Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: April 06, 2026 To April 12, 2026

JudgmentsCalling Someone 'Bas**rd' Not Offence Of Obscenity Under S.294 IPC : Supreme CourtCase Details: Sivakumar v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police (With Connected case)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 329The Supreme Court (April 6) observed that mere abusive or vulgar language, without a sexual or prurient element, does not constitute an offence of obscenity under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the conviction of two accused under Section 294(b) IPC, who had allegedly used the word “bastard” during a heated altercation arising out of a family property dispute.“…mere use of the word 'bastard', by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person. More so, when such words are commonly used in modern era during heated conversations. We are, therefore, of the view that conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and is hereby set aside.”, the Court observed.NEET | Medical Seat National Resource; Seat Rendered Vacant Due To Fraud Must Be Allotted To Next Candidate : Supreme CourtCase Details: Secretary National Medical Commission v. Sanjana Thakur & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 330The Supreme Court has upheld the admission of a NEET-UG candidate to a seat that became vacant after the originally selected candidate was found to have secured admission using a forged marksheet. The Court observed that when a seat falls vacant under such circumstances, authorities are duty-bound to allot it to the next eligible candidate in merit.A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the National Medical Council's appeal against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision to restore the seat to the Respondent No.1 at Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Govt. Medical College in Himachal Pradesh, who was denied the benefit despite being the next candidate in line, after the seat remained vacant on account of forgery committed by the selected candidate in his scorecard.The Court stressed that restoration of the vacant seat cannot be denied to the next in line candidate, as it would be tantamount to wastage of a precious medical resource due to administrative lethargy.Surgeon Best Judge To Choose Which Procedure To Adopt : Supreme Court Quashes Medical Negligence CaseCase Details: Dr. S. Balagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 331The Supreme Court of India (April 6) quashed criminal proceedings against a paediatric surgeon who had performed an orchidectomy (removal of the testicle) on a 1.5-year-old child, amid allegations by the father that no consent had been given for the procedure.A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the matter in which the child's father contended that he had consented only to orchidopexy, a procedure to reposition an undescended testicle, but the surgeon proceeded to perform an orchidectomy instead, allegedly without his approval, contending that the consent form was interpolated to include the permission to perform an orchidectomy.Aggrieved by the High Court's decision refusing to quash the case, the surgeon appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the consent form was not interpolated, nor was orchidectomy added to the form after filling out the consent form. The surgeon defended the operation, saying that the consent form contained an option either to perform orchidopexy/orchidectomy. Also, his decision to proceed with orchidectomy was supported by the Medical Board's opinion, he added.'Failure To Develop Allotted Land Bars Equitable Relief', Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of Lease In Piaggio's FavorCase Details: M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 332The Supreme Court of India (April 6) upheld the forfeiture of a lease granted to Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., observing that the company failed to undertake construction or develop the industrial plot within the stipulated time, and was therefore not entitled to any equitable relief.“…there is no escape from the conclusion that, right from the date of the grant of lease…the appellant company failed to demonstrate any convincing effort or bona fide intent to establish a full-scale industrial manufacturing unit on the plot in question.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, stressing that non-adherence to the terms of the lease deed do not warrants equitable relief to the company.“…delaying development of the industrial plot by almost six to seven years, as against the mandatory period of six months prescribed under the lease deed, would equally disentitle it to discretionary relief.”, the court observed.Supreme Court Orders CBI Preliminary Inquiry Into Allotment Of Contracts To Arunachal CM Pema Khandu's KinCase Details: Save Mon Region Federation and Anr v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 54/2024Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 333The Supreme Court...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: April 06, 2026 To April 12, 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags