Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: August 2026

Judgments

IBC | PF Dues Protected, But Uncrystallised Interest & Damages Can Be Excluded From Resolution Plan: Supreme Court

Case Title: Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Rachna Jhunjhunwala & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 9768 of 2026 @ Diary No. 18254 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 749

The Supreme Court held that unadjudicated claims for interest and damages under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which had not been determined before the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), need not be provided for in a resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed an appeal filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) challenging a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment which had upheld the approval of a resolution plan that excluded EPFO's claims towards interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B of the 1952 Act.

S. 44B Income Tax Act | Cruise Voyages Remain Shipping Business Though Providing Entertainment & Hospitality Services : Supreme Court

Case Title: Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation). v. M/S Star Cruises (India) P. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 750

The Supreme Court held that a foreign cruise ship operator that provides hospitality and entertainment services during a voyage would still qualify as a shipping business under Section 44B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, its taxable income would be computed on a presumptive basis at 7.5% of the specified receipts by an assessee under the provision.

Dismissing the Revenue's appeal, a bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that the expression “carriage” under Section 44B of the Income Tax Act cannot be given a restrictive interpretation limited merely to the transportation of passengers. The Court observed that a cruise vessel remains engaged in the business of carriage even when it provides hospitality, and entertainment services during the voyage, and would therefore continue to be taxable under the presumptive taxation scheme prescribed under Section 44B.

Court Fees Act | Appeals Against Statutory Benefits In Land Acquisition Compensation Attract Ad Valorem Court Fees : Supreme Court

Cause Title: TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS S.P. SINGH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 751

The Supreme Court held that an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, confined exclusively to the grant of statutory benefits without challenging the determination or enhancement of compensation, would attract ad valorem court fees on a decretal amount under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

“An appeal under Section 54 seeking reduction or exclusion of any such component (statutory benefits) is an appeal against the decree of the Reference Court relating to compensation and consequently attracts ad valorem court fee under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act. We therefore find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the memorandum of appeal was liable to be accompanied by ad valorem court fee and that payment of a fixed court fee was contrary to law. The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, warrants no interference.”, observed a bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Manmohan, while affirming the Uttarakhand High Court's decision to order the Appellant to pay ad valorem court fees in an appeal filed seeking an exclusion of a statutory benefits in a decretal amount of land acquisition compensation.

The case relates to the grant of land acquisition compensation for the rehabilitation of the Tehri Dam oustees. Against the determination of the compensation and seeking an enhancement, the oustees approached the Reference Court besides claiming the statutory benefits under the Act.

Inadequate Grounds Of Arrest Don't By Themselves Vitiate Arrest, Prejudice To Accused Must Be Shown: Supreme Court

Case: State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu | SLP (Crl.) No. 11944/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 752

Drawing a distinction between complete non-service of grounds of arrest and inadequate communication of the reasons for arrest, the Supreme Court held that while the former would vitiate an arrest, in the latter case the Court must examine whether prejudice has been caused to the accused.

On this reasoning, the Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, holding that the Meghalaya High Court and the Trial Court erred in granting her bail on the ground that she was not supplied with valid grounds of arrest.

Supreme Court Extends S.498A IPC To Live-In Relationships Which Are 'Relationships In The Nature Of Marriage'

Cause Title: Dr LOKESH BH & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Observing that excluding women in live-in relationships which are “in the nature of marriage” from the protection of Section 498A IPC would amount to discriminatory treatment, the Supreme Court (August 3) held that a man in such a relationship can be prosecuted for domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court however clarified that this ruling is applicable to "live-in relationships" which qualify as "relationships in the nature of marriage", where the intent to marry is established.

The Court ruled that distinguishing between a legally married woman and a woman in a relationship akin to marriage, for the purpose of protection against cruelty, is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14.

Hiding Number Plate Not Cheating Offence Though Motor Vehicles Act Violation : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MOHAMMED ABDUL AHAD SHAKER VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 754

The Supreme Court quashed a cheating case registered against an individual for allegedly covering the rear number plate of his vehicle. The Court held that a mere apprehension on the part of the police that the number plate was concealed to evade traffic challans does not constitute the offence of cheating.

“The mere apprehension of the police that the rear number plate was covered in order to avoid challans, or that in case a crime was committed, it would be difficult to trace out the offender is at best, speculative…The only allegation against the appellant is that he was travelling on his Activa scooty with a black mask covering his rear number plate. There is no material on record to show that such an act was done with a dishonest intention, or that such an act induced a person and caused any wrongful gain or loss.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The Court said that concealing or hiding the number plate would, at best, invite penalty under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ("MV Act"), but cannot be categorised as a criminal offence.

'Village's Common Land' : Supreme Court Restores 280 Acre Gurugram Land To Wazirabad Gram Panchayat

Cause Title: Suraj Bhan and others versus Ashvarya Estate Pvt. Ltd. and others (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 755

The Supreme Court (August 3) restored the ownership of approximately 280 acres of land in Gurugram to the Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad, holding that the land constituted shamilat deh and was vested in the Panchayat under the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed a batch of appeals filed by the Gram Panchayat and original defendants, overturning a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had recognized ownership claims of private parties over 436 bighas and 18 biswas of land situated in the uninhabited village of Haiderpur in Gurugram.

“The Division Bench as well as the authorities failed to attach due importance to the Sharat-wajib-ul-arz, which recorded in clear terms that, in Haiderpur, the total area of the shamilat deh was 444 bighas 4 biswas, of which 436 bighas 18 biswas was ghair mumkin pahar, johar, nala, etc., in the possession of makbuja malkan (joint possession). Once this extent of 436 bighas 80 biswas was not shown to be in actual and separate cultivating possession of the proprietors individually, the land invariably constituted shamilat deh and could not be treated as allotted to anyone in particular.”, the Court observed.

'For Child Victims, Consider Impact On Future' : Supreme Court Awards ₹83.38 Lakhs For Accident Leaving Infant Paralysed For Life

Cause Title: GAYATREE PATTNAIK FOR SHREEJITA PATTNAIK VERSUS ARUNDHATI SAHOO AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 756

Observing that compensation in motor accident cases must be based on the actual impact of an injury on a victim's earning capacity and not merely the percentage of medical disability, the Supreme Court (August 3) enhanced the compensation awarded to a minor who suffered 100% functional disability due to spinal cord injuries from ₹45.40 lakh to ₹83.38 lakh.

“…where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head 'loss of future earnings' would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. Therefore, what is required to be assessed is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured… a minor who suffers permanent disability cannot be equated with a non-earning individual merely because he was not gainfully employed on the date of the accident. While dealing with child victims, the law must take into account the future which has been lost and not merely the status which existed at the time when the accident occurred.”, observed a bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N.V. Anjaria.

The bench modified the Orissa High Court's judgment which had awarded ₹45.40 lakh compensation to the kid, treating her permanent disability based on the medical reports to be 90%, without considering her functional disability.

Mere Breach Of Contract Not Cheating Unless Fraudulent Intention Existed From Beginning: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case

Case : G Saminathan & Another v The State

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 757

Holding that a mere breach of contractual obligations cannot be prosecuted as the offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown from the inception of the transaction, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against two landowners accused of cheating a real estate developer in a failed joint development project.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the dispute arose out of a failed Joint Development Agreement and was essentially civil in nature, making the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Madras High Court's order refusing to quash the case and quashed the FIR, chargesheet and all consequential criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 read with Sections 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The dispute concerned a 2012 Joint Development Agreement under which the developer paid a refundable security deposit of ₹3 crore to the landowners for developing a residential project in Chennai. The project could not proceed after the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority rejected planning permission on the ground that the property formed part of an unapproved layout. Subsequently, the landowners cancelled the General Power of Attorney and sold the property to a third party, prompting the developer to initiate criminal proceedings alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust.

Specific Performance Of Agreement To Sell Can Be Denied If There Is Long Time Lapse : Supreme Court

Case :  V.N.A.S Chandran v S Venila and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 758

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell is not an automatic consequence of a valid contract and can be refused if the purchaser fails to continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract throughout the litigation. The Court also held that a long lapse of time between the agreement and the final adjudication is a relevant factor that may disentitle a party from obtaining the equitable relief of specific performance.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Anjaria made the observations while allowing appeals filed by a property owner against a Madras High Court judgment which had directed specific performance of a 2004 agreement to sell. The Court restored the trial court's decree refusing specific performance and instead directed refund of the advance amount with interest.

The dispute arose out of an agreement dated April 1, 2004, under which the appellant agreed to sell a property in Udhagamandalam for ₹2.25 crore. While the trial court held that the purchasers had paid an advance of ₹85 lakh, it refused the discretionary relief of specific performance. The Madras High Court reversed that finding and ordered execution of the sale deed.

Comprehensive/Package Motor Insurance Covers Vehicle Occupants: Supreme Court Explains Different Types Of Policies

Case Details: National Insurance Co Ltd v Smt Thungala Dhana Laxmi

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 759

The Supreme Court has held that a comprehensive motor insurance policy covers the owner and occupants of the vehicle and cannot be treated on par with a basic third-party insurance policy, while also recommending that insurers adopt a standardised "opt-in" mechanism enabling customers to choose additional covers at the time of purchasing insurance.

The judgment came in an appeal filed by National Insurance Company against a Telangana High Court decision awarding compensation to the family of T. Ramu, who died in a road accident involving his own Maruti 800 car.

Ramu was returning from Tirupati to his native village on July 13, 1996, when an unidentified lorry allegedly rammed into his car from behind near Singarayakonda. He succumbed to the injuries during treatment. Since the offending lorry could not be traced, his legal representatives sought compensation under the comprehensive insurance policy covering his own vehicle.

Consider If Vehicles Without Insurance Can Be Denied Fuel : Supreme Court Tells Union, IRDA

Case Details: National Insurance Co Ltd v Smt Thungala Dhana Laxmi

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 759

In a significant judgment towards ensuring road safety, the Supreme Court has directed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) to evolve a pilot project whereby vehicles can be linked with insurance status to ensure that vehicles at the petrol pumps can be checked for valid third-party insurance.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a slew of important directions relating to the importance of third-party insurance.

In this case, the Court formed two primary issues. First, the non-compliance with Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which requires all vehicles to have valid third-party insurance. Second, whether there should be a uniform motor-vehicle policy structure covering all occupants of the vehicles, in addition to the third-party risk coverage.

Supreme Court Directs Increase Of Third Party Insurance Of Cars To 4 & Two-Wheelers To 6 Years

Case : National Insurance Co Ltd v Smt Thungala Dhana Laxmi

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 759

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has directed to increase the term of third-party motor vehicle insurance for new cars to four year and for new two-wheelers for six years.

Presently, it is 3 years for cars and 5 years for two years, following the Supreme Court's 2018 direction. The Court noted that despite this direction issued eight years ago, several vehicles remain uninsured. Therefore, the Court directed the increase of the term for new policies, despite the objection by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India and the General Insurance Council.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih ordered :

Solid Waste Management Rules 2026 : Supreme Court Directs Centre To Frame Guidelines On Environmental Compensation

Case : Amravati Municipal Corporation v Ganesh Dadarao Anasane and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 760

The Supreme Court laid down a comprehensive set of principles to guide the determination of environmental compensation under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, while directing the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to formulate detailed guidelines for imposing and collecting such compensation.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the directions while hearing appeals concerning solid waste management. The Court said that with the notification of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, the focus must now shift from merely framing laws to ensuring their effective implementation through robust institutional mechanisms.

"Our endeavour is to institutionalise the process of solid waste management for our country," the Bench observed, adding that constitutional courts and the National Green Tribunal have a continuing duty to ensure that statutory mandates are translated into an effective enforcement system.

Employee Who Accepts Benefits Of Resignation Cannot Later Revoke It Claiming Its Acceptance Was Invalid : Supreme Court

Cause Title: DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY VERSUS B.S. RAWAT (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 761

The Supreme Court has held that an employee who voluntarily resigns, accepts all consequential benefits and secures fresh employment on the strength of that resignation cannot later seek reinstatement by pointing to a technical defect in the authority that initially accepted the resignation.

The Court ruled that while an unauthorized acceptance of resignation can be cured through subsequent ratification by the competent authority, an employee who has treated the resignation as final is also barred from challenging it after having altered his position.

The Court delivered the ruling while deciding disputes involving Bharat Singh Rawat, who had resigned from Delhi Technological University (DTU) and later sought re-appointment on the ground that the resignation was not accepted by the comeptent authority.

Courts Should Adopt Liberal Approach In Condoning Delay In Appeals Filed By Convicts: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Arjun Jani @ Tuntun Versus State of Orissa

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 762

The Supreme Court has held that constitutional courts should adopt a liberal and proactive approach while considering applications for condonation of delay in appeals filed by convicts, observing that procedural delays should not stand in the way of a prisoner's right to challenge a conviction affecting his liberty.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made the observation while setting aside the conviction of an Odisha man who had spent 22 years in prison in a triple murder case. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and criticised the Orissa High Court for rejecting his delayed jail appeal at the threshold.

The Court opened its judgment by expressing anguish over the Orissa High Court's earlier refusal to condone a delay of 3,157 days in filing the jail appeal, despite the convict having already undergone 12 years of imprisonment at the time.

Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict After 22 Years In Jail, Flags Collective Failure Of Criminal Justice System

Cause Title: Arjun Jani @ Tuntun Versus State of Orissa

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 762

The Supreme Court (August 4) expressed displeasure with the collective failure of the criminal justice system, where the trial court failed to evaluate the evidence properly, and the High Court remained a mute spectator, leading to the convict spending cumulatively 22 years in jail and being subjected to third-degree torture in custody to make out a confession based on a mere suspicion.

In a strongly worded observation, the Bench remarked that the case reflected multiple institutional failures.

"Three lives were snuffed out, having been bludgeoned to death, a person taken into custody on mere suspicion from whom a confession,though not admissible was extracted employing third-degree methods, the trial court fails to evaluate the evidence properly and the High Court remains a moot spectator while adding to the tally of disposals; cumulatively resulting in 22 years being erased out of a person's life without any reliable evidence.”, the Court observed.

Failure To Add Company As Accused In Cheque Dishonour Case Can't Be Cured By Summoning It Under S.319 CrPC : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MANJULA KAPOOR VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 763

The Supreme Court has held that the failure to arraign a company as an accused in a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a fatal defect that cannot be cured by subsequently summoning the company as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the trial.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi ruled that where a cheque is drawn on a company's bank account, prosecution of the company is a mandatory precondition for fastening vicarious liability on its directors or authorised signatories under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the High Court erred in directing the trial court to invoke Section 319 CrPC to implead the company after the trial had commenced.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Manjula Kapoor against an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The complaint alleged that M/s Cine Prime Entertainment owed the complainant Rs. 5 lakh and had issued a cheque signed by Kapoor, its authorised signatory. After the cheque was dishonoured, the complainant initiated proceedings only against Kapoor without making the company an accused or issuing the statutory demand notice to it. The High Court however allowed the complainant to cure this defect by summoning the company as an additional accused under S.319 CrPC. Challenging this, the director approached the Supreme Court.

Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Parameters On Recall Of Witness : Supreme Court Explains

Cause Title: K. BHARATHAMMA VERSUS BANDARU SAKKU BAI AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 764

The Supreme Court (August 4) reiterated that the power of the Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC only permits recall of witnesses for examination by the Court itself, not for cross-examination by either of the parties

“…the scope and object of Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC, was to enable the court to clarify doubts regarding evidence led by the party. It was further stated that the provision was not meant to fill up the omissions in the already adduced evidence. It was held that the power to recall a witness who has been examined earlier cannot be exercised for further examination-in-chief or for adducing additional material or evidence, for, such nature of power was available under Order XVIII Rule 17A, CPC, which has been since deleted.”, observed a bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria.

The Court summed up the position on Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC in the following terms:

Cheque Dishonour | Defence That Complainant Lacks Financial Capacity Ought To Be Raised In Accused's Reply Notice : Supreme Court

Cause Title: KUNTEGOWDA VERSUS THURUBAIAH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 765

The Supreme Court has held that the initial burden of raising a defence that the complainant lacked the financial capacity to advance a loan rests on the accused and must ordinarily be taken in the reply to the statutory demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. If no such plea is raised at that stage, the complainant cannot later be expected to lead evidence proving his financial capacity while presenting his case.

The Supreme Court (August 4) held that a complainant's financial incapacity to extend the loan ought to be specifically pleaded in a reply to a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

“…the failure of the accused to respond to the statutory notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act gives rise to an inference that the complainant's version carries merit. The initial burden of raising a defence that the complainant lacked the financial capacity to advance the loan rests upon the accused and ought to have been specifically pleaded in the reply to the demand notice.”, observed a bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the Karnataka High Court's decision to acquit the Respondent in a cheque dishonour case.

Judgments Are Retrospective Unless Expressly Made Prospective : Supreme Court

Cause Title: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. VS. SRI DEVRAJ URS MEDICAL COLLEGE (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 766

The Supreme Court has reiterated that unless its judgment expressly states that the decision would apply prospectively, it shall apply retrospectively.

“If a decision of the Apex Court does not expressly provide its application to be prospective, then it is settled law that all decisions of this Court are retrospective in application…”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.

The bench made this observation while setting aside that part of the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had directed the Appellant, Union and State Governments to release the subvention amount for the entire 5 years even after academic year 2002-03, ignoring the fact that the scheme, which introduced the subvention amount in 1995 was declared to be unconstitutional by a 11-judge bench in TMA Pai Foundation & Ors vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.

Central Excise | 'Mere Grouping And Unpacking Does Not Attract Excise Duty', Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue's ₹17.86 Crore Demand Against Xerox

Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-IV VERSUS M/S XEROX INDIA LTD. & ORS. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 767

The Supreme Court (August 5) held that a mere grouping and fitting together of imported photocopier modules for dispatch to customers does not amount to “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, 1944, to attract an excise duty.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the Customs Excise & Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT) order to set aside the central excise demand of ₹17.86 crore raised against Xerox India Ltd. for grouping imported modules and accessories according to customer specifications before dispatch.

“By grouping the parts of a complete copier with printer or without printer, assigning the parts in each set a unique number using a computer, we hold, does not amount to manufacture. There is no conversion of an incomplete machine into a complete machine in the warehouse to attract the Section Note 6 of Section XVI.”, the Court approved the CESTAT reasoning, while rejecting the revenue's contention that the activity amounted to a manufacture to attract the excise duty.

'Washed-Off Theory' Doesn't Apply While Deciding If Employee Is Fit To Be Retained : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SUSHIL SHARMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 768

The Supreme Court (August 6) held that while assessing the employee's suitability for retention in service, the employer is not obligated to take a decision based on the recent service record of the employee; rather, the decision shall be guided by the entire service record of the employee.

This means the "washed-off theory", which wipes out adverse entries once an employee is promoted, has no application when assessing an employee's suitability for retention in service.

“…while the “washed-off theory” may operate in matters relating to promotion, it has no application where the competent authority assesses the suitability of an employee for continued retention in service.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, while upholding the compulsory retirement of the ex-CISF personnel, who challenged his compulsory retirement on the ground that compulsory retirement assessments shall not be based on the "entire service record”.

Arbitration | Involvement In Performance Of Underlying Contract A Factor To Decide If Non-Signatory Bound By Agreement : Supreme Court

Cause Title: KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Ashiesh Shukla and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 769

The Supreme Court (August 5) held that the involvement of a non-signatory in the performance of the contract would be a factor to consider if they would be bound by the arbitration agreement.

“…the participation of a non-signatory in the performance of the underlying contract is the most important factor to be considered as the conduct of the non-signatory parties is an indicator of the intention of those parties to be bound by the arbitration agreement.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, while setting aside that part of the Delhi High Court's decision which had excluded the Respondent No.1 from the ambit of the arbitration proceedings merely because he was non-signatory to the contract, thereby ignoring his involvement in performing the underlying contract.

The dispute arose out of a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) under which the Appellant company agreed to acquire another company and its sister concern for a settlement consideration of ₹8 crore.

National Highways Act | Reference Court Can Incidentally Determine Title For Compensation Entitlement : Supreme Court

Cause Title: K. VENKATASWAMY & ORS. VS. GOWRAMMA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 770

The Supreme Court ruled that a Reference Court under the National Highways Act can incidentally determine questions of title for determining entitlement to compensation.

“The jurisdiction exercised by the Reference Court under Section 3H (4) is, therefore, wide enough to incidentally determine questions of title insofar as such determination is necessary for deciding the person entitled to the compensation arising out of the acquisition. Any contrary interpretation would frustrate the legislative scheme and compel parties to simultaneously pursue independent civil suits for declaration of title, thereby defeating the very object of referring the dispute to the principal civil court.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The bench set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had interfered with the Reference court's decision to declare Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 as the absolute owners of the acquired land to receive the entire compensation amount arising out of the acquisition proceedings

Grant Reservation To Military Cadets Disabled 40% Or More During Training Under Ex-Military Personnel Quota : Supreme Court To States/UTs

Cause Title: IN RE: CADETS DISABLED IN MILITARY TRAINING STRUGGLE

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 771

To strengthen the welfare and rehabilitation of cadets discharged from military training due to disabilities, the Supreme Court has directed States and Union Territories to consider granting reservation to such “out-boarded” cadets with 40% or more disability under the Ex-Military Personnel (Ex-MP) quota, while affirming their entitlement to reservation benefits under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Out-boarded cadets are those who are discharged from the military service owing to the disability sustained during the training. While hearing the suo motu case, a bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan directed the States/UTs to consider the grant of reservation benefits to such out-boarded cadets under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, which mandates reservation of at least four percent of vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities.

“We find that the out boarded cadets ought to be entitled to the benefit of the said provision and make their applications for employment accordingly in the reserved category in terms of the aforesaid Act...The States are directed to consider granting reservation to out boarded cadets in the quota of “ExMilitary Personnel (Ex-MP)” so that the prospects of employment of these persons in the reserved category would be enhanced in the States and Union Territories within the respective cadres of posts in the services under the States.”, the Court said.

Civil Courts Can Adjudicate Succession Disputes Between Non-Tribals In Scheduled Areas Of Andhra Pradesh : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MUKKERA VENKATA RATNAM & ORS Versus VANTASALA CHINA VENKATESWARLU & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 772

The Supreme Court (August 6) held that the Civil Courts under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act 1972 are empowered to adjudicate the civil disputes of succession between the non-tribal parties in Schedule Areas.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the Telangana High Court's decision, which held the jurisdiction of the civil court would be barred under the AP Civil Courts Act (“Act”) to adjudicate the disputes between the non-tribal parties living in the Schedule Areas.

As per the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred to adjudicate civil disputes between the tribal parties because of the non-extension of the Act to Scheduled Areas. The Court said that the Act doesn't bar the civil courts jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between the non-tribal parties even though they are living in schedule area.

Public Trusts Registered Outside MP Entitled To Exemption Under M.P. Accommodation Control Act : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SCINDIA DEVESTHAN TRUST VERSUS JAMUNA PRASAD SARASWAT (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 773

The Supreme Court has held that, in view of the Madhya Pradesh Government's 2018 notification, public trusts registered outside Madhya Pradesh are entitled to exemption under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Consequently, such trusts are not subject to the restrictions and protections available to tenants under the Act while pursuing eviction proceedings.

“In the light of the subsequent notification dated 02.07.2018 which was in continuation to the earlier notification dated 07.07.1989, the finding of the High Court under the impugned order that the notification dated 07.07.1989 would bar the suits being prosecuted by the trust which are registered outside the State of Madhya Pradesh would not hold water.”, observed a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

The Court set aside the MP High Court's order, which rejected the Scindia Devesthan Trust eviction suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC against the Respondent-tenants, for want of its locus to file an eviction suit, since the trust, despite holding several properties in the State of MP, is registered outside MP.

Supreme Court Approves Guidelines On Judicial Sensitivity In Sexual Offence Cases; Directs All Courts To Follow

Case: In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad In Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 And Ancillary Issues | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

Citation : 2026 Livelaw (SC) 774

The Supreme Court approved a report placed before it by the National Judicial Academy's Expert Committee containing guidelines on judicial sensitivity in sexual offense cases.

Further, it directed all Courts in the country to strictly follow the expressions used in the approved guidelines/handbook.

As per the order, the approved guidelines/handbook shall be uploaded on the websites of the Supreme Court, all High Courts as well as District Courts (where such websites exist). They shall also be circulated to the National and all State Judicial Academies, as well as National Law Universities and Law Departments of other Universities.

Preventive Detention | Failure To Inform Right To Represent Fatal; It's Not Cured Even If Detenu Sends Representation: Supreme Court

Cause Title: ALFIYA.A VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 775

The Supreme Court has held that a preventive detention order would be rendered illegal if the detaining authority fails to inform the detenu of his right to make a representation before it, even if the detenu independently submitted such a representation.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, upon finding that the detaining authority failed to inform the detenu about his right to make a representation before the authority.

“The fact that the detenu nevertheless addressed one of his representations to the Detaining Authority cannot cure the failure to inform him of that constitutional right. The obligation was upon the authority to communicate the right and could not depend upon whether the detenu independently became aware of it… The detenu was not informed of his right to represent to the Detaining Authority who had made the order… These infirmities violate Article 22(5) of the Constitution and are sufficient to render the continued detention of the detenu illegal.”, the Court observed.

Mere Marking Of Document As Exhibit Is Not Proof Of Contents : Supreme Court

Cause Title: S. SANGEETHA & ORS. VERSUS TMT. P. PONNI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 776

The Supreme Court (August 7) held that objections to the admissibility of a document that is prima facie relevant to the adjudication of a suit cannot ordinarily be decided at the threshold stage merely because the document has been exhibited.

The Court said that a mere exhibition of a document, during the initial stage of a trial, does not amount to proof of its contents; as such, exhibited documents need to be proved in accordance with law.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard the case arising out of a Madras High Court's decision to dismiss the Appellant-defendant's plea against the refusal of the High Court to exercise powers under Order XIII Rule 3 of CPC to eschew certain documents exhibited by the Respondent-plaintiff in their proof affidavit in a probate proceeding.

Lawyers Must Act Decently Not Only With Own Clients But Also With Opposite Parties : Supreme Court

Cause Title: SUDHENDU PRAKASH GAUTAM VERSUS S.L. CHAUDHARY

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 777

The Supreme Court advised lawyers to represent themselves decently within the court's premises not only with their client(s), but also with the opposite counsel(s) and their client(s).

“…behaviour of a lawyer in the Court premises is one such important factor which attracts the allegation of misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. Every lawyer has a duty to act decently in the Court premises not only with his own clients but, also towards the lawyers appearing from the other side and also to the parties against whom he is appearing. Any indecent behavior inside the Court premises can be taken cognizance of by the concerned State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India, as the case may be, and the case would not be thrown out only on this ground alone.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.

The matter pending before the Court since October 2012 came for final disposal only this year.  The Appellant-an advocate was aggrieved by the Bar Council of India's decision to suspend his bar license for a period of one year for misconduct. Since 2012, the interim stay on the suspension of the Appellant's bar license has been in operation.

Retrospective Tax Liability Valid, But Not Retrospective Penalty : Supreme Court

Cause Title: ASIA SUGAR & CHEMICAL CO., DEVANGERE VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 778

The Supreme Court has held that while a tax liability can validly be imposed retrospectively through legislative amendment, penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively on a dealer who had complied with the law as it stood when the transaction took place.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale made the distinction while upholding the constitutional validity of a 2001 amendment to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, which retrospectively restricted the exemption available to sugar to sugar “produced or manufactured in India”.

The Court held that Karnataka was competent to retrospectively withdraw the exemption and that the principal tax liability arising from the amendment could be recovered. However, it ruled that dealers who had not collected tax because the commodity was exempt under the then-existing law could not subsequently be subjected to penalty merely because the Legislature retrospectively altered the legal position.

'Identical Eyewitness Accounts Bear Imprint Of Tutoring', Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of 20 Persons In Murder Case

Case Details: Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan v. State of Maharashtra and Others Etc. (With Connected Case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 779

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of twenty persons in a murder case, after finding that the conviction was based on the strikingly similar nature of the eyewitness accounts, which the Court deemed improbable given that the incident involved a large number of persons being witnessed by several individuals positioned differently.

“It is a settled principle that an identical and stereotyped version bears the imprint of tutoring rather than of truthful recollection.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while upholding the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench judgment which, had found the case to be suspicious that all eyewitnesses gave identical testimonies, despite the incident occurring in the presence of a large number of persons positioned differently. This lack of differentiation in their accounts, the Court noted, undermined the prosecution's case and warranted acquittal

“In a normal course, where a single occurrence involving a large number of persons is witnessed by several persons who are differently placed, and some of them themselves are under assault, it is expected and natural that the accounts which they give will ordinarily bear the marks of individual perception. Differences of detail in such a narration are the natural product of the circumstances in which the observation was made, and their presence lends assurance rather than detracting from it.”, the Court observed.

Sale Deed Not Invalid Just Because Consideration Not Paid : Supreme Court

Case Details: Raziya Begum & Ors. v. Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 780

The Supreme Court ruled that an actual payment of the sale consideration at the time of execution is not necessary for completion of the sale; and the remedy against the non-payment of the balance consideration would be to file a money recovery suit rather than seeking a cancellation of sale deed.

“When a sale deed is registered, even upon part payment of the sale price, title would pass to the transferee. The non-payment of remaining part of the sale price would not invalidate it and the remedy would be to recover the balance sale consideration, but not cancellation of sale deed for non-payment of balance sale consideration.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The Court set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench judgment passed in a second appeal, which had interfered with the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and trial court, approving the execution of a sale deed merely on a part payment of sale consideration.

GST | Exporters Whose Applications Were Pending Before Omission Of Rule 96(10) Entitled To IGST Refund : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Goodluck India Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (And Connected Cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 781

The Supreme Court has given a quietus to the controversy surrounding exporters' eligibility to claim Integrated Tax (IGST) refunds, with their applications pending when the rule restricting such claims was omitted in 2024 without any saving clause.

Providing relief to exporters, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that exporters whose applications were pending when the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules occurred can now claim an IGST refund without any restrictions.

Rule 96(10) had imposed restrictions on exporters claiming refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on exported goods if they had availed benefits under specified exemption schemes, including Advance Authorisation and Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) schemes.

Immediate FIR Must Be Registered For Every Missing Person, Irrespective Of Age Or Gender: Supreme Court Warns States

Case Title – G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 782

The Supreme Court clarified that its direction requiring police to immediately register an FIR on receiving information about a missing person applies to every person, irrespective of age or gender. The Court said the word "person" in its earlier order cannot be understood as referring only to children and warned that States and Union Territories that failed to comply with the direction could face contempt proceedings.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan passed the direction while reviewing compliance with its earlier orders in proceedings concerning measures to prevent human trafficking and to trace missing persons.

The Court noted that under its order dated May 22, 2026, all States had been directed to register an FIR upon receiving information regarding any missing person. However, the Court was informed that some States were proceeding on the understanding that the word “person” in the earlier order referred only to children.

'Supreme Sacrifice' : Supreme Court Grants ₹10 Lakh To Shaurya Chakra Awardee's Widow

Case Details: Kuldeep Kaur v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 783

The Supreme Court has directed the Union of India to pay an additional ₹10 lakh to the widow of a General Reserves Engineering Force (GREF) employee who was posthumously awarded the Shaurya Chakra after sacrificing his life while saving fellow workers during road construction along the India-China border.

A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, extended the benefit of extraordinary family pension to the widow from the date of her husband's death in 2000, despite her counsel having earlier restricted the claim for arrears to three years preceding the filing of her writ petition.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Kuldeep Kaur, widow of late Mohan Singh, challenging a January 2026 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Principles Of Judicial Review In Exam Evaluation Disputes : Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: U.P. Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 784

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a power of judicial review cannot be exercised to interfere with the decision of experts in an academic field.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside the Allahabad High Court's order, which had interfered with the academic experts' decision in examination matters.

The High Court issued directions to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission regarding the re-evaluation of answer scripts, the deletion of certain questions, and the awarding of full marks for others.

Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Supreme Court Explains Parameters To Decide Application For Additional Evidence

Case Details: Chowdappa v. Hanumantharayappa and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 785

While reiterating that an application seeking the production of additional evidence at an appellate stage needs to be decided on its own merit before delivering a judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down the parameters to be followed while dealing with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria laid down the following parameters:

"1. An Appellate Court has a statutory duty to deal with an Application for Additional Evidence on its merits. The application cannot be ignored while the Court proceeds to pronounce the final Judgment.

No Inflexible Rule That Alibi Can Be Proved Only In Trial : Supreme Court Quashes S. 498A IPC Case Against BSF Personnel

Case Details: Rahul v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 786

The Supreme Court (August 11) held that the documentary evidence, including official service records establishing the accused's absence from the place of occurrence, constitutes unimpeachable material that can be considered at the threshold stage for quashing of the criminal case.

The Court said that the rule that an accused must ordinarily prove alibi during trial is not an inflexible rule and cannot be interpreted as an absolute bar against considering reliable and undisputed documentary evidence establishing alibi at the pre-trial stage.

“It cannot be read as laying down an inflexible rule that no species of documentary material touching upon presence or absence of the accused may ever be looked into at the threshold, irrespective of its source, character, and the absence of any dispute as to its authenticity.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while setting aside the Allahabad High Court's order which had refused to quash the domestic cruelty case (S. 498A IPC) against the Appellant, a BSF personnel, who was posted near the Indo-Bangladesh border and was not present in Uttar Pradesh when the alleged incident occurred.

4-Steps To Test If Criminal Case Can Be Quashed Based On Defence Material Before Trial : Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: Rahul v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 786

The Supreme Court has reiterated that criminal proceedings can, in exceptional cases, be quashed at the pre-trial stage on the basis of defence material or official records, where such material is of an unimpeachable nature and demonstrates that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

In its judgment inRahul v. State of Uttar Pradesh, pronounced on August 11, 2026, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih applied the four-step test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) to hold that criminal proceedings could be quashed on the basis of an undisputed official service record.

The Court clarified that the general rule against evaluating defence evidence at the stage of a petition under Section 482 CrPC does not mean that courts must mechanically ignore documentary material which is unimpeachable, contemporaneous and capable of conclusively demolishing the prosecution case.

Insider Trading Presumed When Person Having Confidential Information Trades; Loss Or Profit Irrelevant : Supreme Court

Case Details: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rajeev Vasant Sheth & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 787

The Supreme Court (August 11) held that a mere possession of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) coupled with trading in securities during the UPSI period is sufficient to attract presumption for insider trading under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015.

Setting aside the Securities Appellate Tribunal's (SAT) order, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed the Securities and Exchange Board of India's (SEBI) appeal, restoring the Regulator's order against the promoters of Tara Jewels Limited (TJL), who had sold substantial portions of their shareholding while in possession of adverse unpublished financial information concerning the company to avoid financial losses.

“It is not in dispute that the respondents were in possession of UPSI. It is also not in dispute that the respondents had sold of large portions or the entirety of their shareholding while in possession of such UPSI. As such, in view of the note appended to Regulation 4 (1) reproduced supra, the purposes for which the proceeds are employed is an irrelevant consideration. The fact that the respondents had indulged in the trades at the relevant point in time is sufficient to conclude that they had conducted insider trading.”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Restores Rape Case Acquittal As Forensic Evidence Contradicts Prosecution Version

Case Details: Ram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 788

The Supreme Court (August 11) restored the acquittal of a man for an offence of rape of a minor, holding that the absence of blood on the victim's clothes and the lack of any injury on her body, as reflected in the forensic and medical evidence, created a grave doubt about the prosecution's case.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment which had reversed the trial court's decision of acquittal, and convicted the Appellant, ignoring the forensic and medical evidence which contradicted the prosecution's version regarding injuries and bloodstains.

“Absence of any blood on the clothes of the victim as well as on the undergarment of the appellant after the garments were subjected to the 'Benzidine test' as per the FSL report is a relevant factor, which cannot be ignored. Thus, when the oral statements of PW2 and PW3 are considered along with the Final Medical Report and the report of the FSL, a grave doubt is created about the version of PW2 and PW3 as regards injury on the body of the victim and bloodstains on the clothes of the victim. The prosecution evidence neither indicates any injury to the private parts of the victim nor trace of any blood on her clothes.”, the Court observed.

Enquiry Necessary To Dismiss Employee For Suppression Of Criminal Antecedents : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shatrughn Yadav v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.) and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 789

The Supreme Court (August 11) observed that the disclosure of criminal antecedents by an employee after joining service would not automatically result in dismissal. The Court held that before passing a termination order, the employer must conduct an enquiry to determine whether the suppression of criminal antecedents was deliberate and must record a finding that the continuation of the employee is unfeasible.

“Termination is therefore not an automatic consequence of the disclosure of criminal antecedents; rather, the specific case of the employee must be considered, and the employer must apply its mind before arriving at a decision.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The bench also laid down two-pronged tests to be satisfied by the employer when considering the termination of an employee on the grounds of suppression of criminal antecedents.

Trademark Suit | Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Period Of Brand Use Though Written Statement Not On Record : Supreme Court

Case: Shabu Kn Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 790

The Supreme Court has held that a defendant in a trademark infringement suit can question the plaintiff during cross-examination about the documents showing when the disputed brand name was first used, even if the defendant's written statement has not been taken on record.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran set aside the High Court's order which had treated the question as a purely factual issue beyond the permissible scope of cross-examination and had directed that it be expunged from the record.

The issue arose from a trademark infringement suit in which Dharampal Premchand Limited had sought, among other reliefs, a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its trade dress and packaging, a declaration concerning its trademarks, and damages.

Arbitration | Post-Award Section 9 Application By Unsuccessful Party Maintainable In Exceptional Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 791

The Supreme Court (August 11) held that to prevent an award holder's enrichment of a bank guarantee while an award was under challenge, an interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 can be extended on an award debtor's application to preserve the efficacy of the challenge in Section 34.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment, which had allowed the Respondent-award debtor's Section 9 application which sought an interim relief against alleged unjust enrichment of a bank guarantee of about Rs. 3.5 crores by an Appellant-award holder during the pendency of a Section 34 application.

The bench noted that there are precedents holdig that a post-award Section 9 application is maintainable in exceptional cases.

CPC | Separate Appeals Not Required Against Common Judgment Deciding Suit & Counterclaim : Supreme Court

Case Details: Basudev & Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 792

In an important development, the Supreme Court has given a quietus to the issue regarding the maintainability of a composite appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure against a single common judgment containing a decision both on the original claim and a counterclaim.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that there's no bar against the maintainability of a composite appeal against a common judgment, which adjudicated both the original claim and counterclaim.

“Finding no contrary or restrictive provisions in the CPC, we hold and declare that a suit and a counterclaim, if adjudicated by a single common judgment; both on the original claim and on the counterclaim, it can be challenged in a composite appeal.”, the Court observed.

S. 9 IBC | Uncrystallized Damages From Breach Of Contract Not Operational Debt : Supreme Court

Case Details: Srinivasa Reddy Velagala. Sravanthi Infratech Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 793

The Supreme Court (August 12) held that claims for damages arising from breach of contract cannot be treated as "operational debt" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, unless previously adjudicated and crystallized by a competent court.

“It is a settled position of law that damages, whether liquidated or unliquidated, cannot be treated as operational debt unless and until they are assessed and crystallized by way of adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction. We say so because the NCLT and NCLAT are not the appropriate fora for determination of disputes. Their functions and powers are for the purpose of ensuring survival of a particular company and alternatively, to ensure maximization of repayment capabilities in the event of liquidation.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.

The dispute arose from an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract, for setting up a 225 MW gas-based power station in Andhra Pradesh. The respondent was awarded the contract for Rs. 827 crore.

Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into Chhattisgarh Custodial Death, Grants ₹25 Lakh Compensation To Kin

Case: Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chhattisgarh, Diary No. 48963/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 794

The Supreme Court transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the probe into the custodial death of a 34-year-old man in Chhattisgarh, taking note of the State police's failure to register an FIR for more than two years after his death.

Despite the death occurring in January 2024, an FIR was apparently registered by the police only on July 30, 2026. The Supreme Court has previously questioned the prolonged failure to register an FIR against the officials allegedly responsible for the custodial violence.

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm opinion that the ends of justice require that investigation into the circumstances leading to the custodial death of Shravan be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation and that all officials found responsible for the custodial violence upon completion of the investigation be proceeded against and prosecuted in accordance with law”, the Court ordered.

S. 14 Limitation Act | Time Spent In Winding Up Proceedings Cannot Be Excluded For Filing Recovery Suit : Supreme Court

Case Details: Mageba Bridge Products Private Limited v. M/S. Trade Centre

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 795

The Supreme Court (August 12) held that the period spent in pursuing winding up proceedings cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for filing a recovery suit, as the relief sought in the two proceedings is fundamentally different

“…the initiation of a winding up proceeding, which may or may not enable recovery, will not impact the limitation for the separate remedy of suit for recovery of money.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The respondent filed a suit for recovery of ₹24,36,105/- in June 2010 based on unpaid invoices dating back to January 2006 and March 2007, i.e., beyond the three-year limitation period.

Interest Accumulated In Suspense Account After NPA Classification Remains Recoverable As Part Of "Debt" : Supreme Court

Case Details: Punjab National Bank v. M/S. Shree Jyoti Education and Management Trust World and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 796

The Supreme Court (August 12) held that an interest accumulated in a separate suspense account, pursuant to the declaration of the debtor's account as a Non-Performing Asset, can be recovered by the banks as the same continues to form part of the “debt” due from the borrower and cannot be ignored while calculating outstanding dues.

“PNB is entitled to claim the interest due, which was calculated and maintained in a separate suspense account, in addition to the outstanding principal loan amount…”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, while allowing the Punjab National Bank's appeal against the Orissa High Court's judgment which denied interest to the bank maintained in the suspense account for the interest due on the outstanding loan amount.

The dispute arose from a ₹5 crore loan sanctioned in 2011 by United Bank of India (now merged with PNB) to the Respondent for construction of a college building.

S.69 GST Order Containing 'Reasons To Believe' Must Be Communicated Before Arrest : Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India v. Sunil Biyani

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 797

In an important development, the Supreme Court (August 12) held that no arrest shall take place under the Central GST Act for alleged major tax evasions or fraud unless an order passed under Section 69 recording the 'reasons to believe' to arrest is communicated to the assessee.

"…the requirement of communication of the order passed under Section 69 of the CGST Act to the accused before he is arrested, has to be read into the statute and communication of such an order to the person sought to be arrested must be held to be mandatory.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.

As per Section 69 of the CGST Act, if the Commissioner has reasons to believe that a person has committed any specified offence, he may, by order, authorise any officer of central tax to arrest such person.

Supreme Court Deprecates Courts Holding 'Mini-Trials' In Temporary Injunction Matters

Case Details: Shruti Manav Sharma & Anr. v. Sunanina Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 798

The Supreme Court (August 12) deprecated the practice of holding a mini-trial at the stage of a grant of an interlocutory order under the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that the courts, while hearing the application for temporary injunction, must confine their findings to the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

“We accordingly do not approve the practice of writing lengthy, merits-laden orders, whether at the interlocutory stage or in appeal from it, on applications for temporary injunction, and emphasise that courts confine such orders to recording, with reasons, their findings on the three settled conditions of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, without embarking upon an examination of the final merits or the probable outcome of the issues that properly arise for trial.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.

The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's Division Bench order, which had interfered with the interlocutory order passed by the Single Judge, in ignorance of the law laid down in Wander Ltd. & Anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 Supp. SCC 727, that “interference is warranted only where the discretion below has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or contrary to settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of temporary injunctions.”

Electrocution Deaths Attract Strict Liability On Electricity Boards, Not Absolute Liability: Supreme Court

Case Details: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Rekha & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 799

The Supreme Court has ruled that electricity authorities can be held strictly liable for deaths or injuries caused by electrocution, but such liability cannot be treated as absolute liability without exceptions.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the concurrent orders of the Single and Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, which had imputed an absolute liability upon the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation for the deaths occurred due to electrocution.

The judgment arose from two electrocution incidents, including the death of a man who came into contact with an 11 KV transmission line and the severe injury suffered by another person after he came into contact with a 66 KV line while attempting to retrieve a cricket ball.

Composite Appeal Against Common Judgment In Suits By Same Plaintiff Is Maintainable: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bassanna Since Deceased By Lrs. and Others v. Bhimanna and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 800

The Supreme Court (August 12) held that a composite appeal against a common judgment passed in the suits filed by the same plaintiff would be maintainable.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment, which had interfered with the First Appellate Court's decision to entertain a composite appeal filed by the Appellant against a common judgment adjudicating two suits instituted by the Appellant (plaintiff).

“…we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. The question as framed is answered by holding that the composite appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code was maintainable in the circumstances in which it was presented. The first appellate Court rightly entertained it and adjudicated it on merits. The High Court committed an error in holding that the composite appeal filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable.”, the Court observed.

Retired Judges Appointed In Central Industrial Tribunals Can't Claim Pay Parity With Other Tribunal Members : Supreme Court

Case Details: R.K. Yadav & Anr. v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 801

The Supreme Court (August 12) dismissed a writ petition filed by ex-judicial officers, who were re-employed as Presiding Officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts, seeking pay scales equivalent to those granted to other National Tribunals under the 6th Pay Commission recommendations.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria justified the differential pay scales to the petitioners equivalent to that of officers in the District Judiciary as per the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee, noting that “the re-employed class could be reasonably and rationally classified separately for the purpose of applying pay scales which may not be equivalent to and on the same pedestal with the other classes.”

“Upon re-employment, the reemployed officers/persons would cease to be homogeneous vis-à-vis class of regular officers in employment of the government.”, the Court said.

Re-employed Officers Can Be Treated Separately From Regular Officers: Supreme Court

Case Details: R.K. Yadav & Anr. v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 801

The Supreme Court has held that government officers who are re-employed after retirement can legitimately be treated as a separate class from regular government employees for the purpose of pay fixation, ruling that such a classification does not violate the constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Presiding Officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts (CGIT-cum-LCs), who had sought the benefit of the 6th Central Pay Commission scales.

The Court emphasised that an officer who returns to government service after retirement does not remain part of the same homogeneous class as a regular government employee. According to the judgment, re-employed officers have a "substantial distinction" from regular government officers, allowing the government to classify them separately when determining their pay and service conditions.

Practices Like Witch-Hunting Still Persist; Superstition Supersedes Constitutional Morality, Laments Supreme Court

Case Details: Balku Oram v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 802

Expressing deep concern over the persistence of witch-hunting in parts of Indian society, the Supreme Court has observed that superstition, prejudice and irrational fear continue to supersede the rule of law and constitutional morality, leaving vulnerable women exposed to brutal violence and social ostracisation.

The observation came while dismissing an appeal filed by Balku Oram against his conviction and life sentence for the 1998 murder of Puni Naik in Odisha. The Court found that Oram and his co-accused had brutally assaulted Naik after she was accused of practising witchcraft, ultimately causing her death.

“…the facts of the present case have deeply disturbed the conscience of this Court, wherein a defenseless women was branded as a practitioner of witch-craft and what effect it must have had on the daughter of the deceased who had to witness her mother being killed in the most brutal way.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria.

Does Tenancy End On Execution Of Agreement To Sell Between Landord-Tenant? Supreme Court Answers

Case Details: Nazim Shaikh Hasan v. Nasir Mushtaq Shaikh and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 803

The Supreme Court (August 13) held that a subsisting tenancy would not cease to operate upon a mere agreement to sell with a landlord-seller. According to the Court, the determination of a tenancy post-agreement to sell would be dependent upon the terms of the agreement to sell or the unequivocal conduct of the parties.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria laid down the guiding principles which may be useful in adjudication of pleas concerning the determination of tenancy post-execution of an agreement to sell between the landlord and tenant.

"(i) the mere execution of an agreement to sell between a landlord and tenant does not ipso facto bring about a determination of the subsisting tenancy;

Substantial Compliance With S.42 NDPS Act Sufficient In Situations Requiring Immediate Seizure : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kashmir Ram @ Pappi v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 804

The Supreme Court has held that where narcotics-related information is received in circumstances requiring the immediate interception of a moving vehicle, the requirements of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have to be assessed in the context of the urgency of the situation. On the facts of the case, the Court found substantial compliance with the statutory safeguards and refused to invalidate the recovery on the basis of procedural deficiencies.

The Court made the observations while dismissing the appeal of a person, who was convicted for possession of 200 kg of poppy husk. The Court upheld his 10-year rigorous imprisonment and ₹1 lakh fine.

One question before the Supreme Court was whether the police had complied with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which regulates the power of an empowered officer to enter, search and seize narcotic substances without a warrant when acting on information concerning drugs concealed in a building, conveyance or enclosed place.

JJ Act | Conviction Not Vitiated Because Regular Court Tried Juvenile As Adult, But Sentence Cannot Operate : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 805

The Supreme Court has held that a conviction on the merits need not be set aside merely because a juvenile was tried by a regular criminal court. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of an accused who was tried as an adult, the Court set aside the sentence imposed on him after finding that he was a juvenile on the date of the offence.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard the case where the Appellant-accused was tried by a regular court and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing an offence of murder.

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant-accused sought setting aside of his conviction on the ground that the conviction rendered by a regular court was ex facie illegal, as his juvenility was proved during the pendency of an appeal.

Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 10 Lakh Cost On Reliance Industries Ltd For Obstructing 20-Year-Old NTPC Suit

Case Details: Reliance Industries Limited v. Ntpc Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 806

The Supreme Court (August 14) imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on Reliance Industries Ltd. for prolonging a 20-year-old commercial suit filed by NTPC. The cost imposed was directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe strongly disapproved of RIL's litigation strategy, noting that the suit filed in 2005 is still at the evidence stage, with the company raising objections at every turn.

“The following facts would reveal that the power of the RIL to litigate and obstruct progress of the suit seems unlimited. There is no dearth of financial resources, no obligation to aid and assist the court to cope with pending backlog of cases, perhaps it is lucrative for RIL to raise some objection or the other at every stage and when the trial court rejects it, the appellate and special leave jurisdictions open up…it is compelling for us to note that the suit filed by NTPC way back in 2005 has not progressed much. At every stage there has been obstruction… In all, two decades have passed by and the suit is still at the stage of evidence.”, the Court observed.

'Should India Remain Underdeveloped?' : Supreme Court Slams Union's Opposition To Adopt Global Norms On Food Package Labelling

Case Details: 3s and Our Health Society v. Union of India and Anr | 15 Ma 1177/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 807

The Supreme Court disapproved of the Union's stand that it can't follow international standards when it comes to issuing interpretative warnings of high sugar, sodium or fat content on packaged food items. The Court questioned if India should remain underdeveloped, ignoring that obesity remains a significant public health concern.

The observations were made in the context of the failure of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to implement the Front-of-Package labelling (FOPL), a standard adopted at the international level.

It may be recalled that the Court on February 10 observed that FSSAI failed to file a satisfactory affidavit on mandatory compliance with FOPL. It directed them to file another compliance report, and the matter was then taken up on August 13 before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran. However, the Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar(for FSSAI) informed the bench that it can't comply with the FOPL as Indian dietary standards are different from those followed internationally.

CPC | Residential Property Exemption u/s 60(1)(ccc) Is Personal To Judgment-Debtor; LR Can't Claim : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sheela Gehlot v. Mohini Hardayal Singh & Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 808

The Supreme Court has observed that a plea filed by a judgment-debtor's legal representative seeking an exemption from an attachment of the judgment-debtor's main residential house would not be maintainable under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [which is applicable in Punjab and Delhi].

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that only the judgment-debtor is entitled to claim an exemption from attachment of a main residence under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC, and the same cannot be extended to his legal representative post-death of the judgment-debtor.

“…the plea of exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code is personal to the judgment-debtor and is not available to be raised by his legal representatives.”, the Court said.

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sameem Begum and Others v. K. Venkat Swamy and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 809

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a legal representative of a person killed in a motor accident can maintain a claim for compensation even if the particular legal representative was not financially dependent on the deceased.

The Court, relying on its earlier decisions, emphasised that “liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned.”

“Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person because of a motor vehicle accident has a remedy for realisation of compensation to be paid under different heads.”, observed the bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice NV Anjaria. The Court stated that legal representatives who are not dependants are entitled to claim compensation under heads such as loss of consortium.

Fleeing After Friend's Drowning, Though Reprehensible Conduct, Not Per Se Suggestive Of Murder: Supreme Court

Case Details: Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr. v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 810

The Supreme Court has held that fleeing from the spot after witnessing a friend drown and failing to inform the deceased's family, though “reprehensible” conduct, cannot by itself be treated as an incriminating circumstance to establish murder.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran acquitted two individuals who were convicted over the death of a deceased who accidentally died by drowning in a river. Except for the appellants, there was no eyewitness to the incident; no one saw the Appellants last time with the deceased.

However, the prosecution emphasized the post-incident conduct of the Appellants, as they fled away from the place of the incident to watch a movie and didn't report the incident to the deceased's family promptly. The prosecution attributed such conduct of the appellants to be incriminating material against them.

Delay In Processing Compassionate Appointment Application Cannot Defeat Claim Of Otherwise Eligible Dependent : Supreme Court

Case Details: Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya & Ors. v. General Manager Western Coalfields Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 811

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be denied to a beneficiary merely on account of delay or inaction by the employer in processing an application.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where a son's application seeking a benefit of a compassionate appointment was rejected by the employer, Western Coalfields Limited, finding him to be crossing a permissible age limit at the time of consideration of his application.

According the Appellant no.2-son of the deceased, he had preferred an application for seeking a compassionate appointment on 14.06.2021, when he was below 35 years of age, and a delay/inaction on the part of the Respondent in processing his application for about 19 months before it was rejected on 03.02.2023, would not be a ground to reject his application on account of the Appellant no.2 age exceeding the permissible age limit at the time of consideration of the application.

Remand Not To Be Ordered When Appellate Court Can Decide Issue Omitted By Trial Court Based On Already Adduced Evidence : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shivappa v. Shantavva and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 812

The Supreme Court has reiterated that an appellate court should not routinely remand a case to the trial court merely because a particular issue was not separately framed, where the pleadings, evidence and issues already on record enable the appellate court to decide the dispute itself.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard the case where a Karta, out of a legal necessity to repay the loan taken for the daughter's marriage, had sold out the Hindu Undivided Family property to the buyer/Appellant. Based on the pleadings and issues arising thereof, the sale deed was upheld by the trial court.

In a First Appeal filed before the Dharwad Circuit Bench of the Karnataka High Court by the plaintiffs-co-sharers, a remand order was passed remanding the case back to the trial court for failing to frame a specific issue of whether the sale deed was sham and that an issue concerning limitation had also not been specifically framed.

Evidence Act | S.69 Can Be Invoked To Prove Will Only If Impossible To Prove Attestation Under S. 68: Supreme Court

Case Details: Pazhanathal (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. v. Alamathal (Dead) Through Lrs.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 813

The Supreme Court has held that Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked as an alternative to the ordinary mode of proving a Will under Section 68. The Court said that ordinarily a Will must be proved under Section 68, it can only be proved under Section 69 once the propounder establishes that no attesting witness can be found for proving a Will under Section 68.

“Section 69 of the Evidence Act is, therefore, not an alternative which the propounder may freely choose, but it is an exceptional mode available only when proof through an attesting witness has become impossible (under Section 68).”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while setting aside the Madras High Court's judgment which had upheld the validity of a Will by directly invoking Section 69 of the Evidence Act, bypassing the requirement under Section 68. The Court clarified that before a Will can be proved under Section 69, it must first be established that neither of the two attesting witnesses can be found.

Section 68 of the Evidence Act prescribes the ordinary statutory method of proving a Will. The propounder ordinarily has to examine at least one attesting witness for proving the Will. Section 69 provides a mechanism for proving execution when the normal attesting-witness evidence under Section 68 has become impossible. As per Section 69, a propounder of a Will must prove that at least one attestation is in the witness's handwriting and the maker's signature is in their own handwriting. Section 69 is comparatively an easier mode of proving a Will than Section 68.

Mere Official Reprimand By Superior Not Abetment Of Suicide Without Intent To Drive Subordinate To Death : Supreme Court

Case Title: Vinod Shivakumar v. State of Maharashtra (SLP Crl. 17179/2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 814

The Supreme Court has held that ordinary administrative directions, disciplinary supervision, adverse remarks on official performance or even stern behaviour by a superior officer cannot, by themselves, be treated as abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), unless there is additional material showing a conscious intention to drive the subordinate to take her own life.

The Court discharged a Deputy Conservator of Forests who was accused of abetting the suicide of a subordinate Forest Range Officer, holding that there was no “proximate act of instigation” immediately preceding the suicide that could be considered to have driven the deceased to commit suicide.

A Bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the order of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) and that of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting discharge, observing that the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide as under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) were not made out against the appellant.

Speedy Trial Also A Right Of Victim; Accused Cannot Use Pending Gangsters Act Case To Stall Other Trials : Supreme Court

Case Details: Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 815

Observing that a right to a speedy trial is not only the prerogative of the accused, but is also a valuable right of the victim, the Supreme Court (August 17) set aside the Allahabad High Court's order which had kept a murder trial against an accused in abeyance merely because a proceeding under the UP Gangsters Act was pending against him.

Allowing the complainant's appeal, a bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli rejected the Respondent-accused's argument about the precedence of proceedings pending under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”) over other regular criminal proceedings. The Court said that if an argument of the accused is accepted, then it would severely prejudice the right to speedy trial of the victim.

The accused had relied on Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, which gives precedence to cases pending under the Gangsters Act over regular criminal cases. He argued that since a case under the Gangsters Act was pending against him, until its adjudication, a regular criminal trial in a murder case cannot be proceeded with and has to be kept in abeyance.

ECI Affidavit Shows Lakhs Of Election Blackmoney Cases, But Low Convictions; Supreme Court Mandates HC Approval To Withdraw Prosecution

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Prathik Parasrampuria

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 816

While issuing directions to curb the circulation of black money during elections, the Supreme Court took note of statistics furnished by the Election Commission of India on seizures and FIRs registered during the 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections and State Assembly elections held between 2019 and 2025.

The data was placed before the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh in affidavits filed by the Election Commission, in an hearing an appeal arising out of a 2015 Karnataka High Court order that had quashed an FIR against the respondent. The respondent, Prathik Parasrampuria, was a candidate in the 2014 Lok Sabha bye-election from Bellary, and was alleged to have hoarded a large amount of cash for bribing the voters.

The affidavit filed by the Commission reveals that in respect of the FIRs registered during 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Gujarat (35,144) tops the list of States. This is followed by Uttar Pradesh (19,209); Maharashtra (18,928); West Bengal (17,493); Rajasthan (8,652); Telangana (8,550); Andhra Pradesh (6,489); Tamil Nadu (5,106); Punjab (4,869); and Karnataka (4,609).

'Black Money In Elections Corrupts Democracy': Supreme Court Issues Directions To Curb Use Of Unaccounted Cash During Polls

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Prathik Parasrampuria

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 816

The Supreme Court (17.08.2026) issued directions to curb the use of black money in elections, holding that unaccounted cash used to influence voters strikes at the root of free and fair elections and compromises the “very essence of democracy.”

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh issued the directions while hearing an appeal arising out of a 2015 Karnataka High Court order that had quashed an FIR against the respondent. The respondent, Prathik Parasrampuria, was a candidate in the 2014 Lok Sabha bye-election from Bellary, and was alleged to have hoarded a large amount of cash for bribing the voters. The High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that the complaint did not specify whom the accused intended to bribe or the mode he had planned to adopt.

While hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the proceedings to examine the larger systematic issue of black money in elections, and issued notice to the Election Commission of India, the Union government, and all States and Union Territories. Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal and Advocate (Dr.) Swapnil Tripathi were appointed as amici curiae.

Supreme Court Suggests Professional Bondspersons, Dedicated District Staff For Surety Verification

Case Title: Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara & Ors.

Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 14185 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 817

The Supreme Court suggested several measures to reform the system of surety verification, including introducing professional bail bondspersons, creating dedicated personnel in district courts for verification of sureties and developing a nationwide Surety Information Management System (SIMS).

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih made the suggestions while considering the problem of fake sureties in cases involving foreign nationals accused of offences involving commercial quantities under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The Court clarified that these were suggestions for consideration by the relevant authorities and were separate from the directions issued by it.

NDPS | Supreme Court Issues Directions To Curb Fake Sureties In Foreigners' Bail In Drug Cases

Case Title: Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara & Ors.

Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 14185 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 817

The Supreme Court issued a set of directions governing the grant of bail to foreign nationals accused in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih issued the directions while cancelling the bail granted to a Nigerian national, one Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, who was accused in a case involving around 5 kg of heroin.

The case assumed wider significance after the Court discovered that the surety furnished for Nawchara appeared to be fictitious. Investigations found that the address given by the surety did not exist, the employer denied ever employing him and the bank account details furnished in the surety bond could not be verified. The Court was also informed that in at least 38 cases investigated by the Narcotics Control Bureau and nine cases investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, foreign nationals, particularly from Nigeria and Nepal,had absconded after furnishing suspected fake sureties.

Can Pre-Deposit Be Mandated To Invoke Arbitration? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench, Doubts 2009 Precedent

Case Details: M/S Santosh Associate Private Limited v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 818

The Supreme Court (August 17) referred the question to a larger Bench as to whether pre-deposit conditions in arbitration clauses, requiring contractors to deposit a percentage of the claim amount before invoking arbitration, are valid.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan expressed doubt about the binding nature of the three-judge Bench decision in S.K. Jain v. State of Haryana (2009) 4 SCC 357, which had upheld the legality of pre-deposit clauses in an arbitration agreement.

The Court endorsed the decision of a two-judge bench in ICOMM Tele Ltd. vs. Punjab State Water Supply (2019), which had struck down the pre-deposit clauses, calling them ineffective and making arbitration expensive. Because the two-judge judgment of ICOMM (supra) could not override the principle of law enunciated by the three-judge Bench in S.K. Jain. (supra), the Court requested the Chief Justice of India to consider the desirability as to whether the issues formulated hereunder, or such other issues as may be deemed relevant, do warrant a reference to a larger Bench:

Teacher's Writ Petition Against Private School Maintainable To Enforce Statutory Pay Scale : Supreme Court

Case Details: Siyaram Education Society v. Chhaya D/O Baliram Dhave & Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 819

The Supreme Court has held that a Writ Petition by a private teacher will be maintainable against the private unaided school over the enforcement of the statutory pay scales.

“Imparting education by an institution, recognized under a statute, is akin to performing a public duty. Therefore, teaching activity has a direct nexus in performance of that public duty and if rights of the teaching staff flow from a statute, a writ petition would lie for enforcement of those rights.”, observed a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.

The bench upheld the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench order, which allowed the Respondents-teachers ' writ petition filed under Article 226 for enforcement of a statutory pay scale by the Appellants-private unaided schools.

Sentences Imposed Along Life Imprisonment Must Run Concurrently, Not Consecutively : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna v. State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 820

The Supreme Court (August 18) reiterated that in cases where the convict was sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case along with other sentences for committing multiple offences, the sentence would not run consecutively, but concurrently.

“…in cases where the convict is awarded multiple sentences for multiple offences and one of the sentences awarded is life imprisonment, the sentences must only run concurrently and not consecutively.”, observed a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while modifying the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench order which had upheld the awarding of life sentence and fixed-term sentences to an accused to run consecutively.

“The Trial Court and the High Court awarded the Appellant a sentence of life imprisonment under Sections 449, 302, 364 of IPC and fixed-term sentences under Sections 392 and 201 of IPC which were directed to run consecutively. In light of the discussion above, we deem it appropriate to modify the direction affirmed by the High Court and hold that the sentences of the Appellant shall run concurrently.”, the Court observed, referring to the constitutional bench dictum of Muthuramalingam and Ors. vs. State (2016).

Insurer Not Liable For Risk Beyond Sum Assured Unless Premium Paid In Advance: Supreme Court

Case Title: New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. v. M/S Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 821

The Supreme Court (18.08.2026) has held that an insurer cannot be held liable for a loss occurring at a time when the insured's turnover had already exceeded the sum insured under a Marine Cargo Annual Turnover Policy, and premium for the enhanced turnover had not been paid in advance. The decision was made in view of the bar of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeals filed by the New India Assurance Company against the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), wherein the Commission had directed the appellant to pay the amount assessed by its own surveyor towards a fire loss claim.

The respondent had availed a Marine Cargo Annual Turnover Policy from the appellant for an expected turnover of Rs 1200 Crores, with premium payable in two equal instalments. A fire broke out at a Container Freight Station where the respondent had stored 41,481 cotton bales. Appellant's own surveyor had assessed the loss to be of Rs. 22,01,29,271.

Illegality In Appointment Cannot Be Regularised Citing Long Duration Of Service : Supreme Court

Case Details: Hemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana (With Connected Appeals)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 822

The Supreme Court held that an illegal appointment cannot be allowed to acquire legality merely because the employee has continued in service for a long period, ruling that “illegality cannot be cured and made legal and valid by lapse of time.”

The judgment came in a batch of appeals concerning the deputation and subsequent absorption of four officers of the Haryana Development and Panchayat Department into the Public Works Department (Building & Roads). The officers, Pradeep Atri, Praveen Chaudhary, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia ,had been absorbed as Assistant Engineers/Sub-Divisional Engineers in the PW (B&R) Department.

The Court held that while the deputation of Atri and Chaudhary was illegal, that of Gaur and Bhatia was irregular, the absorption of all four officers was illegal, non est and void. The Court consequently quashed their absorption and directed their repatriation to the Development and Panchayat Department, where their cadre and seniority are to be determined in accordance with the applicable rules

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Abolish Hanging As Method To Execute Death Penalty, Says Union Free To Explore Alternatives

Case Title: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) No. 145/2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 823

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the abolition of death by hanging as a method to execute the death penalty.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude future constitutional scrutiny if compelling medical or scientific evidence emerges demonstrating a need to revisit the issue. The Court clarified that the judgment will also not preclude the Union Government from undertaking a comprehensive review of the method of execution through an expert body to examine if an alternative method will better serve the Constitutional objective of minimising pain and suffering while ensuring dignity.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pronounced the verdict in the petition which sought to declare unconstitutional Section 354 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per which the death sentence is to direct that the prisoner "be hanged by the neck till he is dead."

No Evidence Lethal Injection Is More Humane Than Hanging For Death Sentence: Supreme Court

Case: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) No. 145/2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 823

The Supreme Court observed that there is no concrete scientific material before it to establish that lethal injection (administering drugs intravenously to cause death) is a demonstrably superior or more humane method of executing a death sentence than hanging.

“The available material, therefore, does not establish that lethal injection has any added advantage over hanging as a mode of execution of a death sentence. Hence, the argument advanced by the petitioner that lethal injection is a better and more humane mode of execution of the death sentence is totally unconvincing,” the Court said.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observation while dismissing a plea seeking to strike down the statutory prescription of hanging as the mode of execution of death sentences.

Senior Citizens Tribunal Can Order Eviction Of Children From Parents' Property : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Details: Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 824

The Supreme Court has reiterated that tribunals constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have the power to order the eviction of children from a senior citizen's property when such eviction is necessary to ensure the parent's maintenance, protection and dignity.

“…we have no hesitation in holding that the tribunal under the Act has power to order eviction in order to ensure the maintenance or protection of a senior citizen.”, observed a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe,

The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order, which had overturned the tribunal's direction to evict the appellant's son and wife from his self-acquired property.

Judicial Interference In Tender Process At Advanced Stage Not Warranted, Challenge Must Be Prompt : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Utkarsh Enterprises & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 825

The Supreme Court (August 18) ruled against judicial interference in public procurement tenders at an advanced stage, noting that a belated challenge to tender conditions, after significant developments had taken place in the evaluation process, would be unfair and unjust to otherwise eligible bidders.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli dismissed appeals challenging tender conditions for procurement of sports goods and outdoor gymnasium equipment for government schools in Delhi, noting that the process had substantially advanced and third-party rights had crystallized.

“Judicial discretion, therefore, must be exercised with extreme circumspection to ensure that fence–sitters, proxies, and unscrupulous litigants who bring a challenge at an advanced stage, are not allowed to disrupt an ongoing process.”, the Court observed.

RPF Rules | Employee Who Suppressed Criminal Case Can Be Discharged At Any Point Of Time : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bappa Barai v. Union of India & Ors. (With Connected Cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 826

The Supreme Court has upheld the discharge of a group of Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) constables who failed to disclose pending criminal cases during the recruitment process.

The Court reiterated that the deliberate suppression of material information regarding criminal antecedents clearly bears on the character of the employee and justifies termination.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe noted that as per the RPF Rules, an employee can be discharged at any time for suppressing criminal cases.

Supreme Court Allows Candidate Who Secured Admission On False ST Certificate To Retain Degree

Case Title: Cynthia Julious Charlie v. Vice Chancellor & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 827

Setting aside the orders of the Bombay High Court, the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan allowed the appeals as per its earlier rulings in Ajay Dattatraya Bandewad v State of Maharashtra & Ors and Mrudula v State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The appellant was a pharmacy student at an institution affiliated to Sant Gadge Baba Amaravati University in 2014-15 under the ST category. When the college informed her that she was eligible for admission from the open category, she deposited fees commensurate with an open category student and completed her degree in 2018.

However, the Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected her caste certificate in 2017, for failure to furnish material substantiating her claim. Consequently, the University withheld her 6th and 8th semester marksheets and degree certificate.

Surplus Employee Entitled To Absorption Against Equivalent Or Lower Post, Not Higher Post : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Sudhakar Shivaram Teke & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 828

The Supreme Court has held that a surplus employee cannot claim absorption against a post higher than the one he was holding when declared surplus merely because the two posts carry the same pay scale or the higher post was vacant.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had directed the absorption of the Respondent No.1 to the post higher, i.e., Head of Department, than the post of lecturer he was holding while he was disengaged after being declared as surplus..

“The policy governing absorption could not, therefore, be invoked to confer upon such an employee, at the stage of absorption, a post higher than the post which he was holding when he was declared surplus.”, the Court observed.

Police Can Register FIR Even If Magistrate Rejected S.156 (3) CrPC Application : Supreme Court

Case Details: Pramod Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 829

The Supreme Court (August 19) held that an FIR can be registered by the police even after the dismissal of an application to a magistrate seeking FIR registration under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. / Section 175 (3) of BNSS.

“The rejection of an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.PC cannot curtail or extinguish the independent statutory obligation cast upon the Police under Section 154 of the Cr.PC.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed against the Allahabad High Court's judgment refusal to quash the FIR in a cheating case against the Appellant-accused. Before the High Court, the accused sought the quashing of an FIR on the procedural aspects, arguing that when the complainant's application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC was rejected by the magistrate, then a subsequent registration of an FIR by the police was impermissible.

PC Act | Recovery Of Bribe Amount Alone Insufficient Without Proof Of Demand: Supreme Court

Case Title: Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek v. State of Gujaratandsirajbhai Rasulbhai Vora v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 830

The Supreme Court (19.08.2026) has acquitted a former Talati-cum-Mantri and a Peon of a Gram Panchayat, who were convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the initial demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. It was also observed that mere recovery of a currency note from the co-accused could not sustain the conviction.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar set aside the Gujarat High Court judgment, which upheld the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 12, and 13 (1) (d) of the Act.

The complainant had approached the Mamlatdat to procure an Income Certificate. The application was examined and forwarded to the Talati-cum-Mantri of village Bechri (A1). It was alleged that A1 demanded Rs 120 (Rs 100 for himself and Rs 20 for the Peon, A2), for issuing the certificate. A complaint was filed before the Anti-Corruption Bureau and a trap was laid. The complainant allegedly gave a Rs 20 note to A2, who was caught with the tainted currency.

'All Parties Didn't Consent To Settlement', Supreme Court Sets Aside Lok Adalat Award In Land Acquisition Dispute

Case Details: Singapogu Babu Rao & Ors. v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 831

The Supreme Court (August 19) set aside Lok Adalat awards passed in a land acquisition dispute, holding that the awards could not be sustained as they did not reflect a genuine agreement under Section 29 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since all the disputing claimants were neither parties nor signatories to the settlement.

“…the High Court in its impugned judgment erred in upholding the awards passed by the Lok Adalat. The awards do not reflect a genuine agreement under Section 29 of the Act, 1894, since all disputing claimants were not parties or signatories thereto.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.

The case arose from the acquisition of land in Kommepalli Village for mining operations of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in 2013 determining compensation at ₹3,48,935 per acre. As disputes existed regarding the persons entitled to the compensation and its apportionment, the matter was referred to the District Judge under Sections 30 and 31 of the 1894 Act.

Motor Accident Claim | Acquittal In Criminal Case Per Se Won't Prove Lack Of Negligence : Supreme Court Explains Principles

Case: Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 832

Acquittals in Criminal Court cannot control or dictate the outcome of MACT proceedings, the Supreme Court has held, reiterating that criminal proceedings and motor accident compensation claims operate in distinct legal spheres and are governed by different standards of proof.

"A subsequent acquittal in a criminal case does not affect the assessment of tortious liability under the MV Act... The findings, quashment, or acquittals in Criminal Court cannot control or dictate the outcome of MACT proceedings, which must be evaluated independently on civil standards," the Court held.

The Court explained the following principles regarding the assessment of negligence in motor accident claims :

Referral Charges Received By Auto Dealers For Bank & Insurance Promotion Subject To Service Tax : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Tvs Motor Company Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-Iii

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 833

The Supreme Court (August 19) held that the referral charges received by automobile dealers from banks and insurance companies for facilitating vehicle loans and insurance policies are taxable as “Business Auxiliary Service” under the Finance Act, 1994.

“The assessee is promoting the business of the banks and the insurance company for which they receive an amount as stipulated in the agreement.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

TVS Motor Company Ltd., a dealer in automobiles, received 'referral charges' from banks (HDFC Bank & ICICI Bank) and insurance companies (Oriental Insurance Company) for referring customers who availed motor vehicle loans and took out insurance policies through the dealer's facilitation.

Supreme Court Rejects Retired Professor's Claim To Be Covered By GPF Scheme Instead Of Central Provident Fund Scheme

Case: K Suman Chandra v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 834

The Supreme Court (20.08.2026) has dismissed a petition filed by a retired Professor of the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD). The petitioner sought to be covered under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme (GPF Scheme) instead of the Central Provident Fund Scheme (CPF Scheme). The Court, however, dismissed it, holding that since the terms of his regularisation were never challenged, he could not raise the grievance after retirement, as he already accepted the benefits under the CPF Scheme.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ruled so while hearing the petitioner's challenge to an order passed by a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, which had set aside a favourable order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) (Hyderabad).

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Research Associate with NIRD on a contractual basis in 1984, and was covered under the CPF Scheme. His services were regularised in 1985. Subsequently, he was appointed as Assistant Director in 1992 on a regular basis, Deputy Director in 1999 on a regular basis, and Professor on contract in 2007. His service as Professor was later regularised in 2012, as his colleague, Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma.

Merely Lodging A False FIR Is Not Abetment Of Suicide: Supreme Court

Case: Patel Joshnaben Pravinkumar Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 835

The Supreme Court (18.08.2026) has held that lodging an FIR or serving a notice seeking maintenance, even if such proceedings are later found to be false, does not by itself amount to instigating the person against whom such proceedings are initiated, to commit suicide. The Court quashed an FIR registered against the in-laws of a man who died by suicide, holding that neither the FIR nor the suicide note left behind by the deceased dislosed the necessary ingredients of abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi ruled so while hearing an appeal against an order of the Gujarat High Court which had dismissed a plea seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the deceased's mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC (now Sections 108 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

The deceased was married to appellants' daughter, who lodged an FIR against her deceased husband under Sections 498A and 323 IPC (now Sections 85 and 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), alleging that he had assaulted her, following which she left the matrimonial home with her son and was later found in distress at railway station. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, a medical examination was conducted which found multiple contusions on her body.

UP Gangsters Act Stillborn, Doesn't Create Any Offence; Perpetuates Violence On Unsuspecting Citizens : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shiv Pratap Singh Alias Chinu v. State of U.P & Ors. (With Connected Case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 836

The Supreme Court declared the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, “stillborn”, holding that the legislation does not create any distinct criminal offence and cannot sustain prosecution and punishment merely on the basis of a person being labelled a “gangster”.

In a strongly worded judgment, the Court observed that the law, enacted ostensibly to curb violence and organised criminal activity, could instead operate against unsuspecting citizens. The Court said the legislation, “on the pretext of adjuring violence”, was in fact capable of “perpetuating” violence against citizen

The Court made these observations while quashing criminal proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against two advocates, observing that the Act merely defines the status of a "gangster" without creating a distinct offence, and the punishment prescribed under the Act is without any corresponding offence.

Caste Abuse Inside Enclosed Space Without Public Presence Is Not SC/ST Act Offence : Supreme Court

Case: Ramkrishna Chauhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 837

The Supreme Court (20.08.2026) quashed proceedings under Sections 3 (2) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 (SC/ST Act). The case was filed against a school manager, accusing him of assaulting and hurling caste-based abuses at the father of two students. The Supreme Court quashed the case, holding that the alleged utterances were made inside an enclosed room with no public access, and therefore did not satisfy the essential statutory requirement.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled so while hearing an appeal against a judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed the appellant's appeal under Section 14A (1) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant was the Manager of the school where the respondent's (R2) sons studied. Following a quarrel between two students, R2 approached the appellant, who allegedly abused and assaulted him along with the school-staff, and used caste-based abuses against him. An FIR under Sections 147, 323, 342, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now , Sections 191, 115, and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the SC/ST Act, was lodged against the appellant. A chargesheet was filed against him and the Special Judge took cognisance.

Once Service Rules Say PSC's Decision Is Final, Govt Cannot Inquire Into Candidate's Eligibility: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shailendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (With Connected Case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 838

The Supreme Court has held that where service rules expressly make the Public Service Commission's decision on a candidate's eligibility final, the government cannot independently reopen and exhaustively reassess the candidate's eligibility after the Commission has found the person eligible and recommended them for appointment.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard a case involving one Shailendra Kumar Patel, who was selected and recommended by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) for the post of Registrar in a State University. Despite the recommendation, the State Government constituted its own inquiry committee, which concluded that the Appellant did not possess the requisite experience, leading to his disqualification.

The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Division and Single Bench decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had justified the State Government decision to undertake an exhaustive enquiry into the eligibility of the Appellants, who were recommended and selected by the State PSC for the Registrar post.

Wife Earning No Reason To Reduce Father's Liability To Maintain Children : Supreme Court

Case: Sujata Kumari & Ors v. Rahul Kumar & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 839

The Supreme Court (20.08.2026) set aside the Allahabad High Court's order that reduced the amount of interim maintenance, holding that the obligation to maintain the children cannot be divided by arithmetic alone. The fact that the wife earns by itself is not a reason to reduce the husband's liability to maintain children, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the orders while hearing an appeal against the High Court's order which had altered the Family Court's order and reduced the amount of interim maintenance from Rs 60,000 to Rs 30,000.

Both the appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) are qualified doctors and got married in 2006. They have two minor daughters. Troubles arose between them which constrained the appellant to leave the matrimonial home. Thereafter, a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) was filed by the appellant seeking Rs 2,50,000 per month as maintenance. The Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month for each daughter, only in respect of the two minor daughters. It declined the interim maintenance to the appellant noting appellant's professional status (earning 1.5 lakh per month) and holding that interim maintenance is meant to protect a party from unemployment or an immediate inability to meet daily needs.

Reserved Candidate Selected On Open Merit Can Claim Better Reserved-Category Post Than Reserved Candidate Having Lower Marks: Supreme Court

Case Title – Chandan v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 840

The Supreme Court observed that a candidate belonging to a reserved category, who is otherwise eligible and has been selected in the open category on merit, is entitled to a better post under the reserved category than a reserved-category candidate who has secured lower marks.

The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale said the legal position was settled and had been reiterated in several judgments, the latest being the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. Ramesh Ram, (2010) 7 SCC 234.

“On the main issue, law is quite settled and has been reiterated by this Court in several judgments with the last one being that of a larger Bench in Union of India vs. Ramesh Ram and Ors. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 234. In such view of the matter, there is no difficulty in holding that a person who is otherwise eligible under the reserved category and has been fitted into the open category, is entitled to a better post under the reserved category as against a person who has secured lesser marks than him in the reserved category,” the Court said.

“Courtroom Most Profound Classroom”: Justice Vinod Chandran Dissents On Relaxing 3 Year Practice Rule For Judicial Service

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 841

Justice K Vinod Chandran has dissented from the Supreme Court judgment modifying the three-year practice requirement and reducing it to one year for recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division), holding that there was no ground to review the earlier judgment restoring the requirement.

Describing the courtroom as “the most profound of all classrooms”, Justice Chandran disagreed with the decision to replace the three-year practice requirement with a transitional arrangement of one year of deemed practice followed by one year each of training and law clerkship.

“The forensic and analytical skills of an adjudicator are better learnt in the profession by observing what happens in the Courts; not necessarily as a Presiding Officer controlling it, but as a keen and eager student of law; the Court room being the most profound of all classrooms. A Presiding Officer's mistake puts to peril a litigant, and her remedy is only by way of an appeal. A lawyer's mistake can be remedied by an experienced Presiding Officer, a seasoned Senior or an astute colleague, or even by a ministerial staff of the Court with first-hand experience of the proceedings. The requirement of experience is the need of the hour and essential in the immediate future, otherwise we would be accused of creating a cadre of careerists rather than of jurists capable of enriching a robust system, alive to the needs of the nation, society and its people”, the observed.

Supreme Court Reduces Practice Condition For Judicial Service To 1 Year; Adds 1 Year Each Training & Clerkship

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 841

Though the Supreme Court refused to review its May 2025 judgment mandating prior legal practice before entering judicial service, it substituted the 3-year practice requirement with one year. The selected candidates will have to undergo training at the judicial academy for one year and a further one-year clerkship under the supervision of Judges.

Also, for candidates in the transition period from May 20, 2025 (the date of the original judgment) till March 31, 2027, the Court waived the practice requirement. The law graduates in this transition period are eligible to appear for Civil Judge Junior Division exams without any practice requirement. However, such candidates, upon selection, will be appointed only as trainee judicial officers for one year. They also need to undergo a further period of one year structured clerkship.

The Court held that the sudden restoration of the three-year practice rule without any transitional arrangement has visited hardship on young lawyers and law graduates and hence, a limited intervention is warranted.

Supreme Court Waives Prior Practice Requirement For Civil Judge (Junior Division) Exams Till March 2027

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 841

The Supreme Court has waived the three-year practice requirement for candidates applying for Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations pursuant to recruitment notifications issued between May 20, 2025 and March 31, 2027.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran (dissenting) said all law graduates would be eligible to apply during this transitional period, notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement.

The Court said such candidates would be deemed to have completed one year of active practice for the purposes of their applications. They will not be required to furnish a separate certificate of practice for the deemed period.

Police Cannot Register FIR And Conduct Investigation For PC-PNDT Act Offences : Supreme Court

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 842

The Supreme Court held that police cannot register FIR and act as the main investigating authority for offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act). The Court held that the Appropriate Authority constituted under the Act is responsible for investigating complaints, while police can at most play a supplemental role when required by the Appropriate Authority.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh pronounced judgment in a case concerning the scope of police powers to register FIRs and investigate offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act).

The Court also held that a competent Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act on the basis of a chargesheet filed after a police investigation.

Mere Mutation In Revenue Records Cannot Extinguish One's Title In Property: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jamnabai and Others v. Vasudev and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 843

The Supreme Court (August 20) reiterated that a revenue record entry neither creates nor extinguishes title to immovable property.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih heard a case in which title rights in a joint family property were declared extinguished because of a subsequent entry in the revenue records in the name of another person.

The case involved agricultural land originally held by one Bhagwansingh, who had two sons, Ramprasad and Vasudev. Following Bhagwansingh's death, the property devolved upon both sons and was initially recorded jointly in their names.

'Child Witness Testimony Not Convincing' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction

Case Details: Ravi Kumar Singh Malhotra v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 844

The Supreme Court (August 20) overturned the murder conviction of a man accused of killing his wife and child, after finding that the child witness testimony relied upon by the trial court was suspect to tutoring and unsupported by any corroborating material.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment which had interfered with the trial court's decision to acquit the Appellant.

The prosecution's case was that the Appellant, residing separately with his deceased wife and two kids, had murdered the wife and one kid by strangulation while taking them on the pretext of a trip from Kanpur to Khajuraho. Among other aspects, the child witness, being of a tender age of 4 ½ years, became crucial for the determination of the Appellant's conviction. It was alleged that another kid (PW-28) of the Appellant managed to escape from the crime scene.

Pendency Of Criminal Case No Ground To Discharge Public Servant: Supreme Court

Case Details: Spo/Constable Irb Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 845

The Supreme Court has held that a public employer cannot discharge an employee merely because a criminal case is pending against him, particularly when the employee has not been allowed to defend himself.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that the discharge of a police constable was illegal because, at the time of his removal, there was no conviction against him and the order was based solely on the pendency of the criminal case.

“Appellant was discharged from service not because of his conviction on a criminal charge but merely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. He was not given an opportunity of raising his defence. We have not been shown any law which authorises a public employer to either dismiss or remove an employee serving the police for more 12 than a decade solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. The act of termination of service, in the circumstances, cannot be justified.”, the Court said.

Advocate Cannot Disclose Client's Confidential Information Even If She Turns Adversary : Supreme Court Upholds Lawyers' Suspension

Case Details: Rehana Khan v. Rizwan Siddhiquee (With Connected Case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 846

The Supreme Court (August 21) affirmed the two-year suspension of an advocate's license to practice, holding that the disclosure of a former client's confidential information could not be justified on the ground of responding to public allegations.

“An advocate's duty is not conditional upon the client's continued good behaviour towards the advocate. An advocate cannot use information received in confidence against his client, and the fact that she has since become his adversary makes no difference.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while sustaining the Bar Council of India disciplinary committee order to suspend the bar license of the Respondent-advocate for two years.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the Appellant (actress Rehana Khana @ Rozlyn Khan) against her former advocate, i.e., Respondent (Rizwan Siddique), before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The appellant had engaged the respondent as her counsel in 2013-2014 in connection with allegations of sexual assault against a senior police official.

Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Costs On Actress & Her Advocate For Wasting Judicial Time

Case Details: Rehana Khan v. Rizwan Siddhiquee | C.A. No. 12256/2025 & Rizwan Siddiquee v. Rehana Khan | C.A. No. 7959/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 846

The Supreme Court (August 21) strongly disapproved of the conduct of Mumbai-based Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee and actress Rehana Khan, alias Rozlyn Khan, for wasting more than 11 years of the judiciary just for the sake of their reputation.

In view of the conduct of both sides, the Court also imposed costs. The appellant and the respondent were each directed to pay ₹5 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, with the Court directing that the amount would be recovered in accordance with law in the event of non-payment.

To briefly state, the issue arose after Khan accused Siddiquee of professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, alleging that he breached the fiduciary relationship by disclosing confidential client information to the media, issuing a public notice without consent, and making derogatory remarks about his client public. Khan made a complaint to the Bar Council of India, which initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the advocate.

Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Holding 'Art Of Living' Liable For Yamuna Riverplain Damage; Directs Rs 5 Crore Refund

Case Details: Vyakti Vikas Kendra India v. Manoj Misra (Dead) and Ors. | C.A. No. 683/2018

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 847

The Supreme Court (August 22) set aside an order of the National Green Tribunal, which directed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's Art of Living International Centre to pay Rs. 5 crore for the damage caused to the river Yamuna floodplains due to its World Culture Festival organised by Vyakti Vikas Kendra in March 2016.

A bench comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice NK Singh, allowed the appeal filed by Vyakti Vikas Kendra, an entity running the Art of Living International Centre, against the order passed by NGT in December 2017. The Bench held that there is no direct evidence that the cultural festival caused damage to the River Yamuna's fragile ecosystem.

The bench directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to refund the fine of Rs 5 crore paid by Vyakti Vikas Kendra.

'Industry' Definition Given In Bangalore Water Supply Case Must Govern Pending Cases Under ID Act 1947 : Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 848

A 9-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court answered the reference arising out of a 2002 appeal over the correctness of the 'triple tests' laid dow in the 1978 judgment in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa to determine whether an activity will fall within the definition of "industry" in Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

While four judges of the bench reformulated the tests to introduce a 'dominant commercial motive' aspect (as per the 1978 judgment, it profit element was unnecessary), five other judges had differing views.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, reformulated the triple test developed by Justice Krishna Iyer. However, they clarified that the new formula will only apply prospectively and will not disturb concluded decisions or affect pending proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. They further clarified that the interpretation is confined only to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and will not impact the new Industrial Relations Code, 2020.

'Industry' Definition : No Clear Majority Emerges From Supreme Court Judgment, Only 4 Out Of 9 Judges Back New Test

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 848

The Supreme Court's much-awaited nine-Judge Bench judgment on the meaning of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not appear to yield a clear majority in favour of the new test formulated by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

While the Chief Justice's formulation is supported by three other judges (Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vipul Pancholi), four judges [ Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, & Joymalya Bagchi ]specifically affirm the correctness of the interpretation laid down by the seven-Judge Bench in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa. Justice PS Narasimha reaches the conclusion of not disturbing Bangalore Water Supply, but on a different ground - that the Industrial Disputes Act has already been repealed and replaced by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.

CJI's new formulation gets support from four

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Can Be Rejected At Threshold When Limitation Bar Is Obvious From Pleadings : Supreme Court

Case Details: N Asha Devi v. R Aravind Kumar & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 849

The Supreme Court has held that a plaint can be rejected at the threshold stage if the pleadings make it evident that the plaint is barred by limitation.

“…the Court cannot be hesitant in granting relief of rejection of a plaint when it is so obvious from the pleadings itself.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran.

The Court said that while limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law which requires adjudication in trial, however, where the facts about the plaint being barred by limitation are glaring from the plaint averments themselves, the court must exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint at the threshold stage without waiting for a trial.

Execution Court Cannot Travel Beyond Decree To Grant Unintended Reliefs: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Etc. v. Jameet Singh & Anr. Etc. (With Connected Cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 850

The Supreme Court has reiterated that it is impermissible for the executing courts to go beyond the order/decree by granting such reliefs not intended or recorded in an order.

“The Execution Court could not have travelled beyond the order sought to be executed or gone behind the interpretation thereof, particularly, when the order itself did not require any further or special interpretation.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment passed in an execution proceeding where the High Court had gone behind the order and ordered an extension of the relief to the Respondents not contemplated in a judgment.

The respondents were School Lecturers appointed on a contract basis between 1998 and 2000.

SARFAESI | Earnest Money Deposit Shortfall Doesn't Vitiate Sale If 25% Sale Price Paid On Auction Day : Supreme Court

Case Details: Lakshmi Mohan (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr. v. M/S. Airtech Projects Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (With Connected Cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 851

The Supreme Court has held that an auction sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be set aside merely due to a shortfall in depositing of an earnest money deposit. The Court said that once the auction purchaser complies with the statutory mandate to deposit 25% mark of the sale price on the same day of auction, then a mere shortfall in deposit of EMD pales into insignificance.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the case where the sale certificate issued in favour of an Appellant-an auction purchaser- was interfered with merely on account of a shortfall in depositing the EMD price, despite the auction purchaser having complied with the requirement of submitting 25% of the sale price on the day of an auction.

The case arose after the borrower's loan account was declared as Non-Performing Asset by the bank, following which the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act began, which resulted in an auction sale proceeding of the borrower's secured property.

To Invoke Extended Limitation Under S.74, GST Show Cause Notice Must Specify Aspects Of Fraud Or Concealment : Supreme Court

Case: M/S G.R. Infra Projects Limited Ratlam v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.,

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 852

A GST show-cause notice cannot invoke the extended limitation period under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act merely by making a “bland statement” alleging fraud or concealment of facts, the Supreme Court has held.

The Court said that a notice seeking to invoke the extended limitation period must itself spell out the specific allegations and circumstances that led the assessing officer to infer fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by G.R. Infra Projects Limited, Ratlam, against the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Amendments To Government Orders Must Be Interpreted Reasonably To Avoid Hardship : Supreme Court

Case Details: R.J. Gajendra Kumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 853

The Supreme Court has held that amendments to government orders which alter or modify earlier service rules must be interpreted reasonably so as to avoid unnecessary hardship to persons who had no control over the subject matter.

The Court observed that a subsequent amendment in the qualifications norms would not disturb the promotion of an employee who have acquired requisite qualifications as per the Rules prevalent during the relevant time.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case where the Appellant, a tourist officer in a Tamil Nadu State, was denied the promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism merely because the subsequent amendment brought to the governing Rules nullified the qualifications of the Appellant, which he had acquired as per the Rules that were in operation during the prevalent time at the time of his initial appointment.

Monetary Claim Waived In Divorce Settlement Cannot Be Revived In DV Act Proceedings: Supreme Court

Case Title: Reji Baby v. Subi Mary

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 854

The Supreme Court (24.08.2026) has quashed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) initiated by a wife and daughter against the husband. While quashing the proceedings, the Court held that once the wife had voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, by a Settlement Agreement and a subsequent affidavit before the Family Court, “revival of such claims through subsequent proceedings cannot be permitted.”

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan ruled so while hearing an appeal filed by the husband against the 2018 Kerala High Court's judgment dismissing his plea seeking quashing of the complaint filed under the DV Act.

The appellant (husband) and respondent 1 (wife/R1) had entered into a Settlement Agreement in 2016, under which the wife specifically agreed not to make any monetary or maintenance claims against the husband. Pursuant to this, a joint application seeking divorce was filed under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, wherein a divorce decree was passed in 2017.

Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Over Court-Fee When Liability To Pay Ad Valorem Is Dependent On Disputed Fact : Supreme Court

Case Details: Neelam Sharma and Others v. Amita Passan and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 855

The Supreme Court has held that a plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC over a dispute concerning payment of ad valorem court fee when the liability to pay such fee depends on disputed factual issues relating to possession and other aspects of the suit.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which had rejected the appellants' plaint at the threshold stage for failure to pay ad-valorem court fees (plaintiffs have only paid a fixed court fee) in a suit seeking declaration of joint ownership in an inherited property wherein the plaintiffs claimed to have a joint possession with the defendants.

The Appellants-Plaintiffs, who claimed to be in joint possession of the suit property, filed a suit seeking a declaration of joint ownership in a property inherited from their grandmother. They also claimed that, in collusion with defendant no.2, a sale deed had been falsely executed in favour of a third party.

Grant Of Bail In Serious Offences Like Murder Must Record Justifiable Reasons : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Maharashtra v. Pruthviraj Rajendra Shinde & Anr. (With Connected Case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 856

The Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to the two accused persons in a murder case, noting that the bail order was a result of a non-application of mind, as the Courts below ignored the vital evidence which prima facie showed the involvement of the accused in the crime.

“The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from nonapplication of mind.”, the Court quoted in approval of its 2004 judgment of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan.

Referring to various precedents, the Court noted that "in serious offences like murder, the order granting bail must reflect proper application of mind to the facts of the case and justifiable reasons have to be recorded before bail is granted to such an accused."

Supreme Court Restores Congress Candidate's Petition Challenging BJP MP's Election From Assam

Case Details: Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah and Ors. | C.A. No. 7474/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 857

The Supreme Court (August 24) restored an election petition filed by advocate and Indian National Congress member Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury, challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party's Kripanath Mallah, who won the Lok Sabha elections from the No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency in Assam during the 2024 General Elections.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the civil appeal, which has been preferred under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the Gauhati High Court's judgment dated April 4, 2025, which rejected the election petition at the threshold.

By the said judgment, the High Court had dismissed the election petition filed by Choudhary challenging the election of Kripanath, alleging corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 of the RP Act. However, the returned candidate filed an application under Section 86, read with Sections 81 and 83 of the RoP Act, and Section 151 CPC, seeking the outright dismissal of the election petition at the threshold, without going into a full trial.

Dowry Harassment & Domestic | Supreme Court Issues Directions For Strict Enforcement & Speedy Trials

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg Etc.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 858

The Supreme Court has issued a series of directions to strengthen the implementation of laws dealing with dowry-related offences, including effective functioning of Dowry Prohibition Officers, priority treatment of cases under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) / Sections 80 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and periodic monitoring of long-pending cases.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih issued the directions on August 20 while considering compliance with its earlier judgment dated December 15, 2025, in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajmal Beg 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1209.

Amongst other directions, a major direction the Court issued is to direct all High Courts and States/Union Territories to file status and compliance reports on January 15, May 15 and September 15 each year until there is a substantial reduction in the pendency of cases under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, corresponding provisions of the BNS, and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Resisting Own Medical Examination Does Not Amount To Obstructing Public Servant In Discharge Of Duties: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ashwini Anantrao Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 859

The Supreme Court observed that resisting a medical examination would not amount to the offence of obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions under Section 186 IPC.

The bench set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench order which refused to quash the FIR against the Appellant registered under Sections 186 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and under Sections 110 and 117 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short, 'MP Act') for resisting against the holding of a medical examination by the police.

According to the prosecution,the appellant, who was working as a Lekhapal at the Forest Range Office in Paratwada, was allegedly found in an intoxicated state and creating a disturbance on May 4, 2021. She was taken to the Sub-District Hospital, Achalpur, for medical examination.

'No Coercive Steps' Order Does Not Bar Filing Of Charge Sheet : Supreme Court

Case Details: Arun Kumar Mandal @ Arun Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 860

The Supreme Court has clarified that an interim order directing that "no coercive steps shall be taken" against an accused does not prohibit the Investigating Officer from filing a charge sheet upon conclusion of the investigation.

The Court observed that an interim protection granted to an accused is only meant to safeguard the liberty of the person seeking anticipatory bail but would not operate as a bar against the filing of a charge sheet.

“…any interim protection granted by this Court in the matter of anticipatory bail does not imply that on conclusion of the investigation if the necessity arises for filing of a charge sheet, the same is also barred. In other words, once the investigation is concluded and charge sheet has to be filed, the I.O. is always at liberty to do so in accordance with law and any interim order granted by any Court during the course of consideration of a case for anticipatory bail would only imply that the liberty of the person seeking anticipatory bail is protected.”, observed a bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan.

Supreme Court Directs All States To Constitute SITs To Probe Fraudulent Motor Accident Insurance Claims

Case Details: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tuni Pati & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 861

The Supreme Court has directed all States to constitute dedicated Special Investigation Teams (SITs) to probe suspected fraudulent motor accident compensation claims, after proceedings in a case involving allegations that the same vehicle had been shown as being involved in multiple accidents revealed what the Court described as a potential fraud of “enormous proportion.”

The Court also directed the insurance companies to forward the cases to the SIT, where claims were negated to conduct an in-house enquiry to ascertain whether the claim was processed in collusion with their officers.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed the directions on August 17 in proceedings arising from an individual case, expanding the scope of the matter to address alleged systematic fraud in motor accident claims across the country.

S. 74 CGST Act | General Allegations Of Fraud/Suppression Won't Extend Limitation; SCN Must Specify Foundational Facts : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 862

The Supreme Court (August 25) quashed the GST show-cause notice issued to Tata Steel Ltd. under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for alleged short payment of tax due to suppression of facts.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran called the department's invocation of Section 74 of the Act, rather than the ordinary mechanism under Section 73, to be bad in law just to seek an extension of the limitation period by using expressions such as “fraud,” “willful misstatement” or “suppression of facts”.

The Court said that where the Department seeks to proceed against an assessee under Section 74, the foundational facts establishing how the alleged tax short payment or wrongful availment of input tax credit resulted from fraud, willful misstatement or suppression must be set out in the show cause notice itself.

Ports Governed By Major Port Trusts Act Liable To Pay Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods Under Customs Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India & Ors. v. Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 863

The Supreme Court (August 25) upheld the Commissioner of Customs order of classifying the Mumbai Port Trust as a 'custodian' under the Customs Act for the purpose of paying duty on 'pilfered goods' i.e., loss or damage to stock in a warehouse or to cargo in transit.

The Court said that regardless of the fact that the Mumbai Port trust is governed by the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, any liability for the pilfered goods would be payable by the port trust as a custodian under the Customs Act.

“Since the importer of the goods is not liable to pay the duty leviable on pilfered goods except when such goods are restored to the importer, the obligation is cast on the person approved by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as notified under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Customs Act to pay the duty on such pilfered goods.”, observed a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan, while setting aside that part of the Bombay High Court's judgment which held the Custom's notification declaring the Respondent-Mumbai Port Trust as a custodian to be illegal.

Statutory Authority Cannot Invoke Article 131; It Confined To Centre-State Disputes : Supreme Court

Case: Lucknow Development Authority v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11201 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 864

The Supreme Court has held that a statutory authority or instrumentality of the State cannot invoke its original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution, reiterating that the provision is confined to disputes involving the Union of India and one or more constituent States.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu made the observation while setting aside an Allahabad High Court order that had dismissed a long-pending writ petition filed by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) over a dispute concerning possession of land in Lucknow.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by the LDA before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, against the Union of India, the GOC-in-C, Central Command and the Station Commander, Sub-Area, Cantonment, Lucknow. The dispute concerned land on which the LDA had developed a colony and allotted plots and flats to beneficiaries. According to the LDA, officers of the Union Government and defence establishments were interfering with the physical possession of the allottees, claiming that the land belonged to them.

Govt Cannot Resort To Summary Eviction When Bona Fide Title Dispute Exists : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Circar Paper Mills Ltd. v. District Collector, Nellore Distt. & Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 868

The Supreme Court has held that the Government cannot resort to summary proceedings for eviction where there is a bona fide dispute over the title to land, particularly when the dispute concerns possession and ownership dating back several decades.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered a judgment in the context of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, holding that long-standing title disputes cannot be conclusively determined through summary proceedings.

The dispute concerned 40.65 acres of land in Nellore, which the Andhra Pradesh Government claimed were assigned lands and could not have been transferred.

Stamp Duty Valuation Based On Nature Of Land's Use & Not Its Classification In Master Plan : Supreme Court

Case Details: Harinder Singh Sodhi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 869

The Supreme Court held that the classification of a property under a master plan is not determinative of stamp duty liability, as the actual use of the property is the relevant consideration while determining its valuation.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Rajasthan High Court's judgment, which had classified the property as commercial for stamp valuation purposes merely because, in addition to manufacturing activity, the property was also being used for the sale of manufactured products.

“The manufactured items definitely had to be sold and if the premises is used for such sale too, even retail sale, it cannot lead to a conclusion that the property is one used for commercial purposes, as distinguished from an industrial purpose.”, the Court said, while disagreeing with the High Court's view.

High Courts Shouldn't Routinely Stay Trials : Supreme Court Flags Mechanical Invocation Of Revision Powers

Case: Madhav Vidarbha Estate Pvt Ltd v. Praharsh Corporation Pvt Ltd & Ors (With Connected Matter Madhav Vidarbha Estate Pvt Ltd v. Shri Sawan Nandkumar Bhatewara & Ors)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 870

The Supreme Court has disapproved the routine practice of High Courts staying trials while entertaining challenges to interlocutory orders, cautioning that such stays should be granted only where continuation of the trial would seriously and irreparably prejudice the revision proceedings or adversely affect the parties.

also flagged the mechanical invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), holding that the High Court cannot exercise revision as though it were an appellate jurisdiction.

The Court aside the 117-page-long judgment of the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench, which had allowed revision applications under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and rejected a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Court noted that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction and had “donned the hat of the trial court”.

NCRDC Third Member Deciding Appeal Instead Of Answering Reference Not Necessarily Illegal : Supreme Court

Case: Askari Hussain & Ors v. Dinesh Kumar & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 871

The Supreme Court has clarified the limits of a third or “referee” member's role when members of a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Bench differ, holding that although the normal course is for the referee member to answer only the questions referred and return the matter to the original Bench, an exceptional case may justify deciding the appeal itself.

Where a referring Bench, instead of specifying the precise points of difference under Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, frames broader questions going to the root of the complaint and inseparable from the evidence on record, the third member's decision to answer those questions and, in the process, decide the appeal on merits does not, in the circumstances, necessarily constitute an illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court, hence, remanded the matter to the Allahabad High Court to decide the application of Article 227 afresh on merits.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing an appeal against judgment of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, which had allowed an application under Article 227 filed by the respondent (respondent 1/R1) and quashed the order of a third member of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), on the ground that it exceeded the scope of the reference made to him.

Multiple Cases Per Se Not Ground To Pass Externment Order : Supreme Court

Case Details: Vijay Kumar Rajpoot Alias Vijju v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 872

The mere existence of multiple cases by itself cannot be a ground to pass an externment order, the Supreme Court held, underscoring that it is an extraordinary measure.

The Court (August 31) quashed the externment order passed against a man, after finding that the order was vitiated by the failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of notice and hearing under Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

“The object of the provision is to ensure that a person, against whom an externment order is proposed, is made aware of the material allegations against him and afforded an effective opportunity to tender his explanation thereto. It necessarily follows that an order passed in derogation of these mandatory requirements would stand vitiated and liable to be declared void ab initio.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu while noting that non-compliance with Section 8 of the Adhiniyam renders externment order ex facie illegal.

Art. 226 | Certiorari Can Be Used To Quash Tribunal Decision Which Is Grossly Perverse : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shri Prakash Narain Sharma Dead Through Legal Representative v. M/S. Burmah Shell Co-Operative Respondents Housing Society (Regd) Through Managing Committee Member Sh. P. Jindal and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 873

The Supreme Court (August 31) held that High Courts, while exercising their certiorari writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can interfere with a Tribunal's order where the findings are unsupported by any material or documentary evidence.

“If a finding is recorded without there being any evidence on record or a finding is recorded without any supporting document, whatsoever, a case for interference would be made out since such finding would amount to an error of law.”, observed a bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, while affirming the Delhi High Court's order which had interfered with an order passed by the Tribunal in a societal dispute, as an order passed by an arbitrator was without any supporting evidence.

The dispute arose from the original claimant's claim that he continued to be a member of the Respondent-cooperative housing society and was entitled to allotment of a plot.

Informant's Consent Not Needed To Quash Criminal Case Based On Settlement With Victim : Supreme Court

Case Details: Anand Kumar @ Sanjay Lalwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 874

The Supreme Court (August 31) held that even where an FIR involves non-compoundable offences, criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of a settlement once the real victim has categorically settled the dispute with the accused, and the consent of an informant who is not the victim is not necessary.

“Disastrous consequences will arise if such informants (who are not victims) are allowed to enter into settlement and the real victim is left in limbo. Hence, what law contemplates is that it is the real victim who has to be a party to the settlement on the basis of which quashment of proceedings are sought under Section 482.”, observed a bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, while setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment which had refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the Appellant merely because the informant was not party to a settlement which had arrived between the Appellant and the real victim regarding quashment of the criminal proceedings.

Disagreeing with the High Court's approach, the Court observed that although a person other than the victim may set the criminal law in motion, such an informant cannot be permitted to enter into or prevent a settlement in a manner that leaves the actual victim without a say.

Orders and Other Developments

Student Injured In NEET-UG Protest Seeks Supreme Court Directions For Mandatory Police Name Badges, Uniform Crowd-Control SOP

Case Title: IA in Himanshu v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 279 of 2026

An IIT Patna student who claims to have been injured during the police action at the July 20 "Sansad Chalo" protest in New Delhi has moved the Supreme Court seeking directions for a uniform crowd-control protocol and mandatory identification of police personnel deployed at protests.

“The presence and participation of unidentified persons in the use of coercive force against citizens raises serious questions of transparency, accountability and institutional responsibility, particularly when such persons were allegedly acting alongside or in the presence of uniformed police personnel. The circumstances warrant an independent inquiry into the identity, authority and role of each person who participated in the use of force, so as to ensure that no individual responsible for the alleged assault is permitted to evade accountability on account of the absence of proper identification or uniform”, the plea adds.

The plea, filed through Advocate Neha Rathi, seeks to intervene in the pending writ petition concerning the alleged use of excessive force against students protesting over the NEET-UG 2026 controversy. The intervention application has been filed by one Toshiwa Yadav in Himanshu v. Union of India & Ors. pending before the Supreme Court.

Foreign National Can't Be Deported Without Acceptance By Home Country, Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 234/2020

The Union Government informed the Supreme Court that a foreign national whose nationality is unverified cannot be deported unless the person's home country confirms the nationality and agrees to accept them, stating that the deportation process cannot even be initiated without nationality verification.

The submission was made in an affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in the pending writ petition filed by Rajubala Das, which concerns persons declared to be foreigners whose nationality remains unknown. The affidavit has been filed in compliance with the Supreme Court's March 21, 2025 order.

ED Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts On Mere 'Suspicion', 'Reasons To Believe' Mandatory : Supreme Court Affirms Delhi HC Ruling

Cause Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Poonam Malik

The Supreme Court dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's plea against the Delhi High Court's decision which held that an order of freezing of a bank account under Section 17(1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2000 cannot be passed solely on "suspicion" rather a "reasons to believe," must be necessitated before passing an order of freezing.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu refused to interference with the Delhi High Court's interpretation that although Section 17(1A) PMLA does not explicitly use the words 'reason to believe' for freezing orders, the provision cannot be read in isolation from Section 17(1), which requires 'reasons to believe' for search and seizure, thereby necessitating the same standard for freezing orders.

Cauvery Dispute : DMK Moves Supreme Court Seeking Directions To Karnataka For Urgent Water Release

Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. State Of Tamil Nadu , Misc. Appln. in C.A. No. 2453/2007

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has moved the Supreme Court seeking urgent release of Cauvery River water by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu in compliance with the recent directions of the Cauvery Water Management Authority.

The CWMA recently upheld the direction of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee for Karnataka to release 3500 cusecs per day to Tamil Nadu, for 15 days, at the inter-state border at Biligundlu.

22 Years For Murder Trial, 22 More For Appeal: Supreme Court Disturbed By Delay, Seeks Report From Jharkhand Govt & HC

Case Details: Simon Soren v. State of Jharkhand | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 9856/2026

The Supreme Court sought detailed reports from the Jharkhand Government and the Jharkhand High Court over extraordinary delays in the conclusion of a murder trial and the disposal of the ensuing criminal appeal, observing that the lapse of over two decades at each stage was "very disturbing."

The case concerns a petitioner, Simon Soren, who was put to trial for the offence of murder along with the other accused persons in the year 1981. The Trial Court held him guilt in the year 2002 and thereafter his appeal against conviction was decided by the Jharkhand High Court only in 2024.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran lamented at the "disturbing" delay of 44 years in total.

Supreme Court Dismisses Brinda Karat's Review Plea Against Supreme Court's Clean Chit To BJP Leaders In Hate Speech Case

Case : Brinda Karat v State of NCT of Delhi | RP No. 416/2026

The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat against the April 29 judgment which held that no cognizable offence was made out against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over their alleged hate speeches during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign.

"We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration," observed the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta in the order passed. The review petition was considered in chamber, as open court listing was refused.

The review petition challenged the portion of the judgment in which the Court, after holding that prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not required for a Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3), nevertheless agreed with the conclusion that no cognizable offence was disclosed by the speeches.

Student Protest : Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Action Against Organisers & Community Service Penalty For Minors Who Posted Abuses

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea seeking action against the organisers of the July 20 "Sansad Chalo" student protest for allegedly inciting violence.

The petition also proposes that minors who posted abusive content against the Prime Minister on social media should be made to perform community service instead of facing criminal prosecution.

Advocate Rizwan Ahmed mentioned the petition, filed by a retired Air Force Officer, before the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for urgent listing.

CJI Surya Kant Says Committee Constituted To Examine Hearing Sequencing Issue

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant informed that the Full Court has decided to constitute a three-judge committee to examine concerns regarding the sequencing of cases for hearing, following submissions by Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia highlighting the difficulties faced by lawyers due to last-minute changes in the daily cause list sequence.

Mentioning the issue before the Bench, Bhatia said there was a broad consensus among members of the Bar that the present system was creating uncertainty.

"Today also the sequence was issued at 10:30 a.m. and 10:29. I have spoken to a lot of advocates and there is a broad consensus," Bhatia submitted.

Thiruparankundram Hill Row : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Tamil Nadu Govt Plea Against Madras HC Order On Lamp Lighting

Case : Commissioner v. Rama Ravikumar | Diary No. 36337/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Government challenging the Madras High Court's directionallowing the lighting of the lamp atop a stone pillar near a Dargah at the Thiruparankudram hill in Madurai district.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul Pancholi issued notices to the respondents (writ petitioners in the High Court, ASI, TN Waqf Board, Sikkander Badushah Durgah). The bench however turned down the State's plea to stay the High Court's order ex-parte, and issued notice on the stay application.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, for the State, argued that the High Court had invented a tradition, as the lamp was not traditionally lit at another spot.

Supreme Court Requests Calcutta High Court To Expeditiously Decide Abhishek Banerjee's Plea To Travel Abroad For Eye Treatment

Case : Abhishek Banerjee v State of West Bengal | Diary No.44012/2026

The Supreme Court requested the Calcutta High Court to consider at the earliest Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee's pending application seeking permission to travel abroad for specialised treatment of an eye condition.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard Banerjee's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's refusal to urgently permit his foreign travel.

Appearing for Banerjee, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the application before the High Court was a limited one seeking modification of an interim protection order only to enable overseas travel for medical treatment.

Student Protests : Supreme Court Clarifies States Can Close/Withdraw FIRs Against Protesters

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 44078/2026 and connected cases

The Supreme Court on August 3 clarified that the States are at liberty to close or withdraw the FIRs, in accordance with law,  against students over their participation in the student protests.

The Court clarified its July 28 order,which had observed that the States can proceed with the investigation in the FIRs. The Court made the clarification after petitioners pointed out that the July 28 order can impede the withdrawal of FIRs, which was a commitment made by the Union to the Cockroach Janata Party leaders as a condition to end the protests.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana also clarified that the term "criminal antecedents" in the July 28 order means only "grave and heinous offences". In the July 28 order, the Court had barred coercive action against students who did not have "criminal antecedents". The Court clarified the expression after it was told by the petitioners that the term was vague and could cause difficulties to students who may have petty offences.

Supreme Court Asks ED If Trinamool Congress Can Be Allowed Funds From Frozen Accounts To Manage Daily Affairs

Case Title: ALL INDIA TRINAMOOL CONGRESS AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Case No.: SLP (Crl) 13322/2026

In the Trinamool Congress' plea seeking to operate its bank accounts frozen by the Enforcement Directorate, the Supreme Court proposed that some amount be left with the High Court-appointed Administrator for managing the party's day-to-day affairs.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale was dealing with TMC's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's July 20 interim order whereby itrefusedto permit the party to operate 3 HDFC bank accounts frozen by the Enforcement Directorate as part of a money laundering investigation under the PMLA.

The ED has frozen 3 TMC bank accounts allegedly containing around ₹440 crores. According to the agency, the action forms part of its money laundering investigation into alleged transfers of funds to Carewell Aviation India and an associated entity between April 2023 and June 2026 in connection with the purported acquisition of an aircraft and a helicopter.

'Important' : Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Against Allowing Protests At Delhi's Jantar Mantar

Case : SATISH CHAND KAUSHIK Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 930/2026

The Supreme Court sought the response of the Union and the Delhi Governments on a plea contending that Jantar Mantar is no longer a suitable venue for holding protests and demonstrations in the national capital, citing concerns over public safety, access and basic amenities.

The petitioner Satish Chand Kaushik seeks directions to designate an alternate site in the national capital for protests.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , termed the issue "important", and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to obtain instructions from the Centre on the issues raised in the petition.

Transgender Amendment 2026 Cannot Cancel Vested Rights, Says Supreme Court Orally; Seeks Centre's Response

The Supreme Court told the Union Government to consider the impact of the2026 amendment to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act on persons who were in the middle of sex reassignment therapies or who have already received Transgender cards.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana orally observed that the rights already vested in Transgender persons should not be disturbed. However, the bench refrained from passing an order to this effect, after Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that he will examine the issues.

Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, for one of the petitioners, fervently requested the passing of an order of status quo for persons who have already been issued Transgender cards. She added that the national portal for transgender persons, on which persons have to apply for the new ID card, was now defunct. "The ones who have already got the TG card, their benefits cannot be discontinued", she submitted.

Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Judgment Declaring Candidate Winner 10 Years After Election

Case Title: I. S. INBADURAI v. M. APPAVU AND ORS., Diary No. 35961-2026

The Supreme Court stayed arecent judgment of the Madras High Court, which declared a candidate as a winner ten years after the election, when the term of the relevant Legislative Assembly was already over.

The High Court's order was passed in the election petition filed by M Appavu (DMK), who challenged the election of his rival AIADMK candidate Inbadurai in the 2016 assembly elections. The High Court decided the election petition only in May 2026, since the matter remained pending due to a Supreme Court's stay which remained in force from 2019. The High Court, while granting notional relief to Appavu and directing the stoppage of MLA pension for Inbadurai, also criticised the Supreme Court for causing the delay.

Issuing notice on Inbadurai's petition against the High Court's order,  the bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan ordered an interim stay of the operative part of the High Court order.

Will Lay Down Protocol On Use Of Pellet Guns, Says Supreme Court

Case Title: Yashovardhan Azan and Others v. Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 917/2026

The Supreme Court said that it would lay down a protocol governing the use of pellet guns by law enforcement agencies while hearing a petition challenging their use for crowd control.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a writ petition seeking a ban on the use of pellet guns against civilian assemblies and compensation for two protesters who suffered pellet injuries during the student protests in Delhi on July 20.

Last week, while hearing the petition, the benchhad opined that the regulations which permit the use of pellet guns will have to be challenged. Advocate Vrinda Grover, for the petitioners, submitted that there was no standing order authorising the Delhi police to use pellet guns and that the weapon was inherently unsuitable for deployment against civilians.

Demarcate Footpaths So That Walkers Have Encroachment-Free Space : Supreme Court To Authorities

Case Details: IN RE: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO WALK AND FOOTPATH BY COURTS MOTION Versus MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS|5, 18 W.P.(C) No. 844/2026 PIL-W

The Supreme Court (August 3) directed that the governments must ensure that there is proper demarcation so that walkers have footpaths which are free from encroachments.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a suo moto case regarding the right to access safe and well-demarcated footpaths. In its June 19th order, the Court held that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right and issued a slew of directions.

When the matter was taken up, the bench adjourned it for two weeks. But it suggested that Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj instruct all authorities to demarcate footpaths for the walkers. Justice Narasimha stated that this direction wouldn't require any investment.

Supreme Court Summons Arunachal Chief Secretary, Home Secretary As CBI Alleges Non-Cooperation In Probe Against CM Pema Khandu

Case Title: Save Mon Region Federation And Anr v. The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors., MA 2216 - / 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 54/2024

Following CBI's report alleging non-cooperation in a case pertaining to Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu, the Supreme Court summoned the state's Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary (Home) to explain the non-compliance with court directions.

While issuing notice to the two officers, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ordered that they shall remain present in court on the next date, alongwith their response to the CBI report.

"A perusal of the same reflects that there is no cooperation at the end of the State Government in providing the necessary records as was directed vide judgment and order dated 06.04.2026. As such, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, making it returnable on 24.08.2026...Both the aforesaid officers shall remain present before this Court along with their response to the afore-mentioned report of the C.B.I. and also explain as to why there is non-cooperation and non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court" the order stated.

“Pharmacy Council Of India An Obsolete Institution”: Supreme Court Suggests Replacing PCI With Statutory Commission

Case Title – Pharmacy Council of India v. SLS College of Pharmacy

The Supreme Court remarked that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) should not continue to function in its present form, and asked the Centre why it could not be replaced with a new statutory commission on the lines of the National Medical Commission.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the Council's challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment which held that once approval is granted to a pharmacy course under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the institution cannot be required to seek continuation of that approval annually.

At the outset of the hearing, the bench asked why the PCI cannot be replaced like the Medical Council of India was replaced with the National Medical Commission.

Supreme Court Directs MEA To Trace Indian Seafarer Missing After Drone Attack On Ship Near Ukraine

Case Title –SANDEEP KUMAR GUPTA Vs UNION OF INDIA

The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to use diplomatic channels to trace an Indian seafarer who went missing after a cargo vessel was attacked by drones in the Black sea near Ukraine.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition concerning Deepak Kumar Gupta, who was serving as an ordinary seaman on MV AGN Ragnar.

The Court noted that conflicting reports had emerged about the fate of the missing seafarers.

Supreme Court Asks CEC To Examine Environmental Issues Concerning Himachal Pradesh

Case Title: IN RE: ISSUES RELATING TO ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 758 of 2025

The Supreme Court referred to the Centrally Empowered Committee certain environmental issues pertaining to Himachal Pradesh, including the notified green belt areas of Shimla.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ordered that the CEC shall examine the issues in a phased manner and file interim reports while dealing with three issues at a time.

For the said purpose, the Committee shall hold meetings with the State's instrumentalities and would be at liberty to call for records, data, etc. from the state authorities and/or any other agency, as deemed fit. The State and its instrumentalities, on their part, shall accord full cooperation to the CEC in terms of manpower, logistic support and information.

NEET-SS : Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Seek Retention Of Entire Unfilled Seats With State, Urge Supreme Court To Modify Order

Case Details: TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION & ANR v UOI|WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 771 OF 2026

The Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association has moved the Supreme Court seeking modification of its July 28 order directing that only 50% of the unfilled super specialty medical seats be reverted to the State if the NEET-SS qualifying percentile is reduced after the second round of counselling. The Association has sought a direction that all the remaining unfilled seats should instead revert to Tamil Nadu for allotment to eligible in-service candidates.

The application seeks modification of the order which it directed that if the State decides to lower the qualifying percentage to fit 151 super speciality medical seats after the second round of counselling, then 50% of that should go to the Directorate General of Health Services(DGHS).

The application has been filed in the pending writ petition concerning 151 unfilled super specialty seats earmarked for in-service candidates in Tamil Nadu. According to the petitioners, these seats form part of the State's 50% reservation for in-service doctors under G.O. Ms. No. 462 dated November 7, 2020, a policy whose constitutional validity was upheld by the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India (2021).

Wife Of Indian Captain Missing After Hormuz Strait Ship Attack Moves Supreme Court

The wife of Merchant Navy Captain Ashish Kumar, who was feared to have died in a missile/drone attack on the merchant vessel M.T. Skylight in the Strait of Hormuz on March 1, 2026, has approached the Supreme Court claiming that he is alive and is held in illegal captivity by foreign actors.

She has filed a habeas corpus writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Union of India, through the Ministries of External Affairs and Home Affairs, to trace, locate and produce Captain Ashish Kumar by utilising all available diplomatic, consular and intelligence channels.

According to the petition, Captain Ashish Kumar's vessel was anchored near Khasab Port in Oman before allegedly coming under a missile/drone attack on March 1 amid the regional conflict involving the United States, Iran and Israel. Out of 20 crew members, 18 were rescued, while Captain Ashish Kumar and another Indian national were reported missing.

NEET-UG 2026 : 6 Candidates Move Supreme Court Alleging OMR Sheet Discrepancy

Six NEET UG 2026 candidates have approached the Supreme Court alleging discrepancies between the answers they had originally marked in their OMR sheets and the copies of the OMR sheets made available by the National Testing Agency (NTA) after the declaration of the examination results.

The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with the petitioners seeking an early hearing before the commencement of the counselling process.

Mentioning the writ petition, the counsel submitted that the case concerns six students who have secured scores above 600 and 650 marks but claim that the OMR sheets now reflected by the NTA differ from what they had actually marked during the examination.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Plea Challenging CAPF Act Allowing IPS Deputation Contrary To SC Judgment

Case : Sanjay Prakash And Ors. V. Union Of India And Ors. | Diary No. 29938-2026 &. Bibhor Kumar Singh (Shaurya Chakra) And Ors. V. Union Of India And Ors | W.P.(C) No. 873/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026, contending that it amounts to an impermissible legislative override of the Court's earlier judgment barring the deputation of IPS officers in the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF).

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was considering a petition filed by 34 officers. The bench also considered another petition filed by 890 CAPF officers.

The plea seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution as well as the doctrine of separation of powers.

Asaram Doesn't Require Hospitalization: AIIMS Tells Supreme Court In Plea To Suspend Rape Sentence

Case Title: ASHA RAM @ ASHUMAL Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN, SLP(Crl) No. 11761/2026

The All India Institute for Medical Sciences has filed a report before the Supreme Court stating that self-styled godman Asaram does not require hospitalization for treatment of his ailment(s). The report however adds that he requires assistance by trained caregivers round the clock.

The report also mentions ailments that Asaram has been found to be suffering from, including coronary artery disease, osteoporosis, chronic hyponatremia, thalassemia, and recurrent gastro incidents involving blood loss.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale has been dealing withAsaram's challengeto 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.

Supreme Court Asks Lok Sabha MP To Approach Union With Plea Seeking Municipalities In Scheduled Tribal Areas

Case : Rajkumar Roat v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 910/2026

The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Rajkumar Roat, Lok Sabha MP belonging to the Bharat Adivasi Party, seeking directions to create municipalities in urban areas falling within Scheduled Tribe areas, asking him to approach the Union Government.

Observing that it was a matter within the legislative policy domain, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana disposed of the matter, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Ministry.

During the hearing, the bench commented that the petitioner, being a Member of Parliament, can pursue the matter in the legislature by moving a private member bill. The bench asked why the petitioner has approached the Court for a matter falling within the competence of the legislative wing.

Does 2-Child Policy Require Reconsideration? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Details: MANGALA BHIMRAO INGLE PRATIK v THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DIVISION AND ORS.|SLP(C) No. 30772/2025

The Supreme Court (August 4) reserved judgment on a petition challenging the bar on persons with more than two children from contesting elections to the Panchayat and other local bodies in Maharashtra. The Court orally stated it will consider whether Javed v State of Haryana(2003) requires reconsideration by the present bench or requires a reference to a larger bench.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a petition about disqualification incurred by a former Sarpanch at the Kakoda Gram Panchayat, Mangala Bhimrao, under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, on the birth of her third child. The 1959 Act imposed a cap of more than two children from September 13, 2000, when the amendment to the legislation was enforced.

While hearing the matter on the last occasion, the bench orally expressed that the Javed judgment, where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which disqualified candidates with more than two living children from contesting local elections, needs reconsideration.

Bar Council Elections : Supreme Court Allows HC CJs To Co-opt 2 Women Members From Ex-Judges Or Advocates

Case Title – M. Varadhan v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed that the two women members to be co-opted to State Bar Councils shall be nominated from among former women High Court judges or senior women members with a fair standing at the Bar, holding that such a mechanism would bring "objectivity, independence and transparency" to the functioning of the councils.

The Court allowed the Chief Justice of the concerned High Courts to nominate the two co-opted members.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a batch of matters concerning various issues arising out of State Bar Council elections, including implementation of women's representation, the method of co-option and the system of transferable votes. The Court had earlier mandated 30% women's reservation in Bar Councils, while clarifying that 10% members could be co-opted. However, there remained confusion regarding how to implement the co-option, and the Court had directed theBCI to finalise a proposal on it after taking the views of all stakeholders.

Supreme Court Extends Stay On NCP MLA Manikrao Kokate's Conviction In 1995 Cheating Case Till Bombay High Court Decides Revision

Case Title: Manikrao Shivaji Kokate v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court disposed of NCP MLA Manikrao Kokate's plea seeking a stay on his conviction in a 1995 cheating case, asking the Bombay High Court to decide his revision petition within six months. The Court continued the interim stay on his conviction until the revision is decided.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the order.

The case concerns allegations that Kokate and his brother Vijay obtained two government flats under a scheme for weaker sections of society by falsely declaring that their annual income was below the eligibility ceiling of Rs 30,000.

Digital Arrest Scams: Supreme Court Issues Directions For Prevention, Compensation & Grievance Redressal

Case title – In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents

The Supreme Court issued a series of directions to strengthen the prevention, investigation and redressal mechanisms relating to the growing menace of "digital arrest" scams, including directing the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to adopt a standard operating procedure (SOP) for banks, operationalise grievance redressal and money restoration mechanisms, and asking an inter-departmental committee to examine a framework for shared liability and victim compensation.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the directions in the suo motu proceedingsconcerning digital arrest scams, after hearing Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate NS Nappinai.

Bench expresses satisfaction with reduction in cases, but stresses on continued vigilance

NEET-PG 2025 Cut-Off Reduction : Expert Committee Formed To Examine Issue, Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: HARISHARAN DEVGAN AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 136/2026

The Supreme Court (August 4) adjourned the batch of pleas challenging the reduction in the cut-off percentile for NEET-PG 2025-26 for eight weeks after it was informed by the Union that the Government has set up an Expert Committee to examine the issues.

In earlier hearings, a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe had said it would examine whether the sharp reduction in the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025-26 affects standards in postgraduate medical education.

The bench had recommended that the government form a committee to study the issues raised. The Court was informed by Additional Solicitor General Aiswarya Bhati that an Expert Committee comprising various stakeholders has been formed.

Supreme Court Urges States/UTs To Consider Reservation For Military Cadets Injured During Training In Quota For Ex-Military Personnel

Case : IN RE: CADETS DISABLED IN MILITARY TRAINING STRUGGLE | SMW(C) No. 6/2025

The Supreme Court urged the Union of India to frame a scheme for the welfare of cadets outboarded by the armed forces on account of disabilities incurred during military training.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan called on ASG N Venkataraman (for Union) to obtain necessary instructions, noting that provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 may not apply to such cadets, particularly those benchmark disability is less than 40 percent.

The Court also directed the respondent-departments to re-consider the recommendations made by the Sabharwal Committee report, keeping in view the fact that the Court has taken up the present case for amelioration of the conditions of outboarded cadets. "We expect that certain favorable recommendations would be emanating from the respondent-departments in this regard", the Court said.

Won't Allow Release Of Tertiary Water Into Jojari River : Supreme Court

Case: In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8 of 2025

In the suo motu case taken up over industrial river pollution in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court categorically said that no tertiary water (treated wastewater) would be allowed to be released into Jojari river of the state.

"Not even a drop of that tertiary water can be allowed in the river. Steel industry is now starting re-use treated water. Tell us whether textile industry is in a position to re-use that water? If you can't use it for dyeing and printing purposes, how do you expect it to be allowed to go into the river where it mixes into drinking water? As on date, no tertiary water will be allowed. You rest assured. We'll not even hear arguments on that. With great difficulty, the river has started breathing. Let it breathe. We will not allow any attempt to kill it again" Justice Sandeep Mehta said.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Mehta listed the matter for delivery of orders. However, during the hearing, it was not convinced with pleas related to discharge of accumulated wastewater. It questioned how the wastewater could be permitted to be released in the river water which was to be utilized for drinking, when the industries were not willing to re-use the same water for industrial purposes.

Computer-Based NEET In 2 Stage Like JEE Under Active Consideration : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Details : Federation of All India Medical Association v. Union of India | WP(c) 651/2026

The Union Government has informed the Supreme Court that it has undertaken a comprehensive overhaul of the National Testing Agency's (NTA) examination processes following the controversy surrounding the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, and has asserted that a multi-layered security architecture has now been put in place to ensure the integrity of national entrance examinations.

Responding to petitions seeking structural reforms of the NTA, the Centre detailed the measures adopted pursuant to theCourt's May 29, 2026 orderdirecting it to explain how the conduct of NEET examinations would be institutionalised to preserve lessons learnt from previous cycles and prevent future lapses.

Computer-based testing under consideration

News Outlets Can Report Court Proceedings Without Sharing Audio-Video Clips : Supreme Court Clarifies

Case : Harshita Grover v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 751/2026

The Supreme Court has clarified that its recent interim order restricting the sharing and uploading of audio-video clips of court proceedings does not prohibit recognised news organisations from reporting on hearings. The Court said that the restriction is limited to the use of audio and video clips of court proceedings in news reports.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued the clarification while hearing a batch of petitions concerning live streaming and recording of court proceedings.

The clarification came after the Court noted that "some confusion persists" regarding paragraph 11 of its July 24 interim order, which had said that the bar on sharing of clips of hearings will not bar reporting by recognised news outlets.

'Tomorrow Gen Alpha, Beta Will Come' : Petitioner Urges Supreme Court Not To Allow Withdrawal Of Cases Against Student Protesters

Case : MANEESH KUMAR SOLANKI Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 958/2026

"Tomorrow Generation Alpha, Beta, Delta will come," a petitioner warned the Supreme Court while opposing any political decision to withdraw criminal cases against the Gen Z student protesters, arguing that doing so would set a dangerous precedent for future agitations. The plea seeks directions restraining the Union Government and States from withdrawing rioting cases arising out of the recent student protests solely on the basis of any political understanding.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana tagged the matter along with other cases concerning the student protests, in which the Court on August 3 clarified thatthe FIRs registered against the protesters can be withdrawn.

The petition filed by Maneesh Kumar Solanki sought fixing of accountability on the organisers of the protests. Advocate Rizwan Ahmed, appearing for the petitioner, submitted, "It [the protest] was about accountability of the Minister and the police; we accept that. 15 days have passed. What about the accountability of the organisers? They are going from channel to channel giving provocative statements and refusing to douse the fire."

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against SCBA Resolution Supporting Sonam Wangchuk, Allows To Invoke SCBA Process

Case :   ASHISH GOPAL GARG Vs SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION | W.P.(C) No. 948/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a resolution passed by the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association expressing solidarity with the hunger strike held by Sonam Wangchuk in support of the student protests over the exam paper leak issue.

The Court disposed of the petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue "democratic processes" available as per the SCBA Rules. When the petitioner pointed out that the Executive Committee was no longer in existence, the Court clarified that the Election Committee can be approached.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana observed that it will be a dangerous precedent if the Court interferes with the views expressed by the Bar Association. Members having a contrary opinion can call for another general body meeting to express their views, the bench suggested, expressing reluctance to interfere in the issue.

States Cannot Cite Financial Burden To Oppose Raising Judicial Officers' Retirement Age : Supreme Court

Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

The Supreme Court held that States cannot oppose enhancement of the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years on the ground of additional financial burden, or citing the reason that the retirement age of government servants was different.

Rejecting both these reasons as "untenable", the Court directed all States that have opposed enhancement of the retirement age to revisit the issue independently and take a fresh decision at the earliest within two weeks. The Court clarified that the States will not be precluded from approving the enhancement of retirement age merely because the jurisdictional High Court has taken a contrary view. The objections of the High Courts will be considered at an appropriate time, the Court stated.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made these observations while hearing the All India Judges Association case concerning enhancement of the retirement age of members of the district judiciary.

Is Partial Relaxation For Certain Crackers Possible Regarding Noise Levels? Supreme Court Asks CPCB

Case Details: ARJUN GOPAL & ORS v UOI &ORS

The Supreme Court directed the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to get instructions from the Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB) as to whether a partial relaxation can be made for allowing certain types of crackers.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale directed: "Learned ASG is directed to get instructions from the Central Pollution Control Board on the query of the Court as to whether a partial relaxation with respect to certain types of crackers may be possible, with specific reference to noise."

The directions were passed in a long-standing writ petition filed by three infants highlighting the grave health hazards caused by firecrackers during Diwali. In 2016, the Supreme Court then passed a series of orders imposing a ban on conventional firecrackers and their manufacturing and selling. In 2017, it directed the CPCB and the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation to set up standards with regard to air pollution caused by firecrackers and banned certain chemicals used for making crackers.

Shiv Sena Case | Political Party's Decision Must Prevail Over Legislative Party's Majority, Says Supreme Court In Hearing

Case : Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (and connected case)

In the Shiv Senadispute, the Supreme Court orally said that as per existing law, a political party has subsisting control over a legislature party and any decision of the political party would prevail over the will of the majority of the legislature party.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the plea filed by Uddhav Thackeray faction member Sunil Prabhu challenging the Maharashtra Speaker's refusal to disqualify MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction under the 10th Schedule. Another petition, filed by Uddhav Thackeray, was also listed before the bench, which challenges the ECI decision that recognized the Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena and allowed it the use of the 'bow and arrow' symbol.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed :

When Can ECI Choose Not To Hold Bye-Election? Supreme Court To Interpret S.151A RP Act

Case Title: ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA Versus SUGHOSH JOSHI AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 200/2024

The Supreme Court is set to consider issues pertaining to the interpretation of Section 151A of the Representation of People Act, which provides that bye-polls be conducted to fill up within 6 months a post that falls vacant in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha or the State Legislative Assemblies/Councils.

Notably, Section 151A contains a proviso, as per which ECI need not hold bye-elections for a vacant seat if the remainder of the term in relation to the vacancy is less than 1 year. One of the issues arising in the case therefore is - from what date the 1-year period is to be reckoned: the date the post falls vacant, a date after the expiry of the 6-month period, or any other date?

On Augsut 4, A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard y the ECI's challenge to a Bombay High Court order, which held that the 1 year period is to be reckoned from the date when the post falls vacant and ECI must conclude the elections within the 6 month period.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Chhattisgarh Businessman In Alleged Manpower Commission Scam; Directs Him To Stay Outside State

Case Title – Anwar Dhebar v. State of Chhattisgarh

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Chhattisgarh businessman Anwar Dhebar in a corruption case arising out of an alleged commission racket involving manpower agencies engaged by the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL).

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana directed Dhebar to remain outside Chhattisgarh while on interim bail. However, it permitted him to enter the State for the trial or to attend court proceedings.

The Court passed the order while hearing Dhebar's plea challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal to grant him regular bail.

Judicial Officers Are Not Government Servants; They Can Have Different Retirement Age : Supreme Court

Case Title – All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court observed that judicial officers are not government servants and constitute a distinct and separate class, while considering the proposal to increase the retirement age of District Judges from 60 to 62 years.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observation while dealing with one of the objections raised by some State governments to the proposed enhancement.

The Court had on July 22 asked the High Courts to take a time-bound decision on increasing the retirement age of judicial officers. As an interim arrangement, it had said that where a State government and the jurisdictional High Court concurred on increasing the retirement age, the judicial officers concerned could be allowed to continue in service until the enhanced age of retirement. The Court had also clarified that any eventual decision on enhancement would relate back to superannuation taking place on or after April 1, 2026.

Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of Abhishek Banerjee's Aide Sumit Roy In Salboni Land-grab case

Case : SUMIT ROY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL | Diary No. 46817/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the arrest of Sumit Roy, Personal Assistant of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee, in the Salboni land-grabbing case.

The Court however directed him to appear for interrogation and cooperate with the investigation. "The petitioner to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation. He should not be accompanied by any advocate or any other person. He shall remain available for any investigation from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the usual breaks. However, his arrest will remain stayed," the Court ordered.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the interim order while considering Roy's petition challenging the Calcutta High Court's August 3 order rejecting his plea for anticipatory bail.

Supreme Court Takes Note Of Lucknow Coaching Centre Fire, Issues Contempt Notice To LDA Vice Chairman

Cause Title: LOGANATHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

The Supreme Court has taken serious note of the Lucknow coaching centre tragedy that claimed 15 lives in June, and issued a contempt notice to the Vice-Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) for alleged non-compliance with its directions to identify and act against residential premisesbeing misused for non-residential purposes.

During the hearing, a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was informed by Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha, Amicus Curiae, that the building where the fatal incident occurred had been the subject of a demolition order passed on May 10, 2016. However, the order was reportedly recalled by the authority itself less than two months later on technical grounds, after which no further action was taken.

The Court was told that the residential premises continued to be used for commercial and educational activities until the recent tragedy resulted in the deaths of 15 students.

Supreme Court Flags Coaching Institutes Running In Commercial Areas In Jaipur

Cause Title: LOGANATHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

The Supreme Court expressed concern over coaching institutes continuing to operate from commercial areas in Jaipur despite the availability of dedicated buildings constructed for their relocation, and ordered that any allotment of such buildings to other persons or institutions would remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan passed the direction while monitoring compliance with its earlier orders concerning illegal constructions, violations of Master Plans and unauthorized land use across the country.

The Court was informed that although the Government had constructed dedicated multi-storeyed buildings to relocate coaching institutes, those institutes continued to function from commercial areas. Instead of shifting the coaching centres to the designated premises, the authorities were reportedly allotting those buildings to other institutions.

Supreme Court Allows Asaram To Engage Caregiver In Prison; Deprecates Obtaining Of Parole From HC By Suppressing Plea In SC

Case Title: ASHA RAM @ ASHUMAL Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN, SLP(Crl) No. 11761/2026

The Supreme Court allowed self-styled godman Asaram, who is in jail following conviction in a 2013 rape case, to avail round-the-clock services of a trained caregiver of his choice.

While keeping his application for suspension of sentence pending, a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale further granted Asaram liberty to approach the Court again if his condition worsens. The bench passed the order considering a recent report filed by the AIIMS, as per which Asaram does not require hospitalisation for his ailments, but requires round-the-clock assistance from trained caregivers. Asaram was stated to be suffering from ailments such as coronary artery disease, thalassemia, osteoporosis, etc.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out to the court that Asaram obtained 20-day parole from the Rajasthan High Court(on medical grounds) by suppressing the present application. He stated that while the present case was suppressed before the High Court, the parole plea before the High Court was suppressed before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Proposes Transferring Tamil Nadu Bribery Case Against ED Officer To Central Agency

Case : Directore of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu W.P.(Crl.) No. 23/2024

The Supreme Court indicated that it may transfer the investigation into the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) bribery case against Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer Ankit Tiwari to an independent central investigating agency, while making it clear that it would not vacate the stay on the State's proceedings.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was hearing the writ petition filed by the ED in 2024 seeking to transfer the investigation of the bribery case against ED officer from the Tamil Nadu agency to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In January 2024, the Court had stayed theproceedings in the TN FIR.

Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar submitted that the State had moved an application seeking vacation of the stay. "Further proceedings against an ED officer were stayed. We have sought vacation of stay," Kumar submitted.

Home Loan Subvention Fraud : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Fasten CBI Probe & Prosecution Sanctions Against Bankers

Case Title – Himanshu Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court directed seven States to provide additional police officers to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) within 10 days for its probe into the alleged builder-bank fraud nexus in housing projects.

The Court also directed State Bank of India, UCO Bank, HDFC, ICICI and Sammaan Capital, among other financial institutions, to expeditiously process the CBI's requests for sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prosecute their officers and officials who have been prima facie found involved during the investigation.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the directions while dealing with petitions concerning alleged systemic failures by banks, housing finance companies and government authorities in housing loan subvention schemes.

Health-Tech Company Moves Supreme Court Seeking CBI Probe Into Cyber Attack & Data Theft

Case Title: VITRAYA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Diary No. 31408-2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition seeking a CBI/Court-monitored SIT probe into the alleged hacking and theft of citizens' personal and medical data stored at a health-tech company.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order on the plea of one Vitraya Technologies Pvt. Limited, which has a digital platform for real-time settlement of health insurance claims. Senior Advocate K Parameshwar appeared for the petitioner.

He submitted that the data breaches happened across six States. "I have been informing the authorities from day one. I filed my complaint in March 2025. It took them till August 2025 even to register an FIR," he submitted. He added that the FIR invoked only Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, which was inadequate. "I gave them the details of the Singapore server where the medical records of nearly 1.5 lakh Indian citizens have gone. Even today, the FIR is against unknown persons. How do I trust this investigation?," he submitted.

'Reservation Not Only Based On Economic Status' : Centre Opposes Plea In Supreme Court For Income-Based Sub-Quota Within SC/ST/OBCs

Case :Ramashankar Prajapati & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 682/2025

The Union Government has opposed apetition in the Supreme Court seeking directions to introduce an income-based sub-quota within reserved categories, contending that reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is founded on historical and social backwardness and not merely economic status.

In a counter affidavit filed through the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Centre argued that the petition seeks judicial directions to frame a policy on reservation, which falls within the executive domain and cannot be mandated through a writ of mandamus.

The petitioners have sought directions to the Union Government to evolve a more equitable reservation policy by introducing income-based preferences within SC, ST, OBC and EWS categories and by creating sub-classifications to ensure that economically weaker persons within each reserved category receive priority in the distribution of reservation benefits.

'Are Political Parties Not Supposed To Follow Democratic Principles Like Other Institutions?' Supreme Court Asks In Shiv Sena Hearing

Case : Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (and connected case)

In the Shiv Sena matter, the Supreme Court asked the Uddhav Thackeray faction if political parties are not supposed to abide by democratic principles the way constitutional institutions do.

"Your party constitution was based on democratic principles. And then you suddenly brought an amendment and created a complete...When we talk of democratic principles in institutions, a question would arise - as a political party, are you also not supposed to follow the principles?" the Chief Justice of India questioned.

In response, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the Uddhav faction, contended that there is a difference between institutions that discharge political functions and institutions that discharge constitutional functions. He said that while an erroneous political function can be corrected, a wrong decision by a constitutional authority like ECI can seldom be rectified. The senior counsel further underlined that the level of integrity expected from institutions discharging constitutional functions is way higher.

New Scheme For Modernization Of Entire Police Force Under Consideration: Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Details :

The Supreme Court was informed on August 5 by the Union that an umbrella scheme for modernization of the entire police force across the country is under consideration. The same has been sent to the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance for in-principle approval.

The Union further stated that the Assistance to States and Union Territories for Modernization of Police (ASUMP) scheme has been extended till March 31, 2027.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was apprised of the developments by ASG Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare during the hearing of the suo motu case taken up over lack of functional CCTVs in police stations.

Supreme Court Refuses To Reject Election Petition Against Ex-Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel

Case: Bhupesh Baghel v. Vijay Baghel, SLP(C) No. 24440/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel's plea seeking rejection of an election petition challenging his victory in the 2023 Chhattisgarh Assembly elections, while permitting him to raise all his legal objections during the trial before the High Court.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard Baghel's challenge to the maintainability of the election petition filed by his BJP rival Vijay Baghel.

The election petition alleges that Bhupesh Baghel violated the 48-hour silence period before polling by conducting a roadshow, amounting to a violation of Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

'Approach HC' : Supreme Court To NEET-UG 2026 Candidates Alleging OMR Discrepancy

Case Details: BUSHRA NAIM vs. UNION OF INDIA| W.P.(C) No. 964/2026

The Supreme Court (August 7) disposed of a writ petition filed by six NEET UG 2026 candidates alleging discrepancies between the answers they had originally marked in their OMR sheets and the copies of the OMR sheets made available by the National Testing Agency (NTA) after the declaration of the examination results.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe disposed of the writ petition and granted liberty for them to approach the Delhi High Court. The bench stated it can't entertain the petition because the re-examination has already taken place and the matter regarding institutionalisation of NTA is sub judice.

The petitioner's counsel, Advocate Sanjeev Malhotra, stated that they don't wish to interfere with the ongoing counselling and that their limited plea is for access to the OMRs to verify their marks.

'Freedom Fighters Took Bullets & You Fear Eggs?' : Supreme Court Refuses Mahua Moitra's Plea For Virtual Appearance Before Police

Case Details: MAHUA MOITRA Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL|SLP(Crl) No. 14405/2026 Diary No. 47058 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 7) refused to entertain a plea filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra challenging the Calcutta High Court's order directing her to appear before the investigating officer in a criminal case filed against her for allegedly offending religious sentiments.

On July 21, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya of the Calcutta High Court grantedMoitra interim protection from arrest but directed her to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer on August 14.

When the matter was taken up before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, the Court stated that she will have to face the investigation. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan submitted that she has no issue with appearing for investigation, but it can be done virtually. To this, Justice Datta orally remarked: "Just because you are an MP?"

Supreme Court Stays HC Proceedings In Pleas Of X Corp, Kunal Kamra & Others Against Sahyog Portal, Content Blocking Powers

Case : UNION OF INDIA & ANR v DIGIPUB NEWS INDIA FOUNDATION & ORS.| Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 2071-2074/2026

The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings in cases pending before the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the 'Sahyog Portal' and the powers under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 for take down of online content.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order on July 22 while hearing transfer petitions filed by the Union government.

The Centre has sought the transfer to the Supreme Court of four proceedings pending before the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts. Issuing notice on the transfer petitions, returnable on August 10, the Court directed:

Two Hospitals Agree In Supreme Court To Pay Compensation Over Lapse In Treating 4-Year-Old Rape Victim

Case Title : XXX v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, W.P.(Crl.) No. 139/2026

After a nudge from the Supreme Court, two private hospitals in Ghaziabad agreed to pay compensation to the family of a four-year-old girl who died after allegedly being denied timely medical treatment following a brutal rape. The Court also indicated that it would frame guidelines to ensure prompt medical care for victims of sexual assault and other medical emergencies.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the directions while hearing the suo motu case in which it had earlier constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the rape and murder of the child and had expressed concern over the conduct of the Uttar Pradesh authorities as well as the refusal of two private hospitals to admit and treat her.

As the bench was proposing to direct the payment of compensation, the hospitals agreed to voluntarily pay the sums. The order therefore recorded that  St. Joseph Mariam Hospital, Ghaziabad, would pay ₹10 lakh to the victim's family, while the second hospital agreed to pay ₹2 lakh. The amounts are to be paid through demand drafts within four weeks.

Can Waqfs Claim Court Fee Exemption In Waqf Tribuals? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: AHMEDABAD SUNNI MUSLIM WAQF COMMITTEE Vs GUJARAT STATE WAQF TRIBUNAL|SLP(C) No. 18353/2026 Diary No. 24045 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 7) issued notice in a plea raising the issue of whether waqf institutions can be exempted from payment of court fees in proceedings before State Waqf Tribunals.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi issued notice to the Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal after briefly hearing Senior Advocate Huzefa A. Ahmadi(for the petitioner).

Ahmadi took the Court through the Gujarat Court-Fees Act, 2004and argued that the Tribunal constituted under the Act doesn't have the same powers as the civil court.

Deepak Prakash Nominated As MLC, Can Continue As Minister : Bihar Govt Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 746 of 2026.

Bihar Minister Deepak Prakash has been nominated as a Member of the Legislative Council, and hence there was no bar on his continuation as a Minister, the Satte Government told the Supreme Court.

The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking to remove Prakash, an unelected member, from the Minister post on the ground that he has not become a member of the legislature within six months of his appointment as the Minister.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, informed the Court that the disqualification has been cured with Prakash's nomination as an MLC. Asking the State to produce the notification, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana adjourned the writ petition filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh.

Biren Singh Audio Clips Manipulated, Says NFSU Analysis; Supreme Court Allows Kuki Group To Access Report

Case Details:  KUKI ORGANIZATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS TRUST Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 702/2024 Diary No. 47024 / 2024

The Supreme Court directed that the latest forensic report prepared by the National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU) be shared with the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights who is seeking investigation into audio clips allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in the State's ethnic violence.

According to the second NFSU report, the audio clips examined were found to be altered, making it impossible to authenticate the recording or compare the voice with Biren Singh's admitted voice samples.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva passed the order while directing that the report should remain confidential and not be made public.

Noida Workers Protest : Law Student Approaches Supreme Court Alleging Police Harassment

Case Title: YOGESH MEENA Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

During the hearing of a case related to the Noida workers' protest, Advocate Shahrukh Alam flagged before the Supreme Court "abuse of process" against a student protestor by Uttar Pradesh police.

The advocate claimed that the petitioner, a first year law student, was arrested in 11 FIRs after the protest and was being harassed by the police on his alleged acquaintance with another person, a driver, who had been arrested over sharing of inciteful messages. She claimed that there was no material to support the police's allegation that the petitioner was the main conspirator and the driver was acting on his behest. It was further highlighted that the accused-driver had since been released on bail, but the petitioner continued to be in custody.

As per allegations, the petitioner was picked up by the police from outside his college, beaten up and subjected to casteist slurs.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Regulate Private Coaching Centres

Case Details:  NARENDRA KUMAR GOSWAMI v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 808/2026

The Supreme Court (August 7) dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to remove "unregulated, fee-driven private coaching" systems.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the writ petition filed by Advocate Narendra Kumar Goswani as petitioner-in-person. The petitioner urged that the notice may be issued to the Central Board of Secondary Education. However, the Court refused and stated that these matters are not where Article 32 should be invoked.

As per his writ petition, it has been stated that the fundamental rights of students have been violated across the nation because of such a private coaching ecosystem. The petitioner has relied upon the Central Consumer Protection Authority's 'Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in Coaching Sector, 2024' and the reports from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights about the proliferation of "dummy schools" and alarming spike in student suicides, particularly in coaching hubs like Kota, Rajasthan, linked directly to coaching pressure.

Bombay HC New Building: Will Complete Bid Process & Hand Over Remaining Land By December, State Tells Supreme Court

Case Details : IN RE: HERITAGE BUILDING OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND ALLOTMENT OF ADDITIONAL LANDS FOR THE HIGH COURT, SMW (C) No(s). 5/2024

The Maharashtra government informed the Supreme Court that it will complete the bid process for the construction of the new Bombay High Court buildi

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing the suo motu proceedings concerning the preservation of the Bombay High Court's heritage building and the allotment of additional land for expansion of the court's infrastructure.

Appearing for the State, Advocate General Milind Sathe apprised the Bench of the progress made in implementing the project.

Ukraine War | Missing Seafarers Could Not Be Located Despite Search : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. Union of India

The Union Government informed the Supreme Court that two Indian seafarers who went missing after cargo vessel MV AGN Ragnar was attacked in the Black Sea near Ukraine could not be located despite exhaustive search and rescue operations undertaken by the Ukrainian authorities, the Romanian Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC), the Romanian Coast Guard and associated rescue services.

“As regard to the latest status, it is pointed out that as per the information received up to 5th August 2026, extensive SAR operations undertaken by Ukrainian authority, Romanian MRCC, Romanian Coast Guard and associated rescue services were unable to locate Mr. Deepak Kumar Gupta and Mr. Ramachandra. It is stated that search operations presently remain suspended pending receipt of fresh information while DGMA continues to pursue all pending investigation and SAR reports and remains engaged with all concerned stakeholders”, the Court noted.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court asked the Centre to facilitate insurance claims for the families of the missing seafarers.

Supreme Court Refuses To Suspend Sentence Of Asaram's Son Narayan Sai In 2013 Rape Case

Case: NARAYAN @NARAYAN SAI @MOTA BHAGWAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. Diary No. 29992-2026

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a Gujarat High Courtorderwhich refused suspension of life sentence of self-styled godman Asaram's son, Narayan Sai, in connection with a 2013 rape case.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale passed an order requesting the High Court to decide Narayan Sai's appeal against conviction and sentence in 3 months.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan appeared for Narayan Sai.

MBBS : Supreme Court Suggests Uniform National Policy On Compulsory Rural Service By Medical Students

Case Details: ASHISH REDU Vs GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA|W.P.(C) No. 332/2024 Diary No. 22561 / 2024

The Supreme Court suggested that there should be a uniform policy regarding compulsory rural service to be rendered by medical students. The Solicitor General agreed to get instructions from the Centre regarding such a pan-Indian policy.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a writ petition challenging a notification issued by the Karnataka Government that required the medical students to fulfil one year of compulsory public rural service in order to be eligible for permanent registration with the Karnataka Medical Council.

At the outset, Justice Narasimha remarked that the policy is very important. He suggested that a uniform policy should be formulated in this regard as medical students have an obligation towards nation building also.

'Totally Incompetent': Supreme Court Slams Chhattisgarh DGP In Custodial Death Case, Warns Contempt

Case : LAHRA BAI TAMRE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Diary No. - 48963/2025

Taking note of laxity shown by senior police officials in a custodial death case, the Supreme Court came down heavily on Chhattisgarh police and slammed the Director General of Police as "totally incompetent".

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a writ petition filed by a man's wife and two daughters, alleging that their husband/father died in custody due to custodial torture. Though the death of the man took place in January 2024, an FIR was apparently registered by the police to probe his death on July 30, 2026.

The family had initially approached the High Court seeking a fair investigation into the custodial death as well as a compensation of Rs.50 lakhs. The High Court however disposed of the matter while awarding Rs.1 lakh as compensation, without passing any direction for registration of FIR or probe into the allegations.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma Over Cash Row

The Supreme Court (August 7) dismissed a writ petition seeking registration of FIR against Yashwant Varma, former judge of the Allahabad High Court, in thealleged unaccounted cash-at-home discovery during a fire incident.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the writ petition filed by advocate Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay, calling it a publicity interest litigation. It noted that the Court had earlier rejected similar petitions.

Upadhyay sought an FIR against Justice Varma, stating that since thejudge retired in April this year, he no longer has immunity against arrest under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The issue relates to the accidental discovery of a huge pile of currency notes at an outhouse of the official residence of Justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court, during a firefighting operation on March 14, 2025.

Supreme Court Allows SIR Appellate Tribunal Judge To Approach Calcutta HC For Enhanced Security

Case Title: Ananya Kanti Roy Saraswati v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to examine the plea for enhanced security filed by the son of former Calcutta High Court judge Justice Anindita Roy Saraswati, who is serving as the Appellate Tribunal for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.

“The matter pertains to adequate security to a former judge of the High Court who is presently performing the duties of Appellate Tribunal, Special Intensive Revision in the State of West Bengal. In our considered opinion, the petitioner may approach the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, whom we request to look into the matter and take necessary steps as may be required,” the Court ordered.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Advocates' Plea Challenging Gujarat District Judge Recruitment Results

Case Title: Mansi Jain & Anr. v. Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition filed by two advocates challenging the Gujarat High Court's recruitment process for District Judges under the 25% direct recruitment quota for the recruitment year 2024-25, in which none of the 113 advertised vacancies were filled despite two candidates qualifying for the viva voce stage.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice after briefly hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioners.

The petition challenges the final result dated July 9, 2026, and seeks directions to set aside the result insofar as it declares them unsuccessful and a fresh, fair and transparent evaluation process.

TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee Approaches Supreme Court Second Time Seeking Foreign Travel Permission For Eye Treatment

Case : Abhishek Banerjee v. State of West Bengal | SLP (Crl) 14489/2026

Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court's August 5 decision to reject his plea seeking permission to travel abroad for eye treatment.

The High Court's restriction on foreign travel was imposed as a condition for a stay on his arrest in the criminal case relating to an alleged provocative speech made in connection with the concluded West Bengal Assembly elections.

He had earlier approached the Court challenging the July 20 order of the High Court, which refused him travel permission, and instead asked him to undergo treatment at the state-run SSKM Hospital and the Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research (IPGME&R).

Supreme Court Directs Rajasthan To Constitute Inter-Departmental Group & River Authority To Tackle Environmental Issues

Case: In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8 of 2025

In the suo motu case taken up to address industrial pollution in Rajasthan's rivers, the Supreme Court directed constitution of an Integrated Coordination Group, which shall work in consultation with the High Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee and present a comprehensive action plan for tackling ecological concerns.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order, calling for a resolution plan for prevention of environmental degradation, pollution abatement, ecological restoration, conservation of riverine ecosystems, protection of groundwater resources, preservation of biodiversity and strengthening of the institutional framework governing river basin management.

"The Resolution Plan shall identify the action points, the authority responsible for implementation, the implementation framework, measurable milestones and definite timelines for completion of each component", the Court said.

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sameem Begum and Others v. K. Venkat Swamy and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 809

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a legal representative of a person killed in a motor accident can maintain a claim for compensation even if the particular legal representative was not financially dependent on the deceased.

The Court, relying on its earlier decisions, emphasised that “liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned.”

“Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person because of a motor vehicle accident has a remedy for realisation of compensation to be paid under different heads.”, observed the bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice NV Anjaria. The Court stated that legal representatives who are not dependants are entitled to claim compensation under heads such as loss of consortium.

Manipur Violence : Supreme Court Urges Gauhati High Court Chief Justice To Consider Exclusive Courts For CBI, NIA Cases

Case: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arun Khundongbam @Nanao | SLP(Crl) No. 5756/2026 and Connected Cases

The Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to consider setting up exclusive courts to deal with cases arising out of the Manipur violence that are being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the request while hearing a batch of petitions concerning the investigation and trial of sexual violence cases that occurred during the Manipur crisis. The Supreme Court had earlier transferred the trials from Manipur to Assam under the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court.

Today, considering the status reports filed, the Supreme Court noted that a large number of witnesses were yet to be examined in the CBI cases and said that dedicated courts could facilitate expeditious trials.

Supreme Court Asks Union, Assam To Reply To Plea Seeking I-Cards For Those Included In NRC List

Case Details: All Assam Minorities Students Union (Aamsu) W.P.(C) No. 839/2026 Diary No. 40481 / 2026 | Assam State Jamiat Ulama v. Union of India v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1030/2025 | W.P.(C) No. 1026/2025 Diary No. 55648 / 2025 Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind v. Union of India |

The Supreme Court (August 10) directed the Union Government and the State of Assam to file replies in a batch of petitions concerning the issuance of National Register of Citizens (NRC) Identity Cards to persons included in the National Register of Citizens (NRC) list published in August 2019.

The petitions have been filed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, the All Assam Minority Students' Union (AAMSU), and the Assam Sankhyalaghu Sangram Parishad, respectively.

Before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal(for Jamiat) submitted that notice has been issued but the Union and State are yet to file a reply. Sibal also requested that he may be allowed to file a rejoinder to the reply filed by the Registrar General of India.

Supreme Court Adjourns UBT Plea Challenging MPs' Merger With Shiv Sena As Speaker Doesn't Appear

Case Details: Arvind Ganpat Sawant v. Honble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 886/2026

The Supreme Court adjourned for two weeks the petition filed by Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (UBT) member Arvind Ganpat Sawant challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision approving the merger of its six Members of Parliament with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe adjourned the matter noting that there is no appearance for the Speaker. The bench hadearlier issued notice to the respondents on July 22.

Today, Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Siddharth Bhatnagar entered appearance for some of the MLAs of the Shinde Sena. However, there was no appearance for the Speaker.

'Everyone Has Right To Choose Medical Care' : Supreme Court Gives Abhishek Banerjee Foreign Travel Permission For Eye Treatment

Case: Abhishek Banerjee v. State of West Bengal | SLP (Crl) 14489/2026

The Supreme Court allowed Trinamool Congress member and Lok Sabha MP Abhishek Banerjee to travel abroad for a period of three weeks for medical treatment of his eye.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana allowed Banerjee's appeal against the Calcutta High Court's refusal to relax the restriction on foreign travel, which was imposed as a condition for stay his arrest in a case over an alleged provocative remark made during the 2026 State Assembly election campaign.

The Supreme Court granted the permission subject to Banerjee's undertaking that he will travel only on his diplomatic passport. He has also been directed to share his itinerary and place of stay with the investigating agency.

'Media Can't Say It's Not Performing Public Function' : Supreme Court Dismisses TV Today Plea Against Delhi HC Penalty

Case: Tv Today Network Limited v. Abc and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 27299/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by TV Today Network challenging aDelhi High Court order upholding the award of ₹5 lakh damages against it for violating the privacy and confidentiality rights of a child sexual abuse victim by airing details capable of revealing her identity.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana rejected the broadcaster's argument that the High Court had erred inholding that the media performs a public function and can therefore be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Senior Advocate appearing for TV Today argued that the High Court had ignored the principles laid down in its own judgment while holding that the broadcaster was performing a "public function", making it amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Third Petition Filed By Same Petitioner For Regulation Of Religious Education

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 868/2026 Diary No. 41685 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 10) dismissed as withdrawn a petition seeking registration, recognition and supervision of all institutions imparting religious education to children up to 14 years.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, at the outset, clarified that they wouldn't entertain the third petition filed on the same issue when the Court had earlier refused to entertain two similar petitions filed by the same petitioner, Ashwini Upadhyay, on the same cause.

The bench noted that asimilar petition[W.P.(C) No. 590/2026] was earlier considered by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. That bench had noted that a previous writ petition on the same cause [WP 143/2026] was disposed of directing him to make a representation. Subsequently, WP 590 was dismissed, stating that the petitioner must await the decision on the representation given to the.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & States On PIL Seeking Steps To Expedite NDPS Trials & Tackle Drug Abuse

Case: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 288/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and all States on a PIL seeking directions to tackle drug menace in the country, including a declaration that sentences in NDPS cases shall run consecutively.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order in the public interest litigation initiated by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The case was directed to be listed alongwith a suo motu case taken up by the Court (2022) on similar issues.

During the hearing, Advocate Upadhyay contended that incidents of drug addicts causing harm to their families get frequently reported in newspapers. The CJI responded that the problem is indeed very serious and affects the entire country. However, the judge added that for tackling the rising menace of drugs, coordinate efforts are required on the part of expert agencies and the law and order machinery.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre On Plea To Frame Regulations Under National Commission For Allied & Healthcare Professions Act

Case Details: Federation of Self Financing Technical Institutions (Fsftt) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 972/2026

The Supreme Court (August 10) issued notice in a writ petition filed by the Federation of Self Financing Technical Institutions(FSFTI) seeking framing of mandatory regulations under the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) Act, 2021.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice to the Union, the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions, LK Gujral Punjab Technical University(IKGPTU) and Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Technical University(MRSPTU).

Advocate Meenesh Dubey argued that no formal regulations have been framed despite the passage of five years since the Act was enforced. This has left the sector exposed to uncertainty as it's mostly governed by a series of shifting executive circulars, notices, corrigenda and communications, causing continuing and irreparable prejudice to institutions, universities and students across the country.

Supreme Court Asks Manipur Committee To Verify Complaints Over Non-Restoration Of Damaged Houses

The Supreme Court asked the High-Powered Committee constituted to oversee relief and rehabilitation measures in violence-hit Manipur to examine complaints that several affected families are yet to receive the benefits of rehabilitation, including reconstruction of houses damaged during the ethnic violence.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the direction while hearing submissions by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Kuki organisations, who alleged that houses belonging to Kuki families which were destroyed during the violence had not been reconstructed even after three years.

Gonsalves submitted that an earlier order of the Court had noted the destruction of 144 tribal villages and 607 houses belonging to Kuki families. He contended that despite directions for reconstruction, not a single house that had been burnt to the ground had been reconstructed.

'Ram Rahim Singh's Acquittal Requires Consideration' : Supreme Court To Hear Slain Journalist's Son's Appeal

Case: Aridaman v. Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Anr. Diary No. 40480-2026

The Supreme Court listed for final hearing a plea challenging Dera Sacha Sauda Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh's acquittal in a journalist's murder case, noting that the matter required consideration.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice on the petition filed by the journalist's son Aridaman, challenging the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which held that the CBI coerced a witness into giving a statement implicating Ram Rahim.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate R Basanth, for Ram Rahim, pointed out that the State had not preferred an appeal against the impugned order. The CJI in response said that the Court was "equally conscious" of the fact that the state might not file an appeal.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Plea Of Man Accused Of Making Objectionable Posts Against Jharkhand CM's Wife Kalpana Soren

Case: Sahadev Uraon @ Sahadev Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, Diary No. 26999/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by a 30-year-old security guard challenging the Jharkhand High Court's refusal to grant him bail in a case arising from allegedly obscene and derogatory Facebook posts against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren's wife, Kalpana Soren, who is a sitting MLA from Gandey.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale issued notice on the plea filed by Sahadev Uraon @ Sahadev Oraon.

The case arises from a Facebook account named "Adivasi Ladka Raju Oraon". According to the prosecution, the account was used to upload a photograph of Kalpana Soren along with obscene, vulgar and derogatory remarks. The prosecution case is that the post was noticed on August 28, 2025 and a police officer at the Cyber Crime Police Station, Ranchi, subsequently lodged the case on August 29, 2025 on the basis of his own statement.

Supreme Court Seeks Updated Data On Commercial Litigation Across Country To Assess Need For More Courts

Case: Indian Commercial and Arbitration Bar Association (Icaba) v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.900/2020

In amatterpertaining to implementation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Supreme Court called for updated data on the trend of filing of commercial litigation across the country to assess whether additional commercial courts are required.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by the Indian Commercial and Arbitration Bar Association seeking directions for time-bound implementation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Through the petition, the ICABA highlighted lack of infrastructure and inadequacy of commercial courts and commercial appellate benches to resolve commercial disputes.

West Bengal SIR | Can't Fix Timeline For Appellate Tribunals, Says Supreme Court; Seek Data On Appeal Disposals

Case: Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury v. Election Commission of India | D No. 38345/2026

The Supreme Court orally commented that it cannot fix any timeline for the decisions by the Appellate Tribunals hearing appeals arising from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, even though it agreed to monitor their functioning.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a writ petition filed by Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury seeking various directions to streamline and expedite the disposals by the SIR Appellate Tribunals.

The Court directed the Election Commission of India to furnish details on the quantum of disposals of appeals by the Appellate Tribunals, and tagged the matter with a similar petition, to be taken up on August 25.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Plea For CBI Probe Against Fake Advocates & Curbs On Monetisation Of Judges' Remarks

Case Title – Raja Choudhary v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation into fake advocates and fraudulent law degrees, claiming that the issues reflect a deeper erosion of professional standards within the legal system.

The petitioner also sought examination of the activities associated with the “Cockroach Janata Party,” the satirical online campaign that emerged following remarks made by the Chief Justice of India

Filed by Advocate Raja Choudhary, the petition further seeks action against persons allegedly involved in the commercial exploitation of oral courtroom observations, including claims of trademark appropriation and monetised circulation of remarks made during court proceedings.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's Daughter's Plea To Bring His Mortal Remains From Japan

Case Title: Anita B. Pfaff v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 842/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's daughter, Anita Pfaff, seeking to bring his mortal remains from Japan to India.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order. Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Netaji's daughter.

Earlier, the Court refused to entertain asimilar plea by Netaji's grandnephew, Ashis Ray, noting that his daughter (sole heir) was not the petitioner. At the time, Dr Singhvi said that the daughter of Netaji will file a fresh petition for the same cause, instead of the grandnephew.

Supreme Court Dismisses Activist Ravi Nair's Plea To Revive Defamation Case Against Nilanjana Bhowmick

Case Details: Ravi Nair v. Nilanjana Bhowmick | Diary No. 30029 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 11) dismissed activist Ravi Nair's petition challenging the Delhi High Court's order quashing his criminal defamation case filed against journalist Nilanjana Bhowmick over an article published in 2010 in Time magazine.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vinod Chandran dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the High Court's order.

It may be recalled that Ravi Nair, who runs the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC), filed the complaint in November 2014. He was aggrieved by the journalist's article titled “Accountability of India's Nonprofits under Scrutiny,” which was published on December 14, 2020. The article discussed the alleged transgressions in the working of the NGOs and the “unscrupulousness” in India's sprawling non-profit sector.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Calcutta HC's Restrictions On Use Of Trinamool Bank Accounts Frozen By ED

Case Title: All India Trinamool Congress and Anr v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No.: SLP (Crl) 13322/2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the restrictions imposed by the Calcutta High Court in operating the bank accounts of the All India Trinamool Congress party, which are frozen by the Enforcement Directorate as part of a money laundering investigation.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale was dealing with TMC's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's July 20 interim order whereby itrefusedto permit the party to operate 3 HDFC bank accounts, as well as the July 9 orderwhich allowed the use of those accounts for daily expenses under the supervision of the Court-appointed Special Officer.

The bench also heard a separate petition filed by Biswanath Das, a rebel TMC leader, who challenged the July 9 order, contending that he represents the real party.

Consider Declaring Cancer As 'Notifiable Disease' : Supreme Court To States

Case: Anurag Srivastava v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No.1211/2025

The Supreme Court directed the States and Union Territories which have not yet notified cancer as a notifiable disease to consider doing so, stressing the need for a uniform policy for mandatory reporting of cancer cases.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to notify cancer as a notifiable disease across the country.

During the hearing, the CJI asked the Union Government why mandatory guidelines could not be issued to ensure uniformity across the country.

Centre Defends Clinical Establishment Rule In Supreme Court, Says It Curbs Excessive Pricing Of Medical Services

Case Title – All India Ophthalmological Society v. Union of India

The Centre has defended the validity of Rule 9(ii) of the Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012 before the Supreme Court, contending that prescribing the range of rates would standardise charges across clinical establishments, preventing inconsistent and exorbitant pricing, price gouging, excessive charging and arbitrary inflation, and protecting patients from exploitation.

Rule 9(ii) requires clinical establishments to charge for each type of procedure and service within the range of rates determined and issued by the Central Government in consultation with State Governments. Rule 9(i) provides that establishments have to display the rates charged for their services and facilities in a conspicuous place in the local as well as English language.

The Centre has also informed the Court that most States and Union Territories have still not been able to determine the range of rates for medical procedures and services under the provision despite consultations over the past two years.

Supreme Court Directs Union To Consider Plea Seeking Mechanism To Block Illegal AI-Generated Or Doxed Content

Case: Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and Ors. ,W.P.(C) No. 823/2026

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to consider a representation seeking mechanism for urgent reporting and URL-specific disabling of access in India to content including threats of physical violence, doxing, unauthorized disclosure of private details and non-consensual AI-generated content.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order in a PIL filed by Advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, who appeared in person. The petitioner raised a plethora of issues, including the harms of unauthorized online content, deepfakes and online threats.

The bench directed the respondents (MeitY, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law and Justice) to look into the petitioner's representation and take remedial measures as may be required.

Supreme Court To Hear Bodh Gaya Temple Act Challenge After Sabarimala Reference Verdict; Posted In October

Case: BHANTE ARYA NAGARJUN SHURAI SASAI AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

While deferring the matter pertaining to the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, the Supreme Court indicated that the 9-judge bench verdict in the Sabarimala reference may come out by October 6 this year.

A batch of pleas challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act was listed before a bench led by CJI Surya Kant.

However, considering the unlikelihood of the same being taken up on account of a part-heard matter (the Shiv Sena case), some counsels mentioned the Bodh Gaya matter saying that it may be deferred until the 9 judge decision in Sabarimala matter comes out.

Can Legislative Privileges Override Free Speech? Supreme Court 7-Judge Bench To Hear 2003 TN Speaker Case On October 6

Case: N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai | W.P. (Cri.) No. 000206 - 000210 / 2003

The Supreme Court will begin hearing on October 6 a long-pending constitutional question concerning the scope of legislative privileges enjoyed by Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) and their interplay with the fundamental right to freedom of speech.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and and Justice V. Mohana, decided to commence 7-judge bench hearing in the matter from October 6.

The case, N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai, raises significant questions on the extent to which privileges under Article 194 of the Constitution can operate against fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19.

Supreme Court Defers Cauvery Dispute Hearing To August 17

The Supreme Court deferred to August 17 the hearing on Tamil Nadu's plea seeking directions to Karnataka to comply with the Cauvery Water Management Authority's (CWMA) decision on the release of Cauvery water.

The Chief Justice of India Surya Kant informed that Justice Vikram Nath, who was to hear the matter on August 13, has fallen ill. Senior Advocate P Wilson mentioned an application filed by farmers, which the CJI agreed to tag along with the State's petition.

The Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court on August 3, seeking implementation of the CWMA's July 30 decision directing the release of 3,500 cusecs of water for 15 days.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Against Disruption Of Services Due To Protests

Case: Aalok Mohan v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 959/2026

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea concerning the disruption of essential services during protests and rallies, and directed that the petition be tagged with a pending petition seeking to stop the use of Jantar Mantar as a designated venues for protests in the national capital.

During the hearing, Advocate V Elanchezhiyan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that protests often result in the disruption of essential services and affect the movement of people. "There is no way of knowing who is a protester and who is not; this is an issue arising across the country," he submitted.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana however asked the petitioner how the reliefs sought can be granted.

Supreme Court Allows Kerala Bar Council Elected Members To Approach HC Chief Justice For Co-Option Of Women

Case: Naseer Kk v. Bar Council of Kerala | WP(C) 986/2026

The Supreme Court paved the way for the constitution of the newly elected Bar Council of Kerala (BCK), allowing its elected members to approach the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court for co-option of two women members.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the Supreme Court had, in an order passed on August 4, authorised Chief Justices of High Courts to co-opt women members to State Bar Councils in order to ensure compliance with the prescribed representation requirements.

The Bench said that, in view of the earlier order, the apprehensions raised by the petitioners regarding the constitution of the BCK stood addressed.

Can States Impose Additional Levy On Sales Tax? Supreme Court 7-Judge Bench To Hear On September 22

Case: Arjun Flour Mills v. State of Odisha | Civil Appeal No. 8763 of 1994.

The Supreme Court will, from September 22, hear a long-pending dispute concerning the constitutional power of State legislatures to impose an additional levy on sales tax, with a seven-judge Constitution Bench set to examine the scope of the States' taxing powers under the Seventh Schedule.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana posted the matter for hearing on September 22. The CJI stated that the 7-judge bench will commence the hearing at 2 PM, so that the hearings of other regular matters can be done during the forenoon session.

The bench framed the issue in the case as follows - "Whether the imposition of a surcharge/additional tax/levy/cess, which is calculated on the basis of validly levied sales tax, is beyond the competence of the State Legislature?"

Krishna Janmabhoomi Case : Supreme Court Plans To Remand To High Court Dispute Over Who Represents All Devotees

Case Details: Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and Ors. v. Anjuman Islamia, Committee of Shahi Masjid Idgah and Ors. | Diary No. 61169-2025 Xi

In the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute, the Supreme Court orally indicated that it will remand the matter to the Allahabad High Court because the notice was not issued to all plaintiffs before deciding who represents the devotees of Lord Krishna.

The Supreme Court is hearing theappealfiled by plaintiffs in suit no. 1 (filed seeking the removal of the mosque from the contested site) challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision allowing the plaintiffsin suit no 17 to be treated as representatives of all devotees of Lord Krishna.

At the outset, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva asked Senior Advocate Shyam Divan(for the plaintiffs) if there is any development on the discussion regarding some settlement going on between the plaintiffs.

Supreme Court Allows NGO To Approach Govts With Plea Seeking Balanced Demolition Policy Ensuring Shelter Rights' Protection

Case: Centre For Law and Good Governance v. Union of India and Others | WP(C) 984/2026

The Supreme Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation alleging disparity in judicial and administrative approaches to the demolition of unauthorized structures.

Observing that it was a policy matter, the Court declined interference, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Union, States and Union Territories to formulate or revisit policies.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a PIL filed by Centre for Law and Good Governance impleading the Union and all States as respondents. The petitioner highlighted cases where authorities had allegedly permitted unauthorized structures to remain for decades, provided civic amenities and collected municipal taxes, only to initiate demolition proceedings years later.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Hazaribagh Deputy Commissioner Vinay Kumar Choubey In Land Scam Case

Case Title – Vinay Kumar Choubey v. State of Jharkhand

The Supreme Court granted regular bail to former Hazaribagh Deputy Commissioner and suspended IAS officer Vinay Kumar Choubey in a cheating and corruption case concerning alleged illegal mutation of revenue records and encroachment of government and forest land in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi on July 31 allowed Choubey's appeal against the High Court order rejecting his bail plea and granted him regular bail.

The Court directed that the bail would be subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court. It also directed Choubey to appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing unless specifically exempted.

Allowing Legislative Wing Of A Political Party To Split & Topple Govt Makes Mockery Of Democracy: Shiv Sena UBT To Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (And Connected Case)

During the hearing of the Shiv Sena dispute, the Uddhav Thackeray faction told the Supreme Court that allowing the legislative wing of a political party to split, claim to be the party itself and ultimately facilitate the installation of a new government would make a “mockery” of democracy.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), raised the apprehension before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. The bench is hearing the petition filed by Uddhav Thackeray challenging the decision of the Election Commission of India that recognized the Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena and allowed it the use of the 'bow and arrow' symbol. Another plea filed by Uddhav Thackeray faction member Sunil Prabhu challenging the Maharashtra Speaker's refusal to disqualify MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction under the 10th Schedule was also listed before the bench.

During the hearing, the Court examined, among other issues, whether a split in the legislative wing of a political party can “percolate” into the primary political organization and thereby trigger the jurisdiction of the Election Commission under Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

State Can't Prolong Trial When Citizen Languishes in Jail: Supreme Court Slams Karnataka's 'Absurd' Prosecution Plan in UAPA Case

Case: Shahid Khan v. State of Karnataka | SLP(Crl) No. 6100/2026

The Supreme Court pulled up the State of Karnataka over its "absurd" prosecution plan in a UAPA case, observing that the State cannot have the “luxury of prolonging trial for years” while an accused remains incarcerated pending trial.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observations while hearing the bail plea of Shahid Khan, who has been in custody since September 22, 2022 in a case alleging a larger conspiracy involving members of the Popular Front of India to radicalise youth and engage in unlawful and violent activities.

The chargesheet invokes Sections 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, besides Sections 153A, 121A, 120B and 121 of the IPC.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With CBSE's Assessment Scheme For Gulf Students

Case Details: Adithian Rajmohan Nair & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court has disposed of abatch of petitions filed by Class XII students from Gulf countries challenging the Central Board of Secondary Education's (CBSE) special assessment scheme introduced after the cancellation of Board examinations in the West Asia region amid the prevailing war situation in the Middle East.

A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale declined to accept the petitioners' request to allow the affected students to appear for their examinations alongside students scheduled to take the compartment examinations.

The Court, however, took on record the CBSE's assurance that steps would be taken to enable the affected students to appear for a fresh examination at the earliest feasible opportunity.

'File Petition' : Supreme Court Declines Plea For Suo Motu Case Over BJP MP's Comments On Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose

The Supreme Court turned down a lawyer's plea to take suo motu cognisance of alleged derogatory comments by a BJP legislator against Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, and asked him to file an appropriate petition.

A lawyer requested the Chief Justice of India to take a suo motu case over the comments made by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Rajya Sabha member Nagendra Roy alias Ananta Maharaj.

Declining to take suo motu action, CJI Surya Kant asked the lawyer to file an appropriate petition. The Chief Justice said that suo motu actions are taken in exceptional cases where the affected parties are unable to approach the Courts.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear MP's Plea Against Police Use Of Facial Recognition & Biometric Surveillance Tools At Protest Sites

Case: A.A. Rahim M.P. v. Union of India, Diary No. 45049/2026

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a writ petition filed by Rajya Sabha CPI(M) MP AA Rahim against the deployment of facial recognition technology(FRT) and allied biometric-surveillance measures by police at protest sites.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana tagged the petition along with the other pending petitions concerning the student protests organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP).

Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petition was filed in the context of the Delhi police using digital tools for the surveillance of protesters at Jantar Mantar. She submitted that the services of two private entities, Aditya Infotech Ltd and Dimension NXG Pvt Ltd, are used, and that data was processed and stored in violation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Rahul Gandhi Moves Supreme Court Against Allahabad HC Orders For CBI, ED Verification Of Disproportionate Assets Complaint

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has approached the Supreme Court challenging the orders of the Allahabad High Court directing the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate to verify the allegations levelled by a BJP worker that Gandhi was holding assets disproportionate to his income.

The Congress leader has challenged the orders of the Allahabad High Court, which directed the CBI and the ED to verify the complaint raised by Karnataka-based BJP worker Vignesh Shishir. The High Court, in its order passed in May, observed,"It is expected that if the complaint of the petitioner has been received, the allegations of the complaints may be verified as per law. It is needless to say that the C.B.I. or E.D. may take appropriate steps which are permissible under the law."

The High Court then directed the agencies to apprise the Court of the progress. In thesubsequent order passed on July 20, the High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the CBI's affidavit, saying that it was not in terms of its earlier direction. The Court further observed that the ED has taken the required steps, and said that the ED can take the necessary legal action if it receives any information during the investigation. The High Court then posted the matter for further consideration on August 20.

'Quality Crisis In Consumer Commissions' : Supreme Court Flags Arrears, Seeks NCDRC President Report

Case: In Re Pay and Allowance of The Members of The U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission | W.P.(C) No. 1144/2021

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over delays in the disposal of consumer disputes, questioning the functioning of consumer commissions across the country and directing the President of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to submit a detailed report on the mounting pendency.

The matter came up before the court in a suo motu proceeding concerning the pay and allowances of members of consumer commissions. During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India raised concerns over what he described as the “very disturbing” state of affairs in the consumer redressal system.

CJI Surya Kant referred to a news report stating that a consumer case, filed in 2019, was listed only once in 2022 and had not received another hearing date even by the middle of 2026

Supreme Court Asks UPSC To Defer Odisha DGP Selection

The Supreme Court (August 13) directed the Union Public Service Commission not to finalise the selection of the Director General of Police of the State of Odisha till August 18, when a petition challenging the DGP selection process will be considered by the Court.

The Court asked the UPSC to defer the meeting, which was reportedly slated to happen that day, till the next hearing date.

Senior Advocate P Chidambaram mentioned before the bench led by the Chief Justice of India a Public Interest Litigation challenging the DGP selection process on the ground that it was being done in violation of the Supreme Court's directions in the Prakash Singh judgment.

Supreme Court Slams FSSAI For Opposing Warning Labels For High-Fat, Sugar & Salt Foods, Asks If It's Due To Industry Pressure

Case Details: 3s and Our Health Society v. Union of India and Anr | 15 Ma 1177/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

The Supreme Court (August 13) expressed strong displeasure at the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for not acting as per the Court's earlier suggestion to mandate Front-of-Package Labels on packaged food products warning about high sugar, fat or sodium content.

Instead of acting as per the Court's suggestion, the FSSAI came with a proposal to mention the daily recommended levels of consumption of sugar, salt and fat in packages.

The Court also criticised the stand of the Union that international standards cannot be applied in India, and asked whether India should remain underdeveloped.

Ready To Give Railway Concessions For Acid Attack Survivors In Patient Category : Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Atijeevan Society v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 30/2026, Diary No. 75359/2025

The Railway Board has principally agreed to formulate a policy to provide railway fare concessions to acid attack survivors travelling for medical treatment, the Centre told the Supreme Court.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana granted six weeks to the Union Government to place the draft policy on record.

“Learned ASG has informed us that a meeting was held and the Railway Board has principally agreed to formulate a policy. We grant six weeks to place the draft policy on record”, the Court said.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Challenging RTE Act Exemption To Madrasas, Vedic Pathshalas & Religious Education Institutions

Case Details: Pyare Zia Khan v. Union of India & Ors | Writ Petition (Civil) No.924/2026

The Supreme Court agreed to consider a public interest litigation challenging the validity of Section 1(4)&(5) of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which exempts minority institutions from its applicability.

As per Section 1(4), the application of the RTE Act will be subject to the rights of minorities guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution. As per Section 1(5), the Act does not apply to Madrasas, Vedic Pathsalas and educational institutions primarily imparting religious instruction.

The PIL has been filed by Pyare Zia Khan, who is the chairman of the Maharashtra State Minority Committee. He has argued that because the RTE Act doesn't apply to minority institutions, the Teachers' Eligibility Test(TET) also becomes inapplicable. The petitioner has prayed that the TET should be made mandatory and applicable to all schools under the RTE, irrespective of whether it is a minority school, Madrasas, Vedic Pathsalas or institutions imparting religious instruction.

Supreme Court Warns Against Fake Websites Impersonating Its Official Website

The Supreme Court of India has issued a fresh public notice warning the public against a fraudulent website allegedly impersonating the Court's official online presence and being used for targeted phishing.

In the advisory dated August 13, the Supreme Court Registry identified sp-court-in.com as a newly detected fraudulent domain designed to mimic the official website of the Supreme Court of India. The notice cautioned that cybercriminals operating through the fake website could attempt to deceive users into sharing sensitive personal information and confidential credentials.

The Registry warned that such disclosures could facilitate the theft of personal and financial data. It urged members of the public and other stakeholders to exercise caution while accessing websites or electronic communications claiming to be associated with the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Declines Plea Seeking Regulation Of AI Use By Central And State Governments; Asks Centre To Consider Representation

Case Title – Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea seeking judicial guidelines to regulate the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by the Union and State Governments, including safeguards for high-risk AI systems used in areas such as welfare, policing, surveillance and content moderation.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that the issue falls within the policy domain and asked the Centre to consider a representation already made by the petitioner on the issues.

The petition sought a declaration that unregulated deployment of AI in governance and surveillance without a statutory framework, mandatory human oversight and a guaranteed right to explanation violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

Shiv Sena Dispute | If ECI Considers Events After Symbol Application, It Will Encourage Defections: Sibal Tells Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (And Connected Case)

In the Shiv Sena matter, the Uddhav Thackeray faction argued before Supreme Court that taking into account events after the splinter group has filed an application before the ECI claiming the party symbol can encourage defection and defeat the purpose of the anti-defection law (10th Schedule).

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the Uddhav faction, recalled the Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya case pertaining to the 2003 split in the Bahujan Samaj Party. He pointed out that initially only 13 MLAs had defected to the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led Samajwadi Party. But as the then Speaker kept the disqualification petitions pending, more MLAs defected and finally when the number reached 37 (1/3rd majority), the Speaker passed an order recognizing the "split".

Ultimately, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court set aside the Speaker's decision and noted that the defection of the first 13 MLAs did not cross the majority threshold so as to be recognized as a split. Underlining the legal principle discernible from the case, Sibal said that nothing that happens after the first defecting action can be taken into account to recognize a split. "You can't have a 'snowballing of legislators' to make up the 1/3rd [majority]", Sibal quoted from the case.

CJI Surya Kant Disapproves BCI Action Against NALSAR Students, Says They Have Right To Protest

Case: Mihira Sood and Another v. Bar Council of India and Others

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the directions issued by the Bar Council of India Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra (which were later withdrawn by him) to stop the enrollment of the students of the NALSAR University over a protest campaign against the Chief Justice of India.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said students have a right to peacefully protest and questioned the BCI's role in the matter.

"BCI is unnecessarily taking action. If the students have a cause to protest, they have the right to protest. Students might have written a letter to me. It's a dialogue between students and me. Who are they (BCI) to unnecessarily raise an issue? This is totally uncalled for. BCI has nothing to do with this," CJI said.

Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Judgment Quashing Compassionate Appointments For Karur Tragedy Victims

Case Details: Prabakaran Selvakumar and Anr. v. Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan and Ors | Diary No. 46173-2026

The Supreme Court (August 14 stayed theMadras High Court's order,which struck down a Government Order(GO) passed by the Tamil Nadu government, granting compassionate appointments to victims' families in the Karur stampede tragedy.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petition filed by the State and others challenging the High Court's judgment

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi,Senior Advocate Mukul Rohagti and Advocate Vrinda Bhandari appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu. Singhvi submitted, "If the State wants to give out [compassionate appointment] out of killings as a policy decision under Article 162, how can the High Court interfere? There is no quashing sought of my circular, no challenge in the petition to my circular. In employment, can you file a PIL [by a lawyer]?

Jantar Mantar Protest: Plea In Supreme Court Seeks SIT Probe Into Incidents Of Gender-Based Violence By Police Personnel, Vigilantes

The Supreme Court agreed to list a plea seeking a Special Investigation Team probe into incidents of targeted gender violence against participants and witnesses of the July 30 'Sansad Chalo' protest at Jantar Mantar, Delhi.

Mentioning the matter before the Chief Justice of India, Advocate T Bhalla, for the petitioners, said there was an “urgency” in view of continuing incidents of vigilantism, along with threats of rape and abduction.

"The urgency is continuous acts of vigilantism, threats of rape and abduction. We have already put videos on record. Some videos have come to our notice after filing the petition, which are so bad that I can't even probably mention in open court," the counsel submitted.

Supreme Court Quashes Hate Speech Case Against Rahul Gandhi Over Comments Against Savarkar Due To Absence Of UP Govt Sanction

Case Details: Rahul Gandhi v. State of U.P. and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 6196/2025

The Supreme Court quashed a private criminal complaint pending in Uttar Pradesh against Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition, accusing him of spreading communal disharmony by defaming right-wing ideologue VD Savarkar.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu quashed the proceedings after noting that no sanction has been granted by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the prosecution.

Gandhi was challenging the summoning order passed by the trial court to face trial for the offences under Sections 153-A (promotion of enmity between groups) and 505 of the Indian Penal Code. He approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the proceedings.

Supreme Court Affirms Quashing Of FIR Against Andhra CM Chandrababu Naidu & Ex-Minister Over Amaravati Land Pooling

Case: Alla Rama Krishna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 14193/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment which quashed the 2021 criminal case against Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and former minister Ponguru Narayana in connection with alleged irregularities in the land pooling scheme for Amaravati.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana refused to entertain the challenge made by Alla Rama Krishna Reddy, former YSRCP MLA, against the July 15 judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which quashed the proceedings against Naidu and Narayana.

The bench, while refusing to interfere with the quashing of the case against them, clarified that the High Court's judgment will have no bearing on other cases, which should be determined on their own independent merits.

Supreme Court Allows Declaration Of Delhi Bar Council Election Results, Directs To Preserve Records & CCTV Footage

Case Title – Rudra Vikram Singh v. Bar Council of Delhi

The Supreme Court allowed the Bar Council of Delhi election results to be declared with a caveat that the results will remain subject to outcome of the cases pending before Election Tribunals.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana referred all BCD election disputes to the Election Tribunals, including those which were constituted by the Court.

The order was passed considering that the Court had already relegated election disputes of other State Bar Councils to Election Tribunals headed by former judges of the Supreme Court and there was no reason to treat the BCD differently.

Supreme Court Quashes FIRs Against Samay Raina & Others Over Disability Jokes, Appreciates Their Efforts To Make Amends

Case Title: M/S. Cure SMA Foundation of India v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 460/2025

The Supreme Court quashed the FIRs against comedian Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Tanwar over making insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order after noting that the comedians had taken several efforts aimed at making amends and promoting awareness and dignity for persons with disabilities.

The bench noted the respondents organised a chess tournament for specially abled persons from March 14 to 16, 2026. The event received widespread media coverage and helped raise awareness about organisations working with persons with disabilities, including those supporting people affected by Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). Donations were also made to organisations working for the community.

'Please Think Of Peace Now': Supreme Court Asks Kuki, Meitei Groups To Furnish Proposal To End Manipur Highway Blockades

Case: Kuki Women Organization For Human Rights, A Wing of Kuki Organization of Human Rights Trust (Kohur) and Anr. v. State of Manipur and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 961/2026

In a plea seeking removal of blockade over National Highway 2 in Manipur, the Supreme Court called on two organizations representing the Kuki and Meitei groups to furnish proposals for clearing of blockades across all highways in the state.

Calling on the parties to "think of peace now" and not take the case as "adversarial litigation", the Court further impleaded the National Highways Authority of India, which maintains the national

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a PIL filed by the Kuki Women Organization for Human Rights seeking removal of blockade on NH2 and restoration of supply of essential services in the affected Manipur district.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Enquiry Into How BCI Chairman Issued Orders Against NALSAR Students

Case Title – Mihira Sood and Anr. v. Bar Council of India and Ors.

Two NALSAR University of Law alumni have approached the Supreme Court seeking an enquiry into the manner in which Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued letters directing the university to identify students involved in a campaign against the invitation to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to its convocation, and barring enrolment of students belonging to the 2026 graduating batch of the university.

The BCI Chairman himself had later withdrawn the orders. The petitioners ask if there was a proper Council meeting authorising the BCI Chairman to issue the directions.

The petition contends that participation in a student campaign is not one of the grounds under the Advocates Act, 1961 to deny enrolment.

Former SC Judge Moves Supreme Court Against Rajasthan HC Calling Tribunal Headed By Him 'Lethargic', Reducing Arbitral Fee

Case: Deepak Verma and Ors. v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors., Diary No. 44902-2026

Former Supreme Court judge-Justice Deepak Verma has approached the Supreme Court against a Rajasthan High Court order which criticized a Arbitral Tribunal headed by him as "lethargic".

For context, a Single Judge of the High Court passed an order on May 27 directing a 5% cut in the arbitral fees already paid, observing a lack of procedural discipline in the arbitration and defeat of the legislative intent of timebound redressal.

Besides Justice Verma, the Tribunal comprised retired High Court judges Dinesh Chandra Somani and N Kumar, who are also petitioners before the Supreme Court. The matter is listed before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Term Limit For Bar Council Chairperson, Review Of BCI's Functioning

Amidst the immense public backlash faced by the present BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra over his directions passed against the NALSAR 2026 graduates, a writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the provisions which allow the perpetual continuance of the same individuals at the top posts of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils.

The petitioner, Advocate M Varadhan, contended that prolonged continuance of elected representatives, delayed elections and the absence of cumulative tenure limits have weakened the democratic and representative character of the statutory bodies.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, has challenged the manner in which Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961, permitting members of the BCI to continue in office “until his successor is elected”, has operated when elections are delayed. The petitioner contended that a provision intended to prevent an institutional vacuum cannot be used to facilitate indefinite continuation of incumbents.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea To Ensure Social Media Intermediaries Remove Child Sexual Exploitation & Abuse Materials

Case Details: Just Rights For Children Alliance and Anr. v. S. Harish and Ors | Diary No. 41028-2026

The Supreme Court (August 14) issued notice to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Law and Justice on an application seeking mandatory reporting of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material(CSEAM) by social media intermediaries.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice in an application filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance(JRCA) and the Bachpan Bachao Andolan. It also allowed the petitioners to move an application for impleadment of the concerned intermediaries, and also to further ensure implementation of the September 23, 2024 directions in the main petition.

The present application has been filed by the JRCA in the wake of a media report alleging that social media intermediary Instagram has carried out paid advertisements promoting CSEAM. It is urged in the application that the report raises serious concerns over compliance with the Supreme Court's earlier directions and the statutory obligations of the intermediaries.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking National Fire & Life Safety Framework For High-Risk Public Premises

Case Title – Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court (August 14) dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to the Centre and States to frame a National Minimum Fire and Life Safety Compliance, Audit, Disclosure and Accountability Framework for high-risk public occupancy premises, including schools, coaching centres, hostels, hotels, restaurants, marriage halls, malls, cinemas, hospitals etc.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the matter.

The petition was filed a month after the June 3, 2026 fire incident at the Flourish Stay bed-and-breakfast facility in Delhi's Hauz Rani area near Max Hospital, in which 23 people were killed. The five-storey premises, which had been licensed as a six-room B&B, was allegedly operating with more than two dozen rooms and did not have a mandatory fire NOC. As per news reports, investigators found that the building had sealed windows, a single entry-exit point and blocked roof access which may have hampered evacuation, and other alleged fire-safety and building violations.

Jantar Mantar Protests : PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Proper Investigation Of Delhi Police FIRs

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking to restrain interference with police investigation into the FIRs registered following the Jantar Mantar student protest of July 20.

It may be recalled that the July 20 'Sansad Chalo' demonstration was called by the Cockroach Janta Party over NEET paper leaks and alleged irregularities in the education system. In its aftermath, multiple FIRs were registered by Delhi Police against protesting students and others over alleged violence.

After massive public outrage, on August 3, the Supreme Court clarified that authorities may close/withdraw FIRs registered against students in relation to the protests. The withdrawal of said FIRs was a pre-condition agreed to by the Union during negotiations with the CJP leaders to end the nationwide protests.

SARFAESI | Earnest Money Deposit Shortfall Doesn't Vitiate Sale If 25% Sale Price Paid On Auction Day : Supreme Court

Case Details: Lakshmi Mohan (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr. v. M/S. Airtech Projects Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (With Connected Cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 851

The Supreme Court has held that an auction sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be set aside merely due to a shortfall in depositing of an earnest money deposit. The Court said that once the auction purchaser complies with the statutory mandate to deposit 25% mark of the sale price on the same day of auction, then a mere shortfall in deposit of EMD pales into insignificance.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the case where the sale certificate issued in favour of an Appellant-an auction purchaser- was interfered with merely on account of a shortfall in depositing the EMD price, despite the auction purchaser having complied with the requirement of submitting 25% of the sale price on the day of an auction.

The case arose after the borrower's loan account was declared as Non-Performing Asset by the bank, following which the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act began, which resulted in an auction sale proceedings of the borrower's secured property.

Supreme Court Halts Allahabad HC Proceedings Against Rahul Gandhi In Plea Seeking CBI/ED Probe

Case: Rahul Gandhi v. S. Vignesh Shishir and Ors. Diary No. 47728-2026 (And Connected Case)

The Supreme Court directed the deferral of proceedings in the Allahabad High Court in a petition seeking CBI and ED investigations against Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi on a complaint alleging that he possessed assets disproportionate to his income.

Hearing a petition filed by the Congress MP against the Allahabad High Court's direction to the CBI and the ED to verify the allegations, the Supreme Court further restrained both the central agencies from submitting any report to the High Court. The bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, on being informed that the High Court has posted the matter next on August 20, directed that the proceedings in the High Court will stand deferred till further orders. Gandhi has also filed a separate petition seeking the transfer of the proceedings from Allahabad High Court to the Delhi High Court.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Rahul Gandhi, submitted that the High Court proceedings were "unknown to law" and that it amounted to a "witchunt through a process not recognised by law." Sibal questioned the locus standi and the bona-fides of the petitioner before the High Court, saying that he was repeatedly filing petitions against Rahul Gandhi. Sibal submitted that the petitioner in the High Court suppressed that he was an RSS worker, and that there was another order by the High Court criticising him.

Supreme Court Asks Karnataka To Comply With Cauvery Authority's Directions On Water Release To Tamil Nadu

Case: Ma 2445/2026 In C.A. No. 2453/2007 Diary No. 46527 / 2026 State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court directed Karnataka to comply with the directions of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) on the release of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu, while posting Tamil Nadu's application to August 24. The Court also called for a status report from the authority.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea filed by Tamil Naduseeking implementation of the CWMA's direction requiring Karnataka to release water.

Appearing for Tamil Nadu, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan told the court that Karnataka was not complying with the CWMA's directions and that the State was not receiving the water required for release to farmers.

Sikkim SIR : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Challenging ECI Decision To Keep 2002 As Base Year

Case: Sikkimese Mulniwasi Surakcha Sangh (Smss), A Registered Public Trust v. Election Commission of India and Ors. | W.P. (C) No. 979/2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Election Commission of India's decision to use the 2002 electoral roll as the reference point for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Sikkim.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard a Public Interest Litigation filed by a Sikkim-based organisation challenging the use of the 2002 electoral roll. The petitioner had sought special treatment for Sikkim, arguing that an earlier Intensive Revision conducted in 1979, 1983, 1988 or 1993 should instead be used as reference material.

The petitioner's counsel argued that Sikkim's demographic profile was different from that of other States and that its population data did not correspond with the electoral data. The counsel also pointed to changes in population figures following successive revisions and questioned the basis for selecting 2002.

Already Issued Transgender Identity Cards Won't Be Affected By 2026 Amendment : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case: Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. | W.P. (C) No. 548/2026 and Connected Cases.

The Central Government told the Supreme Court that transgender identity cards which have already been issued will not be affected by the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

The transgender identity cards issued earlier will continue, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana during the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the 2026 amendment, which took away the right to self-identification of gender.

Earlier, the Court had sought the Centre's response to the concerns raised by the petitioners that the 2026 amendment has affected the rights enjoyed by individuals who were issued transgender cards earlier. During the hearing on August 3, the Court had orally expressed that the 2026 amendment cannot affect rights which have already accrued. After taking instructions from the Centre, the SG submitted that the previous transgender identity cards will continue.

Supreme Court Directs Meta To Restore AAP Gujarat's Facebook, Instagram Pages

Case Details: Aam Aadmi Party & Ors v. Uoi | Ia 22668 In WP 576/2026

The Supreme Court (August 17) allowed interim relief to the Aam Aadmi Party, directing Meta to restore its Instagram and Facebook pages of the Gujarat State unit, subject to the removal of objectionable posts.

The present order was passed in an interlocutory application filed in the main matter where AAP raised the larger issue regarding the blocking of content and accounts without informing the users. IA has been filed for an interim order to restore the Instagram page of AAP's Gujarat unit, '@aapgujarat', and its Facebook page, which cumulatively had over 10.39 lakh followers before it was ordered to be blocked on April 24. It has been stated that an interim order is necessary because blocking of the social media pages results in choking the entire communication channel of a national political party.

A bench comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the order. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat (for the petitioner) appeared before the bench and prayed that the interim relief may be allowed, considering that the Union has again sought an adjournment. When the matter was first taken up, it was passed over, since Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was in another court. The bench, before adjourning, had indicated that it would grant the interim relief.

Ram Mandir Donation Theft : Supreme Court Allows Public To Give Suggestions To Solicitor General Regarding SIT Probe

Cases: Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and Others | WP (C) 790/2026; Ajay Kumar Rai and Another v. Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust | WP (Crl) 241/2026; Sudhakar Singh v. Union of India and Others | WP (Crl) 256/2026; Hindu Dharma Parishad v. Union of India and Ors. | WP (C) No. 827/2026

The Supreme Court permitted the petitioners and other public-spirited persons to submit suggestions to the office of the Solicitor General regarding any aspect which should be investigated by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in connection with the allegations of theft of the donations received by the Ram Mandir trust in Ayodhya.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana said that suggestions could be submitted on aspects that may require thorough investigation by the SIT constituted by the Uttar Pradesh police.

The Court directed the office of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to forward the suggestions to the SIT, expressing confidence that they would be objectively considered. The Court also directed the SIT to submit a status report in sealed cover for its perusal.

Are Courts Limited By SHANTI Act In Determining Nuclear Accident Compensation? Supreme Court Asks Union

Case Title: Eas Sarma and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., W.P. (C) No. 240/2026

The Supreme Court called on the Union of India to clarify that regardless of the provisions of the SHANTI Act, nothing would preclude constitutional courts from determining "fair and just" compensation amount if there is a nuclear accident.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order seeking clarifications on two aspects - (i) any fetters on the power of constitutional courts to fix compensation, and (ii) Section 17 (4) of the Act which deals with appointment of members to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).

Notice was issued to the Union of India and the AERB on these limited points.

BCI Being Regulatory Body Can't Run Law College : Prashant Bhushan Tells Supreme Court

Advocate Prashant Bhushan stated before the Supreme Court that a petition challenging Bar Council of India's running of a law college, while being a regulatory body for law colleges, is in the process of being filed.

The counsel apprised about the same to a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya bagchi and Justice V Mohana, while the bench was dealing with the plea of EAS Sarma (and others) challenging thevalidity of the SHANTI Act.

Bhushan was arguing on the conflict arising on account of the fact that members of the AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) are appointed on the recommendation of a selection panel formed by the Atomic Energy Commission (which operates nuclear power plants). He contended that due to this conflict, the purpose of having an independent regulatory board is defeated.

Over 98000 Govt Schools Lack Functional Washrooms For Girls : Plea In Supreme Court

Case: Reepak Kansal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P. (C) No. 987/2026

The Supreme Court considered a petition raising the issue of lack of proper sanitation facilities for girls in government schools.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the public interest litigation filed by Reepak Kansal (and another) flagging the lack of proper sanitation facilities for girls in government schools.

While agreeing that the issue raised was important, the CJI pointed out that a bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala issued comprehensivedirections in this regard vide a judgment on January 30, and that matter is now being taken up for monitoring.

Supreme Court Directs Nationwide Survey On Steps To Prevent Blocking Of Elephant Corridors

Case: Prerna Singh Bindra v. Niraj Singhal, Ifs, W.P. (C) No. 489/2018

The Supreme Court orally observed that no State/Union Territory can cause any obstruction in elephant corridors, even on the purported ground of likely harm to persons or property.

Ordering a nationwide survey by the Union, the Court called for a comprehensive report, which shall indicate what steps have been taken by the states to prevent such obstruction and prohibit hulla parties (groups of local youth armed with iron rods/spikes and burning mashaals), use of fireballs, mashaals, etc. against elephants.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with an application filed in the Prerna Bindra case related to human-elephant conflicts. In 2024, the Court had issued notice to the West Bengal government on a contempt petition filed in the case, assailing continuous use of sharp spikes and burning mashaals to drive away elephants.

'AK 47 Fired During Student Protests But None Injured' : Bihar Govt Tells Supreme Court, Denies Using Excessive Force

In the PILs alleging police brutality against student protesters, the Bihar government has filed a counter affidavit before the Supreme Court denying use of 'disproportionate force' to cause any harm to the protestors.

On the accusation of use of AK47 rifle at Siwan, it says that 4 shots were fired into the air by one of the constable as he got trapped in the crowd. However, no one was injured as a result. The affidavit further mentions that near Hathi Chowk, an ASI fired 2 rounds from his 9 mm pistol to disperse the mob and 3 protestors suffered “minor firearms injuries”.

The affidavit also underlines that these 3 protestors were not injured by the AK47 rifle, nor were they present at the location where the rifle was used. Even so, it is added that ballistic examination is ongoing to find out the type of weapon, distance of fire, angle of fire, etc.

No Excessive Force Used Against Student Protesters, Parliament March Was Illegal : Delhi Police To Supreme Court

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others | WP (C) 280/2026

AfterBihar, the Delhi Police has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court denying the use of excessive force against student protestors.

In a counter-affidavit filed by Dy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma, the police defended its use of force, saying the protests had ceased to be peaceful after sections of the crowd allegedly breached multiple layers of barricades and attempted to move towards Parliament. The affidavit was filed in response to the petitions seeking Court-monitored investigation into alleged police excesses and is also intended as a common reply in four connected petitions.

It states that the police used a graded force. About 5000 police officers were trying to manage a crowd of over 30,000 people, spread across 3 kms. As the crowd went completely out of control, struggle ensued and both protestors as well as police personnel were injured. More than 240 personnel/uniformed officers and around 200 public persons/protestors received injuries.

Supreme Court Flags Anomalies In Fixing Consumer Fora Jurisdiction Based On Consideration Paid, Seeks Centre's Response

Case Details: M/S Avon Elastomers (India) v. M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors.

The Supreme Court has flagged certain anomalies which can arise from the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, if the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer fora is determined as per the value of consideration paid by the consumer for goods or services, and sought the response of the Union Government.

Unlike the repealed 1986 Act, where the pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer commissions was determined based on the aggregate value of goods or services involved and the compensation claimed, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, marked a significant departure by limiting jurisdictional computation to the value of the goods or services paid as consideration.

The bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli was essentially considering a consumer dispute arising from an insurance contract. During the hearing, the bench expanded the consideration to the larger issue.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre, States On Plea Against Police Posting Images Of Accused On Social Media

Case Details: Hemendra Patel v. Union of India and Ors | Diary No. 32704/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre, the States, and social media platforms X and Meta, on a petition seeking directions to prevent police from uploading on social media photographs and videos that reveal the identities of accused persons or depict them in a dehumanising manner.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the petition. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the petitioner.

The petition seeks directions to the States to immediately take down posts published on official police social media accounts that reveal the faces or identities of accused persons or portray them in degrading or humiliating circumstances. The examples cited include images of accused persons being handcuffed, tied with ropes, beaten with sticks, made to kneel, dragged or pulled down stairs.

Gen Z Protests : Supreme Court Expresses Intention To Quash FIRs Against Students, Says 'Question Of Their Future'

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

The Supreme Court expressed its intention to quash the FIRs registered against student protesters over the protests held in different parts of the country last month over issues such as exam paper leaks. The Court however clarified that cases against persons having a past history of grievous offences, who infiltrated the protests, will not be quashed.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that it was a question of the future of thousands of students, and indicated that Article 142 powers could be invoked to quash the cases.

The CJI also reiterated the intention of the Court to constitute a high-powered committee to examine the issues related to the student protest violence, and indicated that the committee will comprise a former Supreme Court Judge, former High Court Judge and a former DGP. On the first day of the hearing of the petitions as well, the Court had expressed the plan to form a committee to monitor the investigation of allegations of police violence. The CJI revealed that the consent of a former CBI Director and a former DGP (not from any of the States involved in the present issue) has been obtained, and the bench will pass orders after considering all aspects. The CJI allowed the parties to give written suggestions regarding the mandate and scope of the committee.

Supreme Court Approves Centre's Appointment Of New CMD For Unitech Ltd

Case Details: Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd.

The Supreme Court (August 17) approved the appointment of retired IAS officer Giridhar Aramane as the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of real estate company Unitech Limited, following the end of the tenure of former CMD Yudhvir Singh Malik.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan took note of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs' application seeking approval for the appointment of Aramane, a 1988-batch IAS officer, as the new Chairman and Managing Director on the board of Unitech.

“We take notice of the fact that the tenure of Mr. Yudhveer Singh Malik, former chairman and managing director on board of Unitech Ltd., has come to an end. Came to an end on 20th of July 2026. The Ministry has now appointed Shri Giridhar Aromane, IAS, RETD, retired, 1988 batch, to function as chairman and managing director on the board of Unitech Ltd. We approve the appointment of Mr. Giridhar Aromane as the chairman and managing director on the board of Unitech Ltd.”, the Court said.

Facial Recognition Tool Only Captures Persons Having Criminal Records At Protests : Delhi Police To Supreme Court

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others | WP (C) No. 280/2026 (And Connected Cases)

In itsaffidavitfiled before the Supreme Court, the Delhi Police has taken a stand that facial recognition software deployed during student protests over examination paper leaks only captured the images of criminals or history sheeters.

The police says that the use of the technology was a proportionate policing measure. The software, according to the affidavit, does not automatically capture profile of every individual present at the protest site, nor is it deployed for indiscriminate surveillance or collection of personal information of peaceful protestors unless he has a previous criminal record.

The police further claims that no action is taken solely on the basis of facial recognition software. A field verification is also carried out to be sure that the person in question was present at site or not. Further, the software only captures persons who have a past criminal record for serious offenses, not petty offenses like traffic challans.

Supreme Court Issues Notice In PIL Seeking Applications Of Money Laundering, Anti-Corruption Laws On Paper Leak Accused

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P. (Crl.) No. 264/2026 Diary No. 40857 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 18) issued notice in a public interest litigation seeking that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Money Laundering Act, and the Benami Property Act should be applied in such cases to determine their prior liabilities in cases of paper leaks.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice after briefly hearing advocate and petitioner-in-person Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

He had filed the petition in the backdrop of the NEET paper leak, which affected lakhs of students. He argued that there have been continued failures on the part of the authorities to prevent, investigate and effectively prosecute those responsible for the paper leaks.

Supreme Court Deprecates Judicial Officers Directly Approaching It For Service Disputes, Asks Them To Move HC Committees First

Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors.

In the All India Judges Association case, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of judicial officers directly approaching it to redress their service-related grievances.

The Court surmised that this might be due to the failure of the High Court administrative committees to redress the issues in a timely manner.

Therefore, to avoid judicial officers approaching the Supreme Court at the first instance, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana urged the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to sensitise their administrative committees. Earlier, the Court had directedthe High Courts to constitute "Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary" to deal with the grievances of the judicial officers.

'Treat Elephant Like Deity, Not Servant': Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Welfare Of Captive Elephants

Case: Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P. (C) No. 743/2014

The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions to ensure the welfare and upkeep of captive elephants, while stressing that there shall be no ownership/transfer of elephants without compliance with the relevant rules as well as clear documentation as to the transferor and transferee and the purpose of the transfer.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana further directed the MoEFCC/Captive Elephant Healthcare and Welfare Committee (constituted by the MoEFCC) to explain whether DNA profiling of the elephants is complete, and if so, whether the same is reflected on the Gajah Suchana App.

The Court noted that the population of captive elephants had gone up from 2675 in 2018 to 2725 in 2026, out of which 1678 were stated to be possessed by private persons. It emphasized that its concern for now was not with the ownership of the elephants, but rather, their health, well-being and upkeep.

Supreme Court Mulls CBI Probe Against Mamata Banerjee Over Alleged Obstruction Of ED's I-PAC Raid

Case Detail: Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. | W.P. (Crl.) No. 16/2026

The Supreme Court (August 18) expressed its intention to transfer the investigation into former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's alleged obstruction of the Enforcement Directorate's raid of I-PAC, the political consultant of the All India Trinamool Congress, in January this year, to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The Court was hearing the writ petition filed by the ED and its officers seeking FIR and investigation against Mamata Banerjee and certain police officials who allegedly abetted her act.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the matter. At the outset, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy (for the former Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee) submitted that since there has been a change of government, the State police can investigate.

Shiv Sena Row | Speaker Cannot Equate Legislative Majority With Political Party: Kapil Sibal To Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP (C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (And Connected Case)

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended before the Supreme Court that Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar had illegally conflated the Shiv Sena's legislative party with the political party while refusing to disqualify MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

Sibal argued that the Tenth Schedule does not contemplate a situation where members of a legislature party become the political party merely because they constitute a majority in the House.

“The Speaker has completely exceeded his jurisdiction under the Tenth Schedule and disregarded the Shiv Sena political party leadership through an exercise that is contrary to the scheme and structure of the Tenth Schedule,” Sibal submitted.

Zubeen Garg Death | Diligently Proceed With Trial, Supreme Court Tells Assam; Defers Mahanta's Bail Plea

Case Title: Shyamkanu Mahanta v. State of Assam | SLP (Crl.) 11523/2026

The Supreme Court on August 17 directed the State of Assam to diligently proceed with the trial in the case of event organiser Shyam Kanu Mahanta in an alleged 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 comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the bail plea of Mahanta but deferred the hearing to October, considering the submissions of the State of Assam that it will examine material witnesses in the upcoming weeks.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for Mahanta) submitted that the State is yet to examine 11 witnesses who are based in Singapore. Responding to this, the State's Advocate General Devajit Saikia stated that they will be examining those witnesses soon. Oralling remarking that the trial should be expedited, the Court deferred the hearing.

Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into Alleged Financial Irregularities By Indiabulls Housing Finance's Promoters

Case Title: Citizens Whistle Blower Forum v. Union of India, SLP (C) No. 2993/2025

The Supreme Court directed the CBI to probe allegations of financial irregularities levelled against the promotors of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (now Sammaan Capital Limited).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, calling on the CBI conduct the investigation notwithstanding the report of Delhi Police's Economic Offenses Wing qua 5 out of 6 allegations in the ED's prosecution complaint.

The order was passed in a PIL alleging serious financial misconduct, including round-tripping of funds, siphoning of money and violation of the Companies Act by Indiabulls' promoters. Earlier, the Court had sharply criticized the EOW and CBI over a failure to apprise the progress of investigation.

Goa Government Moves Supreme Court Seeking Life Sentence For Tarun Tejpal In Rape Case

The Goa government has approached the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed on former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 rape case, asking that he be sentenced to life imprisonment instead of the 10-year rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Bombay High Court.

The State clarified it challenges only the quantum of punishment and does not seek to reopen or question the findings of conviction recorded by the High Court.

The Bombay High Court's Goa bench, comprising Justices Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar, had on August 6 overturned Tejpal's acquittal by the trial court and convicted him in the 2013 case. The court subsequently sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.

Ex-Lok Sabha MP Moves Supreme Court For Fixation Of MSP Based On Swaminathan Commission Report, Crop Loan Waiver

Case: Vadde Sobhanadreeswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr., Diary No. 27847-2026

A PIL has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking implementation of a legally enforceable Minimum Support Price (MSP) for all notified agricultural crops based on C2 (actual cost of cultivation) plus 50 percent (profit margin) formula in terms of the recommendations of the Swaminathan Commission.

The plea, filed by farmer and former Member of Lok Sabha Vadde Sobhanadreeswara Rao, also seeks formulation of a timebound debt relief mechanism, which may include a one-time waiver of crop loan dues of small and marginal farmers affected by agrarian distress.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana tagged the petition with a similar case.

Pending Trials Against MP/MLAs Remain Same Despite Courts' Monitoring, Amicus Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | WP 699/2016

A fresh report submitted to the Supreme Court has raised concerns over the continued pendency of criminal cases against sitting and former Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, despite years of judicial monitoring aimed at ensuring speedy trials.

As per a status report filed in the Supreme Court, 4192 criminal cases are pending against MPs and MLAs, out of which 519 cases have been pending for more than 10 years. 14 out of 28 Chief Ministers of States have declared cases against them, the highest being the Chief Minister of Telangana, Anumula Revanth Reddy.

The report notes that despite continuous monitoring from Courts, the pending cases have remained almost the same since 2018, with the highest number of cases pending under the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court.

As Centre Brings Back Persons Sent To Bangladesh, Supreme Court Disposes Of Plea

Case: Union of India v. Bhodu Sekh | SLP (Crl) No. 18658/2025 & Union of India v. Amir Khan & Ors | SLP (Crl) 18891/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of petitions filed by the Union government challenging directions of theCalcutta High Court to repatriate certain Bengali-speaking individuals who had been sent to Bangladesh on suspicion of their citizenship, after the Centre informed the court that the persons had been brought back to India.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the Union's challenge to the Calcutta High Court's directions requiring the authorities to repatriate the individuals.

The proceedings effectively came to an end after the Union brought the persons back to India as a special case.

“If You Don't Decide, We Will”: Supreme Court Pulls Up Odisha Over Delay In Dara Singh's Remission

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

The Supreme Court (August 19) gave one last opportunity to the Orissa Sentence Review Board to decide on the premature release of Dara Singh, aka Rabindra Kumar Pal, who is serving a life sentence in the murder case of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons in 1999. It orally said that on next hearing if no decision is taken, the Court will take its own decision.

At the last hearing, the Court asked the Odisha Government to decide on the premature release by August 19. However, a bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was informed that no decision has been taken yet. The advocate initially sought a passover, but when the Court questioned him on why no decision has been taken, he placed on record a letter from the Directorate General of Prisons. The Court questioned asked the letter has been placed when the decision of the review board is relevant.

The advocate informed that the DG Police has mentioned that information regarding antecedents has been called for from the State of Uttar Pradesh, where he belongs.

NEET-UG : Supreme Court Scrutinises NTA Capacity, Says Dedicated & Scientifically Equipped Body Like UPSC Needed

Case Details: Federation of All India Medical Association v. National Testing Agency and Ors. | W.P. (C) No. 651/2026 and Others

The Supreme Court sought the Union government's response on the steps taken to implement recommendations of the expert committee headed by former ISRO chairman K. Radhakrishnan, as improved by the expert committee headed by Nandan Nilakeni, for reforms in the National Testing Agency (NTA).

The Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing petitions filed by the Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA) and United Doctors Front (UDF) seeking structural reforms in the NTA in the wake of the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.

SG explains question-paper security system

NEET-UG | Why Nilakeni Task Force Formed? New Law Doesn't Address Liability Of NTA Officials : Doctors Body To Supreme Court

The Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA) has filed a detailed response before the Supreme Court challenging the adequacy of measures outlined by the National Testing Agency (NTA) in its compliance affidavit on examination reforms, arguing that several recommendations of the K. Radhakrishnan Committee have either not been implemented or have not been adequately explained.

At the outset, FAIMA questioned why the Union has constituted a new High-Powered Task Force under the chairmanship of Nandan Nilekani, when there is already a High-Level Committee of Experts (HLCE) headed by Dr K. Radhakrishnan. It has been stated that the Centre has not provided any reasoning why the recommendations of the earlier committee have not been followed in letter and spirit.

"The said reasoning is important since the students cannot afford to have repeated instances of paper leaks and see a new committee been formed after each year, without the recommendations of that Committee being executed fully by the authorities."

Shiv Sena Row | Can We Declare Eknath Shinde Disqualified Today? Supreme Court Asks UBT Group

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP (C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (And Connected Case)

In the Shiv Sena matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court asked the Uddhav Thackeray faction whether Eknath Shinde (and other splinter group MLAs) can be consequentially declared disqualified as per the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution if the Maharashtra Speaker's order refusing to disqualify them is set aside.

The judge posed to Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing along with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for the UBT faction, whether the Court can return a finding which incurs Shinde's disqualification even though the Maharashtra Speaker did not disqualify him and Shinde has been since re-elected pursuant to fresh elections.

"Can we declare him (Shinde) disqualified today? Can we assume the role of Speaker and hold him disqualified?" Justice Bagchi asked.

Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench To Pronounce Judgment Tomorrow On Correctness Of 'Industry' Definition

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

Update on August 21 - 'Industry' Definition Given In Bangalore Water Supply Case Must Govern Pending Cases Under ID Act 1947 : Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench

The Supreme Court will tomorrow pronounce its judgment on reconsideration of the expansive definition of "industry" given in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978).

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M Pancholi heard on the limited issue of whether the Bangalore Water Supply judgment was rightly decided and reserved for judgment on March 19.

'If You've System For Men, How Can You Deny To Women?' : Supreme Court Grills Coast Guard Over Denial Of Permanent Commission

Case Title: Priyanka Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave To Appeal (C) 3045/2024

The Supreme Court urged the Indian Coast Guard to grant Permanent Commission to a Short Service Commission-woman officer Priyanka Tyagi. It was said that if the ICG does not do the needful, the court will pass an appropriate direction.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana conveyed its opinion to Attorney General R Venkataramani, while dealing with Tyagi's petition challenging Delhi High Court's denial of interim relief for her continuation as a Deputy Commandant.

Notably, in 2024, the top Court had transferred to itself Tyagi's writ petition before the High Court. By way of an interim order, theCourt also allowed her to continue in the ICG at the same post as she had prior to retirement in December 2023.

Disconnect Power & Water Of Bulk Waste Generators Violating Solid Waste Management Rules : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bhopal Municipal Corporation v. Dr Subhash C. Pandey & Ors. (With Connected Appeal)

The Supreme Court (August 18) directed District Collectors across the country to identify all Bulk Waste Generators (BWGs) within their respective jurisdictions within six weeks, while putting such entities on notice that continued non-compliance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 could invite coercive measures, including temporary disconnection of electricity or water supply.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a matter concerning the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, where it emphasized that the effective implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 requires responsibilities to be fixed not only upon municipal authorities but also upon those who generate waste in substantial quantities.

“Every local body shall, through its Chairman/Commissioner/Secretary, as directed by the jurisdictional District Collector, communicate in writing to every BWG within its limits the obligations viz, (i) segregation, storage and handover of solid waste generated; and (ii) the consequence of non-compliance resulting in the temporary disconnection of water and electricity supply by order of the District Collector's Special Cell, restorable upon submission of a compliance certificate by the BWG.”, the Court ordered.

Can Challenge To Testator's Title Be Raised In Probate Proceedings? Supreme Court To Decide

Case Title: Chandrahas Laxman Kanhere & Ors. v. Sunil Waman Bhide

The Supreme Court appointed Rajasthan Additional Advocate General Padmesh Mishra as amicus curiae to assist it in determining whether revocation of probate can be sought on the ground that the title of properties bequeathed under a Will did not belong to the testator.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice returnable on September 21, 2026, on a plea challenging a Bombay High Court judgment which held that questions relating to title or ownership of property cannot be adjudicated in probate proceedings, as such disputes fall outside the jurisdiction of a Probate Court.

“Considering the importance of the issue involved, we request and appoint Shri Padmesh Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General as amicus curiae to assist the Court (pro bono)”, the Court observed.

UGC Equity Regulations 2026 Being Reconsidered : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Abeda Salim Tadvi and Anr. v. Union of India | W.P. (C) No. 1149/2019 & Connected Case

The Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that the Union Government was reconsidering the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, which were formulated to address caste discrimination in colleges and universities.

Noting this, the Court adjourned the batch of petitions challenging the 2026 regulations till four weeks. In January, the Courthad stayed the operation of the 2026 regulations, after prima facie observing that they were vague and capable of being misused.

Today, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that the UGC regulations were under reconsideration, and requested that the bench may defer the formulation of questions to be determined until the process is over.

Tarun Tejpal Moves Supreme Court Against Conviction In 2013 Rape Case

Former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the Bombay High Court's order of conviction and sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment in the 2013 rape case.

This comes days after the Goa Government also approached the Supreme Court for enhancement of punishment to life imprisonment while not challenging the finding of conviction.

The Bombay High Court's Goa bench, comprising Justices Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar, had on August 6 overturned Tejpal's acquittal by the trial courtand convicted him in the 2013 case. The court subsequently sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.

Supreme Court Bench Hearing PMLA Review Batch Reconstituted By Parties' Consent; Justices Bhuyan & NK Singh Replaced

Case Title: Karti P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement | RP (Crl) 219/2022 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court reconstituted the bench hearingreview petitions challenging theVijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment, which upheld certain provisions of the PMLA.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana will now be hearing the review petitions. Earlier, the bench comprised CJI Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N Kotiswar Singh.

When the matter was taken up, the CJI said that if the earlier bench continues to hear the matter, 3 benches will have to be broken. The Chief Justice said that he wanted to be frank with the parties and get their take on reconstitution.

'How English Can Be Treated As Non-Native?' : Supreme Court Urges CBSE To Revisit Language Policy, Suggests Relaxation For Class 6

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

The Supreme Court flagged certain issues in the 3-language policy of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and urged the Union, the NCERT and the Board to revisit the same

The Court orally expressed reservations about the policy to treat English as a "non-native language." The Court also asked if the Class 6 students of the current academic year can also be given a relaxation. Further, the Court raised concerns over the availability of teachers and textbooks for the indigenous languages.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a bunch of petitions challenging CBSE's circulars introducing the 3-language policy. As per these circulars, the new policy is sought to be introduced from the academic year 2026-27.

Supreme Court Forms 5-Member Committee Led By Ex-SC Judge Subhash Reddy To Probe Student Protest Violence

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others | WP (Crl) 280/2026

The Supreme Court has constituted a five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) to independently examine allegations of violence during the student demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, and other locations across the country last month.

The Committee has been asked to examine both the allegations of excessive and disproportionate use of force by police and paramilitary forces against protesters, as well as the alleged use of violence by protesters against security personnel and injuries sustained by them.

The HPEC will be chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy. Its other members are former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Delhi High Court judge Justice Shalinder Kaur, former CBI Director Rishi Kumar Shukla and retired Meghalaya Director General of Police Dr. L.R. Bishnoi.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks CBI Probe Into Jharkhand Service Exam Irregularities

Case Details: Harisharan Devgan v. Uoi & Ors | WP (C) No. 1047/2026

Social activist Harisharan Devgan has moved the Supreme Court, seeking an independent, time-bound investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged malpractices in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination.

The petition, filed through Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, has sought the transfer of investigation from the State to the CBI to ensure an impartial probe into the public officials and examination agencies. The probe has been sought in light of the plea that the State's cancellation of the examination doesn't eliminate the need to uncover the "systematic corruption".

Other prayers sought are that the physical and digital evidence must be secured, including original and candidate-held OMR carbon copies, CCTV footage, and server audit logs, to prevent tampering.

If Eknath Shinde Found To Have Defected, Basis For ECI Recognition Goes : ShivSena UBT To Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP (C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (And Connected Case)

In the Shiv Sena matter, the Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (UBT) party argued before the Supreme Court that the official bow-and-arrow symbol should be allotted to it, else the same should be frozen. If the Uddhav side cannot have it, so shouldn't the Eknath Shinde faction, UBT said.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, for ShivSena (UBT), contended Eknath Shinde and his followers are continuing to reap benefits of their defection by retaining the official symbol. He argued that the symbol was granted to the Shinde faction on the basis of an erroneous reliance on the test of legislative majority. As the Speaker refused to decide the disqualification petitions in time, the party symbol went to the splinter group.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the plea filed by Uddhav Thackeray faction member Sunil Prabhu challenging the MaharashtraSpeaker's refusal to disqualify MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction under the 10th Schedule. Another petition, filed by Uddhav Thackeray, was also listed before the bench, which challenges the ECIdecisionthat recognized the Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena and allowed it the use of the 'bow and arrow' symbol.

Supreme Court To Pronounce Judgment On Review Petitions Against 3-Year Practice Rule For Judicial Service Tomorrow

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

The Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict on a batch of review petitions challenging its earlier judgment which made three years of legal practice mandatory for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service through direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division).

The Court also heard a writ petition seeking the relaxationof the 3-year rule for persons with disabilities.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice August George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard submissions from various counsel, intervenors and the amicus curiae, and reserved the judgment on July 28. As per the causelist, the judgment is to be pronounced by Justice Chandran.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Inclusion Of District Police Chief In Kerala Public Prosecutor Appointments

Case Title – Vishnuprasad Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors.

The Supreme Court on August 19 issued notice on a plea challenging the inclusion of the District Police Chief in the State of Kerala's procedure for appointing Public Prosecutors under Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The petitioner contends that Section 18 (4) requires the District Magistrate to consult the Sessions Judge and does not permit the Police Chief, who heads the investigating agency, to be part of the consultative process.

The petitioner has also challenged the State's procedure of allowing the District Collector to prepare an initial list of eligible advocates before consulting the Sessions Judge.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Order Allowing Dayanidhi Maran To Summon Telecom Secretary As Court Witness

Case Details: State v. Dayanidhi Maran | SLP (Crl) No. 13933/2026 Diary No. 40341 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 21) set aside the Madras High Court's orderdirecting the Trial Court to summon the Union Telecom Secretary as a court witness in a criminal case against DMK MP and former Union Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran concerning alleged misuse of BSNL telecom facilities. However, the Court has reserved the right of Maran to summon the Secretary as a defence witness.

This comes after the CBI, through Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, approached the Supreme Court challenging the order. When the matter was first taken up on August 10, a bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli asked whether the CBI would have any objection if the Telecom Secretary is summoned as a defence witness.

Based on ASG Raju's instructions, the Court directed that the Telecom Secretary may be examined as a defence witness. However, Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Nalin Kohli objected to the Telecom Secretary being considered as a defence witness. Luthra said the secretary is not a defence witness and urged that the High Court's order be not stayed. He said: "He is a court's witness, which would be appropriate, as the court can put to him what is the procedure and what is the norm and come to a determination. It would be very onerous on me."

Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Treat Post-Graduation As Equivalent To Practice At Bar For Civil Judge Recruitment

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

The Supreme Court has rejected the contention that post-graduation in law should be treated as equivalent to practice at the Bar for the purpose of eligibility for recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division).

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran rejected the contention while deciding review petitions challenging the Court's May 20, 2025 judgment restoring the requirement of prior legal practice for entry-level judicial service.

The Chief Justice, while pronouncing the judgment, said: “The contention that post-graduation should be treated equivalent to practice, that we have not been able to accept.”

Supreme Court Closes 2023 Pleas Against 'The Kerala Story'; Allows To File Fresh Plea For Guidelines On Films Promoting Hate

Case: Qurban Ali v. Central Board of Film Certification and Anr., SLP (C) No. 10166/2023 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court disposed of 3 petitions pertaining to the movie 'The Kerala Story' which attracted widespread controversy in 2023.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter. While one of the petitions (by producer-Sunshine Pictures) was withdrawn, Advocate Nizam Pasha, for petitioners (Qurban Ali and BR Aravindakshan) in two other cases, stressed that despite the release of the movie, issues survive.

Pasha urged that the High Court had disposed of the petitioner's writ petition on similar issue, observing that a writ petition is not maintainable against the grant of certificate to a movie by CBFC. He said that while statutory remedy is available only to the producer, other persons aggrieved by a movie have to take recourse to a writ petition.

Supreme Court Orders Premature Release Of 105-Year Old Life Convict In 1988 Murder Case

Case: Rasik Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, W.P. (Crl.) No. 313/2020

The Supreme Court ordered premature release of a 105-year old life convict, Rasik Chandra Mondal, after confirming his interim bail/parole in a 1988 murder case.

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

Mondal was booked by West Bengal police in 1988 for the offenses under Sections 143, 448, 302 and 324 of IPC. On December 12, 1994, he was convicted under Section 302. In 2018, the Calcutta High Court dismissed his appeal against conviction. He approached the Supreme Court as well, but the plea was dismissed.

Supreme Court Dismisses Ex-Punjab Dy CM Sukhbir Singh Badal's Plea To Quash Defamation Complaint By AKJ Leader

Case Details: Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Rajinder Pal Singh | Diary No. 35327-2026

The Supreme Court (August 21) refused to quash a defamation case against Shirmani Akali Dali president and former Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal, filed by Rajinder Pal Singh, spokesperson of the religious organisation Akhand Kirtani Jatha.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed his special leave petition. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Badal.

It may be recalled that Pal Singh in 2017 filed a complaint against Badal under Section 499 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code. He alleged that Badal, when he was the Deputy CM, made certain defamatory statements in several newspapers alleging that the complainant and the AKJ were a "political front" of the largest terrorist outfit, Babbar Khalsa International.

After Supreme Court Intervention, President Approves Gallantry Medal For Former Cop Who Killed Two Dacoits In 2003

Case Title – Govind Mohan v. Vivek Singh Chouhan

The Supreme Court was informed that President Droupadi Murmu has approved the conferment of the President's Medal for Gallantry on former police officer Vivek Kumar Chouhan, who shot dead two dacoits during an anti-dacoity operation in Madhya Pradesh in 2003.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a case related to contempt proceedings initiated by Chouhan in the High Court against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan for non-compliance with a High Court direction to confer the gallantry award on him.

After the Court earlier expressed displeasure over the delay in complying with the High Court order, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the President had taken a decision on the matter.

Supreme Court Closes 2015 Suo Motu Case Taken Over Parents' Suicide After Child's Death Due To Dengue

Case: In Re: Outrage As Parents End Life After Child's Dengue Death Smw (C) No. 1/2015

The Supreme Court closed a suo motu case taken up in 2015 over the suicide of a parent-couple following the tragic death of their 7-year old child due to dengue.

Allegedly, the child passed away after some hospitals denied him admission citing shortage of beds.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana closed the matter, while recording a statement of the counsel for Delhi Cantonment Board that the direction for filing of an action taken plan had been complied with. It further recorded her undertaking that the authorities are conscious of their responsibility and will continue to take necessary preventive measures in future.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Manan Kumar Mishra's Tenure As BCI Chairman, Seeks Audit Of BCI Finances & Its Law College

At a time when BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra is facing increased public scrutiny following the NALSAR fiasco, a writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court questioning his continuation as the head of the Bar Council of India.

The writ petition, filed by Advocate Yogamaya MG., challenges Mishra's tenure, and his prolonged continuance in the post.

The petition points out that Mishra first became BCI Chairman in 2012. After a brief break in 2014, he returned to the post in November 2014 and has remained Chairman since then. He was again elected unopposed in March 2025. The petitioner describes this as his seventh consecutive term.

400 Cases Settled On First Day Of Supreme Court's 'Samadhan Samaroh' Mediation Scheme

More than 400 cases were amicably settled on the first day of the Special Lok Adalat at the Supreme Court of India under the SAMADHAN SAMAROH2026, as the apex court's initiative to promote consensual resolution of disputes entered its culmination phase.

More than 600 cases were listed before 16 Special Lok Adalat Benches, each comprising two sitting judges of the Supreme Court, along with Senior Advocates, Advocates-on-Record and other advocates.

The Special Lok Adalat, which will continue until August 23, is being held under the guidance of the Chief Justice of India as part of the Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Disputes Harmonization Across Nation (SAMADHAN) initiative. The initiative commenced on April 21, 2026.

Contract Act | Limits Of Agent's Authority : Supreme Court Explains Law Of Agency

Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. v. M/S Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court has held that an agent's implied authority cannot extend to enlarging a risk or dispensing with a statutory precondition which the principal itself is not permitted to assume. The observation was made while hearing an appeal filed against an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), wherein the Commission had directed the appellant to pay the amount assessed by its own surveyor towards a fire loss claim.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeals filed by the New India Assurance Company against the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), wherein the Commission had directed the appellant to pay the amount towards a fire loss claim.

The respondent had availed a Marine Cargo Annual Turnover Policy from the appellant for an expected turnover of Rs 1200 Crores, with premium payable in two equal instalments. A fire broke out at a Container Freight Station where the respondent had stored 41,481 cotton bales. Appellant's own surveyor had accessed the loss to be of Rs. 22,01,29,271.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea By 35 Candidates Against Exclusion From Jharkhand Judicial Service Prelims Revised Merit List

Case: W.P. (C) No. 777/2026 Shubhendu Mishra v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission

The Supreme Court disposed of as infructuous a petition filed by 35 candidates who were excluded from the revised merit list of the Jharkhand Judicial Service Preliminary Examination, 2023, after the entire examination was cancelled.

The Court passed the order after counsel appearing for the petitioner informed a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that the entire exam has been cancelled.

The Civil Judge (Junior Division) Preliminary Examination under Advertisement No. 22/2023 was cancelled as part of the Jharkhand government's decision to cancel a batch of recruitment examinations amid student protests against alleged irregularities in the recruitment process.

'Shocking Pendency' Of Criminal Appeals In Jharkhand High Court: Supreme Court Flags 44-Year Delay in Murder Case

Case Details: Simon Soren v. State of Jharkhand | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No (S).9856/2026

The Supreme Court has flagged the “shocking pendency” of criminal appeals before the Jharkhand High Court after a murder case arising from a 1981 incident remained in the judicial system for nearly 44 years.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while hearing an appeal filed by on Simon Soren against the Jharkhand High Court's 2024 judgment convicting him in a double-murder case of 1981, noted that the trial itself took 22 years, while the appeal against the conviction remained pending before the High Court for another 22 years. The bench observed that the case projected "the failure of the judicial system."

The Court had earlier described the delay as “very disturbing.”

Judges Are Not Gods; Won't Get Every Judgment Right : Justice Sanjay Karol In Farewell Speech

Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Karol, on his last working day, said judges are not gods and must recognise the limits of their own judgment while ensuring that they see the person behind every case and not merely the petition before them.

“We, as judges, are not gods. I only speak about myself. And we will not get every judgment right. What was always in our hands was simpler – to see the person, not just the petition,” Justice Karol said during the ceremonial bench at the Supreme Court held in his honour.

“The Constitution does not make us merely to apply the law correctly. It asks us to apply it justly. That is perhaps why the responsibility of judging has always seemed larger to me than simply deciding who is legally right. We, as judges, are not Gods. I only speak about myself. And we will not get every judgment right. What was always in our hands was simpler to see the person, not just the petition.”

'MNREGA Did Wonderful Job,' Says Supreme Court Disposing Plea On Wages; Allows Petitioner To Challenge VB-GRAM G Act

Case: Aruna Roy and Ors. v. Union of India WP (C) No. 768/2015

The Supreme Court disposed of a 2015 PIL pertaining to payment of compensation for delayed payments to workers in terms of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the issues raised in the PIL were covered by the judgment in Swaraj Abhiyan case. Yet, considering the submissions of Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioners), it gave the petitioners liberty to file a fresh petition with regard to provisions of the Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 (the VB-G RAM G Act, which replaced the MNREGA Act).

To recap, the PIL raised two issues - payment of compensation for delayed wages under the MNREGA, and grant of state-prescribed minimum wages rather than the minimum wage prescribed under the Act.

Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra Moves Supreme Court Over Circuit House Eviction Bid

Trinamool Congress (TMC) Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra has approached the Supreme Court challenging an order directing her to vacate a Circuit House in Nadia, West Bengal.

Appearing for Moitra, her counsel told the Supreme Court that the local administration issued the eviction order late at night, despite a direction from the Calcutta High Court granting her protection.

He requested the Chief Justice for a listing on an early date, saying that the matter raised important questions relating to federalism and called for an independent investigation.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Against Demolition Of Lucknow Lawyers' Chambers

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court's order which directed the demolition of chambers of advocates in Lucknow which were allegedly built encroaching upon public spaces.

A lawyer mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing, saying that the demolition notices have been issued for August 30.

CJI Surya Kant initially asked why the High Court cannot be approached. The lawyer replied that the High Court has passed the order for demolitions.

Supreme Court Bans Construction Within 100 Metres Of Jojari River, Bars Polluting Activities Within 500 Metres

Case: In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8 of 2025

The Supreme Court directed that no construction or development activity shall be permitted within 100 metres of the edge of the Jojari River in Rajasthan, as an interim measure to protect the river ecosystem from further ecological degradation.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated that the restriction would remain in force until completion of a scientific exercise to determine and demarcate the High Flood Line and the requisite ecological buffer zones.

“In view of serious ecological degradation, it is necessary to put in place an interim measurable area of protection to adequately safeguard the river ecosystem during the pendency of the scientific exercise for determination and demarcation of the high flood line and the requisite ecological buffer zones,” the Court said.

Jantar Mantar Protests | We Have Told Committee To Probe Sexual Assault Cases On Priority : CJI Surya Kant

The Chief Justice of India clarified that the High-Powered Enquiry Committee, which has been constituted to examine the allegations of police violence during the student protests, has been asked to take up on priority the complaints of sexual assault faced by women protesters.

CJI Surya Kant further stated that as per the order passed last week, the Committee has to submit an interim report on sexual assault complaints at the earliest.

The Chief Justice made these observations when Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta requested the Supreme Court's suo motu cognizance of the cases of sexual assault during the Jantar Mantar student protests of July 20. Gupta said that there are widely reported complaints of girls facing sexual assault from police personnel. "Girls are claiming that they were sexually assaulted; it was heavily reported on social media...I am beseeching for a suo motu cognizance," Gupta said.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Jharkhand Civil Service Exam Irregularities

Case Details: Harisharan Devgan v. Uoi & Ors | WP (C) No. 1047/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on a writ petition seeking an independent, time-bound investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) into the alleged malpractices in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by activist Harisharan Devgan.

Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Misha, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the students have been protesting for over a month against the exam malpractices. Though the State cancelled the exams, the High Court immediately stayed the decision, with the State "indirectly" supporting the challenge, Mishra contended.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Former AAP MLA Naresh Balyan's Bail Plea In MCOCA Case

Case Title – Naresh Balyan v. NCT of Delhi

The Supreme Court issued notice on the bail plea of former Aam Aadmi Party MLA Naresh Balyan in a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta granted four weeks' time to the Delhi Government to file its counter affidavit.

The prosecution's case concerns an organised crime syndicate allegedly headed by gangster Kapil Sangwan. According to the prosecution, Sangwan and his associates were involved in multiple cases of extortion, threats, shootings and grabbing properties. The prosecution alleged that the syndicate threatened businessmen and property dealers for extortion and also used threats to force property owners to sell plots at low prices.

Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case : Brother Moves Supreme Court Challenging Bombay High Court's Acquittals

Case: Nayabuddin Shaikh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court order acquitting 22 accused, including 21 policemen (from Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh), in the 2005 encounter case of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi, and his aide Tulsiram Prajapati.

The petition has been filed by Nayabuddin Shaikh, younger brother of the deceased Sohrabuddin Shaikh, challenging the High Court's judgment wherein a bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ashwin Ankhad dismissed the appeals filed against the acquittal of all the accused persons.

As per the prosecution, Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi, and his aide Tulsiram Prajapati were abducted by a police team while travelling in a bus from Hyderabad to Maharashtra in 2005. Shaikh who was allegedly killed in an encounter near Ahmedabad and his wife three days later. His aide, Prajapati was killed in another encounter on Gujarat-Rajasthan border in 2006.

Consider Amending Rule Barring Inter-State Transfer Of Death Row Convict : Supreme Court To Kerala

Case Details: Muhammed Ameer Ul Islam v. State of Kerala | W.P.(Crl.) No. 455/2022 Diary No. 35272 / 2022

The Supreme Court (August 24) directed the State of Kerala to file a counter-affidavit in a writ petition filed by Muhammed Ameer Ul Islam seeking transfer from prison in Kerala to a prison in his home State of Assam. Islam, a migrant labourer from Assam, was convicted and sentenced to death in the 2016 Perumbavoor law student rape and murder case.

During the hearing, the bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu questioned the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2010, which disallow transfer of death convicts from one prison to another State contrary to the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950. The bench asked the State of Kerala to consider amending the Rule.

Senior Advocate Rebecca John(for Islam) read Section 3 of the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950, and stated that prisoners sentenced to death are not allowed to be transferred unless the proceedings before the Trial Court and the High Court are over. Referring to this, she pointed out that the Trial Court has already sentenced him to death, which was confirmed by the Kerala High Court in 2024.

Supreme Court To Consider If Co-opting Ex-HC Judges As Women Bar Council Members Violates Article 220

The Supreme Court said that it will consider whether co-opting former High Court Judges as women members in State Bar Councils will attract the bar under Article 220 of the Constitution, which prohibits a former High Court Judge from practising in that Court.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant heard the arguments raised by Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh against the inclusion of a former High Court Judge.

Making an oral mention, Parikh, who was representing six Councils, submitted that the Supreme Court did not consider many aspects, such as the Dhulia committee reports, before passing the order.

Should Tarun Tejpal Surrender For His Appeal Against Rape Sentence To Be Listed? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: Tarunjit Tejpal v. State of Goa | Diary No. 50909 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 24) said that it will pass orders on former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal's application for exemption from surrendering after the Bombay High Court convicted and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment in the 2013 rape case.

The matter was heard by a single judge, Justice Alok Aradhe, in chambers. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal(for Tejpal) submitted that an interlocutory application seeking exemption from surrendering be listed on August 31. Till then, Tejpal has been granted four weeks by the High Court to surrender.

On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta(for the State of Goa) argued that the exemption application can only be listed if he has surrendered as per Order XX Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Cauvery Water Dispute: Tamil Nadu To Approach CWMA Over Alleged Shortfall; Supreme Court To Hear Plea On 31st August

Case: MA 2445/2026 In C.A. No. 2453/2007, Diary No. 46527/2026, State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka

State of Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that it will raise before the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) its grievance that it is not receiving its proportionate share of Cauvery water, following which the Court posted its plea seeking release of water for hearing on next Monday.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing Tamil Nadu's plea seeking implementation of the CWMA's directions requiring Karnataka to release water.

Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan for Tamil Nadu said that the State had received the water directed to be released by the CWMA as of Monday morning. He said there had been a deficit in the release on Sunday, but some water had reached Tamil Nadu by Monday.

TMC Secretary Abhishek Banerjee Moves Supreme Court Against 20 Rebel MPs, Seeks Expeditious Decision On Disqualification

Trinamool Congress General Secretary and Lok Sabha leader Abhishek Banerjee has moved the Supreme Court seeking an expeditious decision by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on petitions seeking the disqualification of 20 rebel TMC MPs who have broken away from the party.

The Writ Petition filed under Article 32 is listed for hearing on August 25 before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

The petition challenges the delay in taking a decision on the disqualification proceedings against the rebel MPs. The dispute stems from the rebellion within the TMC parliamentary party, with 20 MPs having sought to break away from the party and align themselves with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI). The rebel camp has sought recognition as a separate group in the Lok Sabha.

Supreme Court Stays HC Order Directing Kerala Govt To Refund Royalties Collected Under 2021 Kerala Minerals Act

Case: State of Kerala, and Ors. v. K.P.Chandramohan and Ors. SLP(C) No. 29034-29039/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the Kerala High Court's direction for refund of the royalties collected by the Kerala government from landowners under the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act 2021.

The Court further ordered that the State shall not levy or recover any royalty under the Act until further orders.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, while issuing notice on the Kerala government's challenge to the High Court order which declared the Act as "unconstitutional".

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea By Tamil Nadu Law Officer Against Adverse Remarks Made By Madras HC

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea by a Tamil Nadu Law Officer seeking expunction of adverse remarks made against him by the Madras High Court in an order concerning the conduct of a criminal trial.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta clarified that the notice would be limited to the observations made by the High Court against the petitioner.

The High Court had also remarked that the State government was appointing Government pleaders, public prosecutors, and law officers only based on their political allegiance and not on the basis of merit. It noted that in some cases, the only qualification of the law officers appointed by the State was their involvement in menial political activities, like sticking posters for the party. The court added that this practice struck at the very root of professional standards that was expected by the officers.

Supreme Court's Three-Day Special Lok Adalat Resolves 1,712 Cases Under Samadhan Samaroh 2026

The Supreme Court's three-day Special Lok Adalat under the SAMADHAN SAMAROH 2026 resolved a total of 1,712 cases, including 48 cases settled through mediation, according to the Supreme Court's statement issued on August 24.

The Special Lok Adalat was held from August 21 to 23 as the culmination of the SAMADHAN initiative, which began on April 21, 2026 with a structured pre-settlement process to identify pending cases that could be resolved amicably. Litigants and their counsel were engaged in advance to explore the possibility of settlement.

A total of 3,285 cases were listed during the three-day Special Lok Adalat. Of these, 1,664 cases were settled or disposed of through the Lok Adalat process. Another 48 cases were resolved through mediation, taking the total number of cases disposed of to 1,712.

Supreme Court Directs Union To Consider Representation Alleging Breach Of EPFO/UAN & PAN-Linked Data

Case: Piyush Chhabra v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No.30527/2026

The Supreme Court directed the Union government to consider a representation alleging breach and commercial exploitation of statutory employment and financial data, including EPFO/UAN-linked records and PAN-linked information, by private verification entities.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli (for petitioner) in a PIL seeking restraint on unauthorized access, sharing, disclosure, transfer or misuse of EPFO/UAN-linked employment data, PAN-linked information, ITR/Form 26AS/AIS-linked financial data or other protected data.

The Court disposed of the petition, with a direction to the Union and other official-respondents to consider the petitioner's "comprehensive" representations and take necessary action to prevent misuse of data collected by EPFO and Income Tax Department.

Student Protests | Petitioner Expresses Reservations About Probe Committee, Urges Supreme Court To Reconstitute It

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others | WP(C) No. 280/2026 (And Connected Cases)

Some of the petitioners in the student protest violence matter have expressed reservations about the composition of the High-Powered Enquiry Committee constituted by the Supreme Courtto probe the allegations of police excesses and vandalism by protesters.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing some of the petitioners, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India seeking the listing of an application filed by them. Though Sankaranarayanan did not state what the application was about, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that it was a "mischievous application." The SG said that the applicants were challenging the committee's composition, and had suggested some alternate names. "It's mischievous. Prayer is to reconstitute the committee and investigate this and that minister. This is not a political platform. They have given names of judges," SG said.

CJI Surya Kant then said, "We don't appreciate mentioning of judges' names." Sankaranarayanan said that he has not submitted anything regarding that, and assured that even if the application is listed, no names will be taken.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain YSRCP's Plea Against Take Down Of Its Social Media Posts, Asks To Move HC

Case Details: Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party v. State of Andhra Pradesh | W.P.(C) No. 1036/2026

The Supreme Court (August 25) dismissed a plea filed by the YSR Congress Party challenging the takedown and blocking of its social media posts from its official handles 'Jagananna Connects' on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and X(formerly Twitter), allegedly at the instance of the Andhra Pradesh Government.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed the writ petition and asked the party to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

YSR Congress Party approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the manner in which its social media posts from official party handles have been taken down allegedly at the instance of the State government, contrary to the manner laid down in Shreya Singhal v UOI(2014).

Speaker Has Issued Notices To 20 Rebel MPs On Trinamool Congress Pleas For Their Disqualification, Solicitor Tells Supreme Court

Case: Abhishek Banerjee v. Honble Speaker Lok Sabha and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1033/2026

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the Lok Sabha Speaker has issued notices to the 20 rebel MPs on the petitions filed by the Trinamool Congress seeking their disqualification under the anti-defection law (10th Schedule of the Constitution).

The SG was responding to a writ petition filed by Trinamool Congress General Secretary and Lok Sabha leader Abhishek Banerjee seeking an expeditious decision by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on disqualification petitions.

The Writ Petition filed under Article 32 was listed before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Demolition Of Lawyers' Chambers In Lucknow

Case: Central Bar Association v. State of Up | Diary No. 51660-2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by the Central Bar Association, Lucknow, challenging the Allahabad High Court's direction to issue demolition notices against lawyers' chambers allegedly constructed by encroaching upon public land and obstructing roads near the Lucknow District Court complex.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere with the High Court's directions, with Justice Nath taking a strong view that unauthorised constructions cannot be protected merely because they are occupied by members of the Bar.

During the hearing, Justice Nath questioned the location of the structures and the basis on which lawyers were seeking to retain them.

Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, Who Exposed Ram Temple Donation Theft, In UP Police FIR

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

The Supreme Court passed an interim order staying coercive action by the Uttar Pradesh Police against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who was among the first to report on Ram Mandir donation theft row, in the FIR registered against him over an alleged road-rage incident. Notably, the Court also ordered that the interim protection will extend to any future FIR which the UP Police may register against him.

The Court further directed the police to supply the copy of the registered FIR to him. The Court indicated that after the FIR copy is given to him, he can approach the Allahabad High Court for seeking suitable reliefs. The Ghaziabad Police Commissioner has been asked to file a compliance report regarding the supply of the FIR by the next date of hearing (September 7).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a writ petition filed by Abhishek Upadhyay challenging the FIR.

Supreme Court Directs Tarun Tejpal To Surrender Within 3 Weeks To Hear Appeal Against Rape Conviction

Case Details: Tarunjit Tejpal v. State of Goa | Diary No. 50909 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 25) directed Tehelka Magazine's former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal to surrender within 3 weeks and file a surrender certificate before September 22, for the Court to hear his appeal on the merits. It may be recalled that Tejpal has challenged the Bombay High Court's order convicting and sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment in the 2013 rape case.

Justice Aradhe rejected the contention raised by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Tejpal, that he need not surrender for his appeal to be heard, as he was granted four weeks' time to surrender by the Bombay High Court on August 6. Sibal also submitted that Tejpal has been on bail throughout the proceedings except for the six months and is a senior citizen now.

He also referred to the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 to argue that the Court doesn't need to hear first on exemption and then on merits, as both can be taken together.

West Bengal SIR | 80% Appeals In Tribunals Challenge Voter Inclusion; Appeals Against Exclusion Need Priority, Supreme Court Told

Case Title – Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court was told that 31 lakh out of the 38 lakh appeals (nearly 80%) pending in West Bengal SIR appellate tribunals are filed challenging the inclusion of persons in the electoral rolls. In other words, only 7 lakh appeals are filed by persons who have been excluded from the electoral rolls after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in the State.

This means that a major chunk of the appeals burdening the tribunals are seeking disenfranchisement of the persons.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan informed the Court of these statistics on the basis of a reply received by Member of Parliament Isha Khan Choudhary under the Right to Information Act.

Bihar SIR Judgment Clarifies That Electoral Roll Exclusion Won't Result In Loss Of Other Rights : Supreme Court

Case Title: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors, W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court orally said that its judgment in the Bihar SIR matter has held that the deletion from the electoral roll per se will not lead to the loss of other citizenship benefits.

During the hearing of the West Bengal SIR matter, the Court was told that persons excluded from electoral rolls are being deprived of ration under the Public Distribution System scheme, and other benefits, such as domicile certificates.

Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim, for petitioners, urged a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana to pass an order that there should not be such a "ripple effect" following exclusion from electoral rolls due to SIR.

Banke Bihari Temple | Devotees' Offerings Must Directly Reach Donation Box Or Online Treasury; Sewayats Must Not Interfere : Supreme Court

Case Title – Management Committee of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed that every penny donated at the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan must be deposited in the temple's donation boxes or online temple treasury, after the court appointed High-Powered Temple Management Committee alleged that sewayats' bhandaris were collecting offerings directly from devotees.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana directed the committee to introduce a transparent mechanism for the temple treasury.

“Let there be no doubts, and we accordingly direct that every penny of donation must come to the donation boxes or online temple treasury, and any impediment created by sewayats or anyone else shall be viewed very seriously. The Managing Committee is directed to introduce any transparent mechanism for the temple treasury”, the Court ordered.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Curbs Imposed By Rajasthan & UP On Entry To Government Schools Amid CJP Campaign

A Public Interest Litigation filed before the Supreme Court has challenged restrictions imposed by education authorities in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh on the entry of outsiders, journalists, YouTubers, social-media users and civil-society representatives into government schools, as well as curbs on photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming.

The petition assumes significance in the wake of the “School Thik Karo” campaign being undertaken by the Cockroach Janat Party to expose the deficiencies in government school infrastructure.

The petition filed by Priya Mishra, was mentioned before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for urgent listing. Advocate Narendra Mishra, for the petitioner, submitted that orders issued by State authorities could result in FIRs being registered against persons who photograph or record videos showing deficiencies in government schools, including under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Supreme Court Indicates It May Direct UP To Acquire Land For Banke Bihari Temple If Land Purchase Hits Roadblock

Case Title – Management Committee of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

The Supreme Court indicated that it may direct the Uttar Pradesh government to acquire land required for the development of the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan if the High-Powered Committee's efforts to purchase the land privately continue to face obstruction.

“If you continue with your negotiations, if a private transaction take place, you let us know. We will permit you to go ahead. If there is still an impediment, then we will direct the state to acquire the land”, CJI Surya Kant told the High-Powered Committee.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing an application filed by the Management Committee of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple concerning the management and development of the temple.

Legal Aid Defence Counsel Move Supreme Court Against NALSA Decision To Not Renew Their Contracts

Case Title – Association of Legal Aid Defence Counsels and Supporting Staff-Some of Dlsas of Assam, Meghalaya and Nagaland v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging the National Legal Services Authority's (NALSA) decision to not renew the contracts of incumbent Legal Aid Defence Counsels (LADCs) engaged under the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System (LADCS) Scheme.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale issued notice.

The plea challenges NALSA's communication dated August 4, 2026, which directed that LADC contracts in Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh would not be renewed from September 2026 onwards. In other States and Union Territories, LADC contracts would not be renewed after the completion of their existing contractual tenure.

'Can We Direct Fresh Elections?' Supreme Court On Trinamool Claim That Margin In Bengal Polls Was Less Than SIR-Deleted Votes

Case Title: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors, W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (And Connected Cases)

In the West Bengal SIR matter, the Supreme Court was told that the winning margin of BJP candidates in certain assembly constituencies was significantly less compared to the total number of voters deleted from the voter lists.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, for a Trinamool Congress member, submitted that an application has been filed pointing out that in 31 constituencies, the winning margin of the BJP against the TMC was less than the number of votes deleted. To illustrate, in AC-145, the margin of loss was 401, and the deletions were 8785. In another constituency, the loss was by 316 votes, whereas the deletions were more.

Responding to the submission, CJI Surya Kant said, "you can file the application [on this], but can the Court direct fresh elections like this?" The CJI further asked if any election petitions had been filed in the 31 constituencies challenging the election of the returned candidates.

Supreme Court Refuses To Direct Reopening Of Portal To Reverify CBSE Class XII Answer Sheets

The Supreme Court (August 25) refused to direct the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to reopen its post-result window for on-screen verification of answer sheets, holding that the notified correction window had been available to all candidates for a specified period.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymala Bagchi and Justice V Mohana declined to intervene in the matter after CBSE submitted that 1.68 lakh students had successfully applied for on-screen verification during the designated window.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioners sought a fresh one-week window, arguing that technical glitches on the CBSE website had prevented some students from submitting their applications.

CJI Surya Kant Responds To Justice Sandeep Mehta's Complaints Against Rajasthan HC Acting CJ, Says Issue Being Examined

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has responded to the media reports regarding the letters sent to him by Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta, raising serious complaints about the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.

The CJI said that he has already taken note of the concerns raised by Justice Mehta. However, the CJI stressed that allegations against a sitting judge must be dealt with strictly through the established institutional mechanism.

The CJI maintained that the contents of the letter cannot be adjudicated in the public domain, and that no conclusion can be reached without giving an opportunity of hearing to Justice Sharma. The allegations of Justice Mehta, which have come in the public domain through media reports, cannot by itself be treated as a finding against Justice Sharma.

Supreme Court Seeks CBI Response On Sandip Ghosh's Bail Plea In RG Kar Medical Hospital Case

Case Details: Sandip Ghosh v. Central Bureau of Investigation | Diary No. - 49942/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) on a bail plea filed by former principal of R G Kar Hospital Sandip Ghosh, accused of financial irregularities and corruption.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale has sought CBI's response by October 15.

Ghosh was the Principal of the Hospital and College where the brutal rape and murder of a junior doctor took place on August 9, 2024. The High Court on August 13, 2024, had transferred the investigation to the CBI relating to thedoctor's death.

NEET-UG : Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Alternative Verification Methods For Candidates With Disabilities

Case Details: Muazzama Tanveer v. Union of India & Ors | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 2737/2026

The Supreme Court is set to hear on September 21 whether alternative methods of verification of identity can be used in a plea by a specially abled NEET candidate.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan(for petitioner) on the interim relief on whether the petitioner can be allowed to appear for the examination using alternative proof of identity.

It may be on April 30, days before the NEET-UG 2026 examination, the National Testing Agency gave an undertaking to the Supreme Court that Petitioner could appear at her examination centre with an alternative proof of identity, certified by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or by the Principal of the school she last attended.

Supreme Court Stays BCI Order Debarring Former Judicial Officer From Practice

The Supreme Court stayed the order passed by the Bar Council of India permanently debarring Madhya Pradesh-based advocate and former judicial officer, Narendra Kumar Jain, from practising law over his alleged unwarranted remarks on the judiciary.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stayed the BCI's order, which had found him guilty of professional misconduct over allegations of making remarks against the judiciary and judges. The bench also issued notice to the BCI on Jain's appeal.

Challenging the BCI's order, the petitioner, in his plea, claimed that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself, violating the principles of natural justice. Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha appeared for the former judicial officer, and based on his submissions, the bench stayed the BCI's order.

'There Has To Be Uniformity' : Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Tune Prescribed For Karnataka State Anthem

Case Details: Kikkeri Krishna Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 20297/2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Karnataka High Court's order, which dismissed a petition challenging the Government order prescribing the tune in which the State anthem 'Jayabharatha Jananiya Tanujate' is to be sung.

It may be recalled that singer Kikkeri Krishnamurthy filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning the State government's September 25, 2022, order prescribing that the State Anthem, Jayabharatha Jananiya Tanujate, be sung for two and a half minutes, in a tune composed by Mysore Ananthaswamy.

After the High Court dismissed his petition, Krishnamurthy filed a special leave petition, which was heard by a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan. Senior Advocate V Katarki appeared for the petitioner.

After Supreme Court Rap, FSSAI Proposes Pictorial Front-of-Pack Warning Labels For Packaged Foods High In Sugar, Salt & Fat

Case Details: 3s and Our Health Society v. Union of India and Anr | 15 MA 1177/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has proposed introducing red-coloured hexagonal warning labels on packaged food products high in sugar, saturated fat and salt.

The proposal was placed before a Supreme Court Bench through a six-page compliance affidavit, filed in a Public Interest Litigation seeking mandatory front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in fat, sugar and salt.

The FSSAI said the proposed labels would be in pictorial form and designed to provide consumers with a “simple, prominent and easily comprehensible warning” about products high in specified nutrients of concern.

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner Challenging Amendments To Mizo Inheritance Law To Approach High Court

Case: Meriam L Hrangchal v. State of Mizoram WP(C) No.1046/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the 2026 amendments to the Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014, which are stated to be discriminatory towards Mizo women who marry non-Mizo men.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the issue could be effectively addressed by the jurisdictional High Court. Considering however the petitioner's apprehension that the matter may not be heard at the Aizawl Bench, due to a charged atmosphere, the Court gave her liberty to approach the Principal bench of the Guwahati High Court.

It was opined that the matter prima facie requires preferential attention.

HSRP Maker Moves Supreme Court Challenging States' Tender Conditions Confining Number Plate Supplies To OEMs

Case Title – Zooom Engineering Llp v. Union of India & Ors.

Zooom Engineering LLP, a High Security Registration Plate (HSRP) manufacture approved by the Central Government, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the exclusion of approved manufacturers from supplying and affixing HSRPs on vehicles registered before April 1, 2019.

The company has alleged that State Governments are restricting the market to a handful of private manufacturers through tender conditions and the “OEM model”, creating monopolies and cartelisation and forcing vehicle owners to pay higher prices for HSRPs.

“Further and most importantly, due to cartelisation and exclusion of approved manufacturers like the Petitioner, the public is made to pay more than double the price for the number plates resulting in huge financial loss to the public and windfall gains to a few manufacturers”, the plea states.

CBI Finds Advocate's B.Com Degree Prima Facie Fake, Supreme Court Records

Case Details: Naresh Dilawari v. Charanjit Singh Oberoi

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has found prima facie evidence of cognizable offences including forgery and fabrication of public documents in connection with the B.Com degree produced by an advocate, the Supreme Court has recorded.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, in an order passed on August 17, 2026, recorded that the CBI had submitted a status report pursuant to the Court's September 15, 2025 direction to investigate whether the degree relied upon by Naresh Dilawari was genuine or forged.

The Court noted that the CBI's report, submitted in a sealed cover and opened in Court, stated that:

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Disclosure Of Ethanol Percentage In Petrol Pump Nozzles & Bills

Case: Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 887/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking a direction that petrol pumps must label the percentage of ethanol blended in petrol being dispensed at fuel stations and that the ethanol content must be printed on fuel bills and receipts.

The bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale granted liberty to the petitioner, advocate N.K. Goswami, to approach the concerned High Court with his grievances.

During the hearing, Goswami argued that consumers have a right to know the composition of the fuel they are purchasing and pointed to the absence of any ethanol-content disclosure on petrol receipts.

Supreme Court Stays FIR Against Gym Owner 'Mohammed' Deepak Over Bajrang Dal Confrontation

Case: Deepak Kumar @ Akki v. State of Uttarakhand | Diary No. 49709 / 2026

The Supreme Court stayed proceedings arising from an FIR against Dehradun gym owner 'Mohammed' Deepak Kumar, who had approached the court seeking quashing of the case over allegations stemming from a confrontation involving Bajrang Dal members and a Muslim shopkeeper.

The Court also stayed the operation of the order passed by the High Court that had restrained Deepak from making social media posts about the incident and the case.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order while issuing notice to the respondents in Deepak's petition challenging the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR.

Goa Nightclub Fire: Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Bombay High Court's Cancellation Of Owners' Bail

Case Details: Gaurav Luthra v. State of Goa | SLP(Crl) No. 15665/2026 Diary No. 50907 / 2026 | Saurabh Luthra v. State of Goa | Connected SLP(Crl) No. 15656/2026 Diary No. 50914 / 2026 | Ajay Gupta v. State of Goa, SLP(Crl) No. 15634/2026 Diary No. 50893 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 31) refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's order cancelling bail granted to Saurabh Luthra, Gaurav Luthra and Ajay Gupta, the co-owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane, a nightclub in North Goa's Arpora area, which was engulfed in a massive fire, killing 25 people.

It may be recalled that on August 18, a single judge, Justice Neela Gokhale, cancelled the grant granted to the trio, observing that the Sessions Court failed to properly exercise its discretionary powers. The Court directed them to surrender within 2 weeks.

This order was upheld by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu after briefly hearing Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave(for Luthra brothers) and Shyam Divan(for Ajay Gupta).

'Can't Presume Anything Untoward Will Happen' : Supreme Court Refuses To Stop CJP's September 5 Protest

Case - Shivam Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1042/2026

The Supreme Court refused to pass orders on an application against a protest march announced by the Cockroach Janta Party on September 5 in Delhi.

Though the Court issued notice to the Centre and the Delhi Police on the application, it refused to list the matter before September 5, despite the fervent requests made by the applicant's lawyer Dr Rizwan Ahmed for a posting on September 3.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana posted the matter to September 10, to be heard along with other matters relating to the student protests. Observing that law and order was within the domain of the police, the Court asked the petitioner to raise his concerns before the Centre and the Police.

3 NGT Benches May Shut Down : Bar Association Tells Supreme Court, Seeks Urgent Extension Of Members' Tenure

The Supreme Court agreed to consider before September 8 a plea concerning the tenure of members of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), after the NGT Bar Association warned that three zonal benches could become non-functional once the Court's existing extension for tribunal members expires.

The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The plea was originally listed for hearing on September 15.

Seeking an earlier hearing, counsel appearing for the NGT Bar Association said the Supreme Court's extension of the tenure of certain tribunal members is due to expire on September 8. He warned that the expiry could cripple the functioning of several NGT benches.

Decision On Sanction Against Minister Over Remarks Against Colonel Qureshi Soon, MP Govt Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Kunwar Vijay Shah v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 8449/2025

The Madhya Pradesh government informed the Supreme Court that a decision on sanction for prosecution against State Minister Vijay Shah in connection with his controversial remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi is expected shortly.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Shah has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's suo motu order directing the registration of an FIR against him over his remarks referring to Colonel Qureshi as the “sister of terrorists.”

Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that the SIT had concluded its investigation and that the sanction proposal had been forwarded to the Governor.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges SCBA Executive Committee Election Results, Seeks Recounting

Six candidates who contested the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections for the post of Executive Member have filed an application before the Supreme Court seeking directions for recounting of ballot papers. The application alleges serious irregularities and malpractices during the counting process which allegedly resulted in inflation of votes polled by certain candidates and a corresponding decrease in the votes polled by the applicants.

The interim application has been filed by Smriti Kumari (Ballot No 15), Shweta Sinha (Ballot No 45), Shehla Chaudhary (Ballot No 3), Sundari (Ballot No 49), Sachin Pahwa (Ballot No 24), and Krishna Kumar Gupta (Ballot No 11). It is filed through AOR (Dr.) Vipin Gupta.

It is stated that the SCBA election was conducted as per the applicable rules, with a duly constituted Election Committee, and that the applicants, having the requisite qualification, had filed their nominations for the post of Executive Member. Their candidatures were found to be in order and they were, hence, permitted to contest. Thereafter, the polling took place on 18th August 2026.

Centre Urges Supreme Court To Quash Delhi FIRs Against Student Protesters

The Centre has filed an application urging the Supreme Court to quash 13 FIRs registered by the Delhi police against student protesters invoking the special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The application seeks quashing of 13 FIRs registered for offenses like rioting, attempt to murder, robbery and damage to public property, while it seeks leave for the Delhi Police to register a fresh FIR qua 2873 protesting persons who had serious criminal antecedents.

The Union says that no fresh FIR will be filed hereafter for the subject incident(s) and if any other FIR, similar to the 13 FIRs, comes to note later, the authorities will not oppose their quashing.

Central Agencies Dragged Feet In Investigating Company Linked To Abhishek Banerjee, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court criticised the Central investigating agencies over the pace of the probe into the affairs of Leaps and Bounds Pvt Ltd, a company linked to Trinamool Congress Secretary Abhishek Banerjee, in connection with the West Bengal School Service Commission scam. The Court orally observed that the agencies had “dragged their feet” in pursuing custodial interrogation and investigating "certain persons" despite repeated concerns raised by the Calcutta High Court.

The sharp observations came during the hearing of the bail plea of Sumit Roy, aide of Trinamool Congress Secretary Abhishek Banerjee, in a land scam case.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the matter.

Supreme Court Asks Union To Consider Curbs On Retail Sale Of Acid

Case: Shaheen Malik v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025

The Supreme Court asked the Union of India to consider formulating severe restraints on the retail sale of acid in India to curb the instances of acid attacks.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with an intervenor's application in thePIL filed by Shaheen Malik (assailing non-completion of trial in her case and raising issue of forced administration of acid). The applicant urged that the Union's guidelines on the issue were of 2013, which are not being implemented effectively.

The applicant, an acid attack survivor herself, was present in court and urged that the physical and mental trauma suffered by an acid attack survivor is tremendous. She highlighted that the ban on retail sale of acid will not adversely affect anyone and argued that the government can take many steps to address the situation, yet nothing is being done because "no one cares" about acid attack survivors. To underline the impact of the attack she suffered 17 years ago, she stressed that even , she cannot sleep without medicines and is fighting the cause so that others do not have to suffer the same agony. The applicant also claimed that about 3 persons are subjected to acid attack every day.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Justice PK Mishra's Son As Rajasthan Additional Advocate General

Case Title – Sunil Samdaria v. State of Rajasthan

The Supreme Court dismissed an SLP challenging the Rajasthan High Court judgmentthat upheld the appointment of advocate Padmesh Mishra as Additional Advocate General (AAG) of Rajasthan to argue cases for the State before the Supreme Court.

Mishra is the son of Supreme Court Judge Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul Pancholi dismissed the SLP filed by one advocate Sunil Samdaria, who had challenged Mishra's appointment on the ground that he did not have the minimum 10 years' experience of practice prescribed under the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018.

Muscat Authorities Examining Claims Of Ransom Calls To Family Of Indian Captain Missing After Hormuz Attack : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case - Anshu Kumari v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 322/2026

The Union government told the Supreme Court that the Muscat authorities are examining the claims of ransom calls received by the family of merchant navy captain Ashish Kumar, who was feared dead after a drone/missile attack in the Strait of Hormuz.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that DNA profiling of the mortal remains, believed to be of captain Kumar's and found on the merchant vessel, could not be done by Muscat authorities, as the remains were severely burnt.

On the claims of the merchant navy captain's family that there had been ransom calls since his disappearance and there was a possibility of him being alive as the DNA matching was not successful, the SG said that the Muscat authorities were looking into the matter.

CJI Constitutes Committee to Address Advocates' Grievances With Registry After SCAORA Request

Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant has constituted a committee to examine issues faced by advocates in their day-to-day interaction with the Registry of the Supreme Court, following a request by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA).

The committee, headed by Supreme Court Secretary General Bharat Parashar, will consider concerns raised by members of the Bar relating to the functioning of the Registry, including issues concerning filing, scrutiny, defect marking, curing of defects, listing and other procedural matters.

The development follows a letter dated August 25, 2026, addressed by SCAORA President Devvrat to the Chief Justice of India, seeking the constitution of an institutional mechanism to examine difficulties faced by advocates in their dealings with the Registry.

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, Who Reported Ram Temple Donation Theft, Moves Supreme Court Against UP Police FIR

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who was among the first to report allegations of theft and irregularities in donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, has moved the Supreme Court challenging an FIR registered against him in Ghaziabad over an alleged road-rage incident.

Upadhyay has alleged that the FIR is based on false and concocted allegations and is an attempt to harass him for his independent investigative journalism. He has sought the quashing of the FIR and protection from arrest and other coercive action.

The FIR was registered at Indirapuram police station on August 18. According to the complaint, a motorcycle ridden by one person was allegedly hit by a Baleno car near Shipra Mall. The complainant alleged that the driver abused and threatened him after the incident and named Upadhyay in connection with the car.