Advocates - Members of the judiciary at all levels must show patience, compassion, and a spirit of encouragement towards lawyers, particularly young members of the Bar. The Court emphasized that the responsibility to nurture discipline, professional ethics, integrity, and a sense of duty among lawyers — viewing them as officers of the Court — lies not only with senior members of the...
Advocates - Members of the judiciary at all levels must show patience, compassion, and a spirit of encouragement towards lawyers, particularly young members of the Bar. The Court emphasized that the responsibility to nurture discipline, professional ethics, integrity, and a sense of duty among lawyers — viewing them as officers of the Court — lies not only with senior members of the Bar but equally with the Bench. Bar Council of India v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 500
Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 35 and Section 38 - Professional Misconduct - Deletion of Adverse Observations/Warning – Appeal filed by advocate against the Bar Council of India's (BCI) order issuing a warning despite affirming the dismissal of the complaint against him - The respondent-complainant (brother-in-law of the appellant) filed a frivolous complaint alleging threats due to matrimonial discord - The State Bar Council dismissed the complaint as false and motivated, imposing Rs.25,000/- cost. On appeal, the BCI affirmed that there was no cogent evidence of professional misconduct but waived the cost and issued a warning to the appellant to not intimidate the complainant - Held: The Supreme Court observed that both the State Bar Council and the BCI concurrently found no merit in the complaint, concluding it was filed for oblique motives and to wreak vengeance - Despite this, the BCI proceeded to issue a warning without any justification and set aside the cost without assigning any justifiable reasons - Since the complaint was concurrently found to be frivolous and motivated, the BCI's adverse observations and warning against the advocate cannot be sustained - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed/struck off the warning recorded against the appellant-advocate. [Paras 12 - 14] Prem Pal Singh v. Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 482
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34(2A) – Patent Illegality – Setting aside of Arbitral Award – An award that completely ignores the statutory directives of Section 26(1)(b) of the 2013 LA Act and its Explanations by adopting a single, completely dissimilar sale exemplar is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the record - The cloak of protection under the proviso to Section 34(2A) (which restricts interference on mere erroneous application of law or reappreciation of evidence) cannot be extended to such an award. [Relied on National Highways Authority of India vs. P. Nagaraju alias Cheluvaiah and another, (2022) 15 SCC 1; Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation vs. Vincent Daniel and others, (2025) 7 SCC 798; Para 12] Project Director, National Highways Authority of India v. Alfa Remidis Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 494 : 2026 INSC 480
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 7(5) — Arbitration Agreement by Incorporation — Incorporation vs. Mere Reference — Distinction Explained — The High Court rejected Section 11 applications on the ground that a generic reference to a Development Agreement (containing an arbitration clause) in the subsequent Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAAs) executed with individual society members was insufficient to bind them to arbitration – Held that there is a distinct legal difference between a mere reference to another document and the incorporation of another document by reference - Where a subsequent contract explicitly provides that all terms, conditions, and clauses of an earlier document shall form part of it and be binding on the parties, the earlier document gets incorporated in its entirety (body and soul) into the later agreement - In the present case, Clause 14 of the PAAAs unequivocally stated that all terms, conditions, and clauses of the Development Agreement shall form a part of and be binding on the parties - This went beyond a mere general reference and clearly demonstrated the intention of the parties to import the Development Agreement in its entirety, including its dispute resolution mechanism (Clause 36) - a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties by incorporation under Section 7(5) of the Act. [Relied on M.R. Engineers and Contractors Private Limited vs. Som Datt Builders Limited, (2009) 7 SCC 696; NBCC (India) Limited. vs. Zillion Infraprojects Private Limited, (2024) 7 SCC 174; Paras 9-13] Hirani Developers v. Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 499 : 2026 INSC 484
Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 – Regulation 10 – Common Proceedings – Interpretation of the word "May" – Held - The word "may" employed in Regulation 10 of the 1976 Regulations is directory and not mandatory - Construing "may" as mandatory would strip away the employer's necessary discretion in dynamic administrative situations - The roles of different charge-sheeted employees under a common category are often distinct, and their respective disciplinary authorities may vary depending on their cadres - Regulation 10 is a facilitative, enabling provision meant to empower the Bank to hold joint proceedings where necessary, but it does not vest a corresponding legal right in a delinquent employee to demand or insist upon a joint enquiry - the failure to conduct a joint enquiry does not vitiate independent disciplinary proceedings initiated against an individual officer. [Paras 15 – 17] Canara Bank v. Prem Latha Uppal, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 497 : 2026 INSC 478
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 – Judgment on Admission – Admissions made outside pleadings, including in criminal proceedings, can form basis for decree - Held, a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be passed on the basis of an admission made by a party even outside the pleadings, provided the admission is clear, unequivocal and in writing or oral. There is no bar under the Code restricting such admissions to only those made in the pleadings. Sheikh Abedin v. Iqbal Ahmed, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 483
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 – Judgment on Admission – The appellant-defendant had admitted in a complaint leading to registration of an FIR that he was merely a caretaker of the suit property owned by the respondent-plaintiff. Relying upon this admission, the Trial Court decreed the suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the premises. The First Appellate Court and the High Court upheld the decree. The defendant contended before the Supreme Court that an admission made in criminal proceedings could not be relied upon for passing judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Held: Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that admissions, wherever made, if clear and unequivocal, can be the foundation for a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Court reiterated that the object of the provision is to enable a party to obtain speedy justice on the basis of admissions made by the opposite party. [Relied on : Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120] Sheikh Abedin v. Iqbal Ahmed, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 483
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 195 read with Section 340 – Prosecution for Perjury in Matrimonial Disputes – Scope of – Application filed by husband seeking prosecution of wife for making allegedly false statements on oath during interim maintenance proceedings - Held: The allegations do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence of perjury - The husband's grievances stem from a hyper-technical dissection of the material on record and appear to be instigated by personal vendetta, anger, and pent-up frustration arising out of escalated matrimonial acrimony - Recourse to criminal prosecution under Section 340 CrPC cannot be permitted to satisfy a spiteful approach. Special Leave Petition filed by the husband dismissed. [Paras 36, 37] Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 489 : 2026 INSC 475
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR and Chargesheet — Absence of necessary ingredients - An FIR is liable to be quashed if its bare reading does not disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offences - When the basic constituents of the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act (i.e., occurrence in a place within public view) and Section 506 IPC (i.e., intent to cause alarm) are conspicuously missing from the contents of the FIR and the chargesheet, the framing of charges is unsustainable in the eyes of law. [Relied on Swaran Singh and Others vs. State through Standing Counsel and Another (2008) 8 SCC 435; Karuppudayar vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215; State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Amar Nath Jha vs. Nand Kishore Singh and Others (2018) 9 SCC 137; Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2023) 17 SCC 615; Paras 9 - 11] Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 484 : 2026 INSC 468
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 145(4) – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order XII Rules 1 and 3 – Practice and Procedure – Status of Order Dictated in Open Court vs. Signed Order – Variance – Modification before Signing – Miscellaneous application filed seeking a clarification that a draft order dictated in open court is final and binding, and that the subsequent signed order uploaded later lacks the force of law due to the omission of an ancillary direction for status quo and the modification of a direction disposing of a Writ Petition – Held - Displaced the applicants' contention. A distinction must be drawn between the dictation of a draft order to a Court-master and the formal pronouncement of a judgment - The dictation of an order in open court serves as a skeletal framework to put facts on record, which remains subject to correction, refinement, and enhancement in chambers prior to signing - The digitally signed and uploaded order is the sole final expository of the Court's unalterable opinion - Judges retain a locus poenitentiae to change their mind or correct an error in law (such as the erroneous grant of an ancillary status quo order) before the judgment crystallizes through signing - Unless a material change is made to the core outcome behind the back of the parties without a re-hearing, refinements made in chambers do not invalidate the signed order. [Paras 15, 19 - 23, 25 - 28] Fakir Mamad Suleman Sameja v. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 490 : 2026 INSC 483
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression – Right to Education in Mother Tongue/Language of Choice - The guarantee of freedom of speech and expression necessarily encompasses the right to receive information in a form that is both meaningful and comprehensible - The true value of this freedom lies in the ability to understand, internalize, and process information - Education, as a primary vehicle for transmitting knowledge, must be imparted in a language that the child understands best - A child, or a parent/guardian on their behalf, has a fundamental right to freedom of choice regarding the medium of instruction at the primary school stage, and the State cannot artificially restrict this choice. [Paras 42, 43] Padam Mehta v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 492 : 2026 INSC 476
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14 and 16 — Public Employment — Arbitrary Contractual Appointment against Regular Vacancy — Validity of Selection Process — Even by the most liberal approach to the primacy of selection committees in educational institutions, denying a regular appointment to a fully qualified candidate while appointing others on a regular basis through the same selection process is patently illegal and unconstitutional, especially when the selection record discloses no reasons for such differential treatment - If a candidate is deemed unsuitable for a regular appointment, they cannot be recommended even on a contractual basis. (Paras 12 - 14) Lokendra Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 495 : 2026 INSC 487
Constitutional Law – Article 226 vs Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) – Quashing of FIR – Distinguishing the scope of jurisdiction, the Court observed that so long as cognizance of an offence is not taken, a writ to quash an FIR/charge-sheet can be issued under Article 226 - once a judicial order of taking cognizance intervenes, the power under Article 226 is not available, though the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) can be invoked to quash the proceedings. Shrikant Ojha v State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : 2026 INSC 482
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 2(c)(i) — Criminal Contempt — Scandalizing the Court — Reckless allegations by Bar President against the High Court Administration and Registry - The Appellant (President of the High Court Advocates' Association and Senior Advocate) was convicted of criminal contempt by the Gujarat High Court for branding the institution a "gambling den" and alleging corruption, nepotism, and preferential treatment towards rich litigants in matter listings during a live press conference - The Supreme Court held that the reasons assigned by the High Court for conviction warranted no interference on merits - Terming a Court a "gambling den" cannot be a permissible method to criticize its functioning, and severe emotional distress under pandemic pressures does not excuse conduct that disrupts public faith in the justice delivery system - emphasizing judicial magnanimity and balancing accountability with reform, the Supreme Court exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to suspend the conviction and sentence indefinitely, subject to an express undertaking of "impeccable conduct" and a mechanism for periodic review by the High Court - Key Points Elaborated in the Judgment – i. Distinct Nature of Contempt and Recall of Senior Designation - Criminal contempt proceedings under the 1971 Act and the recalling of a senior advocate's designation under Rule 26 of the relevant High Court Rules are entirely distinct parallel proceedings - Divesting an advocate of their senior gown cannot be treated as a sufficient punishment to automatically discharge or bypass statutory and constitutional contempt actions; ii. Automatic Disqualification under the Advocates Act - Upon the conviction of an advocate for criminal contempt, they face an automatic disqualification from practicing for a minimum period of two years under Section 24-A of the Advocates Act, 1961, even without separate regulatory action by the Bar Council -By suspending the conviction under Article 142, the Supreme Court protected the Appellant from this consequential disadvantage, contingent on future conduct; iii. Forgiveness with Vigil - The apex court introduced a mechanism of "measured forgiveness with vigil," directing the Full Court of the High Court to keep a watch and periodically review the Appellant's conduct every two years - If any further contumacious acts occur, the High Court is granted liberty to move the Supreme Court to revive and enforce the conviction immediately. [Relied on Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P., (2016) 8 SCC 335; Paras 44 – 65] Yatin Narendra Oza v. Suo Motu, High Court of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 485 : 2026 INSC 470
Contractual Liability vs. Unjust Enrichment – Students who initially consciously contracted to take admission in a private medical institution under a higher fee structure cannot be permitted to exclusively avail the benefit of highly subsidized Government-rate fees throughout the course duration under the garb of interim orders - Permitting students to undertake a full MBBS course at a pittance of what they would have originally paid amounts to unjust enrichment - Neither the students can be given an undue advantage or bonanza, nor can the defaulting institution be permitted to take benefit of its own follies. [Paras 33 - 50] Soumya Ranjan Panda v. Subhalaxmi Dash, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : 2026 INSC 488
Criminal Administration – Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Land Scams – In view of organized criminal activities involving the forgery of documents and unauthorized sale of a spiritual society's freehold lands across multiple states, Supreme Court directed the constitution of an SIT supervised by the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh - The SIT, including the Registrar of Societies, is mandated to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the alienation of society lands and submit a report to the police for further action. [Relied on Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra (2025) SCC Online 1948; Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401; Pratibha Manchanda & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2023) 8 SCC 181; Paras 14 -19] Shrikant Ojha v State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : 2026 INSC 482
Criminal Evidence – Testimony of Hostile Witness – Evidentiary Value for Acquittal – The Supreme Court ruled that just as the dependable part of a hostile witness's testimony can be used to convict an accused if corroborated by reliable evidence, the reverse is also true - The testimony or statement in the deposition of a hostile witness can be properly employed to discredit the prosecution's case and support a conclusion of acquittal, especially when it inspires credibility and aligns with other evidence on record to cast serious doubt on the occurrence of the incident - Held: The evidence of a hostile witness does not get completely washed off the record - If such evidence discredits the very fulcrum and genesis of the prosecution's story (such as the holding of a village panchayat or the presence of eyewitnesses), and is supported by unexplained medical discrepancies and a failure to examine independent public witnesses at a busy crime scene, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused - The concurrent convictions by the Trial Court and High Court were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. [Relied on Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others, (2022) 12 SCC 657; Bhaskarrao and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 591; Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujarat, (1999) 8 SCC 624; Himanshu alias Chintu vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 2 SCC 36; Paras 6-10] Talari Naresh v. State of Telangana, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 496 : 2026 INSC 486
Criminal Procedure – Inherent Powers – Quashing of Proceedings – Right to Speedy Trial as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant for 35 years arising out of a dispute over food in a police mess involving minor offences under Sections 147, 323, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 120 of the Railways Act - Supreme Court emphasized that a quick trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Keeping a public servant in suspended animation for 35 years without any fault on his part runs completely contrary to the spirit of the "procedure established by law" - Right to speedy trial is not an abstract or illusory safeguard; it is a fundamental right and a human right that no civilized society can deny to an accused - If the continuation of proceedings amounts to a violation of Article 21, the High Court should not hesitate to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) or its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. [Paras 30 - 42] Kailash Chandra Kapri v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 487 : 2026 INSC 473
Criminal Procedure – Remission / Premature Release – Rejection of Remission Proposal by Central Government – Investigation by CBI – Requirement of Concurrence – Speaking Order – Application of Mind – Parity – Reformative Theory of Punishment – Writ Petition challenging the letter dated 09.07.2025 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Union of India, which disallowed the recommendation of the State of Uttarakhand for the premature release of the petitioner who had been incarcerated for over 22 years in a murder case investigated by the CBI – Held that i. Cryptic and Non-Speaking Orders Invalidation: The impugned letter issued by the MHA rejecting the remission recommendation was ex-facie non-speaking, cryptic, and failed to disclose any reasons for its disagreement with the State Government's proposal - Recording of reasons is an essential safeguard against arbitrariness, ensures transparency, and reflects due application of mind - Absence of reasons violates the principles of natural justice and frustrates the convict's right to seek effective judicial review; ii. Heinousness of Offence Not the Sole Ground for Denial: Denial of remission cannot rest solely on the gravity or heinous nature of the original crime - The heinousness of the offence stands exhausted at the stage of sentencing and judicial determination of punishment - Remission is a distinct executive function concerned with the present and the future specifically the prisoner's conduct, evidence of reformation, and prospects of reintegration into society - Permanent incarceration under the shadow of a past worst act is impermissible in a liberal constitutional order; iii. Principle of Parity: Where a co-accused in the very same offence and incident has already been granted premature release after a lesser period of actual incarceration (17 years), denying similar consideration to the petitioner without any cogent, rational, and discernible distinguishing circumstances violates the constitutional requirements of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14; iv. Futility of Remand: While a non-speaking order is ordinarily remanded for fresh consideration, a mechanical remand is unnecessary where the authority has already fully articulated its firm stand on merits before the Court - Relegating a convict who has served over 22 years to another round of administrative proceedings would prolong incarceration unnecessarily and fail the interests of justice - The impugned letter is quashed - The Writ Petition is allowed, and the petitioner (already on interim bail) is directed to be treated as prematurely released without requiring him to surrender. [Relied on Laxman Naskar v. State of W.B., (2000) 7 SCC 626; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj, (2003) 7 SCC 121; Satish v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 580; Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 481; Sarat Chandra Rabha v. Khagendranath Nath, AIR 1961 SC 334; Paras 5 - 10] Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 501 : 2026 INSC 490
Criminal Procedure – Stay of Investigation/Charge-sheet – Interim Orders in Writ Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court set aside a High Court's interim direction that restrained the police from filing a charge-sheet while allowing the investigation to continue - Supreme Court held that while a High Court can exercise discretion to grant protection from coercive steps during the pendency of a petition under Article 226, a blanket stay on filing the report under Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is "wholly unjust" when the facts involve repeated fraudulent sale of society lands. Shrikant Ojha v State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : 2026 INSC 482
Education Law – Relocation of Medical Students – Capitation and Fee Structure – Apportionment of Financial Liability - Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Recovery of Outstanding Fees of Relocated Medical Students – Sudden closing/denial of recognition to a medical college due to deficiencies creates an extraordinary situation putting the academic future of students in jeopardy - When students are relocated to other private medical colleges under judicial intervention via a State-supervised counselling mechanism, the resultant financial burden must be equitably apportioned. [Paras 4 – 6] Soumya Ranjan Panda v. Subhalaxmi Dash, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : 2026 INSC 488
Eighth Schedule Technicality vs. Constitutional Imperative - The State cannot justify its continued inaction or lackadaisical approach on the technical premise that a regional language (such as Rajasthani) is not formally recognized in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution - The absence of an administrative policy is an executive shortcoming warranting prompt rectification, not a valid ground to defend institutional inertia. [Para 46] Padam Mehta v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 492 : 2026 INSC 476
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32(1) - Oral Dying Declaration - Reliability and Evidentiary Value – Held - The legal position with regard to dying declarations is well settled by a catena of decisions - A truthful and voluntary dying declaration, if found to be reliable, can by itself form the sole basis of conviction without the necessity of corroboration - Simply because the deceased subsequently became unconscious by the time he reached the hospital or the doctor, it cannot be presumed that he was unconscious even when the witness initially reached the spot and asked him about the incident immediately after the occurrence - the non-mentioning of the name of the assailant in the medical history papers pales into insignificance, as medical history is recorded by doctors primarily to understand how the incident occurred and what type of weapon was involved, rather than investigating who caused the injury. [Relied on P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 44; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 552; Paras 13-15] Mitesh @ T.V. Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 486 : 2026 INSC 469
Income Tax Act, 1961; Interpretation of Contracts – Revenue vs. Profit – Overriding Title – The interpretation of a contractual clause which is the foundation of the rights of parties is a question of law - Under Clause 7 of the AOP Agreement, the appellant was entitled to 35% of gross sale proceeds upfront, while all project expenses were to be met from the remaining 65% share of the collaborator - Since the appellant's share remained insulated from the expenses of the AOP, the receipt lacked the essential characteristics of "profit" (which is surplus after expenses) and was in substance a "share of revenue" - Such an arrangement creates an "overriding title" that diverts the income before it reaches the AOP, making it taxable in the hands of the member (assessee) as a business receipt and not exempt as a share of AOP profit under Section 86. [Relied on CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas, (1961) 41 ITR 367; Paras 82, 83, 94, 97-105, 119-126] Commissioner of Income Tax III v. Sanand Properties, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 488 : 2026 INSC 472
Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 147 and 148 – Reassessment – Reason to Believe – Tangible Material – Change of Opinion – Reopening of assessment is valid if the Assessing Officer possesses "tangible material" providing a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment - Mere production of account books or documents during original assessment does not necessarily amount to "full and true disclosure" if the assessee fails to bring the Assessing Officer's attention to specific relevant items or if subsequent fresh information exposes the falsity of earlier statements - In the present case, while the assessee disclosed the existence of the Association of Persons (AOP) and the income derived from it, the primary fact that the income was a 35% share of gross revenue (and not tax-exempt profit) came to light only through documents impounded during a subsequent survey and a director's statement recorded under Section 131 - Since the Assessing Officer had not formed a conscious opinion on the fundamental nature of this income during the original scrutiny assessment, the reopening did not constitute a mere "change of opinion" but was a valid exercise of jurisdiction based on fresh tangible material. [Paras 64, 70-71, 75-76, 82-83, 106-113, 116, 117] Commissioner of Income Tax III v. Sanand Properties, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 488 : 2026 INSC 472
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 61(2) Proviso – Appeal before NCLAT – Limitation and Mandatory Requirement of Certified Copy – Appeal filed/refiled without a certified copy of the impugned order or an accompanying application for exemption from filing the same is a "wholly incompetent appeal" and not a mere defective appeal - Filing an application for a certified copy is an essential indicator of the litigant's diligence under the strict timelines of the Code. [Paras 6 - 10] Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 491 : 2026 INSC 479
Judicial Monitoring – Systematic Pendency Data – Directives to High Court - To make the right to a speedy trial meaningful and real rather than illusory, the Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to submit a comprehensive affidavit on oath detailing the statistics of pending cases before Judicial Magistrates and Sessions Courts, the functional and vacant strength of the judicial cadre, and categorized data regarding the period of custody undergone by undertrial prisoners awaiting bail. [Relied on Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. v. R.S. Nayak & Anr., (1992) 1 SCC 225; P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713; Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2012) 2 SCC 688; State of Kerala v. Rasheed, (2019) 13 SCC 297; Paras 42 - 44] Kailash Chandra Kapri v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 487 : 2026 INSC 473
Judicial Review – Disciplinary Proceedings – Scope of Interference – Natural Justice – Held: The Division Bench's interference with the disciplinary penalty was justified where the findings of the Enquiry Officer were vitiated due to a violation of natural justice and a complete absence of evidence - The Enquiry Officer improperly relied upon preliminary statements of co-accused officers who were never examined as witnesses during the domestic enquiry, thereby depriving the delinquent employee of an opportunity to cross-examine or rebut the material used against her. [Relied on State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR (1961) SC 751; T. Baba Prasad v. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad and others, (2011) SCC OnLine AP 276; Paras 9 – 14] Canara Bank v. Prem Latha Uppal, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 497 : 2026 INSC 478
Judiciary and Case Management – Non-accountability of Trial Courts – Ineffectiveness of Guidelines - The Supreme Court lamented that multiple guidelines issued by it over the last two decades for the expeditious conduct of criminal trials often remain merely on paper - Trial courts frequently fail to implement these guidelines because there is an absolute lack of accountability and no one is made answerable or held accountable for the resulting systemic delays. [Para 39] Kailash Chandra Kapri v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 487 : 2026 INSC 473
Language - Pedantic Contradiction in Academic Recognition - Where a language is already being taught as an academic subject at the university level across the State, the argument that it lacks institutional or pedagogical acceptance for school education is highly pedantic and untenable - The State is obligated to translate constitutional assurances into concrete action by introducing such regional languages as a subject in schools in a phased and progressive manner. [Relied on State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 485; English Medium Students Parents Assn. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 550; Devesh Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., (2023) 18 SCC 339; State of U.P. & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors., (2018) 13 SCC 560; Para 50, 51] Padam Mehta v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 492 : 2026 INSC 476
Legal Maxim – Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet – No one should derive a benefit from their own wrong - Since the closure was occasioned due to the serious fundamental deficiencies of the defaulting institution in relation to infrastructure and teaching faculty, the primary brunt of liability must be fastened upon the defaulting management/trust - Amount secured by way of bank guarantees furnished by the defaulting Trust with the MCI/NMC along with the amount deposited before the Supreme Court Registry ordered to be released and distributed among the transferee private medical colleges in equal proportions - For the remaining shortfall, transferee colleges are permitted to represent to the National Medical Commission (NMC) to recover the deficit amount from the passed-out students based on the original fee structure of the defaulting college, while adjusting the amounts initially paid by them - Students complying with the determined fee liability shall be entitled to receive their academic and course-completion documents forthwith. [Relied on Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 SCC 433; Paras 27, 38 – 42, 44 - 54] Soumya Ranjan Panda v. Subhalaxmi Dash, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : 2026 INSC 488
Matrimonial Jurisprudence – Dissolution of Marriage – Cruelty and Desertion – Gender Stereotypes and Women's Autonomy – Facts - Wife, a qualified dentist, established a private dental clinic at Ahmedabad to secure her professional future and provide a safe medical environment for her minor daughter who suffered from seizure episodes - Family Court and High Court granted and affirmed divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, viewing her actions as a disregard for family emotions and a violation of her bounden duty to reside wherever her husband chooses - Pursuit of professional career by a qualified woman and her choices made for the welfare of her child cannot be branded as "cruelty" or "desertion" – A well-educated and professionally qualified woman cannot be expected to be confined within the rigid boundaries of matrimonial obligations alone - Marriage does not eclipse her individuality or subjugate her identity - Regressive assumptions that a wife's professional identity is subject to an implied spousal veto, or that she must automatically sacrifice her career to conform to the geographical postings of her husband, are ultra-conservative, patriarchal, and legally unsustainable - Held: The approach of the Courts below is pedantic, regressive, and reflective of a male chauvinistic mindset - If there was a role reversal, a husband would never be expected to sacrifice his professional career, and his failure to do so would not be branded as cruelty - Not utilizing an earned professional degree constitutes a sinful wastage of talent and resources - Since the respondent-husband had already remarried and the appellant-wife did not seek to contest the divorce itself but prayed to clear her name, the decree of divorce is upheld but modified - All findings and observations pertaining to "cruelty" and "desertion" attributed to the wife are expressly expunged and set aside - The decree shall be deemed to have been passed solely on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. [Paras 21 - 27, 30 - 32] Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 489 : 2026 INSC 475
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rule 22(2) – Mandate of Certified Copy – Compliance with Rule 22(2) cannot be rendered nugatory - While NCLAT has the power to exempt compliance under Rules 14 and 15, it does not confer an automatic right on the applicant to dispense with the certified copy - If an appeal is instituted without applying for a certified copy within the limitation period, it practically means there is no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law. [Relied on V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and others, (2022) 2 SCC 244; Ebix Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and another, (2022) 2 SCC 401; Paras 7 - 10] Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 491 : 2026 INSC 479
National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 – Executive Policies vs. Ground Implementation - The NEP, 2020 underscores the primacy of the home, local, or regional language as a medium of instruction, recognizing that young children grasp complex concepts better in their mother tongue - there appears to be a substantial deficit in the actual implementation of these commitments by the State at the ground level - While frameworks and policies continue to be announced, their absence in the lived experience of the child renders the entire exercise hollow - A right that exists only on paper without corresponding administrative will or implementation is no right at all. [Paras 29-35, 40 - 45] Padam Mehta v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 492 : 2026 INSC 476
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 506 read with Section 34 — Criminal Intimidation — Sine qua non of "intent to cause alarm" — Absence of common intention - The pivotal aspect to establish an offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC is the "intent to cause alarm" to the complainant. Where allegations do not demonstrate that the threats exerted by the accused were intended to cause such alarm, and there is no evidence of a common intention to commit a criminal act under Section 34 IPC, prosecuting the accused would amount to an abuse of the process of law. [Para 10] Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 484 : 2026 INSC 468
Penal Code, 1872; Section 302 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 134 - Quality vs Quantity of Evidence - Conviction on Solitary Witness – Held - It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is determinative - The Indian legal system does not insist on a plurality of witnesses. Neither the Legislature under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872, nor the judiciary mandates that there must be a particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against an accused - The emphasis of Courts is always on the value, weight, and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity, or plurality of witnesses. Even the testimony of a solitary witness, if found to be wholly reliable, free from blemish or suspicion, and of a sterling quality, is sufficient to form the sole basis of a conviction without the necessity of corroboration - a court may acquit the accused in spite of the testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied with the quality of evidence - the mere fact that a large number of witnesses, including panch witnesses and some of the alleged eyewitnesses, have turned hostile will not entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt if the remaining material witnesses completely establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. [Relied on Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150; Bhimappa Chandappa v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 11 SCC 32; Paras 8-16] Mitesh @ T.V. Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 486 : 2026 INSC 469
Practice and Procedure – Abuse of Process – Maintainability of Miscellaneous Applications in Disposed-of Matters – Absolute Bar on Review in the Garb of Clarification – Applicants sought to rewrite the final order under the guise of an application for clarification – Held - A post-disposal miscellaneous application is not maintainable to challenge the validity of a signed order or to seek a material modification - It lies strictly for rectifying clerical or arithmetical errors, or in exceptional circumstances where the main order is executory and has become impossible to implement due to subsequent developments - Applicants failed to file the mandatory affidavit on solemn affirmation under Circular F.No.01/Judl./2025 verifying such executory impossibility - The application being a gross abuse of the process of law to browbeat the Court's authority, it was dismissed with exemplary costs. [Relied on Surendra Singh v. State of U.P., (1953) 2 SCC 468; Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 9 SCC 124; Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2985; Paras 16 - 18, 19 - 31] Fakir Mamad Suleman Sameja v. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 490 : 2026 INSC 483
Public Employment — Doctrine of Estoppel/Acquiescence — Unemployed Candidate accepting Contractual Appointment under Economic Compulsion — The choices for the unemployed are few - Joining a post on a contractual basis and working for a considerable period does not estop the employee from challenging the patent illegality or arbitrariness in the selection procedure, nor does it wipe out the violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 6, 10 - 14) Lokendra Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 495 : 2026 INSC 487
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Section 29(2)(f) – Curriculum and Evaluation Procedure – Medium of Instruction in Mother Tongue: Section 29(2)(f) is a key provision aimed at securing the delivery of quality education in a real and substantive sense - It proceeds on the well-established pedagogical premise that instruction imparted in the child's mother tongue or regional language significantly enhances comprehension and learning outcomes - Imparting education in an unfamiliar language impedes understanding, risks impairing foundational development, and engenders a sense of alienation or apprehension, thereby defeating the purpose of elementary education. [Paras 17 - 39] Padam Mehta v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 492 : 2026 INSC 476
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 26(1) & Explanations 1 to 4 – Determination of Market Value – Applicability to National Highways Act, 1956 – The provisions of the 2013 LA Act relating to the determination of compensation are fully applicable to land acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 - The Arbitrator cannot determine the market value of an industrial land by placing reliance on a single sale deed relating to a small residential plot in an adjoining village - Under Section 26(1)(b) read with Explanations 1 and 2, the lands must be of a "similar type", and the methodology requires working out an "average sale price" from multiple deeds rather than relying on a singular transaction. [Paras 8 - 11] Project Director, National Highways Authority of India v. Alfa Remidis Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 494 : 2026 INSC 480
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) — Ingredient of "in any place within public view" — Essentiality of public gaze — Sine qua non for constituting offences under the Act - To make out an offence under Section 3(1)(r) and/or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the occurrence of the incident and the act of hurling caste-based abuses must take place at "a place within public view" or within the public gaze - Even if the incident happens at a private place, the public must have access to notice what is happening to satisfy this requirement - A residential house cannot be considered "a place within public view" when the incident occurs within its four walls and no independent member of the public is present to witness it. [Paras 5 – 9] Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 484 : 2026 INSC 468
Service Law — Moulding of Relief — Regularisation with Retrospective Seniority but without Backwages —Supreme Court directed the Institute to issue a regular appointment letter to the appellant within four weeks, placing him as the last candidate in the seniority list of Assistant Professors appointed through the same selection process, granting continuity of service but without any financial or monetary benefits for the past period. (Para 14) Lokendra Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 495 : 2026 INSC 487
Service Law – Selection Process – Appointment – Indefeasible Right – Preservation of Records – Adverse Inference - No Indefeasible Right to Appointment - The State or its instrumentalities, while filling vacancies, are obligated to adhere to the principle of comparative merit based on performance - It is well-settled law that even if a candidate's name appears in a select list, they do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment in the absence of a specific rule entitling them to such appointment - Where neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement prescribed a duration for preserving selection records, the non-production or destruction of records after the finalization of appointments cannot be deemed mala fide - Mere non-production of examination records does not justify drawing an inference that the candidates had cleared the written test, especially when there is no material on record to indicate they had passed - A direction for appointment cannot be granted when the qualifications for the advertised post have subsequently been revised by the employer. [Relied on Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh & Ors., (1993) 1 SCC 15; Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 582 [Para 13]; State of Manipur & Anr. v. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei & Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 331; Para 13-18] Durgapur Steel Plant v. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 481 : 2026 INSC 459