'Identical Eyewitness Accounts Bear Imprint Of Tutoring', Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of 20 Persons In Murder Case

Case Details: Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan v. State of Maharashtra and Others Etc. (With Connected Case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 779

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of twenty persons in a murder case, after finding that the conviction was based on the strikingly similar nature of the eyewitness accounts, which the Court deemed improbable given that the incident involved a large number of persons being witnessed by several individuals positioned differently.

“It is a settled principle that an identical and stereotyped version bears the imprint of tutoring rather than of truthful recollection.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while upholding the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench judgment which, had found the case to be suspicious that all eyewitnesses gave identical testimonies, despite the incident occurring in the presence of a large number of persons positioned differently. This lack of differentiation in their accounts, the Court noted, undermined the prosecution's case and warranted acquittal

“In a normal course, where a single occurrence involving a large number of persons is witnessed by several persons who are differently placed, and some of them themselves are under assault, it is expected and natural that the accounts which they give will ordinarily bear the marks of individual perception. Differences of detail in such a narration are the natural product of the circumstances in which the observation was made, and their presence lends assurance rather than detracting from it.”, the Court observed.

Sale Deed Not Invalid Just Because Consideration Not Paid : Supreme Court

Case Details: Raziya Begum & Ors. v. Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 780

The Supreme Court ruled that an actual payment of the sale consideration at the time of execution is not necessary for completion of the sale; and the remedy against the non-payment of the balance consideration would be to file a money recovery suit rather than seeking a cancellation of sale deed.

“When a sale deed is registered, even upon part payment of the sale price, title would pass to the transferee. The non-payment of remaining part of the sale price would not invalidate it and the remedy would be to recover the balance sale consideration, but not cancellation of sale deed for non-payment of balance sale consideration.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The Court set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench judgment passed in a second appeal, which had interfered with the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and trial court, approving the execution of a sale deed merely on a part payment of sale consideration.

GST | Exporters Whose Applications Were Pending Before Omission Of Rule 96(10) Entitled To IGST Refund : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Goodluck India Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (And Connected Cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 781

The Supreme Court has given a quietus to the controversy surrounding exporters' eligibility to claim Integrated Tax (IGST) refunds, with their applications pending when the rule restricting such claims was omitted in 2024 without any saving clause.

Providing relief to exporters, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that exporters whose applications were pending when the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules occurred can now claim an IGST refund without any restrictions.

Rule 96(10) had imposed restrictions on exporters claiming refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on exported goods if they had availed benefits under specified exemption schemes, including Advance Authorisation and Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) schemes.

Immediate FIR Must Be Registered For Every Missing Person, Irrespective Of Age Or Gender: Supreme Court Warns States

Case Title – G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 782

The Supreme Court clarified that its direction requiring police to immediately register an FIR on receiving information about a missing person applies to every person, irrespective of age or gender. The Court said the word "person" in its earlier order cannot be understood as referring only to children and warned that States and Union Territories that failed to comply with the direction could face contempt proceedings.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan passed the direction while reviewing compliance with its earlier orders in proceedings concerning measures to prevent human trafficking and to trace missing persons.

The Court noted that under its order dated May 22, 2026, all States had been directed to register an FIR upon receiving information regarding any missing person. However, the Court was informed that some States were proceeding on the understanding that the word “person” in the earlier order referred only to children.

'Supreme Sacrifice' : Supreme Court Grants ₹10 Lakh To Shaurya Chakra Awardee's Widow

Case Details: Kuldeep Kaur v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 783

The Supreme Court has directed the Union of India to pay an additional ₹10 lakh to the widow of a General Reserves Engineering Force (GREF) employee who was posthumously awarded the Shaurya Chakra after sacrificing his life while saving fellow workers during road construction along the India-China border.

A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, extended the benefit of extraordinary family pension to the widow from the date of her husband's death in 2000, despite her counsel having earlier restricted the claim for arrears to three years preceding the filing of her writ petition.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Kuldeep Kaur, widow of late Mohan Singh, challenging a January 2026 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Principles Of Judicial Review In Exam Evaluation Disputes : Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: U.P. Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 784

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a power of judicial review cannot be exercised to interfere with the decision of experts in an academic field.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside the Allahabad High Court's order, which had interfered with the academic experts' decision in examination matters.

The High Court issued directions to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission regarding the re-evaluation of answer scripts, the deletion of certain questions, and the awarding of full marks for others.

Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Supreme Court Explains Parameters To Decide Application For Additional Evidence

Case Details: Chowdappa v. Hanumantharayappa and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 785

While reiterating that an application seeking the production of additional evidence at an appellate stage needs to be decided on its own merit before delivering a judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down the parameters to be followed while dealing with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria laid down the following parameters:

"1. An Appellate Court has a statutory duty to deal with an Application for Additional Evidence on its merits. The application cannot be ignored while the Court proceeds to pronounce the final Judgment.

No Inflexible Rule That Alibi Can Be Proved Only In Trial : Supreme Court Quashes S. 498A IPC Case Against BSF Personnel

Case Details: Rahul v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 786

The Supreme Court (August 11) held that the documentary evidence, including official service records establishing the accused's absence from the place of occurrence, constitutes unimpeachable material that can be considered at the threshold stage for quashing of the criminal case.

The Court said that the rule that an accused must ordinarily prove alibi during trial is not an inflexible rule and cannot be interpreted as an absolute bar against considering reliable and undisputed documentary evidence establishing alibi at the pre-trial stage.

“It cannot be read as laying down an inflexible rule that no species of documentary material touching upon presence or absence of the accused may ever be looked into at the threshold, irrespective of its source, character, and the absence of any dispute as to its authenticity.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while setting aside the Allahabad High Court's order which had refused to quash the domestic cruelty case (S. 498A IPC) against the Appellant, a BSF personnel, who was posted near the Indo-Bangladesh border and was not present in Uttar Pradesh when the alleged incident occurred.

4-Steps To Test If Criminal Case Can Be Quashed Based On Defence Material Before Trial : Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: Rahul v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 786

The Supreme Court has reiterated that criminal proceedings can, in exceptional cases, be quashed at the pre-trial stage on the basis of defence material or official records, where such material is of an unimpeachable nature and demonstrates that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

In its judgment inRahul v. State of Uttar Pradesh, pronounced on August 11, 2026, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih applied the four-step test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) to hold that criminal proceedings could be quashed on the basis of an undisputed official service record.

The Court clarified that the general rule against evaluating defence evidence at the stage of a petition under Section 482 CrPC does not mean that courts must mechanically ignore documentary material which is unimpeachable, contemporaneous and capable of conclusively demolishing the prosecution case.

Insider Trading Presumed When Person Having Confidential Information Trades; Loss Or Profit Irrelevant : Supreme Court

Case Details: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rajeev Vasant Sheth & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 787

The Supreme Court (August 11) held that a mere possession of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) coupled with trading in securities during the UPSI period is sufficient to attract presumption for insider trading under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015.

Setting aside the Securities Appellate Tribunal's (SAT) order, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed the Securities and Exchange Board of India's (SEBI) appeal, restoring the Regulator's order against the promoters of Tara Jewels Limited (TJL), who had sold substantial portions of their shareholding while in possession of adverse unpublished financial information concerning the company to avoid financial losses.

“It is not in dispute that the respondents were in possession of UPSI. It is also not in dispute that the respondents had sold of large portions or the entirety of their shareholding while in possession of such UPSI. As such, in view of the note appended to Regulation 4 (1) reproduced supra, the purposes for which the proceeds are employed is an irrelevant consideration. The fact that the respondents had indulged in the trades at the relevant point in time is sufficient to conclude that they had conducted insider trading.”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Restores Rape Case Acquittal As Forensic Evidence Contradicts Prosecution Version

Case Details: Ram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 788

The Supreme Court (August 11) restored the acquittal of a man for an offence of rape of a minor, holding that the absence of blood on the victim's clothes and the lack of any injury on her body, as reflected in the forensic and medical evidence, created a grave doubt about the prosecution's case.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment which had reversed the trial court's decision of acquittal, and convicted the Appellant, ignoring the forensic and medical evidence which contradicted the prosecution's version regarding injuries and bloodstains.

“Absence of any blood on the clothes of the victim as well as on the undergarment of the appellant after the garments were subjected to the 'Benzidine test' as per the FSL report is a relevant factor, which cannot be ignored. Thus, when the oral statements of PW2 and PW3 are considered along with the Final Medical Report and the report of the FSL, a grave doubt is created about the version of PW2 and PW3 as regards injury on the body of the victim and bloodstains on the clothes of the victim. The prosecution evidence neither indicates any injury to the private parts of the victim nor trace of any blood on her clothes.”, the Court observed.

Enquiry Necessary To Dismiss Employee For Suppression Of Criminal Antecedents : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shatrughn Yadav v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.) and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 789

The Supreme Court (August 11) observed that the disclosure of criminal antecedents by an employee after joining service would not automatically result in dismissal. The Court held that before passing a termination order, the employer must conduct an enquiry to determine whether the suppression of criminal antecedents was deliberate and must record a finding that the continuation of the employee is unfeasible.

“Termination is therefore not an automatic consequence of the disclosure of criminal antecedents; rather, the specific case of the employee must be considered, and the employer must apply its mind before arriving at a decision.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The bench also laid down two-pronged tests to be satisfied by the employer when considering the termination of an employee on the grounds of suppression of criminal antecedents.

Trademark Suit | Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Period Of Brand Use Though Written Statement Not On Record : Supreme Court

Case: Shabu Kn Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 790

The Supreme Court has held that a defendant in a trademark infringement suit can question the plaintiff during cross-examination about the documents showing when the disputed brand name was first used, even if the defendant's written statement has not been taken on record.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran set aside the High Court's order which had treated the question as a purely factual issue beyond the permissible scope of cross-examination and had directed that it be expunged from the record.

The issue arose from a trademark infringement suit in which Dharampal Premchand Limited had sought, among other reliefs, a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its trade dress and packaging, a declaration concerning its trademarks, and damages.

Arbitration | Post-Award Section 9 Application By Unsuccessful Party Maintainable In Exceptional Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 791

The Supreme Court (August 11) held that to prevent an award holder's enrichment of a bank guarantee while an award was under challenge, an interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 can be extended on an award debtor's application to preserve the efficacy of the challenge in Section 34.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment, which had allowed the Respondent-award debtor's Section 9 application which sought an interim relief against alleged unjust enrichment of a bank guarantee of about Rs. 3.5 crores by an Appellant-award holder during the pendency of a Section 34 application.

The bench noted that there are precedents holdig that a post-award Section 9 application is maintainable in exceptional cases.

CPC | Separate Appeals Not Required Against Common Judgment Deciding Suit & Counterclaim : Supreme Court

Case Details: Basudev & Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 792

In an important development, the Supreme Court has given a quietus to the issue regarding the maintainability of a composite appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure against a single common judgment containing a decision both on the original claim and a counterclaim.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that there's no bar against the maintainability of a composite appeal against a common judgment, which adjudicated both the original claim and counterclaim.

“Finding no contrary or restrictive provisions in the CPC, we hold and declare that a suit and a counterclaim, if adjudicated by a single common judgment; both on the original claim and on the counterclaim, it can be challenged in a composite appeal.”, the Court observed.

S. 9 IBC | Uncrystallized Damages From Breach Of Contract Not Operational Debt : Supreme Court

Case Details: Srinivasa Reddy Velagala. Sravanthi Infratech Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 793

The Supreme Court (August 12) held that claims for damages arising from breach of contract cannot be treated as "operational debt" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, unless previously adjudicated and crystallized by a competent court.

“It is a settled position of law that damages, whether liquidated or unliquidated, cannot be treated as operational debt unless and until they are assessed and crystallized by way of adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction. We say so because the NCLT and NCLAT are not the appropriate fora for determination of disputes. Their functions and powers are for the purpose of ensuring survival of a particular company and alternatively, to ensure maximization of repayment capabilities in the event of liquidation.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.

The dispute arose from an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract, for setting up a 225 MW gas-based power station in Andhra Pradesh. The respondent was awarded the contract for Rs. 827 crore.

Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into Chhattisgarh Custodial Death, Grants ₹25 Lakh Compensation To Kin

Case: Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chhattisgarh, Diary No. 48963/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 794

The Supreme Court transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the probe into the custodial death of a 34-year-old man in Chhattisgarh, taking note of the State police's failure to register an FIR for more than two years after his death.

Despite the death occurring in January 2024, an FIR was apparently registered by the police only on July 30, 2026. The Supreme Court has previously questioned the prolonged failure to register an FIR against the officials allegedly responsible for the custodial violence.

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm opinion that the ends of justice require that investigation into the circumstances leading to the custodial death of Shravan be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation and that all officials found responsible for the custodial violence upon completion of the investigation be proceeded against and prosecuted in accordance with law”, the Court ordered.

S. 14 Limitation Act | Time Spent In Winding Up Proceedings Cannot Be Excluded For Filing Recovery Suit : Supreme Court

Case Details: Mageba Bridge Products Private Limited v. M/S. Trade Centre

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 795

The Supreme Court (August 12) held that the period spent in pursuing winding up proceedings cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for filing a recovery suit, as the relief sought in the two proceedings is fundamentally different

“…the initiation of a winding up proceeding, which may or may not enable recovery, will not impact the limitation for the separate remedy of suit for recovery of money.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The respondent filed a suit for recovery of ₹24,36,105/- in June 2010 based on unpaid invoices dating back to January 2006 and March 2007, i.e., beyond the three-year limitation period.

Interest Accumulated In Suspense Account After NPA Classification Remains Recoverable As Part Of "Debt" : Supreme Court

Case Details: Punjab National Bank v. M/S. Shree Jyoti Education and Management Trust World and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 796

The Supreme Court (August 12) held that an interest accumulated in a separate suspense account, pursuant to the declaration of the debtor's account as a Non-Performing Asset, can be recovered by the banks as the same continues to form part of the “debt” due from the borrower and cannot be ignored while calculating outstanding dues.

“PNB is entitled to claim the interest due, which was calculated and maintained in a separate suspense account, in addition to the outstanding principal loan amount…”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, while allowing the Punjab National Bank's appeal against the Orissa High Court's judgment which denied interest to the bank maintained in the suspense account for the interest due on the outstanding loan amount.

The dispute arose from a ₹5 crore loan sanctioned in 2011 by United Bank of India (now merged with PNB) to the Respondent for construction of a college building.

S.69 GST Order Containing 'Reasons To Believe' Must Be Communicated Before Arrest : Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India v. Sunil Biyani

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 797

In an important development, the Supreme Court (August 12) held that no arrest shall take place under the Central GST Act for alleged major tax evasions or fraud unless an order passed under Section 69 recording the 'reasons to believe' to arrest is communicated to the assessee.

"…the requirement of communication of the order passed under Section 69 of the CGST Act to the accused before he is arrested, has to be read into the statute and communication of such an order to the person sought to be arrested must be held to be mandatory.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.

As per Section 69 of the CGST Act, if the Commissioner has reasons to believe that a person has committed any specified offence, he may, by order, authorise any officer of central tax to arrest such person.

Supreme Court Deprecates Courts Holding 'Mini-Trials' In Temporary Injunction Matters

Case Details: Shruti Manav Sharma & Anr. v. Sunanina Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 798

The Supreme Court (August 12) deprecated the practice of holding a mini-trial at the stage of a grant of an interlocutory order under the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that the courts, while hearing the application for temporary injunction, must confine their findings to the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

“We accordingly do not approve the practice of writing lengthy, merits-laden orders, whether at the interlocutory stage or in appeal from it, on applications for temporary injunction, and emphasise that courts confine such orders to recording, with reasons, their findings on the three settled conditions of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, without embarking upon an examination of the final merits or the probable outcome of the issues that properly arise for trial.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.

The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's Division Bench order, which had interfered with the interlocutory order passed by the Single Judge, in ignorance of the law laid down in Wander Ltd. & Anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 Supp. SCC 727, that “interference is warranted only where the discretion below has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or contrary to settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of temporary injunctions.”

Electrocution Deaths Attract Strict Liability On Electricity Boards, Not Absolute Liability: Supreme Court

Case Details: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Rekha & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 799

The Supreme Court has ruled that electricity authorities can be held strictly liable for deaths or injuries caused by electrocution, but such liability cannot be treated as absolute liability without exceptions.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the concurrent orders of the Single and Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, which had imputed an absolute liability upon the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation for the deaths occurred due to electrocution.

The judgment arose from two electrocution incidents, including the death of a man who came into contact with an 11 KV transmission line and the severe injury suffered by another person after he came into contact with a 66 KV line while attempting to retrieve a cricket ball.

Composite Appeal Against Common Judgment In Suits By Same Plaintiff Is Maintainable: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bassanna Since Deceased By Lrs. and Others v. Bhimanna and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 800

The Supreme Court (August 12) held that a composite appeal against a common judgment passed in the suits filed by the same plaintiff would be maintainable.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment, which had interfered with the First Appellate Court's decision to entertain a composite appeal filed by the Appellant against a common judgment adjudicating two suits instituted by the Appellant (plaintiff).

“…we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. The question as framed is answered by holding that the composite appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code was maintainable in the circumstances in which it was presented. The first appellate Court rightly entertained it and adjudicated it on merits. The High Court committed an error in holding that the composite appeal filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable.”, the Court observed.

Retired Judges Appointed In Central Industrial Tribunals Can't Claim Pay Parity With Other Tribunal Members : Supreme Court

Case Details: R.K. Yadav & Anr. v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 801

The Supreme Court (August 12) dismissed a writ petition filed by ex-judicial officers, who were re-employed as Presiding Officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts, seeking pay scales equivalent to those granted to other National Tribunals under the 6th Pay Commission recommendations.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria justified the differential pay scales to the petitioners equivalent to that of officers in the District Judiciary as per the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee, noting that “the re-employed class could be reasonably and rationally classified separately for the purpose of applying pay scales which may not be equivalent to and on the same pedestal with the other classes.”

“Upon re-employment, the reemployed officers/persons would cease to be homogeneous vis-à-vis class of regular officers in employment of the government.”, the Court said.

Re-employed Officers Can Be Treated Separately From Regular Officers: Supreme Court

Case Details: R.K. Yadav & Anr. v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 801

The Supreme Court has held that government officers who are re-employed after retirement can legitimately be treated as a separate class from regular government employees for the purpose of pay fixation, ruling that such a classification does not violate the constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Presiding Officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts (CGIT-cum-LCs), who had sought the benefit of the 6th Central Pay Commission scales.

The Court emphasised that an officer who returns to government service after retirement does not remain part of the same homogeneous class as a regular government employee. According to the judgment, re-employed officers have a "substantial distinction" from regular government officers, allowing the government to classify them separately when determining their pay and service conditions.

Practices Like Witch-Hunting Still Persist; Superstition Supersedes Constitutional Morality, Laments Supreme Court

Case Details: Balku Oram v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 802

Expressing deep concern over the persistence of witch-hunting in parts of Indian society, the Supreme Court has observed that superstition, prejudice and irrational fear continue to supersede the rule of law and constitutional morality, leaving vulnerable women exposed to brutal violence and social ostracisation.

The observation came while dismissing an appeal filed by Balku Oram against his conviction and life sentence for the 1998 murder of Puni Naik in Odisha. The Court found that Oram and his co-accused had brutally assaulted Naik after she was accused of practising witchcraft, ultimately causing her death.

“…the facts of the present case have deeply disturbed the conscience of this Court, wherein a defenseless women was branded as a practitioner of witch-craft and what effect it must have had on the daughter of the deceased who had to witness her mother being killed in the most brutal way.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria.

Does Tenancy End On Execution Of Agreement To Sell Between Landord-Tenant? Supreme Court Answers

Case Details: Nazim Shaikh Hasan v. Nasir Mushtaq Shaikh and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 803

The Supreme Court (August 13) held that a subsisting tenancy would not cease to operate upon a mere agreement to sell with a landlord-seller. According to the Court, the determination of a tenancy post-agreement to sell would be dependent upon the terms of the agreement to sell or the unequivocal conduct of the parties.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria laid down the guiding principles which may be useful in adjudication of pleas concerning the determination of tenancy post-execution of an agreement to sell between the landlord and tenant.

"(i) the mere execution of an agreement to sell between a landlord and tenant does not ipso facto bring about a determination of the subsisting tenancy;

Substantial Compliance With S.42 NDPS Act Sufficient In Situations Requiring Immediate Seizure : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kashmir Ram @ Pappi v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 804

The Supreme Court has held that where narcotics-related information is received in circumstances requiring the immediate interception of a moving vehicle, the requirements of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have to be assessed in the context of the urgency of the situation. On the facts of the case, the Court found substantial compliance with the statutory safeguards and refused to invalidate the recovery on the basis of procedural deficiencies.

The Court made the observations while dismissing the appeal of a person, who was convicted for possession of 200 kg of poppy husk. The Court upheld his 10-year rigorous imprisonment and ₹1 lakh fine.

One question before the Supreme Court was whether the police had complied with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which regulates the power of an empowered officer to enter, search and seize narcotic substances without a warrant when acting on information concerning drugs concealed in a building, conveyance or enclosed place.

JJ Act | Conviction Not Vitiated Because Regular Court Tried Juvenile As Adult, But Sentence Cannot Operate : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 805

The Supreme Court has held that a conviction on the merits need not be set aside merely because a juvenile was tried by a regular criminal court. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of an accused who was tried as an adult, the Court set aside the sentence imposed on him after finding that he was a juvenile on the date of the offence.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard the case where the Appellant-accused was tried by a regular court and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing an offence of murder.

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant-accused sought setting aside of his conviction on the ground that the conviction rendered by a regular court was ex facie illegal, as his juvenility was proved during the pendency of an appeal.

Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 10 Lakh Cost On Reliance Industries Ltd For Obstructing 20-Year-Old NTPC Suit

Case Details: Reliance Industries Limited v. Ntpc Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 806

The Supreme Court (August 14) imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on Reliance Industries Ltd. for prolonging a 20-year-old commercial suit filed by NTPC. The cost imposed was directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe strongly disapproved of RIL's litigation strategy, noting that the suit filed in 2005 is still at the evidence stage, with the company raising objections at every turn.

“The following facts would reveal that the power of the RIL to litigate and obstruct progress of the suit seems unlimited. There is no dearth of financial resources, no obligation to aid and assist the court to cope with pending backlog of cases, perhaps it is lucrative for RIL to raise some objection or the other at every stage and when the trial court rejects it, the appellate and special leave jurisdictions open up…it is compelling for us to note that the suit filed by NTPC way back in 2005 has not progressed much. At every stage there has been obstruction… In all, two decades have passed by and the suit is still at the stage of evidence.”, the Court observed.

'Should India Remain Underdeveloped?' : Supreme Court Slams Union's Opposition To Adopt Global Norms On Food Package Labelling

Case Details: 3s and Our Health Society v. Union of India and Anr | 15 Ma 1177/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 807

The Supreme Court disapproved of the Union's stand that it can't follow international standards when it comes to issuing interpretative warnings of high sugar, sodium or fat content on packaged food items. The Court questioned if India should remain underdeveloped, ignoring that obesity remains a significant public health concern.

The observations were made in the context of the failure of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to implement the Front-of-Package labelling (FOPL), a standard adopted at the international level.

It may be recalled that the Court on February 10 observed that FSSAI failed to file a satisfactory affidavit on mandatory compliance with FOPL. It directed them to file another compliance report, and the matter was then taken up on August 13 before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran. However, the Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar(for FSSAI) informed the bench that it can't comply with the FOPL as Indian dietary standards are different from those followed internationally.

CPC | Residential Property Exemption u/s 60(1)(ccc) Is Personal To Judgment-Debtor; LR Can't Claim : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sheela Gehlot v. Mohini Hardayal Singh & Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 808

The Supreme Court has observed that a plea filed by a judgment-debtor's legal representative seeking an exemption from an attachment of the judgment-debtor's main residential house would not be maintainable under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [which is applicable in Punjab and Delhi].

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that only the judgment-debtor is entitled to claim an exemption from attachment of a main residence under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC, and the same cannot be extended to his legal representative post-death of the judgment-debtor.

“…the plea of exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code is personal to the judgment-debtor and is not available to be raised by his legal representatives.”, the Court said.

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sameem Begum and Others v. K. Venkat Swamy and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 809

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a legal representative of a person killed in a motor accident can maintain a claim for compensation even if the particular legal representative was not financially dependent on the deceased.

The Court, relying on its earlier decisions, emphasised that “liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned.”

“Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person because of a motor vehicle accident has a remedy for realisation of compensation to be paid under different heads.”, observed the bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice NV Anjaria. The Court stated that legal representatives who are not dependants are entitled to claim compensation under heads such as loss of consortium.

Orders and Other Developments

Manipur Violence : Supreme Court Urges Gauhati High Court Chief Justice To Consider Exclusive Courts For CBI, NIA Cases

Case: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arun Khundongbam @Nanao | SLP(Crl) No. 5756/2026 and Connected Cases

The Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to consider setting up exclusive courts to deal with cases arising out of the Manipur violence that are being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the request while hearing a batch of petitions concerning the investigation and trial of sexual violence cases that occurred during the Manipur crisis. The Supreme Court had earlier transferred the trials from Manipur to Assam under the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court.

Today, considering the status reports filed, the Supreme Court noted that a large number of witnesses were yet to be examined in the CBI cases and said that dedicated courts could facilitate expeditious trials.

Supreme Court Asks Union, Assam To Reply To Plea Seeking I-Cards For Those Included In NRC List

Case Details: All Assam Minorities Students Union (Aamsu) W.P.(C) No. 839/2026 Diary No. 40481 / 2026 | Assam State Jamiat Ulama v. Union of India v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1030/2025 | W.P.(C) No. 1026/2025 Diary No. 55648 / 2025 Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind v. Union of India |

The Supreme Court (August 10) directed the Union Government and the State of Assam to file replies in a batch of petitions concerning the issuance of National Register of Citizens (NRC) Identity Cards to persons included in the National Register of Citizens (NRC) list published in August 2019.

The petitions have been filed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, the All Assam Minority Students' Union (AAMSU), and the Assam Sankhyalaghu Sangram Parishad, respectively.

Before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal(for Jamiat) submitted that notice has been issued but the Union and State are yet to file a reply. Sibal also requested that he may be allowed to file a rejoinder to the reply filed by the Registrar General of India.

Supreme Court Adjourns UBT Plea Challenging MPs' Merger With Shiv Sena As Speaker Doesn't Appear

Case Details: Arvind Ganpat Sawant v. Honble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 886/2026

The Supreme Court adjourned for two weeks the petition filed by Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (UBT) member Arvind Ganpat Sawant challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision approving the merger of its six Members of Parliament with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe adjourned the matter noting that there is no appearance for the Speaker. The bench hadearlier issued notice to the respondents on July 22.

Today, Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Siddharth Bhatnagar entered appearance for some of the MLAs of the Shinde Sena. However, there was no appearance for the Speaker.

'Everyone Has Right To Choose Medical Care' : Supreme Court Gives Abhishek Banerjee Foreign Travel Permission For Eye Treatment

Case: Abhishek Banerjee v. State of West Bengal | SLP (Crl) 14489/2026

The Supreme Court allowed Trinamool Congress member and Lok Sabha MP Abhishek Banerjee to travel abroad for a period of three weeks for medical treatment of his eye.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana allowed Banerjee's appeal against the Calcutta High Court's refusal to relax the restriction on foreign travel, which was imposed as a condition for stay his arrest in a case over an alleged provocative remark made during the 2026 State Assembly election campaign.

The Supreme Court granted the permission subject to Banerjee's undertaking that he will travel only on his diplomatic passport. He has also been directed to share his itinerary and place of stay with the investigating agency.

'Media Can't Say It's Not Performing Public Function' : Supreme Court Dismisses TV Today Plea Against Delhi HC Penalty

Case: Tv Today Network Limited v. Abc and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 27299/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by TV Today Network challenging aDelhi High Court order upholding the award of ₹5 lakh damages against it for violating the privacy and confidentiality rights of a child sexual abuse victim by airing details capable of revealing her identity.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana rejected the broadcaster's argument that the High Court had erred inholding that the media performs a public function and can therefore be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Senior Advocate appearing for TV Today argued that the High Court had ignored the principles laid down in its own judgment while holding that the broadcaster was performing a "public function", making it amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Third Petition Filed By Same Petitioner For Regulation Of Religious Education

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 868/2026 Diary No. 41685 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 10) dismissed as withdrawn a petition seeking registration, recognition and supervision of all institutions imparting religious education to children up to 14 years.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, at the outset, clarified that they wouldn't entertain the third petition filed on the same issue when the Court had earlier refused to entertain two similar petitions filed by the same petitioner, Ashwini Upadhyay, on the same cause.

The bench noted that asimilar petition[W.P.(C) No. 590/2026] was earlier considered by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. That bench had noted that a previous writ petition on the same cause [WP 143/2026] was disposed of directing him to make a representation. Subsequently, WP 590 was dismissed, stating that the petitioner must await the decision on the representation given to the.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & States On PIL Seeking Steps To Expedite NDPS Trials & Tackle Drug Abuse

Case: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 288/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and all States on a PIL seeking directions to tackle drug menace in the country, including a declaration that sentences in NDPS cases shall run consecutively.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order in the public interest litigation initiated by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The case was directed to be listed alongwith a suo motu case taken up by the Court (2022) on similar issues.

During the hearing, Advocate Upadhyay contended that incidents of drug addicts causing harm to their families get frequently reported in newspapers. The CJI responded that the problem is indeed very serious and affects the entire country. However, the judge added that for tackling the rising menace of drugs, coordinate efforts are required on the part of expert agencies and the law and order machinery.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre On Plea To Frame Regulations Under National Commission For Allied & Healthcare Professions Act

Case Details: Federation of Self Financing Technical Institutions (Fsftt) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 972/2026

The Supreme Court (August 10) issued notice in a writ petition filed by the Federation of Self Financing Technical Institutions(FSFTI) seeking framing of mandatory regulations under the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) Act, 2021.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice to the Union, the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions, LK Gujral Punjab Technical University(IKGPTU) and Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Technical University(MRSPTU).

Advocate Meenesh Dubey argued that no formal regulations have been framed despite the passage of five years since the Act was enforced. This has left the sector exposed to uncertainty as it's mostly governed by a series of shifting executive circulars, notices, corrigenda and communications, causing continuing and irreparable prejudice to institutions, universities and students across the country.

Supreme Court Asks Manipur Committee To Verify Complaints Over Non-Restoration Of Damaged Houses

The Supreme Court asked the High-Powered Committee constituted to oversee relief and rehabilitation measures in violence-hit Manipur to examine complaints that several affected families are yet to receive the benefits of rehabilitation, including reconstruction of houses damaged during the ethnic violence.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the direction while hearing submissions by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Kuki organisations, who alleged that houses belonging to Kuki families which were destroyed during the violence had not been reconstructed even after three years.

Gonsalves submitted that an earlier order of the Court had noted the destruction of 144 tribal villages and 607 houses belonging to Kuki families. He contended that despite directions for reconstruction, not a single house that had been burnt to the ground had been reconstructed.

'Ram Rahim Singh's Acquittal Requires Consideration' : Supreme Court To Hear Slain Journalist's Son's Appeal

Case: Aridaman v. Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Anr. Diary No. 40480-2026

The Supreme Court listed for final hearing a plea challenging Dera Sacha Sauda Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh's acquittal in a journalist's murder case, noting that the matter required consideration.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice on the petition filed by the journalist's son Aridaman, challenging the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which held that the CBI coerced a witness into giving a statement implicating Ram Rahim.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate R Basanth, for Ram Rahim, pointed out that the State had not preferred an appeal against the impugned order. The CJI in response said that the Court was "equally conscious" of the fact that the state might not file an appeal.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Plea Of Man Accused Of Making Objectionable Posts Against Jharkhand CM's Wife Kalpana Soren

Case: Sahadev Uraon @ Sahadev Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, Diary No. 26999/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by 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 issued notice on the plea filed by Sahadev Uraon @ Sahadev Oraon.

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.

Supreme Court Seeks Updated Data On Commercial Litigation Across Country To Assess Need For More Courts

Case: Indian Commercial and Arbitration Bar Association (Icaba) v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.900/2020

In amatterpertaining to implementation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Supreme Court called for updated data on the trend of filing of commercial litigation across the country to assess whether additional commercial courts are required.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by the Indian Commercial and Arbitration Bar Association seeking directions for time-bound implementation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Through the petition, the ICABA highlighted lack of infrastructure and inadequacy of commercial courts and commercial appellate benches to resolve commercial disputes.

West Bengal SIR | Can't Fix Timeline For Appellate Tribunals, Says Supreme Court; Seek Data On Appeal Disposals

Case: Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury v. Election Commission of India | D No. 38345/2026

The Supreme Court orally commented that it cannot fix any timeline for the decisions by the Appellate Tribunals hearing appeals arising from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, even though it agreed to monitor their functioning.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a writ petition filed by Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury seeking various directions to streamline and expedite the disposals by the SIR Appellate Tribunals.

The Court directed the Election Commission of India to furnish details on the quantum of disposals of appeals by the Appellate Tribunals, and tagged the matter with a similar petition, to be taken up on August 25.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Plea For CBI Probe Against Fake Advocates & Curbs On Monetisation Of Judges' Remarks

Case Title – Raja Choudhary v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation into fake advocates and fraudulent law degrees, claiming that the issues reflect a deeper erosion of professional standards within the legal system.

The petitioner also sought examination of the activities associated with the “Cockroach Janata Party,” the satirical online campaign that emerged following remarks made by the Chief Justice of India

Filed by Advocate Raja Choudhary, the petition further seeks action against persons allegedly involved in the commercial exploitation of oral courtroom observations, including claims of trademark appropriation and monetised circulation of remarks made during court proceedings.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's Daughter's Plea To Bring His Mortal Remains From Japan

Case Title: Anita B. Pfaff v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 842/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's daughter, Anita Pfaff, seeking to bring his mortal remains from Japan to India.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order. Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Netaji's daughter.

Earlier, the Court refused to entertain asimilar plea by Netaji's grandnephew, Ashis Ray, noting that his daughter (sole heir) was not the petitioner. At the time, Dr Singhvi said that the daughter of Netaji will file a fresh petition for the same cause, instead of the grandnephew.

Supreme Court Dismisses Activist Ravi Nair's Plea To Revive Defamation Case Against Nilanjana Bhowmick

Case Details: Ravi Nair v. Nilanjana Bhowmick | Diary No. 30029 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 11) dismissed activist Ravi Nair's petition challenging the Delhi High Court's order quashing his criminal defamation case filed against journalist Nilanjana Bhowmick over an article published in 2010 in Time magazine.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vinod Chandran dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the High Court's order.

It may be recalled that Ravi Nair, who runs the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC), filed the complaint in November 2014. He was aggrieved by the journalist's article titled “Accountability of India's Nonprofits under Scrutiny,” which was published on December 14, 2020. The article discussed the alleged transgressions in the working of the NGOs and the “unscrupulousness” in India's sprawling non-profit sector.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Calcutta HC's Restrictions On Use Of Trinamool Bank Accounts Frozen By ED

Case Title: All India Trinamool Congress and Anr v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No.: SLP (Crl) 13322/2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the restrictions imposed by the Calcutta High Court in operating the bank accounts of the All India Trinamool Congress party, which are frozen by the Enforcement Directorate as part of a money laundering investigation.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale was dealing with TMC's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's July 20 interim order whereby itrefusedto permit the party to operate 3 HDFC bank accounts, as well as the July 9 orderwhich allowed the use of those accounts for daily expenses under the supervision of the Court-appointed Special Officer.

The bench also heard a separate petition filed by Biswanath Das, a rebel TMC leader, who challenged the July 9 order, contending that he represents the real party.

Consider Declaring Cancer As 'Notifiable Disease' : Supreme Court To States

Case: Anurag Srivastava v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No.1211/2025

The Supreme Court directed the States and Union Territories which have not yet notified cancer as a notifiable disease to consider doing so, stressing the need for a uniform policy for mandatory reporting of cancer cases.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to notify cancer as a notifiable disease across the country.

During the hearing, the CJI asked the Union Government why mandatory guidelines could not be issued to ensure uniformity across the country.

Centre Defends Clinical Establishment Rule In Supreme Court, Says It Curbs Excessive Pricing Of Medical Services

Case Title – All India Ophthalmological Society v. Union of India

The Centre has defended the validity of Rule 9(ii) of the Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012 before the Supreme Court, contending that prescribing the range of rates would standardise charges across clinical establishments, preventing inconsistent and exorbitant pricing, price gouging, excessive charging and arbitrary inflation, and protecting patients from exploitation.

Rule 9(ii) requires clinical establishments to charge for each type of procedure and service within the range of rates determined and issued by the Central Government in consultation with State Governments. Rule 9(i) provides that establishments have to display the rates charged for their services and facilities in a conspicuous place in the local as well as English language.

The Centre has also informed the Court that most States and Union Territories have still not been able to determine the range of rates for medical procedures and services under the provision despite consultations over the past two years.

Supreme Court Directs Union To Consider Plea Seeking Mechanism To Block Illegal AI-Generated Or Doxed Content

Case: Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and Ors. ,W.P.(C) No. 823/2026

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to consider a representation seeking mechanism for urgent reporting and URL-specific disabling of access in India to content including threats of physical violence, doxing, unauthorized disclosure of private details and non-consensual AI-generated content.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order in a PIL filed by Advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, who appeared in person. The petitioner raised a plethora of issues, including the harms of unauthorized online content, deepfakes and online threats.

The bench directed the respondents (MeitY, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law and Justice) to look into the petitioner's representation and take remedial measures as may be required.

Supreme Court To Hear Bodh Gaya Temple Act Challenge After Sabarimala Reference Verdict; Posted In October

Case: BHANTE ARYA NAGARJUN SHURAI SASAI AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

While deferring the matter pertaining to the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, the Supreme Court indicated that the 9-judge bench verdict in the Sabarimala reference may come out by October 6 this year.

A batch of pleas challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act was listed before a bench led by CJI Surya Kant.

However, considering the unlikelihood of the same being taken up on account of a part-heard matter (the Shiv Sena case), some counsels mentioned the Bodh Gaya matter saying that it may be deferred until the 9 judge decision in Sabarimala matter comes out.

Can Legislative Privileges Override Free Speech? Supreme Court 7-Judge Bench To Hear 2003 TN Speaker Case On October 6

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

The Supreme Court will begin hearing on October 6 a long-pending constitutional question concerning the scope of legislative privileges enjoyed by Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) and their interplay with the fundamental right to freedom of speech.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and and Justice V. Mohana, decided to commence 7-judge bench hearing in the matter from October 6.

The case, N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai, raises significant questions on the extent to which privileges under Article 194 of the Constitution can operate against fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19.

Supreme Court Defers Cauvery Dispute Hearing To August 17

The Supreme Court deferred to August 17 the hearing on Tamil Nadu's plea seeking directions to Karnataka to comply with the Cauvery Water Management Authority's (CWMA) decision on the release of Cauvery water.

The Chief Justice of India Surya Kant informed that Justice Vikram Nath, who was to hear the matter on August 13, has fallen ill. Senior Advocate P Wilson mentioned an application filed by farmers, which the CJI agreed to tag along with the State's petition.

The Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court on August 3, seeking implementation of the CWMA's July 30 decision directing the release of 3,500 cusecs of water for 15 days.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Against Disruption Of Services Due To Protests

Case: Aalok Mohan v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 959/2026

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea concerning the disruption of essential services during protests and rallies, and directed that the petition be tagged with a pending petition seeking to stop the use of Jantar Mantar as a designated venues for protests in the national capital.

