Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: September 07, 2026 To September 13, 2026

Defendant Need Not Enter Witness Box To Prove Admitted Document : Supreme Court

Case Details: Punnu Ram v. Laturia Ram Dead Th. Lrs.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 903

The Supreme Court has held that a defendant is not required to step into the witness box when the defence is based on an undisputed document already placed on record.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard the case where the Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking a mandatory injunction and possession against a Respondent-tenant claiming him to be the owner of the property and permitted the respondent to use the property as a licensee.

The trial court dismissed the Appellant's suit, taking on record the revenue entry showing him as 'tenant'.

Companies Can Be Prosecuted Even Without Naming Individual Officers : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sanofi India Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 904

The Supreme Court (September 7) held that a company can face criminal prosecution for an offence requiring mens rea even if the individual employee or officer through whom the alleged offence was committed has not been identified or arraigned as an accused.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that the absence of an identification and arraignment of a natural person, by itself, is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings against a corporation at the threshold stage under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“Non-identification of the natural person does not, by itself, render the allegations incapable of disclosing the corporation's role in the offence… where the surrounding facts and circumstances, taken as a whole, disclose the possibility that the corporation acted with the requisite mens rea, that disclosure is not defeated merely because no particular individual has been identified as its source… All that is being said is that neither identification nor arraignment of a natural person can be read in as a prerequisite, such that their absence alone would justify quashing in every case.”, the Court said.

How To Attribute Mens Rea To Company? Supreme Court Explains Three-Stage Inquiry

Case: Sanofi India Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 904

The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings against a company accused of an offence cannot be quashed merely on the ground that no individual director, officer, or employee has been identified or arraigned as a co-accused, even where the offence charged requires proof of mens rea.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held so while hearing an appeal filed by a pharmaceutical company, against a Karnataka High Court order that had refused to quash a corruption and criminal conspiracy case arising out of alleged irregularities in drug procuration by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).

Dismissing the appeal, the bench perused English and Indian law on corporate criminal liability and evolved a fresh, three-stage framework for determining when the guilty mind of a natural person can be attributed to a company.

Prior Land Possession Not Mandatory To Apply For Environmental Clearance For Bio-Medical Waste Facilities : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Punahchakran Private Limited v. Indotech Waste Solution & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 905

The Supreme Court (September 7) held that a prior allotment or legal possession of land is not mandatory at the stage of submitting an application for granting an Environmental Clearance (EC) for the purpose of establishing a Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF).

“Clause 6 of the EIA, 2006 states that an application in Form 1 can be made after the identification of prospective site(s). Therefore, land allotment cannot be said to be a pre-condition for the making of an application under Form 1.”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the National Green Tribunal's decision to quash the environmental permissions granted to the Appellant-company for its proposed CBWTF facility in Uttar Pradesh's Sambhal District.

'Victim Didn't Identify Accused In Court' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted For Rape Of 5-Year-Old

Case Title – Dhanraj v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 906

The Supreme Court reiterated that identification of an accused during a Test Identification Parade (TIP) cannot be treated as substantive proof of identity and is only meant to corroborate the identification subsequently made by a witness in court.

“TIP is intended to test the memory and capacity of a witness to identify a person whom the witness claims to have seen during the occurrence and to lend corroboration to the identification subsequently made before the Court. The test identification proceedings undertaken during investigation cannot be treated as substantive proof of identity. Substantive proof would be the identification of the accused by the witnesses while testifying on oath or dock identification in common parlance”, the Court observed.

The Court acquitted a man convicted of raping a five-year-old girl, finding the prosecution case fatally deficient as the child victim did not identify the accused during her deposition, although the accused was present in court and she had stated that she could identify him.

Indian Stamp Act | Is Fraudulent Intent Necessary To Invoke S.47A Over Undervalued Deed? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Details: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. District Revenue Officer (Stamps) & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 907

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench a significant question on the scope of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, raising doubts over whether authorities must have material indicating wilful undervaluation and fraudulent intention before initiating proceedings to determine the correct market value of a property.

Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is the provision that allows the registration/revenue authorities to investigate whether a property transaction has been undervalued for stamp-duty purposes. If the registering officer has reason to believe that the market value or consideration stated in a sale deed is not the true value, the officer can refer the document to the Collector for determination of the correct value and the stamp duty payable.

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu questioned the proposition in the Court's earlier judgment in V.N. Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector of Stamps, which held that the power under Section 47-A was linked to wilful undervaluation with fraudulent intent to evade stamp duty. The same approach was subsequently followed in Registrar of Assurances v. ASL Vyapar (P) Ltd.

Family Court Judges Not Eligible For High Court Elevation : Supreme Court Refuses To Revisit Precedent

Case: Indrakala Joginder Nanda v. High Court of Judicature At Bombay | D No. 38854/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 908

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea by seven Family Court judges from Maharashtra seeking a declaration that they hold “judicial office” for the purpose of eligibility for appointment as High Court judges under Article 217 of the Constitution.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana held that the issue had already been conclusively dealt with by the Supreme Court in its earlier judgment in S.D. Joshi and Others v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Another [(2011) 1 SCC 252], which had held that the post of a Family Court judge in a separate cadre could not be treated as a “judicial office” for the purposes of Article 217(2)(a).

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate R Basant, urged the Court to revisit the earlier ruling in light of changed circumstances, particularly the manner in which Family Court judges have been appointed in Maharashtra over the past 36 years.

Plaintiff In Specific Performance Suit Must First Debunk Suspicious Circumstances : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bohar Singh & Anr. v. Sardara Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 909

The Supreme Court held that where a plaintiff seeks specific performance of an agreement to sell whose genuineness is clouded by suspicious circumstances, the plaintiff must first explain those circumstances satisfactorily before the evidentiary burden can shift to the defendant.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside the concurrent findings of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the First Appellate Court, which had reversed the Trial Court's dismissal of the respondent-plaintiff's suit for specific performance.

A loan transaction was disguised as a sale agreement. The appellant's signature, taken on blank paper, was used to create an agreement to sell his land to the respondent. The loan amount paid to the respondent's father was shown as earnest money, with the balance payable at execution.

Supreme Court Clears Implementation Of Resolution Plan For Stalled 'Sushant Aquapolis' Project In Ghaziabad

Case Details: One City Infrastructure Private Limited v. Ghaziabad Development Authority and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 910

In a relief to home buyers of the Ghaziabad-based housing project 'Sushant Aquapolis,' the Supreme Court cleared the path for implementation of the resolution plan of the corporate debtor, M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Private Limited, which had promoted the group housing cluster.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran accepted the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) demand in a hearing took place on August 31, permitting them to develop a 24-meter-wide pathway on three boundaries of the stalled "Sushant Aquapolis" project, without claiming any title over the land, to unlock the implementation of a resolution plan.

“…we deem it appropriate that the SRA i.e., the appellant herein carry out the development of the pathway with the 24-meter width on the three boundaries of the plot GH-1, on which the appellant or their assignees shall not raise any claim of title and then make necessary applications to the GDA. After completion of the project, they shall only be provided with access to the property through the said way, causing minimum disturbance to the road.”, the Court said.

Human Rights Courts Can Be Approached Directly Without Prior Recourse To Commission: Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Rule

Case: Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 911

The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, holding that the provision is neither inconsistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 nor ultra vires the rule-making power of the State legislature under Section 41 of the Act. Setting aside the High Court's orders, the Court has restored the proceedings initiated against the concerned police officials.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled so while setting aside a Karnataka High Court judgment which had struck down Rule 6 as unconstitutional, and consequently quashed a criminal complaint filed before a Human Rights Court constituted under the Act.

For context, Rule 6 prescribes the procedure in respect of complaints before a Human Rights Court, permitting a victim of human rights violation (or his/her legal representative, or a registered non-governmental organisation, or public person) to file a complaint against a public servant alleged to have committed or abetted such an offence while acting under colour of his office. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Court may either direct investigation by a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or conduct an inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed for private complaints under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). It also provides for the course to be followed upon receipt of the investigation report, consideration of sanction for prosecution wherever required, and the conduct of trial in accordance with the procedure applicable to trials before a Court of Session.

Widow's Family Pension Must Be Paid From Date Of Husband's Death : Supreme Court

Case: Maya Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 912

The Supreme Court has held that a widow's settlement to a family pension arises from the date of death of her husband, and cannot be restricted to the date on which she first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), particularly where the delay in claiming the benefit was not attributable to any fault on her part.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar was dealing with an appeal filed by the widow of a Railway employee who had died in harness, in 2000, challenging the Bombay High Court order that allowed her claim for family pension, restricting the benefit only from 2014 (the year she first moved the CAT), instead of 2000.

The appellant and her husband were residing separately due to a dispute and was unaware of her husband's service particulars at the time of his death. Her husband was subsequently dismissed from service in 2001, after his death. When the appellant appealed against the dismissal, her plea was rejected in 2012 on grounds of delay and discrepancy in the recorded dates of death. Later a civil suit was filed which declared 12.11.2000 as the correct date of her husband's death. Thereafter, she approached the CAT. However, the Tribunal dismissed her plea as time barred. Subsequently, she moved the Bombay High Court, which granted her family pension but only from 2014 onwards.

Supreme Court Upholds Asst Professor's Appointment Despite Doubts Over PhD, Orders University Probe

Case Details: Annu Kumar & Anr. v. Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 913

Supreme Court has declined to set aside the appointment of an Assistant Professor despite prima facie material indicating that the Ph.D. degree relied upon by him may be fake, holding that the disputed doctoral degree was not an essential qualification for the post as he had independently fulfilled the mandatory requirement of qualifying the UGC-NET examination. At the same time, the Court directed Maharshi Dayanand University to conduct a fresh inquiry into the authenticity of the Ph.D. degree.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan passed the order while deciding appeals arising from a challenge to the appointment of an Assistant Professor of Physical Education at Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Rohtak, affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University.

The appellants, as the writ petitioners, challenged the appointment of the sixth respondent as the Assistant Professor questioning the authenticity of his Ph.D. degree, allegedly awarded by Bundelkhand University, Jhansi.

Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted For Pension Benefits : Supreme Court

Case Details: Punjab School Education Board and Another v. Satnam Singh and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 914

The Supreme Court has held that service rendered by employees on contract, ad hoc, daily-wage or work-charge basis prior to their regularization must be counted as qualifying service for retiral and pensionary benefits, particularly where the breaks in service are merely notional, artificial or caused by administrative circumstances or court orders.

Holding thus, a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the Punjab School Education Board's (PSEB) appeal, affirming the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment which directed the State to grant the pensionary benefits to the Respondent-employees, who had initially entered service during the 1990s and were regularized in August 2004, saying that the State could not treat them as fresh recruits merely because their appointment letters used the expression "appointment". Their engagement, the Court found, was, in substance, regular.

“…the Single Judge and Division Bench had rightly held that the services by respondent-employees rendered on contract/ad hoc/daily wage basis prior to regularization must be computed as qualifying service for the purpose of retiral and pension benefits.”, the Court observed.

Solatium & Interest For Land Acquisition Under National Highways Act To Be Computed As Per 1894 Act For Pre-2015 Awards : Supreme Court

Case: Manav Bhanot v. National Highway Authority of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 915

The Supreme Court (08.09.2026)held that when the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act) determines compensation before 01.01.2015, the solatium, interest, and interest on solatium payable to the landowner must be computed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. For context, 01.01.2015 is the date on which the 2013 Act was made applicable for acquisition made under the NH Act.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vinod K Chandran ruled so while dealing with an appeal arising from a land acquisition matter under the NH Act, where the dispute was “whether the claim of solatium, interest and interest on solatium, insofar as the acquisition made under the National Highways Act, 1956, is to be computed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.”

The appellant's land was acquired under the NH Act in 2011, via a notification published under Section 3A, and a declaration under Section 3D was subsequently published in 2012. The Competent Authority under the NH Act determined the compensation in 2014, as Rs 3,47,38,287, out of which the appellant received Rs 49,17,000, in 2014. The appellant, thereafter, sought a reference to arbitration, wherein the Arbitrator passed an award in 2016. Subsequently, the award was challenged before the Supreme Court under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Voluminous Records In Corruption Cases Delaying Prosecution

Case:Khanindra Kr Dutta v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 916

The Supreme Court (08.09.2026) observed that prosecutions in corruption cases have a history of long pendency, often on account of voluminous but largely unnecessary and irrelevant evidence intimidating the courts.

"We cannot but notice that in corruption cases voluminous evidence is led, which is often intimidating to the Court, especially since many aspects attempted to be led in evidence are way off the mark, in providing a substantiation of the allegation, or to bring home the guilt of the accused-public servant," the Court stated, noting that in the present case, over 62 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who were mostly irrelevant.

The observation was made by the Court while acquitting a former government store in-charge who was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in a 1993 case relating to fake medicine supply bills, holding that a conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act cannot survive if it is found that no pecuniary advantage was obtained by the accused.

Prosecution Story Of Taking Dead Body To Police Station Suspicious : Supreme Court Acquits Two Murder Convicts

Case: Ashok Upadhyay & Anr v. State of Of Bihar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 917

The Supreme Court (08.09.2026) acquitted two persons convicted of murder, holding that the prosecution's own case of taking the body of the deceased to the police station instead of the hospital, raises suspicion, and that this conduct along with other infirmities in the investigation and eyewitness testimony raised a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vinod K Chandran was hearing an appeal against a Patna High Court judgment which had upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The case arose over a dispute that led to a brawl between two families, in which one accused allegedly shot a person dead, while the other accused fired at other family members. Five persons were chargesheeted, out of which three were acquitted by the trial court and two were convicted. The conviction was also upheld by the Patna High Court.

Partnership Act | Outgoing Partner's Share Must Be Valued On Date Of Assessment, Not Date Of Dissolution : Supreme Court

Case Details: v. Sumitra Reddy & Anr. v. K. Ranganadha Reddy & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 918

The Supreme Court (September 9) held that, upon dissolution of a partnership at will, an outgoing partner's right to receive his share in the residue of the partnership assets is not frozen as of the date of dissolution. Instead, the partner is entitled to have his share determined based on the value of the partnership assets as on the date of their actual valuation.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where the partnership firm owning 3.27 acres of land in Hyderabad sought to be dissolved by one of the partner at Will. The issue before the Court was whether the outgoing partner's share in the firm's immovable property had to be valued as on October 18, 1983, the date of dissolution, or at the value prevailing when the property was actually assessed or sold.

Affirming the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment, the judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan held that though the profits or losses of the partnership business have to be determined as on the date of dissolution, that date does not necessarily determine the monetary value of the partner's share in the residue of the partnership assets.

Release Of Escrow Under SEBI Buyback Regulations Does Not Bar Separate Fraud Inquiry : Supreme Court In Vedanta Case

Case: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Vedanta Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 919

The Supreme Court (09.09.2026) has held that release of the cash escrow deposited by a company under Regulation 15B(8) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Buyback of Securities) Regulations, 1998 (Buyback Regulations), does not operate as a bar to a separate and independent inquiry into fraud under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations).

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, however, remanded the matter back to the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) for fresh adjudication on the limited question of fraud, after finding that neither the Adjudicating Officer (AO) nor SAT had dealt with disputed discrepancies in the trading data on the basis of which the fraud was discovered.

The appeals arise out of a 2023 judgment by which SAT had set aside a penalty order passed by the AO (SEBI). The AO had imposed a penalty of Rs 5.25 crore on Vedanta Limited (respondent, formerly as Cairn India Limited) and Rs 15 lakh each on three other individuals (other respondents). It was alleged that the respondents had made a misleading buyback announcement without any real intention of fulfilling it, in violation of the PFUTP Regulations and Regulation 19(1)(a) of the Buyback Regulations.

Constructive Criticism Of Judiciary Necessary Feature Of Vibrant Democracy, But It Must Be Voiced In Appropriate Forum : Supreme Court

Case Title – In Re: Social Science Textbook For Grade–8 (Part-2) Published By Ncert and Ancillary Issues

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 920

The Supreme Court observed that the Judiciary as an institution is open to criticism and fair, informed and constructive critique of judicial functioning is a legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, however, said such criticism must be voiced through an appropriate forum and a fair, rational mechanism. Unverified criticism should not be included in a school curriculum meant for children, the Court said.

The Court also clarified that an earlier observation concerning three academics involved in preparing the curriculum was not a finding by the Court.

Supreme Court Orders Centre To Give Rs 15 Lakh To Officer Who Was Illegally Retired As 'Deadwood', Directs To Give Him Farewell

Case Details: S.S. Das v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 921

The Supreme Court (September 9) set aside the compulsory retirement of a former Indian Trade Service officer, who was prematurely retired despite possessing an unblemished record and outstanding gradings. The Court awarded him ₹9 lakh as compensation for loss of reputation and ₹6 lakh as costs, and directed that he be called back to office by the Director General of Foreign Trade for a formal farewell with full honour.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that an officer with a consistently outstanding service record, who had been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary merely two months before his compulsory retirement, could not have been suddenly branded as “dead wood” or an officer of doubtful integrity in the absence of any intervening adverse material.

“The object of compulsory retirement is to enable the administration to dispense with the services of public servants who, when viewed in the prism of public interest, have been rendered dead wood and, thus, outlived their utility…However, a promotion earned on merits, and not by dint of seniority alone, immediately prior to such order of compulsory retirement being made would, by itself, render the order susceptible to invalidity.”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Directs J&K To Approve Govt Teacher's Assignment As National Kayaking Coach For Asian Games 2026

Case Details: Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 922

The Supreme Court (September 10) directed the Jammu and Kashmir Govt. to immediately issue the relieving order, No Objection Certificate (NOC), and permission in favour of a Physical Education Teacher, who was selected as Chief Coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team, to enable her to participate in the Asian Games, 2026.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench order which had denied a relieving order, NOC to the sports teacher Ms. Bilquis Mir, who was selected as Coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team, to enable participate in an upcoming Asian Games tournament.

“Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to issue the necessary relieving order/No Objection Certificate/permission in favour of respondent No.3 – Ms. Bilquis Mir, forthwith and, in any event, on or before 15.09.2026 to enable her: a. to join and discharge the remaining assignment as Coach/Chief Coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team; and b. to accompany and assist the Indian National Team in connection with the Asian Games, 2026.”, the Court said.

Long Possession Alone Does Not Prove Adverse Possession,Hostile Intent Essential : Supreme Court

Case: Bhag Singh (Dead) Through Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 923

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar ruled so while hearing an appeal filed against a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had reversed concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, and decreed a suit for declaration of title and possession in favour of the respondents.

The case concerns agricultural land and traces back to a civil suit instituted in 1981. The plaintiffs relied on a 1965 registered sale deed and a recital of delivery of possession. Per contra, the defendants contended that the property had long before been dedicated for Dharam Arth in favour of the Dera, and that revenue records consistently recorded the Mahant of the Dera to be in possession of it as gair marusi bila lagan bawaja Dharam Arth. It was also contended that the property had consistently been in possession of successive Mahants, thus, Dera had the title by adverse possession also.

Subsequently, the trial court ruled that the property stood dedicated to the Dera and that possession had continued through Mahants. This was subsequently affirmed by the first appellate court, holding that the dedication stood completed upon delivery of possession and that no separate registered instrument was required. However, the findings were reversed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, holding that the revenue entries did not conclusively establish either a completed dedication or adverse possession, particularly in the absence of evidence showing continuity of possession through the subsequent Mahants or any hostile assertion of title.

Supreme Court Explains S.69 BNS : No Offence Of Deceitful Sex By Breach Of Genuine Marriage Promise

Case: Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 925

The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse for which consent was obtained by deceitful means, such as false promise to marry, after finding that the complaint itself disclosed a consensual relationship rather than a deceitful inducement. It also noted that refusal to marry because the accused's mother did not permit it, does not amount to deceit.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a special leave petition against a Gujarat High Court's order wherein it had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Gulati v State of Haryana to decline to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner.

The petitioner (appellant/accused) was booked under Section 69 BNS on the allegation that he had entered into a physical relationship with the complainant under the pretext of a promise to marry her, and later resiled from his promise citing his mother's disapproval of the match. Petitioner's plea for quashing the case against him was subsequently rejected by the High Court.

Why Ultra-Processed Foods Grouped With Other Packaged Foods Under Warning Label Regime? Supreme Court Asks FSSAI

Case Details: 3S And Our Health Society v. Union of India and Anr | MA 1177/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 926

The Supreme Court questioned whether ultra-processed foods (UPFs) should be subjected to the same front-of-pack warning-label thresholds as other packaged foods, observing that clubbing ultra-processed foods with minimally processed packaged foods could overlook the nutritional differences between them.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran has specifically asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) whether, while calculating thresholds for nutrients of concern under its proposed Front-of-Pack Labelling (FoPL) regime, it proposes to account for the distinction between Food Group B [moderately processed foods with no additives] and Food Group C[excessively processed foods with additives].

Corporal Punishment Not Offence Under POCSO Act: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Teacher

Case: Bhaskar Paul v. State of West Bengal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 927

The Supreme Court quashed a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), against a school teacher accused of aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The case was quashed, holding that his conduct of resorting to corporal punishment, though inappropriate and insensitive, did not disclose sexual intent necessary to constitute the offence. It also observed that an eventual acquittal would be “wholly inadequate” to undo the damage caused by the prosecution itself, and will have irreversible stigma on a teacher.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar was hearing an appeal against a Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri) order, which had refused to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

Suit Not Maintainable To Recover Money Paid For Illegal Purpose, Must Be Rejected Under O VII R 11 CPC : Supreme Court

Case: Poosa Sri Krishna & Ors v. Gattu Kishan Rao & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 928

The Supreme Court held that where a plaint itself discloses that the money sought to be recovered was paid for an illegal and fraudulent purpose, the suit is barred by the of in pari delicto and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan ruled so while hearing appeal against a Telangana High Court order by which it had upheld the trial court's order, by which appellant's plea seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected.

Electricity Act | Past Dues Beyond Two Years Can Be Recovered Only If Continuously Shown As Arrear : Supreme Court

Case Title: Dakschinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. V. Vidut Lokpal, Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 929

The Supreme Court observed that ordinarily an electricity bill needs to be raised within two years of the consumption, and if the amount is sought to be recovered beyond the two-year limitation, then the said amount needs to be continuously treated as a recoverable arrear.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria dismissed the appeal of an Uttar Pradesh-based distribution licensee, Dakschinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. appeal, which sought to recover Rs.57,74,164/- as a Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charges (“MCGC”) for the period from February, 1998 to September, 1998, with respect to the additional 2000 KVA load facility offered to be supplied by the Appellant to the consumer.

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea To Stop Perks To Judges Resigning To Avoid Removal

Case: Pratik Vira v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 1086/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL assailing grant of perks and amenities to constitutional functionaries like judges who resign from their post to avoid proceedings for removal.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order.

Briefly put, the petitioner seeks a declaration under Article 32 that any Constitutional functionary who tenders their resignation to avoid being removed shall not be entitled to any perks, amenities, facilities or entitlements.

Supreme Court Suspends Sentence Of Naga Insurgent Hopeson Ningshen Considering 17 Years Of Jail Term

Case Details: Hopeson Ningshen v. Central Bureau of Investigation | Criminal Appeal No(S). 455/2020

The Supreme Court (September 7) suspended the sentence of Hopeson Ningshen, a former self-styled Lieutenant Colonel of the Naga insurgent group National Socialist Council-Isak Muivah of Nagaland (IM). Ningshen was sentenced to life imprisonment for the 2009 abduction and murder of three government officials in Manipur.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale passed the order granting him bail on the condition that he can't leave Delhi during the pendency of his appeal. Previously, the bench had asked the CBI to take instructions on whether his sentence can be suspended in light of prolonged incarceration and on the condition that Ningshen will not leave Delhi.

The Manipur government opposed the plea, stating that the case involves sensitivity. However, the Court granted conditional suspension of sentence, weighing his prolonged incarceration of more than 17 years.

Supreme Court Asks Vivo Executive To Get Chinese Consulate Guarantee On India-Return If Allowed To Travel To China

The Supreme Court (September 7) granted one month to Guangwen Kuang, an executive of Vivo Mobile Communications, to approach the Chinese Consulate to furnish a guarantee that he would come back to India to face prosecution after visiting his ailing father in China.

Kuang,who is facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, approached the Court after the Delhi High Court refused to permit him to travel to Guangzhou, China, to see his 82-year-old ailing father.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva heard the matter. Appearing for Kuang, the counsel submitted that he is merely an employee. At the outset, Justice Kumar said the Court is willing, but it needs a guarantee that he will come back: "All we need is a guarantee that you will come back and [face prosecution]...Why don't you ask your consulate to support you and give a guarantee as they did in the other case? You are a Chinese national; tell them[your consulate] that your father is 82 and ailing. Without a guarantee...You want to leave the country without semblance of a guarantee?...You can [continue] having video calls with your father."

Supreme Court Requests Calcutta HC To Decide Soon Trinamool Congress Plea Against Removal Of Board From Party Office

Case: All India Trinamool Congress v. State of West Bengal and Ors. SLP(C) No. 31472/2026

The Supreme Court requested the Calcutta High Court to expeditiously decide a petition filed by the All India Trinamool Congress challenging the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's removal of billboards from the party's office in Kolkata.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by Trinamool Congress challenging Calcutta High Court's denial of interim relief regarding the alleged illegal removal of a billboard from atop the party office at Kolkata's Camac Street.

At the outset, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the State of West Bengal, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, saying that there was a remedy of writ appeal.

'Why Information About X Account Needed In Road Rage FIR?' : Supreme Court Asks UP Police In Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay's Plea

Case: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026

The Supreme Court asked the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to file an affidavit explaining what information is sought to be obtained from the social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter) in connection with the FIRs against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who reported the Ayodhya Ram temple donation theft allegations.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing dealing with Upadhyay's plea challenging Ghaziabad Police's FIR against him over an alleged road-rage incident. In the petition, he filed an application challenging a notice issued by the UP Police to 'X' seeking information regarding his social media account.

The bench directed the police to explain what the information regarding his social media account was sought in connection with the road-rage FIR or any other FIR.

'Same Group Again Assaulting Doctors': Supreme Court Refers To Another Hospital Violence While Hearing Shiv Sena Member's Bail Plea

Case Title – Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre v. High Court of Judicature At Bombay

The Supreme Court expressed concern over a fresh incident of alleged assault on doctors in Maharashtra while hearing the bail plea of Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre in connection with an alleged attack on doctors at a hospital in Kalyan, observing that such incidents appeared to be recurring among the petitioner's associates.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pointed out that another similar incident has been reported involving the same group of people, referring to alleged assault on a private hospital in Palghar by Shiv Sena workers on Saturday. As per media reports, the alleged incident happened following a dispute over the discharge of five men who were injured at a Dahi Handi event.

"There seems to be a propensity amongst the peers of the petitioner", Justice Mehta remarked.

Supreme Court Rejects Six-Month Extension For Aravalli Hills Expert Panel Report, Sets November 30 Deadline

Case Title – In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues

The Supreme Court has rejected a request by the High-Powered Committee examining the definition and protection of the Aravalli Hills for a six-month extension to submit its report, directing the panel to complete its work and file the report by November 30, 2026.

The Committee had sought time until February 28, 2027, but the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined the request and made it clear that no further extension would be granted.

During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant remarked that the request appeared to suggest that the Committee was waiting for his retirement.

Alarmed Over Rising Narcotic Cases, Supreme Court Directs Steps To Create More NDPS Courts

Case Title: In Re: Creation of Special Exclusive Courts Versus, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026

Alarmed by the “unfortunate alarming increase” in offences under the NDPS Act across the country, the Supreme Court directed the Centre and States/Union Territories to take steps to establish the requisite exclusive special courts for expeditious trial of narcotics cases, preferably within six weeks.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the suo motu case related to the setting up of exclusive Courts under the special statutes like NIA Act, NDPS Act etc.

Regarding the setting up of exclusive special courts for expeditious trial of cases under Section 11 of the NIA Act, the Supreme Court was informed that a total of 22 NIA courts have been established across the country.

What Is Union's Legal Obligation To Search For Indian Missing After Hostile Attack In Another Country? Supreme Court Asks

Case: Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 943/2026

In the caserelated to an Indian seafarer Deepak Kumar Gupta who went missing after cargo vessel MV AGN Ragnar was attacked in the Black Sea near Ukraine, the Supreme Court questioned the petitioner about the statutory provision for his prayer seeking investigation.

The matter was before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner alleged that Indian authorities have not taken any steps so far as investigation into the incident was concerned. However, SG Mehta countered the submission as unfair, saying that he has furnished details about how Indian authorities are following up the investigation with the Romanian and Ukraine authorities.

Supreme Court Agrees To List Plea To Fix Timeline For Centre To Act On Collegium Recommendations

Case: Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India | WP(C) 895/2018

The Supreme Court agreed to list a petition filed by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, pending since 2018, seeking strict timelines for the Centre to act on the recommendations by the Collegium for the appointment of judges.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing, pointing out that the matter has not been listed since December 2023 after the retirement of Justice SK Kaul.

Supreme Court Restrains Appointment Of Teachers In Schools/Colleges Without Prescribed RTE, NCTE, UGC Qualifications

Case - Rajesh Chauhan and Anr. v. Unio of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1102/2026

The Supreme Court has passed an interim order restraining the appointment of teachers in schools and colleges unless they possess the qualifications prescribed under the Right to Education Act, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana directed, as an interim measure, that no teacher shall be appointed or continued in service in schools or colleges without the requisite qualifications prescribed under the applicable statutory framework.

“As an interim measure, no teacher shall be appointed/observed in schools/colleges unless possessing requisite prescribed qualification under Right to Education Act/NCTE Act/UGC Act,” the Bench ordered.

Centre Urges Supreme Court To Transfer Anil Ambani's Plea Against Black Money Act From Bombay High Court

Case: Union of India v. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani | T.P.(C) No. 2551-2552/2026

The Union Government has approached the Supreme Court seeking to transfer thepetition filedby industrialist Anil Ambani in the Bombay High Court challenging the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, to the Delhi High Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Jusice V Mohana, while hearing the transfer petition, asked the Union why transfer to the Delhi High Court is being sought.

"Why should we prefer one High Court over another?" CJI Surya Kant asked.

Supreme Court Questions UP Govt Over NSA Detention Of Sambhal Violence Accused, Reserves Order

Case: Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 012534 / 2026

The Supreme Court questioned the Uttar Pradesh government on whether a preventive detention order under the National Security Act can be passed on the basis of a confession allegedly made by a person in police custody, in a petition challenging the detention of a man in the aftermath of the November 2024 Sambhal violence.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu reserved order on the on the plea by Mulla Afroz, accused of being the mastermind of the 2024 Sambhal violence, challenging this preventive detention under the National Security Act.

The Court questioned the relevance and value of the alleged custodial confession and asked whether such a confession can form the basis of the “subjective satisfaction” required for passing a preventive detention order.

Supreme Court To Examine Delhi Satya Niketan Building Collapse, Amicus Seeks Directions To Inspect PGs & Hostels

Case Details: Loganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 17103/2026

The Supreme Court will hear the matter involving the collapse of a five-storeyed building being used as a boys' paying guest accommodation in Delhi's Satya Niketan, which left seven persons dead.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan listed the matter after Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha, who is the Amicus Curiae in the case concerning rampant violations of building bye-laws and unauthorised conversion of residential premises into commercial establishments across the country, sought an early hearing.

Sinha has filed a status report placing the September 6 incident before the Supreme Court. He has sought further directions from the Court, including a time-bound inspection and safety audit of PG accommodations, private hostels and similar student accommodation establishments in and around colleges and universities across Delhi.

'Will Summon Secretary If No Decision Taken On Dara Singh's Remission': Supreme Court Pulls Up Odisha

Case Details: Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. State of Odisha | Diary No. 11407-2024

The Supreme Court pulled up the Odisha government for failing to take a decision on the premature release of Dara Singh, also known as Rabindra Kumar Pal, who is serving a life sentence for the murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons.

A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi expressed strong displeasure after the Odisha government sought a four-week adjournment, citing the illness of its Advocate-on-Record (AoR).

The Court questioned why the matter was being delayed despite its earlier direction to the State to take a decision on Singh's remission.

Swatantra Bhardwaj's Admissions Show Police Allowed Violent Persons To Infiltrate Student Protests : Petitioner To Supreme Court

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 44078/2026 (And Connected Cases)

In thestudent protests matter, the petitioner side has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that in view of Swatantra Bhardwaj's public admissions of assault on a Cockroach Janta Party protestor's father, it is clear that persons with violent tendencies were allowed to infiltrate the Jantar Mantar protests.

The affidavit says that the July 20 protest march to Parliament was intended at peacefully protesting against government policies, but the Delhi police forcibly halted it by "engineering" a law and order situation through introduction of "chaotic" elements and using disproportionate force.

"...the police deliberately infiltrated chaotic elements into the peaceful procession - individuals such as Swatantra Bhardwaj and others, armed with sticks and clubs with the intent to incite violence- to engineer unrest. This was done to fabricate a pretext for deploying forcible measures such as lathi charges, pellet guns, tear gas, and water cannons, with the sole objective of crushing the peaceful demonstration against the government's flawed education policies", the affidavit states.

Supreme Court Extends Tenure of Three NGT Members Till Fresh Appointments, Centre Asked To Expedite Process

The Supreme Court directed the continuation of three members of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) whose tenure was due to expire, allowing them to remain in office as an interim measure until fresh appointments are made.

The direction was issued by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana after the Court was informed by the NGT Bar Association that the functioning of the NGT could otherwise be affected by the expiry of the members' tenure.

The three members comprise two judicial members and one expert member.

Supreme Court Exempts Actor Rajpal Yadav From Surrender In Cheque Bounce Cases Subject To ₹5 Crore Deposit

Case: Rajpal Naurang Yadav and Another v. M/S Murli Projects Pvt Ltd | SLP(Crl) 16923/2026

The Supreme Court granted actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav interim exemption from surrendering in connection with a series of cheque dishonour cases, subject to his depositing ₹5 crore with the Registry of the Court by tomorrow.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order after the petitions filed by Yadav and Radha Rajpal Yadav were orally mentioned by AoR Saurabh Trivedi.

The Bench directed that notice be issued and made the matter returnable on September 15, 2026.

CJI Surya Kant Supports Need For National Legal Education Commission

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 453/2025

The Chief Justice of India voiced support for setting up a Legal Education Commission for the regulation of legal education in the country.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay's PILseeking establishment of a Legal Education Commission as well as challenging the 5-year tenure of law courses (bachelor level).

Law Protects Intrinsic Character Of Ancient Monument : Sambhal Mosque Committee Tells Supreme Court

Case Details – Committee of Management Jami Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025 (Aor Anil Kumar) and Committee of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal, Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) 21599/2025 (Aor Fuzail Ahmad)

The intrinsic religious character of an ancient monument must be preserved under law, the Sambhal Jama Masjid Committee told the Supreme Court , arguing that the statutory protection afforded to protected places of worship cannot be overridden by a claim seeking access to the monument for performing religious ceremonies and offering prayers.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Committee of Management Jami Masjid, Sambhal, submitted before a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe that the Hindu plaintiffs' reliance on Section 18 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, which deals with the right of access to protected monuments, overlooks the more fundamental protection contained in Section 16.

Ahmadi argued that Section 16 protects a protected place of worship from misuse, pollution and desecration and, where an ancient monument has a religious character, requires that character to be maintained.

Appointment Of Officer As Jharkhand DGP 1 Day Before Retirement Violated SC Guidelines : Amicus To Supreme Court

Case: Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) No. 310/1996

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, the Amicus Curiae in the DGP appointments matter, has filed a report before the Supreme Court stating that the appointment of Ms. Tadasha Mishra as Jharkhand DGP (Head of Police Force) one day prior to her retirement was in violation of the Prakash Singh guidelines.

The Report also states that Jharkhand's 2025 Rules pertaining to DGP appointments confer "broad discretionary power" to the State government to remove a DGP (HoPF), which could result in undue political pressure on the officer and undermine the independence provided by the statutory two-year tenure. The Amicus suggests that the Rules should be interpreted as requiring the State to act in accordance with rules related to service conditions.

Further, according to the Amicus, if an amendment to Jharkhand's 2025 Rules have the effect of extending an officer's residual tenure of less than 6 months, by taking into consideration the period of service spent as DGP/AGP after completing 30 years of service, the same would be in violation of the Court's Prakash Singh judgment (which contemplated actual residual service period of 6 months when considering appointment as DGP).

Freebies To Doctors | Supreme Court Reserves Order In Plea Seeking Regulation Of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices

Case Title – Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court reserved order on a plea seeking statutory regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices, after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the Union government will constitute a three-member committee to examine whether a statutory framework is needed to regulate unethical practices by pharmaceutical companies.

“However, there is a need of strengthening mechanism to ensure that pharmaceutical companies do not indulge in any unethical practices. The detailed discussions having taken place and with a view to find out the possible solution, it is decided to constitute a 3-member committee requesting them to provide their report on the issues as to whether and if yes what can be the statutory framework to ensure that pharmaceutical companies also do not indulge into such unethical practices”, Mehta told the Court.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition seeking statutory regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices to curb unethical interactions between pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

'How Dare Magistrate Issue Notice To Student Despite Our Order?' : Supreme Court Slams Greater Noida Officer's Action Over CJP Protest

The Supreme Court questioned the notice issued by the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita against a student for allegedly campaigning for participation in the student protests proposed by the Cockroach Janata Party.

The Court asked how the Executive Magistrate could issue the notice when the Supreme Court has quashed the FIRs over the student protests and barred any future coercive action against any student over the CJP protests.

The matter was brought to the attention of a bench led by the Chief Justice of India through the oral mentioning of Senior Advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya. He submitted that the Executive Magistrate issued notice to a second-year student of the Gautam Buddha University, asking him to show cause for not furnishing a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh to ensure that he will preserve peace. As per press reports, the notice was later withdrawn, the lawyer submitted.

Journalist Ravi Nair Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Challenging Gujarat FIR Over Article On Adani-LIC Investments

Case: SLP(Crl) No. 16444/2026 Diary No. 51490 / 2026 Ravi Nair v. State of Gujarat

Journalist Ravi Nair withdrew his SLP against the order of the Gujarat High Court refusing to quash the Forgery FIR against him by Adani Ports and SEZ Ltd. over a Washington Post article alleging that the LIC made investments in the Adani Group on the instructions of the Central Government.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted before the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta that Nair would raise all the contentions once charge sheet is filed. "I have advised my client that as and when charge sheet is filed, we will raise all these points. It is better", he said.

Accepting his submission, the Court allowed Nair to withdraw his plea. "Learned Senior Counsel on instructions says that this petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, leaving it open for the petitioner to raise his grievances at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum", the Court recorded in the order.

'Touch Your Mother's Feet & Apologise For Your Sins' : Justice SC Sharma To Son In Property Dispute

In a property dispute between a mother and her son, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma reminded the son of the importance of the mother in Hinduism. He orally asked the son to apologise to his mother and ask for her forgiveness.

In this case, the mother and her husband are the sole owners of the property and, out of love and affection, permitted the son and his wife to occupy the first floor on a permissive basis as licensees, without paying any rent. However, the son, along with his wife, allegedly started harassing the parents and exerted pressure on them to transfer the suit property in their favour. The Trial Court and the Delhi High Court ordered in favour of the parents. Against this, the son appealed to the Supreme Court.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Sharma and Justice NK Singh. While dismissing the matter, Justice Sharma orally said: "You should go and touch your mother's feet and apologise. Seek apology for all your sins."

Supreme Court Declares September 11 Holiday For BRICS Summit; November 28 To Be Working Saturday Instead

The Supreme Court will observe a holiday on September 11, 2026 (Friday), in view of arrangements connected with the BRICS conference in the national capital.

According to a circular issued by the Supreme Court's Administrative General Branch, the Full Court has declared September 11 a holiday for both the Supreme Court and its Registry. The circular also states that September 12 (Saturday) will be a holiday for the Registry.

The decision follows an Office Memorandum dated September 3, 2026, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, which directed that the Central Government offices in Delhi should be shut in view of the 18th BRICS Leaders' Summit.

Will Challenge Allahabad High Court Order Against Noida DM Over Student's NSA Detention : Solicitor Tells Supreme Court

The Solicitor General of India said in the Supreme Court that the Allahabad High Court's judgment quashing the Noida District Magistrate's order detaining a student of the Delhi University under the National Security Act in connection with the Noida workers' protest will be challenged.

While quashing the detention order, the High Court had also directed the grant of Rs 5 lakh compensation to the student, which has to be recovered from the personal salary of Noida DM Medha Roopam. The High Court had harshly criticised the DM's action in issuing the detention order, observing that her conduct is "worthy of derision", as the coercive action was passed without any application of mind.

SG Tushar Mehta said that this order was being challenged. The SG made this statement before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India during a discussion related to a show-cause notice issued by the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate against a student of the Gautam Buddha University over a campaign for the CJP protest.

Student Moves Supreme Court Challenging Greater Noida Officer's Notice Over CJP Protest, Terms It Attempt To Circumvent SC Order

Case Title –Akshat Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors.

A Gautam Buddh University student filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging a notice issued by the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate asking him to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh and two sureties of the same amount for allegedly encouraging fellow students to join a proposed Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) dharna.

The notice was issued to petitioner Akshat Tripathi on September 4, 2026. In the petition, he has contended that the proceedings violate his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 and are contrary to the Supreme Court's September 1 order quashing FIRs against student protestors. The plea contends that the proposed dharna mentioned in the notice relates to the same protests that were considered by the Supreme Court in its September 1 order.

It argues that allowing such proceedings would enable authorities to circumvent the Supreme Court's directions by resorting to preventive proceedings before Executive Magistrates.

'All Matters Treated Equally': Supreme Court To Complainant Alleging Delay In Hearing Rahul Gandhi Matter

Case Details: Rahul Gandhi v. State of U.P. and Anr | Diary No. 31445-2025

The Supreme Court said that “all matters are treated equally before us” after Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for a complainant in a defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, alleged that the Opposition Leader's matter was not being listed.

The reference was made to Gandhi's Special Leave Petition challenging criminal proceedings arising from his alleged remarks concerning the Indian Army and the Chinese attack in the context of the 2020 Galwan clash. The Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta had in August 2025 stayed the proceedings against Gandhi. The matter was last listed on April 23.

'Will Lord Be Pleased By This?' : Supreme Court To Jain Sects Litigating Over Mahaveer Ji Jain Temple Administration

Case Details: Prabandhkarini Committee Digambar Jain Atishya Kshetra Shri Mahaveerji v. Shri Sanjeev Palliwal | SLP(C) No. 23209-23210/2026

The Supreme Court (September 9) reserved for orders a case concerning a dispute between the Shvetambara and Digambara sects of the Jain religion over the management of the Mahaveer Ji Jain Temple in Rajasthan.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran reserved it for orders, while directing the parties to file their written submissions within 8 days. Senior Advocates Aryama Sundaram(for petitioner) and Shyam Divan(for respondent) appeared in this matter and made brief arguments.

Divan argued that there is no claim seeking conversion of the place of worship and therefore, the Places of Worship(Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is not applicable.

Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal Of 63 Himachal Pradesh MP/MLA Cases Linked To Covid-Era Protests

Case: State of Himachal Pradesh Represented By Its Additional Secretary (Home) v. Court On Its Own Motion SLP(Crl) No. 2770/2026

The Supreme Court has permitted the Himachal Pradesh government to withdraw prosecution in 63 criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs that were registered in connection with public demonstrations and dharnas during the Covid-19 period.

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana allowed the State's plea to withdraw prosecution in the cases, observing that there was no reason to deny the request where the allegations did not involve heinous offences or bodily injury.

Earlier, the Himachal Pradesh High Court had permitted withdrawal of prosecution in 15 of the cases. Out of the 45 cases for which withdrawal of prosecution was not permitted, 4 resulted in discharge/acquittal. Two were disposed of as they were wrongly mentioned.

How Can Husband Be Prosecuted For Rape Of Wife When Marital Rape Exception Exists In Law? Supreme Court Asks

Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 4063-4064/2022 (And Connected Cases)

In the pleas challenging the marital rape exception under IPC/BNS, the Supreme Court questioned whether the Courts can prosecute a husband for 'rape' of his wife pending a verdict on the constitutional validity of the exception.

The Court raised this query in reference to a Karnataka High Court Judgmentwhich held that the exception is not absolute, and a husband, who forces non-consensual sex on his wife, was liable to be prosecuted under Section 376 IPC.

"Till we take a call on the constitutional vires of the exception, can a prosecution [for marital rape] be permitted? We will definitely protect the victims. But is it within the domain of a prosecutor to prosecute a person where there is a clear definition of an exception in S. 375 IPC (or corresponding BNS provision)?" Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked.

FSSAI's 'Two-or-More' Nutrient Trigger For Food Package Warning Label Unscientific : Petitioner Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: 3s and Our Health Society v. Union of India and Anr | MA 1177/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

The petitioners in a public-interest litigation before the Supreme Court have objected to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India's (FSSAI) proposal to initially require front-of-pack warning labels only on packaged foods that are high in two or more of the specified nutrients - sugar, salt and fat.

In a rejoinder filed before the Supreme Court, 3S and Our Health Society argued that a product excessively high in even one of these nutrients should carry a warning, contending that the proposed “two-or-more” threshold could leave products with potentially harmful levels of a single nutrient without any warning.

The objection relates to FSSAI's proposed red-hexagon warning-label regime for foods high in fat, sugar and/or salt (HFSS). The petitioners have welcomed the move towards a warning-label format, but said the proposed trigger substantially limits its effectiveness.

Supreme Court Grants 10-Day Interim Bail To Man Accused In Syria War Conspiracy Case After Nearly 6 Years In Custody

Case Title – Ahamed Abdul Cader @ Kaka v. National Investigation Agency

The Supreme Court granted 10 days' interim bail to a man accused of being part of a criminal conspiracy to wage war against the Government of Syria, taking note of the fact that he has been incarcerated for 5 years and 11 months and that his brother has to undergo surgery.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih granted him interim relief on the ground that the petitioner wanted to be with his mother and hearing-impaired child while his brother, who looks after them, undergoes surgery.

“The fact remains that the child has been suffering from the ailment from quite some time. The petitioner wants to be with his child and mother as the brother has to undergo surgery. Add to it the fact that he has been incarcerated for 5 years and 11 months. We grant him interim bail for 10 days from 11th September”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Asks Sikkim District Judge To Approach High Court Against HC's Show-Cause Notice

Case Title: Prajwal Khatiwada v. High Court of Sikkim and Ors.

Case No.: WP(C) No.1119/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea filed by a sitting district judge at Sikkim challenging a show-cause notice issued to him purportedly after his complaint against a judge of the High Court (since retired).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana however gave the petitioner-judge, Prajwal Khatiwada, liberty to approach the Sikkim High Court.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Manoj Goel, for the petitioner, claimed that the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by his junior, not the Full Court/High Court Committee, and it was marked only to the petitioner, not even the Registrar General. "I am the Registrar General serving under the [retired] Chief Justice. The day after retirement, I am sent out, I am shunted. Day thereafter, a complaint made against me, which is made the basis of show-cause notice and issued by a person who is not [competent]", the senior counsel argued.

Supreme Court Dismisses Gangster Abu Salem's Plea For Premature Release In 1993 Bombay Blasts Case

Case: SLP(Crl) No. 12871/2026 Diary No. 41145 / 2026 Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by gangster Abu Salem, sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, seeking premature release

Salem approached the court contending that his earned prison remission and undertrial custody should be counted towards the 25-year imprisonment cap flowing from India's extradition assurances to Portugal.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pronounced the verdict. The Court held that Salem continues to serve life imprisonment and the 25-year stipulation flowing from the extradition assurance did not convert his life sentence into a fixed-term sentence.

'Matter Concerning Millions' Health' : Supreme Court Rejects PIL Questioning HPV Vaccine Program

Case: Universal Health Organisation v. Union of India | D No. 37256/2026

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) raising concerns over the implementation of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme for adolescent girls, particularly allegations relating to adverse effects and the absence of a compensation mechanism.

The Court cautioned against making claims about vaccines without adequate scientific research, observing that such assertions could undermine or derail a public health programme. The petition was thereafter withdrawn.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Universal Health Organisation.

Supreme Court Seeks UP Response On Plea Challenging State Law Providing Pension To MLAs & MLCs

Case Title – Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by NGO Lok Prahari challenging the constitutional validity of provisions granting allowances, allied benefits and pensions to sitting and former Uttar Pradesh MLAs and MLCs.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the state, returnable in four weeks.

Lok Prahari has challenged the Allahabad High Court's judgment which dismissed its PIL challenging provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members' Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980.

Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Abhishek Banerjee's PA Sumit Roy In Salboni Land-grab case

Case: Sumit Roy v. State of West Bengal | Diary No. 46817/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Sumit Roy, personal assistant to Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee, in connection with the alleged Salboni land-grabbing case.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, observing that the Court was not inclined to grant relief in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court had earlier stayed Roy's arrest and directed him to appear for interrogation and cooperate with the investigation, while considering Roy's petition challenging the Calcutta High Court's August 3 order rejecting his plea for anticipatory bail.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (along with Standing Counsel Nishant Awana), for the State of West Bengal, submitted that Roy had been evasive during interrogation and that cash deposits of around ₹15 crore were allegedly connected to him.

Attack On Child CJP Protester : Supreme Court Takes Serious View; Seeks Report On FIR, Directs Security

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 44078/2026 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court took serious note of allegations that a 14-year-old girl associated with the protests by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) had been intimidated and that her residence was subjected to stone pelting.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that allegations concerning the intimidation of a minor could not be taken lightly and stressed that no person could be permitted to browbeat a victim or her family for pursuing criminal proceedings.

The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana , orally sought status reports from Uttar Pradesh and Delhi concerning the FIR registered at the behest of the victim, the security arrangements made for her and her family, and the action taken against those allegedly involved in the assault and intimidation.

Officer Who Issued Notice To Student Over CJP Protest Suspended : Solicitor Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Akshat Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors.

The officer who issued a show-cause notice to a student in Greater Noida, asking him to show cause for not furnishing a personal bond of Rs 5 lakhs over his alleged campaign for a protest by the Cockroach Janata Party, has been suspended, said the Solicitor General of India in the Supreme Court.

The law officer made this statement while responding to a writ petitionfiled by the student, Akshat Tripathi of the Gautam Buddh University, challenging the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate's notice issued under Section 130 of the BNSS.

Senior Advocate PV Dinesh mentioned the petition before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India during the hearing of the other mattersconnected to the July student protests. "A strong message must go to the officers," the senior counsel said, urging the bench to take the petition on board. The notice mentioned that he was indulging in "anti-government misleading talks" among the students and asked him to furnish a bond, Dinesh underscored.

Student Protest Violence | Supreme Court Unwilling To Reconstitute Enquiry Committee After Petitioners Doubt Member's Independence

The Supreme Court expressed reluctance to reconstitute the High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) constituted to inquire into the violence surrounding the student protests, responding to submissions that the presence of a former Director General of Police (DGP) on the panel raised apprehensions of bias.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said that the Court would not proceed on a presumption that a committee constituted by the Supreme Court was biased. The bench, however, said it would examine the specific reservations raised regarding the former DGP's membership.

It was by the order dated August 18 that the Supreme Court constituted a 5-member Committee chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy to independently examine allegations of violence during the student demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, and other locations across the country in July.

Satya Niketan PG Collapse | Supreme Court Seeks Reports From Civic Autorities Of State/UT Capitals On Building Law Violations

Case Title – Loganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court flagged wider instances of building and land-use violations beyond the PG accommodation at the centre of the Satya Niketan building collapse, after Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha told the Court that similar concerns could arise in gyms, coaching centres and BPOs.

Sinha told a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan that the Delhi High Court proceedings concerning the Satya Niketan collapse were moving in the right direction, with action including demolition of unauthorised structures having commenced. He submitted, however, that the Supreme Court's earlier directions covered a broader range of issues, including illegal construction and misuse of land, and were not confined to PG accommodations.

The Amicus referred to gyms, coaching centres and BPOs as other establishments where similar violations could arise. He also informed the Court that inspections had found buildings in Saidulajab where around 500 people were being employed.

Will Consider Warning Labels On Foods High In Any Single Nutrient Of Concern : FSSAI Revises Stand In Supreme Court

Case Details: 3s and Our Health Society v. Union of India and Anr | MA 1177/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) told the Supreme Court that it will consider introducing front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products that are high in any one nutrient of concern such as sugar, salt or fat.

FSSAI changed its position after the Supreme Court questioned its earlier proposal to mandate warning labels only for products that are high in two or more nutrients of concern. Responding to the Court's query on why the proposed warning labelling was to be introduced only if the packaged item was high in "two or more" nutrients of concern, FSSAI said it would instead make the warning applicable in a single phase to products that are high in even one nutrient of concern.

The submission came during the hearing of a public interest litigation concerning FSSAI's proposal to introduce red-coloured, hexagonal warning labels on packaged foods containing high levels of these nutrients.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea To Regulate Children's Use Of Social Media Platforms

Case: Just Rights For Children Alliance v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1120/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre on a PIL filed by 'Just Rights for Children Alliance' seeking safeguards against use of social media and other digital platforms by minors.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate HS Phoolka (for petitioner). During the hearing, the bench orally observed that certain safeguards are required to be put in place. "There should be some firewalls", said Justice Bagchi.

The plea raises concerns about minors being allowed to create and maintain social media accounts despite their inability to contract as per Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act. It stresses that the absence of an effective mechanism for verification of age and legal authority of users tends to expose children to risks such as online grooming, sexual exploitation, digital trafficking, sextortion, age-inappropriate content, etc.

Supreme Court Stays Reinstatement Of IAS Officer Who Emptied Delhi Stadium To Walk Her Dog

Case Details: Union of India v. Rinku Dhugga | SLP (C) No. 25799/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the reinstatement of an IAS officer, Rinku Dhugga, who was given compulsory retirement by the Government following a controversy that she and her husband, also an IAS officer, emptied the Delhi Thyagaraj Stadium so that she could walk her dog.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice to the respondent officer on the plea by the Union Government challenging the Delhi High Court which set aside her compulsory retirement. It also passed an interim order, which says: "In the meantime, the reinstatement of the respondent shall remain stayed."

Dhugga had challenged the compulsory retirement before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ordered her reinstatement. This was upheld by the Delhi High Court on April 15.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Contempt Proceedings Against Law Secretary For 'Outburst' In Bombay HC Over Judicial Vacancies

Case Title – Dilip S Ghumare v. High Court of Judicature At Bombay

The Supreme Court refused to stay the contempt proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court against the Maharashtra Law Department Secretary and senior judicial officer Dilip S. Ghumare for his alleged outburst before the High Court. The Court, however restrained the High Court from passing a final order in the contempt proceedings until September 28.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice on Ghumare's pleaagainst the High Court's contempt proceedings and listed it on September 28, 2026. Ghumare faced the contempt action after he allegedly blamed the High Court for the delay in filling up of judicial vacancies, when he appeared before it in his capacity as the Law Department Secretary.

In the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Ghumare, submitted that the issue arose because judicial posts had been sanctioned but had not been filled by the High Court. Singh submitted that there were 1,101 sanctioned posts in Maharashtra but only 385 had been filled.

Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Centre & States On Plea Seeking Social Security Measures For Private School Teachers

Case Title : Ligimol George v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking a comprehensive national policy and statutory framework for the welfare, social security and post-retirement protection of private school teachers across India.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Union Government, States, Union Territories and other authorities, including the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), and posted the matter after four weeks.

The petition has been filed by Ligimol George, National Coordinator of the All-India Teachers Federation through Advocate on Record Deepak Prakash. The plea seeks directions to the Union Government to examine and formulate, within a time-bound period, a comprehensive National Policy and appropriate statutory, administrative or executive framework for private school teachers.

Whether Writ Petitions Should Be Classified As 'Civil' & 'Criminal'? : Discussion In Supreme Court

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Meghraj Singh, SLP(Crl) No. 16835/2026.

The Supreme Court witnessed a discussion on whether writ petitions before constitutional courts ought to be categorised as "civil" and "criminal", with Justice Dipankar Datta observing that, ideally, all such matters should simply be classified as writ petitions, while acknowledging that the nature of the subject matter may have consequences for the maintainability of an intra-court appeal.

The discussion arose during the hearing of Directorate of Enforcement v. Meghraj Singh, when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to a order of the Rajasthan High Court concerning the practice of registering matters as "criminal writ petitions".

The Solicitor General referred to the Rajasthan High Court's judgment in Jiya & Ors v. Government of Rajasthan, where a Division Bench had directed the Registry not to register cases as "criminal writ petitions", observing that there was no such concept under the Constitution.

Supreme Court To Examine If Closing Metro Services During Protests Is Proportionate

Case: Sparsh Kant Nayak v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1066/2026

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union on a writ petition challenging the closure of 17 Delhi Metro stations during the July student protests as an illegal and disproportionate measure. The petitioner contended that there is no legal provision enabling the shutting down of a public utility to curb protests.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter along with other petitions concerning the student protests. The bench orally observed during the hearing that although Courts ordinarily defer to the executive on law-and-order measures, judicial scrutiny may be warranted when the exercise of such discretion becomes disproportionate. Responses were also sought from the Delhi Police, NCTD Government and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Sanjiv Narang argued that the issue was not about the rights of protesters, but about the constitutional standards governing the shutting down of a public utility and restrictions imposed on the public.

Supreme Court Stays Gujarat HC Proceedings In Plea To Regulate Deepfake, AI Content, As Centre Seeks Transfer Of Case To SC

Case Title: Union of India v. Vikas Vijay Nair and Ors.

Case Number: T.P.(C) No. 002597/2026

The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings before the Gujarat High Court in a PIL raising concerns about the rise in deepfake and AI-generated content circulating on digital and social media platforms.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, while issuing notice on the Union's plea for transfer of the case to the Supreme Court. Advocate Zoheb Hossain submitted during the hearing that the Court has interdicted similar proceedings before other High Courts and the cases are now pending before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Seeks Response Of Centre, States On Plea Seeking National Judicial Pay Commission For Judges

Case Title – Maharashtra State Judges Association v. Union of India and Others

A plea has been filed by the Maharashtra State Judges Association before the Supreme Court seeking constitution of a National Judicial Pay Commission (NJPC) to review the pay and service conditions of judges across the country.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice in the writ petition and posted the matter on October 14, 2026.

Noida DM Medha Roopam Moves Supreme Court Against Allahabad HC Order Slamming Her For Student's NSA Detention

Case Title: Medha Roopam v. Akriti Chaudhary

Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam moved the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court order which directed a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from her salary over the detention of student Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act.

To recap, while quashing the NSA detention of 24-year-old Delhi University law student and activist, Akriti Chaudhary, the Allahabad High Court had strongly criticized the manner in which the detention order was passed by the Noida District Magistrate.

The bench categorically warned that continued 'despotic' conduct by errant bureaucracy could reduce Uttar Pradesh to an “Orwellian Dystopia”.

AP Liquor Scam: Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Former APSBCL Managing Director & Ex-IT Advisor To YSRCP Govt

Case Title: Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Supreme Court denied anticipatory bail to former IT Advisor to the previous YSRCP government, Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy alias Raj Kesireddy, in connection with the alleged manipulation of the liquor transportation tender process of the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL).

The Court also denied anticipatory bail to former APSBCL Managing Director Donthireddy Vasudeva Reddy.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana however said that the production warrant qua the petitioners be executed immediately, whereafter they may seek regular bail.