Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: May 2026

JudgmentsSupreme Court Quashes Bail Condition Requiring Accused To Vacate Home Solely To Prevent Alleged Offence Against ComplainantCause Title: SACHIN YADAV VERSUS STATE (NCT of DELHI) & ANR.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 451The Supreme Court has quashed a bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court that required the accused to vacate his residence solely to prevent any potential offence against the complainant living in the same building.“The objects for imposing conditions to enjoy the concession of bail need no elucidation; but a condition that amounts to effective ouster from residence could be susceptible to an invalidation unless there is clear and cogent material to show that a lesser restrictive measure would not suffice. In the absence of such satisfaction, the condition would become punitive rather than preventive.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while allowing the accused's appeal against imposition of a condition by the High Court ousting him from his residence just to prevent commission of a crime against the complainant residing in the same building, where the accused resides.The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, Delhi, under Sections 110(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 308 and 34 IPC). The FIR was lodged following a violent altercation between the appellant and the complainant, who are relatives residing in the same building.Dowry Deaths 'Serious Social Problem', Particularly In UP, Bihar & Karnataka : Supreme CourtCause Title: MAHESH CHAND VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 452In a strong indictment of the continuing menace of dowry-related violence, the Supreme Court observed that dowry deaths remain a “serious problem in some sections of society”, particularly in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Karnataka, while cancelling the bail granted to an husband in a dowry death case.The Court made these remarks while allowing an appeal filed by the father of a deceased woman, setting aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to the accused husband in a case involving allegations of harassment and death within seven years of marriage"Over a period of time, we have noticed that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, young girls just married are being killed mercilessly at their matrimonial home for want of dowry. Either they are forced to commit suicide due to incessant harassment or are murdered for want of more dowry," the Court noted.Article 226 Can't Be Invoked To Seek FIR Registration Without Availing Statutory Remedies : Supreme CourtCause Title: SUJAL VISHWAS ATTAVAR & ANR. vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 453The Supreme Court (May 4) has observed that Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked at the first instance to seek direction for registration of an FIR.“If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's direction to the Police to record complainant's statements and proceed for FIR registration.The complainant made a criminal allegation alleging that forged documents were used to apply for measurement of the property, and sought an action against Appellants who allegedly impersonated the company's director before the revenue authorities to facilitate such measurement.Doctor's Legal Heirs Liable For Medical Negligence Under Consumer Protection Act : Supreme CourtCause Title: Kumud Lall VERSUS Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others (with connected matter)Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 454The Supreme Court (May 4) held that upon the death of a doctor, his or her legal heirs can be substituted in the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, but their liability for compensation arising from the doctor's alleged negligence is limited to the extent of the estate inherited from the deceased.“...in view of the preceding discussion and the statutory framework provided in 1986 Act as well as 2019 Act, we conclude that upon the death of the alleged medically negligent doctor, his/her legal heirs can be impleaded and brought on record.”, observed a bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar while approving the NCDRC's findings that “the legal heirs shall be liable to satisfy the decretal amount to the extent payable from the estate left behind, on conclusion of the proceedings.”The Court disagreed with the law laid down in NCDRC's decision in Balbir Singh Makol Vs. Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Others, 2001 ...

Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: May 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: May 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers