Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: February 16, 2026 To February 22, 2026

JudgmentsPost-Bail Conduct Not Valid Consideration In Appeal Against Grant Of Bail : Supreme CourtCase Details: Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 158The Supreme Court observed that the conduct of an accused after a grant of bail cannot be a valid consideration while deciding an appeal against a grant of bail.“…post-bail conduct is never a valid consideration while dealing with an appeal against grant of bail, and such conduct is only relevant in an application for cancellation of bail.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, while setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which granted an anticipatory bail to an absconding accused.Against the High Court's order, the complainant moved to the Supreme Court.Regularisation Can't Be Denied To Casual Workers If Other Similarly Situated Daily Wagers Were Regularised : Supreme CourtCase Details: Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 159Applying the principle of parity, the Supreme Court has regularized the services of four sweepers, noting that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently once regularisation has been granted to others who are similarly situated.A Bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, holding that it had erred in declining to interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's refusal to regularise the appellants' services, despite the appellants having performed work of a perennial nature for more than a decadeBriefly put, the appellants were engaged between 1993 and 1998 as sweepers and a cook in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior. Their engagement followed Employment Exchange sponsorship and interviews, and they continued working for several years on a daily-wage basis.'Court Cannot Compel Any Woman To Complete Pregnancy': Supreme Court Allows Termination Of Minor's 30-Week PregnancyCase Details: A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra | SLP(C) No. 4774/2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 160Observing that a Court cannot compel a woman, much less a minor, to continue an unwanted pregnancy, the Supreme Court permitted the medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a girl who had become pregnant while she was a minor.A Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that reproductive autonomy of the pregnant girl must be given due weight, particularly in circumstances where she has clearly expressed her unwillingness to continue the pregnancy.In its order, the Court observed that what required consideration was the right of the minor child to continue the pregnancy, which, on the face of it, was “illegitimate” as she herself was a minor and was facing the pregnancy due to an unfortunate situation arising from a relationship. The Bench clarified that the issue was not whether the relationship was consensual or the result of sexual assault."what has to be considered in the instant case is the right of the minor child to continue a pregnancy which is ex facie illegitimate in as much as she is a minor and has to face this unfortunate situation of having the pregnancy owing to a relationship that she had.Condonation Of Delay Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right; Entirely Court's Discretion : Supreme CourtCase Details: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High SchoolCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 161The Supreme Court has reiterated that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it was entirely the discretion of the Court.The Court made this observation while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Odisha as time-barred.In the judgment, the Court pulled up the State of Odisha for its lethargic approach in filing a time-barred appeal with a substantial delay of four months, rejecting the State's plea for condonation that was founded on a weak and routine excuse of procedural delay in securing approval from higher authorities.Punjab Regional Town Planning Act | Illegal 'Change Of Land Use' Permission Can't Be Post Facto Legalised : Supreme CourtCase Details: Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (With Connected Matters)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 162The Supreme Court has observed that the 'Change Of Land Use' permission granted under the Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act without legal authority on the date of its issuance, cannot be rendered lawful by a later, ex post facto approval, unless the statute expressly provides for such retrospective validation.A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling that had validated an ex post facto approval issued by the Town and Country Planning Department, which permitted conversion of land in Sangrur district, Punjab, from a rural agricultural zone to an industrial zone for the establishment of a cement...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: February 16, 2026 To February 22, 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags