Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: February 9, 2026 To February 15, 2026

₹2 Crore Compensation For Faulty Haircut Unjustified : Supreme Court Asks ITC Maurya To Pay 25 Lakhs To Model

Case Details: ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 129

The Supreme Court set aside the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) order, which had directed the ITC Maurya Hotel, New Delhi, to pay Rs. 2 Crore compensation to a Model for a faulty haircut.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan noted that the NCDRC failed to assess how the respondent suffered a loss to the tune of ₹2 Crore. The Court pointed out that a general discussion on the loss, without sufficient proof of the loss, cannot justify payment of compensation, having a huge value.

It may be recalled that in 2023, the Supreme Court had set aside the compensation awarded by the NCDRC, holding that the respondent–model had failed to place material on record to substantiate her claim, and had remitted the matter to the NCDRC for fresh determination of the quantum of compensation.

Delay In Filing Appeals Under S. 74 Of 2013 Land Acquisition Act Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court

Case Details: Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/S S.V. Global Mill Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 130

The Supreme Court (February 9) held that a delay in filing an appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

“Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not bar the application of Section 5 of the 1963 Act.”, the court held.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SC Sharma heard the batch of pleas where the controversy arose due to conflicting interpretations by various High Courts on whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, which provides 60 days to file an appeal, extendable by another 60 days, impliedly excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which empowers courts to condone delay on showing sufficient cause.

Grant Of Bail Should Not Be Subject To Deposit Of Money : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Details: Prantik Kumar & Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.4297/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 131

The Supreme Court reiterated that when Courts grant regular or anticipatory bail, it should not be subject to the deposit of any amount. In this case, the Court set aside the conditional bail orders passed by the Jharkhand High Court and ordered that, in the event of arrest, the accused persons shall be released on bail. It also asked the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the place before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.

As per the brief facts, the two accused persons, father and son, were denied anticipatory bail by the High Court in a cheating case. The complaint alleged that the accused persons failed to make a payment of Rs. 9,00,000 after purchasing craft papers from him. A first information report was lodged, and anticipating arrest, the accused persons applied to the Sessions Court for bail but were denied. Pursuant to which, they approached the High Court, which passed two orders directing them to file a supplementary affidavit showing that a payment of Rs. 9,12,926.84 has been made to the complainant. Subsequently, the accused persons sought time, and the High Court passed another order granting them time.

In both orders, dated January 13, 2025, and November 14, 2025, the High Court observed that if the affidavit showing payment is not filed, the anticipatory bail application will be dismissed without further reference.

Supreme Court Expresses Reservations About CB Judgment That 'Loss Of Love & Affection' Can't Be Separately Compensated In Motor Accident Claims

Case Details: v. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 132

The Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the Constitution Bench ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which excludes non-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation of “love and affection” as a separate head while determining compensation in motor accident cases.

A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma observed that while it remains bound by the Constitution Bench decision, it harbours unease with that aspect of the ruling which holds that the loss suffered due to deprivation of love and affection in fatal road accident cases cannot be awarded separately while computing compensation.

In Pranay Sethi, it was held that non-pecuniary damages should be awarded only under three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It disapproved the grant of damages for "loss of love and affection" under a separate head.

High Courts Cannot Nullify Arbitral Proceedings While Appointing Substitute Arbitrator : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 133

The Supreme Court observed that it is impermissible for the High Courts to interfere with an arbitration proceeding while deciding an application seeking a substitution of an arbitrator.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan set aside a Bombay High Court order that had declared arbitral proceedings a nullity while considering an application for substitution of an arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court said that “the proper and legal course for the High Court acting under Section 15(2) of the Act, 1996, should have been to appoint a substitute arbitrator to continue from the existing stage of the proceedings.”, and not to assume and exercise power which has clearly not been conferred by the Act, 1996, more particularly, wherein the statute itself envisages minimal judicial intervention.

Supreme Court Approves Assam Govt Mechanism To Evict Encroachers From Forest Lands

Case Details: Abdul Khalek v. State of Assam | SLP(C) No. 23647-23648/2025 and Connected Matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 134

The Supreme Court, on February 10, modified the order of the Gauhati High Court in terms of the latest affidavit filed by the State of Assam on the mechanism adopted in carrying out large-scale encroachment drives in Doyang, South Nambar, Jamuna Madunga, Barpani, Lutumai and Gola Ghat reserved forests in Assam.

As per the affidavit, after eviction notices are issued, it goes before a Joint Committee of forest and revenue officials. The committee is authorised to give a hearing to the occupants in order to adduce evidence. The action for removal is taken only once it is established that there has been an encroachment. A period of 15 days' notice is given through speaking orders to vacate the unauthorised occupation.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe has directed that the status quo be maintained till speaking orders are passed and till expiry of 15 days.

Civil Suit Alleging Coercion, Undue Influence Cannot Be Rejected At Threshold Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC : Supreme Court

Case Details: J. Muthurajan & Anr. v. S. Vaikundarajan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 135

The Supreme Court (February 10) observed that a civil suit cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC merely because it contains a ground of coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the concurrent findings of the Madras High Court and the Trial Court, which rejected the Appellant's civil suit at the threshold terming it to be an abuse of process of law merely because the suit alleged inequitable partition of the immovable property on the grounds of coercion, undue influence, and misrepresentation.

“The grounds of coercion, undue influence and more importantly misrepresentation, resulting in an inequitable partition, cannot be peremptorily rejected while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Quashes Charges Under SC/ST Act Against Vyapam Whistleblower Dr Anand Rai

Case Details – Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 136

The Supreme Court quashed the charges framed against Dr.Anand Rai, whistleblower in the Madhya Pradesh VYAPAM examination scam, in a case over alleged caste-based violence.

"We have discussed the scope of the SC/ST Act and the action is not in accordance with law. Appeal allowed," the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh allowed Dr. Rai's appeal against the MP High Court order upholding framing of charges in a caste-based atrocities case arising out of alleged violence and abuse against an MP, MLA and government officials during a rally. Dr. Rai is an ophthalmologist from Madhya Pradesh who is one of the whistleblowers in the VYAPAM examination scam.

CrPC Jurisprudence On Discharge & Framing Of Charges Continues Under BNSS : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 136

The Supreme Court has observed that the substantive legal standards governing discharge and framing of charges at the pre-trial stage under the Code of Criminal Procedure continue unchanged under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS). However, the BNSS introduces regulatory discipline by prescribing sixty-day timelines for filing discharge applications and for courts to frame charges.

“What the BNSS does is to change the procedural setting within which this discretion is exercised. The new statute introduces express timelines for the filing of discharge applications and for the framing of charges, and it expressly recognises the possibility of the accused being heard or examined through electronic means. These changes are regulatory in nature. They are aimed at structuring the process and reducing delay, not at transforming the judicial task itself. The Court's obligation to apply its mind to the record, to hear both sides, and to record reasons where discharge is ordered remains exactly as before, as does the caution against weighing evidence or conducting a mini trial at these preliminary stages.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh.

The observation came while hearing an appeal against the MP High Court's decision which, while hearing a statutory appeal under Section 14A of SC/ST Act, had upheld the framing of charges under SC/ST Act, despite the basic ingredients of intentional caste-based insult or intimidation remaining absent.

High Court Must Independently Apply Its Mind On SC/ST Act Charges In Appeal Under Section 14A : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 136

The Supreme Court has criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court's handling of a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act)( SC/ST Act), noting that despite the absence of the basic ingredients of the offence being met, i.e., intentional caste-based insult or intimidation, the High Court proceeded with the criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court held that while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, a High Court does not sit as a revisional or supervisory court but functions as a first appellate court. A mechanical affirmation of a Special Court's order, without independent scrutiny of the material on record, would amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction, the Court said.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh was hearing an appeal that arose from a November 15, 2022 incident during the unveiling of a statue of Bhagwan Birsa Munda at Bachhadapara in Madhya Pradesh. According to the prosecution, a large group allegedly associated with the JAYS organisation intercepted officials, pelted stones at vehicles, and assaulted personnel, resulting in injuries to a security official. Appellant-Dr. Rai was named as one of the accused.

Central Govt Employees Governed By CCS Rules Excluded From Payment Of Gratuity Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: N. Manoharan v. Administrative Officer & Anr. (With Connected Cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 137

The Supreme Court (February 11) held that the retired employees of the Heavy Water Plant (HWP), Tuticorin, functioning under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), are not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (PG Act), as they are Central Government servants governed by the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.

A Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti heard the matter, in which the appellants, retired employees of the Heavy Water Plant, challenged the computation of their gratuity under the CCS (Pension) Rules, contending that they would have been entitled to a higher amount had their gratuity been determined in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act. Thus, they demanded the payment of the differential amount.

The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority ruled in favour of the employees, holding that HWP qualified as an “industry” and therefore fell within the ambit of the PG Act. A Single Judge of the Madras High Court upheld this view.

Not For High Court To Re-Examine Answer Keys Even In Judicial Service Exams : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jharkhand Public Service Commisison v. State of Jharkhand | C.A. No. 001455 / 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 138

The Supreme Court directed the Jharkhand High Court to constitute an expert committee to re-examine the correctness of 3 questions that appeared in the State Civil Judges (Junior Division) Exams. The Court partly set aside the impugned High Court order which found the answers to some of the questions to be incorrect.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria was hearing a plea by Jharkhand Public Services Commission (JPSC).

The JPSC has challenged the High Court's order, which allowed a writ petition challenging the correctness of answers to 3 questions in the exams for the appointment of Civil Judges (Junior Division).

Supreme Court Issues Directions To HCs To Ensure Disclosure Of Necessary Information In Bail Applications

Case Details –Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 139

The Supreme Court issued directions to the High Courts to ensure that bail applications disclose certain necessary details.

The Court directed that the applications should ordinarily reflect the following particulars:

(A) CASE DETAILS

Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal Of Telangana Court Staff Over Forgery Charge, Orders Reinstatement

Case Details: K. Rajaiah v. High Court For The State of Telangana | SLP(C) No. 11965/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 140

The Supreme Court (February 11) passed an order for the reinstatement of a Subordinate Officer in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, who was dismissed from service on charges of forgery. Reinstatement must be with all consequential benefits, including all arrears of salary and ammoluments within three weeks.

The appellant had submitted a medical certificate to justify his unauthorised absence from service for a few days, but the doctor who had apparently issued it claimed it was fabricated. Upon departmental inquiry, the charges of misconduct and unbecoming of a government servant were proven, and the appellant was dismissed from service.

"For the reasons stated above, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 12-02-2024 and the petition 40486 of 2021, and allow the appeal. Consequently, the order of dismissal from service dated 13-11-2018 and the order of the appellant authority dismissing the appeal dated 8-1-2021 will all stand set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, including all arrears of salary and ammoluments since the non-employment was not due to the appellant's fault."

'Most Shocking & Disappointing', Supreme Court Raps Allahabad High Court For Unreasoned Bail In Dowry Death Case

Case Details: Chetram Verma v. State of U.P.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 141

The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Allahabad High Court for passing an unreasoned bail order in a dowry death case without advertence to the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding bail applications.

The High Court had granted bail to the husband of the deceased victim by merely recording in the order sheet his period of incarceration, and absence of a criminal history, which the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan described as one of the "most shocking and disappointing orders that it has come across over a period of time."

“We fail to understand on plain reading of the impugned order as to what the High Court is trying to convey. What weighed with the High Court in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused for the purpose of grant of bail in a very serious crime like dowry death. What did the High Court do? All that the High Court did, was to record the submission of the defense counsel and thereafter proceeded to observe that the accused was in jail since 27.07.2025 and there being no criminal history, he was entitled to bail. Accordingly, bail came to be granted.”, the court noted.

Supreme Court Upholds NCLAT Order Directing NBCC To Complete Stalled Supertech Housing Projects

Case Details: Apex Heights Pvt. Ltd. v. Ram Kishor Arora C.A. No. 2626/2025 and Connected Cases.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 142

The Supreme Court upheld the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal directing State-owned NBCC to expeditiously complete 16 stalled housing projects of debt-ridden real estate developer Supertech Limited.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi affirmed the NCLAT's December 12, 2024 order, which had brought NBCC on record for completion of the projects in the interest of homebuyers.

“We find that the order passed by the NCLAT on December 12, 2024, in bringing the NBCC on record for the completion of the pending housing projects is neither unfair nor contrary to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC),” the Court noted in its order. In February 2025, the Court had stayed the NCLAT order.

Supreme Court Lifts Ban On Anurag Thakur From BCCI

Case Details: Board of Control For Cricket In India v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors. | C.A. No. 4235/2014

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 143

The Supreme Court lifted the ban imposed on BJP Leader Anurag Thakur from holding office in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application by BJP MP Anurag Thakur seeking the lifting of the ban which was imposed as per paragraph 25 (ii) of the 2017 Supreme Court Order.

In 2017, the bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur removed BCCI President Anurag Thakur and Secretary Ajay Shirke for continued defiance regarding the implementation of the Lodha panel reforms. Direction (ii) of the Court's 2017 order said : BCCI President Anurag Thakur and Secretary Ajay Shirke shall forthwith cease and desist from any work of the BCCI

Noting that Thakur has already tendered an unconditional apology, the bench observed that the ban was not intended to be life long ban. Applying the principle of proportionality, the bench has recalled the said direction.

UPSC Can Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against States Failing To Give Timely Proposals For DGP Appointments: Supreme Court

Case Details: Union Public Service Commission v. T Dhangopal Rao | SLP(C) No. 004668 - / 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 144

The Supreme Court emphasised that State Governments should not delay sending proposals to the Union Public Service Commission for the appointment of Director General of Police.

Disapproving of the trend of appointment of 'Acting DGPs' in some states, the Court authorised the UPSC to send reminders to the States for sending proposals for DGP appointments. If there is a default by the States, the UPSC will be at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings.

Substitution Of Arbitrator Is Not Mandatory On Termination Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Under S. 29A : Supreme Court

Case Details: Viva Highways Ltd v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 145

The Supreme Court clarified that there cannot be an automatic substitution of an arbitrator upon termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandate.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling, which had proceeded for a substitution of an arbitrator under Section 29A (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, upon termination of the mandate of an arbitrator under Section 29A (4) of the Act.

The controversy arose from the High Court's reliance on Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textiles, where the Supreme Court had observed that Section 29A(6) “empowers and obligates” the Court to substitute an arbitrator.

Not Answering Investigating Officer's Questions Doesn't Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation To Deny Bail : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shally Mahant @ Sandeep v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 146

The Supreme Court observed that bail cannot be refused solely on the ground that the accused declined to answer questions posed by the investigating officer, as such conduct cannot automatically be construed as non-cooperation.

“Not answering to the questions of the IO, would not ipso facto mean there is non-cooperation.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale.

The bench set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which declined to grant an anticipatory bail to the accused on parity, while granting bail to other co-accused in a case arising out of the same FIR alleging an offence of trespass, merely because the accused had not fully cooperated with the investigation.

Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Restricted Till Filing Of Chargesheet Ordinarily: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sumit v. State of Up and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 147

The Supreme Court has held that anticipatory bail cannot be mechanically restricted till the filing of the chargesheet and ordinarily continues without a fixed time limit unless special reasons are recorded.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court which had rejected a second anticipatory bail plea after earlier limiting protection only till the filing of the police report.

"The position of law is well settled: once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily continues without fixed expiry. The filing of a charge-sheet, taking of cognizance, or issuance of summons does not terminate protection unless special reasons are recorded," the Court observed.

Court's Permission Needed To Arrest Accused For Offence Added After Grant Of Bail : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sumit v. State of U P & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 147

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that an accused who is already on bail cannot be automatically re-arrested by the investigating agency merely because a new cognizable and non-bailable offence has been added in the charge sheet.

The Court clarified that the agency must first obtain an appropriate order from the court that granted bail before proceeding with the arrest in respect of the newly added offence.

“In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan.

Arrears Of Disability Pension Broad-Banding In Armed Forces Cannot Be Restricted To 3 Years Before Claim: Supreme Court

Case Details – Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 148

The Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal which had held that arrears of broad-banding of disability pension have to be paid from January 1, 1996 or date of retirement without restricting the claim to three years prior to filing of the application before AFT.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India against a Larger Bench decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The Larger Bench had held that under normal circumstances, arrears of broad-banding of disability pension are payable from January 1, 1996 or from the date of retirement or grant of disability pension, whichever is later, without restricting the claim to three years prior to filing of proceedings.

Supreme Court Laments Tribunal Writing Orders By Hand Despite E-Courts Project, Asks HC If Computer Wasn't Given

Case Details: National Insurance Company Ltd v. Rathlavath Chandulal and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 149

In a significant observation on judicial digitisation, the Supreme Court has expressed dismay that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal continued to write its orders by hand, despite the nationwide rollout of the e-Courts project.

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi noted that the entire order sheets of one MACT at Hyderabad were handwritten and in parts illegible. Notably, the award was passed in 2024.

“We are constrained to notice that on a perusal of the records sent by the Tribuna,we found that the entire order sheets were handwritten. This is despite the fact that the Government of India has spent thousands of crores of rupees in computerization of the Courts throughout the country. The e-Courts project was started way back in the year 2007 and we are running into third phase thereof. In that situation, we do not find any justification for the orders of the Tribunal to be handwritten, which otherwise are also not legible,” the Court said while deciding a claims appeal.

Supreme Court Permits Visually Impaired Candidates To Engage Scribes With More Than 10+2 Qualification For AIBE, CLAT Exams

Case Details: Yash Dodani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 150

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has permitted visually impaired candidates appearing for the AIBE and CLAT examinations to engage scribes possessing qualifications higher than 10+2, provided that such scribes are not law graduates.

Endorsing the suggestions put up by the petitioners, the bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria directed the Bar Council of India and Consortium of National Law Universities to implement the suggestions as early as possible, and notify them formally, well before the next examination is held.

“specially-abled candidates having visual impairment, who are appearing for the All India Bar Examination, are entitled to have the assistance of a scribe, who is undergraduate and is not pursuing the study of law or any other humanities course. This would necessarily mean that there is no bar on candidates for using a scribe who is possessing qualifications of more than 10+2 schooling.”, the petitioner's suggestion endorsed by the Court.

Post-Award Property Purchasers Have No Right To Resist Execution Of Arbitral Award : Supreme Court

Case Details: R. Savithri Naidu v. M/S Cotton Corporation of India Limited and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 151

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a transferee who purchases property from a judgment-debtor during the pendency of proceedings has no locus to resist or object to the decree passed in favour of the judgment-creditor.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti considered the matter, where the appellant, having purchased the property from Respondent No. 2 (the judgment-debtor) after an arbitral award had been passed in favour of Respondent No. 1, sought to resist the enforcement of that award.

The dispute traces back to a 1998 cotton supply agreement between Respondent No. 1, The Cotton Corporation of India Limited (CCI), and Respondent No.2-M/s Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles Limited. After non-payment of dues, CCI initiated arbitration proceedings in 1999. An arbitral award passed on June 11, 2001, directed the textile company to pay over ₹26 lakh with interest.

Telecom Spectrum Community Resource, IBC Can't Determine Its Ownership & Control : Supreme Court

Case Details – State Bank of India v. Union of India & Ors. With Connected Cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 152

The Supreme Court held that the ownership and control of telecom spectrum cannot be determined by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), since it is a common good.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar held that the spectrum is a material resource of the community in the Constitutional sense. Hence, the spectrum must benefit the common good, so its control has to be secured for the citizens.

"IBC cannot be the guiding principle for restructuring the ownership and control of spectrum," Justice Narasimha observed during the pronouncement.

Successive FIRs After Bail Only To Prolong Custody Abuse Of Process; Fit Case To Invoke Article 32 : Supreme Court

Case Details: Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 153

The Supreme Court has held that successive registration of FIRs to keep an accused in custody, despite the grant of bail, amounts to an abuse of process and warrants intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, alleging that the State had repeatedly invoked the criminal process to ensure that Petitioner No. 1 continued to “languish behind the bars,” even after bail was granted.

The controversy traces back to an FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi, on May 20, 2025, under provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the petitioner was being questioned in the First FIR, another FIR was registered by ACB Hazaribagh relating to the alleged mutation of forest land in 2010, i.e., after 15 years of the alleged time of the incident.

District Cricket Associations Must Voluntarily Adopt Good Governance, Not Bound By BCCI Constitution : Supreme Court

Case Details: Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association v. Anna Nagar Cricket Club & Anr. Etc.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 154

The Supreme Court encouraged district cricket associations to voluntarily adopt principles of good governance, including transparency in player selection, professionalism in administration, and elimination of conflicts of interest.

“it is open, rather necessary, for the State Association to initiate reforms to ensure that District Associations operate as professional, transparent, and in the best interests of the sport.”, observed the Court, emphasizing that “District Associations must volunteer to adopt reformative measures such as good governance, refined management, transparency, and the exclusion of conflicts of interest.”

A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made these observations while hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Madras High Court, which had extended the ratio of S. Nithya v. Union of India (2022), mandating, inter alia, compulsory inclusion of eminent sportspersons in athletics federations, to district-level cricket associations as well.

Supreme Court Doubts Judgment Allowing Cheque Case Complainant To File Appeal As 'Victim' u/s 372 CrPC; Refers To Larger Bench

Case Details: M/S Everest Automobiles v. M/S Rajit Enterprises

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 155

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether a complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[ Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita] without obtaining special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Everest Automobiles against M/s Rajit Enterprises, challenging a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated April 10, 2024.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), where a co-ordinate Bench held that a complainant in a Section 138 case is a “victim” and is therefore entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Court in that case further held that such an appeal against acquittal could be filed without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.

Bank's Internal Classification Of Debt As NPA Won't Determine Limitation Under IBC: Supreme Court

Case Details: B Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 156

The Supreme Court clarified that a bank's internal classification of a loan as a non-performing asset for accounting or provisioning purposes does not by itself determine the commencement of limitation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, especially where the debt has subsequently been restructured and acknowledged through fresh agreements.

The Court observed that the manner in which a bank reflects a debt in its balance sheet is not decisive for computing limitation. Where restructuring takes place and fresh working capital consortium agreements are executed acknowledging subsisting liabilities, such agreements effectively give the debt a “fresh lease of life”. In such circumstances, the later NPA dates arising from restructuring become relevant for calculating limitation.

A Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed an appeal filed by the suspended Managing Director of Metal Closure Pvt Ltd and upheld the maintainability of insolvency proceedings initiated by a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India.

Police Failure To Apply IPC Provisions Results In Acquittal Of Contractor for Stockpiling Decontrolled Cement : Supreme Court

Case Details: Manoj v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 157

The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a contractor accused of stockpiling cement meant for a public works project, holding that investigative lapses in failing to invoke IPC provisions against the contractor resulted in an untenable conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, since no statutory or regulatory control over cement existed at the relevant time.

“…in the absence of any subsisting statutory order under Section 3 of the E.C. Act on the date of the alleged occurrence, a conviction under Section 7 thereof is legally impermissible. That said, this was a case where the investigating agency ought to have invoked appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the evidence collected.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench order which upheld the trial court's decision to convict Appellants under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for alleged stockpiling the cement.

Absconding Accused Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail On Sole Ground Of Co-Accused' Acquittal : Supreme Court

Case Details: Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 158

The Supreme Court has held that the principle of parity cannot be invoked by an absconder who deliberately evades trial, to seek an anticipatory bail merely because a co-accused has been acquitted in a trial.

The Court observed that "granting the relief of anticipatory bail to an absconding accused person sets a bad precedent and sends a message that the law-abiding co-accused persons who stood trial, were wrong to diligently attend the process of trial and further, incentivises people to evade the process of law with impunity."

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi heard the case where the complainant was aggrieved by the MP High Court's Indore Bench order granting an anticipatory bail to the Respondent No.2-accused, who was declared an absconder, merely because the co-accused persons in the subject FIR were acquitted by the trial court.

Order and Other Developments

Lawyer Alleges Attack By Goons In Tis Hazari Court Before Judge; CJI Assures Action, 'Won't Accept Gunda Raj'

A lawyer mentioned before the Chief Justice of India that he was beaten up in a Courtroom in Tis Hazari Courts in Delhi last Saturday.

The lawyer said that while he was appearing in the Court of Additional District Judge Harjeet Singh Pal, on behalf of one accused, the complainant's advocate along with many goons entered the Courtroom, and in front of the Judge assaulted him and the other accused. The lawyer said that they locked the door of Courtroom from inside and unleashed violence right in front of the judge.

CJI Surya Kant asked why the lawyer was making an oral mention instead of making a written complaint to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. "Have you brought it to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justifce of the Delhi High Court? Why not make the mention before the head of the Delhi Judiciary? You want to mention before me so that media can catch up?" CJI Surya Kant asked.

'Balanced Order' : Supreme Court Affirms Madras HC Order Limiting Muslims' Worship At Thirupparankundram Hills In Tamil Nadu

Case Details: M. Imam Hussain v. Secretary To Government and Ors. | Diary No. 73933-2025

The Supreme Court (February 9) refused to interfere with the judgment passed by the Madras High Court, holding that Muslims have no right to conduct any prayers except during Ramzan and Bakri-Id at the Nellithoppu area, the 33 cent of which is owned by the Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah atop the Thiruparankundram hills in Madurai District in Tamil Nadu.

The High Court, in its judgment delivered in October 2025, had also ruled that animal sacrifice cannot be permitted in the area.

Challenging the High Court's verdict, one M. Imam Hussain, a worshipper at the Dargah, approached the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale however refused to interfere with the High Court's order, terming it balanced.

Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Bail Of Cardiologist Accused Of Performing Forced Angioplasties To Claim Govt Funds

Case Details: State of Gujarat v. Prashant Prakash Vazirani, SLP(Crl) No. 2133/2026

The Supreme Court refused to cancel the bail granted to a cardiologist accused of performing angioplasty upon healthy persons in a bid to get funds from the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) scheme for a private hospital.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar declined the Gujarat government's plea to cancel the bail of Prashant Prakash Vazirani, noting that he had already undergone pre-trial detention of 1 year.

Standing Counsel Swati Ghildiyal, for Gujarat, drew the Court's attention to the severity of the allegations, highlighting that 2 persons had died and the respondent was the main accused. "Now we will let him go...he is a doctor, a cardiologist, let them serve...you can keep a watch. If he's doing something, you can take recourse", responded Justice Maheshwari.

Kuldeep Sengar's Appeal In Unnao Victim's Father's Death Case Be Heard Out Of Turn : Supreme Court To Delhi High Court

Case Details: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 2204/2026

The Supreme Court requested the Delhi High Court to afford "out-of-turn" hearing to former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar's appeal challenging his conviction and 10-year sentence in the case related to the custodial death of Unnao rape victim's father. The Court observed that the appeal be decided within three months.

The Court also directed that the appeal filed by the victim seeking enhancement of sentence be also heard along with Sengar's appeal. The appeals by co-accused also have to be heard alongwith these matters.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the petition filed by Sengar challenging the Delhi High Court's order passed on January 19 refusing to suspend his sentence in the death case.

Sonam Wangchuk's Health Is Fine, Getting Best Treatment : Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The Supreme Court (February 9) was orally informed by the Union Government that no progress has been made in reviewing the detention of Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk, as he is in a "perfectly good" condition and is getting the best of the treatment in AIIMS Jodhpur, which he could not have gotten had he been in Ladakh. The Court, seemingly disappointed with the answer, reiterated the concern of Wangchuk's deteriorating health.

It may be recalled that the Court is hearing a habeas corpus petition, filed by Dr Gitanjali Angmo seeking to declare the detention of her husband, Sonam Wangchuk, under the National Security Act, 1980, as illegal.

Before a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale was to rise for lunch, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj sought an adjournment as he is engaged in another matter to be taken up post lunch. The bench was supposed to hear the matter at 2 pm.

Digital Arrest Scams | Banks Need To Alert Customers About Suspicious Transactions, Says Supreme Court During Hearing

Case Details: In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related To Forged Documents, Smw (Crl.) 3/20

The Supreme Court observed that the banks have the responsibility to develop mechanisms to alert the customers to stop large-scale transactions being undertaken by them after being duped by "digital arrest scams."

When a retiree, who withdraws only amounts in the range of 10,000 or 20,000, suddenly undertakes transactions in the range of 25 lakhs or 50 lakhs, the banks should issue an alert, the Court remarked.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the suo motu case taken on the issue of digital arrest scams.

Supreme Court Allows Shifting Of Himachal Pradesh Backward Classes Commission From Shimla To Dharamshala

Case Details: State of H P v. Ram Lal Sharma | SLP(C) No. 005202 - / 2026

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria was hearing the State Government's challenge to the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order, which stayed the State Government's decision to shift the office of the H.P. State Commission for Backwards Classes from Shimla to Dharamshala.

The High Court bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, while hearing a public interest litigation, passed an interim order. The bench observed that the decision required closer examination in light of administrative and financial implications.

Sr Advocate Madhavi Divan appeared for the state of Himachal Pradesh, and submitted that the decision to shift the commission was due to logistics, considering that Dharmashala has a larger complex to offer and also houses other important commissions.

Supreme Court Directs Extension Of West Bengal SIR Deadline, Clarifies Micro-Observers Can't Pass Orders

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025

The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions in relation to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in West Bengal.

The Court directed the State to make available to the Election Commission of India Group B officers for SIR duties, who can replace the micro-observers deployed by the Election Commission of India. The Court also clarified that final orders on claims and objections can be passed only by the Electoral Registration Officers (ERO), and that the micro-observers can only assist them.

The Court also directed the Director General of Police of the State to file a personal affidavit responding to the concerns raised by the ECI regarding failure to stop threats and violence against SIR officials.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Guidelines To Curb 'Constitutionally Unbecoming' Speeches By Ministers, Constitutional Functionaries

A group of twelve citizens, including former civil servants, diplomats, academicians, researchers, entrepreneurs, and members of civil society, have approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, flagging the speeches by the Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, and other constitutional functionaries as "derogatory and exclusionary."

The petitioners have referred to the comments of Assam CM on 'Miya Muslims'.

It is stated that the CM has previously termed citizens belonging to one community as responsible for rising prices of vegetables, causing "love jihad' and even 'flood jihad'. The petitioners allege that CM also went to the extent of saying that he wanted to remove four to five lakh voters belonging to that religious group from the electoral rolls.

'Won't Allow Any Impediment In Completion Of SIR, All States Must Understand ': CJI Surya Kant

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025

While hearing the West Bengal SIR matter, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant categorically said that the Court will not allow any impediment to be created in completion of ECI's special intensive revision of electoral rolls in any state.

"One thing, we would like to be very clear. Whatever orders, clarifications, interim directions may be required, we will have to issue. But we will not allow to create any impediment in completion of SIR. It must be very clearly understood by all the states," said the CJI.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was dealing with a bunch of petitions related to West Bengal SIR. After hearing a battery of lawyers, the bench passed a slew of directions and noted that micro-observers are there only to assist EROs/AEROs, and cannot take a final decision.

Supreme Court Declines To Entertain Plea Seeking Govt Approval For Institutions Imparting Religious Instruction To Children

Case Details – Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking direction to the Centre and States to register all schools and institutions imparting secular education and/or religious instruction to children up to the age of 14 years.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate authority.

“Before the court you have to show that you have approached the authority with the same prayer and the authority has either declined to consider or is sitting tight. You go to the authority, in the next round we will consider”, Justice Datta said.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Cancellation Of Land Allotment To Patanjali Foods In Telangana

Case Details – Patanjali Foods Limited v. Department of Horticulture

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by Patanjali Foods against the refusal of the Telangana High Court's Division Bench to stay a Single Judge order upholding the cancellation of its factory zone in Suryapet district.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan issued notice returnable in 4 weeks and directed the parties to maintain status quo in the meantime.

Patanjali Foods had been allotted areas in Nalgonda and Suryapet districts pursuant to the National Mission of Edible Oils – Oil Palm (NMEO-OP) scheme.

Supreme Court Bars High Courts From Hearing Cases Related To Tribunals On Issues Pending In SC

Case Details: Central Administrative Tribunal Bar Association Kolkata v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 662/2022

The Supreme Court (February 9) barred High Courts from hearing matters related to appointments and conditions of service of members of Tribunals, whether under State or Central laws, which are under consideration of the Supreme Court.

At the request of Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, the Court also transferred to itself petitions pending in the Kerala and Calcutta High Courts in relation to Tribuna appointments.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing an application against the Calcutta High Court's February 4 order which stayed the functioning of the CAT Circuit Bench, Port Blair. The High Court passed the order on the reasoning that the CAT Members ceased to hold office after theSupreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, last year.

West Bengal SIR | Justice Bagchi Expresses Reservations About ECI Software, Says Notice Sent Over Omission Of Middlename

Case Details: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025

In the West Bengal SIR matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court noted that the software being used by the Election Commission in the SIR process is causing notices to be sent to many voters over minor mismatches in names.

He cited instances of people getting notices over omission of 'Kumar' from their names, which is often the middle name in case of Bengal residents.

"The tools that you have applied in the software appear to be very restrictive. They are eliminating natural differences. Surnames are of various forms – Roy, Ray…there is a common practice of Kumar being a middle name in Bengali households. Now the omission of Kumar – a notice is being given...There may be logical discrepancy. But also, due to application of the software, there may be a much wider net to which notices are going…" said Justice Bagchi.

Communist Parties Move Supreme Court Seeking Action Against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma For Hate Speech

Case Details: Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Union of India Diary No. 8641/2026 and Annie Raja v. Union of India Diary No.8461/2026

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Annie Raja, a leader of the Communist Party of India (CPI), have approached the Supreme Court seeking action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over the comments made by him targeting a particular community.

Advocate Nizam Pasha mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant seeking urgent listing.

"We seek urgent intervention of this Court with respect to disturbing speeches made by the sitting CM of Assam, including a video posted where he is shown as shooting at members of a particular community. Complaints are filed, but no FIRs registered," Pasha submitted.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre, TN Govt On Plea For CBI Probe Into Universal Trading Multi-State Ponzi Scam

Case Details: Sureshkumar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition(S)(Criminal) No(S). 47/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu in a plea seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into an alleged Ponzi scheme run by the Universal Trading Solutions Private Limited, a Coimbatore-based company.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a writ petition filed by some depositors who lost their life-savings in the scheme. It is alleged that matter is an inter-State financial deposit scheme scam involving around 73,000 depositors who have lost over Rs.1000 crores.

According to the petitioners, the investigation being carried out by the Economic Offences Wing (EoW) of the Tamil Nadu police is contrary to Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act), as per which the investigation must be handled by the CBI.

Ensure Representation Of Marginalised Groups In Govt Advocates' Appointments : Supreme Court Requests MP Advocate General

Case Details: Obc Advocates Welfare Association v. State of Mp | SLP(C) No. 16512/2022

The Supreme Court disposed of a plea seeking reservation for advocates belonging to Other Backward Classes in appointments of government pleaders in Madhya Pradesh. While declining to issue binding directions in the absence of a statutory mandate, the Court through its order urged the Advocate General to ensure representation of lawyers from marginalised communities and women.

A Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing the petition, which alleged lack of adequate representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC advocates in appointments made by the Advocate General's office.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the recent round of appointments, not a single advocate from the Scheduled Tribe community had been selected, and only a limited number of Scheduled Caste candidates were accommodated. It was argued that the absence of representation in the Advocate General's office has long term implications for the legal profession, as government law officers often go on to be considered for elevation as judges.

Digital Arrests | MHA Proposes SOP Before Supreme Court, RBI To Consider Staff Accountability & Liability Framework

Case Details: In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related To Forged Documents, Smw (Crl.) 3/2025

In the suo motu case taken up by the Supreme Court over "digital arrest scams", the Ministry of Home Affairs has filed a status report proposing a Standard Operating Procedure to strengthen inter-agency coordination and ensure timely restoration of defrauded funds wherever possible.

It may be recalled that a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria is hearing the suo motu case. Pursuant to the Court's order, the MHA had constituted a High-level Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) to comprehensively examine all facets related to "digital arrests”.

Attorney General R Venkataramani informed that the 2nd meeting of the IDC took place on February 2, where various stakeholders informed about the key steps taken so far. As per the latest status report submitted before the Court, the following measures have been apprised by various agencies :

PIL In Supreme Court Challenges New Income Tax Law Allowing Search Of Digital Devices

Case Details: Vishwaprasad Alva v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 114/2026

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of powers conferred on Income Tax authorities under the Income Tax Act, 2025, which permit searches of “computer systems” and “virtual digital space”, including personal digital devices, cloud servers and electronic communications.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by entrepreneur Vishwaprasad Alva, assails Section 247 of the Income Tax Act, 2025, which is scheduled to come into force from April 1, 2026, along with corresponding provisions under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

The petitioner also challenges the clauses in Section 132 of the 1961 Act (Section 247 of the new Act) that permit search and seizure on the belief that a person “will not” or “would not” produce documents if summoned, or that assets “would not be disclosed” for tax purposes. According to the petitioner, these provisions create an “anticipatory search framework” where highly intrusive powers can be exercised without any existing violation of law.

Supreme Court Seeks Union & NMC Responses On Plea To Exclude Doctors From Consumer Protection Act

Case Details: Association of Healthcare Providers (India) v. Union of India and Ors.W.P.(C) No. 110/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and the National Medical Commission on a plea to declare that doctors will not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a writ petition filed by Association of Healthcare Providers (India).

The petitioner sought the following reliefs :

Supreme Court Refuses To Direct Disclosure Of Opposition Leader's Dissent Regarding CIC Appointments

Case Details: Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., Ma 1979/2019 In W.P.(C) No. 436/2018

The Supreme Court refused to direct the publication of the dissent note of the Leader of Opposition regarding the appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria did not accept the argument made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, on behalf of RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj, that the Opposition Leader's dissent must be published.

"We will not go into that part, there is no question of holding this kind of trial here," CJI Kant said. Bhushan asserted that the people have the right to know why the Opposition Leader dissented against the proposal(s) in the selection committee.

Supreme Court Asks ECI To Consider PIL Petitioner's Suggestions To Curb Election Expenses

Case Details: Prabhakar Deshpande v. Chief Election Commissioner of India | W.P.(C) No. 1290/2021

The Supreme Court urged the Election Commission of India to consider the suggestions put forth by a petitioner regarding measures to curb excessive election expenditures.

Observing that the suggestions given by the petitioner are "worth consideration", a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria disposed of a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Prabhakar Deshpande.

As soon as the matter was taken up, CJI Kant orally observed that the petitioner had raised a relevant issue. "The point is very interesting, but if we say something, it might be overreaching," CJI said. "It is for the Election Commission of India to lay down some guidelines. The petitioner has sought a comprehensive plan of action to curb excess election expenditure. Principally, we agree with that," CJI said.

Supreme Court Allows Provisional MBBS Seat To EWS Candidate, Rejects Contention That MP Govt Lacks EWS Quota Policy For Pvt Colleges

Case Details: Atharv Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 35993/2025

Invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directed the National Medical Commission and Madhya Pradesh government to grant provisional admission to a NEET-qualified candidate belonging to the Economically Weaker Section category.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria passed the order. It noted that the petitioner had qualified the NEET exam twice, but could not secure admission.

The petitioner Atharv Chaturvedi, appearing in person, approached the Court as he could not get EWS seat in private medical colleges since the State did not frame any policy to implement such reservation in private institutions. Earlier, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had declined his plea, noting that a similar petition was previously rejected, while giving 1 year's time to the State to enhance EWS seats in private medical colleges (which was not over).

Can Muslim Woman Invoke Khula & Terminate Marriage Without Husband's Consent? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details – X v. Y

The Supreme Court appointed Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam as amicus curiae in an appeal against a Kerala High Court judgment upholding a Muslim woman's right to pronounce khula and terminate marriage without the husband's consent.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran listed the case for hearing on April 22, 2026, noting that the case involves a question of Muslim Personal Law.

“List for hearing in the list of regular hearing matters on 22.04.2026. We request Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned senior counsel, to assist this Court in this matter, as it involves a question of Muslim personal law”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Seeks Responses From 17 States Over Delay In NIA Trials

Case Details: Md Heydaitullah v. National Investigation Agency | SLP(Crl) No. 8799/2025

The Supreme Court sought a response from the Chief Secretaries of 17 States/ UTs on the status of establishing Special NIA Courts, considering the increased pendency of NIA trials.

The bench CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria was hearing the issue of setting up a dedicated Special Courts for NIA trials, considering the backlog of cases before the district courts. Earlier, the Court had decided to examine the issue of pendency of trials under special statutes due to the lack of adequate special courts.

ASG Aishwarya Bhatti, appearing for the Union, informed the bench of the progress made with regard to designating special courts for NIA trials.

Supreme Court Orders Medical Stipend To Foreign Medical Graduates At Par With Indian Graduates

Case Details: Utkarsh Verma v. Aligarh Muslim University | W.P.(C) No. 000824 / 2025

The Supreme Court ordered that foreign medical graduates are liable to get a stipend at par with Indian medical graduates.

This order was passed by a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale, who were dealing with a writ petition filed by Indian citizens who have obtained foreign medical education from Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Russia and China.

They have completed their internship in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences in Jharkhand for the period June 2023 to June 2024.

Supreme Court Flags Insufficient Budgetary Allocation To Railways, Says Common Man's Safety Important

Case Details: Union of India v. Radha Yadav, Miscellaneous Application No.741-742/2019

The Supreme Court flagged insufficiency of budget allocation towards betterment of Railways in India and voiced its expectation for better budgetary allocation so that common man's safety is prioritized.

"Nothing is more important than the safety and security of the common man, who travels and reposes trust in the Railways and Railways is not an organization to make investment elsewhere", a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan observed.

Broadly, in the case concerned, the Court is considering the issue of safety in Railways under two heads - taking care of unmanned crossings and building of railway over-bridges and under-bridges, and 'Kavach', the automatic/automated safety system installed on rail tracks to prevent untoward incidents due to human error.

4 Assamese Individuals Approach Supreme Court Seeking FIR & SIT Probe Against CM Himanta Biswa Sarma For Hate Speech Offences

Case Details: Dr. Hiren Gohain and Others v. Union of India and Others.

Another writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking urgent intervention against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over a series of alleged hate speeches targeting a minority community in the State.

The petitioners include Dr Hiren Gohain, a retired professor and public intellectual; Harekrishna Deka, former Director General of Police of Assam; Paresh Chandra Malakar, Editor-in-Chief of Northeast Now; and senior advocate Santanu Borthakur. They contend that the Chief Minister has repeatedly made statements that incite discrimination, social and economic boycott and violence against Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam.

Advocate Rupali Samuel mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant seeking urgent listing. She requested that the petition be listed along with an earlier petition on the same issue, which the CJI agreed to list. Yesterday, thepetitions filed by CPI(M) and CPI seeking FIR and court-monitored SIT investigation against Sarma was mentioned before the CJI.

Beldanga Violence | Supreme Court Asks Calcutta HC To Examine If Invocation Of UAPA By NIA Is Justified

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Suvendu Adhikari | SLP(Crl) No. 2369/2026

The Supreme Court asked the Calcutta High Court to ascertain from the materials submitted by the National Investigation Agency(NIA) as to whether the invocation of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act(UAPA) was justified with respect to the Beldanga violence, which took place in January.

The Court directed the NIA to submit its materials before the Calcutta High Court in a sealed cover.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging an order passed by the Calcutta High Court on January 20 to the Centre to consider NIA probe invoking the power under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act.

'How Can A Woman Write Like This About Another Woman?' : Supreme Court Rebukes Lawyer For Post Against Rape Victim

Case Details: Deepa Joseph v. Home Secretary of State of Kerala | W.P.(Crl.) No. 50/2026

The Supreme Court came down heavily on a woman advocate for publishing a Facebook post targeting another woman, who is the complainant in one of the rape cases registered against Kerala Congress MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a writ petition filed by Advocate Deepa Joseph, apprehending arrest by the Kerala Police over her Facebook post.

At the very outset, the bench expressed its disappointment with the language and the tone of the post.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Safeguards Against Inadvertent TDS Default By Buyers In Property Purchases Above Rs. 50 Lakh

Case Details: Arun Singh v. Union of India

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking directions to introduce safeguards so that property buyers do not unknowingly default on their obligation to deduct and deposit tax at source while purchasing property valued at more than Rs. 50 lakhs.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.

Section 194IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requires a buyer of immovable property, other than agricultural land, where the sale consideration is Rs. 50 lakhs or more, to deduct tax at source at the rate of 1 per cent of the consideration payable to the seller.

Supreme Court Takes Note Of Fake MACT Claims With Insured Vehicles Planted In Accidents

Case Details: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tuni Pati & Ors.

The Supreme Court has raised concerns over what appears to be a “wide racket” involving alleged fraudulent motor accident claims, in which multiple stakeholders are suspected of colluding to use insured vehicles strategically to stage accidents and fabricate compensation claims.

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prasanna B. Varale heard a plea filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the Orissa High Court's order, challenging the award of compensation. The insurer contended that the claim was fraudulent, alleging that the same insured vehicle, already involved in four other accidents, had been deliberately projected as the offending vehicle to generate a claim.

The insurance company had argued that the vehicle in question was repeatedly being shown as the offending vehicle in multiple accident cases because it had valid insurance coverage. According to the insurer, such vehicles were allegedly being “planted” in claim petitions to ensure that compensation could be recovered from a solvent insurer.

Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case : Accused Tasleem Ahmed Moves Supreme Court Seeking Bail

Case Details: Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi | Diary No. 5434-2026

The Supreme Court (February 11) issued notice in a plea filed by Delhi riots larger conspiracy accused Tasleem Ahmed, challenging the Delhi High Court's order refusing to grant him bail.

As per the special leave petition, Ahmed has challenged the September 2, 2025, order passed by the Delhi High Court, which upheld the Trial Court's order denying him third regular bail.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale issued notice to the Delhi Police. In January, the Supreme Court had granted bail to five other accused in the case, while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

Sonam Wangchuk Can't Be Released On Medical Grounds, Nothing Alarming About His Health : Union To Supreme Court

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The Union Government told the Supreme Court that Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk cannot be released from detention on medical grounds.

Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, stated that the Union Government gave utmost consideration to the Court's request to review the detention of health grounds, but the Court's request could not be processed.

Before a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale, Mehta informed that Wangchuk has been examined 28 times as per the Jail Manual and he is "fit, hale and hearty". Mehta added that Wangchuk has developed some digestive issues, but he is being treated.

Supreme Court Stays Muslim Husband's Talaq-E-Hasan Divorce To Illiterate Wife; Couple To Remain Married Until Talaq Proven Valid

Case Details: Benazeer Heena v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 348/2022 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court stayed the operation of a talaq-e-hasan divorce given by a Muslim husband to his illiterate wife, noting that there were allegations of his obtaining her signatures on a blank paper and he did not appear to defend them.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order. When apprehensions were expressed by Senior Advocate MR Shamshad (appearing for respondents in a connected case), while pointing out that talaq-e-hasan is still a valid form of Muslim divorce, the CJI said that the Court was not rendering it invalid. The stay was necessitated in the case as the husband did not enter appearance and the wife had levelled serious allegations, the CJI said.

"As he (husband) has not come forward to deny the allegations, we stay operation of the alleged talaq-e-hasan resorted to by him for divorcing the petitioner. Having stayed that, we direct that parties shall be deemed to be a validly married couple unless husband comes forward and shows that valid talaq has been given. Concerned SHO to find out whereabouts of husband and ensure his presence before this court", the bench ordered.

Supreme Court Notifies New Senior Designation Guidelines; Point System & Interview Discarded

The Supreme Court has notified the “Guidelines for Designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India, 2026”, replacing the 2023 Guidelines in terms of the Court's decision dated May 13, 2025 in Jitender @ Kalla vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2025 INSC 667).

In Jitender@Kalla, the Supreme Court had disapproved of designating senior advocates on the basis of point-system and interviews, holding that it was unworkable. The point-system, based on parameters like years of practice, reported judgments, publications etc., were evolved to make the system more objective in terms of the directions in the Indira Jaising I and Indira Jaising II cases.

The new Guidelines were approved in a Full Court Meeting held on February 10, 2026 by the Chief Justice of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court.

'You Are Reading Too Much Into Sonam Wangchuk's Speeches' : Supreme Court To Centre, Questions Nexus With Ladakh Violence

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The Supreme Court continued hearing the habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, with the Bench remarking that the Union Government appeared to be “reading too much” into his speeches.

The matter is being heard by a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale on a petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo seeking to declare Wangchuk's detention illegal. The Court had urged the Centre to review the detention in view of Wangchuk's reported deteriorating health.

Centre: Health “Fine”, Grounds Sustain

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Karnataka's Appeal Against 2006 HC Verdict Striking Down Law To Regulate Hindu Religious Institutions

Case Details – State of Karnataka v. Sahasra Lingesshwara Temple

The Supreme Court reserved judgment in an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against a 2006 Karnataka High Court judgment which had struck down a 1997 law regulating Hindu religious institutions and charitable endowments across the State.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe reserved judgment.

The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 was enacted to consolidate and replace five earlier laws governing Hindu religious and charitable institutions in different regions of Karnataka.

Air India Plane Crash | 'Don't Go By Media Reports': Supreme Court Calls For Restraint On Comments Against Particular Brand Of Aircrafts

Case Details: Safety Matters Foundation v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No.53715/2025 (And Connected Cases)

In the Air India Plane Crash matter, the Supreme Court called on the Union of India to file within 3 weeks a report on the procedural protocol followed to enquire into the tragic accident, which claimed 260 lives.

During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant also suggested that the parties not be swayed by media reports on technical glitches in aircrafts, and further, exercise restraint in commenting on any particular brand of aircrafts.

"This very unfortunate accident...261 innocent lives [lost]...it's not a small tragedy for any nation. For a parent losing a pilot son like this, we can understand...we have fully sympathy with the father and we really do not know how he will be able to come out of such a shock and void created. But let us also be very very conservative in making observations against any particular brand of aircraft. There was a time Dreamliner was treated as one of the best and safest aircraft", the CJI orally opined.

Supreme Court Asks Tamil Nadu Govt To Give Details Of FIRs In Illegal Sand Mining Cases

Case Details: M.Lakshmanan v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 25765/2025

The Supreme Court called on the Tamil Nadu government to furnish details of all FIRs registered in relation to the alleged Rs.4730 cr worth of illegal sand mining/theft of mineral in the state.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi called for the data, after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioner), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari (for State).

The data to be produced by the state shall include details of all FIRs registered in relation to illegal sand mining/theft of minerals. As orally conveyed by CJI Kant, it shall also include details of those FIRs which have been closed on finding allegations to be false.

Can Civil Judge (Senior Division) Acting As Commercial Court Entertain Trade Mark Passing Off Suit? Supreme Court To Decide

Case Details – I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/S Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether a Civil Judge (Senior Division), functioning as a Commercial Court, can entertain a suit for passing off under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bars institution of such suits in a court inferior to a District Court.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Atul Chandurkar issued notice on an SLP challenging Jharkhand High Court's view that the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, being a Commercial Court, could entertain a suit for passing off.

“The short point that falls for our consideration is with regard to Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short, “the Act, 1999”)…What meaning should be ascribed to the expression “in Court inferior to a District Court”? The High Court seems to have taken the view that the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, being a Commercial Court, the suit instituted by the plaintiffs for passing off is maintainable. Issue notice, returnable on 24.2.2026”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Jairam Ramesh's Writ Petition Against Post Facto Environmental Clearances

Case Details: Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000190 / 2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh against the grant of ex-post facto Environmental Clearances(EC).

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked when the Supreme Court, in the Vanashakti review judgment, has approved the Union's Office Memorandums on ex-post facto ECs, how can a writ petition be filed.

"For what purpose this has been filed? You are very well aware that now a 3-judge bench has taken a view," Chief Justice of India Surya Kant told the petitioner's counsel at the outset. In November last year, a 3-judge bench of the Court had recalledthe earlier judgment delivered in May 2025 which restrained the Union from granting post-facto ECs. The counsel replied that the petition was challenging the 2017 and 2021 OMs.

Supreme Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Karnataka BJP MLA BA Basavaraja In Bikla Siva Murder Case

Case Details: B.A. Basavaraja v. State of Karnataka | SLP(Crl) No. 002619 - / 2026

The Supreme Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to Karnataka BJP MLA BA Basavaraja (Byrathi Basavaraja) in the Bikla Shiva Murder Case.

After the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the petitioner, chose to withdraw the matter with liberty to seek regular bail after surrendering.

The case relates to the murder of V G Shivaprakash alias Bikla Shiva in Bengaluru on July 15 last year. Basavaraja, who represents the KR Pura constituency, is alleged to be the conspirator behind the murder.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Restrain Judicial Orders Allowing Pujas At Aland Dargah In Karnataka

Case Details: Khaleel Ansari v. State of Karnataka and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 197/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking to restrain the passing of judicial orders allowing the performance of pujas associated with Hinduism at Karnataka's Aland Dargah. The Court dismissed the plea as withdrawn, noting that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in this matter.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma was hearing a writ petition filed by one Khaleel Ansari, who is stated to be the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Dargah Hazrath Malikul Mashaikh Makdoom Ladle Ansari (Sunni).

According to the petitioner, although the property was already declared as a Waqf property by the Waqf Tribunal, there was a pattern of various third parties filing writ petitions and other applications before the High Court seeking permission to conduct pujas on specific occasions. The High Court has passed orders allowing ad-hoc arrangements for the performance of rituals from time to time, including the upcoming Shivratri on February 15.

Better To Abolish RERA, Benefits Only Defaulting Builders : CJI Surya Kant

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Naresh Sharma | SLP(C) No. 005835 - / 2026

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed disappointment with the functioning of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) in many States, saying that it was high time the States revisited the decision to constitute them.

"It is high time that all the states should revisit and rethink constituting this authority," CJI Surya Kant said.

The CJI further remarked that the RERA was not doing any other services except to facilitate builders in default.

'Why Denigrate A Section?' : Supreme Court Objects To 'Ghooskhor Pandat' Name For Netflix Series, Asks Makers To Inform New Title

Case Details – Atul Mishra v. Union of India

The Supreme Court asked the makers of the Netflix series 'Ghooskhor Pandat' to file an affidavit confirming that the title has been withdrawn and stating the new title. The Court said that unless a new name is placed on record, it will not permit the release of the series.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to the respondents (Union of India, Central Board of Film Certification and director Neeraj Pandey) in a PIL filed by one Atul Mishra, who objected to the title of the series as defaming the entire Brahmin community.

The Court observed that while it respects the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, that right is subject to restrictions. The Court questioned the film title, remarking, “Why should you denigrate a section of society by this kind of title?”

Supreme Court Allows Shifting Of Himachal Pradesh RERA Office From Shimla To Dharamshala

Case Details:Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Naresh Sharma | SLP(C) No. 005835 - / 2026

The Supreme Court stayed the Himachal Pradesh High Court order, which restrained the State Government from shifting the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) office from Shimla to Dharamshala.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the plea by the state of Himachal Pradesh against the orderof the HP High Court, staying the decision of the State Government to shift the RERA office.

Sr Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh, informed that the PIL in question has been filed by a property dealer.

Supreme Court Asks Centre If Sonam Wangchuk Had Opportunity To Watch Videos Cited In Detention Order

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The Supreme Court (February 12) asked the Union Government if there is any endorsement made by Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk that he has seen the four videos on which the detention order is primarily based.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Dr Gitanjali Angmo, Wangchuk's wife, seeking to declare Wangchuk's detention under the National Security Act, 1980, illegal.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that Wangchuk is making an allegation before the highest Court of the country that he was not given the materials on which the detention order is based, when his own acknowledgement receipt is there that he had seen those four videos.

Supreme Court Allows Tamil Nadu To Substitute Acting DGP In UPSC DGP Selection Committee

The Supreme Court allowed the State of Tamil Nadu to recommend another member's name in place of the acting DGP for representing the State in the UPSC DGP selection committee.

The Tamil Nadu government has filed the application mainly seeking directions for ensuring that the panel of officers prepared by the Empanelment Committee for the appointment of Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, is in strict conformity with the Revised Guidelines issued through circular dated September 26, 2023 and the directions in the 2018 order in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.

The main contention of the state was that in the present selection committee, the representatives were the Chief Secretary and the acting DGP. The state has objected to having the present DGP for selecting the incoming DGP, as he also aspires to be considered for the selection. Thus another nomination has been sought. Sr Advocate P Wilson appeared for Tamil Nadu.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Film Director Vikram Bhatt's Wife In Cheating Case

Case Details: Shwetambari Bhatt and Another v. State of Rajasthan | SLP(Crl) 2647/2026

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Shwetambari Bhatt, wife of film director Vikram Bhatt, who is lodged in Central jail in Udaipur in connection with a multi-crore fraud case.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order while issuing notice on the petition filed by Shwetambari Bhatt and Vikram Bhatt challenging the Rajasthan High Court's order denying them bail.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Rajasthan police came to their Mumbai residence and arrested both of them from there. Rohatgi pressed for interim bail at least for the wife at the present stage.

'Not Yielding Desired Result', Supreme Court Flags Lapses In Enforcing Solid Waste Management Rules

Case Details: Bhopal Municipal Corporation v. Dr Subhash C. Pandey & Ors.

The Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, noting that despite successive regulatory changes, no desired results are being yielded at the ground level.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti was hearing the Bhopal Municipal Corporation's appeal against the National Green Tribunal's order levying environmental compensation of Rs.1.80 crores and Rs.121 crores, respectively, for alleged lapses in compliance with waste management norms.

While considering the appeals, the Court took note of the evolving statutory framework governing municipal waste. The earlier Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 were replaced by the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The Bench recorded that even these have now been superseded by the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, which are set to come into force from April 1, 2026.

Supreme Court Dismisses P&H High Court's Petition Challenging HC Decision Quashing Compulsory Retirement Of District Judge

Case Details: High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Shiva Sharma and Another | Diary No. 446-2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the High Court's decision to set aside the compulsory retirement of a District Judge.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, observing that the High Court's view was a possible one, refused to interfere with the judgment which granted relief to the judicial officer.

The issue was with respect to the 2011 order passed by the State of Haryana ordering the compulsory retirement of District Judge Dr. Shiva Sharma at the age of 58 years. The State's order was pusruant to a Full Court decision of the P&H High Court.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Rehabilitation Plan For Children With Disabilities Leaving Institutional Care After Majority

Case Details: Bal Mitra Through Its Secretary v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 53922-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking formulation of a comprehensive transition plan for rehabilitation and social re-integration of children with disabilities who leave institutional care on attaining majority.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, stating that it was not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32.

Briefly put, the petition highlighted that as per an RTI response, approximately 3957 children with disability are living in Child Care institutions across the country. Under Rule 25 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016 they would be aging out of institutional care, however, under the Juvenile Justice Act, there is no specific transition plan for their rehabilitation and social re-integration.

Acknowledge Dagar Brothers' Performance In 'Veera Raja Veera' Song : Supreme Court Urges AR Rahman

Case Details: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 4742/2026

The Supreme Court urged music composer AR Rahman and the producers of Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan II to acknowledge that the music of the "Veera Raja Veera" song was drawn from the 'Sihva Stuti' originally performed by the Junior Dagar Brothers in the Dagarvani tradition.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea by Dhrupad singer Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar challenging the Delhi High Court order, which set aside the injunction order against music composer AR Rahman with respect to the composition 'Veera Raja Veera' in the Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan II.

Noting that Rahman acknowledged that the song was from the Dagarwani tradition, the bench asked if it could be further acknowledged that the song was first performed by the predecessors of the petitioner.

Supreme Court Raps Rajasthan Authorities Over Illegal Sand Mining; Says Official Inaction Pushed Villagers To Violence

Case Details: Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, SLP(Crl) No. 18005/2025

The Supreme Court yesterday granted bail to a man sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment in a case over vandalization of a house by a mob. It was noted that the authorities' failure to act on complaints made by some villagers regarding illegal mining/stone crushing in the area led to the incident.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan expressed its "anguish" at the authorities' inaction and proposed further action. Accordingly, it called on the State to furnish the names and designation of all officers who were there at the time of the incident.

"Before parting, we notice that this case requires further action. The Court puts it anguish on record. Clearly the present incident is the direct result of total inaction by the concerned Authorities, who were repeatedly approached to stop/check the illegal mining and Stone crushing units, that too, by the villagers concerned which were being operated by the complainant and other people" the Court noted.

District Cricket Associations Must Voluntarily Adopt Good Governance, Not Bound By BCCI Constitution : Supreme Court

Case Details: Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association v. Anna Nagar Cricket Club & Anr. Etc.

The Supreme Court (February 13) encouraged district cricket associations to voluntarily adopt principles of good governance, including transparency in player selection, professionalism in administration, and elimination of conflicts of interest.

“it is open, rather necessary, for the State Association to initiate reforms to ensure that District Associations operate as professional, transparent, and in the best interests of the sport.”, observed the Court, emphasizing that “District Associations must volunteer to adopt reformative measures such as good governance, refined management, transparency, and the exclusion of conflicts of interest.”

A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made these observations while hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Madras High Court, which had extended the ratio of S. Nithya v. Union of India (2022), mandating, inter alia, compulsory inclusion of eminent sportspersons in athletics federations, to district-level cricket associations as well.

Manipur Violence| Supreme Court Seeks CBI's Status Report On Sexual Violence Cases; Proposes To Ask HC To Monitor Trials

Case Details: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei | Diary No. - 19206/2023

In the matter relating to the sexual violence cases during the Manipur crisis, the Supreme Court sought the status report from the CBI on the investigation so far. The Court also hinted at the possibility of re-assigning the case monitoring task from the Justice Gita Mittal Committee to the Manipur High Court.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the issue of the trial of sexual violence cases that occurred during the Manipur ethnic crisis.

At the outset, the CJI pointed out that the present 3-member committee, headed by Justice Gita Mittal, was tasked with ensuring a fair and time-bound investigation into the cases, as per the directions dated October 7, 2023.

Lawyer Has Duty To Cross-Verify : Supreme Court On Petition Citing Fake Judgments

The Supreme Court emphasised that it is the duty of members of the Bar to verify judgments before placing reliance on them in petitions, after it was informed that a special leave petition cited certain fake judgments judgment.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the SLP, orally cautioning all lawyers to exercise due dillignece while citing authorities.

The counsel for the respondent submitted that one of the cited judgments in the petition did not exist, while some others existed, but did not contain the quotations attributed to them in the petition.

Supreme Court To Consider Amicus Suggestion For Professional Bail Bondsmen

Case Details: Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara | SLP(Crl) No. 014185 - / 2025

The Supreme Court is set to explore whether bond surety can be outsourced to professional bail bondsmen, who will be operating under strict regulatory framework.

In a case dealing with a Nigerian national named Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, who absconded after he was granted bail in an NDPS case and furnished a fake surety, the Supreme Court had appointed Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra as amicus to explore how such cases can be avoided.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and AG Masih is hearing the Union's challenge to the bail granted to Nawchara by the Bombay High Court. The allegation against him is that 4.9kg of heroin was recovered from his possession. The Union challenged the bail order, stating that the High Court failed to consider that for the same nature of crime, he was earlier convicted. The bench issued notice on May 5, 2025, and stayed the operation of the bail order in a subsequent hearing.

Is Man Liable Under S.498A IPC For Cruelty To Live-In Partner? Supreme Court To Examine

Case Details: Lokesh B.H and Others v. State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court is set to examine a significant legal question: whether a man in a live-in relationship, described as a “relationship in the nature of marriage”, can be prosecuted for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or the corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 85).

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing a Special Leave Petitioniled by Lokesh B.H. and others, challenging a November 18, 2025 judgment of the Karnataka High Court in criminal revision petitions.

In its order dated February 13, 2026, the Bench recorded:

Reporters Collective & RTI Forum Move Supreme Court Challenging Digital Personal Data Protection Act

Case Details: Reporters Collective and Another v. Union of India and Others | W.P.(C) No. 177 / 2026

Digital news platform The Reporters' Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi have approached the Supreme Court of India, assailing key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

The petitioners also challenge the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025 notified in November last year.

The petition contends that the DPDP Act substantially weakens the transparency framework under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by creating what it describes as a blanket exemption for disclosure of personal information.

Police Failure To Apply IPC Provisions Results In Acquittal Of Contractor for Stockpiling Decontrolled Cement : Supreme Court

Case Details: Manoj v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a contractor accused of stockpiling cement meant for a public works project, holding that investigative lapses in failing to invoke IPC provisions against the contractor resulted in an untenable conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, since no statutory or regulatory control over cement existed at the relevant time.

“…in the absence of any subsisting statutory order under Section 3 of the E.C. Act on the date of the alleged occurrence, a conviction under Section 7 thereof is legally impermissible. That said, this was a case where the investigating agency ought to have invoked appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the evidence collected.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench order which upheld the trial court's decision to convict Appellants under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for alleged stockpiling the cement.

The Appellants were prosecuted for allegedly possessing and black-marketing cement supplied under a government road construction project. Acting on a tip-off, the police conducted raids on March 24, 1994, seizing 365 bags of cement from premises linked to the appellants, with an additional 25 bags recovered later. The prosecution alleged that the cement formed part of a “government quota” diverted for sale in the black market.

Supreme Court Allows High Courts To Hear Consumer Appeals In States Where State Commission Not Formed

Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Ensure Functioning Of Consumer Commissions In Smaller States, Seeks SG's Assistance

Invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court empowered High Court Judges to hear consumer appeals in States where State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Many States found it “not viable” to constitute full-fledged State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions owing to low pendency.

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the suo motu case In Re: Pay and Allowance of the Members of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Seeking FIR Against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma On Feb 16

Case Details: Annie Raja v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 72/2026

The Supreme Court will hear (February 16) a batch of petitions seeking the lodging of a first information report and constitution of a Special Investigation Team(SIT) probe against Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, for the offences relating to hate speech over his comments on 'Miya Muslims' and the 'point blank' video.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will hear the matter.

A video was posted on 'X' by the official handle of the BJP Assam showing the Assam CM shooting persons who appear to belong to the Muslim community. After the video attracted severe backlash from social media users, it was deleted.

Supreme Court Unsatisfied With FSSAI, Asks It To Consider Front-of-Pack Labels Warning Of High Sugar, Fat & Sodium In Food

Case Details: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India

The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the compliance affidavit filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India in a public interest litigation seeking mandatory front-of-package warning labels on packaged food products.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a miscellaneous application in a PIL filed by 3S and Our Health Society, which had sought directions to the Union of India to introduce clear front-of-package warning labels indicating levels of sugar, salt and saturated fats in packaged foods.

The main writ petition was disposed of on April 9, 2025, after the Court was informed that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India had already initiated steps towards implementing Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling through proposed amendments to the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020.

Supreme Court Allows Three NGT Judicial Members To Continue Beyond Retirement Till Next Appointments

Case Details: NGT Bar Association (Western Zone) v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed three judicial members of the National Green Tribunal to continue to function as a stopgap arrangement, noting that imminent retirements would otherwise leave at least three vacancies and adversely affect the functioning of the Tribunal at five locations across the country.

“In the circumstances, pending further appointments to be made and assumption of office to happen vis-a-vis the judicial members of the NGT or until further orders, as a stopgap arrangement, we direct that (i) Hon'ble Sri Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, (ii) Hon'ble Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, and (iii) Hon'ble Sri Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, shall continue to function as judicial members of the NGT”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that the direction was issued bearing in mind that vacancies of judicial members would hamper the working of the NGT and adversely affect litigants seeking justice before the Tribunal.