Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: July 2026

JudgmentsRemission Policy Issued Under Article 161 Overrides Statutory Policy Framed Under CrPC: Supreme CourtCause Title: PARVEEN KUMAR@ PARVEEN CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 648The Supreme Court (July 1) held that a remission policy framed by a State Government in exercise of the Governor's constitutional powers under Article 161 of the Constitution cannot be overridden by a subsequent statutory remission policy issued under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Holding that Haryana's 2002 remission policy continued to remain operative despite the State's 2008 statutory policy, the Court also declared its 2021 judgment inState of Haryana v. Raj Kumar to be per incuriam for being contrary to the larger Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh passed the judgment while allowing the appeal of a life convict whose application for premature release had been rejected on the ground that he was governed by Haryana's 2008 remission policy instead of the more liberal 2002 policy.The appellant was convicted in 2009 for the murder of a 12-year-old child. After completing over 14 years of actual imprisonment, he sought remission under the 2002 policy. The State rejected his request, holding that since the 2008 policy was in force on the date of conviction, he would become eligible for consideration only after completing 20 years of actual imprisonment and 25 years of total imprisonment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the State's decision.When Can A Judgment Be Declared 'Per Incuriam'? Supreme Court ExplainsCause Title: PARVEEN KUMAR@ PARVEEN CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 648The Supreme Court reiterated that the doctrine of per incuriam is an exception to the rule of stare decisis and can be invoked only in limited circumstances, holding that a judgment may be declared per incuriam if its ratio is irreconcilable with an earlier decision rendered by a Bench of equal or larger strength or if it was delivered without considering a relevant statutory provision.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh laid down the principles while holding that the Court's 2021 judgment in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar was per incuriam for being inconsistent with the earlier three-judge Bench ruling in State of Haryana v. Jagdish.The Court observed that the doctrine of per incuriam is an exception to the principle of precedent and "must be applied sparingly." Summarising the settled law from earlier decisions, the Bench identified the principles governing the doctrine.S. 187(3) BNSS | Non-Supply Of Charge Sheet To Accused Not Ground For Default Bail : Supreme CourtCause Title: SHAURYA SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 649The Supreme Court (July 1) held that the non-supply of a charge sheet copy to an accused cannot be a ground for a default bail under Section 187(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh upheld the Bombay High Court's decision, which had rejected the accused's plea for a default bail on the ground of non-supply of a charge sheet copy to him.The Appellant-accused was arrested in connection with a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) for an alleged large-scale cyber fraud case involving approximately Rs 3.81 crores, involving offences punishable under Sections 61(2) read with 318, 336 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 66 and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.Representation Of People Act Doesn't Apply To Municipal Elections : Supreme CourtCause Title: CHANDRIKABEN KISHOR DAFDA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 650The Supreme Court has held that the penal provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) do not apply to municipal elections, clarifying that candidates accused of filing false affidavits in local body polls can instead be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code where the applicable municipal law does not provide a penal provision.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh made the observation while deciding an appeal filed by Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, who challenged criminal proceedings alleging that she had suppressed details of immovable properties owned by her husband while contesting the 2015 municipal elections in Gujarat.The appellant had been summoned by a Magistrate under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, which penalises furnishing false information or concealing material particulars in election affidavits. The Gujarat High Court had refused to quash the proceedings.S. 465 CrPC | Taking Cognizance Under Wrong Provision Curable Defect If Magistrate Otherwise ...

Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: July 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: July 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers