accident claims, while quantifying the value of such domestic services at a minimum of Rs. 30,000 per month.
The Court ordered :
"We deem it appropriate to direct that when a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or this Court is concerned with or a case involving the death of a homemaker, in order to overcome the inherent disadvantage accrued against the homemaker on a calculation of compensation on the basis of conservatively computed notional income and while being acutely aware of the dictum in Pranay Sethi (supra) regarding loss of consortium asregarding loss of consortium as also the disposition towards uniformity, that for the three major heads (the homemaker's contribution towards smooth functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support for children and loss of spousal support/the support and care of their child who is an adult, for the parents of the deceased) ..., a composite sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be added under the head of 'loss of domestic care', provided that all three of these heads are met in the given case. This determination shall be revised by 10%, cumulatively, every three years
In Judgment On Homemakers, Supreme Court Cites 2023 Handbook Which CJI Surya Kant Called 'Too Harvard-Oriented'
Case : SHISHUPAL @ SHISH RAM AND ORS. v. SURJEET AND ORS | SLP(C) No. 33915/2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 617
The Supreme Court (June 11) delivered alandmark judgmentwhich recognized homemakers' contribution as 'nation builders', and directed that their contribution must be quantified a minimum as Rs 30,000 per month.
The Court held that when a homemaker dies in a motor vehicle accident, the loss of domestic care must be separately awarded as a head of compensation, quantified at Rs 30,000 per month.
It is notable that in this judgment, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh quoted from the Handbook prepared by the Supreme Court in 2023to address gender stereotypes in judicial proceedings. The Handbook, prepared during the term of the then CJI DY Chandrachud, advised to avoid the use of the word "housewife" and use "homemaker" instead.
'Average Pendency Of 6 Yrs In MACTs' : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Expedite Motor Accident Compensation Claims
Case : SHISHUPAL @ SHISH RAM AND ORS. v. SURJEET AND ORS | SLP(C) No. 33915/2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 617
Expressing concern over chronic delays in motor accident compensation cases across the country, the Supreme Court has issued a series of directions aimed at expediting proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and High Courts.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh noted that an analysis of over a hundred motor accident compensation cases decided by the Supreme Court revealed that the average pendency before Claims Tribunals was approximately six years, while appeals remained pending in High Courts for around eight years.
"The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to state the obvious, is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing just and fair compensation. Both of these salutary values are denuded by long pendency," the Court observed.
Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Psychological Evaluation Of Children In Custody Disputes
Case Title – Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 618
The Supreme Court laid down a set of broad principles for courts dealing with requests for psychological or psychiatric evaluation of children in custody, visitation and parental access disputes, holding that “minimum intrusion” into a child's life should be the norm and courts must remain sensitive to the risk of re-traumatisation.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh made the observations in a case involving a custody dispute where the child is also an alleged victim of sexual abuse. The Court clarified that its observations are not intended to be exhaustive or inflexible guidelines to be applied mechanically in every case. Instead, they are intended to assist courts dealing with similar disputes involving the psychological welfare of children.
The broad principles in the judgment are –
Courts Must Order Psychological Assessment Of Child Only If Necessary; Minimum Intrusion Should Be Norm: Supreme Court
Case Title – Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 618
The Supreme Court observed that psychological assessments of children involved in custody, visitation and parental access disputes should be ordered only when necessary and "minimum intrusion" into a child's life should be the norm, particularly where the child is an alleged victim of sexual abuse.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh made the observations while modifying orders of the Bombay High Court that had directed the constitution of a panel of psychologists and experts to evaluate a minor child who is also an alleged victim of sexual abuse by her father.
The Court clarified that it was not dealing with the merits of the sexual abuse allegations. However, while examining the issue of psychological evaluation, it referred to the objectives of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), which proceeds on the fundamental premise that a child who has suffered sexual abuse should not be exposed to processes capable of causing further emotional harm or secondary victimisation.
'Patriarchal Preference For Male Child Continues' : Supreme Court Calls For Strict Enforcement Of Sex-Selection Prohibition
Case Title – Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 619
Observing that sex-selection practices continue to persist in India, the Supreme Court tressed that welfare legislation such as the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) must continue to be enforced strictly.
“It is true that in general terms, the declining sex ratio issue is better and has shown considerable improvement but, however, diluting the provisions of law, or letting infractions thereof slide cannot be countenanced”, the Court said.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra noted that while several indicators, such as sex ratio, have improved over the years, the country's progress remains incomplete and uneven. The Court observed that while much progress had been made since the enactment of the PCPNDT Act, much still remains to be achieved before concerns about the birth of a girl child become a thing of the past.
'Mere Non-Communication With Wife Not Cruelty' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Husband's S.498A Conviction Over Wife's Suicide
Case Details: JAYESH KANNA v THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LAW AND ORDER (WEST) ETC|CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2382 - 2383 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 620
The Supreme Court held that merely because a husband refused to talk to his wife for 13 days doesn't, in any stretch of imagination, amount to cruelty. It remarked that differences in marital life are a part and parcel of it, and such differences may result in non-communication.
Consequently, a bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar set aside a conviction and sentence of a husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (cruelty by husband or relatives). It allowed his passport to be returned to him.
It said: "Therefore, in absence of any material, mere non-communication with the deceased for thirteen days, without substantiating the same with cogent evidence, cannot, in any stretch of the imagination, fall within the ambit of cruelty in the facts of this case. Differences in marital life are a part and parcel of it and such differences may result in non-communication, but it is not even a case where there was some quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased, due to which, the Appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court."
Injury Due To Tree Fall On Stationary Vehicle Not 'Motor Accident'; Can't Lodge MACT Claim : Supreme Court
Case: The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 621
The Supreme Court ruled that injuries caused by the fall of a roadside tree branch on a stationary autorickshaw during heavy rain do not constitute an accident arising out of the "use of a motor vehicle" for the purposes of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Nevertheless, considering the grave injuries suffered by the victim, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded to him from ₹17.10 lakh to ₹25 lakh by exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing an appeal filed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) against a Karnataka High Court judgment that had apportioned liability for compensation among the municipal corporation, the insurer of the autorickshaw and the State Horticulture Department.
The case arose from an incident in June 2007 when respondent K.K. Umesh Kumar was travelling in an autorickshaw from Queens Road to Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru. Owing to heavy rain, the vehicle was stopped by the roadside. While it was stationary beneath an old tree, a branch detached and fell on the autorickshaw, causing severe injuries to the passenger.
Revocation Of Probate Governed By Article 137 Of Limitation Act As Succession Act Prescribes None: Supreme Court
Cause Title: DHIRAJ DUTTA VERSUS ANIRBAN SEN & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 622
The Supreme Court has held that since the Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not prescribe any limitation period either for seeking probate of a Will or for filing an application to revoke a probate already granted, such proceedings would be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a three-year limitation period for applications where no specific period is prescribed.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Dhiraj Dutta and holding that an application moved in 2022 for revocation of a probate granted in 1995 was barred by limitation.
"The ISA does not provide any limitation for grant of probate or to move an application for the revocation thereof and as such recourse must be made to Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963," the Court observed.
High Court Registrar General Cannot Suo Motu Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer : Supreme Court
Case : HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Vs DEEPALI SHARMA | SLP(C) No. 16520/2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 623
The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer cannot be initiated unless they are authorised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by a committee of judges constituted by the Chief Justice, ruling that the Registrar General has no independent authority to suo motu commence such action.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the reinstatement of a Civil Judge in Uttarakhand who had been dismissed from service following departmental proceedings over allegations that she had physically abused a minor girl employed as domestic help at her residence.
The Court, however, clarified that it was not examining the merits of the allegations or the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry, instead deciding the case on the threshold issue of whether the proceedings themselves were validly initiated.
Dismissal Is Severest Punishment; Must Be Imposed Only For Grave Misconduct : Supreme Court
Case Details: SUREKHA DOMAJI BELE v EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TESTING DIVISION, MSEDCL|DIARY NO. 11294 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 624
The Supreme Court observed that dismissal from service is one of the harshest forms of punishment; therefore, it must only be imposed by the disciplinary authority after duly considering relevant factors such as the nature and gravity of the misconduct, long service rendered, record, age, absence of financial loss to the company, etc. It also said that the period of suspension pending inquiry can't be imposed as a second punishment over and above dismissal.
'We Can't Be Mute Spectator In Matters Of Voiceless Animals': Supreme Court Orders Protection Of Kerala's Tallest Elephant
Case: Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 625
The Supreme Court has directed the Kerala Government to take over the custody of a captive elephant named Raman and house it in an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation centre, observing that courts "cannot be a mute spectator" when it comes to the welfare of voiceless animals.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order while holding a Kerala resident guilty of contempt of court for violating an undertaking given before the Court that the elephant would not be used for temple or commercial activities pending adjudication of a custody dispute.
"It is truly unfortunate that the elephant in question, Raman, who also happens to be the tallest elephant in the State of Kerala, has been subjected to commercial exploitation despite an order restraining such exploitation, that too on the strength of an undertaking made before this Court. We would be failing in our duty towards the voiceless, if we turn a blind eye towards such defiance. We cannot be a mute spectator, more so in matters pertaining to voiceless animals, whose wellbeing is also of paramount importance," the Court observed.
Orders and Other Developments
CBSE Exam | 'This Is About Child's Career' : Supreme Court Seeks CBSE Response On Gulf Student's Plea To Declare Class XII Improvement Result
Case Details: PRANSU JIGARKUMAR PATEL Vs THE UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 747/2026 Diary No. 35131 / 2026
The Supreme Court issued notice in a writ petition filed by an overseas student from Saudi Arabia, who sought directions to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to declare his Class XII Improvement Examination result.
The petition filed by Pransu Jigarkumar Patel challenges CBSE's failure to declare his result despite an assessment scheme framed for students whose examinations in several Gulf countries were cancelled because of the prevailing security situation in the region. CBSE declared Class XII results on May 13, 2026, and the petition states that Patel's result was not declared and his status was shown as “R.L. (Result Later)”.
The petition states that no clarification has been provided on whether private candidates appearing for improvement examinations are covered by the assessment scheme. He has contended that private candidates affected by the cancellation of examinations in West Asian countries due to war-related tensions are entitled to the benefit of CBSE's special assessment scheme. He had approached the Delhi High Court, which refused to entertain his plea.
'Imposition Of Hindi In South & Sanskrit In North' : Ex-MP Fauzia Khan Moves Supreme Court Against CBSE's 3-Language Mandate
An intervention application has been filed in the ongoing matter challenging the decision of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to make a third language compulsoryfor Class 9th students from July 1st onwards this year.
The intervenor, Dr. Fauzia Khan, an educationist and former Member of Parliament and ex-Maharashtra minister, contends that the circular is unreasonable because, while it may ostensibly appear to promote the preservation of India's linguistic heritage by mandating native languages, it fails to provide the necessary institutional framework for their meaningful study. As a result, she argues, the policy merely imposes a formal compliance burden on students, even as the genuine heritage and scholarly traditions associated with those languages continue to decline.
The intervention is filed in the public interest litigation (Yashica Bhandari Jain & Ors v UOI) in which the Supreme Court had earlier sought the response of the Union, the NCERT and the CBSE.
No Forgery Merely Because Person Executed Document Wrongly Claiming Ownership Of Property : Supreme Court
Cause Title: BHIKHUBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
The Supreme Court has observed that a person does not commit forgery merely by executing a document asserting ownership over a property, even if that claim is subsequently found to be legally unsustainable.
“…when a person executes a document claiming property as his own, there is no making of a false document merely because the claim is ultimately found to be incorrect.”, the Court held in approval with Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751.
In Mohd.Ibrahim, it was held :
MCD's Negligence Led To Saket Building Collapse : Amicus Tells Supreme Court, Seeks Action Against Officials
Case Details: LOGANATHAN v THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU|MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 17103/2026
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi's (MCD) repeated failure to act against unauthorised construction at a Saket building despite years of violations ultimately resulted in its collapse, causing six deaths and multiple injuries, Court-appointed amicus curiae Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha has told the Supreme Court.
In an intervention application filed before the Court, Sinha alleged that civic authorities "turned a blind eye" to illegal construction activities at Plot No. 261, Western Marg, Said-ul-Azaib, New Delhi, even though the property had repeatedly been booked for unauthorised construction since 2015. He has sought directions requiring the MCD and Delhi Police to explain how the illegal structure was allowed to continue and what action has been taken against officials responsible.
The application has been moved in the ongoing proceedings concerning rampant violations of building bye-laws and unauthorised conversion of residential premises into commercial establishments across the country.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To 72 Year Old Man Whose Conviction Was Upheld By Allahabad HC After 41 Years
Case Details: VIJAY SINGH v STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH|Diary No. 23605-2026
The Supreme Court flagged the flagrant delay of 41 years by the Allahabad High Court in disposing of a criminal appeal against a murder conviction.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul Chandurkar issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh in a special leave petition preferred by the convict challenging the Allahabad High Court's February 9 order dismissing his criminal appeal against conviction.
The appellant, Vijay Singh, was 28 years old when he was convicted by a Trial Court in Kanpur for the murder of his brother that took place in 1983. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in December 1985. Singh had immediately challenged his order of conviction and sentencing before the Allahabad High Court.
Supreme Court Sets Aside MP HC Direction To Trial Courts To Examine Sanctioning Authority Before Framing Charges In Corruption Cases
Case Title – State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ravi Shankar Singh
The Supreme Court set aside directions issued by the MP High Court requiring trial courts to examine sanctioning authorities under Section 311 of the CrPC before framing charges in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), holding that courts cannot create a new procedural stage not contemplated by criminal law.
A bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice Atul Chandurkar held that the CrPC lays down a complete procedure for the conduct of criminal trials and that courts cannot, through judicial directions, compel trial courts to depart from that procedure.
“A new stage in trial cannot be introduced by judicial fiat. Trial in a criminal case, including in offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, has to be conducted in the manner provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS read with the provisions contained in PC Act. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Contribution of India cannot rewrite the Code of Criminal Procedure and direct all the sessions court/special courts under PC Act to examine the sanctioning authority even before framing of charge or commencement of trial”, the Court held.
Congress Member Meenakshi Natarajan Moves Supreme Court Against Rejection Of Rajya Sabha Candidature
Case Details : Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India | Diary No.36330/2026
Meenakshi Natarajan of the Indian National Congress has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh.
The matter is likely to be mentioned morning for urgent listing.
Reportedly, Natarajan's application was rejected by Returning Officer Arvind Sharma, following allegations that she had "hidden" details of a criminal case pending against her in Telangana in the nomination papers.
Supreme Court To Hear Congress's Meenakshi Natarajan Plea Against Rejection Of Rajya Sabha Candidature Tomorrow, Questions Maintainability
Case Details : Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India | Diary No.36330/2026
The Supreme Court agreed to list tomorrow the writ petition filed by Congress member Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha candidature from Madhya Pradesh.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar agreed to list the matter after an oral request by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for an urgent hearing.
'My Son Appeared For Govt In Connected Matter' : Justice PK Mishra Recuses From Jacqueline Fernandez Plea In ED Case
Case : JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT | SLP(Crl) No. 11208/2026
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra of the Supreme Court recused from hearing actor Jacqueline Fernandez's plea challenging a Delhi court order framing charges against her in the ₹200 crore money laundering case linked to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekar.
A Bench comprising Justice PK Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar was hearing the matter when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that he was appearing for the respondent(ED).
At that stage, Justice Mithal observed that in a connected matter, his son had appeared for the government. "In a connected manner, my son appeared for the government. It has to go before a different Bench," Justice Mishra said.
Supreme Court Stays Allahabad HC Order To Centre To Assess Suitability Of UP Home Secretary Sanjay Prasad
Case Details: SANJAY PRASAD Vs MEGHA RAIKWAR|Diary No. 35822 / 2026
The Supreme Court(June 11) stayed the Allahabad High Court's order criticising the conduct of Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad IAS, and referring his file to the Dept of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for the assessment of his suitability for future assignments by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).
The bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul S Chandurkar stayed the order while hearing a petition filed by Sanjay Prasad against the High Court's adverse remarks and directions.
It may be recalled that on June 3, a stern order was passed by Justice Vinod Diwakar of the Allahabad High Court, who took exception to the "deliberate and calculated attempt" of Prasad, serving as Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of UP, to undermine the authority of the Court.
CBSE Class XII Board Exam : Centre Tells Supreme Court It's Making Policy For Results Of Private Students From West Asia
Case Details: PRANSU JIGARKUMAR PATEL Vs THE UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 747/2026 Diary No. 35131 / 2026
The Supreme Court was informed that the Union Government is planning to bring some policy to accommodate private students from West Asia whose results coud not be declared by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) due to the prevailing war in West Asia.
It may be recalled that the Court has been hearing a writ petition filed by an overseas student from Saudi Arabia, who sought directions to the CBSE to declare his Class XII Improvement Examination result. The matter will be taken up next Friday.
The petition filed by Pransu Jigarkumar Patel challenges CBSE's failure to declare his result despite an assessment scheme framed for students whose examinations in several Gulf countries were cancelled because of the prevailing security situation in the region. CBSE declared Class XII results on May 13, 2026, and the petition states that Patel's result was not declared and his status was shown as “R.L. (Result Later)”.
Supreme Court Dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan's Plea Against Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection, Allows Her To File Election Petition
Case Details: MEENAKSHI NATARAJAN Vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 766/2026 Diary No. 36330 / 2026
The Supreme Court (June 12) dismissed the writ petition filed by Congress member Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha candidature from Madhya Pradesh, and gave her liberty to raise the challenge in an election petition filed in terms of the Representation of the People Act.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar declined the exercise of its writ jurisdiction citing the Constitutional bar as per Article 329. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as non-maintainable.
The bench rejected the argument of the petitioner that Article 32 can be invoked to cure "glaring and manifest" errors in the rejection of nomination.
Supreme Court Appoints Justice Kurian Joseph As Mediator In Rohini Sindhuri IAS-Roopa Moudgil IPS Defamation Dispute
Case Title – Rohini Sindhuri v. Roopa Divakar Moudgil
The Supreme Court referred the long-running defamation dispute between IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri and IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil, both serving in Karnataka, to mediation, remarking that both officers were harming each other's careers through continued litigation.
A bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva expressed the view that the dispute could be resolved through mediation instead of prolonged court proceedings. Accordingly, the Court appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as mediator to facilitate a settlement between the two officers.
“Both of them are destroying each other's careers”, Justice Sharma remarked.