Administrative Law – Departure from Competitive Tendering – Requirement of Reasons – While competitive tendering is the ordinary method to secure public interest, any departure must be justified by rational and recorded reasons - Non-production of core records like tender documents and vouchers by the State is a serious concern, as the State is the custodian of public records...
Administrative Law – Departure from Competitive Tendering – Requirement of Reasons – While competitive tendering is the ordinary method to secure public interest, any departure must be justified by rational and recorded reasons - Non-production of core records like tender documents and vouchers by the State is a serious concern, as the State is the custodian of public records - Physical execution of work does not validate an unconstitutional or arbitrary procurement process - Held – Supreme Court directed the CBI to register a preliminary enquiry into the award of public works in Arunachal Pradesh from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2025 - Observed that missing records and allegations against high constitutional functionaries warrant an investigation by an agency institutionally independent of the State executive. [Relied on State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571; Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. (1987) 2 SCC 295; Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P. (2011) 5 SCC 29; Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1; Paras 12-18, 25-30, 33-44] Save Mon Region Federation v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : 2026 INSC 320
Administrative Law — Judicial Review of Contractual Actions — Distinction between Termination and Blacklisting — Standards of Legality and Natural Justice — While exercising judicial review over State actions regarding contracts, Courts must apply distinct standards of legality, rationality, and proportionality for termination and blacklisting - Blacklisting is stigmatic and exclusionary, acting as an "instrument of coercion" that involves civil consequences - It is not an automatic or logical consequence of contract termination - Even after termination, the Department retains a choice to exercise the power of blacklisting, which operates in a future dimension by debarring the contractor from potential contracts. A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 321 : 2026 INSC 312
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 23 Rule 1 — Maintainability of fresh application for appointment of an arbitrator — Abandonment of proceedings - The Supreme Court held that the principles of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC, which prohibit the institution of fresh proceedings on the same cause of action without seeking leave of the court, apply to proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A litigant who has effectively abandoned previous arbitration proceedings or withdrawn an application without liberty to file afresh is barred from seeking a subsequent appointment of an arbitrator for the same cause of action. The Court emphasized that this bar is founded on Public Policy to prevent the abuse of the process of law. In the present case, the respondent's refusal to participate in the initial arbitral proceedings constituted abandonment. Furthermore, the dismissal of a third-party appeal regarding the underlying property did not create a "fresh cause of action" for the respondent, as the internal dispute between the parties was not the subject matter of that appeal. [Relied on HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3190; Paras 15-19] Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 310 : 2026 INSC 302
Arrests from Court Premises - Guidelines - The Supreme Court partially modified the High Court's directions issued in a suo motu petition concerning police arrests and use of force within court premises. 1. Definition of Court Premises – The Supreme Court upheld the definition provided by the High Court in Para 8.1, which includes not only courtrooms but also all lands, buildings, and structures (except residential quarters) used in connection with court proceedings during notified working hours or till the court is in session, whichever is later. 2. Power of Police to Arrest – The Supreme Court held that the High Court's restrictions in Para 8.2(iii) were “too restrictive”. It modified the same to provide that police personnel shall be at liberty to arrest a person or use necessary force in court premises in the following situations: - (a) To prevent the occurrence of a cognizable offence in court premises; - (b) To arrest the accused/suspect where, immediately on committing an offence, such person can be apprehended at the spot; - (c) To prevent any suspect/accused from hiding himself in court premises. 3. District Level Committee – The Court directed the inclusion of one additional police officer (nominated by the jurisdictional Inspector General of Police or Commissioner of Police) as a member of the District Level Committee constituted to address conflicts between lawyers and police. However, it was clarified that neither the State nor the District Level Committees have any power to dilute or interfere with the statutory powers and duties of police officers in the maintenance of law and order. The appeal filed by the Kerala Police Officers Association was accordingly disposed of. Kerala Police Officers Association v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 311
Arrest - Supreme Court laid down following key points - i. Mandatory Written Communication: Supreme Court reiterated that the constitutional mandate of informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory for all offences under all statutes; ii. Procedural Non-Compliance: Even if grounds are explained orally at the time of arrest, they must be communicated in writing at least two hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the Magistrate; iii. Template Arrest Memos: A mere statement in a template arrest memo indicating that grounds were "explained" orally does not substitute for the requirement of furnishing written grounds; iv. Consequence of Violation: Any deviation from these principles renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, entitling the person to be set free. [Relied on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Another (2026) 1 SCC 500; Paras 20-23] Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 327
Backward Community Status – Exercise of Discretion – Level Playing Field - Supreme Court clarified that belonging to a backward community cannot be a decisive factor in tilting the scales of justice in matters of public employment selection - Adjudicatory bodies (Tribunals and High Courts) must operate within well-defined boundaries of discretion and should not allow "grace, charity or compassion" to interfere with maintaining a fair level playing field – Appeal allowed. [Paras 5-11] Commissioner, Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 328 : 2026 INSC 314
Banking Law — Disclosure of Forensic Audit Reports - Whether banks are obligated to furnish the entire Forensic Audit Report (FAR) to the borrower before declaring an account as "fraud." - Held: Yes, Consistent with Rajesh Agarwal case and T. Takano v. SEBI (2022) 8 SCC 162, held that the disclosure of the FAR is the rule - Findings and conclusions alone are insufficient, as reasons for such findings are contained in the body of the report - Relevant material must be disclosed to allow the borrower to identify errors or omissions – Exception - Banks may redact or withhold portions of the report if they establish that disclosure would affect third-party privacy or rights, provided the reasons for such withholding are recorded. [Relied on State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal (2023) 6 SCC 1; T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2022) 8 SCC 162; Paras 118 - 126] State Bank of India v. Amit Iron, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 337 : 2026 INSC 323
Banking Law — Reserve Bank of India (Fraud Risk Management in Commercial Banks) Directions, 2024 — Master Directions on Frauds, 2016 — Classification of Accounts as "Fraud" — Principles of Natural Justice — Right to Personal Hearing — Disclosure of Forensic Audit Reports - Right to Personal Hearing - Whether the principle of audi alteram partem mandates the grant of a personal/oral hearing to a borrower before their account is classified as a "fraud account" under the RBI Master Directions - Held: No, The Supreme Court clarified that the decision in State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal (2023) 6 SCC 1 did not recognize an inherent right to a personal hearing - Natural justice is a flexible concept adapted to administrative realities - In the context of fraud classification an internal administrative process for risk mitigation the requirements of fairness are satisfied by the issuance of a detailed Show Cause Notice (SCN), providing the relied-upon evidentiary material, considering the borrower's written representation, and passing a reasoned order - Granting a mandatory oral hearing would defeat the objective of swift detection, encumber banking operations, and provide recalcitrant borrowers opportunities to dissipate assets or abscond. [Paras 74 - 93, 126] State Bank of India v. Amit Iron, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 337 : 2026 INSC 323
Building Bye-Laws and Land-Use Regulations — Unauthorized Construction and Commercial Misuse of Residential Areas — Pan-India Inquiry — The Supreme Court expressed grave concern over the "alarming state of affairs" where a G+1 floor building was constructed without any approved sanction plan, suggesting collusion and connivance of Municipal Authorities - Supreme Court noted widespread and blatant violations of building bye-laws and land-use regulations, specifically the conversion of residential colonies into commercial areas, which causes significant prejudice to bona fide residents and serious environmental consequences. Loganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 325
Cancellation of Lease - Conditional Extension – Compliance with Prescribed Format – UPSIDA had offered an extension of time subject to the deposit of an extension fee and the submission of an affidavit in a specific format - The appellant failed to submit the affidavit in the required format and language within the fixed period and deposited the fee only after the cancellation order was issued. [Para 64, 67, 72] Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 332 : 2026 INSC 321
Cancellation of Lease - Lease Forfeiture – Industrial Plot – Failure to utilize land – Breach of Covenants – The Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture of a 33-acre industrial plot by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) due to the appellant's failure to complete construction and commence production within the stipulated timeframe - noted that the primary purpose of industrial areas is to generate revenue, create employment, and foster economic development, requiring allottees to strictly adhere to time-bound project implementation – Held that The appellant was in clear breach of sub-clauses (e) and (o) of Clause 3 of the lease deed dated 19th March 2002 for failing to raise construction or commence industrial activity. [Para 57, 58, 59-69] Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 332 : 2026 INSC 321
Census - Supreme Court declines to direct separate enumeration of Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNT) in Census – Matter held to be in policy domain, not justiciable - The classification/sub-classification sought in the census enumeration process is a policy decision falling exclusively within the domain of the competent executive authorities of the Union of India and is not a justiciable issue before the Court. - The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate representations before the concerned executive authorities. The Bench observed that India should strive towards a casteless society rather than creating more and more classifications and divisions in society. The Court noted that such demands involve “very calculated moves” and expressed caution regarding deep-rooted attempts to further divide society. Dakxinkumar Bajrange v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 312
Civil Suit - A plaintiff seeking declaration of title and injunction must succeed on the strength of their own case and cannot derive any benefit from the alleged weakness of the defendant's title. Hari Shankar Jain v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 313
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order IX Rule XIII – Application to set aside ex parte decree – Minority of Appellant – Sufficient Cause – The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent rejection of an application under Order IX Rule XIII CPC filed by a minor (Appellant No. 1) - held that a minor, being legally incapacitated, cannot be expected to respond to a public notice or initiate legal proceedings independently - The failure of the respondents to ensure the appointment of a lawful guardian for a known minor legal heir, coupled with material misstatements regarding the widow's identity, vitiated the original proceedings for a succession certificate. [Paras 7, 8, 9] Deepesh Maheswari v. Renu Maheswari, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 317 : 2026 INSC 306
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 vs. Order IX Rule XIII – Distinct Jurisdictions – The scope of proceedings under Section 96 and Order IX Rule XIII CPC are distinct - Order IX Rule XIII confers a wider jurisdiction, allowing an applicant to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for non-appearance and seek the setting aside of an ex parte decree, even after the dismissal of an appeal – Appeal allowed. Deepesh Maheswari v. Renu Maheswari, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 317 : 2026 INSC 306
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Medical Negligence vs. Consent - Allegation of Forgery in Medical Consent Form – Supreme Court quashed proceedings against a pediatric surgeon accused of performing an Orchidectomy (removal of testicle) without specific consent instead of the agreed Orchidopexy(repositioning of testicle) – Supreme Court observed that while issues of tampering/interpolation are generally matters of trial, the High Court can exercise Section 482 powers to prevent abuse of process when the medical procedure itself is found to be appropriate by an expert board and there is no prima facie evidence of forgery – Held: Continuance of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court where the Medical Board found the procedure to be an appropriate alternative to meet medical exigency. [Paras 18, 20] Dr. S. Balagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 331 : 2026 INSC 319
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Bail – Cancellation of Bail – Violation of Conditions – Siphoning of Funds – Fabrication of Documents – Failure to Settle Claims – The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner (Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) for blatant non-compliance with the primary condition of settling allottees' claims in the 'Grand Venice' project - that the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 50 Crores in his personal capacity as a pre-condition for bail - the petitioner sourced these funds from the Corporate Debtor (BIIPL) and related entities without any Board Resolution or compliance with Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Held, utilizing interest-free commercial benefits from the company to secure personal liberty lacks bona fides. Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 316 : 2026 INSC 310
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Delineation of the "Four-Step Test" for Quashing – Supreme Court reiterated the structured test to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing: i. Is the material relied upon by the accused of sterling and impeccable quality? ii. Does it rule out/overrule the factual assertions in the complaint? iii. Has the material remained unrefuted by the prosecution? iv. Would continuing the trial result in an abuse of process? iv. If all steps are answered in the affirmative, judicial conscience should persuade the Court to quash the proceedings. [Relied on Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Paras 22-29, 32-36] Sajal Bose v. State of West Bengal, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 335 : 2026 INSC 322
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Differential Treatment of Co-accused - Lack of Reasoning – Noted that High Court had quashed proceedings against two co-accused but declined similar relief to the appellants based on the same set of allegations without assigning any cogent or discernible rationale – Held: In the absence of a clear rationale justifying differential treatment for similarly placed persons, the approach is legally and factually unsustainable. Sajal Bose v. State of West Bengal, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 335 : 2026 INSC 322
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Quashing of Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Sections 498A, 323, 354 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Appeals filed by sister-in-law and parents-in-law assailing High Court order refusing to quash FIR and Chargesheet - Marriage solemnized in 2017; FIR lodged in 2023 – Held, law protects those who are vigilant about their rights (Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt) – In matrimonial cases, a delay of nearly seven years can be fatal when not properly explained, as material evidence may disappear and it suggests an abuse of process. Charul Shukla v. State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 307 : 2026 INSC 297
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 197(1) – Protection of Public Servants – Protection under Section 197(1) is only available to public servants who are "not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government." - Subordinate rank police officers who can be dismissed by an Inspector General of Police or other departmental heads without State Government sanction do not fall under this category. Samarendra Nath Kundu v. Sadhana Das, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 314 : 2026 INSC 304
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 197(3) – State Government Notification – While the State Government has the power to extend Section 197(2) protection to members of forces charged with maintaining public order via notification, such protection only applies to the act of "taking cognizance." - If no bar existed on the date the court took cognizance, the trial can proceed despite a later notification. [Relied on Nagraj v. State of Mysore (AIR 1964 SC 269); Fakhruzamma v. State of Jharkhand (2013 15 SCC 552); Paras 10-15] Samarendra Nath Kundu v. Sadhana Das, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 314 : 2026 INSC 304
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 197 – Sanction for Prosecution – Applicability of subsequent notification to prior cognizance – Held that the bar under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. applies at the stage of taking cognizance - A notification issued under Section 197(3) extending protection to subordinate police officers does not have a retrospective effect on proceedings where cognizance was already validly taken before the issuance of such notification - A post-cognizance sanction or a subsequent bar cannot nullify a validly passed cognizance order. Samarendra Nath Kundu v. Sadhana Das, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 314 : 2026 INSC 304
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 (Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) - Quashing of Chargesheet - Scope of Inherent Powers - Reliance on CCTV Footage at the Quashing Stage – The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants facing charges under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427, and 354 IPC – Held: The CCTV footage, which formed part of the prosecution's own record (Chargesheet), clearly demonstrated that the appellants were not present during the actual assault and had only arrived later to pacify the situation – Where electronic evidence of "sterling and impeccable quality" completely belies the ocular version and indicates that the proceedings are maliciously instituted due to personal animosity, the High Court must exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of law. Sajal Bose v. State of West Bengal, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 335 : 2026 INSC 322
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of Proceedings – Scope of Interference – High Court quashed criminal proceedings involving allegations of fraud and forgery in the execution of a sale deed belonging to The Church of South India Trust Association (C.S.I.T.A.) - Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, holding that the High Court erred in conducting what amounted to a mini-trial and evaluating the sufficiency of evidence at the quashing stage - High Court held that a private complainant had no locus standi in the internal affairs of a registered body (C.S.I.T.A.) - Supreme Court reversed, reaffirming that criminal law can be set motion by any person having knowledge of an offence unless expressly barred by statute - Supreme Court emphasized that trust property held for the benefit of a community is a matter of legitimate public concern. State of Andhra Pradesh v. B. Reddeppa Reddy, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 308
Constitution of India - Article 136 – Equitable Relief – Supreme Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, observing that the appellant's conduct was "callous, laconic, and in clear violation of applicable rules -" Supreme Court emphasized that it would be loath to substitute its own discretion for that of the State Government regarding commercial decisions like the allotment of industrial plots at concessional rates. [Para 73, 77, 78] Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 332 : 2026 INSC 321
Constitution of India – Article 142 – Modification of Relief – Finding the High Court's direction to grant admission justified, the Supreme Court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 142 to modify the timing of the relief - Due to the pendency of litigation for over three years, the Court directed the respondent to be admitted for the academic year 2026-2027 instead of 2023-2024. [Relied on S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (2020) 17 SCC 465; Paras 15-19] Secretary National Medical Commission v. Sanjana Thakur, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 330
Constitution of India – Article 14 and Article 32 – Public Procurement – Transparency and Accountability – Facts – Petitioners alleged systemic nepotism and corruption in Arunachal Pradesh, asserting that public works were awarded to firms related to the Chief Minister and other high officials without open tenders - CAG report identified missing vouchers worth crores and repeated execution of works without tenders - The State holds public resources as a trustee on behalf of the people - Award of public contracts and execution of works must be transparent, fair, and free from arbitrariness or undisclosed conflicts of interest – Extraordinary power under Article 32 to transfer investigation to the CBI must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional situations - Such transfer is justified where high officials are involved, where the investigation by State machinery lacks credibility, or to instil public confidence in the rule of law. Save Mon Region Federation v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : 2026 INSC 320
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction against Show Cause Notice – Reiterated that while courts ordinarily do not interfere at the SCN stage, it is not an "inviolable rule" - Interference is permissible in exceptional circumstances, including patent lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process of law, or where the notice reflects a pre-determined approach. [Relied on Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories (2007) 13 SCC 270; Paras 30-40] J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 320 : 2026 INSC 309
Constitution of India – Article 300A – Constitutional Right to Property – The right of redemption is a valuable right embedded in the SARFAESI Act to protect the borrower's ownership, which is a constitutional right - This right survives until the completion of the sale by a registered deed following a legally valid process - Since the borrowers discharged the entire outstanding liability during the pendency of the proceedings and the sale process was legally infirm due to timeline violations, the borrowers are entitled to redeem the property. [Relied on Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar (2014) 5 SCC 610; Paras 18-30] E. Muthurathinasabathy v. Sri International, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 319 : 2026 INSC 303
Criminal Jurisprudence – Delay in Lodging FIR – Noted that High Court quashed proceedings citing unexplained delay between the 2007 transaction and the 2015 FIR - Supreme Court clarified that in criminal matters, there is no strict limitation, and delay is not fatal unless there is evidence of deliberate inaction or prior knowledge - Respondents argued that the sale deed was upheld in civil proceedings, attaining finality - Supreme Court held that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings; a civil court's validation of a title does not prevent a criminal court from examining the merits of alleged fraud or forgery - reiterated that at the quashing stage, a Court is not expected to conduct a "mini-trial" or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence – Noted that any person with knowledge of an offence can set the criminal law in motion and that delay is not inherently fatal to a prosecution - Observed that the property in question, as trust property, involves public concern, justifying the maintainability of the complaint. [Paras 19-25] State of Andhra Pradesh v. B. Reddeppa Reddy, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 308
Education Law – Medical Admission – NEET-UG – Forgery and Fraud – Restoration of Vacant Seat – A medical seat in a Government Institution is a precious national resource held in public trust - When a seat falls vacant due to the cancellation of admission obtained through fraud or forged documents, the regulatory authorities are under a bounden duty to restore that seat to the next eligible candidate in the merit list - Administrative inaction, lethargy, or silence by the National Medical Commission (NMC) and the University that leads to a seat remaining wasted is a subversion of the purpose of the NEET-UG examination. Secretary National Medical Commission v. Sanjana Thakur, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 330
Election Law – Remand and Filling of Lacunae - The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had remanded an election petition to the Trial Court for fresh evidence, including expert fingerprint analysis - The dispute concerned the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khalila Majra, where allegations of double polling were made – Noted that the High Court had directed the Trial Court to call specific voters and obtain expert reports from the Finger Print Bureau to verify thumb impressions - Held: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in issuing sweeping directions for leading fresh evidence - An election petition must be decided based on the evidence already available on record as led by the parties - Supreme Court held that there is no scope for filling up lacunae in proceedings related to an election petition, especially when neither party had raised the issue of expert evidence before the Tribunal. [Para 8-11] Rakam Singh v. Amit, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 318
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 32 (Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 26) — Dying Declaration — Admissibility and Sanctity — The conviction was primarily based on the dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate in a question-and-answer format - reiterated that a dying declaration rests on the philosophical premise that a person facing imminent death will speak only the truth - If found consistent, believable, and free from tutoring, it can form the sole basis for conviction - In this case, the medical evidence from duty doctors and the certificate of mental fitness provided by the duty doctor on the flip side of the declaration paper affirmed its sanctity. Shankar v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : 2026 INSC 315
Evidence Law - Dying Declaration — Mental Condition and Procedure — The Appellant's contention that the Magistrate reported the victim was not in a fit mental condition was rejected - A perusal of the Magistrate's testimony and the medical certificate confirmed the deceased was conscious and in a position to give a statement - The lack of a specific note by the Magistrate regarding "sound mind" on the document itself was immaterial since a duty doctor had separately certified her condition. [Relied on Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1421; Paras 9-17] Shankar v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : 2026 INSC 315
Fabrication and Fraud – Conduct of Petitioner – Supreme Court noted the inclusion of "GST" in an allotment agreement purportedly dated 15.04.2015, whereas GST was only introduced in 2017 - Held, such an inclusion is not a clerical error but points directly at the fabrication of documents to derive commercial benefits - Further, the petitioner engaged in "double allotment" and created third-party rights using fabricated stamp papers – Following the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the petitioner siphoned off approximately Rs. 74 Crores to entities controlled by his immediate family members (wife, daughter, and sons) - Held, such conduct during a moratorium is ex-facie impermissible and lends credence to allegations of committing similar offences while on bail - Due to intentional and established violations of bail conditions, the Court ordered the forfeiture of the entire Rs. 50 Crore deposit along with accrued interest - Rs. 5 Crores was directed to be transmitted to NALSA, and the remainder to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) for IBC proceedings. [Relied on Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690; Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col. Gautam Mullick and Ors, Civil Appeal Nos. 13779 and 13812 of 2025; P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 15 SCC 211; Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349; Paras 65-80, 122-128] Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 316 : 2026 INSC 310
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – Section 37A(4) – Interpretation of "Confirming Seizure" – Supreme Court clarified that while Section 37A(4) allows adjudication to proceed and remain unaffected by a confirmed seizure, the statute is silent on situations where the seizure is not confirmed - If a Competent Authority records a substantive finding of no evidence of violation, that finding has a direct bearing on the outcome of the adjudication proceedings. J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 320 : 2026 INSC 309
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – Section 37A and Section 16 – Interplay between Seizure Proceedings and Adjudication – The Supreme Court set aside the final adjudication order and the High Court judgment that dismissed challenges to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under FEMA - Supreme Court held that where the Competent Authority has refused to confirm a seizure of assets under Section 37A(3) based on a finding that no "reason to believe" exists regarding a contravention of Section 4, the Adjudicating Authority cannot simply bypass or "undo" that order while an appeal against it is still pending before the Appellate Tribunal - Such a course of action amounts to abdicating the powers of the Appellate Authority. J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 320 : 2026 INSC 309
MBBS Admissions – Cut-off Dates vs. Equity – While adherence to the admission schedule is necessary for the timely induction of doctors, the schedule is a "servant of the admission process" and not a "master" that can sacrifice the career of a meritorious student who is not at fault - In exceptional cases where the candidate has been prompt in seeking legal remedies and the delay is entirely attributable to the failure of authorities to detect fraud or respond to communications, equity requires granting admission in the next possible academic year. Secretary National Medical Commission v. Sanjana Thakur, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 330
Medical Professionals - Criminal Prosecution - Standard of Care – Reiterated that medical professionals are placed on a different pedestal under criminal law – Prosecution for negligence must show the doctor did something that no medical professional of ordinary senses and prudence would have done - The Supreme Court noted that the Investigating Officer had previously sought an opinion on the consent form from the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, who did not find fault in it - Since no forensic report indicated interpolation via different ink or handwriting, and the medical necessity was established, the Court found no justification for a criminal trial. [Relied on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1; Para 16-20] Dr. S. Balagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 331 : 2026 INSC 319
Motor Vehicle Accidents - Forged or Fabricated Insurance Policy - Obligation of Insurance Companies to report forged policies - When an Insurance Company discovers that a motor insurance policy is forged or fabricated and cannot be acted upon, it is incumbent upon it to lodge a complaint with the police. Failure to do so reflects lack of due diligence and may suggest connivance. National Insurance Company Limited v. K. Saravanan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 339
Motor Vehicle Accidents - Forged or Fabricated Insurance Policy Public Funds & Vigilance - Insurance companies deal with substantial public funds and are under a corresponding duty to act with responsibility and vigilance while handling claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents. National Insurance Company Limited v. K. Saravanan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 339
Motor Vehicle Accidents - Forged or Fabricated Insurance Policy - Registration of Criminal Case - A fresh FIR is to be registered. Officers of the Insurance Company who were aware of the fraud and were posted in the concerned branch at the relevant time shall be arrayed as accused. National Insurance Company Limited v. K. Saravanan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 339
Motor Vehicle Accidents - Forged or Fabricated Insurance Policy - SIT Probe Ordered - The Supreme Court directed the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the fabrication of the insurance policy in question. National Insurance Company Limited v. K. Saravanan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 339
Municipality - Expansion of Scope — Impleadment of Capital City Municipalities — Considering the prevalence of such unauthorized activities, Supreme Court expanded the issue to a pan-India basis - It impleaded all Municipal Corporations and Municipalities of the capital cities of all States and Union Territories as party respondents - Supreme Court directed the newly impleaded authorities to conduct a comprehensive inquiry within their jurisdictions to identify residential areas being misused for non-residential purposes - Detailed lists of such cases must be submitted via affidavits personally affirmed by the respective Commissioners by May 15, 2026 - Supreme Court appointed Senior Counsel Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter. [Paras 6-12] Loganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 325
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 67 – Section 8 – Section 22 – Grounds of Arrest – Constitutional Mandate – Article 22(1) and Article 21 – The Supreme Court set aside the rejection of bail by the High Court and ordered the immediate release of the appellants due to the failure of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to provide written grounds of arrest - The appellants, medical professionals at a corporate hospital, were arrested following the recovery of 2000 Tramadol tablets - While the NCB claimed the grounds of arrest were orally explained and noted in a template-style arrest memo, the Court found this insufficient under established legal mandates - Supreme Court emphasized that providing written grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement to protect the fundamental rights of the arrestee. Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 327
National Highway - Toll on National Highways covered by Union List; States can levy toll only on other roads - Held, the levy and collection of toll/fee on National Highways by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) falls squarely within the legislative competence of the Union under Entry 23 read with Entry 96 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Toll collected for the use of National Highways is a fee traceable to Entry 23 (highways declared by or under law made by Parliament to be national highways) read with Entry 96 (fees in respect of any of the matters in the Union List) of List I. The expression “tolls” under Entry 59 of List II (State List) must be confined to charges levied by States on roads/highways other than National Highways. Once a road is declared a National Highway, legislative competence shifts exclusively to the Union. Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rate and Collection) Rules, 2008 is intra vires the Constitution and the National Highways Act, 1956. There is no lack of legislative competence or excessive delegation. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court judgment which had upheld the constitutional validity of toll collection on National Highways, including through concessionaires. T.S.R. Venkatramana v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 326
Natural Justice — Requirement of Specific Show-Cause Notice for Blacklisting — Rule 10.5 of Contractor Registration Rules, 2012 — A valid basis for a blacklisting order requires a particularized and unambiguous show-cause notice - The notice must clearly spell out the intention to blacklist to provide the noticee an adequate and meaningful opportunity to defend themselves - A general notice asking "why action should not be taken" for negligence is insufficient for the purposes of blacklisting - The final order cannot travel beyond the bounds of the show-cause notice. A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 321 : 2026 INSC 312
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Reverse Onus Clause – Held: Section 139 is a reverse onus clause included to improve the credibility of negotiable instruments - It is obligatory for the Court to raise this presumption once the factual basis (issuance/execution of the cheque) is established - Dismissing a complaint before trial on the ground that the debt was not legally enforceable, without allowing the complainant to lead evidence, ignores the statutory mandate - The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Sessions Court and High Court, restoring the complaint.. It held that since the signatures and issuance were not disputed, the existence of a legally enforceable debt is a matter of trial. [Relied on Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, 2010 INSC 289; Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, 2023 INSC 888; Paras 8-11] Renuka v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 338 : 2026 INSC 327
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 139 – Dishonour of Cheque – Legally Enforceable Debt – Rebuttal of Presumption at Pre-trial Stage – Held: At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is only required to see if the basic ingredients of Section 138 are prima facie satisfied, including the issuance of the cheque, its dishonour, and the service of statutory notice - Once the drawer does not dispute the signature or the issuance of the cheque, the statutory presumption under Section 139 comes into play, shifting the burden to the drawer to prove that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt - This rebuttal is an exercise to be undertaken during the trial through evidence and cannot be dislodged in a summary manner at the pre-trial stage. Renuka v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 338 : 2026 INSC 327
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Use of abusive language — Mere use of the word "bastard" during a heated conversation does not per se amount to obscenity — Supreme Court held that "obscenity" relates to material that has the potential to appeal to the prurient interest or arouse sexual/lustful thoughts - While vulgarity or profanities may be distasteful, unpalatable, or evoke disgust, they do not automatically satisfy the legal threshold of being "obscene" under Section 294 - Given modern contemporary mores, the use of such words in the heat of a moment does not sustain a conviction for obscenity. [Paras 19, 20] Sivakumar v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2026 INSC 318
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 and Section 342 — Conviction for Murder and Dying Declaration - Conviction Upheld — The Appellant was accused of beating his wife, pouring kerosene, and setting her on fire following a dispute over preparing food - The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court - Held that interference in concurrent findings is restricted unless there are manifest errors in law or misappreciation of crucial evidence. Shankar v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : 2026 INSC 315
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304 Part II — Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder — Sentence Reduction — Where an incident arose from a boundary dispute between close relatives, was preceded by an altercation, and the fatal injury was caused by a solitary blow using a log picked up from the spot (not a dangerous weapon) in the heat of the moment, Supreme Court reduced the sentence from five years to three years rigorous imprisonment - Appellant cannot be held liable for culpable homicide with the aid of Section 34 when there is no evidence of exhortation or shared intention to cause death - The mere fact that A-1 initiated an attack (which resulted in non-grievous injuries to a third party) does not establish common intention for the fatal blow delivered independently by another accused (A-2). [Relied on Apoorva Arora & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2024) 6 SCC 181; Para 21-27] Sivakumar v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2026 INSC 318
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354 and 313 – Lack of Evidentiary Support – Senior Citizens and Separate Residence - Allegations of forced miscarriage (Section 313) were dropped by the Investigating Officer due to lack of medical evidence – Allegations against the father-in-law under Section 354 (Outraging modesty) lacked substantive material and specific instances – Bald allegations not supported by material facts are fatal to the prosecution's case - Father-in-law (73) and Mother-in-law (71) are senior citizens – Sister-in-law is a professor living separately from the complainant – Held, it is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit prosecution where allegations are highly improbable and implausible – Appeals allowed. [Relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735; State of Punjab vs. Sarwan Singh, (1981) 3 SCC 34; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335; Paras 22- 27] Charul Shukla v. State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 307 : 2026 INSC 297
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Vague and Omnibus Allegations – Misuse of Section 498A IPC – Complainant made generalized accusations of dowry demands and harassment without material evidence or specific details of active involvement by the appellants – Held, there is a growing tendency to misuse Section 498A as a tool for personal vendetta against the husband's family – Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution and must be "nipped in the bud". Charul Shukla v. State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 307 : 2026 INSC 297
Public Employment – Selection Process – Rescheduling of Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PE&MT) – Effect of Non-Appearance due to Illness - The Supreme Court set aside the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court which had allowed a candidate to reappear for the PE&MT with a subsequent batch - held that when an advertisement explicitly stipulates that the schedule for selection tests is final and cannot be altered under any circumstances, candidates do not have an enforceable right to seek rescheduling based on minor ailments like cold, cough, or fever. Commissioner, Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 328 : 2026 INSC 314
Relief — Moulding of Relief — Where a blacklisting order is found to be patentely infirm for lack of mind application and violation of audi alteram partem, but considerable time has passed (one and a half years) without a stay, Supreme Court may mould the relief - Instead of remanding for a fresh show-cause notice which may lead to further litigation, Supreme Court can direct the blacklisting to cease operating from the date of the judgment. [Relied on Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70; UMC Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Food Corporation of India, (2021) 2 SCC 551; Nasir Ahmad v. Custodian General, Evacuee Property, (1980) 3 SCC 1; Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731; Paras 15- 25] A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 321 : 2026 INSC 312
SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Rule 9(4) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Auction Sale – Delay in payment of balance 75% consideration – Right of Redemption – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside an auction sale where the balance 75% of the bid amount was deposited by the auction purchasers approximately 15 months after the auction - held that even if judicial interim orders restrained the "confirmation" of sale, such orders (specifically the High Court order dated 15.12.2020) did not prevent the secured creditor from accepting the balance consideration. E. Muthurathinasabathy v. Sri International, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 319 : 2026 INSC 303
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Rule 9(4) – Mandatory Timelines – Supreme Court emphasized that Rule 9(4) prescribes a mandatory outer limit of three months for the payment of the balance purchase price - A transaction proceeding in violation of this statutory timeline remains inchoate and cannot be used to irreversibly divest a borrower of their secured assets, especially when the delay is not attributable to the borrower. E. Muthurathinasabathy v. Sri International, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 319 : 2026 INSC 303
Service Law - Conduct of Aspirants – Lack of Drive and Initiative - Supreme Court observed that the respondent's failure to physically report for the test on the scheduled date, despite being mobile on the previous day, demonstrated a "lack of drive and initiative" - For candidates aspiring to join the police force, such "tardy and lethargic conduct" is undesirable - Held that in competitive public employment, opportunities must be "grabbed with both hands". Commissioner, Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 328 : 2026 INSC 314
Service Law — Disciplinary Enquiry — Principles of Natural Justice — Requirement of Oral Enquiry — Held that even if a case is based solely on documentary evidence, unless the relied-upon documents are admitted by the charged employee, a witness must be examined to prove those documents and be tendered for cross-examination - Unless the charged employee accepts guilt in clear terms, an enquiry must be held where the employer leads evidence first, followed by an opportunity for the delinquent to cross-examine witnesses and lead defense evidence - An evasive reply to a departmental charge-sheet does not amount to an admission of guilt; the burden to prove the charge remains with the employer - Failure to produce any witness when charges are denied vitiates the enquiry. [Relied on Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Limited & Another vs. Raghunath Singh Rana & Others (2016) 12 SCC 204; Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Workmen AIR 1963 SC 1914; State of Uttaranchal & Ors. v. Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236; Paras 13-18] Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 315 : 2026 INSC 305
Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Meaning of "Pending" – Effect of Show Cause Notice – Supreme Court observed that for a show-cause notice to trigger the "deemed pendency" of disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 20(3)(ii) of the Service Regulations, it must clearly indicate an intention to institute disciplinary action - A mere request for an explanation regarding alleged irregularities, stating that "further course of action will be taken" in the absence of a reply, does not constitute the institution of disciplinary proceedings. [Paras 36, 37] UCO Bank v. S.K. Shrivastava, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 340 : 2026 INSC 328
Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Quantum of Punishment – Principle of Parity – Higher Responsibility of Senior Officers – Doctrine of Accountability – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment which had modified the punishment of 'dismissal from service' to 'compulsory retirement' on the ground of parity with co-delinquents - held that the respondent, holding the post of Senior Manager (MMGS-III Scale), cannot be equated with co-delinquents who were an officer and a gunman - Authority carries accountability; the higher the rank, the stricter the scrutiny and degree of responsibility - The differentiation in rank and the increased trust reposed by the employer in a Senior Manager constitutes a compelling ground for a more stringent punishment compared to subordinates involved in the same misconduct – Noted that Interference with the quantum of punishment is warranted only if the decision is strikingly disproportionate, irrational, or shocks the conscience of the Court - Noted that equating a branch manager with a gunman is in "outrageous defiance of logic and reason". [Relied on Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1983) 2 SCC 442; Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611; Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 46; Paras 9-16] Punjab & Sind Bank v. Sh. Raj Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 322 : 2026 INSC 313
Service Law - Interpretation of Recruitment Notification – A clause stating that "in case of non-availability of qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate, the vacancy will be filled by PWD candidates of other categories" does not bar more meritorious PWD candidates from social reserved categories from competing for the UR post in the first instance - Such clauses must be read in consonance with the constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16. [Relied on Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. (2021) 4 SCC 542; Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680; Paras 28-47] West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd v. Dipendu Biswas, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 336 : 2026 INSC 330
Service Law - Pre-condition for Migration – Held that a reserved category candidate seeking appointment against an Unreserved vacancy must not have availed themselves of any relaxation in eligibility criteria (such as age or experience) meant specifically for the reserved category - Merit must be the sole decisive factor for Unreserved posts. West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd v. Dipendu Biswas, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 336 : 2026 INSC 330
Service Law – Reservation – Horizontal Reservation – Mobility from Reserved to Unreserved (Open) Category –The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment which held that an Unreserved PWD vacancy must be filled by an Unreserved candidate if available, regardless of more meritorious PWD candidates from reserved social categories - Held, the "Unreserved" or "Open" category does not constitute a separate communal or social category - It represents an open pool available to all candidates irrespective of their social category (SC/ST/OBC), provided they satisfy the specific criteria of the horizontal reservation (e.g., PWD-LV) - Reaffirmed that meritorious candidates belonging to reserved social categories (SC/ST/OBC) who also fall under a horizontal reservation category (like PWD) are entitled to be appointed against the Unreserved horizontal quota based on their merit - A less meritorious candidate from the Unreserved category cannot "steal a march" over a more meritorious reserved category candidate for an Unreserved post. West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd v. Dipendu Biswas, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 336 : 2026 INSC 330
Service Law – Retrospective Refusal – Held, that a communication refusing voluntary retirement made after the expiry of the notice period and after the employee has already ceased work cannot be given retrospective effect to undo a retirement that has already become effective by operation of law - any chargesheet issued or dismissal order passed after the date of such deemed retirement is illegal and without jurisdiction. [Relied on Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam (1977) 4 SCC 441; B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat (1978) 2 SCC 202; State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal (1999) 4 SCC 293; Tek Chand v. Dile Ram (2001) 3 SCC 290; UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 694 & (2008) 5 SCC 257; Paras 30 - 45] UCO Bank v. S.K. Shrivastava, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 340 : 2026 INSC 328
Service Law - Seventh Central Pay Commission – Para 7.4.13 (iv) (b) – Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Level 9 – Eligibility of Junior Engineers – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction to grant NFU to Level 9 (Grade Pay of ₹5,400) to Junior Engineers (JEs) in the Border Road Organization (BRO) who completed four years of service in Level 8 (Grade Pay of ₹4,800) - rejected the Union's contention that NFU is only applicable to those whose entry-level Grade Pay was ₹4,800 - It held that introducing an "entry-level" requirement constitutes adding an extra condition not found in the plain reading of the recommendations - The only condition precedent for the grant of ₹5,400 Grade Pay is the completion of four years in the Grade Pay of ₹4,800, regardless of whether that level was reached through promotion or the MACP Scheme - Noted that the Central Pay Commission's recommendation cannot be loosely construed to deny a benefit to an employee by creating an additional condition to deny the benefit of the pay commission – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 11-13] Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Rai, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 323 : 2026 INSC 311
Service Law - Supreme Court Observations - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, noting several procedural lapses – i. No Admission of Guilt - rejected the respondent's argument that an "evasive" reply constituted an admission under the Evidence Act - A departmental charge-sheet is not a plaint, and the burden of proof lies strictly on the department unless the charge is categorically admitted; ii. Mandatory Oral Enquiry - Relying on Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Limited, Supreme Court held that under Regulation 85 of the 1975 Regulations (and Rule 84 of the 1980 Service Rules), it is mandatory to hold an oral enquiry when charges are refuted; iii. Order of Evidence - The department must lead evidence first to prove the charges before asking the delinquent for a defense. In this case, no witnesses were produced to prove the documents or the charges, rendering the enquiry "vitiated" - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal and recovery orders - The Federation was granted liberty to conduct a de novo enquiry within six months - If no such enquiry is held, the appellant is entitled to reinstatement with full benefits and arrears of salary. Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 315 : 2026 INSC 305
Service Law – Voluntary Retirement – Interplay between Pension Regulations and Service Regulations – Deemed Acceptance – The Supreme Court held that under Regulation 29(2) of the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, a notice for voluntary retirement becomes effective automatically upon the expiry of the notice period unless the appointing authority specifically refuses to grant permission before such expiry - Supreme Court clarified that while Regulation 20(3) of the Service Regulations creates an embargo on leaving service during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, these provisions must be read harmoniously - If the competent authority fails to pass a positive order of refusal within the notice period, the voluntary retirement takes effect ipso facto by efflux of time. [Paras 17 - 26, 43] UCO Bank v. S.K. Shrivastava, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 340 : 2026 INSC 328
Settlement of Claims – Meaning of "Attempt to Settle" – Supreme Court clarified that Condition (viii) of the bail order required a real and effective resolution of claims, either through valid possession or refund - Mere execution of mediation agreements without implementation does not constitute compliance - The project remains incomplete, lacking essential services (lifts, water, fire safety NOCs), rendering any "notional possession" delivered to allottees legally invalid. Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 316 : 2026 INSC 310
Stamp Act, 1957 (Karnataka) - Procedure for Impounding – Section 33 and 37 – When an insufficiently stamped document is produced before a Court, it must be impounded under Section 33 – Supreme Court has two options: (i) admit the document after collecting the deficit duty and the ten-fold penalty, then send a copy to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 37(1); or (ii) transmit the original document to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 37(2) for adjudication of duty and penalty. [Relied on In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, (2024) 6 SCC 1; Gangappa v. Fakkirappa, (2019) 3 SCC 788; Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, (1962) 2 SCR 333; Ram Rattan v. Bajrang Lal, (1978) 3 SCC 236; Paras 15-21] Krishnavathi Sharma v. Bhagwandas Sharma, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 309
Stamp Act, 1957 (Karnataka) – Section 34 Proviso – Mandatory Nature of Penalty – Supreme Court noted that under the proviso to Section 34, an insufficiently stamped document can only be admitted in evidence upon payment of the deficient duty along with a mandatory penalty of ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof - The High Court erred in traveling beyond its jurisdiction by absolving the party from this mandatory penalty. Krishnavathi Sharma v. Bhagwandas Sharma, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 309
Stamp Act, 1957 (Karnataka) – Sections 33, 34, 37, 38, and 39 – Admissibility of Unstamped/Insufficiently Stamped Documents – Power of Courts to Exempt Penalty – Held: The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, direct the payment of deficient stamp duty while simultaneously exempting the mandatory penalty - The power to determine valuation and decide on the penalty payable rests with the competent authority (Deputy Commissioner) under the Act - Non-payment of stamp duty is a curable defect, but a document can only be admitted in evidence after it is properly stamped and the requisite penalty is paid. Krishnavathi Sharma v. Bhagwandas Sharma, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 309
Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 372 and 383 – Succession Certificate – Revocation of Certificate – Held that a succession certificate is liable to be revoked under Section 383 if the application is defective or material facts are suppressed - Describing the widow of the deceased incorrectly as the wife of another person and failing to implead a known minor heir constitutes a serious legal infirmity justifying the invocation of Section 383. [Relied on Parimal vs. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545; Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, (2005) 1 SCC 757; Para 8-10] Deepesh Maheswari v. Renu Maheswari, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 317 : 2026 INSC 306
Wakf - Service Inam land attached to a Mosque is Wakf property and cannot be alienated - Lands granted as 'Service Inam' for rendering religious or charitable services to a mosque form part of Wakf property. Such grants are impressed with a public/religious trust and are inalienable. A grant of land for religious or charitable purposes recognised under Muslim law does not confer absolute title on the grantee. The property retains the character of a Wakf. (Relied on: Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board, (1998) 2 SCC 642) Hari Shankar Jain v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 313
Waqf Act, 1995 - Distinct Nature of Offices - Declaration and succession to the office of Sajjadanashin is a religious affair governed primarily by custom, usage and/or nomination by the predecessor, and does not fall within the exclusive domain of management and administration of Waqf properties. Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 334 : 2026 INSC 438
Waqf Act, 1995 - Jurisdiction - Disputes relating to succession to the office of Sajjadanashin of a notified Waqf/Dargah are maintainable before the Civil Court and are not barred by the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal or Waqf Board, which primarily deal with administrative matters. Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 334 : 2026 INSC 438
Waqf Act, 1995 - Recognition of Sajjadanashin does not extinguish independent legal rights of other family members or beneficiaries in the Waqf properties under Waqf law. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court which had erroneously held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction and that the power to appoint Sajjadanashin vested exclusively with the Waqf Board. The Court restored the decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court declaring the rightful Sajjadanashin on the basis of a valid Khilafatnama and remitted the connected matters for expeditious disposal on merits. Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 334 : 2026 INSC 438
Waqf Act, 1995 - Sajjadanashin of a Dargah and Mutawalli of a Waqf are Distinct Offices - The office of Sajjadanashin is a spiritual and religious position as the head of the Dargah/Waqf institution, whereas the office of Mutawalli is a secular administrative position relating to the management of the Waqf properties. The two offices are fundamentally distinct and cannot be treated as one and the same, even though a Sajjadanashin may also be appointed as Mutawalli under Section 32(2)(g) of the Waqf Act, 1995. A Mutawalli, however, cannot ipso facto function as Sajjadanashin. Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 334 : 2026 INSC 438
Waqf Act, 1995 - Succession - In Muslim religious institutions, the office of Sajjadanashin may devolve by established custom or by nomination through instruments such as Khilafatnama. A document merely conferring authority to act (such as a General Power of Attorney) does not amount to nomination to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin. Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 334 : 2026 INSC 438