1. Rape Cases In Delhi-NCR Show Systematic Failure Of Police & Administration : Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance

Case: In Re: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 996

The Supreme Court on Monday took suo motu cognizance of recent cases of rape in Delhi-NCR, including a gangrape in a park and the alleged sexual assault of a minor inside a moving sleeper bus in Delhi.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed that they were distressed by the news reports regarding recurring sexual offences in the National Capital Region, and stressed the need to fix accountability.

In the order, the bench referred to the gangrape and murder of a teenage girl in Swarup Nagar in Delhi, where the police recovered the victim's decomposed body in a field. Referring to the sexual assault of a minor in a moving sleeping bus, which the police failed to intercept during its travel of 47 kilometres from Greater Noida to Delhi, the Court said that “one cannot help but draw painful parallels to the Nirbhaya incident of 2012.”

2. Suo Motu Case On Delhi Rapes | Supreme Court Issues Directions To Make Public Spaces Safer; Orders Safety Audit Within 4 Weeks

Case: In Re: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 996

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 28) issued a set of immediate directions to the Delhi Police and civic authorities to secure public spaces in Delhi-NCR. The directions include a survey of vulnerable areas, a district-wise vulnerability map, patrolling at all identified parks, and a lighting and CCTV audit. All are to be completed within four weeks.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued the directions in a suo motu case registered after a series of reported sexual offences against minor girls and women in the region.

The bench said public spaces “cannot be permitted to become zones of high risk due to grossly inadequate illumination, poor surveillance, lax patrolling, or other preventable administrative deficiencies.” It added that “expressions of concern, devoid of accountability, fall short of answering the larger institutional question.”

3. S. 17 Arbitration Act | Arbitral Tribunal Does Not Exercise Appellate Jurisdiction Over Section 9 Orders: Supreme Court

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS HARIOM PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 997

The Supreme Court held that a High Court hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against an interim order passed under Section 9 cannot, even with the consent of the parties, delegate its appellate authority to the Arbitral Tribunal by directing it to hear the challenge to the Section 9 order under its Section 17 jurisdiction to grant interim relief.

“An Arbitral Tribunal exercising powers under Section 17 does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over an order passed by a competent Court under Section 9.”, observed a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had required the Arbitral Tribunal to examine the subject matter of a statutory appeal under Section 37 by treating the appellate proceedings as an application under Section 17.

The Court observed that “the nature and source of the powers exercised by an appellate Court under Section 37 are distinct from the powers conferred upon an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 and same 7 cannot be interchanged merely by transmitting or remitting the appellate proceedings to the Tribunal.”

4. IBC | Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Invites EMD Forfeiture If Auction Terms So Provide : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S ASJ FINSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. Versus VIKRAM BAJAJ

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 998

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 28) ruled that where auction terms provide for it, a successful bidder's failure to pay the balance sale consideration in a liquidation proceeding will result in forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit, even though the Liquidation Process Regulations do not expressly provide for such forfeiture.

The successful auction bidder, Appellant, relying on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (“IBBI Regulations”), argued that while the IBBI Regulations prescribe that the EMD shall not exceed 10% of the reserve price, they contain no provision authorising forfeiture of the EMD for failure to deposit the balance sale consideration.

Rejecting this argument, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, although accepting the position regarding the forfeiture of EMD under the IBBI Regulations, which shall not be more than 10% of the reserve price, clarified that this did not assist the appellant because the terms of the e-auction notice itself expressly provided for forfeiture.

5. Supreme Court Quashes NSA Detention Of Sambhal Violence Accused, Imposes Rs 10 Lakh Cost On UP Govt

Case: Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 012534 / 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 999

The Supreme Court (September 29) quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, accused of being the mastermind of the 2024 Sambhal violence, under the National Security Act, 1980. It set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the detention order.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that the Uttar Pradesh government couldn't have passed orders on preventive detention based on a confession allegedly made by Afroz in police custody. It has imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakh on the government for passing the illegal preventive detention order. The costs have to be handed over to the petitioner.

While pronouncing the order, Justice Datta paid tribute to his law clerk who passed away before his 27th birthday. Justice Datta dedicated the judgment to him.

6. Preventive Detention Can't Be Solely Based On Custodial Confession: Supreme Court

Case: Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 012534 / 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 999

The Supreme Court (September 29) held that authorities can't pass a preventive detention order solely relying on the confessional statement of the accused. It thereby quashed the detention of Mulla Afroz, who was accused of being the mastermind behind the 2024 Sambhal violence, under the National Security Act, 1980.

"Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that a confessional statement made before a police officer cannot, by itself, and in the absence of any independent material lending support thereto, constitute a basis for forming the subjective satisfaction necessary to sustain an order of preventive detention. To permit such a course would be to allow a detention order to rest upon a foundation which the law itself regards with suspicion and excludes from evidentiary consideration."

In this case, the accused was arrested 54 days after the violence had erupted. During custody, a confessional statement was recorded by the police, based on which a 0.32 bore pistol was allegedly recovered. Quashing his illegal detention, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that since the confessional statement solely formed the basis for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, it is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

7. O. 2 R. 2 CPC | Omitted Relief Remains Barred Despite Order 23 Liberty To File Fresh Suit : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Bombay Garage Ahmedabad Limited & Ors. Versus J P Iscon Private Ltd. & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 29) has observed that an injunction suit simpliciter filed without the Court's leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while omitting the relief of specific performance, cannot be withdrawn to file a fresh suit seeking that omitted relief under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC.

The Court held that even where leave to file a fresh suit is obtained under Order 23 Rule 1 at the time of withdrawal of the initial suit, a second suit seeking the relief omitted in the initial suit would not be maintainable, on account of the bar under Order 2 Rule 2. This is because the plaintiff's failure to obtain the Court's leave under Order 2 Rule 2 at the time of filing the initial suit, permitting the omitted relief to be claimed in a subsequent suit, would bar the second suit seeking that omitted relief.

Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the CPC states that if a person is entitled to more than one relief based on the same cause of action, they may sue for all or any of those reliefs, but if they omit to sue for any of them without the court's permission (leave), they cannot file a later suit to claim the omitted relief.

8. Accused Entitled To Seek Production Of Prosecution's Unrelied Documents At Appropriate Stage In Trial : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Anil Dixit

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1001

The Supreme Court has clarified the manner in which an accused can seek access to documents seized during investigation but not relied upon by the prosecution, holding that while an accused is entitled to documents available with the prosecuting agency to shape his defence, the stage at which such documents can be sought would depend on the nature of the documents.

The Court made the observations while setting aside orders of the Special Court and the High Court directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to produce certain documents sought by accused Anil Dixit under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The case concerned an application filed by Dixit seeking several categories of documents, including seizure memos, CBI registers, source information reports, unrelied documents seized during investigation, minutes of Building Committee meetings, recordings and minutes of evaluation committee meetings, technical bids and appointment files of two persons who were named in the FIR but not chargesheeted.

9. Hearing Of Accused Necessary When Cognizance Taken After BNSS Came Into Force, Though Complaint Filed Earlier: Supreme Court

Case:Umar and Anr v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Case Title: Umar and Anr v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1002

The Supreme Court held that where a Magistrate applied judicial mind and found a prima facie case only after the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) came into force, cognizance is deemed to have been taken on that date. The accused, therefore, had to be heard first, as the proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS requires.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside a Special Judge's order to the extent it found a prima facie case and took cognizance.

The Court framed the issue as “whether 'cognizance' has been taken in the protest petition filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) before or after the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2024.”

10. Judges Must Avoid Personal Views On Morality While Hearing Bail Pleas Or Criminal Trials: Supreme Court

Cause Title: KANHA @ KANHAIYA SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1003

While hearing a bail plea or even in a criminal trial, the personal views or value judgment of the presiding judge on morality must be avoided, observed the Supreme Court.

“We are of the view that Courts should refrain from imposing the personal views or value judgment of the Presiding Judge on morality or otherwise while adjudicating a matter relating to bail, or even a criminal trial of an accused.”, observed a bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar, while setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which had declined to grant bail, taking the view that granting of bail may have ramifications on the social order and the “morals” of the victim's family.

The accusation against the appellant was that he was a tenant residing in the neighbourhood of the victim. Despite being a married person, he attempted to abduct the elder sister of the victim leading to registration of the FIR under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for an alleged offence of abduction of a minor belonging to a reserved caste, and sexual exploitation.

11. Compromise Decree Obtained Without Impleading Necessary Party Is Nullity : Supreme Court

Cause Title: GEETA BAI & ORS. VERSUS K. ARJUN SINGH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

A compromise decree obtained in a suit for partition of coparcenary property without impleading the necessary party is a nullity; thus the omitted necessary party is entitled to file a recall application against the compromise decree before the court that passed it, observed the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard a case where the Appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased daughter of a property owner, who died intestate, sought 1/4th equal shares in the property of their maternal grandfather, as per the Hindu Succession Act, being devolved equally amongst his four children, including the Appellant's deceased mother.

A compromise decree was passed by the Telangana High Court based on a compromise entered between the parties, after the rounds of a litigation before the trial court, but the Appellants being legal heirs of the deceased daughter of the property owner remained unimpleaded during the entire litigation.

12. S. 138 NI Act | Cheque Dishonour Sent To Drawer's Address Is Validly Served Though Received By Family Member : Supreme Court

Case Title: SAINABA VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 30) held that a statutory demand notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be treated as invalid merely because it was received by a family member of the drawer, when the notice was dispatched by registered post to the drawer's correct address.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment, which had overturned the drawer's conviction solely on the ground that the statutory demand notice was not received by him personally but by his mother, who resided at the address provided by the drawer.

The Court said that once a demand notice is dispatched by registered post to the correct address, a rebuttable presumption of service arises shifting the burden upon the drawer to rebut the presumption by establishing, for instance, that the address was incorrect, that he had no knowledge of the notice, or that the postal endorsement was incorrect.

13. IBC | CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Merely Because S 9 Application Was Filed Fraudulenty : Supreme Court

Case Title: ORRIS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. (with connected cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1006

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 30) held that, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority can recall the admission of a Section 9 insolvency application if the proceedings were initiated based on fraudulent or collusive jurisdictional facts.

However, the Court clarified that such a finding of fraud does not automatically require termination of the entire Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Once insolvency proceedings have been admitted and have assumed an in rem character, the Adjudicating Authority (AA) must separately determine whether the CIRP should continue in the interests of the corporate debtor and its other stakeholders.

“…insolvency resolution process can be continued even after a finding that the original application under Section 9 was initiated fraudulently and with active collusion of the suspended Directors of the corporate debtor…for deciding whether to continue the resolution process, the AA will take into account multiple factors, the most important of which lies in ensuring that the future proceedings can be conducted with integrity and confidence that the purpose and object of the Act could be achieved with certainty, probity and transparency.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.

14. Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans, Freeze Online Services: Supreme Court Orders, Notes Over ₹23,000 Crore Traffic Fines Pending

Case Title: S.RAJASEEKARAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1007

The Supreme Court has directed States and Union Territories to take stringent measures to recover pending traffic fines, including impounding vehicles found with unpaid e-challans during random checks and freezing online services relating to vehicles until outstanding dues are cleared.

The Court observed that merely issuing thousands of e-challans would serve little purpose unless the authorities ensured recovery of the fines. The Court was informed that approximately ₹49,194.05 crore remained recoverable towards e-challans issued across the country, out of which ₹26,175.05 crore had been recovered.

The directions were passed on September 28 in the ongoing road safety case S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, which the Supreme Court has been monitoring since 2012.

15. SARFAESI | Bids Received In Defiance Of Restraint Order Cannot Form Foundation Of Valid Sale: Supreme Court

Case Title: STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS LIMITED VERSUS M/S P.M. ASSOCIATES & ORS. (with connected cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 30) set aside an auction sale concluded in defiance of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, noting that bids had been received in violation of a restraint order on the auction sale and that the sale had taken place before the expiry of the 30-day notice period to the borrower.

Amongst other things, a major violation occurred of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal's order, as despite the operation of a restraint order on the auction sale proceedings, the bids were received by the secured creditor in defiance of the DRAT's restraint order. The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's decision to uphold the auction sale in the secured creditor's writ petition.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard a case where the borrower, Sterling Holiday Resorts, had availed loans from Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited (“IFCI”) and Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited (“TFCI”), secured by a mortgage over its “The Fernhill” resort at Ooty.

16. SARFAESI | Sale Certificate Issued To Non-Bidder Entity That Didn't Exist On Auction Date Is Illegal : Supreme Court

Case Title: STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS LIMITED VERSUS M/S P.M. ASSOCIATES & ORS. (with connected cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

The Supreme Court has held that an entity which did not exist when bids were invited and received in a SARFAESI auction could not subsequently be made the beneficiary of the sale by issuance of a sale certificate in its favour.

A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed while setting aside the Madras High Court's decision to uphold the auction sale of Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited's “The Fernhill” resort in Ooty, which was concluded in defiance of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (“the Rules”).

The Court noted that the auction bid had been submitted by one-Rukmani Khemchand in her individual capacity, and she was declared the successful bidder. However, the sale certificate was subsequently issued in favour of M/s P.M. Associates, a partnership firm comprising Khemchand and her brother.

17. S. 313 CrPC | Statement Of Accused Cannot Be Used To Complete An Unestablished Chain Of Circumstances : Supreme Court

Case Title: SANTOSH GURUNG VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

While acquitting a man convicted of raping and murdering his six-year-old maternal niece, the Supreme Court on Thursday (October 1) held that the conviction cannot be recorded solely based on defence statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. / Section 351 BNSS when the prosecution otherwise failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, the accused's answers to the questions put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to fill up the gaps left by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions. Only when the accused fails to furnish any explanation of the incriminating materials established against him, an adverse inference can be drawn against him, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the conviction of a man in an alleged offence of a rape and murder of a minor girl, who was sentenced to a life imprisonment, after noting that the accused's responses under Section 313 Cr.P.C. formed the basis for the conviction, despite other circumstantial evidence found unsatisfactory to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

18. Supreme Court Urges Centre & BCI To Frame Regulations For Sexual Harassment Complaints By Women Lawyers In All Courts

Case Title – Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India and Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

The Supreme Court on Friday urged the Union Government and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to jointly draft regulations for addressing sexual harassment complaints by women lawyers practising before High Courts, district courts, Taluka courts, tribunals and other quasi-judicial authorities.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) could not be applied in a “straitjacket manner” to women in the legal profession and asked the parties to study the Supreme Court's own 2013 regulations and formulate a similar framework for other courts.

“These regulations have been made with regard to the Supreme Court of India precincts only. In order to have a wider coverage of these regulations in so far as the High Courts and all courts under the District Judiciary as well as Tribunals of the Central and State Governments, other quasi-judicial authorities etc., it is necessary that a separate set of regulations are made as we find that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 cannot be applied in a straitjacket manner to the aggrieved women who belong to the legal profession. In the circumstances, we request the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties to have a joint consultation so as to draft a set of regulations applicable to all the aforesaid judicial and quasi-judicial courts, tribunals and authorities.”

19. Cattle Transport Can't Be Presumed To Be For Slaughter Due To Mere Absence Of Documents : Supreme Court

Case Title: Saurabh Bajaj Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1012

The Supreme Court has observed that a mere absence of transport documents cannot give rise to a presumption that the cattle were being transported for slaughter.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the conviction of a man under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 (“Act”), accused of transporting 32 bullocks for slaughter, observing that the transportation of the cattle without any documents did not give rise to a presumption that the cattle were being transported for slaughter purposes alone.

“The mere fact that the transport was not accompanied by any documents cannot lead to a presumption that the transport was for slaughter.”, the Court observed.

20. Elected Representatives Can't Assume Role Of Police Or Courts; People's Mandate Not Source Of Unbridled Power: Supreme Court

Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

The Supreme Court has observed that elected representatives cannot assume the role of the police, administrators or courts, stressing that the mandate of the people cannot be treated as a source of personal authority or unbridled power to command or intimidate others.

“Democracy confers power through the ballot, but the exercise of that power remains subject to the discipline of law,” a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed while cancelling the bail granted to a Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation corporator and three others accused of assaulting doctors and medical staff at a municipal hospital.

In July 2026, the elected corporator of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre (Respondent No 1/R1), with three others assaulted and verbally abused three doctors, including a lady doctor, on duty in the Labour Ward. The incident arose from a dispute over the shifting of a pregnant patient in labour.

21. Any Attempt To Intimidate Or Assault Medical Professionals Can't Be Tolerated : Supreme Court

Case Title: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs. RAMESH SUKRYA MHATRE

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

The Supreme Court observed that doctors cannot reasonably be expected to exercise sound and independent professional judgment while facing the apprehension of physical violence, intimidation or coercion, emphasising that the safety and dignity of medical professionals are safeguards necessary for the proper delivery of healthcare.

The Court further observed that grievances over medical treatment, however genuine, cannot justify resorting to violence. It emphasised that allowing such conduct would undermine the conditions in which medical professionals are required to make decisions concerning the lives and health of patients.

The Court highlighted that a doctor's responsibility extends beyond providing a professional service, as patients place their health and, in serious cases, their lives in the doctor's hands. The doctor-patient relationship is founded on trust, confidence and reassurance, it noted.

22. Doctors Assault Case | Supreme Court Sets Aside Shiv Sena Corporator Ramesh Mhatre's Bail, Says 'Strong Message Needed'

Case Title - STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs. RAMESH SUKRYA MHATRE

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order granting bail to Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre, who is accused of assaulting doctors and hospital staff at a municipal hospital in Dombivli, Maharashtra.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed Mhatre to surrender within three days.

The bench orally remarked that a strong message must be sent and the medical fraternity cannot be attacked in this manner. "The message must go loud and clear. Medical fraternity cannot be touched and attacked in this manner," Justice Mehta said.

1. Sohrabuddin Shaikh Case | '92 Witnesses Turning Hostile Serious Concern' : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Acquittals

Case Title: RUBABUDDIN SHAIKH Vs THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Case Number: D No. 48619/2026

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a petition 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.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Baghchi and Justice V Mohana issued notices to the acquitted persons on the petition filed by Rubabuddin Shaikh, younger brother of the deceased Sohrabuddin Shaikh.

During the hearing, the bench expressed concerns about the fact that 92 witnesses turned hostile during the trial.

2. 'These Are Just By-Elections': CJI Declines Urgent Hearing Of SIR Cases Ahead Of West Bengal By-Polls

The Supreme Court declined urgent hearing of the West Bengal SIR matter ahead of the upcoming Rejinagar and Nandigram bypolls on October 6.

The matter was mentioned before a bench led by CJI Surya Kant for urgent hearing. The counsel said that the matter was slated to be heard on September 29, but it has not come in the cause list. He said that the next date is being shown as October 5, but the Rejinagar bypolls begin on October 6.

The counsel urged that there are thousands of appeals pending against voter exclusions and highlighted that many of these people were not able to vote in the earlier elections as well.

3. Supreme Court Asks ECI To Decide Trinamool Election Symbol Dispute Within 4 Months

Case : Mamata Banerjee v. Election Commission of India | Diary No. 58005/2026

The Supreme Court set a timeline for the Election Commission of India to finally decide the election symbol dispute in the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) party involving the Mamata Banerjee and Ritabrata Banerjee factions under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

The Court asked both the parties to file their affidavits/counter-affidavits within four weeks. In other words, the pleadings should be completed within four weeks.

After that, the ECI must decide the matter within three months. Thus, effectively, the Court has directed that the matter be decided within a period of four months.

4. CBSE 3-Language Formula | Grant Class 6 Same Relaxation As Class 7: Supreme Court

Case : Yashica Bhandari Jain and others v. Union of India and others. W.P.(C) No. 694/2026 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to extend the same relaxation already available to Class 7 students to those in Class 6 regarding evaluation under the three-language formula.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the CBSE's 3-language formula.

At the beginning of the hearing, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the court that detailed discussions had taken place on the Court's earlier suggestion that present Class 6 students be exempted from the 3-language formula. He submitted that the government would persuade the bench to allow implementation for Class 6 from the current year. Out of 28,819 schools, except for 1.2% of schools, the rest were compliant, textbooks and materials were available, and students had opted for the scheme, he said.

5. Supreme Court Dismisses Percept's Appeal Against ₹14.49 Crore Arbitral Award In Favour Of Sourav Ganguly

Case Title – Precept Talent Management Limited v. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly

Case No. - SLP(C) No. 24927/ 2026

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain an appeal filed by Percept Talent Management challenging a Calcutta High Court judgment which upheld a ₹14.49 crore arbitral award in favour of former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with Percept Talent Management Ltd.'s plea against the Calcutta High Court order which dismissed its appeal and upheld the arbitral award.

The dispute arose from a 2003 Player Representation Agreement between Percept and Ganguly.

6. Plea In Supreme Court To Suspend Gyanesh Kumar As CEC, Declare ECI Decisions Cannot Be Taken Unilaterally

Cause Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking, among other reliefs, the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as CEC and a declaration that decisions vested in the Election Commission of India cannot be taken unilaterally by its Chairman.

The petition has been filed in the context of reports that about 14 decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections recorded by the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. According to the petition, the two Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning steps which, according to them, were taken without the approval of the Commission

The petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks a direction requiring the CEC to "show under what authority he has acted, and continues to act" as though he is individually entitled to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 of the Constitution in the Election Commission.

7. Supreme Court Stays Delhi High Court's Judgment Upholding GST Dept Seizure Of Advocate's Office Computers

Case:Puneet Batra v Union of India(Diary No. 59119/2026)

The Supreme Court (28 September) stayed the Delhi High Court's judgment which had upheld the search and seizure conducted by the Goods and Services Tax Department (GST Department) at the office of Advocate Puneet Batra and his law firm, Bass Legal LLP. It also directed Batra to appear for investigation on Wednesday (30 September), instead of . The bench also questioned the GST Department over the reasons for the search, which it had not disclosed to the petitioner.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the Delhi High Court judgment that held that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigating a lawyer's own conduct where the authorities place prima facie material suggesting that the lawyer may have acted beyond the role of a legal adviser and become involved in the affairs under investigation.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain had dismissed Batra's petition, holding that the search was conducted pursuant to a valid authorisation under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (CGST Act).

8. 'Why One Year Needed To Place Front-of-Pack Labels On Packaged Food?' : Supreme Court Asks FSSAI, Reserves Judgment

Case: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India | MA 1177/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 28) reserved its order in a PIL seeking the implementation of Front-of-Pack Labelling (FoPL) for packaged food products high in nutrients of concern such as sugar, fat and salt, while questioning the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over the proposed timeline for implementing the warning-label regime.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran questioned why FSSAI required a year-long voluntary compliance period under its latest proposal and why a fresh regulatory exercise involving stakeholder objections was necessary, given that the process had begun in 2022.

"Why voluntary compliance for a year? Why do you need so much time? Why do you want to start afresh with the exercise of hearing and calling for objections? You started in 2022, what did you do in the last 4 years," Justice Pardiwala asked FSSAI.

9. Make Rules To Regulate Children's Social Media Usage : Supreme Court Tells Centre

Case: Just Rights for Children Alliance v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1120/2026

The Supreme Court expressed serious concerns about minors' access to social media platforms, saying that it will be compelled to pass directions under the Information Technology Act if the government does not address the issue.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a PIL filed by 'Just Rights for Children Alliance' seeking safeguards against use of social media and other digital platforms by minors.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that prima facie, the issue seemed covered by the DPDP Act. "Some provisions have been given to me, I would like to examine whether it is infact covered. Otherwise it's a genuine grievance", he said.

10. Blockades On National Highway 2 Removed : Manipur Govt Tells Supreme Court

Case: KUKI WOMEN ORGANIZATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, A WING OF KUKI ORGANIZATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TRUST (KOHUR) AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANR. W.P.(C) No. 961/2026

The Supreme Court was informed by the Manipur government that the blockade on national highway 2 has been removed, while steps are underway for removing the blockades on other highways.

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.

At the outset, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed that the highway(s) had been opened.

11. Plea To Tackle Fake Medicines : Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Approach Centre

Case: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(Crl) No. 373/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL raising the issue of fake drug peddling. However, it directed forwarding of a copy of the petition to the Union for its consideration.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the PIL filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, raising the issue of circulation of fake cancer drugs and other life-saving medicines.

Briefly put, the petitioner sought directions for timely completion of investigations in fake medicine cases and a mechanism to tackle the issue under the organized crime legal framework. "Fake medicines constitute a grave threat to the fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The precious years, opportunities and lives can never be restored; the injury is accordingly graver than the loss of any material commodity", his plea said.

12. Kunal Kamra Seeks To Intervene In Supreme Court Reference On Legislative Privileges, Says Free Speech Must Prevail

Case : N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai | W.P. (Cri.) No. 000206 - 000210 / 2003

Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra has approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the pending 7-Judge Bench Reference concerning the scope and limits of legislative privileges, submitting that the exercise of such privilege cannot be used to stifle the speech of citizens.

Kamra, in his intervention application, has submitted that the Supreme Court's consideration of the interplay between legislative privilege under Article 194(3) of the Constitution and the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) has a direct bearing on breach of privilege proceedings pending against him before the Maharashtra Legislature.

"The exercise of legislative privilege to stifle the speech of citizens strikes at the heart of democracy," Kamra has submitted.

13. ECI Row : Supreme Court To Hear Next Week Plea Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar & SIR Decisions

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed early listing of a petition seeking, among other reliefs, suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and a declaration that decisions vested in the Election Commission of India cannot be taken unilaterally by its Chairman.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and sought early listing of the plea.

During the hearing, Singh submitted that the Election Commission is a multi-member body and that, under the statutory framework, its business is required to be transacted unanimously as far as possible, with differences being decided by majority.

14. Justice Dipankar Datta Pays Tribute To Law Clerk Who Passed Away, Dedicates Judgment To Him

Life can be fleeting, and yet we don't recognise its importance in our mundane lives. 's morning pronouncement in Court 6 of the Supreme Court was unconventional, as the bench delivered its judgment, dedicating it to a young law clerk who passed away days short of his 27th birthday.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu expressed its deep sorrow over the untimely passing of Ritwik Deswal, who worked as a Law Clerk-cum-Research Associate to Justice Datta's office.

Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Datta said that the heading of the judgment begins with 'in memoriam'.

15. Supreme Court Stays Declaration Of Rajasthan Cricket Association Election Results

Case : MEGHA GAUR Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN | D No. 57576/2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to stay the Rajasthan Cricket Association (RCA) elections scheduled for 11:30 a.m. but directed that the results be kept in a sealed cover pending further adjudication.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order hearing a plea by Megha Gaur alleging the complete exclusion of women from the electoral process.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner and identifying herself as a former Indian woman cricketer, argued that the voter list contained “not a single woman voter” or woman candidate, in violation of the RCA's 2022 Rules (specifically Article 17), the Association's own constitution, the National Sports Code, and related orders. She contended that those currently running the association were pushing the polls through in undue haste.

16. Punjab Municipal Elections: Supreme Court Says All Wards Where Violence Took Place Must Go For Re-Election

Case Title: SEEMA SHARMA v. STATE OF PUNJAB, SLP(C) No. 3894/2025 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court yesterday said that all wards in Punjab, where a Fact-Finding Commission found that violence took place during Municipal Elections, must go for re-election.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observation while dealing with petitions filed by members of different political parties raising disputes qua the conduct of elections to the posts of Councilors/Members of the Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils, and Nagar Panchayats in Punjab.

The petitioners alleged inter-alia that members of the ruling party (AAP), police officials, and others prevented them from submitting their nomination forms; that those persons engaged in physical assault, tearing of clothes, and snatching of nomination papers of the petitioners; that despite orders of the Court, the nomination process was not recorded by audio-visual means; and, that elections for certain posts (including Mayor and Senior Deputy Mayor) were being conducted by an incomplete quorum.

17. Why Not Cap Medicines' MRPs At 16% Above Retailer Prices? Supreme Court Asks

Cases: W.P.(C) No. 794/2023 Diary No. 25176 / 2023 Kishan Chand Jain v. Ethics And Medical Registration Board (EMRB) (Erstwhile Medical Council Of India) and W.P.(C) No. 717/2026 Diary No. 25121/2026 Dr. Sanjay Kulshresthra v. Union of India

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Centre over the massive markups on cancer drugs and other medicines, asking why there should not be a uniform rule limiting the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) to no more than 16% above the price to the retailer (PTR).

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing petitions concerning regulation of medicine prices, generic prescriptions, and controls on medical devices under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order (DPCO), 2013.

Justice Mehta highlighted the stark disparity, noting that a cancer drug with an MRP of around ₹27,000 had a price to the retailer of only about ₹3,000. “Just see the drastic difference,” he observed, reiterating concerns raised in earlier hearings about markups reaching ten times or more.

18. S. 53 Patents Act | Should Patent Term Be Counted From Date Of Grant If There Was Delay In Deciding Application? Supreme Court To Decide

Cause Title: GUNJAN SINHA @ KANISHK SINHA & ANR. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea seeking consideration of a mechanism for Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) in India, raising the question whether a patentee should receive additional patent protection where a substantial portion of the statutory 20-year term is lost because of delay in granting the patent.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued a notice in a plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's judgment, which had upheld Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, under which the term of a patent is 20 years from the date of filing of the patent application.

The issue before the Court was whether a delay caused in granting the patent can justify extending the statutory patent monopoly beyond the 20 years calculated from filing.

19. 'Who Heads NCPCR? How Can They Be So Indifferent?' Supreme Court Rebukes NCPCR Over 25% RTE Quota Implementation

Case Details: DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|SLP(C) No. 10105/2017 Diary No. 8696 / 2017

The Supreme Court (September 29) criticised the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for its indifferent resposne to a matter pertaining to the implementation of 25% quota for economically weaker students in private schools.

It therefore directed the Chairperson and the Director of the NCPCR to be physically present in the next hearing relating to the effective implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which mandates that private unaided schools must admit 25% of their strength from students belonging to economically weaker sections for free education.

It may be recalled that in January, the Court passed a slew of directions so that 25% seats are reserved for EWS students, observing that the concept of "neighbourhood schools" is envisaged to break barriers of class, caste and gender. The NCPCR was added as a party to monitor the implementation of the RTE Act, which already has a Standard of Procedure (SoP) in this regard.

20. Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Making Objectionable Posts Against Jharkhand CM's Wife Kalpana Soren

Case: Sahadev Uraon @ Sahadev Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, SL Crl. 15058/2026

The Supreme Court granted bail to 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 observed that he has been incarcerated for over a year and the maximum sentence prescribed for the offences against him is three years imprisonment. The Court opined that custodial interrogation is not required.

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.

21. Supreme Court Questions Registry For Deleting CAPF Contempt Matter From List

Case Details : Mahendra Singh Deo v Govind Mohan and others

The Supreme Court (September 29) questioned the Supreme Court Registry why a batch of contempt petitions relating to the deputation of 46 Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to five Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) was struck off the cause list despite judicial orders to list the matters at 2 pm. It has passed an order directing that the contempt petitions be listed again tomorrow at 2 pm, and have sought an explanation from the registry as to why it was deleted from the 's causelist.

The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice AS Chandurkar at 2 pm. However, it was alleged that the matter was struck off the cause list around 12 pm without notice to the parties and without prior orders from the Court. Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar(for the contempt petitioners) brought this to the notice of the Court.

Guru Krishna Kumar told the bench: "My colleagues say that the instructions are from the listing branch [of the Supreme Court]. I don't know what's happening. It's a little unfortunate. We have informed the other side. Mylords, may recall they[respondents] filed an affidavit, they wanted to replace that affidavit. They did it after 12[pm], no notice nothing."

22. Curative Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Recall Of CEC Law Verdict Citing Justice SC Sharma's Son's Association With ECI

A curative petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking recall of the September 23 split verdict on the validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The plea comes in the wake of judicial propriety concerns arising from the discovery that the son of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, who was part of the bench that delivered the split verdict, is Election Commission's standing counsel before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Filed by one of the petitioners in the matter, Dr Jaya Thakur, the plea invokes the ground of "reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety". It states that after the pronouncement of the split verdict, the petitioner became aware of Justice SC Sharma's son's connection with ECI from a LiveLaw article titled 'Propriety Questions Emerge As Son Of Justice SC Sharma, Who Heard ECI & Medha Roopam Cases, Is Election Commission's Lawyer'.

23. CAPF Contempt Matter Shifted To Special Bench Of Justice Misra & Justice Bhuyan

After a bench led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan yesterday questioned the Supreme Court Registry for deleting the contempt petitions against the MHA Secretary over the IPS deputations in the Central Armed Police Forces, the matter has been listed before a special bench .

Notably, the Special Bench is headed by Justice Manoj Misra with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan as the puisne judge. The Special Bench will hear the matter at 2 PM.

Yesterday, the contempt petitions, alleging the violation of the Supreme Court's May 2025 judgment in Sanjay Prakash v. Union of India [delivered by a bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Bhuyan (author of the verdict], were listed before a bench comprising Justice Bhuyan and Justice AS Chandurkar. Justice Bhuyan's bench had earlier directed the MHA to explain the deputations of 46 IPS officers in CAPFs after the May 2025 judgment.

24. 'Will Dismiss It' : Supreme Court On West Bengal Plea Against Interim Bail To Congress Nandigram By-Poll Candidate Milan Pradhan

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to list for urgent hearing a plea filed by the West Bengal Police challenging the interim bail granted by the Calcutta High Court to Congress candidate Milan Pradhan, who is contesting the Nandigram Assembly by-election.

The matter was mentioned before the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with the State seeking listing of the challenge on Thursday itself (Friday is a holiday on account of Gandhi Jayanti). Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, submitted that it was a case where interim bail was granted in a murder case, and the matter would become infructuous if it was not heard before the election, which is scheduled to be held on Monday.

The Chief Justice, however, declined the request for an urgent listing and said that the matter could be listed on Monday.

25. Supreme Court Special Bench Criticises Manner Of CAPF Contempt Case Listing; Centre Says Request Was Made Before CJI

Case: Mahendra Singh Deo v Govind Mohan and others| CONMT.PET.(C) No. 37/2026 in C.A. No. 13106/2024.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised the manner in which contempt petitions concerning the deputation of IPS officers to Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) were removed from the cause list of a regular bench and subsequently listed before a special bench.

The matter was taken up by a special bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan after the contempt petitions were abruptly deleted from the cause list of the bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice AS Chandurkar on Tuesday. The petitions concern the alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court's May 25 judgment for progressive reduction and eventual phasing out of IPS deputation posts in CAPF cadres.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, objected to the manner in which the matter had been listed before the special bench, saying no notice had been given to them about the request for listing the matter before another bench.

26. Journalist Ajit Anjum Seeks To Intervene In Supreme Court Reference On Legislative Privileges

Case : N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai | W.P. (Crl.) No. 206-210/2003

Senior journalist Ajit Anjum has approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the pending 7-Judge Bench Reference concerning the scope and limits of legislative privileges, submitting that legislative privileges and fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive and seeking standards for clear determination of when fair criticism of legislative proceedings may amount to a breach of privilege.

The senior journalist highlights the wider constitutional issues involved in the Reference, such as the relationship between legislative privilege, the public's right to information, freedom of press and the extent to which courts may examine questions concerning legislative privilege.

The application, filed through AoR Neha Rathi, emphasizes that legislative privileges are conferred to enable the House to discharge its constitutional and legislative functions effectively, and are therefore, intended to serve a functional purpose rather than operate as unrestricted powers.

27. Supreme Court Rules Out Complete Firecracker Ban, Proposes Approach Balancing Sentiments & Health

Case Title: Arjun Gopal v. Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 728/2015 Diary No. 32461 / 2015

The Supreme Court indicated that it would not impose a complete ban on firecrackers or permit their unrestricted use, emphasising the need to balance religious sentiments with the adverse impact of air pollution on children, elderly persons and those suffering from illnesses.

“We make it very clear. Neither we are going to agree with you for total ban. Nor we are going to allow them to do it 24 hours. For two reasons. Total ban will have some sentimental effect, number one. Number two, allowing them throughout the day will have a huge impact on every other living beings including old people, sick people and the children. We need to find a solution whereby we can give specified time and we can specify what are the crackers to be used”, Justice MM Sundresh said.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the long-pending Arjun Gopal v. Union of India case filed by three infants highlighting the health hazards caused by firecrackers and seeking restrictions to curb air pollution.

28. Supreme Court Rebukes UP Police Over FIR Discrepancies, Summons Officer

Case Title: VEENA RANI SALUJA v STATE OF U.P. & ORS

Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 7980-7981/2026

The Supreme Court (September 30) criticised the Uttar Pradesh police for registering a first information report against an unknown person in a case relating to harassment, despite the fact that the complainant had apprehended the suspect on the spot.

In a case before Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, the complainant appeared in person and alleged that despite her informing the UP Police about the alleged local politicians who trespassed into her private property and harassed her and her family members, the police registered an FIR under Sections 452, 323, 354, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons.

Therefore, they moved the Trial Court, which granted them anticipatory bail. The petitioner mentioned that she moved for cancellation before the High Court, which refused to cancel the bail granted to the two accused persons. Against this order, she preferred the present plea.

29. Whether IPC Prosecution Can Continue After Sanction Under PC Act Was Refused: Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Title: MS Raghavan & Ors. v. State represented by Inspector of Police

The Supreme Court (30 September) reserved its judgement in a batch of petitions by former IDBI bank officials and government nominees on the bank's board, wherein they challenged their prosecution for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC, now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023/BNS 2023) after sanction to prosecute them under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) was declined.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the Madras High Court judgment which had refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners and their dismissal.

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners raised two contentions as follows:

30. Supreme Court Dismisses Trinamool Congress Plea Against Freezing Of 4 Indian Bank Accounts, Requests HC To Expedite Hearing

Case Title: All India Trinamool Congress v. State of West Bengal

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 18064/2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to grant relief to the Mamata Banerjee-led All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) in its plea challenging the freezing of four of its Indian Bank accounts by the West Bengal Police.

31. 2008 Ahmedabad Blasts : Supreme Court Stays Execution Of Convict's Death Penalty

Case : AHMED BAWA @ ABBU ABUBAKAR BARELVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.|. Diary No. 58302-2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the execution of the death sentence awarded to Ahmed Bawa @ Abbu Abubakar Barelvi, one of the 38 convicts sentenced to capital punishment in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts case.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the order while hearing Barelvi's challenge to the Gujarat High Court judgment which upheld his conviction and death sentence.

Appearing for Barelvi, his counsel submitted that the conviction was based entirely on the allegation of conspiracy.

32. 'Legislative Privilege Shouldn't Be Invoked Against Non-Member For Mere Criticism' : Subhashini Ali To Supreme Court

Case : N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai | W.P. (Cri.) No. 000206 - 000210 / 2003

Former Lok Sabha MP and former CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Subhashini Ali has moved the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the constitutional reference concerning the scope and limits of parliamentary privileges under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution.

Ali, who served as a Lok Sabha member from Kanpur in 1989 and was a member of the CPI(M) Polit Bureau from 2014 to 2024, has said that her intervention is based on her experience as a legislator who exercised the freedoms protected by Articles 105(1) and 194(1).

The application raises questions concerning the constitutional limits of parliamentary privilege when it is exercised against citizens or members of the press for speech, reportage or criticism outside the House. Ali contends that parliamentary privilege is intended to ensure the independent and effective functioning of legislatures and to enable legislators to deliberate freely, and cannot be treated as a general power to insulate Parliament or its members from public scrutiny

33. Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Calcutta HC Judgment Invalidating Bengal OBC Certificates Issued In 2025-2026

Case : AKTARUL ISLAM AND ORS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS | Diary No. 50605-2026 and RIGHT AND JUSTICE FOUNDATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA Diary No. 41300-2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a petition challenging the Calcutta High Judgment which declared the OBC certificates issued between 2025-26 to be void.

A bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana further ordered that the appointments will be subject to the result of the decision in the present matter. The bench further directed that this should be made clear in the appointment letters issued to the new recruits.

The bench passed the interim order after hearing Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat for the petitioners, who participated in the 2024 recruitment for Constables in the West Bengal Police. The bench also heard Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy in a connected matter. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the State.

34. 'Just Sharing Our Concern' : Supreme Court Seeks State's Response On Mahua Moitra's Plea Alleging MPLADS Obstruction

Case Title: MAHUA MOITRA vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 000390 / 2026

The Supreme Court (October 1) has directed the State of West Bengal and the Union to file a counter in a writ petition filed by Congress (TMC) Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra, claiming obstruction in carrying out Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme(MPLADS) fund work in her Krishnanagar constituency.

At the outset, before a bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta(for Union and State of West Bengal) objected to the maintainability of the petition. He stated that there are more than 500 Members of Parliament, and if each comes before the Court seeking implementation of the scheme, it would cause difficulty.

To this, Justice Bagchi shared a concern and asked SG Mehta if he had seen the September 1 letter written by Moitra. "We are just sharing our concern. Have you seen the 1st September letter? That if a Member of Parliament comes to the Circuit House, she must inform 3 days before."

35. Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi High Court Ruling Against Ilaiyaraaja In 'En Iniya Pon Nilave' Copyright Dispute

Case Title: Ilaiyaraaja v Saregama India Limited

The Supreme Court (01 October) has refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order restraining the use of a recreated version of the song En Iniya Pon Nilave, in a challenge brought up by music composer Ilaiyaraaja. The bench, instead, clarified that the High Court's observations are prima facie.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the music composer, against the Delhi High Court's Division Bench order.

The dispute pertains to Vels Film International Limited using a recreated version of the song. Vels claimed a licence from Ilaiyaraaja under an agreement. While Saregama India Limited contended that it owned the rights through an assignment from the film's original producer.

36. Can't Seek Priority Just Because You Are Judicial Officer : Supreme Court Rejects Early Hearing Plea

Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR NAIN v STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Case Number: Diary No. 48030-2026

The Supreme Court (October 1) refused to give priority hearing for a former District Judge, reminding that the Constitution treats every person on equal parameters.

While dismissing a writ petition of the former judicial officer seeking expeditious disposal of his writ petition pending before the Allahabad High Court against dismissal from service, the Court stated that the Constitution doesn't allow giving preferential treatment to anyone.

To briefly state, the present writ petition has been filed by Rakesh Kumar Nain, who was posted as a Special Judge overseeing cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Nain was dismissed by the full Court of the Allahabad High Court after he was found guilty of judicial misconduct on corruption charges. His services were terminated with immediate effect. Against this, he preferred a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging his dismissal, which remains pending adjudication.

37. We Want To Reform Entire Judicial Recruitment Process : Supreme Court

Case Title: Mansi Jain & Anr. v. Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 925/2026

While hearing a matter challenging the Gujarat High Court's recruitment process for District Judges, the Supreme Court orally indicated that it wishes to initiative to reform judicial examination process.

The Court was hearing writ petition was 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. Notice was issued last month.

When the matter was taken up by a bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, the Court was informed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan that the records of the recruitment have now been placed before it, including the marks awarded in sealed cover. He added that as per the recruitment rules, a report has to be obtained from the High Court to which the candidate belongs to assess his character. He urged that the Court must see if the reports were obtained in these cases.

38. Supreme Court Asks AG To Consider Plea To Enhance State Bar Councils' Strength

Case Title: ROHIT PANDEY Vs UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1218/2026 Diary No. 57731 / 2026

The Supreme Court (October 1) requested the Attorney General, R. Venkataramani, to consider the plea of increasing the statutory limit of the State Bar Councils, which at present stands at 25 members as per Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

A bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed an order while hearing a writ petition filed by one advocate, who has contended that the statutory restriction of SBCs to 25 members was kept at a time when the 1961 Act was enacted. But over time, the electorate has grown substantially. For instance, he pointed out that the Bar Council of Delhi presently comprises 2 lakh registered advocates, which necessarily requires adequate and proportionate representation in the elected body.

The present writ petition, filed through AoR Nikhil Jain, has been preferred by one Rohit Pandey, who contested this year's Bar Council of Delhi Elections and secured 2,259 votes but fell short of 63.5 votes to be included among the 25 members of the SBC. However, because of the Supreme Court's direction reserving 30% representation for women advocates in the SBCs, a low-ranking woman candidate was declared elected even though she secured only 265 votes. As per his plea, the declaration of the said woman candidate as an elected member is contrary to the 1961 Act.

39. Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC Directions Constituting SIT, Ordering De Novo Probe Into KPSC Recruitment Scam

Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Raj Mohammed

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 18775-18779/2026 Diary No. 59897 / 2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 1) stayed the Karnataka High Court's directions constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and ordering a de novo investigation into alleged irregularities in the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Veterinary Officer recruitment scam.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the interim order while hearing the Karnataka government's challenge to the September 21 judgment of the High Court, which had constituted an SIT to investigate alleged irregularities in the recruitment of 400 Veterinary Officers and related allegations concerning other KPSC recruitments.

The Court issued notice returnable on October 12 and directed the State to file an additional affidavit in a sealed cover setting out its objections, if any, to the officers appointed to the SIT. The State may also suggest alternative names for the team.

40. Supreme Court Judges Not Meeting 'One Nation One Election' Committee

The proposed meeting between the Joint Parliamentary Committee on 'One Nation, One Election' and Supreme Court judges will not take place, sources said.

The Committee had earlier proposed to meet the Chief Justice of India and Supreme Court Judges on October 6 for "informal discussions" on simultaneous elections. However, the Supreme Court has declined the proposal of the Committee, according to sources.

Earlier in the day, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, in a press conference, had criticised the Committee's move to meet the Supreme Court judges by saying that it was a violation of the separation of powers. Sibal stated that such a meeting had never happened in the history of the country.

41. 'Offends Secularism & Fraternity' : Buddhist SC Leader Moves Supreme Court Challenging Centre's Mandate On Six-Stanza 'Vande Mataram'

Case : BHIMRAO DURYODHAN BORKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER | Diary No. 61620 / 2026

A Buddhist activist has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Union Government's January 28 and July 9, 2026 orders prescribing a six-stanza version of 'Vande Mataram' for singing and playing on specified occasions, contending that the directives violate secularism, fraternity and the fundamental rights of citizens who do not subscribe to Hindu religious beliefs.

The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by BD Borkar, a Scheduled Caste Buddhist, Ambedkarite activist and former National President of the All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF), also seeks a declaration that no person can be compelled to sing the song, and that its singing or playing cannot be made compulsory.

Contending that the imposition of the six-stanza version of the song violates secularism and fraternity, the petitioner states :

42. NEET-PG 2026: Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Disclosure Of Actual Questions, Options And Correct Answers To Candidates

Case Title: Democratic Medical Association v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: Diary no. 61065/2026

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the manner in which the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has disclosed the answer key and candidate responses for NEET-PG 2026, seeking disclosure of the actual questions and options presented to each candidate to enable independent verification of their scores.

The petition, filed by the Democratic Medical Association, challenges the NBEMS notice dated October 1, 2026, which provides candidates access to their question-wise evaluation through their individual applicant logins.

The petitioner contends that although the notice provides Question IDs, numerical IDs of correct answers, candidates' recorded responses, and marks awarded for each question, it does not disclose the actual questions or the text of the options in the sequence in which they were presented during the examination.

43. Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With HC Judgment Allowing Railway Compassionate Appointment To Grandson

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS JITENDRA VERMA

The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's direction to the Railway authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the grandson of a deceased railway employee.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a plea filed by the Union of India and Railways against the High Court's direction to the Railways to consider the Respondent's case for a compassionate appointment.

The case concerned Respondent-Jitendra Verma, whose grandfather died in 2002 and father died in 2006. He was thereafter brought up by his grandmother, Chhama Bai, who was working as Helper-II/Khalsi in the Bhopal Division of West Central Railway. She died in harness on June 19, 2016.

44. No Devadasi Dedication Practice Currently Prevalent In Karnataka, State Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Kamalabai & Ors. v. Shivappa @ Shivayogi

Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11555/2026

The Karnataka government told the Supreme Court that the Devadasi dedication system is not currently prevalent in the State, based on inquiries conducted by officials in 15 districts in which it was historically prevalent.

The 15 districts are – Bellary, Koppal, Yadgir, Kalaburagi, Davangere, Haveri, Vijayanagara, Dharwad, Shivamogga, Vijayapura, Belagavi, Raichur, Gadag, Chitradurga and Bagalkot.

However, the State acknowledged that former Devadasis continue to reside in these districts and that measures are required to prevent any revival of the practice.

45. Yamuna Expressway Bus Fire : Supreme Court Seeks Report From Centre, UP On Arrests, Safety Compliance

Case Title: S.RAJASEEKARAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. & ORS.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Uttar Pradesh Government and the Centre on a plea seeking a series of road safety measures following the death of nine passengers who were charred to death in a sleeper bus fire near Jewar on the Yamuna Expressway during the intervening night of September 23 and 24, 2026.

It has asked the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Union of India, and the Secretary of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to respond on whether the driver and the owner of the bus have been arrested or not. It has also sought information on whether the registered owner had complied with the rules and regulations applied to the double-decker bus.

The matter was considered by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, a 2012 writ petition seeking directions on road safety, on an interlocutory application(IA).

46. Trial Judge's 'Advice' To Supreme Court On When To Grant Bail Disapproved

Case Title: Amit Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No.8043/2026

The Supreme Court has disapproved remarks made by a trial court judge in West Bengal, who, while seeking an extension of time to complete a criminal trial, appeared to offer advice to the Supreme Court on when bail should and should not be granted.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed displeasure over the manner in which the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, North 24 Parganas at Barasat, addressed a letter to the Supreme Court seeking more time to conclude the trial.

The Bench said that it was "quite disturbed" by the manner in which the Trial Judge wrote the letter.

47. Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Relocation Of 135-Year-Old Central Secretariat Library Under Central Vista Plan

Case : In Re: 135-Yr-Old Library 8.5 Lakh Books– And No Room In The New Central Vista Plan | SMW(C) No. 21/2026

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the proposed relocation of the 135-year-old Central Secretariat Library (CSL) in Delhi, which houses more than 8.5 lakh books, amid reports that no room has been allocated for it in the new Central Vista Plan

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva is scheduled to hear the matter on Monday (October 5). The suo motu case titled "In Re: 135-Yr-Old Library 8.5 Lakh Books– And No Room In The New Central Vista Plan" was registered on October 3.

The suo motu action follows a report published by The Indian Express on September 29 titled "135-yr-old library, 8.5 lakh books – and no room in the new Central Vista plan", which stated that the library, currently housed in Shastri Bhawan, may face relocation in view of the proposed demolition of the building as part of the Central Vista redevelopment plan. Concerns have been raised over the availability of suitable accommodation for the library and the preservation of its extensive collection.

48. 'Legislative Privileges Shouldn't Be Invoked To Curtail Press Freedom' : The News Minute To Supreme Court

Case Title: N. Ravi v. Speaker Legislative Assembly Chennai

Case Number: IA in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206-210 of 2003

Digital news outlet The News Minute and its Editor-in-Chief Dhanya Rajendran have moved the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the long-pending case concerning the scope of legislative privileges under Article 194(3) of the Constitution and their interplay with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

In an intervention application filed through Advocate-on-Record Pritha Srikumar Iyer, they have contended that allowing legislative bodies to invoke breach of privilege proceedings to curtail journalistic reportage and commentary would have a chilling effect on press freedom and the public's right to information, and would adversely affect the Indian democracy.

“Further, the Applicants submit that reportage and commentary on the actions of members of legislatures ought not be viewed in isolation as speech concerning specific individuals, but as speech concerning elected representatives and bearers of Constitutional office. As such, the press' right to freedom of speech and expression regarding members of legislatures acts as an important check on the powers and authority of the legislature. This assumes even greater importance in a parliamentary democracy like India where members of the legislature also form part of the political executive. It is settled position that a citizen has a legitimate and substantial interest in the conduct of public officials and that the freedom of press extends to engaging in uninhibited debate about the involvement of public figures in public issues and events. The exercise of legislative privilege to curtail the freedom of speech and expression of the press would, thus, have a grave bearing on the health of the Indian democracy”, the plea contends.

49. ECI Row : Supreme Court To Hear Tomorrow Petitions Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar Over SIR Decisions

Cases : Rakesh Kumar Singh v Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026 & Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026

The Supreme Court will hear tomorrow two writ petitions filed against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the controversial decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) which were reportedly taken without the concurrence of two other Election Commissioners.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana will hear the petitions.

The petitions have been filed in the context of reports that about 14 decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections recorded by the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. According to the petitions, the two Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning various SIR steps.