Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: March 30 To April 05, 2026

Judgments

Govt Can Withdraw Tax Concession Given To Industry In Public Interest : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Maharashtra & Others v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 304

The Supreme Court has observed that tax concessions granted by the government create no indefeasible right on the recipient to claim it indefinitely, and the government can withdraw such concessions in the public interest.

“The recipient of a concession has no legally enforceable right against the Government to grant of a concession except to enjoy the benefits of the concession during the period of its grant. This right to enjoy is a defeasible one, in the sense, that it may be taken away in exercise of the very power under which the exemption was granted”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while allowing the Maharashtra Government's appeal against the captive power generators, upholding the government's decision to withdraw the tax benefits received by them for generating captive power (power that is generated by the industry for their own purpose, without relying on grid supply).

The dispute arose from electricity duty exemptions granted by the State of Maharashtra since 1994 under Section 5A of the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 to encourage captive power generation by industries.

Can Foreign Arbitral Award Be Challenged In India On Grounds Rejected By Seat Court? Supreme Court Explains 'Transnational Issue Estoppel'

Case Details: Nagaraj v. Mylandla v. Pi Opportunities Fund-I and Others Etc.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 305

The Supreme Court has held that enforcement of a foreign arbitral award cannot be blocked on “public policy” grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the issue has already been finally decided by the seat court, and Indian courts cannot re-examine the merits under the guise of enforcement, due to the applicability of the doctrine of 'transnational issue estoppel'.

“we must necessarily bear in mind that though the grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act would have to be applied independently, in the course of such an exercise by the enforcement court in India, a party which has failed in its challenge to the arbitral award before the seat court cannot seek to reopen factual issues that were argued on merits and settled by such court once again before the enforcement court. One must remember that it is the sovereign commitment of India to honour foreign awards, except on the exhaustive grounds provided under Article V of the New York Convention.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran.

In essence, the Court said that “a merits-based evaluation cannot be resorted to by the enforcement court and it cannot reopen factual issues which were conclusively settled on merits by the decision of the seat court.”

Delay In Filing Complaint Can Be Fatal In Matrimonial Disputes: Supreme Court Quashes 498A, Dowry Harassment Case Against In-Laws

Case Details: Charul Shukla v. State of U.P. & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Emphasising that unexplained delay in initiating criminal proceedings can be fatal in matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court quashed a dowry harassment case against a woman's parents-in-law and sister-in-law, holding that a delay of nearly seven years without sufficient explanation cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case.

The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order which had refused to quash the FIR, observing that vague and omnibus allegations without corroborative material cannot justify continuation of criminal prosecution against relatives of the husband.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that in matrimonial and family disputes, where evidence is often limited and relationships are deeply personal, timely reporting of alleged offences assumes critical importance to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings. The Court noted that citizens who allege commission of an offence should pursue their remedies in real time, as the law assists those who are vigilant about their rights.

'Trust Property Matter Of Public Concern': Supreme Court Restores Criminal Case Over Sale of CSI Church Land In Andhra

Case Details: State of Andhra Pradesh v. B Reddeppa Reddy & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 308

The Supreme Court has restored criminal proceedings in a case concerning the alleged fraudulent sale of land belonging to the Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA), holding that property held in trust for the community cannot be treated as a purely private matter and that any irregularity in its alienation is a matter of legitimate public concern.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order quashing criminal proceedings against several accused persons in connection with the transfer of 7.75 acres of church trust land at Ananthapuramu.

The Court underscored the public character of trust property, observing that even though such property may be administered by a corporate body, it is essentially held for the benefit of the community at large.

Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies To S.11 Arbitration Act; Fresh Arbitration Barred After Abandoning Earlier Claim : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 310

The Supreme Court has observed that a party who abandons an earlier arbitration proceeding would be barred from initiating a subsequent arbitration proceeding on the same cause of action. The Court underscored that such conduct amounts to an abuse of the judicial process and is barred on grounds of public policy.

“A litigant cannot be permitted to abuse the process of Court to file a fresh proceeding again on the same cause of action. The bar contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code which applies to proceeding under Section 11 of the Act is founded on Public Policy.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while setting aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order which had allowed the Respondent's subsequent application seeking appointment of arbitration under Section 11(6), despite abandoning the earlier arbitral proceedings.

The dispute arose from a joint venture for the purchase of 550 marlas of land in Hoshiarpur, Punjab, through a bank auction, with financing routed via a joint company. The parties executed three agreements in April 2013 governing their rights, all containing an arbitration clause.

Karnataka Stamp Act | Court Has No Discretion To Impose Penalty Below Ten Times Deficit Duty: Supreme Court

Case Details: Krishnavathi Sharma v. Bhagwandas Sharma and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 310

The Supreme Court has observed that when courts determine a deficiency in stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, they have no discretion to impose a penalty lower than ten times the duty.

“There is no discretion insofar as the quantum of penalty is concerned when the instrument is sought to be admitted in evidence before court without transmitting it to the District Commissioner.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran, while setting aside that part of the Karnataka High Court's decision, which had exempted the lessee-bank from the payment of penalty (to be ten times the deficient duty), as mandated under first proviso of Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act (Act”).

The ruling arose from a partition suit filed in 2008 among family members of a deceased businessman. During trial proceedings in December 2023, the plaintiffs sought to rely on two lease documents executed in January and February 2008 in favour of Indian Overseas Bank.

'Instead Of Having Casteless Society, We're Dividing Society' : Supreme Court On Plea For Enumeration Of DNT Tribes In Census

Case Details: Dakxinkumar Bajrange v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 334/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 312

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking a distinct enumeration of the Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-nomadic Tribe (DNT) communities in the 2027 census.

Observing that the matter was a policy decision and was not a justiciable issue, the Court disposed of the matter, while giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authorities.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by Dakxinkumar Bajrange, a DNT community leader, and others.

S. 197 CrPC | Subsequent Extension Of Sanction Requirement Won't Invalidate Cognizance Taken When There Was No Bar : Supreme Court

Case Details: Samarendra Nath Kundu & Anr. v. Sadhana Das & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 314

The Supreme Court (April 1) observed that a later extension of sanction protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked to defeat proceedings that were initiated at a time when no such bar existed.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra upheld the criminal proceedings against a subordinate rank officer of the Calcutta Police force, against whom cognizance of an offence was taken before the extension of the benefit of Section 197 CrPC to all subordinate rank officers of the Calcutta Police.

The bench upheld the Calcutta High Court's ruling, noting that since on the date of commission of an alleged offence (in the year 2000), no sanction was required to prosecute the Appellant, a subsequent notification (issue in 2010) extending the benefit of Section 197 CrPC to the Appellant cannot nullify the proceedings already commenced.

In Departmental Enquiry, Document Not Admitted By Employee Must Be Proved Through Witness: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 315

The Supreme Court (April 1) has observed that when the employee doesn't admit the charges labelled against him, he cannot be dismissed from the services based on an employer's unproven documentary evidence. The Court emphasized that employers must prove such documentary evidence through witnesses, so that the employee could have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

“Even in a case based solely on documentary evidence, unless the relied upon documents are admitted by the charged employee, a witness would have to be examined to prove those documents and when so examined, the witness would have to be tendered for cross-examination.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra, while setting aside the dismissal of the U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited's employee who was dismissed from the service.

The Court rejected the Respondent-employer's contention that evasive denial of the charges by the Appellant-employee amounted to admission of the charges. Instead, the Court said that “in a departmental enquiry, unless the charge is admitted, the burden to prove the charge lies on the employer/ department.”, pointing out that the employer's liability to prove the evidence against the delinquent employee could not be brushed aside, when the employee had not admitted the charges.

Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Satinder Singh Bhasin For Not Settling Claims In Grand Venice Project

Case Details: Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government of NCT of Delhi | Ma 239/2024 In W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 316

The Supreme Court (April 2) cancelled the bail of businessman Satinder Singh Bhasin for violating the conditions of bail and ordered him to surrender within a week. Bhasin is accused of non-delivery of residential units, siphoning of their funds, and impropriety in allotment of land in collusion with State officials in relation to Project Grant Venice in the National Capital Region.

The Court cancelled his bail as he failed to comply with the condition that he will settle the claims of the flat allottees, and also for siphoning off Rs 50 lakhs from the funds of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (BIIPL) for deposit as bail condition, despite the Court's direction that the said amount should be from his perosnal account.

It also ordered the forfeiture of Rs. 50 crore, which was submitted as a precondition for the grant of bail. Out of the said amount, the Court has ordered that 5 crores would go to NALSA, and the rest would be used for the insolvency proceedings.

Company Cannot Give Loan To Director Without Special Resolution In General Meeting : Supreme Court

Case Details: Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government of NCT of Delhi | Ma 239/2024 In W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 316

The Supreme Court (April 2) cancelled the bail of businessman Satinder Singh Bhasin for violating the bail conditions imposed by it. One of the conditions imposed was that Bhasin must deposit Rs. 50 crores to the Supreme Court Registry. However, it came to light that he has siphoned off the funds of his company, Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (BIIPL), in order to fulfil this condition.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh noted that Bhasin was required to comply with this condition in his individual capacity. It also said that this was not a case where he had taken a loan from his Company as a Director.

"Upon a consideration of the above submissions and the breakup as filed by the petitioner himself, it cannot be disputed that the amount of Rs. 50 crores has originated from the funds of BIIPL and other related entities. We are inclined to agree with the submissions advanced by the respondents. The condition requiring deposit as a prerequisite for grant of bail, was imposed upon the petitioner in his individual capacity. This condition required bonafide, if not strict, compliance.

Order IX Rule 13 CPC Application Not Barred By Dismissal Of Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree : Supreme Court

Case Details: Deepesh Maheswari and Anr. v. Renu Maheswari and Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 317

The Supreme Court (April 1) observed that the filing of an appeal against an ex-parte decree would not bar the filing of an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Court explained that the scope of appeal under Section 96 CPC and the application under Order IX Rule 13 was different. While in the former, the merits of the decree will be examined, in the latter, one can seek setting aside of the decree by showing sufficient reasons for non-appearance.

“The settled principle of law is that the scope of proceedings under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order IX Rule XIII CPC are distinct. Order IX Rule XIII CPC confers a wider jurisdiction, enabling the applicant to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance and seek setting aside of an ex parte decree.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

Election Petition Must Be Decided On Materials On Record, Can't Be Remanded To Fill Evidentiary Gaps : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rakam Singh v. Amit & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 318

The Supreme Court has observed that an election petition must be decided based on the materials available on record, and it is impermissible for the Appellate Court to remand election petitions for reconsideration merely to lead to fresh evidence or direct the calling of witnesses and expert examination when such issues were not raised before the Election Tribunal.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Trial Court set aside the Respondent's election to the Sarpanch post after finding merit in the Appellant's allegation of double voting. The First Appellate Court's decision to uphold the trial court's findings to hold a fresh election was interfered with by the High Court under the Writ Jurisdiction. The High Court remanded the election petition for fresh consideration, with directions to call voters as witnesses and obtain expert fingerprint analysis of thumb impressions on voter lists.

The High Court reasoned that because the election petition was decided without adopting "required recourses" such as presenting voters as witnesses or obtaining expert evidence. It held that such conclusions were "ill made" and "based on pure surmises."

SARFAESI | Borrowers' Redemption Right Not Lost By Auction Sale If Balance Consideration Was Paid After Timelimit : Supreme Court

Case Details: E. Muthurathinasabathy & Ors. v. M/S. Sri International & Ors. (With Connected Case Details)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 319

The Supreme Court has observed that under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, where an auction purchaser fails to deposit the balance sale consideration within time, the sale remains incomplete and does not attain finality; consequently, the borrower cannot be divested of their property if they repay the entire outstanding debt to the creditor.

The Court held that if the balance sale consideration was not deposited within the 3 month period stipulated by Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, then the sale remains incomplete. The fact that a sale certificate was issued will not make such a sale legal and complete, and if the borrower had repaid the dues in the meantime, then the property can be redeemed.

“If the process suffers from material irregularities or fails to conform to mandatory requirements, thereby rendering the sale inchoate, the Court would be justified in intervening, particularly where the borrower has, in the interregnum, discharged the outstanding liability, so as to obviate disproportionate deprivation of property and uphold substantive justice.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while affirming the Madras High Court's decision to set aside the auction sale and restore the secured assets to the Respondent-borrower.

Show Cause Notice Can Be Challenged In Writ Jurisdiction In Exceptional Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 320

The Supreme Court has reiterated that although courts ordinarily do not entertain writ petitions challenging a show cause notice (SCN), this principle is not absolute, and interference at the notice stage is permissible in exceptional circumstances.

The Court observed that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked where the show cause notice is vitiated by fundamental legal infirmities that could result in manifest injustice.

The Court stated that while the general rule discourages challenges to show cause notices, the High Courts are empowered to intervene where the notice suffers from a patent lack of jurisdiction, reflects non-application of mind, is issued with a predetermined or premeditated approach, amounts to an abuse of the process of law, or violates the principles of natural justice.

FEMA | Non-Confirmation Of Seizure By Competent Authority Under S.37A Has Bearing On Adjudication Proceedings : Supreme Court

Case Details: J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 320

The Supreme Court on April 1 held that the non-confirmation of a seizure order under Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) can have a significant bearing on subsequent adjudication proceedings, and that authorities cannot proceed in a manner that effectively nullifies or prejudges a pending statutory appeal.

While stopping short of declaring adjudication proceedings automatically non est in every such case, the Court ruled that continuation of adjudication despite a reasoned refusal to confirm seizure, and while an appeal against that refusal is pending, may render the resulting order arbitrary and contrary to law.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Madras High Court judgments and the adjudication order imposing penalty and confiscation against the appellants, and directed that proceedings be revived from the stage of the show cause notice..

Blacklisting Is Not Automatic Upon Contract Termination; Requires Independent Application Of Mind : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 321

The Supreme Court on April 2 held that termination of a contract does not automatically justify blacklisting, and that blacklisting requires an independent show cause notice and proper application of mind.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the Jharkhand High Court's order upholding the termination cum blacklisting order issued by the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department for the alleged construction deficiencies on the part of the Appellant, which resulted in the collapse of a structure built by the Appellant.

Although the termination was upheld, the court however, found the blacklisting order to be arbitrary, noting that no automatic blacklisting follows upon termination of a work contract, without abiding by the principles of natural justice

High Ranking Employee Can't Seek Same Lesser Penalty Given To Subordinates : Supreme Court Restores Bank Manager's Dismissal

Case Details: Punjab & Sind Bank v. Sh. Raj Kumar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 322

The Supreme Court has observed that a delinquent officer holding a higher post cannot claim parity in punishment with employees of a lower rank for the same misconduct.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the dismissal of a Punjab & Sind Bank's senior manager from service, who, after conniving with a sub-ordinate bank officer and a gunman, misappropriated the customers' money for their personal gain.

The Court allowed the bank's appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court's decision, which had modified the punishment imposed on the Respondent from that of a 'dismissal from service' to a 'compulsory retirement'. The High Court interfered with the disciplinary committee's decision on punishment merely on account of parity, as the co-delinquent employees were awarded a lower punishment than the Respondent for the same charges.

Pay Commission Benefits Can't Be Denied By Creating Additional Conditions: Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India & Others v. Sunil Kumar Rai & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 323

The Supreme Court on April 1 observed that the Central Pay Commission's recommendation cannot be loosely construed to deny a benefit to an employee by creating an additional condition to deny the benefit of the pay commission.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti heard the matter concerning the respondents, who had initially joined the Border Roads Organisation in subordinate engineering cadres and were later redesignated as Junior Engineers following cadre merger. After completing 4 years of continuous service at Level 8 with Grade Pay of ₹4,800, they became eligible for Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Level 9 (Grade Pay ₹5,400) as per Seventh Central Pay Commission recommendation. However, the Government denied the benefit on the ground that only direct recruitees to Level 8 were entitled to NFU, despite the Pay Commission neither prescribing such a restriction nor mandating that the benefit be confined to direct recruits.

The Delhi High Court allowed the Respondents' plea and directed the extension of Level 9 benefit to them, leading to the Union's appeal before the Supreme Court.

Dowry Harassment & Domestic Abuse Continue Despite Legal Reforms & Progress, Patriarchy Still Prevails : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shankar v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Observing that crimes against women continue to remain widespread despite decades of legal reforms, welfare schemes and judicial interventions, the Supreme Court has remarked that the persistence of domestic violence and gender-based crimes reflects a deeply entrenched patriarchal social order.

The Court noted that while India has witnessed economic growth, improved literacy and greater participation of women in education and the workforce, violence against women remains prevalent, particularly in rural and semi-urban settings where authority within households continues to be overwhelmingly male.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by a man convicted of burning his wife to death, affirming his conviction for murder based primarily on her dying declaration.

Supreme Court Orders Inquiry Into Rampant Conversion Of Residential Areas Into Commercial Zones In State/UT Capitals

Case Details: Loganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 325

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has taken serious note of rampant violations of building bye-laws and unauthorized conversion of residential areas for commercial use across the country.

“We have also been coming across cases where residential colonies are being converted into commercial areas by the unauthorised use of residential buildings and lands for commercial purposes. Such practices are not only contrary to law and public interest, but also cause significant inconvenience and prejudice to bona fide residents, who have invested substantial resources in purchasing property and constructing their houses. The environmental and civic consequences of such misuse by unscrupulous elements of society are equally serious and have far-reaching implications.”, the Court noted.

While hearing a plea concerning the unauthorized use of a residential colony for a commercial purpose in Chennai, a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan, in an order dated March 25, 2026, expanded the scope of the plea to examine the issue on a pan-India basis. The Court directed the impleading of municipal authorities of all State and Union Territory capital cities and required them to file detailed affidavits.

Toll On National Highways Covered By Union List; States Can Levy Toll Only On Other Roads : Supreme Court

Case Details – T S R Venkatramana v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 326

The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition challenging Union's power to levy toll tax on national highways, observing that such charges fall within the Union List under the Constitution.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that toll collected for use of national highways by the National Highways Authority of India is a fee traceable to Entry 23 (highways declared by or under law made by Parliament to be national highways) read with Entry 96 (fees in respect of any of the matters in the Union List) of List I.

“Having regard to the pith and substance of Entry 23 read with Entry 96 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, we find that any toll which is essentially a charge or fee collected for the use of a National Highways by the National Highway Authority of India is squarely covered within the Union List”, the Court held.

The Court said the expression “tolls” under Entry 59 of List II(State List) must be confined to charges not collected by the Union under List I. In other words, States can levy toll only on highways/roads which are not national highways.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Doctors In NDPS Case Since Grounds Of Arrest Weren't Given In Writing As Per 'Mihir Shah' Verdict

Case Details: Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India & Anr, SLP(Crl.) No. 3326 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 327

The Supreme Court granted bail to two medical professionals accused in a narcotics case on the ground that they were not supplied the grounds of arrest in writing prior to production before the Magistrate.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, noting that the grounds of arrest ought to have been supplied to the accused, as per the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.

In Mihir Rajesh Shah, a bench of ex-Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih held that failure to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee, in the language they understand, would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

No Second Chance For Candidate Who Skipped Police Physical Test : Supreme Court

Case Details: Commissioner, Delhi Police & Anr. v. Uttam Kumar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 328

The Supreme Court held that a candidate who failed to appear for a scheduled physical test in a police recruitment process cannot claim a right to rescheduling merely because his representations seeking postponement were not answered, emphasizing that compassion and discretion have limited roles in matters of public employment.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Delhi High Court's ruling that had affirmed the Administrative Tribunal's decision to grant a second opportunity to a candidate to appear in the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test for the Delhi Police Constable recruitment, on the ground that he was unwell on the scheduled date.

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Warns Gujarat Govt Of Contempt Proceedings Over Delay In Deciding Remission Pleas

Case Details – Mahesh Kumar Dhisalal Jangid v. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court warned the State of Gujarat of strict penal consequences, including possible suo motu contempt proceedings, for failing to decide applications for premature release of convicts within the timelines prescribed under its policy.

“It is further clarified that in future, if the above stipulation as per the policy itself is not implemented in its entirety and mandatorily, the same shall entail strict penal orders from this Court, including, but not limited to, initiation of suo motu contempt against all the persons who do not act in terms of the policy or if the final order does not come latest by the day on which the convict completes 14 years of actual incarceration”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was dealing with the case of a life convict whose premature release had not been decided despite completion of the required period of incarceration under the State policy.

West Bengal SIR | Appellate Tribunals Can Entertain Fresh Documents After Verifying Genuineness : Supreme Court

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (And Connected Cases)

In the West Bengal SIR matter, the Supreme Court allowed the Appellate Tribunals, which are hearing appeals against exclusions from the electoral rolls, to entertain fresh documents subject to the verification of their authenticity.

The Court initially ordered that the Appellate Tribunals should not entertain fresh/new documents which were not submitted before the adjudicating officer. However, after the petitioners raised concerns, the Court modified its order to state, "The Appellate Tribunal will not entertain fresh documents without verifying the genuineness of such documents."

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was informed by the Election Commission of India that 19 Appellate Tribunals, headed by former High Court Chief Justices/Judges have been notified, and Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee National Institution of Water and Sanitation, Kolkata, has been chosen as the venue for the sitting of the Tribunals.

Supreme Court Stays Trial Against TN Minister Durai Murugan In Disproportionate Assets Case

Case Details – Durai Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court granted interim stay on trial proceedings against Tamil Nadu Minister Durai Murugan in a disproportionate assets case. Murugan is currently the Minister for Water Resources in the state government led by Chief Minister MK Stalin.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and issued notice on his delay condonation application and SLP against a judgment of the Madras High Court which had set aside his discharge in the case and directed the trial court to proceed.

“There shall be no further proceedings until the next date of hearing. Issue notice returnable on 20th April”, the Court stated.

'Govt Biggest Litigant Adding To Pendency' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Union For Unnecessarily Challenging Relief To CISF Constable

Case Details – Union of India v. Sukhwinder Singh

The Supreme Court imposed cost of ₹25,000 on the Union of India for challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had set aside the dismissal of a CISF constable and granted him 25% back wages.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the SLP, criticising the Union for pursuing it.

“We fail to understand why the Union of India and others have approached this court by assailing the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. We dismiss this SLP with cost of Rs. 25000”, the Court ordered.

Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Dispute: MP High Court Will Consider Objections Recorded During ASI Survey Videography, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society Dhar v. Hindu Front For Justice (Regd. Trust No. 976) and Ors. SLP(C) No. 11468/2026

In the Bhojshala Temple- Kamal Maula Mosque dispute, the Supreme Court (April 1) observed that it had no reason to doubt that the Madhya Pradesh High Court would consider the objections of the Mosque management, which are stated to be recorded in the videography of the survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition filed by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society. The Society had filed an application before the High Court seeking the production of the video records and the photographs. The High Court deferredthe hearing of the application, saying that it would be considered at the time of the final hearing. The Society approached the Supreme Court, aggrieved by the course adopted by the High Court.

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, for the petitioner, submitted that excavations had happened in the site, contrary to the Supreme Court'sdirectionspassed in April 2024, and the mosque management had raised their objections to it, which were recorded in the video.

Racial Discrimination | Supreme Court Urges Delhi HC CJ To Consider Policy Decision For Expeditious Trials In Sensitive Cases

Case Details: Modoyia Kayina v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 6014-2026

While dealing with a PIL assailing racial discrimination against Northeastern people, the Supreme Court expressed a need for expeditious trials in sensitive cases.

The Court requested the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to take up the issue on the administrative side and consider a holistic policy decision.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order while dealing with a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Modoyia Kayina and argued by Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai.

Post-Facto EC Not Automatic, Impermissible Projects Can Be Demolished, Says Centre; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Details – Vanashakti v. Union of India

The Supreme Court reserved judgment in the Vanashakti plea challenging the regime permitting post-facto environmental clearances.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging post-facto environmental clearances. The matter arises from the Court's earlier decision recalling its own order that had prohibited retrospective environmental approvals.

In earlier hearings, the Supreme Court had questioned whether courts could adopt a rigid rule barring ex post-facto environmental clearances altogether, and if the legislature or a delegated law-maker could be treated as completely denuded of power to provide for such a regime.

Air India Plane Crash | Supreme Court Rejects Engineer's PIL Seeking Details On Fuel Cut-Off In AAIB Preliminary Report

Case Details: Suresh Chand Shrivastva v. Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (Aaib), SLP(C) No. 11209/2026

The Supreme Court rejected a petition seeking “reading down” of the preliminary investigation report on the Air India plane crash that took place in Ahmedabad on June 12 last year, claiming 270 lives.

The petitioner prayed for a reading down of the report to the extent it excluded a complete sequence of events with a time chart. He also sought modification of the AAIB report to include the time chart of flameout and switches transition from cut-off to run, whether mechanical or manual, with the time chart. However, the Court rejected his plea.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi heard the matter.

West Bengal SIR | New Voters Included By Form 6 After Qualifying Date Won't Get Right To Vote : Justice Bagchi

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (And Connected Cases)

During the hearing of the West Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR) matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court orally commented that the inclusion of a person in the electoral roll through Form 6 (registration form for new voter) will not give them a right to vote in the present assembly election, if such inclusion is after the 'qualifying date' notifed by the Election Commission.

As per Section 14(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the qualifying date for preparation or revision of the electoral roll is the 1st day of January, April, July, and October of the year, with reference to which a person must have attained the age of eighteen years to be eligible for registration as an elector.

Justice Bagchi distinguished between a person's right to get enrolled in the electoral roll in terms of Form 6 vis-a-vis their right to vote as per the electoral rolls that go for polls as per the qualifying date announced by the Election Commission of India.

Supreme Court Slams West Bengal Officials Over Attack On Judges During SIR Duty, Directs Use Of Central Forces

Case Details: In Re: Safety and Security of Judicial Officers Deputed For Work Relating To Sir of Electoral Rolls In The State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues | SMW(C) 3/2026

The Supreme Court took serious notice of a protest in West Bengal during which judicial officers engaged in Special Intensive Revision (SIR) work were held hostage by demonstrators from afternoon till midnight, and their vehicles were attacked using stones and sticks while they were being evacuated after midnight.

The Court referred to a letter received from the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice regarding the incident that occurred in Kaliachak village in Malda district.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi registered a suo motu case on the issue and took it up this morning.

'Never Seen Such A Polarised State' : Supreme Court On West Bengal After Attack On Judges In SIR Duties

Case Details: In Re: Safety and Security of Judicial Officers Deputed For Work Relating To Sir of Electoral Rolls In The State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues | SMW(C) 3/2026

West Bengal is the most politically polarised State, said the Supreme Court in exasperation, following the unfortunate gherao and attack on judicial officers performing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) duties in a village in Malda district.

The Supreme Court orally said that in the State, "everyone speaks in political language".  The Court said that deployment of judicial officers would be welcomed by all, since they are neutral agents; but even they are spared from attacks, the Court added in disappointment.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi took a suo motu case on the issue following a letter from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court regarding the incidents.

Justice Chandurkar Recuses From Hearing Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea In Gadchiroli Arson Case

Case Details: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra

Justice Atul Chandurkar of the Supreme Court recused from hearing advocate Surendra Gadling's bail plea in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case. The matter was listed before a bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar.

Earlier, Justice MM Sundresh had recused from the case. Subsequently, the case was being heard by a bench led by Justice JK Maheshwari. Justice Maheshwari was sitting with Justice Chandurkar, who recused.

Justice KV Viswanathan Recuses After Reserving Judgment On Discovering Prior Appearance As Lawyer For Appellant

Case Details – Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited (AARC) v. Raju Chappakal Pappu & Ors.

In a rare instance, the Supreme Court recalled an order reserving judgment after it came to light that one of the judges who heard the matter had previously appeared as counsel for a party.

Justice KV Viswanathan recused from a civil appeal filed by Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Viswanathan had earlier heard the appeal and reserved judgment on March 17, 2026. Thereafter, Justice Vishwanathan recused, as it was later known that he had appeared as a counsel for the appellant in a related Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

West Bengal SIR | Supreme Court Asks INC Candidate Deleted From Electoral Roll To Approach Appellate Tribunal

Case Details: Motab Shaikh v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 399/2026

The Supreme Court allowed one Motab Shaikh, seeking to contest the upcoming West Bengal Assembly Elections on Indian National Congress' ticket, to approach the formed Appellate Tribunal in Kolkata against his deletion from the electoral roll after SIR exercise.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi heard the matter.

Briefly put, the petitioner approached the Court aggrieved by his inclusion in the 'Adjudication Deletion List' resulting in deletion from the electoral roll. He sought restoration of his name to the electoral roll and permission to file nomination papers as an INC candidate in the State's Assembly Elections. The petitioner also prayed for immediate operationalization of the Appellate Tribunals with proper online and offline mechanism enabling filing of appeals with relevant material.

Possible To Reform Murderer, But Cyber Criminal Should Not Be Spared : CJI Surya Kant

Case Details: Suraj Srivastav Alias Sanjay v. State of U.P, SLP(Crl) No. 5243/2026

During the hearing of a cybercrime case, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant commented that it maybe possible to release and reform a murderer, but cyber criminals must not be spared at all.

Referring to the accused before the Court, who apparently had a history of cyber frauds, the CJI said that a cyber criminal like him should be kept in single member cell without possibility of use of any mobile phone, etc. "That's the only way to deal", the CJI remarked.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was dealing with one Suraj Srivastav's challenge to the Allahabad High Court order which rejected his bail application in a case registered under Sections 420/120B of the IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act.

Can Cadets Boarded Out Due To Training Injury Be Treated As Ex-Servicemen For Job Reservation? Supreme Court Asks Centre

Case Details – In Re: Cadets Disabled In Military Training Struggle

The Supreme Court asked the Union Government whether military cadets who are boarded out due to injury or disability during training can be treated as ex-servicemen for the purpose of availing reservation in government and semi-government jobs.

“During the course of submissions, one of the aspects that was discussed was as to whether the boarded-out cadets could also be considered as ex-servicemen or ex-military personnel for the purpose of having the benefit of reservation for such persons in various governmental and semi government jobs and posts. Learned ASG to seek instructions on this aspect, so that the scope of the exploratory personnel could also include the boarded out, since the majority of them are in the 20s”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a suo motu case concerning the difficulties faced by such cadets.

Supreme Court Dismisses IT Dept Challenge To Quashing Of Reassessment Notice Against NDTV Holding Company

Case Details – Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. RRPR Holdings Private Limited

The Supreme Court dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against the Delhi High Court judgment which had quashed reassessment proceedings against RRPR Holdings Private Limited, a company owned by NDTV promoters Radhika Roy and Prannoy Roy.

A bench of Justice PS Narsimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.

In 2009, RRPR Holdings took a loan from Vishwa Pradhan Commercial Pvt. Ltd. It claimed that the loan proceeds were utilized clear outstanding loans with the ICICI Bank.

Supreme Court Stays Rajasthan Govt Decision To Denotify Areas In Chambal Sanctuary, Raises Concerns Over Illegal Sand Mining

Case Details: In Re: Illegal Sand Mining In The National Chambal Sanctuary and Threat To Endangered Aquatic Wildlife Versus, SMW(C) No. 2/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the notification by the Rajasthan Government, which de-notified 732 hectares of the National Chambal Sanctuary without taking prior approval of the Court. The bench expressed that the State "could not have done it on their own."

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with thesuo motu case taken up over illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary and the threat to endangered aquatic wildlife, including gharials.

Previously, the bench expressed an intention to hold officials of the states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh vicariously liable for the destruction of wildlife habitats in the National Chambal Sanctuary area due to their "lethargy and inaction" in preventing illegal sand mining.

Disappointed That West Bengal Chief Secretary Could Not Be Contacted When Judges Were Gheraoed : Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: Safety and Security of Judicial Officers Deputed For Work Relating To Sir of Electoral Rolls In The State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues | SMW(C) 3/2026

Expressing strong displeasure over the administrative response to the gherao of judicial officers in West Bengal, the Supreme Court said it was "extremely disappointed" that the State's Chief Secretary remained out of reach of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court during the crisis, noting that he had not shared a mobile number with WhatsApp facility to enable communication.

The Court was dealing with a suo motu case concerning the safety of judicial officers deputed for work relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the State.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi recorded that seven judicial officers, including three women, were gheraoed by anti-social elements at a BDO office in Kaliachowk area of Maldah district around 3:30 p.m., and that urgent intervention sought by the High Court authorities was met with "conspicuous inertia" until about 8:30 p.m.

Sabarimala Reference | Internal Autonomy Of Religion Must Be Protected : Jain Organisations Tell Supreme Court

Case Details: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr.Its General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija and Ors., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 In W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

Certain Jain organizations have filed submissions before the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala Reference matter, contending that regulation of religious practices should be left upon adherents of the religion and a person belonging to one religion should not be permitted to challenge practices of another religion.

The applicants contend that issues which concern the internal authority or autonomy of a religion to define and govern its own practices are protected under Article 25. They argue that whether a particular practice is religious or not is not for the courts to decide. Rather, it is for the religion's adherents to decide, unless there is a dispute between different factions within the religious denomination which cannot be resolved internally.

"the State – whether in the form of the Legislature, Executive, or the Courts – ought not to have a role in defining, limiting, or adjudicating upon what a community genuinely holds to be its religious practice, so long as there is no dispute within that community which cannot be resolved through the internal mechanisms recognised in the religion of that community."

Supreme Court Holds Good Friday Sitting To Modify Order On Rajasthan SI Selection Exam

Case Details: Suraj Mal Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (C) No. 38278 of 2025

The Supreme Court, in a special sitting, modified its order which allowed the petitioner and similarly placed candidates to appear for the Sub Inspector Police/Platoon Commander Recruitment Examination 2025 in Rajasthan. The exam is scheduled to take place on April 5. The Court has now restricted the benefit only to the present petitioner, Suraj Mal Meena.

To briefly state, the petitioner Suraj Lal Meena participated in the recruitment for Sub Inspector pursuant to a 2021 notification. The written exam was conducted, and the results were announced in 2023, but it was challenged in the Rajasthan High Court because the paper was leaked. During the pendency, the Cabinet Committee of Ministers recommended the cancellation of the 2021 exam.

A new notification with adequate posts along with age relaxation for candidates who appeared in 2021 was published on July 17, 2025. However, it was alleged that there was no age relaxation for the 2021 applicants. In the meantime, the single judge of the High Court on August 28, 2025, ordered the cancellation of the entire 2021 recruitment process on grounds that some gangs were involved in leaking the paper through exam groups.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Transgender Persons Amendment Act 2026, Says Omitting Self-Identification Violates Art 21

Case Details: Lakshmi Narayan Tripathi and another v. Union of India and another | Diary No. 20054/2026

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, contending that the recent amendments take away the fundamental right of transgender persons to self-determination of gender.

The petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been filed by Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Zainab Javid Patel, two transgender women. While the first petitioner is the Acharya Mahamandaleshwar of the Kinnar Akhara, Bharatanatyam dancer, author, social activist, and the Founder of the Astitva Trust, the second petitioner is the Director (Inclusion & Diversity) at KPMG India, and a Member of the National Council for Transgender Persons (Western Region).

The petition assails the Amendment Act, which received the assent of the President on March 30, 2026, as causing "irreparable constitutional injury" to the fundamental rights of transgender persons guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It raises what it terms a crucial constitutional question: whether the State, through legislation, can define who a person is by substituting biological or socio-medical classifications for a person's lived and self-perceived identity.

Are CPCB Guidelines On Petrol Pump Establishment Mandatory? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Details – Shakuntala Devi v. Roshan Joshi & Ors.

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the issue of whether the siting criteria prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board for setting up petrol pumps are mandatory, in view of a conflict with local zoning regulations.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran was dealing with appeals concerning guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in its Office Memorandum dated January 7, 2020 for establishment of new petrol pumps.

The guidelines were framed pursuant to directions of the National Green Tribunal to regulate the environmental impact of petrol pumps.

Supreme Court Declines To Quash Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sameer Wankhede, Gives Fresh Opportunity To Respond To Chargesheet

Case Details – Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Union of India & Anr.

The Supreme Court declined to quash disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede in connection with the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug bust case, but directed that he be given an opportunity to respond to the chargesheet before any further steps are taken in the inquiry.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said it was not inclined to quash the proceedings, but held that the appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on March 7, 2026 had taken place without giving Wankhede sufficient opportunity to file his reply to the chargesheet.

The Court permitted Wankhede to file his reply within two weeks and directed the authorities to take a fresh decision on whether to appoint an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer within two weeks thereafter.