Judgments'Cost Of Demolition Catastrophic' : Supreme Court Rules Against Demolition Of Navi Mumbai Mall, Allows Regularisation On Cost PaymentCase: K. Raheja Corp. Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 575The Supreme Court held that demolition of a shopping mall and hotel built on a plot allotted through an irregular process would be against...
Judgments
Case: K. Raheja Corp. Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 575
The Supreme Court held that demolition of a shopping mall and hotel built on a plot allotted through an irregular process would be against public interest where the illegality can be remedied through a stringent financial recovery mechanism.
A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside a Bombay High Court direction requiring restoration of the land to its original condition, observing that demolition of a fully operational commercial complex after 17 years would cause catastrophic and irreparable social and economic harm.
Case Title: BENCY JOHN v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 576
The Supreme Court ruled that the Indian Railway Service would be treated as a 'civil post' under the Central Government, and therefore ex-Railway employees are entitled to weightage for the services rendered by them in Railways in pay revision, while joining a different new service
“…a railway servant is also a Government servant though it is not the CCS (Conduct) Rules but the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules that would apply to him.”, the court held.
Case : Dr Indira Saranath v. Union of India
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 577
The Supreme Court granted notional promotion and enhanced pensionary benefits to a retired Indian Railway Medical Service (IRMS) officer, holding that the non-supply of her Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), destruction of her service records during pendency of litigation and irregular assessment of her performance had caused prejudice to her claim for promotion.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the appeal filed by Dr. Indira Saranath and set aside the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court which had upheld the denial of her promotion to the post of Chief Medical Director in the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG).
Case: Sarla Devi & Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 578
The Supreme Court ruled that while ex gratia financial assistance received by the family of a deceased government employee under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, must be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act to prevent duplication of benefits, such deduction cannot defeat the independent entitlement of a dependent mother who is not eligible to receive assistance under the state scheme.
A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the judgment while partly allowing an appeal filed by the family members of Haryana Police constable Sachin Kumar, who died in a road accident in 2012.
CPC | Defendant Cannot Retract Pleadings By Filing Additional Written Statement : Supreme Court
Case: Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 579
The Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot be permitted to radically alter her stand in a civil suit through an additional written statement after the trial has commenced, particularly when the new plea is inconsistent with the original defence.
The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court order that allowed a defendant to file an additional written statement at an advanced stage of a civil suit, holding that a party cannot use such a pleading to introduce a completely contradictory case under the garb of an additional written statement after the commencement of trial.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran restored the trial court's order rejecting the defendant's application, observing that the attempt was a clear abuse of process aimed at circumventing the restrictions on amendment of pleadings after trial has begun.
Case Title: MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. v. M/S JABALPUR CORRIDOR PVT. LTD.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 580
The Supreme Court criticized the over-interference by the judiciary in the arbitration proceedings, where, despite having secured an award in 2014, the award holder even by 2026 has not received the fruits of the award.
The Court observed that while arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism has not failed in India, judicial intervention has at times undermined its effectiveness, adversely impacting confidence in the arbitral process and the country's ease of doing business.
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar cautioned that inconsistent judicial approaches in arbitration matters can have far-reaching consequences. It noted that a single doubtful precedent in the field of arbitration could cast a shadow on the viability of the mechanism in India and affect the country's business environment.
Cause Title: DARUBAI & ANR. v. KAMALABAI & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 581
The Supreme Court held that heirs inheriting intestate property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 hold it as tenants-in-common with definite shares, and not as a joint family property. Consequently, no co-heir can alienate the property on behalf of others, as the concept of a Karta does not apply in such cases.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the case where, upon the Hindu male dying intestate, his second wife, as well as his four daughters from his first wife, were entitled to inherit his property in equal proportion, i.e., 1/5th share in the property in terms of the Hindu Succession Act.
Case Title: BHIKHANI DEVI AND ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 582
The Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in favour of long-serving casual workers, holding that employees who have performed work of a permanent and continuous nature for the government over extended periods are entitled to pensionary benefits even in the absence of formal regularization. The Court held that such casual workers are entitled to benefits equivalent to temporary government servants under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and cannot be denied pension merely because their services were never formally regularised.
The Court held that though the casual workers do not attain the 'status' of a temporary government servant upon performing similar nature of works for extended years, they would be entitled to the same service benefits, received by the temporary government employee, by virtue of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
“A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence of regularisation.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Case Title: HINDUSTAN MEDICAL INSTITUTION VERSUS BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 583
The Supreme Court observed that when there exists a dispute between the rival societies over the exercise of the voting rights at the Company's Annual General Meeting, where they hold shares, then the voting rights must be exercised by persons lawfully authorised under the society's governing documents and in accordance with the statutory framework governing corporate voting.
“The validity of a vote cast on behalf of a society cannot be determined merely by priority in point of time and must rest upon lawful authority traceable to the governing documents of the society and the statutory framework governing voting.”, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held.
Case Details: KULSUM NISHA v. STATE OF U.P |CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7667 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 588
The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgments, which held that the definition of family doesn't include a married daughter for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that it was in agreement with all the judgments of the Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court and Calcutta High Court, which said that marital status can't constitute a valid ground for denying the welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter.
The Court also observed that any assumption that a married daughter ceases to be a member of the parental family is based on gender stereotypes and is constitutionally impermissible to the touchstone of equality.
Case Title: PUSHPENDRA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 584
The Supreme Court advised the High Courts to adopt a practice of mentioning the contents of the FIR and the nature of the allegations in the order so that it would be helpful for the Supreme Court to have a fair idea about the proper application of mind at the High Court's end.
“It is expected of the High Court to give a fair idea in its order as regards the contents of the FIR and what type of allegations have been levelled in the FIR. The entire FIR may not be reproduced but at least when the matter travels up to the highest Court, then if something is observed in the impugned Order as regards the contents of the FIR, nature of the allegations, that would be helpful to understand whether there has been proper application of mind at the end of the High Court.”, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice SVN Bhatti observed.
Case Details: THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE v. SRI K. RANGAYYA & ANR|SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.5245 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 587
The Supreme Court ruled that a public servant need not personally demand or receive a bribe to attract liability under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Holding that the provision covers attempts to obtain an undue advantage through third parties and for the benefit of another person, the Court restored a corruption FIR against a Karnataka Police Sub-Inspector accused of seeking money through subordinate officials
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment that had quashed an FIR against a Police Sub-Inspector accused of indirectly seeking a bribe through his subordinates.
Case Title: NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. T. YOUNIS & ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 589
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe reiterated that the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Act for filing an application seeking setting aside of an arbitral award would begin from the date on which a Section 33 application is disposed of.
Sovereignty Prevails Over Personal Liberty When Nation Is Threatened By Drug Trade: Supreme Court
Case Title – State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 590
The Supreme Court set aside regular bail granted to an accused in a heroin trafficking case, observing that sovereignty of the country must prevail over personal liberty, particularly in cases involving the supply of drugs, which affect public health and the national economy.
“Should there be any conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affects the national economy and health of the people”, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed.
Case Title – State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and connected cases
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 591
The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws that prohibit online betting and wagering on games, holding that State legislatures are competent to legislate on betting even when the underlying game is one of skill.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that States have power to regulate and prohibit betting on games of skill under Entry 34 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which empowers States to legislate on “betting and gambling”. The constitutional protection available to games of skill does not extend to wagering or betting conducted on such games, the Court held.
Also Read - Why Supreme Court Held State Laws Banning Online Gaming Are Traceable To 'Public Order' Entry
Filing Of Second Complaint With Material Improvements Raises Doubts: Supreme Court Quashes FIR
Case Title: BHIKHUBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL & ANR. v.THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 593
The Supreme Court observed that the registration of a subsequent criminal complaint with material improvements creates a doubt over the genuineness of the prosecution, warranting quashing of the proceedings.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where the complainant had initially concealed an allegation of extortion against the Appellants; however, after seven months, another complaint was filed with improvements, wherein an allegation of extortion which were absent in the initial complaint surfaced in a subsequent complaint, and the same was registered as an FIR.
Case Title – State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 591
The Supreme Court held that the widespread prevalence of online betting and gambling poses a serious threat to public order, public tranquillity and public health, observing that technological developments have transformed every mobile phone into a “virtual common gambling house” and made betting and gambling more normalised and accessible across society.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that States can rely on their legislative power over “public order” under Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to regulate and prohibit online betting and gambling activities, observing that the social harms associated with such activities have a sufficient nexus with concerns regarding public order.
Case no. – SLP (C) No. 10422 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 594
The Supreme Court recently upheld a decree of divorce granted to a man, whose wife had been living separately for 15 years, observing that where spouses choose separate professional and geographical paths and remain estranged for many years without making any effort to bridge the distance, the matrimonial framework itself stands abandoned.
“In such circumstances, desertion ceases to be merely a matter of individual malice or unilateral fault rather it assumes the character of a shared, de facto abandonment of the matrimonial covenant. The parties have objectively deserted the matrimonial framework itself. The intentional maintenance of distinct lifestyles, separate domiciles, and the total cessation of marital interaction over fifteen years establishes a de facto abandonment of the marital covenant by both sides”, said a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Case Title: JAGDISH PRASAD AND OTHERS VERSUS P.M. MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 596
The Supreme Court recently held that government employees do not possess a vested right to be considered for promotion under recruitment rules that existed when vacancies arose. Instead, the applicable rules are those in force on the date when the promotion process is actually considered.
“An employee only has the right to be considered for promotion based on the statutory rules in force on the date the actual consideration for promotion takes place, not retrospectively.”, a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti held in approval with State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 514.
Case Title: SHEPHALI CHAKRABORTY VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 597
The Supreme Court held that courts examining natural guardians' applications under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA) seeking the management of the minor's estate must undertake a realistic assessment of whether a proposed transaction offers an “evident advantage” to the minor, rather than rejecting such applications on technical or speculative grounds.
“The Court concerned needs to meticulously examine whether any proposed arrangement could compromise the child's present or future rights, taking into account that the minor cannot fully comprehend or appreciate the consequences of such transactions. The best interest of the child is not passive consideration but a vigorous principle that requires foresight, caution, and meticulous scrutiny in every matter affecting the minor's property- 'for an evident advantage to the minor'.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while allowing a mother's plea seeking permission to execute a development agreement concerning her minor son's inherited share in an immovable property.
Case Title: HARJINDRA SINGH ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 598
The Supreme Court observed that non-production of the Call Detail Record (CDR) would not be fatal to the prosecution's case, when the substantive oral evidence remains cogent, credible, and completely unimpeached.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the conviction of two individuals, who were accused of kidnapping for a ransom under Section 346A IPC, in connection with an FIR registered in 2003.
Case Title – M/S Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore-II
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 599
The Supreme Court held that disputes relating to the excisability of goods fall within its exclusive appellate jurisdiction and cannot be decided by High Courts under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan also ruled that the cutting, grooving and routing of Aluminium Composite Panels (ACPs) to suit building specifications does not amount to “manufacture” under Section 2(f) of the Act because no distinct commercial product emerges from the process.
Royalty Hike Under MMDR Act Overrides Contractual Terms : Supreme Court
Case Title: THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VERSUS M/s BMM ISPAT LTD & ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 600
The Supreme Court held that royalty on minerals under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 must be paid at the rate prevailing on the date of their actual dispatch or removal from the mine, irrespective of the rate contemplated under the parties' contract.
“…the payment is to be made on the date of the movement of the minerals. If the date of the movement is after the enhancement in royalty, a contract entered into prior to the statutory change cannot be limiting its impact.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
Cause Title: A. SHAHUL HAMEED Versus N. MALLIGARJUNA AND ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 604
The Supreme Court observed that mere delay in issuance of a legal notice to the defendant to receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed could not be treated against the plaintiff as his lack of readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard the case where despite making a payment of 93% of the sale consideration amount to the Respondent-defendant and repeatedly asking the Respondent-defendant to execute the sale deed and receive the balance sale consideration, the Appellant-plaintiff was treated as lacking readiness and willingness to perform a contract, as there was a delay in issuing a legal notice by him to the Respondent-defendant.
Case Title: SEESA SANTOSH VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 603
The Supreme Court refused permission for a foreign travel to an accused who sought medical treatment for an ailment in the USA, noting that the ailment could be cured by the medical facilities available in India.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Telangana High Court's decision, which had permitted the accused-Respondent No.2 to travel to the USA for treatment of his ailment.
Case Title: Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board & Ors
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 606
The Supreme Court directed the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a candidate whose selection as a police constable was cancelled due to his involvement in a criminal case arising from a failed romantic relationship, holding that a consensual premarital relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as a reflection of poor moral character.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan allowed the appeal filed by Gajula Thirupathi and restored a Telangana High Court single judge's order directing reconsideration of his appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC).
The appellant had been provisionally selected for appointment as a police constable. However, his candidature was cancelled after the Recruitment Board found that he had earlier been involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The case stemmed from allegations by a woman, who was his neighbour, that he had maintained a relationship with her for several years on a promise of marriage but later married another woman. The criminal case was eventually compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015.
Case Title: UPERNDRA KHARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 607
The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction, noting that mere turning hostile of the panch witness would not be fatal to the prosecution's case to create doubt over the recovery evidence based on the accused's disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act when the recovery evidence was proved otherwise by other corroborative evidence.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale affirmed the concurrent findings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Sessions Court, which had convicted the Appellant for an offence of murder, after finding that the alleged recovery based on the disclosure statements of the accused was sufficiently proved by the Investigating officer's testimony alone, despite the panch witnesses turning hostile.
“Though an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the appellant to submit before this Court that the recovery at the instance of the present appellant is not proved because the panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama turned hostile. We are unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the simple reason that this Court had consistently taken a view that merely on account of the panch witnesses turning hostile cannot be a ground to discard this important piece of evidence, if the recovery is proved through the investigating officer.”, the court observed.
Case Title: NAZIBUL RAHIM KHAN & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 608
The Supreme Court held that an unreasonable and inordinate delay in registering the FIR, after institution of a civil suit on the same set of facts/circumstances, can justify the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
“…it is important to indicate that it is no longer res integra that upon the same cause of action and based on the same set of facts/circumstances, both civil and criminal proceedings can be maintainable. However, if the aggrieved person wishes to invoke civil as also criminal remedies, there should not be an unreasonable or inordinate gap between instituting the two.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan, while quashing a criminal proceeding registered by the Respondent No.2 against the Appellant, after 23 years of the filing of the civil suit.
The Court was not persuaded by the Respondent No.2-complainant's submission that there exists no limitation period for initiating criminal proceedings. The Court questioned that when the complainant instituted the civil suit in 2001 disputing the role of the Appellant in the power of attorney to execute the sale deed of her land, then what precluded her from not registering the FIR immediately within few days of the institution of the civil suit, and why did she waited for 23 years to register the FIR only in 2024, on the same set of facts/allegations, on which the civil suit was instituted.
Case Title: GOPI CHAND @ PAPPU VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 609
The Supreme Court observed that even where an accomplice's testimony is not independently corroborated on material particulars, it may still form the basis of a conviction if the court finds it credible, trustworthy, and reflective of a full and truthful account of the events surrounding the commission of the offence.
“One of the necessary tests is that his (approver) testimony must be inculpatory and not exculpatory. However, if his testimony is not entirely exculpatory and makes a full and complete disclosure of the events qua commission of the crime, which inspires confidence i.e., appears truthful in the context of proven circumstances, his testimony cannot be discarded as one lacking credibility merely because he does not implicate himself to the extent he implicates the other co-accused.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra.
The Court clarified that though Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 renders an uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice to be sufficient to sustain a conviction, however, the same cannot be read in isolation, as illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act adds a note of caution that testimony of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless it is corroborated in material particulars.
Case Title: PUSHPA & ORS. versus DAYAWATI & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 610
The Supreme Court held that unless an admission is clear, categorical and unconditional, a judgment on admission cannot be sustained under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court said that a mere referencing of inconsistencies in the statements may not amount to an admission when there exist disputed factual circumstances, which require adjudication in a full-fledged trial.
"The term “admission” has been defined under Sections 17 and 18 of the Evidence Act, 1872, an admission is a statement which suggests any inference as to a fact in issue or relevant fact and is made by a party to the proceeding or by a person authorised by such party however every statement made by a party cannot automatically result in a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. Thus, the admission must be categorical, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal."
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard an appeal arising from a Hindu family dispute concerning the distribution of sale proceeds from a jointly owned agricultural property. The property was sold for approximately ₹15.31 crore, and each co-owner was entitled to a 1/6th share, amounting to approximately ₹2.55 crore. In his written statement, defendant No. 3 admitted that under a family settlement, each party had received ₹3 crore from the sale proceeds.
IBC | Delay In Re-Filing Defective Appeal After Curing Defects Cannot Be Condoned : Supreme Court
Case Title: CA RAMCHANDRA DALLARAM CHOUDHARY VERSUS ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 611
The Supreme Court observed that once the statutory limitation period of a maximum of 60 days prescribed under Section 62 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for filing an appeal, followed by a period of 28 days to cure the defects in an appeal under the Supreme Court Rules, gets over, then the right to re-appeal stands extinguished.
“…no litigant can be permitted to subvert the statutory scheme by seeking condonation of re-filing delay beyond the period of 28 (twenty-eight) days after having initially lodged a defective appeal. Once the window of 60 (sixty) days prescribed by the IBC, followed by the window of 28 (twenty-eight) days in re-filing the appeal upon curing of defects permitted by the SCR is shut, the right to appeal stands extinguished.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Case Title: C VERSUS A& ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 612
The Supreme Court held that a DNA test may be directed in a paternity dispute even where the alleged father was previously acquitted in a criminal rape case, observing that scientific evidence becomes indispensable when no other evidence can conclusively resolve the question of biological parentage.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal filed by a man challenging concurrent orders of the trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court directing him to undergo DNA profiling to determine whether he is the biological father of a 27-year-old man who claims inheritance rights in his property.
The dispute traces its origins to 1999. The first respondent was born in September 1999, claims to be the son of the Appellant as a result of a relationship between the latter and his mother. The Appellant has consistently denied paternity.
Case : MR Vasumathi v The Authorized Officer
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 613
The Supreme Court quashed a 16-year-old auction sale of a mortgaged property, holding that non-compliance with the mandatory timelines prescribed under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, rendered the sale legally unsustainable.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal filed by the daughter of a deceased guarantor whose property had been auctioned by Indian Bank under the SARFAESI Act.
The dispute arose from a loan availed by a borrower in 1984, for which G. Ramanujam had stood as guarantor and mortgaged his property. After default by the borrower and recovery proceedings, the bank initiated action under the SARFAESI Act in 2009 and auctioned the secured asset on March 11, 2010. The successful bidder purchased the property for ₹2.11 crore.
'Left Free To Live As Spouses' : Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Conviction After Convict & Victim Marry
Case Details: MARUTHUPANDI v STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 614
The Supreme Court set aside a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, after the accused and the victim arrived at a settlement by marrying each other and after the accused offered her compensation.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar set aside the conviction invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court took note of the peculiar circumstances of the case that the accused and the victim solemnised their marriage after the victim attained the age of majority. The Court also ordered the accused to pay Rs. 10,00,000 to the victim as compensation.
Clarifying that the order shall not be treated as precedent, the Court observed: "Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and on the basis of subsequent events the conviction and sentence as directed by Sessions Court confirmed by the High Court stand set aside. The appellant and the victim are left free to live their life peacefully in society as spouse."
Case Title: Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 615
The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench an important question concerning the powers of a third judge hearing a criminal appeal under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after expressing reservations about the correctness of its earlier ruling in Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 1 SCC 315.
The Court has referred to the larger Bench the question whether a third judge hearing a criminal appeal under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can overturn findings on which the two judges of a Division Bench had unanimously agreed while resolving a difference of opinion in the case.
As per Section 392 CrPC, if two judges of a division bench hearing a criminal appeal disagree on the outcome, the matter will be referred to a third judge.
Case: Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 616
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens would not ordinarily apply when a litigant invokes the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226(1) of the Constitution, which allows writ petitions to be filed against authorities located within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court that otherwise has jurisdiction over a dispute to decline to hear it if another court is considered a more appropriate or convenient forum for adjudication.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the doctrine has limited application in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and would rarely justify a High Court refusing to entertain a writ petition where jurisdiction is invoked under Article 226(1).
Case: Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 616
The Supreme Court held that members of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), including the Border Security Force (BSF), can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court in service matters even when the cause of action arises outside Delhi, owing to the location of the offices of the Union of India and the respective force headquarters in the national capital.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by BSF constable Baksish Ahmad, whose writ petition challenging his dismissal from service had been rejected by the Delhi High Court on the ground of "forum non conveniens".
The Court observed:
Case : SHISHUPAL @ SHISH RAM AND ORS. v. SURJEET AND ORS | SLP(C) No. 33915/2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 617
The Supreme Court held that the loss of domestic care provided by a homemaker constitutes a distinct and compensable head of damages in motor accident claims, while quantifying the value of such domestic services at a minimum of Rs. 30,000 per month.
The Court ordered :
"We deem it appropriate to direct that when a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or this Court is concerned with or a case involving the death of a homemaker, in order to overcome the inherent disadvantage accrued against the homemaker on a calculation of compensation on the basis of conservatively computed notional income and while being acutely aware of the dictum in Pranay Sethi (supra) regarding loss of consortium asregarding loss of consortium as also the disposition towards uniformity, that for the three major heads (the homemaker's contribution towards smooth functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support for children and loss of spousal support/the support and care of their child who is an adult, for the parents of the deceased) ..., a composite sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be added under the head of 'loss of domestic care', provided that all three of these heads are met in the given case. This determination shall be revised by 10%, cumulatively, every three years
Case : SHISHUPAL @ SHISH RAM AND ORS. v. SURJEET AND ORS | SLP(C) No. 33915/2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 617
The Supreme Court delivered alandmark judgmentwhich recognized homemakers' contribution as 'nation builders', and directed that their contribution must be quantified a minimum as Rs 30,000 per month.
The Court held that when a homemaker dies in a motor vehicle accident, the loss of domestic care must be separately awarded as a head of compensation, quantified at Rs 30,000 per month.
It is notable that in this judgment, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh quoted from the Handbook prepared by the Supreme Court in 2023to address gender stereotypes in judicial proceedings. The Handbook, prepared during the term of the then CJI DY Chandrachud, advised to avoid the use of the word "housewife" and use "homemaker" instead.
Case : SHISHUPAL @ SHISH RAM AND ORS. v. SURJEET AND ORS | SLP(C) No. 33915/2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 617
Expressing concern over chronic delays in motor accident compensation cases across the country, the Supreme Court issued a series of directions aimed at expediting proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and High Courts.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh noted that an analysis of over a hundred motor accident compensation cases decided by the Supreme Court revealed that the average pendency before Claims Tribunals was approximately six years, while appeals remained pending in High Courts for around eight years.
"The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to state the obvious, is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing just and fair compensation. Both of these salutary values are denuded by long pendency," the Court observed.
Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Psychological Evaluation Of Children In Custody Disputes
Case Title – Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 618
The Supreme Court laid down a set of broad principles for courts dealing with requests for psychological or psychiatric evaluation of children in custody, visitation and parental access disputes, holding that “minimum intrusion” into a child's life should be the norm and courts must remain sensitive to the risk of re-traumatisation.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh made the observations in a case involving a custody dispute where the child is also an alleged victim of sexual abuse. The Court clarified that its observations are not intended to be exhaustive or inflexible guidelines to be applied mechanically in every case. Instead, they are intended to assist courts dealing with similar disputes involving the psychological welfare of children.
Case Title – Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 618
The Supreme Court observed that psychological assessments of children involved in custody, visitation and parental access disputes should be ordered only when necessary and "minimum intrusion" into a child's life should be the norm, particularly where the child is an alleged victim of sexual abuse.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh made the observations while modifying orders of the Bombay High Court that had directed the constitution of a panel of psychologists and experts to evaluate a minor child who is also an alleged victim of sexual abuse by her father.
The Court clarified that it was not dealing with the merits of the sexual abuse allegations. However, while examining the issue of psychological evaluation, it referred to the objectives of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), which proceeds on the fundamental premise that a child who has suffered sexual abuse should not be exposed to processes capable of causing further emotional harm or secondary victimisation.
Case Title – Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 619
Observing that sex-selection practices continue to persist in India, the Supreme Court tressed that welfare legislation such as the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) must continue to be enforced strictly.
“It is true that in general terms, the declining sex ratio issue is better and has shown considerable improvement but, however, diluting the provisions of law, or letting infractions thereof slide cannot be countenanced”, the Court said.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra noted that while several indicators, such as sex ratio, have improved over the years, the country's progress remains incomplete and uneven. The Court observed that while much progress had been made since the enactment of the PCPNDT Act, much still remains to be achieved before concerns about the birth of a girl child become a thing of the past.
Case Details: JAYESH KANNA v THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LAW AND ORDER (WEST) ETC|CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2382 - 2383 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 620
The Supreme Court held that merely because a husband refused to talk to his wife for 13 days doesn't, in any stretch of imagination, amount to cruelty. It remarked that differences in marital life are a part and parcel of it, and such differences may result in non-communication.
Consequently, a bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar set aside a conviction and sentence of a husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (cruelty by husband or relatives). It allowed his passport to be returned to him.
It said: "Therefore, in absence of any material, mere non-communication with the deceased for thirteen days, without substantiating the same with cogent evidence, cannot, in any stretch of the imagination, fall within the ambit of cruelty in the facts of this case. Differences in marital life are a part and parcel of it and such differences may result in non-communication, but it is not even a case where there was some quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased, due to which, the Appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court."
Case: The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 621
The Supreme Court ruled that injuries caused by the fall of a roadside tree branch on a stationary autorickshaw during heavy rain do not constitute an accident arising out of the "use of a motor vehicle" for the purposes of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Nevertheless, considering the grave injuries suffered by the victim, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded to him from ₹17.10 lakh to ₹25 lakh by exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing an appeal filed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) against a Karnataka High Court judgment that had apportioned liability for compensation among the municipal corporation, the insurer of the autorickshaw and the State Horticulture Department.
The case arose from an incident in June 2007 when respondent K.K. Umesh Kumar was travelling in an autorickshaw from Queens Road to Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru. Owing to heavy rain, the vehicle was stopped by the roadside. While it was stationary beneath an old tree, a branch detached and fell on the autorickshaw, causing severe injuries to the passenger.
Case Title: DHIRAJ DUTTA VERSUS ANIRBAN SEN & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 622
The Supreme Court held that since the Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not prescribe any limitation period either for seeking probate of a Will or for filing an application to revoke a probate already granted, such proceedings would be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a three-year limitation period for applications where no specific period is prescribed.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Dhiraj Dutta and holding that an application moved in 2022 for revocation of a probate granted in 1995 was barred by limitation.
"The ISA does not provide any limitation for grant of probate or to move an application for the revocation thereof and as such recourse must be made to Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963," the Court observed.
Case : HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Vs DEEPALI SHARMA | SLP(C) No. 16520/2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 623
The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer cannot be initiated unless they are authorised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by a committee of judges constituted by the Chief Justice, ruling that the Registrar General has no independent authority to suo motu commence such action.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the reinstatement of a Civil Judge in Uttarakhand who had been dismissed from service following departmental proceedings over allegations that she had physically abused a minor girl employed as domestic help at her residence.
The Court, however, clarified that it was not examining the merits of the allegations or the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry, instead deciding the case on the threshold issue of whether the proceedings themselves were validly initiated.
Dismissal Is Severest Punishment; Must Be Imposed Only For Grave Misconduct : Supreme Court
Case Details: SUREKHA DOMAJI BELE v EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TESTING DIVISION, MSEDCL|DIARY NO. 11294 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 624
The Supreme Court observed that dismissal from service is one of the harshest forms of punishment; therefore, it must only be imposed by the disciplinary authority after duly considering relevant factors such as the nature and gravity of the misconduct, long service rendered, record, age, absence of financial loss to the company, etc. It also said that the period of suspension pending inquiry can't be imposed as a second punishment over and above dismissal.
Case: Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 625
The Supreme Court directed the Kerala Government to take over the custody of a captive elephant named Raman and house it in an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation centre, observing that courts "cannot be a mute spectator" when it comes to the welfare of voiceless animals.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order while holding a Kerala resident guilty of contempt of court for violating an undertaking given before the Court that the elephant would not be used for temple or commercial activities pending adjudication of a custody dispute.
"It is truly unfortunate that the elephant in question, Raman, who also happens to be the tallest elephant in the State of Kerala, has been subjected to commercial exploitation despite an order restraining such exploitation, that too on the strength of an undertaking made before this Court. We would be failing in our duty towards the voiceless, if we turn a blind eye towards such defiance. We cannot be a mute spectator, more so in matters pertaining to voiceless animals, whose wellbeing is also of paramount importance," the Court observed.
Case: Gaurav Mehla & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 628
The Supreme Court held that a procedural defect in the final stage of a recruitment process cannot automatically invalidate appointments where the recruitment itself was otherwise conducted fairly and transparently, and directed a Haryana cooperative society to reconsider the appointments of seven employees who had served for more than a decade.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Gaurav Mehla and others, setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment which had upheld the cancellation of their appointments as Clerk-cum-Salesmen and Peon-cum-Chowkidars in the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society, Kurukshetra.
The appointments, made in 2014, were challenged by members of the cooperative society on the ground that they violated Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003. The Rule requires the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager of HAFED in the meeting where appointment decisions are taken. The officials were admittedly absent from the Board of Directors' meeting held on August 13, 2014, which approved the appointments.
Case: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 629
The Supreme Court upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction requiring the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukta Organisation to disclose information sought under the Right to Information Act, while striking down a 2011 State Government notification that exempted the SPE from the RTI regime.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the SPE, which investigates corruption-related offences involving public servants, cannot be classified as an "intelligence and security organisation" under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be granted blanket exemption from the Act.
The case arose from an RTI application filed by Kamta Prasad Mishra, a Town Inspector in Katni who was implicated in a corruption trap case registered by the SPE in 2017. After the State Government granted sanction for his prosecution in 2020, Mishra sought details regarding the decision-making process behind the sanction order and related communications. His request was rejected by the authorities and later by the State Information Commission, which relied on Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, exempting disclosure of information that could impede investigation or prosecution.
Case Title – Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 630
The Supreme Court urged the Haryana Government to examine and rectify a “significant anomaly” in the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, after noting that the scheme suspends compassionate financial assistance during criminal proceedings relating to the death of a government employee but contains no similar restriction on compassionate appointment.
Rule 23(1) of the 2019 Rules suspends compassionate financial assistance when a family member eligible to receive it is charged with murdering or abetting the murder of a government employee. However, there is no corresponding provision for compassionate appointment.
“The Rules of 2019 truly present an anomaly: the lesser form of compassionate relief, financial assistance, carries an express suspension clause under Rule 23(1) in cases of criminal proceedings for the murder of the deceased employee, while the substantially greater form of relief, compassionate appointment, with its lifelong service benefits, pension, and emoluments, carries no corresponding provision. It is strongly desirable that the Rule-making authority/State Government of Haryana address this legislative lacuna by introducing appropriate amendments to the Rules of 2019,” the Court said.
Case Title – Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 630
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, which suspends compassionate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government employee when an eligible family member is accused of murdering or abetting the murder of the employee. However, the Court clarified that the provision does not apply to claims for compassionate appointment.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment while allowing an appeal filed by Atul Chauhan, whose claim for compassionate appointment had been kept in abeyance due to criminal proceedings against his mother, who was accused of conspiring in the murder of his father, a government school teacher in Haryana.
The Court held that Rule 23(1) is constitutionally valid because it serves a legitimate purpose of preventing compassionate financial assistance from being extended to a person who may be criminally responsible for the death that gives rise to the claim. The provision was described as “preventive and regulatory” rather than punitive and was found to have a rational nexus with its objective, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Details: S. SENTHIL KUMARAN BOSE v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NAlDU AND OTHERS|CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 631
The Supreme Court held that candidates whose names figure in a select list cannot claim any vested right to appointment when a fresh selection process is ordered to remedy exclusion of other eligible candidates, observing that participation in a renewed recruitment exercise preserves fairness and equal opportunity.
"No vested right could be claimed merely by placement in the revised select list, especially when the right of participation in the fresh selection process was not being taken away," a Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed while upholding directions for a fresh selection exercise in the recruitment of 113 Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II posts in Tamil Nadu.
The Court upheld the Madras High Court's direction to conduct afresh the recruitment of Motor Vehicle Inspector-Grade II after it found that a class of candidates were deprived of proper participation in the selection process on technical grounds.
Case Details: MANIYAR ILIYAZ SHAIK RIYAZ Vs P. AYYAPPAN|C.A. No. 4665-4666/2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 632
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that the right to walk on a demarcated footpath is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, which includes the right to access safe and well-demarcated footpaths. This right shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
This has been held as a fundamental right considering that the right to walk has always been "inextricably" connected to our daily life.
The Court observed that the duty to demarcate, construct, maintain and safeguard footpaths and other pedestrian infrastructure rests with urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats.
Consumer Forum's Jurisdiction Not Ousted By Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause : Supreme Court
Case Title: T.K.A. PADMANABHAN VERSUS ABHIYAN COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 633
The Supreme Court held that the mere existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement would not preclude the consumer forum from adjudicating the dispute on merit.
“…an arbitration clause does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V. Mohana, while setting aside the concurrent findings of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), State Commission and the District Forum order which had referred a dispute over delay in handing over the possession of the residential flat unit to arbitration.
The case relates to the Appellant's filing of a consumer complaint alleging 'deficiency in service' for the delayed handing over of possession of the flat. Since the flat purchase agreement contained an arbitration clause, the District Forum, despite admitting the complaint and issuing notice to the Respondent, referred the dispute to the arbitration. The District Forum's decision was affirmed by the State Commission, and thereafter by the National Commission, leading to an instant appeal before the Supreme Court.
Financier Can't Claim Insurance Over Theft Of Vehicle Surrendered By Insured Owner : Supreme Court
Case Title: K. PRAKASHCHAND VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 634
The Supreme Court held that a mere surrender of an insured vehicle by its owner to another person, who had financed the purchase of a vehicle, would not be sufficient for the financer to claim indemnification in the event of loss or theft of a vehicle.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi refused to interfere with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's findings, which had ruled in favour of the insurance companies, acknowledging that there was no privity of contract between the Appellant-vehicle financer and the Respondent-insurance company to fasten the liability upon the insurance company for loss of vehicle due to theft.
“It is a settled position of law that a contract of insurance is a personal contract only between the insured and the insurance company and no third party can raise any claims pursuant to the said contract. In the present case also, even if we assume that the Insured Person had surrendered the vehicle to the Appellant, then also the fact remains that the Appellant cannot be considered as the owner of the vehicle and hence, the Insurance Company could not be forced to indemnify the Appellant herein.”, the Court observed.
Case Title: STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. VERSUS PARIKSHIT SINGH GUPTA & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 635
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by the State of Chhattisgarh challenging enhanced compensation and interest awarded to landowners whose land had been occupied by the Public Works Department (PWD) for nearly 25 years without acquisition proceedings. The Court termed the State's challenge "absolutely frivolous" and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh.
Dismissing the State's appeal, a patial court working days bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi upheld the High Court's decision to direct the Appellant-State to compute the land acquisition compensation towards the Respondents-landowners and grant them compensation @ Rs. 5,380/- per square metre.
The dispute arose from land in Durg district which the PWD had taken possession of in 1986 and used for road construction without formally acquiring it. The encroachment came to light during demarcation proceedings conducted on May 3, 2006, following which the landowners initiated proceedings seeking eviction of the department under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.
Case Title: M/s Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Arjun Gupta | SPL(C) No. 26434/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 636
The Supreme Court set aside a Labour Court award directing reinstatement of an employee with back wages, holding that an employee who remained absent without authorization and failed to substantiate claims of being prevented from rejoining duty cannot seek relief on the basis of unverified assertions.
The employee contended that the notice never reached him because it was sent to his permanent address in Bihar rather than his residence in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, and maintained that he had been illegally denied rejoining.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta rejected the employee's contentions and held that the employer could not be faulted for sending the notice to the address furnished by the employee himself.
Case Title: Rajat Kumar and Others v. S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalayya Sadhaura and Others
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 637
The Supreme Court held that it is legally impermissible for an Appellate Court to award a relief not prayed for in the pleadings. Also, the Appellate Court cannot, upon setting aside the decree, remand the matter to the executing court for adjudication of issues not arising from any subsisting decree.
A Bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice Atul S Chandurkar set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which had substituted decrees directing the removal of alleged encroachments with an award of compensation to the plaintiffs.
Case Title: Mohammed Khaleel (D) through LRs & Ors. v. Jayamma
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 638
The Supreme Court reiterated that a party seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell must continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform its contractual obligations from the date of the agreement, holding that financial documents created years after institution of the suit cannot be relied upon to establish such readiness
“In the present case, there is no material whatsoever to show that the appellant/plaintiff had the balance sale consideration available either at the time of execution of the agreement, within the stipulated period of four months for performance of the contract, or even at the time of filing of the suit in the year 1993. Thus, in our view, the High Court has rightly observed that the availability of funds must be proved with reference to the relevant point of time and not by relying upon financial documents generated long after the filing of the suit.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.
Long Lapse Of Time Without Similar Criminal Conduct Relevant While Moulding Sentence: Supreme Court
Case Title: Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, SLP (Crl) NO. 19486/2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 639
The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of a convict, who had been awarded five years' rigorous imprisonment for each of four offences, noting that there was no material on record to indicate his involvement in any similar criminal activity during the long intervening period.
“The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria, while modifying the sentence of the Appellant to the period of the sentence already undergone.
Case Title: Rajesh Sharma v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr | SLP (C) No.28644/2019
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 640
The Supreme Court held that the existence of a regulation framed under a statute cannot curtail or fetter legislative power to amend the parent enactment in a manner that overrides the regulation.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra made the observation while upholding the power of the Commissioner of the erstwhile North Delhi Municipal Corporation to dismiss a Group-A officer from service following his conviction in a corruption case.
Case Title: M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd. & Anr.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 641
The Supreme Court held that the loss of a right leg above the knee must be treated as 100% functional disability in the case of a mason, observing that compensation in motor accident claims cannot be determined merely on the basis of the percentage of physical disability without considering its impact on the victim's livelihood.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV. Anjaria enhanced the compensation payable to a Tamil Nadu mason from ₹29.01 lakh to ₹40.29 lakh after finding that the courts below had wrongly assessed his loss of earning capacity at 70%, corresponding to the percentage of physical disability certified by medical authorities.
"The functional disability suffered by the appellant is required to be assessed at 100% and not at 70% as assessed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court," the Court held.
Case Title: Sarafat Ali (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 642
The Supreme Court held that since the registered sale deed holds a statutory presumption of validity, a minor discrepancy in the testimony of the attesting witness would not by itself render the execution of the sale deed doubtful.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria delivered a judgment in a case where the consolidation authorities and the High Court had declined to recognize the appellants' title, inter alia, on the ground that there was a discrepancy in the particulars of an attesting witness. While the certified copy of the sale deed described the witness as "Baru, resident of Nihandpur Suthari", the witness, while deposing nearly four decades later, described himself as "Baru, son of Nathu, resident of Nasirpur Kalan".
Rejecting the approach adopted by the Courts below, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra held that such discrepancies were insignificant and incapable of dislodging the presumption attached to a registered sale deed, as the presumption of the validity of a sale deed is not derived from the attestation.
Case Title: Jittu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 645
The Supreme Court observed that a delay occurred in filing an appeal against an externment order under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
“…unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellate authority (under the Adhiniyam) should retain the discretion to condone delay in appropriate cases.”, observed bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision which upheld the dismissal of the Appellant's appeal against the externment order as time barred.
Section 9 of the Adhiniyam prescribes a 30 days' time limit for filing of an appeal against an externment order.
The Court emphasized that in the absence of any prescription of an outer limit or a specific exclusion of the applicability of a general law, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, as per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, would apply to proceedings under special statutes.
Case Title: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. A.K.GABA ETC.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 644
The Supreme Court held that the mere presence of a public servant at the place where a bribe is allegedly accepted is insufficient to infer criminal conspiracy, reiterating that the prosecution must establish a prior meeting of minds through cogent evidence.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against an Allahabad High Court judgment acquitting three Central Excise officers accused of participating in a bribery conspiracy.
Orders and Other Developments
Centre Notifies Appointment Of 5 Supreme Court Judges : 4 HC CJs & Sr Adv V Mohana
The Central Government notified the elevation of five persons as judges of the Supreme Court, including four sitting Chief Justices of High Courts and Senior Advocate V. Mohana, who practised at the Apex Court.
The recommendation was made at the Supreme Court Collegium meetings held on May 22 and 27.
The names approved for appointment were : Justice Sheel Nagu, presently Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court; Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court; Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court; Justice Arun Palli, Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh; and Senior Advocate V. Mohana.
'No Senior Advocate Allowed To Appear In My Court During Vacations': Justice Vikram Nath
Justice Vikram Nath of the Supreme Court said that he will not allow Senior Advocates to make oral mention or make appearance in his court during the partial court working days. When a senior advocate attempted to mention a matter, Justice Nath said, "Senior Advocates are not allowed to mention in my court during vacations". Justice Nath also did not allow Advocate Mathews Nedumpara to make a mention, though Nedumpara pointed out that he was not a designated senior. "In my eyes, Mr.Nedumpara is a senior."
NEET-UG 2026 : Supreme Court Declines Prayer For Computer-Based Test For NEET Re-Exam
Case : SUDHAKAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 675/2026 Diary No. 30906 / 2026
The Supreme Court refused to direct the NTA to conduct re-test of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)-UG 2026, scheduled on June 21, through a Computer-Based Test (CBT) mode instead of the existing pen-and-paper format.
Expressing disinclination to grant the relief, the bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar posted the matter to July, effectively denying the relief for the NEET re-test.
Justice Sanjay Karol Also Bars Senior Advocates From Appearing During Partial Court Working Days
On the first day of the Partial Working Days of the Supreme Court, several benches did not allow senior advocates to appear on the reasoning that young advocates must be given opportunities during the vacation. Justice Vikram Nath announced in the morning itself that senior will not be pemitted to argue. A similar approach was taken by the bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol as well.
Case Title – Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association, SLP(C) No. 18940/2026
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court judgment holding that that a bar association is not a “State” or an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution as it is a private body of advocates that does not perform public functions.
A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar dismissed an SLP filed by advocate Sangita Rai challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court.
Case Title – Shashank Pandey v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 715/2026
The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL seeking directions to strengthen the grievance redressal framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and ensure effective implementation of recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner and State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale listed the plea on July 21, 2026.
Case Title – Asad Mueed & Ors. v. Jamia Hamdard Deemed To Be University & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 3280/2026
The Supreme Court allowed the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (HIMSR) to proceed with admissions to 150 MBBS seats and 49 postgraduate medical seats for the academic year 2026-27.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the consent of affiliation shall be deemed to have been granted by Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University, subject to the outcome of the ongoing dispute between two branches of the Hamdard family.
Five New Judges Take Oath In Supreme Court, Court Moves Closer To Full Strength
Five newly appointed judges of the Supreme Court took oath of office, taking the Court closer to its sanctioned strength of 38 judges. Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant administered the oath to Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice Arun Palli and Senior Advocate V. Mohana at a ceremony held in the Supreme Court.
The Central Government had notified their appointments following recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium at its meetings held on May 22 and May 27.
With the elevation of Senior Advocate V. Mohana to the Supreme Court, the apex court got a woman judge after a gap of more than five years. Until Justice Mohana's appointment, Justice B.V. Nagarathna was the only woman judge in the Supreme Court.
The Tamil Nadu Government appointed Senior Advocates Prashanto Chandra Sen and Haripriya Padmanabhan as Counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court, in the rank of Additional Advocate General.
According to the appointment order, the appointments weremade based on a recommendation from the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu. The two senior advocates will represent the State Government before the Supreme Court on a temporary basis until regular law officers are selected and appointed in accordance with the applicable rules.
Case : PARSHARVANATH WELD WIRES PVT LTD & ANR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 585
The Supreme Court allowed the compounding of offences under Section 147(offences to be compoundable) of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a settlement took place between the parties. Consequently, it set aside the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 138 of the NI Act for the offence of dishonour of a cheque for the insufficiency of funds.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale passed this order, relying on its earlier decision in Gian Chand Garg v. Harpal Singh (2025), in which it had said that once a settlement is entered between the complainant and the accused, conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act can't be sustained.
Coordinate Bench Can Cancel Bail Granted By Another Bench : Supreme Court
Case Details: SURAJ MAHANANDA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL | Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9148-9149/2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 586
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan stated that a coordinate bench of the High Court can cancel the bail granted by another bench to an accused if the same has been secured by placing wrong facts.
"We fail to understand why the High Court says that a coordinate Bench cannot cancel the bail granted to an co-accused. If the bail has been obtained by placing wrong facts before the High Court, the Court can always look into the matter and pass an appropriate order."
Supreme Court Constitutes High-Powered Expert Committee To Reassess Definition Of Aravalli Hills
Case Title – In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues | SMW(C) No. 10/2025
The Supreme Court constituted a five-member High-Powered Expert Committee to undertake a comprehensive review of issues relating to the definition and demarcation of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges, observing that decisions with far-reaching environmental consequences should not be taken without the benefit of expert evaluation.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order in the suo motu proceedings concerning the definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges. The Court noted that it had earlier expressed the need for an independent expert assessment of a report submitted on October 3, 2025, which formed the basis of extensive directions issued by the Court regarding the identification and protection of the Aravalli ecosystem.
Case Details: The State of Maharashtra v. Rahul Datta Bhosale & Ors | Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1760 of 2026]
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 592
The Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to three police officers accused of allegedly extorting money from a jeweller.
It remarked that when law enforcers turn extortionists, the citizens are left in a dilemma as those who are meant to protect them become the ones against whom the citizens have to ask for protection: "When law enforcers turn extortionists, the citizen looks askance and is left in a dilemma. To confront, is to invite instant retaliation and the option is only to succumb meekly to the uniformed authority, even when there is patent abuse."
SC Collegium Recommends Appointment Of Adv Amit Lahoti As Madhya Pradesh High Court Judge
The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 2nd June, 2026 approved the proposal for appointment of Shri Amit Lahoti, Advocate as a Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
It also approved the appointment of three judicial officers as judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. In a resolution passed by the Collegium, the names of judicial officers Chirag Bhanu Singh, Bhupesh Sharma, and Yogesh Jaswal were cleared for elevation to the High Court Bench.
The Collegium also approved the appointment of six advocates as judges of the Karnataka High Court. At its meeting held on June 2, 2026, it approved the proposal for the elevation of the following advocates to the Bench of the Karnataka High Court - Raghavendra Seetharam Srivatsa, Hema Kulkarni, Subramanya Rangarao, Thadagavadi Prakash Vivekananda, Bakkeswara Pramod and Hombe Gowda Shanthi Bhushan.
Cause Title: GENERAL MANAGER (HR) & ANR v. K. POOVARASAN
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 595
The Supreme Court observed that suppression of higher educational qualifications for a job post exclusively reserved for lower educational qualifications amounts to depriving genuinely eligible and deserving candidates of the job.
“…when the post was specifically intended for candidates possessing lower educational qualifications, permitting a person with higher qualifications to secure such employment would necessarily result in depriving a genuinely eligible and deserving candidate of the opportunity.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan.
Menstrual Hygiene Right Must Be Made 'Meaningful And Workable' : Supreme Court Tells Union & States
Case Details: DR. JAYA THAKUR v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS | W.P.(C) No. 1000/2022
The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to address shortcomings in the implementation of its directions on menstrual hygiene management in schools, observing that menstrual hygiene has been recognised as a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution and that a mere declaration of the right would not suffice without effective ground-level implementation.
Directing the Centre to examine and address the deficiencies highlighted by the petitioner's counsel, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan warned that any laxity in implementing its directions would be viewed seriously. The Court reiterated that menstrual hygiene has been recognised as a fundamental right and a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, stressing that the declaration of such a right must be accompanied by concrete action from the Union and State Governments to ensure its meaningful and effective implementation.
Supreme Court Publishes Draft Regulations On AI Use In Judiciary, Invites Feedback
The Supreme Court published a draft set of regulations to govern the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in courts across India and invited comments and suggestions from stakeholders and the general public by June 20, 2026. The draft “Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026” has been prepared under the aegis of the Supreme Court's AI Committee and seeks to establish a framework for responsible AI adoption in the judiciary based on principles of human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection and judicial independence.
Case Detail: Wrestling Federation of India v. Vinesh Phogat | SLP (c) 19503/2026
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar dismissed the plea referred by the Wrestling Federation of India(WFI) challenging the Delhi High Court's order permitting wrestler Vinesh Phogat to participate in the selection trials for the Asian Games. The plea was dismissed as infructuous in view of the fact that the selection trials are already over.
Case Details: HINDU DHARMA PARISHAD v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS |Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17085/2026
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Madras High Court's order dismissing a petition filed by the Hindu Dharma Parishad seeking to light a lamp atop the Thiruparankundram Hills.
The vacation bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar refused to interfere with the High Court's order. But considering the exemplary cost imposed, the bench deemed it fit to reduce the cost to Rs. 5000.
Case Details: ABHISHEK YADAV v. ARMY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES|W.P.(C) No. 730/2022
The National Medical Commission (NMC) informed the Supreme Court that only seven medical colleges have been found not paying stipends to interns, junior residents, or senior residents, and that regulatory action has already been initiated against them.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was hearing a batch of petitions concerning payment of stipends to medical interns and resident doctors across the country.
Amicus Flags Child Trafficking Through IVF, Surrogacy Centres; Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Viswanathan, while monitoring compliance with its April 2025 judgment in the Pinki v. State of UP child trafficking case, took note of submissions by amicus curiae Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat highlighting the absence of any Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to prevent trafficking through ART and surrogacy centres.
A student from Saudi Arabia moved the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to declare his Class XII Improvement Examination result, contending that private candidates affected by the cancellation of examinations in West Asian countries due to war-related tensions are entitled to the benefit of CBSE's special assessment scheme.
Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Guidelines Regulating Adjournments, Timelines For Case Disposals
Case Title –Rajat v. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 578-578/2026
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking a series of directions for regulating adjournments in courts across the country, prescribing timelines for the disposal of cases and formulating a uniform national case flow management policy.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V Mohana rejected the plea after a brief hearing.
Cause Title: SAHIL ABDULSATTAR MANSURI & ORS. v. SAFIMAHAMAD FAFIRBHAI MANSURI & ORS
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 601
The Supreme Court took a serious view of the loss of case records during the investigation of a 19-year-old criminal complaint in Gujarat, observing that such incidents strike at the very core of the criminal justice system and render bona fide complaints inactionable.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the State of Gujarat to disclose the action taken against the police officer responsible for the loss of records and ordered the completion of the long-pending investigation within six weeks.
Supreme Court Stays Deportation Of Four Women Declared As Foreigners By Assam Tribunal
Case Details: SALEHA KHATUN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|Diary No. 32656-2026, SARBHANU BEGUM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|Diary No. 32624-2026; BASIRAN NESSA FUZAIL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS | Diary No. 23338-2026 and MUSSTT NUREZA BEGUM v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
The Supreme Court stayed the deportation of four foreign persons who have been detained by the Foreigners Tribunal in Assam. These are Basiram Nessa, Musstt Nureza Begum, Saleha Khatun and Sarbhanu Begum.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V Mohana stayed the order, issuing notice to the Assam Government, the Union Government and the Election Commission of India. It has sought a response from them within four weeks.
Arbitration Now Acquiring Failings Of Formal Litigation : CJI Surya Kant
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant cautioned that arbitration is increasingly mirroring the defects of conventional court litigation, observing that the dispute resolution mechanism has begun acquiring many of the very failings it was originally designed to overcome.
"Arbitration was built to be the answer to the pathologies of formal litigation, and it is now seemingly acquiring each of those very failings. In other words, the remedy has come to resemble the disease it was designed to cure," the Chief Justice said while inaugurating the 4th International Conference on Arbitrating Indo-UK Commercial Disputes organised by the Indian Council of Arbitration in London.
NIC Launches 'E-Prison' Software To Process Early Release Of Prisoners, Supreme Court Notes
Case Title – Surendra @ Sunda v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 2217 of 2026
The Supreme Court formally closed proceedings in the case that led to the development of a nationwide digital system for processing premature release cases of prisoners.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi noted that the National Informatics Centre (NIC) has launched the “E-Prisons Early Release Processing Module" in collaboration with various stakeholders.
The High Commission of India in London condemned what it described as "indecorous audience behaviour" during an event attended by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant at the University of London, Birkbeck, where he delivered a lecture on "Artificial Intelligence and International Law" on June 4.
In a statement, the High Commission said that a "lively discussion" followed the CJI's address, but alleged that "a certain individual tried to disrupt the event."
The statement was issued after videos from the event circulated on social media showing some audience members attempting to raise questions regarding the protection of dissent in India. The moderator intervened and cut short the questions, stating that they were not related to the subject of the discussion.
Supreme Court Denies Bail To YouTuber Jyoti Rani Accused Of Spying For Pakistan
Case : Jyoti Rani alias Jyoti Malhotra v. State of Haryana | SLP(Crl) 10853/2026
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by YouTuber Jyoti Rani @ Jyoti Malhotra accused of espionage and sharing sensitive information with operatives linked to Pakistan intelligence agencies. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma refused to interfere with the March 7 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which refused to grant her bail.
Cause Title: V.K. SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 602
The Supreme Court held that the documents relied upon by the prosecution against a person booked under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) cannot be denied to him merely on account of an apprehension that the supply of such a confidential or crucial document would endanger the safety and security of the country.
“…we are of firm opinion that supply of documents cannot be denied to the Appellants merely on the ground that provisions of the OSA have been invoked against him.”, observed a bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, while setting aside the Delhi High Court's decision which interfered with the trial court's decision directing the supply of the documents to the Appellant-accused.
Case Details: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 746 of 2026.
A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the re-appointment of Deepak Prakash as Bihar's Panchayati Raj Minister. The plea states that Prakash is not a member of either House of the State legislature and therefore can't take any post in the State Government's ministry. It has been stated that, as per Article 164(4) of the Constitution, a non-legislator can remain a minister for six consecutive months, during which he must secure the membership of the State legislature. This exception is a one-time opportunity and can't be revived with the change of government.
Cause Title: K RANGANAYAKULU v. STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 605
The Supreme Court observed that when the company authorizes a particular individual to sign, issue cheques on the company's behalf, including the responsibility of making a payment, then such an individual would be treated as a 'drawer', attracting liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria upheld the conviction of an NGO's Treasurer, who was appointed as an authorised signatory of the NGO to issue and sign cheques as well as make payment to the Respondent company under the Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”). Further, noting that since the MoU casts no liability on any other office bearer except the Appellant, the Court found the Appellant as the only person who shall be responsible for all the consequences thereof.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant stressed the importance of developing a "Swadeshi Jurisprudence" rooted in India's constitutional values, institutional realities, linguistic diversity and social conditions.
Delivering a lecture at the Oxford Union and the Oxford Law Society on the theme "Constitutional Promise to Digital Reality: Safeguarding Justice in the Age of AI and Technological Advancement," the Chief Justice said that while courts around the world are increasingly embracing artificial intelligence, India must develop its own constitutional and jurisprudential framework rather than relying exclusively on imported models.
Case Details: PRANSU JIGARKUMAR PATEL v. THE UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 747/2026 Diary No. 35131 / 2026
The Supreme Court issued notice in a writ petition filed by an overseas student from Saudi Arabia, who sought directions to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to declare his Class XII Improvement Examination result.
The petition filed by Pransu Jigarkumar Patel challenges CBSE's failure to declare his result despite an assessment scheme framed for students whose examinations in several Gulf countries were cancelled because of the prevailing security situation in the region. CBSE declared Class XII results on May 13, 2026, and the petition states that Patel's result was not declared and his status was shown as “R.L. (Result Later)”.
The petition states that no clarification has been provided on whether private candidates appearing for improvement examinations are covered by the assessment scheme. He has contended that private candidates affected by the cancellation of examinations in West Asian countries due to war-related tensions are entitled to the benefit of CBSE's special assessment scheme. He had approached the Delhi High Court, which refused to entertain his plea.
An intervention application has been filed in the ongoing matter challenging the decision of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to make a third language compulsoryfor Class 9th students from July 1st onwards this year.
The intervenor, Dr. Fauzia Khan, an educationist and former Member of Parliament and ex-Maharashtra minister, contends that the circular is unreasonable because, while it may ostensibly appear to promote the preservation of India's linguistic heritage by mandating native languages, it fails to provide the necessary institutional framework for their meaningful study. As a result, she argues, the policy merely imposes a formal compliance burden on students, even as the genuine heritage and scholarly traditions associated with those languages continue to decline.
The intervention is filed in the public interest litigation (Yashica Bhandari Jain & Ors v UOI) in which the Supreme Court had earlier sought the response of the Union, the NCERT and the CBSE.
Cause Title: BHIKHUBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
The Supreme Court observed that a person does not commit forgery merely by executing a document asserting ownership over a property, even if that claim is subsequently found to be legally unsustainable.
“…when a person executes a document claiming property as his own, there is no making of a false document merely because the claim is ultimately found to be incorrect.”, the Court held in approval with Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751.
Case Details: LOGANATHAN v THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU|MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 17103/2026
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi's (MCD) repeated failure to act against unauthorized construction at a Saket building despite years of violations ultimately resulted in its collapse, causing six deaths and multiple injuries, Court-appointed amicus curiae Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha has told the Supreme Court.
In an intervention application filed before the Court, Sinha alleged that civic authorities "turned a blind eye" to illegal construction activities at Plot No. 261, Western Marg, Said-ul-Azaib, New Delhi, even though the property had repeatedly been booked for unauthorized construction since 2015. He has sought directions requiring the MCD and Delhi Police to explain how the illegal structure was allowed to continue and what action has been taken against officials responsible.
The application has been moved in the ongoing proceedings concerning rampant violations of building bye-laws and unauthorized conversion of residential premises into commercial establishments across the country.
Case Details: VIJAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH|Diary No. 23605-2026
The Supreme Court flagged the flagrant delay of 41 years by the Allahabad High Court in disposing of a criminal appeal against a murder conviction.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul Chandurkar issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh in a special leave petition preferred by the convict challenging the Allahabad High Court's February 9 order dismissing his criminal appeal against conviction.
The appellant, Vijay Singh, was 28 years old when he was convicted by a Trial Court in Kanpur for the murder of his brother that took place in 1983. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in December 1985. Singh had immediately challenged his order of conviction and sentencing before the Allahabad High Court.
Case Title – State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ravi Shankar Singh
The Supreme Court set aside directions issued by the MP High Court requiring trial courts to examine sanctioning authorities under Section 311 of the CrPC before framing charges in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), holding that courts cannot create a new procedural stage not contemplated by criminal law.
A bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice Atul Chandurkar held that the CrPC lays down a complete procedure for the conduct of criminal trials and that courts cannot, through judicial directions, compel trial courts to depart from that procedure.
“A new stage in trial cannot be introduced by judicial fiat. Trial in a criminal case, including in offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, has to be conducted in the manner provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS read with the provisions contained in PC Act. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Contribution of India cannot rewrite the Code of Criminal Procedure and direct all the sessions court/special courts under PC Act to examine the sanctioning authority even before framing of charge or commencement of trial”, the Court held.
Congress Member Meenakshi Natarajan Moves Supreme Court Against Rejection Of Rajya Sabha Candidature
Case Details : Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India | Diary No.36330/2026
Meenakshi Natarajan of the Indian National Congress moved the Supreme Court, challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh.
The matter was likely to be mentioned morning for urgent listing.
Reportedly, Natarajan's application was rejected by Returning Officer Arvind Sharma, following allegations that she had "hidden" details of a criminal case pending against her in Telangana in the nomination papers.
Case Details : Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India | Diary No.36330/2026
The Supreme Court agreed to list a writ petition filed by Congress member Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha candidature from Madhya Pradesh.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar agreed to list the matter after an oral request by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for an urgent hearing.
Case : JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT | SLP(Crl) No. 11208/2026
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra of the Supreme Court recused from hearing actor Jacqueline Fernandez's plea challenging a Delhi court order framing charges against her in the ₹200 crore money laundering case linked to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekar.
A Bench comprising Justice PK Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar was hearing the matter when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that he was appearing for the respondent(ED).
At that stage, Justice Mithal observed that in a connected matter, his son had appeared for the government. "In a connected manner, my son appeared for the government. It has to go before a different Bench," Justice Mishra said.
Case Details: SANJAY PRASAD v.MEGHA RAIKWAR | Diary No. 35822 / 2026
The Supreme Court stayed the Allahabad High Court's order criticizing the conduct of Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad IAS, and referring his file to the Dept of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for the assessment of his suitability for future assignments by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).
The bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul S Chandurkar stayed the order while hearing a petition filed by Sanjay Prasad against the High Court's adverse remarks and directions.
It may be recalled that on June 3, a stern order was passed by Justice Vinod Diwakar of the Allahabad High Court, who took exception to the "deliberate and calculated attempt" of Prasad, serving as Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of UP, to undermine the authority of the Court.
Case Details: PRANSU JIGARKUMAR PATEL Vs THE UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 747/2026 Diary No. 35131 / 2026
The Supreme Court was informed that the Union Government is planning to bring some policy to accommodate private students from West Asia whose results coud not be declared by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) due to the prevailing war in West Asia.
It may be recalled that the Court has been hearing a writ petition filed by an overseas student from Saudi Arabia, who sought directions to the CBSE to declare his Class XII Improvement Examination result. The matter will be taken up next Friday.
The petition filed by Pransu Jigarkumar Patel challenges CBSE's failure to declare his result despite an assessment scheme framed for students whose examinations in several Gulf countries were cancelled because of the prevailing security situation in the region. CBSE declared Class XII results on May 13, 2026, and the petition states that Patel's result was not declared and his status was shown as “R.L. (Result Later)”.
Case Details: MEENAKSHI NATARAJAN v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 766/2026 Diary No. 36330 / 2026
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Congress member Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha candidature from Madhya Pradesh, and gave her liberty to raise the challenge in an election petition filed in terms of the Representation of the People Act.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar declined the exercise of its writ jurisdiction citing the Constitutional bar as per Article 329. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as non-maintainable.
The bench rejected the argument of the petitioner that Article 32 can be invoked to cure "glaring and manifest" errors in the rejection of nomination.
Case Title – Rohini Sindhuri v. Roopa Divakar Moudgil
The Supreme Court referred the long-running defamation dispute between IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri and IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil, both serving in Karnataka, to mediation, remarking that both officers were harming each other's careers through continued litigation.
A bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva expressed the view that the dispute could be resolved through mediation instead of prolonged court proceedings. Accordingly, the Court appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as mediator to facilitate a settlement between the two officers.
“Both of them are destroying each other's careers”, Justice Sharma remarked.
Case : UNION OF INDIA v. NAI BHOR SANSTHA AND ANR. | T.P.(C) No. 1686-1692/2026
The Supreme Court issued notice on the petitions filed by the Central Government seeking to transfer the petitions filed in various High Courts challenging the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights (Amendment) Act 2026.
A partial working days bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana, while issuing notice to the respondents (petitioners in the High Courts), also ordered that the proceedings in the High Courts will remain stayed.
The bench indicated that it might transfer the petitions to the Supreme Court or consolidate them and assign them to any particular High Court.
Case Details: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 746 of 2026.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition challenging the re-appointment of Deepak Prakash as Bihar's Panchayati Raj Minister without getting elected as a member of the legislature.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana issued notice to the State of Bihar, Deepak Prakash and the Election Commission of India on the petition filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh.
The plea states that Prakash is not a member of either House of the State legislature and therefore can't take any post in the State Government's ministry. It has been stated that, as per Article 164(4) of the Constitution, a non-legislator can remain a minister for six consecutive months, during which he must secure the membership of the State legislature. This exception is a one-time opportunity and cannot be revived with the change of government.
RTI Activism Has Become New Business, Says Supreme Court Denying Bail
Case Details: RAMESH KUMAR BEHL v. STATE OF PUNJAB|SLP(Crl) No. 10257/2026 Diary No. 32358 / 2026
The Supreme Court denied anticipatory bail to an RTI activist accused of obstructing a public servant in connection with the construction of a road.
A bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi denied bail to RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl. It orally remarked that RTI activism has become a new business.
Justice Mehta said: "RTI activists have become a new business. Central government has issued funds, it will take care of the construction of road. You are nobody. So-called RTI activist!. Yellow journalism. Dismissed."
Case Title – K.S. Raju Legal Trust v. Union of India
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition alleging that the State of Punjab has failed to implement key provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, particularly the mandate under Section 12(1)(c) requiring private unaided schools to reserve 25% seats at the entry level for children belonging to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and disadvantaged groups.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana asked the petitioner appearing in person to place concrete material before the Court to demonstrate how the law was not being implemented.
The Chief Justice suggested that the petitioner seek data via RTI on the number of recognized private schools in a district, whether they are affiliated to CBSE or the State Board, the total sanctioned seats, the number of students enrolled, and the number admitted from EWS and marginalized sections.
Case Title – Tamilvani & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
The Supreme Court directed the State of Tamil Nadu to intimate the Director General of Health Services about 151 vacant super speciality medical seats that remained unfilled so that they could be filled through the All India merit list.
The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking surrender of unfilled DM and M.Ch seats from the Tamil Nadu State Quota to the All India Quota in the ongoing NEET-SS 2025 counselling process.
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the order after noting that all parties agreed that the matter could be disposed of in terms of the Court's earlier order in N. Karthikeyan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Police Summons To Law Firm, Stays Arrest
Case : THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS AND BARRISTERS v. PHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD. | D No. 36138/2026
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with a police summons to a law firm in connection with an investigation, though it stayed the arrest of the advocate of the firm for two weeks. The firm has been directed to appear before the police and give their explanation.
They were also granted liberty to take steps to challenge the summons before the High Court.
The Court also refused to interfere with a Madras High Court order impleading the law firm in a contempt proceeding.
Supreme Court Directs To Conduct Tripura Village Committee Elections In Single Phase In September
Case Details: PRADYOT DEB BURMAN v. UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 786/2025
The Supreme Court directed elections to the Village Committees under the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) in a single phase on September 27 as proposed by the Tripura State Election Commission(TSEC).
The order was passed in a writ petition filed by Pradyot Deb Burman, who alleged failure of authorities to conduct elections. He sought directions to the Election Commission of India and Tripura Election Commission to immediately conduct overdue Village Committee elections under the Tripura Tribal Areas Automatic District Council Act, 1994.
A vacation bench comprising of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard Attorney General R Venkataramani(for Tripura Election Commission) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta(for Tripura State Government).
Case Title – Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking directions to restrict the use of Aadhaar as proof of citizenship, domicile, address and date of birth, and to ensure that it is used only as proof of identity.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana issued notice.
The petition, filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, contends that Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 expressly provides that an Aadhaar number does not confer any right of, or serve as proof of, citizenship or domicile. It also relies on a UIDAI notification dated August 22, 2023, which states that Aadhaar is proof of identity and not proof of citizenship, address or date of birth.
Case : M Vardhan v. Union of India | WP(c) 1319 OF 2023
The Supreme Court indicated that the Bar Council of India's (BCI) proposal to fill the 10% co-option component for women lawyers in State Bar Councils by inducting the highest-polling unsuccessful women candidates appeared to be a "fair suggestion", while directing the BCI to evolve a final mechanism after consulting stakeholders.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana was hearing matters relating to the implementation of its earlier directions aimed at ensuring 30% effective representation for women lawyers in State Bar Councils.
The bench was informed that elections in most State Bar Councils had already been completed and results declared, with the only unresolved issue being the manner in which the 10% co-option seats for women would be filled.
Case Title – In Re: Ensuring Basic Human Dignity And Social Security For Differently Abled Citizens Living In Extreme Poverty And Other Ancillary Issues
The Supreme Court directed the State of Odisha to ensure that all social security benefits and basic amenities are extended to a visually impaired man, Japa Bhue, and his 80-year-old mother, Radhika Bhue, who, according to media reports, have been living in extreme poverty.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana sought detailed compliance reports on the welfare measures provided to them and issued notice in a suo motu case registered yesterday titled, “In Re: Ensuring Basic Human Dignity And Social Security For Differently Abled Citizens Living In Extreme Poverty And Other Ancillary Issues”.
“We are, however, concerned about the sustenance and the dignified life of Jape Bhue and his mother Jape Bhue, who is blind by birth, and his mother Srimati Radhika Bhue…The State of Odisha and its authorities are directed to ensure that all basic amenities are made available to Shrimati Radhika Bhue and her son Japa Bhue till further orders”, the Court observed.
The Chief Justice of India took a serious view of a complaint alleging that the Supreme Court Registry had misplaced a case file, preventing an urgent matter from being registered and listed before the Court.
The issue was raised by counsel Shubhi Shivani Jaideep, who informed the Bench that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed on June 8 had still not been registered.
“SLP was filed on 8th June, however it has not been registered by the Registry till date. We have written a representation to the Registrar. The case file appears to have been misplaced at the end of the Registry and because of this it has not been listed before the Court,” the counsel submitted.
Case : ARVIND MALHOTRA v. HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH | Diary no. 36875/2026
A judicial officer from Himachal Pradesh filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the recommendation of the High Court Collegium for the appointment of judges to the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
The petition has been filed raising the grievance that junior officers have been recommended for elevation as HP High Court Judges.
Mentioning the matter for urgent hearing, a counsel submitted before the Chief Justice of India, "This pertains to appointment of judges to Himachal Pradesh HC. My right of consideration was violated. Collegium has recommended names of officers junior to me to the Union Government for elevation. I am seeking urgent listing."
Case :AMRISH KUMAR JAIN v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB | T.P.(C) No. 1641/2026
The Supreme Court expressed concern over repeated recusals by judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case concerning a former judicial officer's challenge to his dismissal from service, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarking that "three or four so-called senior advocates" in the State were "creating havoc."
The Court requested the Acting Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to constitute a Division Bench of two judges to hear the matter and specifically advised the judges not to recuse from the case, "irrespective of the situations that may be created by anyone."
During the hearing, the CJI expressed concern over what he described as attempts by certain members of the Bar to influence proceedings through repeated recusals.
NEET UG 2026 | Supreme Court Defers Hearing Of Plea Challenging NEET Retest To July
Case Title – Mangala Kohli v. Union of India
The Supreme Court deferred to July the hearing of a writ petition challenging the National Testing Agency's (NTA) decision to cancel and re-conduct NEET-UG 2026 for nearly 22 lakh candidates.
The petition sought an interim relief of stay on the decision to re-conduct NEET-UG 2026, and a direction restraining authorities from proceeding with the proposed re-examination which is scheduled on June 21st pending adjudication of the case.
The matter was listed before a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana. The bench did not hear the matter. It directed that the petition be listed before a bench led by Justice PS Narasimha, who is already hearing various cases pertaining to NEET exam. Justice Narasimha's bench will sit only after the Supreme Court resumes regular sittings on July 13,
Case Title – Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea seeking the introduction of a "creamy layer" mechanism in the income tax exemption available to Scheduled Tribes residing in specified areas and States under the Income Tax Act, 2025. The petitioner sought a direction to restrict the benefit to economically weaker tribals and exclude affluent beneficiaries.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana allowed petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay to withdraw the petition with the liberty to approach the Centre and the relevant Parliamentary Committee.
“It seems to us that the relief sought by the instant petition essentially involves formulation/revision/amendment of legislative/public policies. This court may not therefore be an appropriate platform for the aforesaid purpose at this stage. The petitioner may approach the Parliamentary Committee by way of a comprehensive petition. Similarly, the petition shall be at liberty to send the copy of the writ petition as a representation to all the respondents”, the Court observed.
Supreme Court Seeks Delhi Police Response On Bail Pleas Of Two UAPA Accused Jailed For 12 Years
Case : MOHD. SAQUIB ANSARI v. STATE | SLP (Crl) 11369/2026
The Supreme Court issued notice on the bail petitions of two undertrials who have been in custody for more than twelve years in connection with a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. M. Pancholi directed the Delhi Police to file its counter affidavit by July 20 and listed the matter for hearing on July 28.
The petitioners, Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, were arrested in March 2014 and charged with alleged membership of and association with the banned Indian Mujahideen under Sections 18, 18A, 19, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The two remain in jail and are now in their thirteenth year of incarceration, awaiting the conclusion of a trial that is likely to take considerable time, as the prosecution has listed around 600 witnesses.
The State of West Bengal approached the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court direction allowing the premature release of a life-term convict in the 1993 Kolkata (Bowbazar) blast case.
The State's counsel mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. The counsel submitted that the State's Sentence Review Board had recommended against the release of the convict, Md Rashid Khan, who was convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Acts Prevention Act.
The bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana agreed to list the matter.
Case Title – Bar Association of India & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union, Bar Council of India, the State Bar Councils and the University Grants Commission on a writ petition filed by the Bar Association of India (BAI) seeking a national advocate verification mechanism in order to weed out fake lawyers, and a social media code of conduct for lawyers.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana heard the matter.
The petition seeks the creation of a National Digital Registry for the Legal Profession of India (NDRLP) to verify advocates and law degrees across the country, and also seeks formulation of a social media and digital conduct code for advocates.
Case Title – Rudra Vikram Singh v. Bar Council of Delhi
The Supreme Court allowed the completion of counting of votes in the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) elections, but ordered that the results shall not be notified without its prior permission.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana was hearing challenges to the Delhi High Court judgment which had declined to order a re-poll in the BCD elections over discovery of ballot tampering during counting. The Court had earlier stayed the counting process till the High Court decided finally the plea challenging the election.
CJI Kant also said that the Court would examine allegations relating to the suspension of 79 candidates during polling and the impact, if any, of those events on the election outcome. The Returning Officer had suspended 79 candidates on February 22 for alleged Model Code of Conduct violations, but withdrawn the suspension a day later.
NEET-UG : Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Pleas Concerning NEET-UG 2026 Ahead Of June 21 Retest
The Supreme Court refused to hear pleas seeking urgent hearing of issues arising out of the NEET re-test scheduled for June 21, observing that all matters concerning the examination are already listed before a Bench headed by Justice PS Narasimha.
The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by counsel appearing for NEET candidates.
When a plea relating to the NEET re-examination was mentioned for urgent listing, the CJI said:
Case Details: KK RAMESH v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 761/2026
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a court-monitored CBI investigation into allegations of horse-trading and corruption in connection with the trust vote won by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) government in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohan declined to entertain a writ petition filed by KK Ramesh, observing that it was founded on "casual allegations" unsupported by any reliable material.
The petition had sought a CBI probe into allegations that large sums of money were distributed to legislators of other parties and that government contracts were promised in exchange for support during the trust vote. It also sought the imposition of President's Rule in the State until the completion of the investigation.
Case : SARIKA TYAGI v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 770/2026
The Supreme Court endorsed a proposal to create a "Young Lawyers' Professional Assistance Fund" to provide financial support to young advocates during the formative years of their legal careers, observing that financial hardships often drive talented lawyers away from litigation practice.
The proposal found favor with a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana while hearing a public interest petition filed by women advocates concerning infrastructural deficiencies in courts and the challenges faced by young members of the Bar. The Court said a dedicated fund could help address the steep economic barriers confronting first-generation lawyers and those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
"The absence of a steady stream of clients and the limited remuneration available during these years tends to create extreme financial hardship," the Court observed, noting that many junior advocates remain dependent on modest stipends from seniors while learning the craft of advocacy.
Case : SARIKA TYAGI v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 770/2026
The Supreme Court observed that the availability of basic infrastructure for women advocates within court premises bears a direct nexus with the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, while hearing a petition highlighting the absence of ladies' bar rooms and other essential facilities in courts across the country.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana observed that when women advocates are required to spend substantial portions of their day within court premises, facilities necessary for their comfort, privacy, safety and professional functioning assume "utmost significance".
"The provision of such essential facilities prima facie bears a direct nexus with the fundamental guarantee of life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution," the bench observed in its order.
Case Title – Md. Yean Ali v. Union of India and Ors.
The Supreme Court directed the appellate tribunal constituted to hear challenges arising out of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal to grant an out-of-turn hearing to a 75-year-old advocate's appeal against deletion of his name from the voter list.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana passed the order after remarking that the petitioner appeared to be a genuine citizen and resident of West Bengal.
Today, Advocate Shakil Sheikh stated that the petitioner's appeal has been pending since March 27, 2026, and had not been taken up for consideration.
Law Needed To Protect Right To Walk On Footpaths : Supreme Court Tells Centre
Case Details: MANIYAR ILIYAZ SHAIK RIYAZ v. P. AYYAPPAN|C.A. No. 4665-4666/2025
The Supreme Court trecognised the right of pedestrians to walk on the footpath as a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Indian Constitution, preceding the right of motorised vehicles. The Court held that there is a compelling need to lay down a statutory framework not only for the declaration of this right but also to recognise that the violation of this right would entitle one to restitutionary remedies.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar made these observations in a motor vehicle incident where a 5-year-old lost his life after he was hit by a tanker on his way to school with his father. His father sought compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 but it was reduced to Rs. 4,70,000. The bench enhanced it to Rs. 11,44,628 to be paid within 2 months.
In making these observations, the bench felt that there is a need for a statutory framework and therefore directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road Transport and Highways and has impleaded them as parties.
Case Title – Prateeksha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the manner in which public sector bank loans are assigned to Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs), observing that there is a need to examine the conduct of ARCs and the larger mechanism through which large loan liabilities are settled for a fraction of their value.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana was hearing a plea alleging irregularities in the settlement of loans extended to a company by a consortium led by State Bank of India. The petitioner has sought directions to the Centre to constitute a Judicial Commission or an Expert Committee including the Officers of RBI, SEBI, SFIO, ED and CBI to investigate alleged corporate and banking fraud facilitated by the ARCs.
“There is a dire need to look into the conduct and affairs of these ARCs also, frankly. And creation of this ARC is an issue probably that is required to be revisited, particularly in the context of public money. We are only concerned about public money. If they are private lender, we don't want to go into those transactions. But where taxpayers' money, public money, which should have been spent for the welfare of the people, if that has gone into private hands, mis-utilised, siphoned and ultimately they have the last laugh, that is what we are bothered. ARC are also hands in glove with banks. There is a very deep-rooted nexus between borrowers, ARC, and banks”, CJI Kant said.
Case Title – P.R. Rajesh Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by businessman PR Rajesh Kumar challenging the legality of searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at his residence in May 2025 in connection with the alleged money laundering probe linked to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC).
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana upheld an order of the Madras High Court that had declined to examine the legality of the search as the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the attachment under Section 8 of the PMLA, and Rajesh Kumar had approached the Appellate Tribunal.
The petitioner sought quashing of search and seizure proceedings conducted by the ED at his Adyar residence on May 16, 17 and 18, 2025.
Case Title: Arvind Malhotra v. High Court of Himachal Pradesh, | Diary no. 36875/2026
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a judicial officer from Himachal Pradesh seeking the consideration of his name for elevation to the High Court, orally observing that no judicial direction can be issued to the High Court Collegium.
The grievance of the petitioner was that the High Court Collegium forwarded the names of his juniors, which were ultimately approved by the Supreme Court Collegium. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that there was nothing on record to show that the High Court Collegium had rejected the petitioner's name.
Case Title : Pransu Jigarkumar Patel v. The Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 747/2026
The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed by one Pransu Jigarkumar Patel, a private candidate from Al Jubail, Saudi Arabia, who had challenged CBSE's failure to declare his Class XII Improvement Examination result despite the Board having framed a special assessment scheme for students in several Gulf countries where examinations were cancelled due to war-related tensions.
A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order upon being informed by the Centre that it has notified a national policy addressing the situation of private students from Gulf countries affected by the cancellation of CBSE Class XII Board exams due to the international crisis.
Supreme Court Stays Order Granting Rs. 10 Lakh Compensation To Man Illegally Arrested By UP Police
Case Title: State of UP and Ors. v. Manoj Kumar and Anr.
The Supreme Court stayed the Allahabad High Court's order which had directed the State Government to make a payment of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation to a man for over three months' illegal detention after illegal arrest.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva passed the order in the State's appeal challenging the High Court's decision on the limited issue of the quantum of compensation. It was informed that disciplinary action had been initiated against the concerned SHO, who had since been placed under suspension.
Case Title: X v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 695/2026
The Supreme Court questioned the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) for opposing the adoption of a minor girl by her maternal aunt residing in the United States, orally remarking that the authority has adopted a negative attitude towards such adoptions.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by a 13-year-old girl and her adoptive parents challenging a CARA clarification that prevented processing of an inter-country relative adoption after the child had already been adopted under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).
“Why are you opposing adoption by family members? Why are you against this? Family wants to adopt but all bureaucratic red tape comes in the way. Very negative attitude by your department. This is not the first case we are coming across like this,” Justice Nagarathna remarked.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Singh v. Arvind Gupta & Anr., Diary No. 32125/2026
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with an Allahabad High Court order directing a high-level inquiry into allegations that government doctors attached to Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Prayagraj, are engaging in private practice despite a prohibition and operating a parallel healthcare system outside the government hospital.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed the withdrawal of an SLP filed by Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh, an Associate Professor in the Surgery Department of the medical college, after expressing disinclination to interfere with the High Court's order.
Case Title: Commissioner v. Rama Ravikumar, Diary No. 36337/2026
The Tamil Nadu Government approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's direction allowing the lighting of the lamp atop a stone pillar near a Dargah at the Thiruparankudram hill in Madurai district.
The Special Leave Petition was filed against the order passed by a division bench of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on January 6, which upheld an order passed by a single bench in December last year allowing the lighting of the 'Karthigai Deepam' at the spot.
The State's petition in the Supreme Court was filed on June 11, after the new government led by TVK's Vijay assumed charge.
Case Title: Paschim Benga Khet Majoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, Diary No. 37837/2026
The Supreme Court refused urgent listing of a writ petition challenging the move of the State of West Bengal to deny ration benefits to persons excluded from the voters' list after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
Saying that the High Court can be approached for the relief, a partial working days bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined the oral plea made by Advocate S Prasanna, who mentioned the matter for urgent listing. The petition was filed by a Bengal-based farm labour union, Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity.
Zubeen Garg Death Case : Supreme Court Issues Notice To Assam Police On Bail Plea Of Event Organiser
Case Title: Shyamkanu Mahanta v. State of Assam, SLP (Crl.) 11523/2026
The Supreme Court issued notice on a bail plea filed by event organiser Shyam Kanu Mahanta in a murder and cheating case in connection with the death of Assamese singer Zubeen Garg during a yacht trip in Singapore in September 2025. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order.
The plea challenges a May 29 order of the Gauhati High Court rejecting Mahanta's application for bail. Mahanta was arrested on October 1, 2025 and has remained in custody since then.
The chargesheet alleges offences under Sections 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 103(1) (murder), 105 (culpable homicide not amounting murder), 238 (causing disappearance of evidence), 308(2) (extortion), 318(4) (cheating) and 316(5) (criminal breach of trust) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Supreme Court Stays Premature Release Of TADA Convict In 1993 Bowbazar Blast Case
Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Md. Rashid Khan | SLP(Crl) No. 11581/2026
The Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court order which directed the premature release of life-term convict Md Rashid Khan in the 1993 Kolkata (Bowbazar) blast case.
A bench comprising Justice PK Mishra and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Delhi High Court's order for the release of the TADA convict.
It was on June 5 that the Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Rashid Khan, who had spent over 33 years in prison. The High Court took into account Petitioner's long period of incarceration, prison conduct and the reformative philosophy underlying premature release.
Case Title: Harshvardhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., SLP(C) No. 21751/2026
A partial Court working days bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed a plea filed by a candidate belonging to the Economically Weaker Section seeking fixation of private medical colleges' fees at par with government colleges' fees.
When the petitioner contended that it was arbitrary to fix tuition fees in private medical colleges in Rajasthan at Rs 25 lakhs when the EWS income limit is Rs 8 lakhs per annum, the Court orally observed that self-financing institutions cannot be mandated to have the same fee structure as government colleges.
"Those who have, will pay...this one person cannot say that it is exorbitant in the private institution, make it on par with the govt institution", said Justice Nagarathna, adding that one who cannot pay has the option to avail a scholarship, subvention or a government college seat.
Case Title: Paschim Benga Khet Majoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, Diary No. 37837/2026
The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition challenging West Bengal government's move denying ration benefits to persons excluded from the voters' list after Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
A partial Court working days bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed the case to be withdrawn upon a mentioning by Advocate Prasanna S (for petitioner). Disposing of the case, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Anr. Versus Union of India and Ors., WP(C) No. 771 / 2026
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking to restrain the Tamil Nadu government from surrendering 152 vacant in-service Super Speciality medical seats (2025-26) earmarked for in-service government doctors to the All India Quota.
A partial Court working days bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi called for the response of the authorities, while orally observing that cut-off for in-service candidates serving under the State should be lesser as they are serving in the public health sector and studying alongside.
Notably, Justice Nagarathna remarked during the hearing that, "a govt doctor, if acquires more skills, will serve public health better than private doctor". "How many can afford private hospital?" the judge questioned.
Case Title: Jacqueline Fernandez v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 11208/2026
Actor Jacqueline Fernandez withdrew from the Supreme Court her plea challenging trial proceedings in the Rs.200 crore money laundering case registered against her (and others) by the Enforcement Directorate.
A partial Court working days bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the case as withdrawn after counsel for Fernandez made the prayer for withdrawal with liberty to avail appropriate remedies available in law.
The underlying case originated from a complaint filed by one Aditi Singh in August 2021, alleging that she had been cheated of nearly Rs. 200 crores by a syndicate led by alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar who impersonated senior government officials while operating from jail. Based on the predicate offence registered by Delhi Police, the Enforcement Directorate lodged a money-laundering case under the PMLA.
Supreme Courts Of India & Russia Sign MoU On Judicial Cooperation
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the field of judicial cooperation.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation Igor Krasnov signed the MoU in Moscow. The MoU reaffirmed the commitment to strengthening judicial cooperation through exchange visits, short- and long-term training programmes, and the organisation of joint seminars and conferences.
The two States identified the use of technology in the administration of justice as a key area of collaboration, with a focus on sharing experiences and best practices to enhance judicial efficiency and improve service delivery.
To advance this objective, the parties agreed to establish a Joint Working Group tasked with developing strategies and mechanisms for sustained technological cooperation and deeper institutional engagement between their respective judiciaries.
During an event in Russia, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that law, without equality, is essentially organized will of the stronger party.
The CJI was speaking at the 14th St. Petersburg International Legal Forum. The topic for the plenary session of the same was "Equal Justice, Equal Law: Access as the Measure of International Law's Humanity".
In the global context, the CJI commented that good intentions do not ipso facto ensure equitable outcomes in practice. He referred to key international conventions, like the Convention on Rights of the Child, Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, etc. to convey that despite the moral ambitions behind them, the international instruments have not been honored and monitored equitably.
The CJI also explicated that hurdles to equality are manifested in terms of geographical, social and economic disparities, which the Indian Courts have attempted to tackle by providing legal aid, entertaining letters and PILs and "treating procedure as servant of justice, not its master".
Ram Mandir Donations Row: Supreme Court Declines Urgent Listing Of Plea Seeking SIT Probe
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Rai v. Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, WP (Crl.) No. 241/26
The Supreme Court declined to grant an urgent hearing on a plea seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged embezzlement of donations received by the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust for the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
A partial Court working days Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu directed that the matter be listed immediately after the Court reopens, after the petitioner, appearing in person, mentioned the case for urgent listing.
Rejecting the view that the Rule of Law and judicial independence are Western, post-colonial concepts gifted to the Global South, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that in the Indian consciousness, the supremacy of Dharma over personal or dynastic power has been an enduring principle for thousands of years, predating the common law tradition.
The CJI was delivering the keynote address on "Safeguarding the Rule of Law: Experiences from India and Sweden" at an event organised by International IDEA in Sweden.
To illustrate the point, the CJI referred to an episode from the Mahabharata involving King Prahlada, his son Virochana, and the scholar Sudhanva. According to the anecdote, King Prahlada was called upon to adjudicate a life-and-death dispute involving his own son. Despite the personal stakes, he ruled in favour of Sudhanva after concluding that truth and justice outweighed filial loyalty.
Case Title: ASHA RAM @ ASHUMAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, SLP(Crl) No. 11761/2026
The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Rajasthan on the petition filed by self-styled godman Asaram Bapu challenging the the Rajasthan High Court judgment which upheld his conviction and life sentence under Section 376 IPC for committing rape of a woman at his ashram in 2013.
A partial Court working day bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu however refused to suspend his sentence at the present juncture. The bench directed that the medical facilities extended to the petitioner in prison be continued. The bench said that it will consider the grant of bail only if there is any grave health condition.
Case Title: VISHAL TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking CBI investigation into the "extra-judicial killing" of 28-year old Bharat Bhushan Tiwari in Bhojpur, Bihar.
A partial Court working days bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu asked the petitioner, Advocate Vishal Tiwari, to approach the Patna High Court.
The PIL filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, seeks registration of an FIR against the police party that "killed" Tiwari in an alleged fake encounter. It further seeks constitution of an Independent Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of a former Supreme Court judge to inquire into the death.
"We will not entertain. Will grant liberty to approach HC. It's better to go to HCs, because they are monitoring better," Justice Sundresh said.
Case Title: BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 22411/2026
The Supreme Court ordered status quo with regard to ethanol supply allocation for the Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2025–26. A partial Court working days bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu passed the order, after hearing Attorney General R Venkataramani (for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd) and Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for respondents).
The AG contested a recent Karnataka High Court order, which directed various Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) to consider and decide a representation submitted by a distillery seeking enhancement of ethanol allocation for 2025–26. He argued that the order could destabilize the national policy for 20% ethanol-petrol blending.