Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: May 25, 2026 To May 31, 2026

Judgments

Order Granting Bail In Second Round Must Record Change In Circumstances Or Fresh Grounds : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mohseen v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 536

The Supreme Court has observed that, upon rejection of an earlier bail application, the failure to record the existence of the fresh grounds while hearing the subsequent bail application would render the bail order liable to be interfered with.

“While there is no absolute bar against a High Court granting bail to an accused whose bail was previously cancelled by this Court, the grant of bail must be supported by reasons demonstrating either a change in circumstances or the existence of fresh grounds not considered by this Court at the time of cancellation.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to an accused in an attempt to murder along with Arms Act case, where the High Court overlooked the fact regarding the rejection of his earlier bail by the trial court in an order granting a bail, moreover, nothing was brought on record to justify the grant of bail based on the change in circumstances or emergence of any fresh grounds.

S. 307 IPC | Gravity Of Injury Not Enough To Convict For Attempt To Murder Without Proof Of Intention To Cause Death: Supreme Court

Cause Title: ROSHAN LAL VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 537

The Supreme Court has observed that unless the mens rea to cause death is proved, the conviction for attempt to commit murder cannot be sustained merely on account of the gravity of the injury suffered by the injured.

“…the gravity of the injury by itself cannot be determinative of the offence under Section 307 IPC unless the prosecution is able to establish the requisite mens rea contemplated under the provision.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while setting aside the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had affirmed the trial court's conviction of the appellant for the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, finding out that the courts below had placed undue reliance upon the injury being dangerous to life, whilst entirely overlooking the critical fact that the appellant lacked the requisite intention or knowledge to commit murder.

The Court observed that, as per Section 307 IPC, to constitute an offence of attempt to murder, two essential elements must be established: (i) intention or knowledge to commit murder, and (ii) an actual act of trying to commit murder.

“Her Story An Eye-Opener”: Convicting Husband For Wife's Murder, Supreme Court Warns Against Forcing Women Back Into Abusive Marriages

Cause Title: Gour Acharjee Versus The State of Tripura & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 538

While upholding the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife and for subjecting her to domestic cruelty, the Supreme Court (May 25) drew attention to the societal failure to recognise the distress faced by married daughters in their matrimonial homes. The Court noted that the deceased victim's repeated complaints of domestic violence and dowry harassment were ignored or trivialised, with pressure placed on her to reconcile with her husband and resume matrimonial life.

The Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan heard a case where, despite the victim repeatedly complaining to her family about being subjected to violence by her husband, her concerns were ignored by both her relatives and village elders, who urged her to return to her matrimonial home in the hope of reconciliation. She was ultimately killed, though the appellant unsuccessfully sought to portray the death as a case of suicide.

Condemning the repeated failure of the victim's family members and the village members, the Court observed:

In-Laws Can't Be Prosecuted Merely For Asking Wife To Adjust : Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Harassment, 498A Case

Cause Title: ARTI MEHTA & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 539

The Supreme Court (May 25) quashed the domestic cruelty, domestic violence, and dowry demand proceedings against the in-laws of the woman, holding that omnibus, generalised allegations lacking specific overt acts cannot justify continuation of prosecution against the husband's relatives in matrimonial disputes.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed appeals filed by the complainant's in-laws, setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior bench order refusing to quash the proceedings against them.

The Court observed that criminal law cannot be used as a weapon to settle personal or familial grievances in the absence of legally sustainable allegations.

Medical Negligence Case | Supreme Court Discharges Anaesthetist Who Prescribed Medicine Over Phone To Staff Nurse

Cause Title: SUPRIYA KUMARI M.C. VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 540

The Supreme Court (May 25) discharged an anaesthetist for an alleged post-surgery complication to the patient because of the medication prescribed by her over the phone to the nurse, which resulted in the death of the patient.

The Court held that an anaesthetist would not be held guilty under Section 304-A of IPC, for the post-surgery complication, which resulted due to improper application of medicine to the patient by the staff nurse, which was entirely beyond the physical control of the off-duty anaesthesian.

“Legally, an anaesthetist whose duty hours have concluded cannot be held criminally liable for a subsequent procedural error committed by a staff nurse. Even if the prosecution's case is taken at face value that the appellant suggested a painkiller over the phone, such an act constitutes standard medical advice for postoperative pain, not gross criminal recklessness. The failure of the nurse to accurately locate the epidural space might represent a deficiency in service (civil liability), but it fundamentally lacks the gross culpability or mens rea required to invoke Section 304-A IPC.”, observed a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, while setting aside the Kerala High Court's order refusing to quash the medical negligence case (Section 304-A IPC) against the Appellant- anaesthetist.

Supreme Court Lays Down Principles On Promissory Estoppel, Says It Can't Be Invoked For Benefits Never Intended

Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 541

The Supreme Court (May 25) observed that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to claim benefit under a government policy which was never aimed to benefit a specific class of industrial unit.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment directing the State to extend concessional electricity tariff benefits under the Industrial Policy, 2019 to the respondent-company, an existing manufacturer engaged in industrial metal processing and stamping, on the basis of substantial expansion undertaken by it.

The Court said that the High Court overlooked the fact that the policy was not aimed to cover the existing industrial units, but only to all new industrial enterprises. Hence, the benefit of doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be claimed by the Respondent, which is an existing industrial unit, regardless of the fact that it had done substantial expansion based on the industrial policy but can't claim electricity at a concessional tariff rates under the State's industrial policy.

High Court Exercising Probate Jurisdiction Has Constitutional Power To Order Investigation Into Irregularities In Estate : Supreme Court

Cause Title: BAI AVABAI HORMUSJI TATA TRUST VERSUS SHERNAZ FAROUKH LAWYER & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 542

The Supreme Court (May 25) held that a High Court, as a probate court, overseeing the administration of the deceased's estates, is empowered to direct a police investigation after noticing irregularities in the administration of the deceased's estates.

The Court held that even while exercising jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act, the High Court is not denuded of its plenary powers under Article 215 of the Constitution.

“…a primary function of the Probate Court is to adjudicate the execution and genuineness of the Will but while doing so if the High Court notices glaring irregularities or there is an element of mischief played by an executor noticed by the High Court then in that situation the High Court cannot be a silent spectator and will have to exercise its plenary and constitutional power to check the mischief so as to protect the property.”, observed a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

'Arrest Memo Mentioned Murder Offence Even Before Body Was Recovered' : Supreme Court Upholds Acquittals

Cause Title: PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA VERSUS MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 543

The Supreme Court (May 25) upheld the acquittal of four accused persons in a murder case, holding that the alleged recovery of the dead body at the instance of one of the accused was surrounded by serious irregularities and could not be safely relied upon to sustain a conviction.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the Rajasthan High Court's acquittal, upon noting that the recovery of the dead body was doubtful, as the police prematurely treated the missing report filed by the complainant as a murder case.

The case arose from the disappearance and death of one Ashok Kumar Sharma, a Bolero Jeep taxi driver, who went missing on April 26, 2007. The prosecution alleged that the accused made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the deceased's body from a dry well.

'n-Hexane' Not 'Motor Spirt' For Customs Duty : Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal Against Reliance Industries

Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA, GUJARAT VERSUS M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 544

The Supreme Court has observed that the imported product 'n-hexane', mainly used in making chemicals or extracting vegetable oils, could not be classified as a petroleum product/motor fuel, to attract lower duty, merely because it has a low flash point.

Dismissing the Custom Department's appeal, a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale granted relief to Reliance Industries Ltd. while upholding the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) decision to classify 'n-hexane' as a solvent compound, not 'motor fuel'. Thus, the Court held that the imported 'n-hexane' would fall under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff, which attracts a lower duty.

The dispute centered on the classification of n-Hexane, a saturated acyclic hydrocarbon with the chemical formula C₆H₁₄, imported by Reliance Industries. While the assessee classified the product under Chapter 29 (CTH 2901.10/CETH 2901.90), the Customs Department sought to classify it under Chapter 27 as “Motor Spirit,” attracting a higher duty liability.

Accused In Jail For 9 Years As Undertrial Deserves Bail As Article 21 Right Violated : Supreme Court

Case Details: VICKKI YADAV @ VIKAS YADAV v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9430/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 545

The Supreme Court recently granted bail to an undertrial prisoner in jail for the past 9 years on the grounds that his Article 21 right has been violated.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan granted bail, reiterating that an undertrial can't be kept in jail for an indefinite period.

To briefly state, the petitioner was denied bail by the Allahabad High Court in connection with the offence of murder. He was facing offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner has been undertrial for more than 9 years and the trial is currently at the fag end. It was also submitted that the co-accused wasgranted bail by the Court on April 29.

Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal Must Itself Hear Convict On Sentence, Cannot Remand To Trial Court For Sentence Alone : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mukesh Kumar Yadav Versus The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) Etc.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 546

The Supreme Court (May 26) held that if an Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal, finds the accused guilty, then it cannot relegate the matter to the trial court for imposing the sentence. The Appellate Court itself has to hear the convict on sentence.

“It can be seen from Section 386(a), Cr.P.C., that where in an appeal from an order of acquittal, the court hearing the appeal finds the accused guilty it is required to pass a sentence on him according to law.”, observed a bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while setting aside the Calcutta High Court's Port Blair Circuit Bench decision to relegate the matter to the trial court for the purposes of imposing the sentence on the accused, after overturning his acquittal.

The Court said that “if it is the appellate court which is convicting the accused for the first time after reversing the acquittal, the appellate court has to hear the convict on sentence. The appellate court cannot relegate the matter to the court below only for the purpose of imposing a sentence after the appellate court had recorded a conviction. That will be contrary to Section 386(a), Cr.P.C., and the judgments of this Court.”

S.33(1)(a) Arbitration Act Only To Correct Clerical Errors In Award; Can't Be Invoked To Change Nature Of Interest : Supreme Court

Cause Title: GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VERSUS SARYU PLASTICS PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 547

Holding that substance of an arbitral award cannot be altered under the guise of correcting errors, the Supreme Court has ruled that changing the nature of interest awarded from simple interest to compound interest amounts to a substantive modification that falls outside the limited scope of Section 33(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the ruling while allowing appeals filed by the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board against a Gujarat High Court judgment that upheld a Commercial Court's decision modifying an arbitral award in favour of Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

The Court held that the Commercial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting simple interest awarded for the pendente lite period with compound interest, a change that dramatically increased the Board's liability from approximately Rs.30.38 crore to Rs.144.93 crore.

Party Estopped From Challenging Award On The Ground Of Mandate Expiry After Accepting Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate: Supreme Court

Cause Title: GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VERSUS SARYU PLASTICS PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 547

The Supreme Court (May 26) has held that a party who continues to participate in arbitration proceedings without objecting to the extension of the arbitrator's mandate cannot later challenge the award on the ground that the mandate had expired.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the dispute that arose out of arbitration proceedings between the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd. relating to supply contracts for PVC pipes.

Under the arbitration agreement executed on April 3, 2012, the arbitrator's mandate was initially fixed for six months. Though the parties formally extended the mandate until September 30, 2014, the arbitrator thereafter continued extending the timeline unilaterally while proceedings remained pending.

Modifying Life Term Sentence As Fixed Sentence Permissible : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Munna Moyuddin Shaikh Versus State of Gujarat

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 548

The Supreme Court (May 26) reaffirmed the settled proposition of law that the imposition of a life imprisonment sentence on the convict would not bar the modification of the sentence to a fixed-term sentence when the convict had already undergone more than 14 years of imprisonment.

“…when a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed, Section 53 read with Section 45 of the IPC would convey the meaning that it is till the natural life subject to the right of claiming remission. Hence, modifying a sentence of life imprisonment and imposing a fixed sentence is permissible…”, observed a bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, relying on Shiva Kumar versus State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252.

The Appellant-convicts, who had already served about 23 years imprisonment for an offence of murder, appealed to the Supreme Court against the Gujarat High Court's decision, which had upheld the trial court's decision of conviction and imposition of a life imprisonment sentence on them.

'SIR Meets Proportionality Test' : Conclusions From Supreme Court Judgment

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 549

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, holding that the exercise does not conflict with the Representation of the People Act or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and is traceable to the Election Commission's powers under Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution.

The Court held that the SIR satisfies the test of proportionality, observing that the exercise serves the legitimate constitutional objective of ensuring accurate, complete and credible electoral rolls, which are foundational to free and fair elections. It found that the measures adopted were neither excessive nor arbitrary, and that adequate procedural safeguards were built into the process.

Rejecting the argument that existing inclusion in the electoral roll creates an absolute bar against fresh scrutiny, the Court held that the presumption arising from enrolment is rebuttable. It clarified that Lal Babu Hussein judgment was decided in the context of adjudicatory proceedings and does not prevent the Commission from undertaking a broader systemic verification exercise.

SIR | Supreme Court Asks ECI To Send To Centre Names Of Persons Deleted From 2003 Bihar Roll Over Doubtful Citizenship

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 549

While upholding the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise of electoral rolls, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India to forward to the Central Government the names of persons deleted from the 2003 Bihar electoral roll over doubtful citizenship within four weeks, to determine their citizenship.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, pronouncing judgment in a batch of petitions which challenged the ECI's notification to conduct SIR in Bihar, observed :

"Regarding persons whose names have been deleted from the 2003 roll on account of the Commission being of the opinion that they are not citizens, the Commission shall refer such cases within 4 weeks to the Competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, for adjudication of their citizenship."

ECI Can Examine Citizenship For Limited Purpose Of Electoral Roll Inclusion, But Its Determination Not Final: Supreme Court

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 549

In a significant ruling on the scope of the Election Commission's powers, the Supreme Court held that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is empowered to undertake a limited inquiry into an individual's citizenship for the purpose of determining eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll, but clarified that such a determination cannot be treated as conclusive on the question of citizenship.

The judgment came while upholding the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.

Addressing the challenge to the Commission's scrutiny of citizenship status during the exercise, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the ECI's power flows from its constitutional responsibility to maintain accurate electoral rolls and ensure that only eligible persons are included.

Supreme Court Upholds Election Commission's Power To Conduct SIR Of Electoral Rolls, Says It Advances Free & Fair Elections

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 549

The Supreme Court(May 27) upheld the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls done by the Election Commission of India and observed that electoral SIR advances the Constitutional imperative of free and fair elections.

The Court held that the Election Commission has the power to conduct SIR under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Rules made thereunder.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi pronounced the judgment in the writ petitions, which challenged the notification issued by the ECI in June last year to conduct SIR in Bihar.

Central Govt Must Engage With State's Views Before Rejecting All India Services Officer's VRS : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ABDUR RAHMAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 550

The Supreme Court has observed that though the Voluntary Retirement from Service from All India Services requires a mandatory approval of the Central Government, this would not by itself, empower the Central Government to reject the application for VRS without considering the recommendation of the State Government.

While dealing with a VRS plea of a Maharashtra Cadre Indian Police Service (“IPS”) Officer, a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the concurrent findings of the Bombay High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had upheld the Central Government's decision to reject the Appellant's VRS plea.

The Court noted that the Central Government's decision to reject the Appellant's plea for VRS was passed without a proper application of mind and did not contain the State Government's recommendation regarding the suitability of the Appellant to apply for VRS.

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To S.63(4) BSA Mandating Hash Value Disclosure For Electronic Evidence

Case : Pune Bar Association v Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 551

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), rejecting a challenge mounted by the Pune Bar Association against the stricter admissibility framework for electronic evidence. While refusing to interfere with the provision, the Court also clarified that a Madras High Court view suggesting that only government-notified electronic evidence examiners can certify such records should not be treated as binding precedent.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order on May 22 in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The petitioner Bar association had challenged Section 63(4) of the BSA, read with the Schedule appended to the Act, contending that the provision imposes unreasonable and impractical obligations on litigants seeking to rely on electronic records as evidence.

Bus Driver Not Expected To Turn Back & Check If Passengers Alighted : Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction For Death By Negligence

Cause Title: MOHAMMAD HANIF JAINUM KHALIFA VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 552

The Supreme Court (May 27) acquitted a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus driver who had been convicted for causing the death of a passenger who fell while alighting from the bus, holding that a driver acting on the conductor's signal to move the vehicle cannot automatically be held criminally negligent.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside the conviction of the Appellant-driver under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, observing that the prosecution failed to establish any rash or negligent act on his part.

“When the appellant accused had followed the instructions of the conductor in stopping and moving the bus, which the appellant was duty-bound to do, it would be both unreasonable and illogical to attribute any negligence on his part.”, the court observed.

Supreme Court Sets Aside CCI Order Revoking Approval For Amazon-Future Deal; Says Regulatory Fairness Vital To Boost Investments

Cause Title: AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC VERSUS COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 553

In a significant ruling with implications for India's regulatory climate and foreign investment sentiment, the Supreme Court held that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) exceeded its statutory powers in revoking the approval for the 2019 Amazon -Future Coupons investment, stressing that merger regulation must be rigorous but also predictable, fair and anchored in law.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed Amazon's appeal against the NCLAT judgment which had substantially upheld the CCI's December 2021 order keeping in abeyance the approval granted to Amazon's transaction, directing it to file a fresh Form II notice, and imposing penalties of over Rs 202 crore for alleged suppression and misrepresentation.

The Court held that the CCI had exceeded its statutory powers by treating alleged “imperfect characterisation” of disclosed material as a complete failure to notify the transaction under the Competition Act, 2002.

Primogeniture Rule Won't Govern Inheritance Of Ex-Royal's Private Estate, Succession Law Applies : Supreme Court

Cause Title: TIKKA SHATRUJIT SINGH & ORS. VERSUS SUKJIT SINGH & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 554

The Supreme Court (May 27) held that a rule of 'primogeniture' i.e., the eldest male heir alone inherits the royal estate or throne, would not apply to succession of the private properties of the former rulers, and such properties will devolve by way of personal succession laws.

“…the properties declared to be the personal private properties of the ruler would devolve not according to the rule of primogeniture but according to the personal law, whether Muslim Law or Hindu Law.”, the court held.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment which had recognised Brigadier Sukhjit Singh as the exclusive successor to the private properties of late Maharaja Paramjit Singh under the rule of primogeniture, by virtue of being the eldest male lineal descendant after the abolition of princely rule.

'S.138 NI Act Quasi-Criminal' : Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench Whether IBC Moratorium Totally Bars Cheque Dishonour Case Against Company Director

Cause Title: Dineshchand Surana v. UCO Bank (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 555

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question whether cheque bounce proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be stayed during the moratorium period under Part III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, while holding that such proceedings are predominantly criminal in nature and not merely debt recovery actions.

A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that proceedings under Section 138 NI Act cannot be treated purely as legal action for recovery of money. The Court disagreed with the view in P Mohanraj and others v M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Ltd (2021) that cheque dishonour cases are essentially civil in nature, stating that the core objective of Section 138 is to preserve public faith in cheque-based commercial transactions by attaching criminal consequences to dishonour of cheques.

The Court said the offence under Section 138 is the act of cheque dishonour itself, while non-payment of debt is only the injury flowing from the offence. It stressed that the provision was enacted as a deterrent against issuing cheques without sufficient funds and “was not intended to be used as a recovery of debt mechanism.”

'Trauma Care Part Of Right To Life' : Supreme Court Directs To Integrate Emergency Helplines Into 112, Implement PM RAHAT & Good Samaritan Scheme

Case Details: SAVELIFE FOUNDATION AND ANOTHER v UOI | WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 726 OF 2024

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 556

Recognising that the trauma care of citizens is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court recently passed interim directions, including to operationalise one common helpline number '112' for emergency response throughout the country.

The Court issued a series of interim directions to all States and Union Territories to create a uniform and robust trauma care system across the country, including integration of all emergency helplines into 112, operationalisation of the PM RAHAT cashless treatment scheme and establishment of Good Samaritan grievance redressal systems.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar passed the judgment in an Article 32 writ petition by the organisation SaveLife Foundation, seeking to improve road safety and provide emergency medical care in cases of road accidents, also known as 'trauma care'.

Permission From Magistrate Necessary For Police To Conduct Further Investigation: Supreme Court Reiterates

Cause Title: PALINISWAMY VEERARAJA & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 557

The Supreme Court has reiterated that in the absence of an express permission from the magistrate, a further investigation cannot be proceeded with by the police after filing of a closure report.

“Even though the statute does not require express permission, the law as it has developed, has made abundantly clear that seeking of permission from the concerned Magistrate has evolved into a requirement.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

The bench set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had justified the continuation of the further investigation against the Appellant which was initiated without the approval of the magistrate.

Can't Brush Aside Land Compensation Claim Merely Because Claimant Is A Sanyasi: Supreme Court

Case : Satya Narayan Shukla v.State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 558

The Supreme Court recently observed that a person's claim for land or monetary compensation cannot be rejected merely because he claims to be a sanyasi.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while dismissing yet another round of litigation initiated by a man from Uttar Pradesh over compensation and allotment of land after a road was constructed over his property.

"Sanyas is the fourth and final stage in the traditional Hindu system of life stages, typically characterized by renunciation of material desires, family ties and worldly ambitions. The applicant, though claims to be a Sanyasi is claiming land and monetary compensation. His right to claim land and compensation cannot be brushed aside only because of the fact that he is claiming to be a Sanyasi," the Court observed.

NI Act | Office Bearer Of Society Not Liable For Cheque Dishonour Unless Active Role In Conduct Of Business Shown : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S MANSI FINANCE (CHENNAI) LTD. VERSUS M. LALITHA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 559

The Supreme Court has observed that a mere designation of an individual holding a managerial position in a society would not be sufficient to invoke liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

“The law governing Section 141 of the NI Act is clear that there is no deemed liability merely by virtue of holding an office or position in the company or society. The complaint must disclose the factual basis showing that the person sought to be prosecuted was in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the entity at the relevant time.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria, while quashing a cheque dishonour case against an Executive Member of the company, against whom no documentary material demonstrating his participation in the transaction or responsibility for the society's affairs was shown to uphold his liability under Section 141 of the NI Act.

The dispute arose out of a financial transaction between the appellant finance company and Ravindra Bharathi Educational Society.

'Serious Infirmities In Prosecution' : Supreme Court Acquits 2 Death Row Convicts In Rape-Murder Case

Cause Title: MEHTAB VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 560

The Supreme Court has acquitted two men who had been sentenced to death for the alleged rape and murder of a 55-year-old woman in Uttarakhand, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances connecting them with the crime.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi allowed the appeals filed by the murder convicts, setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court, which had convicted them under Sections 302 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and imposed the death penalty.

The Court held that the investigation suffered from serious procedural irregularities, unreliable recoveries, absence of scientific evidence, flawed identification procedures, and a broken chain of custody, making it unsafe to sustain the conviction.

Arbitration | Writ Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked To Challenge Arbitrator's Decision Under Section 16 : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S TARINI PRASAD MOHANTY VERSUS M/S SUNFLAG IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 561

The Supreme Court has held that while exercising its Writ Jurisdiction, it is impermissible for the High Courts to interfere with the arbitral tribunal's order passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

“It was not open for the learned Single Judge in exercise of writ jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the dispute while adjudicating the challenge to an order passed under Section 16 of the A and C Act.”, observed a bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, while refusing to interfere with the Orissa High Court's Division Bench judgment, which had set aside the Single Judge decision to interfere with the arbitral tribunal's decision under Section 16 of the Act, while exercising the Writ Jurisdiction.

The case arose from an agreement for sale of iron ore executed on February 12, 2004 between M/s Tarini Prasad Mohanty (mine owner) and M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited (SISCO). When disputes arose, the matter was referred to a Sole Arbitrator.

IBC | Once CoC Approves Resolution Plan, Successful Resolution Applicant Can't Negotiate Further : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SANJAY DAVE Vs. ANDHRA BANK LTD. & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 562

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the binding nature of Committee of Creditors (CoC)-approved resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), holding that a Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) cannot indirectly back out of a plan by later objecting to conditions that were discussed and accepted during CoC meetings.

A bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the NCLT and NCLAT, which had rejected the Successful Resolution Applicant's plea seeking restoration of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), holding that the appellant had failed to comply with the terms of the Resolution Plan after disputing the allegedly conditional nature of the Letter of Intent (LoI) issued in its favour.

“…once the CoC, after applying its commercial wisdom, has approved the resolution plan, the SRA is prohibited from negotiating further and is expected to act in a time bound manner to implement the plan. In the present case, it is seen that the appellant was deliberately trying to delay the implementation of the plan citing the purported conditionality of the LoI. This defeats the purpose of the Code as the otherwise timebound and swift process is now being delayed at the behest of the appellant.”, the Court observed.

S.311 CrPC Power Can't Be Invoked To Fill Up Lacunae In Defence : Supreme Court Quashes Order To Recall Rape Victim For Cross Examination

Case: State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 563

The Supreme Court has set aside a Tripura High Court order that permitted the recall of a rape victim for further cross-examination, holding that the accused had already been afforded ample opportunity to question the witness and that reopening her testimony after a four-year delay would cause undue hardship to the victim.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed an appeal filed by the State of Tripura against the High Court's March 14, 2024 order, which had directed the trial court to permit further examination of the prosecutrix with reference to call detail records (CDRs).

Emphasising the rights and dignity of victims, the Court observed that directing another recall would inflict further and unjustifiable hardship upon the prosecutrix, who had already undergone deposition and cross-examination on four separate occasions. It cautioned that witnesses, particularly victims of serious offences, cannot be expected to repeatedly appear in court to face cross-examination.

Supreme Court Asks States To Consider Using Software For Automatic Consideration Of Prisoners' Premature Release

Case : Surendra @ Sunda v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 563

The Supreme Court has directed the implementation of a digital processing module to automate the consideration of premature release applications of prisoners in Uttar Pradesh, after uncovering widespread delays in the State's remission system and irregular releases of convicts pursuant to a judicial direction that was subsequently declared bad in law.

The Court also asked all States and UTs to develop a software along similar lines in collaboration with the NIC or otherwise, for the automatic consideration of prisoners' applications for premature release in accordance with their respective policies/schemes.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar issued the directions while hearing an appeal filed by Surendra alias Sunda, who had challenged the Allahabad High Court's judgment affirming his conviction for murder under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment.

Supreme Court Grants Relief To Reliance Industries In 2007 RPL Futures Trading Case, Sets Aside SEBI's ₹447 Crore Disgorgement Order

Cause Title: RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ORS. Versus THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 564

The Supreme Court (May 29) set aside the ₹447.27 crore disgorgement order imposed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, being approved by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, on Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) in connection with alleged manipulative trading in the futures segment of Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (RPL) during November 2007.

Partly allowing the appeal filed by Reliance Industries Limited, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the finding of “fraud” under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations) could not be sustained, observing that the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) had committed an “egregious error” in affirming SEBI's conclusions on manipulation and fraudulent intent.

"We have reached the conclusion that the SAT in its majority judgment committed an egregious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as the question of fraud under regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations respectively is concerned," the Court observed.

Criminal Prosecution After Settlement Of Loan Before DRT Abuse Of Process : Supreme Court Quashes Cheating & Forgery Case

Cause Title: VIJAY KUMAR KELA & ANR. VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 565

The Supreme Court (May 29) quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a borrower under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that continuation of prosecution after a settlement of the loan account by way of an approved compromise settlement before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) would amount to abuse of process of court.

The Court framed the central issue as whether a criminal prosecution for cheating and forgery could continue after the loan account had been settled through a compromise approved by the bank and endorsed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

The Court noted that the bank had entered into a negotiated settlement with the borrower, accepted the entire compromise amount, issued a no-dues certificate, and secured dismissal of its recovery proceedings before the DRT. It held that the present case was squarely covered by its earlier decision in K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana, where criminal proceedings arising from a settled banking dispute were quashed.

Advocates Must Advise Their Clients Against Filing Frivolous Cases In Matrimonial Disputes : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ISHWAR CHAND SHARMA & OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 566

The Supreme Court (May 29) strongly deprecated the growing trend of filing false and vexatious criminal cases in matrimonial disputes, observing that courts as well as members of the Bar must actively discourage the misuse of criminal law to settle personal scores between estranged spouses.

“Vexatious litigation in the realm of matrimonial disputes based on frivolous and false allegations should be discouraged by the courts and the members of the bar. Advocates ought to advise their clients against the initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings against their spouses rather than encouraging them to do so.”, the Court observed.

A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while quashing more than 10 criminal cases, including allegations under the POCSO Act and rape provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), against a husband and his family members.

'Uglier Side Of Matrimonial Litigation' : Supreme Court Flags Trend Of Wives Filing False POCSO Cases Against Husbands

Cause Title: ISHWAR CHAND SHARMA & OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 566

The Supreme Court has expressed concern over a growing trend of false and frivolous cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act being filed in the backdrop of matrimonial and other personal disputes, cautioning that such misuse of criminal law causes severe hardship to innocent persons and burdens the justice system.

In a judgment, the Court observed that an increasing number of matrimonial disputes have witnessed allegations being levelled under the POCSO Act against husbands, who are also fathers of minor children, particularly daughters. According to the Court, such complaints are at times used as a tool to gain leverage in matrimonial litigation, secure higher monetary settlements, or harass the opposing party.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while quashing more than 10 criminal cases, including allegations under the POCSO Act and rape provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), against a husband and his family members. One of the cases filed at the instance of the wife alleged that her 14-year-old daughter was raped by her husband and her brother-in-law, and was physically assaulted by other family members of the husband.

'Individual Liberty Not Trivial Matter' : Supreme Court Awards Rs 11 Lakh Compensation To Prisoner For 24 Day Illegal Detention

Cause Title: DAUDAYAL Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 567

The Supreme Court (May 29) ordered the State of Rajasthan to make a payment of Rs. 11 lakh in compensation to a convict who was illegally detained for over a month, despite a judicial order existing in his favour.

“…the appellant is entitled to compensation for the twenty-four days of illegal custody suffered by him at the hands of the respondent State. The liberty of an individual is not a trivial matter. The State cannot continue curtailing the same in the face of a court order, on account of its slow bureaucratic processes of taking decisions whether to file appeals in a particular matter or not. If such a view is agreed to by us, it would amount to the liberty of a person being placed sub-par to the decision whether or not to file an appeal which is purely an administrative call. That cannot be countenanced.”, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The case arose from Daudayal's conviction in a 1967 criminal case, for which he was sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. His conviction was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court in 2021, following which he was arrested. In December 2023, he applied for permanent parole. The request was rejected in January 2024 on the ground that he had not availed the three stages of regular parole contemplated under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958.

Supreme Court Refuses To Review Judgment Mandating TET, Extends Deadline For In-Service Teachers

Case : State of UP v Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 568

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of review petitions challenging its 2025 judgment inAnjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, which held that in-service school teachers are required to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to continue in service and for promotions. However, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court extended the deadline for in-service teachers for acquiring the qualification by one year, until August 31, 2028.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan rejected contentions raised by States, teachers' associations and individual teachers that the requirement of qualifying TET could not be imposed on teachers appointed before the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The Court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of its earlier judgment.

In its original judgment, the Court had ruled that in-service teachers imparting lessons to students and having more than five years of service left before retirement must qualify TET within two years from September 1, 2025, failing which they would not be entitled to continue in service. It had also held that any teacher aspiring for promotion must necessarily qualify TET.

Permanently Vesting Secular Functions Of Mathadhipati In Govt Officer Denies Concept Of Mahantship; Violates Article 26: Supreme Court

Case : Arjun Dass v State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 569

The Supreme Court has held that the State cannot permanently separate the religious and secular functions of a Mathadhipati and vest the latter in a government-appointed administrator, observing that such an arrangement would amount to a denial of the very concept of Mahantship protected under Article 26 of the Constitution.

A Bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar made the observations while setting aside the Andhra Pradesh Government orders for the removal of Arjun Dass as the Mathadhipati of the historic Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt in Tirupati, and quashing orders appointing a "Fit Person" to administer the Mutt.

Referring to precedent in Shirur Mutt, the Court noted that in the conception of Mahantship, both the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest, are blended together and neither can be detached from the other.

MRTP Act | Property Tax Exemption Applies To All MIDC Units Till Transfer Of Services To Navi Mumbai Municipal Corp.: Supreme Court

Cause Title: SMALL SCALE ENTERPRENEURS ASSOCIATION & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 569

The Supreme Court has held that industries situated within the Trans Thane Creek (TTC) Industrial Area, which is vested in the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), are exempt from paying property tax to the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Court clarified that such exemption would apply for the period during which the industries availed essential civic amenities, including roads, drainage, water supply, street lighting, and sewerage services, provided by the MIDC.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale clarified that the benefit of the property tax exemption to the TTC Industries would cease to operate once the MIDC stopped providing the facilities to the industries, and the same was taken over by the NMMC. Thereafter, the TTC Industries are liable to pay property taxes to the NMMC.

“The moment the relevant authority (MIDC) stops providing those facilities and the responsibilities of the same are taken by the NMMC the benefit of the aforesaid exemption would cease to exist.”, the court observed.

1940 Arbitration Act | Award In Arbitration Invoked During Pending Civil Suit Without Court's Leave Not Enforceable : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ASHOK AND ORS. VERSUS PADAM CHAND AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 570

The Supreme Court has observed that during the pendency of the civil suit, an arbitral award secured by some parties under the 1940 Arbitration Act cannot be used to close the civil proceedings if the arbitration was initiated without the leave of the Court.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard the case where, during the pendency of a civil suit filed by the Appellant, an arbitral award under the 1940 Act was passed which effectively compromised the litigation between the parties and, based on this award, the Appellant's suit was dismissed, as the trial court deemed the dispute to be settled.

The central issue before the Court was whether an arbitration award passed during the pendency of a civil suit could be relied upon to settle or defeat the suit when the arbitration proceedings had been initiated without obtaining a court order under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Supreme Court Issues Guidelines To High Courts To Avoid Delay In Delivering Reserved Judgments; Sets 3 Month Timelimit

Case Title – Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 571

The Supreme Court issued a set of guidelines, which shall operate as "binding directions", to the High Courts to avoid delays in pronouncing judgments in reserved matters.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set a timelimit of three months to deliver judgments in matters where it is reserved. The orders in bail applications should be pronounced the same day, and if it is reserved, it must be pronounced and uploaded the next day.

If the bench which reserved the judgment does not deliver the judgment within four months of reserving, an application can be filed before the Chief Justice to withdraw the matter to another bench.

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Same/Next-Day Release Of Prisoners Granted Bail, Acquittal Or Sentence Suspension

Case Title – Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 571

The Supreme Court has issued a set of directions aimed at ensuring that undertrials and convicts are released from prison without delay after courts grant them bail, suspend their sentence, or acquit them.

Recognising that prisoners often continue to remain behind bars for days despite obtaining favourable judicial orders, the Court directed all High Courts and subordinate courts to streamline the process for pronouncement, communication and implementation of such orders.

The Court said that once a bail application is heard, the order should preferably be pronounced and uploaded on the same day. If the matter is reserved for orders, the Court observed that the order is expected to be pronounced on the next day and uploaded to the court website immediately thereafter.

Supreme Court Upholds Levy Of GST On Online Gaming, Says Its Taxable As 'Betting & Gambling'

Case : DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE HQS Vs GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED | SLP(C) No. 19366-19369/2023

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 572

The Supreme Court upheld the levy of Goods and Services Tax on online gaming activities as constitutionally valid, and rejected the constitutional and statutory challenge mounted against the levy of CGST on actionable claims arising from betting and gambling transactions.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that organised online gaming activities, including fantasy games involving pooled stakes and contingent price structures, give rise to actionable claims and supplies exigible to GST under the statutory framework governing betting and gambling transactions.

Online gaming amounts to betting and gambling

Supreme Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments & Stopping Of Illegal Resorts In Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve

Cause Title: A. JOHN KENNEDY AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 573

Expressing serious concern over the alarming extent of encroachments within the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve (SMTR), the Supreme Court issued a series of stringent directions aimed at restoring the ecologically sensitive landscape and ensuring strict compliance with forest and wildlife protection laws.

Noting that more than 4,600 encroachers occupying over 5,000 hectares of reserved forest land within the Tiger Reserve, and despite years of enforcement efforts, only 66 encroachers had been relocated and a relatively small portion of the encroached land had been recovered, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the pace of action was grossly inadequate considering the ecological significance of the area, which forms the upper catchment of the Vaigai River and serves as a crucial wildlife habitat.

“In SMTR alone, only 66 out of 4,601 encroachers have been successfully relocated, and even in respect of these 66 cases, the State has acknowledged that the process of taking over 40 cultivation, buildings and other assets has not been fully completed and continues to remain in suspended animation, thereby permitting continued illegal use of forest land and resources. Only 52.86 hectares out of 5,072.653 hectares under encroachment has been effectively recovered. These meagre figures, when viewed against the massive scale of encroachment and the duration over which this matter has been pending before various fora, reflect a pace of progress that this Court finds difficult to regard as commensurate with the gravity of the situation.”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Issues Comprehensive Victim Protection Plan For Human Trafficking Survivors, Calls For Legislative Reforms

Cause Title: PRAJWALA Versus UNION OF INDIA, MA 530/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 56/2004 PIL-W

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 574

In a landmark judgment addressing human trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation (CSE), the Supreme Court has issued a comprehensive Victim Protection Plan and directed all States and Union Territories to implement a series of measures aimed at protecting and rehabilitating trafficking survivors.

Invoking its powers under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan issued a detailed set of binding directions constituting a nationwide "Victim Protection Plan" covering rescue operations, victim identification, rehabilitation, prosecution mechanisms, and institutional coordination.

"It took a pretty long time to prepare this judgment, but we are sure you won't have to refer to any books henceforth on the subject. This will remain very close to our hearts because it will go a long way in protecting vulnerable young girls and women," Justice Pardiwala observed at the time of pronouncement.

Consent Of Adult Sex Trafficking Victims Must Guide Decisions For Their Rehabilitation : Supreme Court

Cause Title: PRAJWALA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 574

In a landmark ruling aiming to mitigate the concerns of the victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation (CSE), the Supreme Court has held that the consent of adult sex workers must be the primary consideration in decisions relating to rehabilitation, reintegration, and placement in protective homes.

While adjudicating a miscellaneous plea seeking guidelines and directions to protect the fundamental rights of victims of trafficking for CSE, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, accepting Senior Advocate Ms. Aparna Bhat submission, regarding the preparation of a 'Victim Protection Plan', held that victims cannot be treated as passive objects of rescue and rehabilitation, and that their choices and autonomy must be respected.

The Court rejected the paternalistic assumptions under the existing framework i.e., Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA), which often treats all persons rescued from prostitution-related situations in the same manner, irrespective of whether they were trafficked, coerced, or voluntarily engaged in sex work. According to the bench, such a "one-size-fits-all" approach fails to account for the diverse realities of those brought before magistrates.

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain NGO's Plea To Clarify Order On Euthanasia Of Rabid Dogs

The Supreme Court (May 25) refused to entertain an application moved by an NGO seeking clarification that the Court's recent direction permitting euthanasia of dogs in certain circumstances cannot be construed as a mandate for indiscriminate culling of stray dogs.

The application has been filed by NGO Animals Are People Too in the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court, expressing concern that the Court's direction is being misinterpreted by authorities to justify the unlawful killing or removal of dogs.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta told the counsel to move the Punjab and Haryana High Court in this regard.

Twisha Sharma Death : CBI To Take Over Probe; Supreme Court Requests Media To Avoid Publishing Statements

Case: In Re: Alleged Institutional Bias and Procedural Discrepancies in the Unnatural Death of Young Woman at Matrimonial Home | SMW(Crl) 4/2026

The Supreme Court asked the State of Madhya Pradesh if the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) can be asked to investigate the Twisha Sharma dowry death case.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the CBI will take over the probe, and that he will ensure that the administrative steps will be taken itself.

The Court also made an appeal to the media to exercise restraint in publishing the statements of the victims and the accused. "We are slightly at pain because of some of the actions. We will request our media friends to not go for the statements of the victims family or the other family. Let the things move as per law and procedure," the Chief Justice of India said.

'Don't Take It So Sentimentally' : CJI On Plea Against 'Cockroach Janata Party'

The Chief Justice of India told a petitioner not to take the 'Cockroach Janata Party' issue so emotionally, when the lawyer orally mentioned a petition concerning it for urgent listing.

Advocate NK Goswami submitted that despite the clarification given by the Chief Justice of India, a "distorted and malicious narrative is being continued."

"Don't take it so sentimentally," CJI Surya Kant told the lawyer.

Sad At NEET-UG 2026 Cancellation, NTA Hasn't Learnt Lessons : Supreme Court

Case Details: FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS. | W.P.(C) No. 651/2026 and others

The Supreme Court (May 25) expressed its anguish that the NEET-UG 2026 had to be cancelled over paper leak. The Court orally remarked that despite the directions issued by the Court in 2024 regarding the paper leak two years ago, the National Testing Agency(NTA) has not learned its lesson.

The issued notice on petitions filed by doctors and medical students seeking to replace the NTA, and sought a status report from the NTA on the steps taken as per the recommendations of the High-Powered Committee which was constituted, as per the Court's 2024 judgment, to suggest measures to strengthen the NEET mechanism.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe considered the matter. The Court also ordered that a copy of all petitions should be served to the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Advocate Tanvi Dubey and Dr. Charu Mathur appeared for the petitioners.

'Serious Issue' : Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On PIL To Ban Child Employment In Dance Bars, Spas

Case : Justice Rights for Children Alliance v. Union of India | WP (c) 647/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on a public interest litigation seeking stricter prohibition of child labour in entertainment and hospitality-linked establishments, including orchestras, dance bars, dance troupes, nautanki performances, massage parlours, spas and salons, where children are allegedly vulnerable to exploitation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was a PIL filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance, which sought directions to the Centre to exercise its powers under Section 4 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, to expand the list of occupations where child employment is absolutely prohibited.

During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant observed that it was a "serious issue." Senior Advocate HS Phoolka appeared for the petitioner.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Use Of Ballot Papers In Punjab Municipal Elections

Case Title – Ruchita Garg v. State of Punjab

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the use of Electronic Voting Machines instead of ballot papers in the Punjab Municipal elections.

Noting that the elections are scheduled to take place tomorrow, the bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi refused to interfere, saying that it was too late as all arrangements had been made.

Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, for the petitioner, submitted that it was the first time that the ballot papers were being used in the recent past. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has observed that EVMs are the norm.

Supreme Court Asks Nagpur Parsi Panchayat If Woman Who Married Outside Community Can Be Permitted To Offer Prayers At Aghyari

Case Title – Dina Budhraja v. Nagpur Parsi Panchayat

The Supreme Court explored the possibility of granting limited interim permission to a Parsi woman who had an interfaith marriage to offer prayers at Nagpur's only Agiary and participate in funeral and Muktad prayers.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, however, made it clear that it would avoid passing any order that could indicate a prima facie view on the larger constitutional issues pending before the nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference regarding the right of a religous denomination to excommunicate.

“Please get hold of those orders on consent to the extent the other Parsi Panchayats have permitted to attend funeral prayers of the father, organizations, etc. To that extent, we may give the same…We can pass the order without it being that the order is sort of a prima facie view”, Justice Bagchi told the counsel for the parties. The Court listed the matter for further consideration.

Supreme Court Chides Delhi Govt Over Delay In Constituting Selection Committee For DERC Appointments, Seeks Timeline In 2 Days

Case Title – Energy Watchdog v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Supreme Court questioned the Delhi Government over delay in constitution of a Selection Committee for appointments to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC), observing that the process appeared to be going “nowhere” despite the Commission remaining without a Chairperson for nearly a year.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a plea filed by NGO Energy Watchdog seeking regular appointments to DERC and constitution of a Selection Committee under the Electricity Act, 2003.

Counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi informed the Court that a proposal to constitute the Selection Committee had been moved on May 4, 2026, and sought additional time. She stated that the once the Selection Committee is constituted, appointments would be completed within three months as prescribed under Section 85 of the Electricity Act.

Supreme Court Questions Centre's Delay In Notifying Commercial Court Rules 2021, Says HCs May Consider Setting Up District Execution Cells

Cause Title: PERIYAMMAL (DEAD THR. LRS.) & ORS. VERSUS V. RAJAMANI & ANR.

The Supreme Court (May 25) took serious note of the Union Government's failure to notify the draft Commercial Courts Rules, 2021, observing that the country is facing a “huge challenge” in the effective and expeditious disposal of execution petitions.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal took suo motu notice of the fact that the draft Commercial Courts Rules, 2021, prepared pursuant to a Ministry of Law and Justice task force on “Ease of Doing Business”, have remained un-notified for nearly four years, and therefore sought an explanation from the Ministry about the delay in notification of the Rules.

“We wish to know, why these Rules have not been notified so far. The draft Rules, 2021 have been framed with a purpose or, to put it in other words, with a particular object. In this regard, we would request Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned Additional Solicitor General to take appropriate instructions from the concerned Ministry and revert on the next date of hearing.”, the court said.

After BCI Chairperson's Remarks On Fake Advocates, Plea Filed In Supreme Court To Verify Law Degrees

A writ petition has been filed over the recent remarks made by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India that 35-40 per cent of advocates have fake degrees, and are practising in the Courts based on fabricated degree certificates.

The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks directions to the Union of India, Bar Council of India (BCI), all State Bar Councils, and the University Grants Commission to establish a transparent and uniform verification mechanism for advocates' credentials.

The petition has been filed by Ms Yogamaya MG, who is a practising advocate. It says: "The issue assumes grave constitutional significance in light of public recent statements reportedly made by the leadership of the Bar Council of India, indicating that a considerable percentage of persons enrolled or practising as advocates may possess fake, forged, or unverifiable educational credentials, and that a substantial number have not completed the prescribed verification processes."

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Chhattisgarh Excise Commissioner Niranjan Das In Liquor Scam Corruption & Money Laundering Cases

Case : Niranjan Das v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 6562/2026

The Supreme Court granted bail to former Chhattisgarh Excise Commissioner Niranjan Das, who was arrested in connection with an alleged corruption and money laundering case arising out of the Chhattisgarh liquor scam.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered Das' release, while clarifying that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations against him. The Court said the release would be subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court.

During the hearing, the Court noted that Das has been in custody since December 19, 2025, and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Listing Of Plea Seeking Enforcement Of Anti-Cow Slaughter Laws Ahead Of Bakrid

The Supreme Court refused to urgently list a plea seeking enforcement of anti-cow slaughter laws ahead of Bakrid (Eid-al-Adha), with the Chief Justice of India declining to treat the matter as urgent.

Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha orally mentioned the matter for urgent listing. He said that the matter sought the implementation of the anti-cow slaughter laws, and said that the urgency was that Bakrid falls on May 28. "We are seeking a hearing so that if your lordships are persuaded, an interim order can be passed," he submitted.

The Chief Justice remarked that the plea had been brought at the last moment.

Supreme Court Surprised Over Vacancies In ITAT Administrative Staff, Seeks Attorney General's Intervention

Case : PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 617/2026

The Supreme Court expressed surprise over the large number of vacancies in the administrative staff of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) and sought the intervention of the Attorney General for India to ensure that the posts are filled at the earliest.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by Praveen Kumar Bansal concerning the longstanding vacancies in the tribunal's administrative setup.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing in the matter, submitted that several key administrative posts in the ITAT have remained vacant for years, affecting its functioning.

Supreme Court Takes Note Of News Report On Continued Illegal Mining In Chambal Sanctuary, Issues Further Directions

Case Details: IN RE: ILLEGAL SAND MINING IN THE NATIONAL CHAMBAL SANCTUARY AND THREAT TO ENDANGERED AQUATIC WILDLIFE Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN | SMW(C) No. 2/2026 Diary No. 15656 / 2026

The Supreme Court(May 26) took on record a news article byHindustan Times relating to the use of unregistered vehicles for sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary(NCGS). It passed further directions in view of the continuing and grave concern relating to rampant illegal sand mining activities, degradation of protected wildlife habitats, operation of unregistered and unidentified vehicles, and the threat posed to the critical infrastructure in the affected regions.

At the outset, the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta asked the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju(for State of Madhya Pradesh) if the read the Hindustan Times' report about pictures of unregistered vehicles moving around in the Morena district carrying river sand, despite the Supreme Court's earlier stringent orders to curb sand mining.

Justice Mehta told ASG Raju that the illegal miners have changed their routes due to the curbs imposed by the Court, but the issue continues to persist. Raju responded that he will go through the news report, but if the news is correct, it's "shocking". Justice Mehta added that if the report is true, false affidavits have been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.The Court has now asked the State's counsel to file a fresh affidavit giving a response to the said news report.

Supreme Court Agrees To Examine If Definition Of 'Wetland' In Wetland Conservation Rules 2017 Is Vague

Case :RAVINDRA SINHA Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 463/2026

The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the definition of “wetland” under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, with the Court limiting its notice on the petition on the aspect of he alleged vagueness in the definition contained in Rule 2(g).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the 2017 Rules substantially diluted the protection available to wetlands by narrowing the definition, resulting in a large number of ecologically sensitive sites being excluded from regulatory safeguards.

'All NLUs Suffering' : Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Judgment Against Debarring Law Students For Low Attendance

Case Details: Bar Council of India v. Union of India Diary No. 29604-2026

The Supreme Court (May 26) stayed the Delhi High Court's order, which said that no student can be prevented from taking exams on the grounds of lack of minimum attendance. The Court stayed paragraph 249 of the High Court' order order where directions were passed in this regard.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in a petition filed by the Bar Council of India against the Delhi High Court's order. It has now tagged the petition along with two pending writ petitions by students challenging the two circulars by the BCI requiring universities to implement a criminal background check system, installation of a biometric attendance system and CCTVs in all classrooms.

At the outset, many counsels, including Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, submitted that the Delhi High Court's order should be stayed. Rohatgi stated that the judgment has given a premium to bypass disclipine to attend classes.

Banke Bihari Temple : Supreme Court Asks Committee To Consider Goswamis' Suggestions; Urges UP Govt To Come With Development Plan

Case : MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THAKUR SHREE BANKEY BIHARI JI MAHARAJ TEMPLE AND ANR. Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 704/2025 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court impressed upon the committee administering the Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple at Vrindavan, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, to take measures to restore the traditional religious practices and to improve crowd management and day-to-day functioning, considering the suggestions given by the two groups of Goswamis.

The Court allowed the nomination of two members each from the two groups of Goswamis- Shayan Bhog and Raj Bhog- and allowed them to give suggestions to the committee.

The Court expressed the hope that the committee will take a decision after duly considering the suggestions. In August last year, the Court had constituteda committee headed by former Allahabad HC Judge Justice Ashok Kumar to administer the temple, while staying the operation of Ordinance brought by the Uttar Pradesh Government for its management.

Judicial Service Recruitment | Is Cut-Off For Viva-Voce Arbitrary? Supreme Court Hears Candidates' Plea

Case Title – Ajaykumar Shyamkishor Tripathi v. Registrar General

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in view of large-scale vacancies, observing that while 42 vacancies were available, only 13 candidates were selected.

The CJI observed that recruitment exercises yielding very few successful candidates despite a large number of vacancies was a matter of concern.

“When you undertake an entire exercise of exam, one should also think of what is the output I got. You spend public money and most importantly you invest a lot of time. And if ultimately outcome is very minimal, then maybe that something that has to be looked into”, the CJI remarked.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Appointments Of Karnataka MLAs In Statutory Corporations, Allows To Seek Review In HC

Case Title – Suri Payala v. State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court disposed of a special leave petition against a Karnataka High Court judgment that upheld the appointment of more than 40 MLAs and MLCs as chairpersons and members of various state boards and corporations with cabinet-rank status and ministerial perks.

However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to seek review before the High Court on the basis of a Karnataka government order dated October 7, 2020, which he contended had not been considered while dismissing the PIL.

“The petitioner's counsel apparently did not lay much emphasis on the contents of the said government order which might have some bearing on the issue raised by the petitioner. Consequently, we dispose of this special leave petition with the liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the High Court”, the Court ordered.

'100 Crore Property Sold At 10 Crore' : Supreme Court Questions Valuer For Auction Under MPID Act

Case Title – Quikr Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Jaiwanti

The Supreme Court refused to stay a Bombay High Court judgment that found serious irregularities in the valuation and auction of a Haryana land parcel attached in the NSEL scam and questioned the role of the valuer whose assessment had formed the basis of the sale.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ultimately allowed valuer Quiker Realty to withdraw his special leave petition and pursue a review before the High Court.

The Court was hearing a special leave petition filed by a valuer challenging the High Court order directing the valuer to be blacklisted for five years. During the hearing, the Court repeatedly questioned the valuation exercise that led to a 35-acre land parcel in Haryana being sold for about ₹10 crore after earlier valuations had placed its worth at several times that amount.

'MPID Courts Acting Daredevil; High Court Must See What Corruption Going On There': CJI Surya Kant

Case : Quikr Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Jaiwanti (Diary No. 30200/2026).

The Chief Justice of India made scathing remarks on the functioning of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) courts while refusing to stay a Bombay High Court judgment that found serious irregularities in the valuation and auction of a Haryana land parcel attached in the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) scam.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a special leave petition filed by valuer Quikr Realty Pvt Ltd challenging the Bombay High Court's May 8 judgment, which had set aside the auction sale of a 35-acre land parcel in Haryana and directed that the valuer be blacklisted for five years.

During the hearing, the bench expressed deep concern over the conduct of MPID authorities and courts, with CJI Surya Kant recalling an earlier instance where an MPID court allegedly acted in defiance of a Supreme Court order.

Centre Moves Supreme Court To Transfer Petitions Challenging Transgender Amendment Act 2026 From High Courts

The Union Government informed the Supreme Court that it has filed transfer petitions seeking to bring before the Supreme Court the various challenges pending in High Courts against the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights (Amendment) Act 2026.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, requesting that the transfer petitions be listed.

“We have filed transfer petitions to transfer the challenge to the Transgender Amendment Act here in this Court. Can the transfer petition be listed on Friday? If notice also goes, we can ask the High Court to wait,” Mehta submitted.

'Why Go To Social Media?He Lost Job' : Supreme Court Affirms Order To Delete Woman's Post Alleging Molestation By Male Co-Passenger

Case : K J v. N G. | SLP(C) No. 18051-18052/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by a journalist challenging an interim injunction passed by the Delhi High Court directing her to take down a social media post which alleged that a male co-passenger sexually harassed her during a flight.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan declined to interfere with the interim order passed by the High Court.

Plea Seeking Time Stamp on VVPAT Slips In EVMs : Supreme Court Leaves Decision to Election Commission

Case : NALLA SURESH REDDY Vs UNION OF INDIA | D No. 22538/2026

The Supreme Court disposed of a public interest petition seeking inclusion of the exact time of vote recording on Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips to enhance electoral transparency, leaving the issue for consideration by the Election Commission of India (ECI) as a technical matter within its domain.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Surya Kant heard the matter. The petitioner, Nalla Suresh Reddy, stated to be a businessman, had approached the Court in public interest seeking a direction to the ECI to modify VVPAT guidelines so that each slip would display the precise time at which a vote was cast.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, for the petitioner, contended that while the Conduct of Election Rules provide for VVPAT, the present system does not record the exact time of vote on the physical paper trail. The petitioner argued that this creates a “physical audit gap,” particularly in cases where questions arise over voting patterns during the closing hours of polling. It was submitted that the absence of a time stamp weakens the evidentiary value of the paper trail in verifying such concerns.

Can't Compel Lawyers To Attend Hearings Only Virtually, Can Only Appeal To Bar: Supreme Court

Case Details: SHOBHA GUPTA Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 658/2026 Diary No. 31285 / 2026

The Supreme Court said it cannot compel advocates to attend hearings only through video conferencing and can merely make an earnest appeal to members of the Bar to opt for virtual appearances amid the ongoing fuel crisis triggered by the conflict in West Asia.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi was hearing a writ petition seeking directions for virtual hearing of miscellaneous matters for three months in view of the fuel crisis

While appreciating the petitioner's initiative, the bench observed that the Court cannot judicially mandate advocates to appear only virtually if some members of the Bar face practical difficulties in doing so.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Former NCLAT Member's Plea Challenging Bar On Practice Before NCLT/NCLAT

Case : VIJAI PRATAP SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 670/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by former National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Technical Member Vijai Pratap Singh challenging the statutory bar preventing former tribunal members from practising before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and NCLAT.

Appearing in person, Singh questioned the rationale behind the restriction and suggested that a cooling-off period could be considered instead of a complete prohibition.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, however, expressed reservations, emphasising the need to preserve judicial independence and public confidence in the adjudicatory process.

Supreme Court Seeks Union, NCERT & CBSE Responses On Plea Challenging 3-Language Mandate In Class 9

Case : Yashica Bhandari Jain and others v. Union of India and others. W.P.(C) No. 694/2026

The Supreme Court sought a "comprehensive response" from the Union Government, Central Board of Secondary Education and the National Council of Educational Research and Training(NCERT) in a Public Interest Litigation challenging the decision of the CBSE to make a third language compulsory for Class 9 students from 2026-27 academic year.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi issued notice on the petition challenging the CBSE's decision, and kept the matter in the second week of July (when the Court re-opens after the summer vacation).

The bench told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that it wanted a report on the logistical preparedness to implement the decision.

Supreme Court Allows Appointment Of Manipur DGP From Outside Manipur Cadre, Notes Peculiar Circumstance In State

Case Details: PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. v UNION OF INDIA | Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 310/1996, I.A. NO. 160215/2026

In an application moved by the Manipur Government, the Supreme Court allowed the appointment of the Director General of Police from outside the Manipur cadre, considering the peculiar situation in the State.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order.

The Manipur government has moved an application stating that they have been unable to find a DG Police from the Manipur cadre after the retirement of DGP Rajiv Singh, who was appointed in the backdrop of the ethnic violence in the State in 2023. Singh is from the Tripura cadre.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & States On Plea Seeking Safety Guidelines For Women Advocates Visiting Police Stations

Case Title – Geeta Jain Aggarwal v. Union of India

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking the formulation and implementation of uniform guidelines across the country to ensure the safety, dignity and protection of women advocates while visiting police stations, particularly during late evening and night hours.

“The Advocates, as officers of the Court, are.an integral part of the justice delivery system and are frequently required to visit police stations to represent and assist their clients. However, in the absence of a specific legal framework governing their safety within such State-controlled environments, women advocates are increasingly exposed to risks of harassment, intimidation and abuse”, the petition states.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Union and all States on the plea returnable in 4 weeks.

Alleging Diversion Of Jaypee Funds, Homebuyer Moves Supreme Court Seeking ED Probe, RBI Audit Of Banks' Exposure To Real Estate Projects

Case Details: VANDANA SABHARWAL Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 661/2026 Diary No. 27990 / 2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and the Enforcement Directorate on a writ petition filed by a Jaypee homebuyer seeking a court-monitored investigation into alleged diversion of thousands of crores collected from homebuyers in the Jaypee Wishtown project in Noida.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice returnable on July 15. Notice has also been issued to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Reserve Bank of India, UP RERA, NOIDA, Jaiprakash Associates Ltd, Jaiprakash Infratech Ltd and related entities.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted: "Issue is, the ED, which has been investigating, has raised the doubt of 14,559 crores collected by JAL and JIL from more than 21,000 home owners. Substantial amount were diverted for non-construction purposes and siphoned off to entities etc. One of the larger issues that arises is that this has been happening in a large number of projects where funds have been collected from homeowners and diverted. The problem is home owners are left in a situation where diverted funds are not identified or not brought back in times because it has been diverted to other companies".

Supreme Court Requests Delhi High Court To Expedite Hearing Of Plea Challenging Bar Council Transfer Fee

Case Details: ADITYA KUMAR KANDU Vs BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 682/2026 Diary No. 30820 / 2026

The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain an Article 32 writ petition challenging the alleged extraorbitant fees charged by Bar Councils for the transfer of the Bar Council registration from one State to another.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi stated that another writ petition raising a similar issue is currently pending before the Delhi High Court. While refusing to entertain the present petition, the bench granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter in the Delhi High Court.

The bench has requested the High Court to expedite the disposal of the pending writ petition.

Wrestling Federation Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi HC Order Allowing Vinesh Phogat To Participate In Asian Games Selection Trials

Case: Wrestling Federation of India v. Vinesh Phogat | SLP (c) 19503/2026

The Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) has approached the Supreme Court challenging aDelhi High Court order permitting wrestler Vinesh Phogat to participate in the selection trials for the Asian Games 2026.

A Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe will consider the matter tomorrow.

On May 22, the Delhi High Court directed that Phogat be allowed to take part in the selection trials scheduled for May 30 and 31.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union, FSSAI On Plea Seeking Turnover-Based Penalty For Sale Of Unsafe And Adulterated Food

Case Title – Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Union and the FSSAI on a plea seeking directions to strengthen the penal and enforcement framework under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, contending that the present regime has failed to effectively curb the sale of unsafe and adulterated food products across the country.

“The Act, in its structure, is aligned with internationally accepted food safety standards and scientific benchmarks and is complete in its legislative design; however, the visible gap lies in effective implementation, and in practice the scale and enforcement of monetary penalties often become insignificant when compared to the vast commercial earnings of large food business operators, thereby diluting the intended deterrent effect and reducing the statutory scheme to a largely symbolic presence rather than a continuously operating preventive mechanism”, the petition states.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in the petition filed by IVF specialist Dr. Aniruddha Malpani.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Anticipatory Bail Granted To Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati In POCSO Case

Case Details: ASHUTOSH BRAHMACHARI v SWAMI AVIMUKTESHWARANAND SARASWATI JAGATGURU SHANKARACHARYA JYOTISHPEETHADHEESHWAR AND ORS. | Diary No. 18688-2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed challenging the Allahabad High Court's March 25 order granting anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in the Prayagraj POCSO Case over alleged sexual abuse of minors.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh heard the matter.

Ashutosh Brahmachari, the first informant in the case, had filed the petition through AOR Saurabh Ajay Gupta, arguing that the High Court failed to adequately consider the severity of the allegations against Swami.

Supreme Court Allows Wrestler Vinesh Phogat To Participate In Asian Games Selection Trials

Case: Wrestling Federation of India v. Vinesh Phogat | SLP (c) 19503/2026

The Supreme Court allowed wrestler Vinesh Phogat to participate in the selection trials for the Asian Games scheduled to be held on May 30, refusing to stay aDelhi High Court order that had granted her relief.

Considering a petition filed by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) challenging the High Court's order, the Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe declined to stay the High Court's order, thereby clearing the way for Phogat to compete in the trials.

However, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about the approach adopted by the Delhi High Court in granting relief to the wrestler. Despite those concerns, the Bench chose not to interfere with the order at this stage, considering the imminent conduct of the selection trials.

NEET-UG 2026 Cancellation : 'UPSC Never Had Paper Leak, NTA Needs To Learn' : Supreme Court Seeks Union's Affidavit On Reforms

Case Details: FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS. | W.P.(C) No. 651/2026 and others

Hearing a plea concerning the NEET-UG 2026 cancellation due to paper leak, the Supreme Court raised concerns over the ad-hoc nature of the National Testing Agency (NTA), and said that unless clear accountability is fixed, the problems will recur.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe considered petitions seeking to disband the NTA. During the heairng, the bench observed that the NTA needs to learn from other bodies like the UPSC which conduct large-scale competitive exams without any paper leak.

"UPSC has never been a situation, you need to learn," Justice Narasimha said.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Cobrapost's Plea Against Trial Court Allowing Anil Ambani To File Fresh Defamation Suit

Case :COBRAPOST.COM v. ANIL. D. AMBANI AND ORS. | SLP(C) No. 18891/2026

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition filed by news portal Cobrapost challenging a trial court order permitting industrialist Anil Ambani to file a fresh defamation suit after withdrawing his previous suit filed against the portal over its reports alleging that companies linked to him had committed a fraud exceeding ₹41,000 crore.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, noting that the petitioner has alternate remedies in civil law, refused to entertain the matter.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the trial court had granted liberty to file a fresh suit without hearing Cobrapost, despite the fact that such permission can be granted only under limited circumstances contemplated by Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To ED On Former Haryana MLA Dharam Singh Chhoker's Bail Plea In Money Laundering Case

Case Title – Dharam Singh Chhoker v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by former Haryana MLA Dharam Singh Chhoker from Congress against to him in an alleged Rs. 616 Crores money laundering case.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi posted the matter for hearing on 17th June 2026. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Chhoker.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while denying regular bail observed that the allegations, nature of transactions, and material collected during the investigation did not justify release at this stage.

SCBA Elections : Supreme Court Directs Implementation Of Revised Eligibility Criteria This Year; Raises Term To 2 Years From 2027

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik | Diary No. 13992 of 2023

The Supreme Court approved a wide-ranging set of electoral reforms for the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), laying down fresh eligibility criteria for voters and candidates, introducing anti-corruption safeguards, and directing implementation of most reforms before the next election.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan pronounced the directions after considering recommendations made by the committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice L Nageswara Rao, suggestions received from the SCBA, and independent representations from members of the Bar.

Significantly, the Court increased the tenure of the Executive Committee from one year to two years. However, the Court directed that this reform would take effect from 2027.

Complete Selection Of DERC Chairperson And Members Within Two Months: Supreme Court Directs Selection Committee

Case Title – Energy Watchdog v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Supreme Court directed the Selection Committee to complete the selection process for Chairperson and two members of the Delhi Electricity Regulation Commission (DERC) within two months.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered -

"The Selection Committee to take immediate necessary steps for the selection of chairperson and two members and make an endeavour to complete the selection process within a period of 2 months. Post this matter immediately after 2 months. A compliance report to be filed"

'GST Is Tax On Supply, Not Profits' : Why Supreme Court Rejected Casino's Plea That Tax Liability Is On Net Outcome After Games

Cause Title : Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence Hqs Vs Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited | SLP(C) No. 19366-19369/2023 (with connected cases)

While holding that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) would be made applicable to online gaming, fantasy sports, and other games played in virtual settings that involve stakes upon uncertain outcomes, the Supreme Court has also dealt with an issue regarding the correctness of the Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) taxability model used by the Casinos while determining their GST liability.

During the hearing, it was argued on behalf of the Casinos that GST should be levied only on Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR), i.e., the amount ultimately retained by a casino after deducting winnings paid to players. They argued that if players won amounts exceeding their bets, then there would effectively be no taxable consideration.

Rejecting the Casinos' stand, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that GST would be payable not on the net financial outcome at the end of a gaming cycle, but right from the moment the player is permitted to participate in the gambling activity. "The supply involving such actionable claims therefore constitutes the taxable event under the CGST framework.", the court said.