During the hearing, Advocate V Elanchezhiyan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that protests often result in the disruption of essential services and affect the movement of people. "There is no way of knowing who is a protester and who is not; this is an issue arising across the country," he submitted.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana however asked the petitioner how the reliefs sought can be granted.

Supreme Court Allows Kerala Bar Council Elected Members To Approach HC Chief Justice For Co-Option Of Women

Case: Naseer Kk v. Bar Council of Kerala | WP(C) 986/2026

The Supreme Court paved the way for the constitution of the newly elected Bar Council of Kerala (BCK), allowing its elected members to approach the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court for co-option of two women members.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the Supreme Court had, in an order passed on August 4, authorised Chief Justices of High Courts to co-opt women members to State Bar Councils in order to ensure compliance with the prescribed representation requirements.

The Bench said that, in view of the earlier order, the apprehensions raised by the petitioners regarding the constitution of the BCK stood addressed.

Can States Impose Additional Levy On Sales Tax? Supreme Court 7-Judge Bench To Hear On September 22

Case: Arjun Flour Mills v. State of Odisha | Civil Appeal No. 8763 of 1994.

The Supreme Court will, from September 22, hear a long-pending dispute concerning the constitutional power of State legislatures to impose an additional levy on sales tax, with a seven-judge Constitution Bench set to examine the scope of the States' taxing powers under the Seventh Schedule.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana posted the matter for hearing on September 22. The CJI stated that the 7-judge bench will commence the hearing at 2 PM, so that the hearings of other regular matters can be done during the forenoon session.

The bench framed the issue in the case as follows - "Whether the imposition of a surcharge/additional tax/levy/cess, which is calculated on the basis of validly levied sales tax, is beyond the competence of the State Legislature?"

Krishna Janmabhoomi Case : Supreme Court Plans To Remand To High Court Dispute Over Who Represents All Devotees

Case Details: Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and Ors. v. Anjuman Islamia, Committee of Shahi Masjid Idgah and Ors. | Diary No. 61169-2025 Xi

In the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute, the Supreme Court orally indicated that it will remand the matter to the Allahabad High Court because the notice was not issued to all plaintiffs before deciding who represents the devotees of Lord Krishna.

The Supreme Court is hearing theappealfiled by plaintiffs in suit no. 1 (filed seeking the removal of the mosque from the contested site) challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision allowing the plaintiffsin suit no 17 to be treated as representatives of all devotees of Lord Krishna.

At the outset, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva asked Senior Advocate Shyam Divan(for the plaintiffs) if there is any development on the discussion regarding some settlement going on between the plaintiffs.

Supreme Court Allows NGO To Approach Govts With Plea Seeking Balanced Demolition Policy Ensuring Shelter Rights' Protection

Case: Centre For Law and Good Governance v. Union of India and Others | WP(C) 984/2026

The Supreme Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation alleging disparity in judicial and administrative approaches to the demolition of unauthorized structures.

Observing that it was a policy matter, the Court declined interference, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Union, States and Union Territories to formulate or revisit policies.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a PIL filed by Centre for Law and Good Governance impleading the Union and all States as respondents. The petitioner highlighted cases where authorities had allegedly permitted unauthorized structures to remain for decades, provided civic amenities and collected municipal taxes, only to initiate demolition proceedings years later.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Hazaribagh Deputy Commissioner Vinay Kumar Choubey In Land Scam Case

Case Title – Vinay Kumar Choubey v. State of Jharkhand

The Supreme Court granted regular bail to former Hazaribagh Deputy Commissioner and suspended IAS officer Vinay Kumar Choubey in a cheating and corruption case concerning alleged illegal mutation of revenue records and encroachment of government and forest land in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi on July 31 allowed Choubey's appeal against the High Court order rejecting his bail plea and granted him regular bail.

The Court directed that the bail would be subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court. It also directed Choubey to appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing unless specifically exempted.

Allowing Legislative Wing Of A Political Party To Split & Topple Govt Makes Mockery Of Democracy: Shiv Sena UBT To Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (And Connected Case)

During the hearing of the Shiv Sena dispute, the Uddhav Thackeray faction told the Supreme Court that allowing the legislative wing of a political party to split, claim to be the party itself and ultimately facilitate the installation of a new government would make a “mockery” of democracy.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), raised the apprehension before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. The bench is hearing the petition filed by Uddhav Thackeray challenging the decision of the Election Commission of India that recognized the Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena and allowed it the use of the 'bow and arrow' symbol. Another plea filed by Uddhav Thackeray faction member Sunil Prabhu challenging the Maharashtra Speaker's refusal to disqualify MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction under the 10th Schedule was also listed before the bench.

During the hearing, the Court examined, among other issues, whether a split in the legislative wing of a political party can “percolate” into the primary political organization and thereby trigger the jurisdiction of the Election Commission under Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

State Can't Prolong Trial When Citizen Languishes in Jail: Supreme Court Slams Karnataka's 'Absurd' Prosecution Plan in UAPA Case

Case: Shahid Khan v. State of Karnataka | SLP(Crl) No. 6100/2026

The Supreme Court pulled up the State of Karnataka over its "absurd" prosecution plan in a UAPA case, observing that the State cannot have the “luxury of prolonging trial for years” while an accused remains incarcerated pending trial.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observations while hearing the bail plea of Shahid Khan, who has been in custody since September 22, 2022 in a case alleging a larger conspiracy involving members of the Popular Front of India to radicalise youth and engage in unlawful and violent activities.

The chargesheet invokes Sections 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, besides Sections 153A, 121A, 120B and 121 of the IPC.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With CBSE's Assessment Scheme For Gulf Students

Case Details: Adithian Rajmohan Nair & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court has disposed of abatch of petitions filed by Class XII students from Gulf countries challenging the Central Board of Secondary Education's (CBSE) special assessment scheme introduced after the cancellation of Board examinations in the West Asia region amid the prevailing war situation in the Middle East.

A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale declined to accept the petitioners' request to allow the affected students to appear for their examinations alongside students scheduled to take the compartment examinations.

The Court, however, took on record the CBSE's assurance that steps would be taken to enable the affected students to appear for a fresh examination at the earliest feasible opportunity.

'File Petition' : Supreme Court Declines Plea For Suo Motu Case Over BJP MP's Comments On Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose

The Supreme Court turned down a lawyer's plea to take suo motu cognisance of alleged derogatory comments by a BJP legislator against Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, and asked him to file an appropriate petition.

A lawyer requested the Chief Justice of India to take a suo motu case over the comments made by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Rajya Sabha member Nagendra Roy alias Ananta Maharaj.

Declining to take suo motu action, CJI Surya Kant asked the lawyer to file an appropriate petition. The Chief Justice said that suo motu actions are taken in exceptional cases where the affected parties are unable to approach the Courts.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear MP's Plea Against Police Use Of Facial Recognition & Biometric Surveillance Tools At Protest Sites

Case: A.A. Rahim M.P. v. Union of India, Diary No. 45049/2026

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a writ petition filed by Rajya Sabha CPI(M) MP AA Rahim against the deployment of facial recognition technology(FRT) and allied biometric-surveillance measures by police at protest sites.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana tagged the petition along with the other pending petitions concerning the student protests organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP).

Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petition was filed in the context of the Delhi police using digital tools for the surveillance of protesters at Jantar Mantar. She submitted that the services of two private entities, Aditya Infotech Ltd and Dimension NXG Pvt Ltd, are used, and that data was processed and stored in violation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Rahul Gandhi Moves Supreme Court Against Allahabad HC Orders For CBI, ED Verification Of Disproportionate Assets Complaint

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has approached the Supreme Court challenging the orders of the Allahabad High Court directing the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate to verify the allegations levelled by a BJP worker that Gandhi was holding assets disproportionate to his income.

The Congress leader has challenged the orders of the Allahabad High Court, which directed the CBI and the ED to verify the complaint raised by Karnataka-based BJP worker Vignesh Shishir. The High Court, in its order passed in May, observed,"It is expected that if the complaint of the petitioner has been received, the allegations of the complaints may be verified as per law. It is needless to say that the C.B.I. or E.D. may take appropriate steps which are permissible under the law."

The High Court then directed the agencies to apprise the Court of the progress. In thesubsequent order passed on July 20, the High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the CBI's affidavit, saying that it was not in terms of its earlier direction. The Court further observed that the ED has taken the required steps, and said that the ED can take the necessary legal action if it receives any information during the investigation. The High Court then posted the matter for further consideration on August 20.

'Quality Crisis In Consumer Commissions' : Supreme Court Flags Arrears, Seeks NCDRC President Report

Case: In Re Pay and Allowance of The Members of The U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission | W.P.(C) No. 1144/2021

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over delays in the disposal of consumer disputes, questioning the functioning of consumer commissions across the country and directing the President of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to submit a detailed report on the mounting pendency.

The matter came up before the court in a suo motu proceeding concerning the pay and allowances of members of consumer commissions. During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India raised concerns over what he described as the “very disturbing” state of affairs in the consumer redressal system.

CJI Surya Kant referred to a news report stating that a consumer case, filed in 2019, was listed only once in 2022 and had not received another hearing date even by the middle of 2026

Supreme Court Asks UPSC To Defer Odisha DGP Selection

The Supreme Court (August 13) directed the Union Public Service Commission not to finalise the selection of the Director General of Police of the State of Odisha till August 18, when a petition challenging the DGP selection process will be considered by the Court.

The Court asked the UPSC to defer the meeting, which was reportedly slated to happen that day, till the next hearing date.

Senior Advocate P Chidambaram mentioned before the bench led by the Chief Justice of India a Public Interest Litigation challenging the DGP selection process on the ground that it was being done in violation of the Supreme Court's directions in the Prakash Singh judgment.

Supreme Court Slams FSSAI For Opposing Warning Labels For High-Fat, Sugar & Salt Foods, Asks If It's Due To Industry Pressure

Case Details: 3s and Our Health Society v. Union of India and Anr | 15 Ma 1177/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

The Supreme Court (August 13) expressed strong displeasure at the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for not acting as per the Court's earlier suggestion to mandate Front-of-Package Labels on packaged food products warning about high sugar, fat or sodium content.

Instead of acting as per the Court's suggestion, the FSSAI came with a proposal to mention the daily recommended levels of consumption of sugar, salt and fat in packages.

The Court also criticised the stand of the Union that international standards cannot be applied in India, and asked whether India should remain underdeveloped.

Ready To Give Railway Concessions For Acid Attack Survivors In Patient Category : Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Atijeevan Society v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 30/2026, Diary No. 75359/2025

The Railway Board has principally agreed to formulate a policy to provide railway fare concessions to acid attack survivors travelling for medical treatment, the Centre told the Supreme Court.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana granted six weeks to the Union Government to place the draft policy on record.

“Learned ASG has informed us that a meeting was held and the Railway Board has principally agreed to formulate a policy. We grant six weeks to place the draft policy on record”, the Court said.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Challenging RTE Act Exemption To Madrasas, Vedic Pathshalas & Religious Education Institutions

Case Details: Pyare Zia Khan v. Union of India & Ors | Writ Petition (Civil) No.924/2026

The Supreme Court agreed to consider a public interest litigation challenging the validity of Section 1(4)&(5) of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which exempts minority institutions from its applicability.

As per Section 1(4), the application of the RTE Act will be subject to the rights of minorities guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution. As per Section 1(5), the Act does not apply to Madrasas, Vedic Pathsalas and educational institutions primarily imparting religious instruction.

The PIL has been filed by Pyare Zia Khan, who is the chairman of the Maharashtra State Minority Committee. He has argued that because the RTE Act doesn't apply to minority institutions, the Teachers' Eligibility Test(TET) also becomes inapplicable. The petitioner has prayed that the TET should be made mandatory and applicable to all schools under the RTE, irrespective of whether it is a minority school, Madrasas, Vedic Pathsalas or institutions imparting religious instruction.

Supreme Court Warns Against Fake Websites Impersonating Its Official Website

The Supreme Court of India has issued a fresh public notice warning the public against a fraudulent website allegedly impersonating the Court's official online presence and being used for targeted phishing.

In the advisory dated August 13, the Supreme Court Registry identified sp-court-in.com as a newly detected fraudulent domain designed to mimic the official website of the Supreme Court of India. The notice cautioned that cybercriminals operating through the fake website could attempt to deceive users into sharing sensitive personal information and confidential credentials.

The Registry warned that such disclosures could facilitate the theft of personal and financial data. It urged members of the public and other stakeholders to exercise caution while accessing websites or electronic communications claiming to be associated with the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Declines Plea Seeking Regulation Of AI Use By Central And State Governments; Asks Centre To Consider Representation

Case Title – Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea seeking judicial guidelines to regulate the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by the Union and State Governments, including safeguards for high-risk AI systems used in areas such as welfare, policing, surveillance and content moderation.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that the issue falls within the policy domain and asked the Centre to consider a representation already made by the petitioner on the issues.

The petition sought a declaration that unregulated deployment of AI in governance and surveillance without a statutory framework, mandatory human oversight and a guaranteed right to explanation violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

Shiv Sena Dispute | If ECI Considers Events After Symbol Application, It Will Encourage Defections: Sibal Tells Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (And Connected Case)

In the Shiv Sena matter, the Uddhav Thackeray faction argued before Supreme Court that taking into account events after the splinter group has filed an application before the ECI claiming the party symbol can encourage defection and defeat the purpose of the anti-defection law (10th Schedule).

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the Uddhav faction, recalled the Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya case pertaining to the 2003 split in the Bahujan Samaj Party. He pointed out that initially only 13 MLAs had defected to the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led Samajwadi Party. But as the then Speaker kept the disqualification petitions pending, more MLAs defected and finally when the number reached 37 (1/3rd majority), the Speaker passed an order recognizing the "split".

Ultimately, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court set aside the Speaker's decision and noted that the defection of the first 13 MLAs did not cross the majority threshold so as to be recognized as a split. Underlining the legal principle discernible from the case, Sibal said that nothing that happens after the first defecting action can be taken into account to recognize a split. "You can't have a 'snowballing of legislators' to make up the 1/3rd [majority]", Sibal quoted from the case.

CJI Surya Kant Disapproves BCI Action Against NALSAR Students, Says They Have Right To Protest

Case: Mihira Sood and Another v. Bar Council of India and Others

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the directions issued by the Bar Council of India Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra (which were later withdrawn by him) to stop the enrollment of the students of the NALSAR University over a protest campaign against the Chief Justice of India.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said students have a right to peacefully protest and questioned the BCI's role in the matter.

"BCI is unnecessarily taking action. If the students have a cause to protest, they have the right to protest. Students might have written a letter to me. It's a dialogue between students and me. Who are they (BCI) to unnecessarily raise an issue? This is totally uncalled for. BCI has nothing to do with this," CJI said.

Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Judgment Quashing Compassionate Appointments For Karur Tragedy Victims

Case Details: Prabakaran Selvakumar and Anr. v. Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan and Ors | Diary No. 46173-2026

The Supreme Court (August 14 stayed theMadras High Court's order,which struck down a Government Order(GO) passed by the Tamil Nadu government, granting compassionate appointments to victims' families in the Karur stampede tragedy.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petition filed by the State and others challenging the High Court's judgment

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi,Senior Advocate Mukul Rohagti and Advocate Vrinda Bhandari appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu. Singhvi submitted, "If the State wants to give out [compassionate appointment] out of killings as a policy decision under Article 162, how can the High Court interfere? There is no quashing sought of my circular, no challenge in the petition to my circular. In employment, can you file a PIL [by a lawyer]?

Jantar Mantar Protest: Plea In Supreme Court Seeks SIT Probe Into Incidents Of Gender-Based Violence By Police Personnel, Vigilantes

The Supreme Court agreed to list a plea seeking a Special Investigation Team probe into incidents of targeted gender violence against participants and witnesses of the July 30 'Sansad Chalo' protest at Jantar Mantar, Delhi.

Mentioning the matter before the Chief Justice of India, Advocate T Bhalla, for the petitioners, said there was an “urgency” in view of continuing incidents of vigilantism, along with threats of rape and abduction.

"The urgency is continuous acts of vigilantism, threats of rape and abduction. We have already put videos on record. Some videos have come to our notice after filing the petition, which are so bad that I can't even probably mention in open court," the counsel submitted.

Supreme Court Quashes Hate Speech Case Against Rahul Gandhi Over Comments Against Savarkar Due To Absence Of UP Govt Sanction

Case Details: Rahul Gandhi v. State of U.P. and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 6196/2025

The Supreme Court quashed a private criminal complaint pending in Uttar Pradesh against Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition, accusing him of spreading communal disharmony by defaming right-wing ideologue VD Savarkar.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu quashed the proceedings after noting that no sanction has been granted by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the prosecution.

Gandhi was challenging the summoning order passed by the trial court to face trial for the offences under Sections 153-A (promotion of enmity between groups) and 505 of the Indian Penal Code. He approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the proceedings.

Supreme Court Affirms Quashing Of FIR Against Andhra CM Chandrababu Naidu & Ex-Minister Over Amaravati Land Pooling

Case: Alla Rama Krishna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 14193/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment which quashed the 2021 criminal case against Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and former minister Ponguru Narayana in connection with alleged irregularities in the land pooling scheme for Amaravati.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana refused to entertain the challenge made by Alla Rama Krishna Reddy, former YSRCP MLA, against the July 15 judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which quashed the proceedings against Naidu and Narayana.

The bench, while refusing to interfere with the quashing of the case against them, clarified that the High Court's judgment will have no bearing on other cases, which should be determined on their own independent merits.

Supreme Court Allows Declaration Of Delhi Bar Council Election Results, Directs To Preserve Records & CCTV Footage

Case Title – Rudra Vikram Singh v. Bar Council of Delhi

The Supreme Court allowed the Bar Council of Delhi election results to be declared with a caveat that the results will remain subject to outcome of the cases pending before Election Tribunals.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana referred all BCD election disputes to the Election Tribunals, including those which were constituted by the Court.

The order was passed considering that the Court had already relegated election disputes of other State Bar Councils to Election Tribunals headed by former judges of the Supreme Court and there was no reason to treat the BCD differently.

Supreme Court Quashes FIRs Against Samay Raina & Others Over Disability Jokes, Appreciates Their Efforts To Make Amends

Case Title: M/S. Cure SMA Foundation of India v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 460/2025

The Supreme Court quashed the FIRs against comedian Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Tanwar over making insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order after noting that the comedians had taken several efforts aimed at making amends and promoting awareness and dignity for persons with disabilities.

The bench noted the respondents organised a chess tournament for specially abled persons from March 14 to 16, 2026. The event received widespread media coverage and helped raise awareness about organisations working with persons with disabilities, including those supporting people affected by Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). Donations were also made to organisations working for the community.

'Please Think Of Peace Now': Supreme Court Asks Kuki, Meitei Groups To Furnish Proposal To End Manipur Highway Blockades

Case: Kuki Women Organization For Human Rights, A Wing of Kuki Organization of Human Rights Trust (Kohur) and Anr. v. State of Manipur and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 961/2026

In a plea seeking removal of blockade over National Highway 2 in Manipur, the Supreme Court called on two organizations representing the Kuki and Meitei groups to furnish proposals for clearing of blockades across all highways in the state.

Calling on the parties to "think of peace now" and not take the case as "adversarial litigation", the Court further impleaded the National Highways Authority of India, which maintains the national

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.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Enquiry Into How BCI Chairman Issued Orders Against NALSAR Students

Case Title – Mihira Sood and Anr. v. Bar Council of India and Ors.

Two NALSAR University of Law alumni have approached the Supreme Court seeking an enquiry into the manner in which Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued letters directing the university to identify students involved in a campaign against the invitation to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to its convocation, and barring enrolment of students belonging to the 2026 graduating batch of the university.

The BCI Chairman himself had later withdrawn the orders. The petitioners ask if there was a proper Council meeting authorising the BCI Chairman to issue the directions.

The petition contends that participation in a student campaign is not one of the grounds under the Advocates Act, 1961 to deny enrolment.

Former SC Judge Moves Supreme Court Against Rajasthan HC Calling Tribunal Headed By Him 'Lethargic', Reducing Arbitral Fee

Case: Deepak Verma and Ors. v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors., Diary No. 44902-2026

Former Supreme Court judge-Justice Deepak Verma has approached the Supreme Court against a Rajasthan High Court order which criticized a Arbitral Tribunal headed by him as "lethargic".

For context, a Single Judge of the High Court passed an order on May 27 directing a 5% cut in the arbitral fees already paid, observing a lack of procedural discipline in the arbitration and defeat of the legislative intent of timebound redressal.

Besides Justice Verma, the Tribunal comprised retired High Court judges Dinesh Chandra Somani and N Kumar, who are also petitioners before the Supreme Court. The matter is listed before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Term Limit For Bar Council Chairperson, Review Of BCI's Functioning

Amidst the immense public backlash faced by the present BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra over his directions passed against the NALSAR 2026 graduates, a writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the provisions which allow the perpetual continuance of the same individuals at the top posts of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils.

The petitioner, Advocate M Varadhan, contended that prolonged continuance of elected representatives, delayed elections and the absence of cumulative tenure limits have weakened the democratic and representative character of the statutory bodies.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, has challenged the manner in which Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961, permitting members of the BCI to continue in office “until his successor is elected”, has operated when elections are delayed. The petitioner contended that a provision intended to prevent an institutional vacuum cannot be used to facilitate indefinite continuation of incumbents.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea To Ensure Social Media Intermediaries Remove Child Sexual Exploitation & Abuse Materials

Case Details: Just Rights For Children Alliance and Anr. v. S. Harish and Ors | Diary No. 41028-2026

The Supreme Court (August 14) issued notice to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Law and Justice on an application seeking mandatory reporting of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material(CSEAM) by social media intermediaries.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice in an application filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance(JRCA) and the Bachpan Bachao Andolan. It also allowed the petitioners to move an application for impleadment of the concerned intermediaries, and also to further ensure implementation of the September 23, 2024 directions in the main petition.

The present application has been filed by the JRCA in the wake of a media report alleging that social media intermediary Instagram has carried out paid advertisements promoting CSEAM. It is urged in the application that the report raises serious concerns over compliance with the Supreme Court's earlier directions and the statutory obligations of the intermediaries.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking National Fire & Life Safety Framework For High-Risk Public Premises

Case Title – Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court (August 14) dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to the Centre and States to frame a National Minimum Fire and Life Safety Compliance, Audit, Disclosure and Accountability Framework for high-risk public occupancy premises, including schools, coaching centres, hostels, hotels, restaurants, marriage halls, malls, cinemas, hospitals etc.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the matter.

The petition was filed a month after the June 3, 2026 fire incident at the Flourish Stay bed-and-breakfast facility in Delhi's Hauz Rani area near Max Hospital, in which 23 people were killed. The five-storey premises, which had been licensed as a six-room B&B, was allegedly operating with more than two dozen rooms and did not have a mandatory fire NOC. As per news reports, investigators found that the building had sealed windows, a single entry-exit point and blocked roof access which may have hampered evacuation, and other alleged fire-safety and building violations.

Jantar Mantar Protests : PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Proper Investigation Of Delhi Police FIRs

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking to restrain interference with police investigation into the FIRs registered following the Jantar Mantar student protest of July 20.

It may be recalled that the July 20 'Sansad Chalo' demonstration was called by the Cockroach Janta Party over NEET paper leaks and alleged irregularities in the education system. In its aftermath, multiple FIRs were registered by Delhi Police against protesting students and others over alleged violence.

After massive public outrage, on August 3, the Supreme Court clarified that authorities may close/withdraw FIRs registered against students in relation to the protests. The withdrawal of said FIRs was a pre-condition agreed to by the Union during negotiations with the CJP leaders to end the nationwide protests.