Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: June 29, 2026 To July 5, 2026
Yash Mittal
9 July 2026 10:21 AM IST
News Story/Judgments
Ram Mandir Donations Row: Supreme Court Declines Urgent Listing Of Plea Seeking SIT Probe
The Supreme Court declined to grant an urgent hearing on a plea seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged embezzlement of donations received by the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust for the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
A partial Court working days Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu directed that the matter be listed immediately after the Court reopens, after the petitioner, appearing in person, mentioned the case for urgent listing.
Cause Title: Ajay Kumar Rai v. Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, WP (Crl.) No. 241/26
Rejecting the view that the Rule of Law and judicial independence are Western, post-colonial concepts gifted to the Global South, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that in the Indian consciousness, the supremacy of Dharma over personal or dynastic power has been an enduring principle for thousands of years, predating the common law tradition.
The CJI was delivering the keynote address on "Safeguarding the Rule of Law: Experiences from India and Sweden" at an event organised by International IDEA in Sweden.
To illustrate the point, the CJI referred to an episode from the Mahabharata involving King Prahlada, his son Virochana, and the scholar Sudhanva. According to the anecdote, King Prahlada was called upon to adjudicate a life-and-death dispute involving his own son. Despite the personal stakes, he ruled in favour of Sudhanva after concluding that truth and justice outweighed filial loyalty.
The Supreme Court has held that the mere presence of a public servant at the place where a bribe is allegedly accepted is insufficient to infer criminal conspiracy, reiterating that the prosecution must establish a prior meeting of minds through cogent evidence.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against an Allahabad High Court judgment acquitting three Central Excise officers accused of participating in a bribery conspiracy.
Cause Title: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS A.K.GABA ETC., Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 644
The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Rajasthan on the petition filed by self-styled godman Asaram Bapu challenging the the Rajasthan High Court judgment which upheld his conviction and life sentence under Section 376 IPC for committing rape of a woman at his ashram in 2013.
A partial Court working day bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu however refused to suspend his sentence at the present juncture. The bench directed that the medical facilities extended to the petitioner in prison be continued. The bench said that it will consider the grant of bail only if there is any grave health condition.
Cause Title: ASHA RAM @ ASHUMAL Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN, SLP(Crl) No. 11761/2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking CBI investigation into the "extra-judicial killing" of 28-year old Bharat Bhushan Tiwari in Bhojpur, Bihar.
A partial Court working days bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu asked the petitioner, Advocate Vishal Tiwari, to approach the Patna High Court.
The PIL filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, seeks registration of an FIR against the police party that "killed" Tiwari in an alleged fake encounter. It further seeks constitution of an Independent Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of a former Supreme Court judge to inquire into the death.
"We will not entertain. Will grant liberty to approach HC. It's better to go to HCs, because they are monitoring better," Justice Sundresh said.
Cause Title: VISHAL TIWARI vs. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2026
The Supreme Court ordered status quo with regard to ethanol supply allocation for the Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2025–26. A partial Court working days bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu passed the order, after hearing Attorney General R Venkataramani (for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd) and Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for respondents).
The AG contested a recent Karnataka High Court order, which directed various Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) to consider and decide a representation submitted by a distillery seeking enhancement of ethanol allocation for 2025–26. He argued that the order could destabilize the national policy for 20% ethanol-petrol blending.
Cause Title: BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 22411/2026
Tamil Nadu Govt Moves Supreme Court Against Madras High Court Order Banning Cow Slaughter
The Tamil Nadu Government has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's order which imposed a blanket ban on the slaughter of cows and calves in the State.
The State Govt. challenged the High Court's order passed on May 27, on the eve of Bakrid, on a Public Interest Litigation filed by K Surya Prasanth, the General Secretary of Hindu Makkal Katchi. Though the petitioner's prayer was for directions to ensure that slaughter takes place only in designated places, the High Court passed a blanket order banning the slaughter of cows and calves anywhere on any day.
Challenging the High Court's order, the State contended that when the legislation permits the slaughter of a particular category of cows in designated places, a judicial direction contradicting the statutory provision cannot be sustained.
Cause Title : The Secretary to the Government v. K Surya alias K Surya Prasanth | Diary No.36054/2026
The Attorney General for India has denied as false certain media reports claiming that he had told the Supreme Court yesterday that the Government's 20% Ethanol Blended Petrol (E20) Programme is "still an ongoing experiment" and that "the impact of the policy would become clearer by next year."
"These reports are completely false and do not reflect anything even close to the actual submissions made before the Hon'ble Court," the AG's office stated in a clarification issued through the Ministry of Law and Justice.
AG R Venkataramani had appeared in the Supreme Court for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) challenging a Karnataka High Court's order to consider the request made by an ethanol distillery to increase the annual allocation of ethanol. The AG had argued that the High Court's order will destabilise the E20 policy. Considering that, the Supreme Court passed an order of status quo on ethanol supply allocation. The AG had also informed the Court that the Union was seeking to file a transfer petition in the Supreme Court as there are similar matters pending in the High Courts.
S. 187(3) BNSS | Non-Supply Of Charge Sheet To Accused Not Ground For Default Bail : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court 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.
Cause Title: SHAURYA SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a comprehensive regulatory framework for stand-up comedy, podcasts, live streaming platforms and other user-generated digital content, citing the viral "Rs 370 Biryani" controversy as one of the instances demonstrating the need for constitutional safeguards in the digital age.
The petition, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari under Article 32 of the Constitution, contends that while the "Rs 370 Biryani" episode should not invite penal action against any individual comedian or content creator, it shows how algorithm-driven social media platforms can amplify controversial remarks to millions of users, influencing public attitudes towards women, consent and dignity.
Cause Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No.38757/2026
The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate's error in taking cognizance of an offence under an incorrect statutory provision is a curable defect and, this mistake, by itself, does not warrant quashing the cognizance order, provided the Magistrate otherwise has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
“The well-settled position of law is that the error in taking cognizance under the wrong Section is, in fact a curable defect so long as the Court that has taken cognizance has the power to take cognizance of the other Sections also.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
The bench made the aforesaid observation while deciding a case where the Appellant, who won the election of a councillor in the 2015 Bhuj Civic Body Election, was aggrieved by the Gujarat High Court's order, refusing to interfere with the magistrate's order taking a cognizance for the offence punishable under the Representation of People's Act, 1951, relating to the allegation of filing a false asset declaration affidavit.
Cause Title: CHANDRIKABEN KISHOR DAFDA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 650
The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate is not required to record pre-charge evidence under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before committing a complaint case involving offences exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had directed such an exercise.
“…the only requirement from the Magistrate is to see whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and in doing so, no evidence need be taken.”, the Court cited the observation made in Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Ashutosh Ghosh, (1979) 4 SCC 381.
Cause Title: NEERAJ GUPTA Versus PARDEEP KUMAR BANSAL & ORS., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 651
Representation Of People Act Doesn't Apply To Municipal Elections : Supreme Court
The 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.
Cause Title: CHANDRIKABEN KISHOR DAFDA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 650
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 1) observed that unless there is an express authorisation by the client, an advocate is not empowered to enter into a compromise on behalf of his client. The Court added that the essential prerequisite of a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC is that, a compromise must be signed by each party.
Cause Title: KRISHNA KUMAR OJHA &ORS. Versus JITENDRA CHAUDHARY & ORS., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 652
Honeymoon Murder Case : Meghalaya Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Sonam Raghuvanshi's Bail
The State of Meghalaya has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Meghalaya High Court's order upholding the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime suspect in the chilling May 2025 "honeymoon murder" of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta mentioned the State's petition before a partial working days bench led by Justice MM Sundresh for urgent listing.
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has set aside orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) after finding that both forums had relied on non-existent, AI-generated "hallucinated" judicial precedents while deciding an insolvency dispute.
To address the growing challenges posed by AI in legal practice, a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee of experts to examine the issues arising from the use of artificial intelligence in adjudication.
Cause Title: POOJA RAMESH SINGH VERSUS JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD & ANR., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 653
The Supreme Court is set to consider whether a habeas corpus petition challenging the continued detention of a person due to successive arrests is maintainable after bail has been denied to him.
A partial Court working days bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu on July 1 issued notice on the plea of one Haji Abdul Razzak, who is stated to be in custody since August 2021 despite not having been supplied written grounds of arrest (as mandated by law).
Cause Title: HAJI ABDUL RAZZAK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 11812/2026
The Supreme Court declined urgent listing of a plea challenging the Madras High Court order which set aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants to its Judges. In the impugned order, the High Court had held that the entire selection process was arbitrary and without consideration of merit.
The matter was mentioned before a partial Court working days bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu by Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu. The senior counsel sought listing of the matter tomorrow, contending that High Court is likely to suffer due to the setting aside of appointments of 23 PAs.
Cause Title: K Vedhambika and Ors. v. The Registrar General Madras High Court, Diary No.38911/2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 2) declined to entertain a plea challenging the extension of the deadline for conducting Panchayat elections in the State of Manipur until October 16, 2026, observing that the High Court had already issued a specific direction requiring the State Election Commission to complete the electoral process within the stipulated period.
A partial court working days bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice NV Anjaria heard a plea seeking a modification of the High Court's earlier directions, which permitted the State and the State Election Commission to conduct Panchayat elections on or before October 16, 2026.
Cause Title: PHEIROIJAM HERAMANI AND ORS. Versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS., Diary No. 35434-2026
The Supreme Court called for a "zero-tolerance" approach towards AI-generated fake or hallucinated judicial precedents, holding that it is professional misconduct for advocates to cite such judgments without verification and a serious lapse on the part of judges to rely on such non-existent precedents while deciding cases.
The Court declared that a decision based on such fake precedents are void as they cannot be treated as a "decision in the eyes of the law."
Cause Title: POOJA RAMESH SINGH VERSUS JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD & ANR., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 653
Justice BV Nagarathna Appointed Chairperson Of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee
The Chief Justice of India has nominated Supreme Court Judge Justice Bangalore Venkataramiah (BV) Nagarathna as the Chairperson of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) with effect from June 29, 2026.
This follows the retirement of Justice JK Maheshwari, who was heading the SCLSC earlier. As per convention, the third senior judge of the Supreme Court heads the SCLSC.
Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Sonam Raghuvanshi's Bail In Honeymoon Murder Case
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 3) refused to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime suspect in the chilling May 2025 "honeymoon murder" of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, even though it prima facie expressed reservations with the High Court's judgment upholding the bail granted to her only on the ground of a typographical error in quoting a section in the arrest memo.
Nevertheless, noting that the woman has already been released, the Court declined to stay the order, although it agreed to consider the petition filed by the State of Meghalaya challenging the bail order.
Cause Title : STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SONAM RAGHUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU | SLP(Crl) No. 11944/2026
The Organising Secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), R.S. Bharathi, has moved the Supreme Court seeking to be impleaded in the pending proceedings relating to the Karur stampede case, urging the Court to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, TN Minister Aadhav Arjuna and other accused persons from making public statements on the ongoing CBI investigation and to regulate their interaction with victims' families during the pendency of the probe.
The application has been filed in the Special Leave Petition in which the Supreme Court had, by its order dated October 13, 2025, transferred the investigation into the September 27, 2025 Karur stampede to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the supervision of a committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi.
During the hearing of the Meghalaya State's challenge to the bail of Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime suspect in the chilling 'honeymoon murder' of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta today cited Ketan Agarwal death case before the Supreme Court.
The SG, appearing for the State of Meghalaya, stated that facts of the Raja Raghuvanshi case would shock the Court's conscience and the same were "really painful". Referring to the recent Lohagad Fort case related to the death of 26 year old Ketan Agarwal, who is alleged to have been killed by his fiancé Siya Goyal and her "lover" Chetan Chaudhary, the SG lamented that "such incidents are increasing".
Few opposition parties have written a letter to the Supreme Court expressing concern about manipulation of the electoral process in the country, saying that in many instances, the results of the elections did not reflect the will of the people.
The letter is addressed to all the Supreme Court judges, through CJI Surya Kant, and has been signed by "like-minded" parties "opposed to the BJP", such as the Indian National Congress, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the Samajwadi Party, RJD, the Trinamool Congress, NCP(Sharad Pawar), Aam Aadmi Party, JMM, Communist Parties(CPIM, CPI, CPIML), IUML, JKNC, PDP, Forward Block etc.
They said that investigating agencies like the ED, the CBI and the NIA have become tools in the hands of the central government and are used to target opposition parties as well as to topple elected governments.
Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Audit Of Delhi's Electricity Distribution Companies
The Supreme Court today directed status quo on the audit of Delhi's electricity distribution companies (discoms) by a CAG-appointed independent Chartered Accountant.
A partial Court working days bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar passed the order, while issuing notice on a plea filed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in April.
Case Title: DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION v. FORUM OF REGULATORS, C.A. No. 8732 -8733/2026
Supreme Court Pulls Up Pharmacy Council For Not Adhering To Timeline For Approval & Admissions
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 3) came down heavily on the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) for repeatedly seeking extensions for the approval and admission schedule of pharmacy institutions, observing that regulatory authorities themselves were responsible for the deterioration in educational standards by failing to adhere to court-prescribed timelines.
Expressing serious dissatisfaction over the repeated deviations from the admission calendar fixed by the Supreme Court in 2012, a partial court working days bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice K Vinod Chandran questioned the regulator's motives behind the recurring delays.
Cause Title: PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST Versus ALL INDIA COUNCIAL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ORS., MA 1976/2026 in MA 1409/2025 in C.A. No. 9048/2012
Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP from Buxar, Sudhakar Singh has moved the Supreme Court seeking an independent probe into the finances of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, citing recent allegations of financial irregularities, an ongoing Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe, and the reported recovery of a cash trail amounting to ₹77 lakh.
The Public Interest Litigation, filed on July 3 , states that it does not seek any interference with religious practices or temple rituals. Instead, it seeks judicial intervention to ensure transparency and accountability in the Trust's secular financial administration.
Cause Title : Sudhakar Singh v. Union of India and others | Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 39221/2026
When Can A Judgment Be Declared 'Per Incuriam'? Supreme Court Explains
The 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.
Cause Title: PARVEEN KUMAR@ PARVEEN CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 648
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court ruling permitting a wife to summon hotel records and the call detail records (CDRs) of her husband in matrimonial proceedings to substantiate allegations of adultery.
A partial court working days bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the appeal filed by the husband, declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Family Court and High Court regarding the production of the hotel records and call detail records for consideration by the Family Court.
