Judgments

Supreme Court Rejects Regularisation Claims Of 350+ West Bengal Madrasah Staff Appointed When State Law Was Struck Down

Case Details: NAJMA KHATUN AND ORS.v THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 566/2024

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 667

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of 49 writ petitions filed by more than 350 teachers and non-teaching staff of aided madrasahs in West Bengal, holding that none of them could establish that their appointments were made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih upheld the findings of a three-member committee constituted by the Court in 2023 to verify the legality of appointments made during the period when provisions of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 had been struck down by the Calcutta High Court but before the Supreme Court restored its validity in 2020.

The Court held that the committee had undertaken a detailed factual exercise and found that "not a single claim met the threshold of a valid appointment." Although the Court independently examined 13 cases projected by the petitioners as the strongest examples of injustice, it concluded that each appointment suffered from serious legal defects

When Can High Courts Grant Relief Under Article 226 Beyond Pleadings? Supreme Court Explains

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS BALI RAM

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 668

The Supreme Court clarified that although High Courts are ordinarily expected to remain confined to the pleadings and reliefs sought by parties, the rule is flexible while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In exceptional cases, where the record clearly establishes a legal entitlement and denying relief on technical grounds would perpetuate injustice, High Courts may mould relief beyond the specific prayers in a writ petition.

“…the rule that requires the parties to be strictly confined to the pleadings and the prayer clauses is not an inflexible rule insofar as exercise of writ jurisdiction is concerned…Ex facie, Article 226, which is couched in comprehensive phraseology, confers wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. Apart from writs, the High Courts may issue orders or directions in the nature of writs enabling them to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih.

“Although in exercise of writ jurisdiction the high courts are guided by the principles flowing from the CPC, they are not bound by it.”, the Court added.

Supreme Court Criticises CRPF For Removing Driver Who Developed Disability, Awards Him Rs 1.25 Crore

Case Details: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. BALI RAM NO.850808321|CIVIL APPEAL No.13783/2015

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 668

The Supreme Court(July 13) criticised the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) for medically invalidating a driver after he developed a visual disability during service instead of accommodating him in an alternative post as required by law.

Holding that the force had failed in its duty as a "model employer", the Court awarded the former constable Rs. 1.25 crore as a composite amount towards back wages, interest and costs, modifying the High Court's direction for reinstatement since he has already attained the age of superannuation.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the Union government's appeal against a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment which had held that the CRPF violated Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, by medically invalidating the respondent instead of retaining him in service. It found that the CRPF failed to grant him an alternative post, a duty cast on government establishments under Section 47(non-discrimination in government employment) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

'Mere Telephone Records Can't Prove Illicit Affair' : Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of Woman & 2 Men In Husband's Murder Case

Cause Title: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS MONIKA KIRAN SURYAWANSHI & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 669

Mere production of telephone records cannot substitute substantive proof of an illicit affair leading to murder, the Supreme Court has held while upholding the acquittal of a woman accused of murdering her husband along with her alleged lover and another co-accused in 2007.

The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances necessary to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The Court observed that the investigation suffered from "fatal lapses," including the failure to seal recovered articles.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra against a 2010 Bombay High Court judgment that had acquitted Monika Kiran Suryawanshi(accused no.1), Prakash Nagraj Patil(A2) and Dnyaneshwar Gangaram Mahale(A3) of charges under Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

If Closure Report Is Filed, Magistrate Can't Direct Police To File Chargesheet : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Brajesh Kumar @ Birjesh Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 670

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that upon receipt of a closure report from the police, a Magistrate cannot direct the investigating agency to file a charge-sheet against its opinion.

The Court reiterated that the formation of opinion as to whether a case for trial is made out lies exclusively with the Investigating Officer. While the Magistrate retains the discretion to accept the report, reject it and take cognizance, or order further investigation, it cannot direct the police to file a charge sheet.

“…the formation of opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is exclusively with the officer in charge of the investigation. If a closure report is filed; finding no case made out, it is not open to the Magistrate to direct the police to file a charge sheet", observed the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran.

Supreme Court Acquits Husband In Dowry Death Case, Criticises Mechanical Trial Of 17 In-Laws

Cause Title: Brajesh Kumar @ Birjesh Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 670

The Supreme Court (July 13) described as a "clear travesty of justice" the prosecution of 17 members of a family in a dowry death case, observing that they appeared to have been arraigned merely because they were related to the deceased by marriage, even though the evidence suggested that she had, in all probability, suffered fatal burn injuries in an accidental fire.

“Before leaving the matter, we are constrained to notice the clear travesty of justice which has occurred in the above case, putting on the dock seventeen persons for reason only of having marital ties with the victim who, in all probability, sustained burn injuries in an accidental fire at her matrimonial home.", observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while acquitting a husband in connection with an offence of dowry death of his deceased wife in the year 2000.

Offences under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act) were invoked in the case.

Contract Denying Interest On Security Deposit Not Against Public Policy: Supreme Court

Cause Title: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. VERSUS M/S. JAI DURGAA FINVEST P. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 671

The Supreme Court (July 13) observed that a clause in a commercial contract cannot be declared against the law and public policy merely because it does not stipulate payment of interest on a security deposit.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which declared the clause in a commercial contract to be contrary to public policy as it doesn't stipulate payment of interest on the security deposit.

The issue was “whether the amount of security deposit given by the Respondent-contractor will carry interest despite there being a contract to the contrary between the Appellant and the Respondent.”

Can A Person Be Declared Foreigner Solely For Non-Appearance Before Foreigners Tribunal? Supreme Court Explains

Case: Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India C.A. No. 2820/2024 and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 672

The Supreme Court held that although Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 places the burden of proving Indian citizenship on the person facing proceedings before a Foreigners Tribunal, that statutory burden does not relieve the Tribunal of its duty to conduct a lawful, fair and reasoned adjudication before declaring a person a foreigner.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observation while setting aside ex parte opinions passed against several alleged foreigners in Assam and remanding the matters to the concerned Foreigners Tribunals for fresh adjudication.

The common question before the Court was whether proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 can culminate in an ex parte declaration that a person is a foreigner without a meaningful examination of service of notice, opportunity of hearing, the material forming the basis of the reference and the evidence produced by the State.

'Citizenship Status Must Be Determined Through Fair Process': Supreme Court Sets Aside 27 Foreigner Declarations By Assam Tribunals

Case : SABITRI DEY @ SWASTHI DEY Vs UNION OF INDIA C.A. No. 2820/2024 Diary No. 28741 / 2020 and connected cases

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 672

The Supreme Court underscored that the determination of citizenship and foreigner status must be carried out through a "fair, lawful and reasonable" process, while setting aside judgments of the Gauhati High Court that had upheld declarations of 27 appellants as foreigners.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed 27 appeals and remanded the cases to the concerned Foreigners Tribunals for fresh adjudication, holding that the issue of citizenship carries profound constitutional significance and must be decided in accordance with the requirements of fairness.

"Citizenship and foreigner status occupy a field of high constitutional and legal significance," the Court observed.

MMDR Act | Govt Can Revise Royalty Rate Though Lease Deed Was Silent About Royalty Revision : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. VERSUS M/S FARIDABAD GURGAON MINERALS & ANR. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 673

The Supreme Court (July 13) held that a mere silence in the lease deed with regard to the revision of royalty on mining of minerals would not take away the government's power to revise the rate of royalty at a periodic interval under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

“While a mining lease is a statutory grant, royalty is a statutory levy. Power to revise royalty at periodic intervals flows from section 15 of the MMDR Act and the rules framed thereunder [in particular, proviso to Rule 21(1)(i)(a) of the 1964 Rules]. Mere silence in the lease deed with regard to revision of royalty cannot denude the State of a statutory power and/or operate as a bar to the exercise of power under section 15 of the MMDR Act and the rules framed thereunder; hence, a lessee cannot claim any vested right to static royalty for the entire lease period.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The Haryana Government auctioned mining leases for minor minerals in 2001, and the successful bidders, including Respondent, were granted seven-year mining leases. In 2005, the State issued a notification increasing the rates of royalty and dead rent payable under the leases.

Arms Act | Mere Recovery Of Weapon Without Proof Of Conscious Possession Can't Establish Guilt : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND VERSUS JAGDISH LAKRA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 674

The Supreme Court (July 13) observed that a mere recovery of arms from someone's house is not sufficient to hold a person guilty under the Arms Act, unless the conscious possession as well as dominion was not proved.

“The High Court was justified in observing that mere recovery of certain articles including the weapons from the house of the respondent/accused is not sufficient enough to hold the respondent/accused guilty for commission of offence unless the prosecution establishes that the articles were in the conscious possession of the accused and the accused had dominion over these articles.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale while upholding the acquittal of a tribal man who was convicted by the trial court under the Arms Act for recovery of a country-made stein gun from his house.

In August 2001, police and CRPF personnel conducted a raid in village Dora, Jharkhand, based on intelligence about the presence of extremists in the area. Four alleged extremists were in the house of respondent Jagdish Lakra at 4:00 a.m. When police arrived at 6:00 a.m., three fled, while one was apprehended. A search of the house revealed a country-made stein gun, cartridges, medicines, and extremist literature.

Hindu Succession Act | Class-I Heirs' Preferential Right Under Section 22 Extends To Agricultural Land : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MAHINDER & ORS. VERSUS PURAN SINGH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 675

The Supreme Court (July 14) ruled that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which grants Class-I heirs a preferential right to purchase property proposed to be transferred by another co-heir, applies equally to agricultural land.

Dismissing an appeal challenging the applicability of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act to agricultural land, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which, relying onBabu Ram v. Santokh Singh, (2019) 14 SCC 162, had held that the preferential right under Section 22 extends to agricultural land as well.

The Court ruled that Section 22 of HSA is fundamentally a law governing succession and not a standalone pre-emption law to deny the competence of the Parliament to legislate under List III of the Constitution on matters related to intestacy and succession without excluding agricultural land.

Registered Sale Deed Does Not Require Proof Of Attestation As Per Section 68 Evidence Act : Supreme Court

Cause Title: R. VERONICA & ANR. VERSUS RUDRAYANI DEVAKI(D) THROUGH LRS. S. SATHA KUMAR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 676

The Supreme Court (July 14) has ruled that the proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has no application to a registered sale deed, since the law does not mandatorily require a sale deed to be attested by witnesses.

“The proviso to Section 68 stipulates that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. A sale deed being not required by law to be attested, the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act on the face of it is not applicable,” observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, while setting aside a Kerala High Court judgment that had erroneously applied the proviso to Section 68 to a sale deed transaction.

The Bench clarified the limited scope of the proviso to Section 68, noting that the provision applies only to those documents that require a mandatory attestation.

Arbitration | Article 227 Can't Be Ordinarily Invoked To Challenge Rejection Of S.16 Application By Arbitral Tribunal : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MANASH KAMAL BEZBORUAH VERSUS M/S BOKAHOLA TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 677

The Supreme Court (July 14) held that it is impermissible for the High Court to ordinarily interfere with, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the decision of an Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

“…we hold that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution and staying the arbitral proceedings. The remedy against the rejection of a Section 16 of the Act application strictly lies under Section 34 of the Act after the pronouncement of the final award. Hence, we deem it appropriate to set aside both the impugned orders of the High Court and dismiss the revision petition before the High Court.”, observed a bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while setting aside the order of the Gauhati High Court, which had entertained a revision petition challenging an Arbitral Tribunal's rejection of a Section 16 application filed by non-signatory parties.

The dispute stems from a partnership firm constituted in 1948 by the Bezboruah family. A partnership deed executed on November 16, 1976, contained an arbitration clause.

Land Acquisition Act | Landowners Who Failed To Avail Hearing Cannot Later Allege Denial Of Hearing : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Alok Kotahwala & Ors. v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 678

The Supreme Court (July 13) dismissed the appeals filed by the landowners challenging the land acquisition proceedings for the Jaipur Metro Rail Project, holding that the landowners had abandoned their right of hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by failing to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter remaining silent.

“Absence of the appellants (landowners) on 9th April, 2012 coupled with their subsequent silence, appears to have goaded the LAO to proceed on the footing that the appellants had nothing further to submit beyond the written objections. We see no infirmity in the approach…We, thus, hold that the mandate of Section 5A was not ignored by the LAO and that there was substantial compliance; also, no fault can be attributed to the LAO in forwarding the recommendation without the appellants being personally heard. Appellants, by their own conduct, abandoned their right of hearing; they cannot now be heard to complain of denial of hearing when they themselves failed to avail the same.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

The landowners, whose land in Jaipur was sought to be acquired for the construction of a metro car depot for Phase II of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project, had challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground of denial of the opportunity of hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Property Conveyed In Sale Deed Cannot Be Changed Through Rectification Deed Without Original Transferor's Consent: Supreme Court

Cause Title: VENKATESHA AND ANR. VS. K.M. VENKATAMUNIYAPPA (D) THR. LRS. & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 679

The Supreme Court has ruled that a rectification deed cannot change the identity of a property unless the original seller agrees, and that courts cannot give judgments based on arguments that parties never made.

"A rectification deed cannot, in the guise of correcting an error, substitute the very subject matter of a prior conveyance without participation of the original transferor.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Vipul M Pancholi.

One-Thimmadasappa owned property in Survey No. 1/4, which he sold in 1971. The property changed hands twice and was finally purchased by K.M. Venkatamuniyappa (the plaintiff) in 1973. Meanwhile, in 1982, the government re-granted a different property, Survey No. 162, to Thimmadasappa.

Supreme Court Acquits 3 Men In 1979 Murder Case, Cites Glaring Infirmities In Prosecution

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 680

The Supreme Court acquitted three men convicted in a 1977 murder case from Uttar Pradesh, holding that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found serious infirmities in the prosecution case, including unexplained delays in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, inconsistencies regarding the registration of the FIR, and circumstances casting doubt on the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeals filed by Subedar, Hira Lal and Raj Bux, setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the Allahabad High Court which had convicted them under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The appeals against two other accused had earlier abated owing to their deaths. One accused had died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court.

The case arose from the murder of Harihar Saran in Gonda district on June 28, 1977. According to the prosecution, the deceased was attacked by six accused armed with spears, lathis and other weapons while returning from a cattle fair. The trial court convicted the accused in 1981 and the High Court affirmed the conviction in 2011.

Supreme Court Disapproves HC Direction To Send Sub Judge For Training, Says Appellate Courts Must Act As 'Friend, Philosopher & Guide'

Cause Title: LAKSHMI VERSUS GOPI & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 681

The Supreme Court has set aside a Kerala High Court direction requiring a Principal Sub Judge to undergo training after the High Court criticised the trial judge's understanding of a will dispute, observing that appellate courts should guide subordinate courts through reasoned judgments rather than wield "the heavy-handed baton of superior authority."

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held that the High Court's remarks against the Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur, were unwarranted and contrary to settled principles governing judicial restraint while making adverse observations against judicial officers.

The case arose from a family dispute over the validity of an alleged will. While the trial court refused to accept the will as duly proved and passed a preliminary decree for partition, the Kerala High Court reversed that decision in a brief judgment. Besides setting aside the trial court's decree, the High Court observed that the trial judge had failed to understand the controversy, termed the judgment illustrative of deficiencies in the system, and directed that the officer be sent for training by the Kerala Judicial Academy.

Appellate Courts Must Give Independent Reasons, Can't Simply Overturn Trial Court Verdict As Erroneous: Supreme Court

Cause Title: LAKSHMI VERSUS GOPI & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 681

The Supreme Court has held that a first appellate court cannot overturn a trial court's judgment merely by declaring it erroneous without independently evaluating the evidence and recording its own reasons. Stressing the duty cast upon appellate courts while reversing findings of fact, the Court observed that they must act as "a friend, philosopher and a guide" to subordinate courts rather than adopting a superior approach of merely pointing out errors.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi made the observation while setting aside a Kerala High Court judgment that had not only reversed a trial court decree in a partition suit but had also directed that the Principal Sub Judge who delivered the original judgment be sent for training.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach in reversing the trial court's findings was legally unsustainable as it failed to give adequate reasons while overturning findings of fact. It also expunged the adverse remarks made against the trial judge and restored the first appeal to the High Court for fresh consideration

Refund Clause In Agreement To Sell Doesn't Bar Purchaser's Right To Seek Specific Performance : Supreme Court

Cause Title: JASPAL SINGH VERSUS ASHWANI KUMAR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 682

The Supreme Court has observed that a contractual clause providing for refund of earnest money in the event of default does not, by itself, prevent a court from granting specific performance of an agreement to sell.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe held that a mere inclusion of a clause in an agreement to sell to return the earnest money in case of non-execution of an agreement to sell, would not by itself discharge the seller from its obligation to perform the contract.

“…the clause in question does no more than provide that, in case the Sale Deed could not be executed for any reason, the respondent would be bound to refund the earnest money. There is neither any language of election, nor any stipulation entitling the respondent to discharge the bargain, at his option, by payment of any sum in lieu of executing the Sale Deed. The clause records no more than bare consequence flowing from non-execution of the Sale Deed; the stipulation for refund operates as a deterrent reinforcing the obligation to perform, and not as a substitute for it. It protects the purchaser's minimum entitlement in the event of default, without in any manner curtailing his right to insist upon performance.”, the Court Observed.

Is Application For Probate Of Will Time-Barred If Not Filed Within 3 Years Of Testator's Death? Supreme Court Answers

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 683

The Supreme Court has held the probate of Will need not be necessarily filed within three years of the testator's death. The Court added that right to apply for probate accrues when it becomes necessary to do so i.e., when an action hostile to the position established by the Will was taken.

“The right to apply would therefore accrue from the date that it becomes necessary to apply. This obviously need not be within three years from the death of the testator.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M Pancholi.

The bench set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and Jharkhand High Court which had rejected the probate application merely because it was filed beyond the period of three years from the death of the testator.

Supreme Court Orders States/UTs To Frame Policy For Early Release Of Elderly And Terminally Ill Prisoners

Case Title – National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 684

The Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to prepare and notify, within three months, a policy governing the early or premature release of elderly and terminally ill prisoners, while also prescribing a technology-based framework to process such cases.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued the directions in a PIL filed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), which sought uniform guidelines across the country for the compassionate release of terminally ill, sick, infirm and elderly prisoners, particularly those above 70 years of age.

The petition stated that the number of elderly and infirm prisoners has been increasing and that many continue to remain in prison despite serious medical conditions and inadequate access to healthcare. It argued that their continued incarceration violates the guarantees of equality and life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, apart from being inconsistent with internationally recognised human rights standards.

Railways Not Liable For Short Delivery Of Consignment Booked At Owner's Risk Unless It Counted Or Weighed Goods: Supreme Court

Case : M/s Bajaj Trading Company v. Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 685

The Supreme Court has held that the Railways cannot be held liable for the short delivery of a consignment booked at the "owner's risk" rate unless it had itself counted or weighed the goods before transportation, thereby assuming a duty of care over the quantity entrusted to it.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Bajaj Trading Company, which sought compensation for the alleged shortage of 1,742 bags of salt transported from Gujarat to Assam. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court rejecting the claim.

The dispute arose after the appellant booked 40,444 bags of salt from Chirai Junction in Gujarat to Dharmanagar in Assam in November 2009. On arrival, only 38,702 bags were allegedly delivered. Although the Railways issued a shortage certificate, it disputed liability on the ground that the consignment had been booked at the owner's risk rate and carried a "said to contain" endorsement, indicating that railway staff had not verified the quantity loaded.

Nominated Town Panchayat Members Cannot Vote In Legislative Council Polls : Supreme Court

Case :Pranesh M.K. v. A.V. Gayathri & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 686

The Supreme Court has held that nominated members of Town Panchayats are not entitled to vote in elections to the Karnataka Legislative Council from Local Authorities' Constituencies, ruling that their inclusion in the electoral roll is contrary to the constitutional scheme.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed a batch of appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court's orders, which had held that nominated members could not participate in the electoral process and had directed exclusion of their votes from the recount.

The dispute arose from the 2021 election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities' Constituency. The returned candidate had won by a margin of six votes. However, 12 nominated members of four Town Panchayats had been included in the electoral roll and had cast their votes, leading to a challenge by the defeated candidate. The High Court had subsequently held that nominated members were ineligible to vote, directed segregation of their ballots and ordered a recount.

Mere Swear Words & Vulgar Expletives Not Obscenity : Supreme Court Explains Scope Of S.294(b) IPC

Case : Mani @ Subramaniyam v State

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 687

Holding that "use of mere swear words, profanities and vulgar expletives, however distasteful or uncivil they may be, cannot be equated with obscenity", the Supreme Court has ruled that abusive or vulgar language by itself does not constitute the offence of obscenity under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court clarified that obscenity in law is distinct from vulgarity, abuse or profanity and requires proof that the words are lascivious, appeal to prurient interests and have a tendency to deprave and corrupt susceptible minds.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by a 70-year-old Tamil Nadu man convicted in a case arising out of a land dispute.

The Court set aside his conviction under Sections 294(b) (uttering obscene words in a public place) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) IPC, while affirming his conviction under Section 326 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon. Considering the appellant's age, health condition and the fact that the incident stemmed from a land dispute, the Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and directed him to pay a fine of ₹50,000.

When Accused Is In Jail, Court & Prosecution Have Duty To Expedite Trial: Supreme Court

Case : Liakat Ali v State of Jammu and Kashmir

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 688

Observing that when an accused is in custody, it is the duty of both the court and the prosecuting agency to ensure an expeditious trial, the Supreme Court granted bail to a murder accused who has remained incarcerated for more than nine years, saying the prolonged delay had "shocked our judicial conscience."

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale invoked its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution to grant bail to Liakat Ali, who had been in custody for over nine years and two months while facing trial for offences under Sections 302, 382, 201 read with Section 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code.

The Court noted that despite the petitioner's earlier bail application attaining finality in 2024, the trial had made little progress thereafter, with only 12 of the 30 prosecution witnesses examined.

Supreme Court Urges Railways To Prevent Overcrowding In Trains, Suggests Dropping 'Second Class Passenger' Term

Case : Lata v Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 689

The Supreme Court urged the Indian Railways to take effective measures to curb overcrowding in trains, observing that such incidents frequently lead to passengers falling from moving trains and losing their lives. The Court also suggested that the Railways discontinue the use of the expression "second class passenger" in its manuals, stating that the class distinction should be attached to the coach and not to the passenger, in keeping with the constitutional ethos.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh made these observations while allowing an appeal filed by the widow of a man who died after falling from a running train in 2015. The Court awarded her compensation of ₹8 lakh after holding that the absence of the deceased's ticket could not by itself defeat a genuine claim under the Railway Act.

Observing that deaths due to passengers falling from overcrowded trains are "not a rare occurrence", the Bench said that although such incidents may appear statistically insignificant in the context of the Railways' vast operations, they are life-altering tragedies for affected families.

Art. 226 | High Courts Cannot Reweigh Evidence Or Interfere With Factual Findings In Certiorari Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

Cause Title: BASAMMA & ANR. Versus GOPARAPPA AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 690

The Supreme Court has held that the Writ of Certiorari cannot be issued by the High Court to review or reweigh the evidence based on which subordinate courts decided a matter. The Court reiterated that such a jurisdiction is issued only to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by Courts or Tribunals, but not for reappreciation of evidence or acting as a Court of appeal.

Holding so, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment passed in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, which had returned the findings of the First Appellate Court, which was arrived after due consideration of evidence on record.

“…once the First Appellate Court, being fully competent to adjudicate the appeal, had returned findings after due consideration of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that such findings were tendered without jurisdiction or in excess of it. Thus, in our considered opinion, the High Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not have set aside the findings returned in Paragraph 24.”, the Court observed.

Recovery Of Dead Body Not Necessary For Murder Conviction : Supreme Court

Cause Title: DEBOJIT PANKIKA CHARAIDEO SONARI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 691

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man for the murder of a 10-year-old girl and for causing the disappearance of evidence, reiterating that the non-recovery of a dead body is not fatal to a murder prosecution when the prosecution establishes a complete chain of reliable circumstantial evidence.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale rejected the accused's contention that non-recovery of the deceased's body proved fatal to the prosecution's case, noting that if the accused's contention is accepted, then in every case where the body remained untraceable, the accused would be let go without any penal consequences. The Court relied on Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N., (1991) 3 SCC 471 where it was held that “…to base a conviction for an offence of murder is that there should be reliable and acceptable evidence that the offence of murder, like any other factum of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, although the dead body may not be traced.”

“The 'corpus delicti' in murder has two components - death as the result, and criminal agency of another as the means. Where there is direct proof of the one, the other may be established by circumstantial evidence. 'Corpus delicti' means that the offence has been committed and not that the dead body of the murdered person has been recovered. A person can be convicted of murdering another even if the later's body has not been recovered.”, the Court added.

How Can Dead Witness's Testimony Be Used Against Accused Who Absconded? Supreme Court Explains S.299 CrPC

Cause Title: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VERSUS KADER KHAN

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 692

The Supreme Court has clarified that the earlier testimony of a witness who has since died can be used against an accused who had absconded during the original trial, provided the conditions under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) are satisfied.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held that Section 299 CrPC is an exception to the general rule that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused and that testimony given in one trial cannot ordinarily be used in another. The provision preserves prosecution evidence where an accused deliberately evades the trial by absconding.

The Court, in a judgment delivered on July 17, held that a formal order under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not a prerequisite for recording the evidence of a deceased witness against an accused.

Employer Can't Defeat Compassionate Appointment Claim By Delaying Processing: Supreme Court

Cause Title: RAHUL S/o. RAMNARAYAN MADANKAR & ANR. VERSUS THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 693

The Supreme Court has held that an employer cannot keep an employee's application for voluntary retirement on medical grounds pending until the employee crosses the prescribed age limit and then use that delay to deny compassionate appointment to the employee's dependent. The Court ruled that such an interpretation would allow an employer to "control eligibility through delayed processing" and defeat the purpose of a beneficial scheme.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh directed the New India Assurance Company Limited to grant compassionate appointment to the son of an employee who had sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds before attaining the age of 55 years. The Court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had upheld the rejection of the claim.

Supreme Court Recommends IBC Amendment To Protect MSMEs, Says Small Operational Creditors Need Fairer Repayment Mechanism

Cause Title: M/S TATA STEEL LTD. VERSUS VARSHA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 694

While reaffirming the "clean slate" principle under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Supreme Court has called upon the Law Commission and the Legislature to examine amendments to the insolvency framework to better protect Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and other small operational creditors, observing that they are significantly disadvantaged under the existing repayment structure.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan made the recommendation in a judgment allowing Tata Steel's appeals and holding that operational creditors whose claims had not crystallised before approval of a resolution plan cannot continue civil suits or arbitration proceedings thereafter. The Court held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not forming part of the plan stand extinguished, enabling the successful resolution applicant to take over the corporate debtor on a "clean slate."

However, before concluding the judgment, the Court flagged the adverse consequences of the present IBC framework on small operational creditors.

Orders and Other Developments

'Homebuyers' 20 Year Plight!' : Supreme Court Issues Warrants To Haryana Builder's Directors; Flags State Inaction

Case : RITA TIKKU Vs STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY | W.P.(C) No. 640/2026

The Supreme Court passed a series of coercive directions against Haryana-based Parsvnath Developers over its failure to comply with orders of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA).

The Court directed the freezing of the bank accounts of the directors of Parsvnath Hessa Developers Ltd. and Parsvnath Developers Ltd., issuing warrants against them, and observing that Haryana authorities appeared to be either colluding with the builder or had failed to discharge their statutory duties.

The Court warned that non-bailable warrants will be issued if the directors failed to appear on the next date.

Supreme Court Orders SIT Probe Into 2023 Death Of Congress Candidate's Driver In Madhya Pradesh

Case Title: RAJIYA ALI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 364/2025

The Supreme Court directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a fresh investigation into the 2023 death of Salman Khan, the driver of former Congress MLA Vikram Singh in Madhya Pradesh, after expressing the view that the probe should be handled by senior officers "in the interest of justice and fair play."

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order while hearing a petition filed by the victim's widow, Reziya, seeking transfer of the investigation. The petition alleged that Salman Khan was deliberately run over by a car at the behest of rival BJP candidate and that the investigation had been compromised due to political influence.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the police had ignored crucial eyewitnesses despite their willingness to testify.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To HD Revanna In Karnataka's Challenge To His Discharge In Outraging Modesty Case

Case Details: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs REVANNA H.D.|Diary No. 25514 / 2026

The Supreme Court issued notice in the Karnataka Government's plea, challenging the Karnataka High Court's order setting aside the charge for outraging a woman's modesty, alleged against Janata Dal (S) leader HD Revanna by his former house help. The High Court discharged him under Section 354 but had retained the charges under Section 354A(sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code and asked the Trial Court to explore whether the limitation period to take cognisance can be extended.

It may be recalled that the High Court was hearing Revanna's plea for the quashing of the first information report filed under Sections 354, 354A, 506 and 509 of the IPC. During the pendency of the plea, the police filed a chargesheet, and the Trial Court took cognisance under Sections 354 and 354A IPC.

The JD(S) leader approached the High Court and argued that the cognisance could not be taken as the complaint was lodged after a delay of three years, the limitation prescribed under Section 468 CrPC for offences punishable with imprisonment of three years and below. Eventually, the Trial Court discharged him under Section 354A as well, citing delay.

Parties Oppose Supreme Court Move For Mediation In Gyanvapi, Mathura & Sambhal Temple-Mosque Disputes

In a significant move aimed at exploring an amicable resolution to some of the country's most contentious religious site disputes, the Supreme Court has referred the Gyanvapi mosque dispute in Varanasi, the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura, and the Sambhal Jama Masjid dispute to a special Lok Adalat, "Samadhan Samaroh", to be held in the Supreme Court premises from August 21 to 23.

The Supreme Court (administrative side) has written to the parties involved in the matter to explore amicable settlement of the three disputes under the 'Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Disputes Harmonisation Across Nation-Samadhan Samaroh 2026'. The "Samadhan Samaroh" is proposed as a forum for facilitating dialogue and negotiated resolution, though any settlement would depend entirely on the consent of the parties involved. It will begin from August 21 to August 23.

However, as per reports, both sides have opposed a mediated settlement, opting for a resolution of the matter on legal merits through adversarial litigation.

'Can't Direct Anyone's Arrest' : Supreme Court On Pleas Against Anil Ambani In ADAG Loan Fraud Case

Case Title: EAS Sarma v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025

In response to a submission that the investigating agencies have arrested only 'lowly officers' in connection with the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group loan fraud case, the Supreme Court said that it would not be fair for the Court to direct anyone's arrest.

The Court's comment was a response to a submission by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, that the CBI and ED have arrested only small-level officers, and not Anil Ambani, who has been identified by SEBI as the 'kingpin' in one of its reports.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a PIL filed by EAS Sarma seeking investigation into the alleged loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by companies of the ADAG.

'Issue Of Public Importance': Supreme Court Asks Authorities To Consider Suggestions On Pornography Ban For Minors

Case Title: B.L. JAIN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 722/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a PIL seeking prohibition on minors' access to pornographic content and restriction on the watching of such content in public places. It gave the petitioner liberty to place the plea before the competent authority as a representation.

Noting that the issue raised was of "paramount public importance", the Court impressed upon the concerned authorities to give due consideration to the issues/suggestions mentioned by the petitioner in his plea.

"The issue raised is undoubtedly of paramount public importance. However, it is not a question of law that needs to be determined by this Court. It essentially involves a policy primarily based upon views of technological advancement. Such issues ordinarily fall in the domain of experts and authorities especially Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

"Which Advocate Discloses True Income?" Supreme Court Questions Scrutiny Of Lawyer's Earnings In Civil Judge Recruitment Case

The Supreme Court questioned the relevance of scrutinising an advocate's income while considering his appointment to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service as a Civil Judge, observing that a candidate's earnings as a practising lawyer cannot ordinarily become a ground to reassess his suitability after he has already been selected.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing a plea filed by an advocate challenging the denial of his appointment despite his inclusion in the selection list.

Questioning the High Court's decision to undertake a fresh scrutiny after the selection process, Justice Nagarathna remarked, "After putting him on the selection list, how can there be a second scrutiny? If criminal antecedents are not disclosed, if there is suppression, you can. But his earnings as an advocate, how is it relevant?"

Advocate Moves Supreme Court Seeking Police Protection After Alleged Assault At Delhi Home

Case Title – Pankaj Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

An advocate practising before the Supreme Court has approached the Court seeking police protection, transfer of investigation and directions to invoke more serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in an FIR registered over an alleged assault on him at his Delhi residence.

The writ petition has been filed by advocate Pankaj Sharma through advocate Tarun Gupta. According to the petition, Sharma is a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and has been practising before the Supreme Court for over 20 years.

The plea alleges that the accused are politically influential and the police initially refused to register an FIR. The petition states that even after an FIR was lodged, it was registered only for simple assault despite the petitioner suffering grievous injuries to his head.

Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order Quashing Appointment Of 17 Personal Assistants To Judges

Case Title – K Vedhambika v. Registrar General

The Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court's July 1 judgment which had set aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to Judges after holding that the entire selection process was arbitrary and without consideration of merit.

The Madras High Court had found that the authorities relaxed the Madras High Court Service Rules to accommodate in-service candidates who did not possess the prescribed qualifications instead of resorting to direct recruitment.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta granted the interim relief in an SLP filed by 9 affected candidates challenging the HC judgment.

Supreme Court Appoints Justice L Nageswara Rao To Mediate Dispute Between Industrialist Babasaheb Kalyani, Sister Sugandha Hiremath

Case Title: SUGANDHA JAI HREMATH ACCOUNTANT v. BABASAHEB NEELKANTH KALYANI, SLP(C) No. 18036/2026

The Supreme Court referred for mediation a long-standing family dispute between industrialist Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani and his sister Sugandha Hiremath to former SC judge-Justice L Nageswara Rao.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana requested Justice Rao to take up the matter, to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, after hearing Senior Advocate Shyam Divan (for Sugandha and Jaidev Hiremath) and Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi and C Aryama Sundaram (for Kalyani side).

The Court further requested the Bombay High Court to defer hearing of an application filed by Baba Kalyani under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (for rejection of the Hiremath's suit) during the pendency of the mediation process. "Court proceedings must remain in abeyance during mediation", CJI Kant orally said. It was further indicated that if mediation fails, the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application may be requested to be decided in a timebound manner.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Case Over NCLT Appointment Delays & Infrastructure Issues

The Supreme Court has registered a suo motu case over the delays in the appointment of members in National Company Law Tribunals and infrastructure issues.

The suo motu case, titled "In Re : Appointment of Judicial and Technical Members and Inadequate Infrastructure in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Ancillary Issues" was registered on May 19, following the April 29 judgment in AVJ Heightss Apartment Onwers Association v. IIFL Finance Ltd where a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan expressed concerns over the inordinate delays in approving resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Taking suo motu cognisance of the "grim situation", the said bench had referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for further action, following which the suo motu case was registered.

The bench had noted that 383 applications for approval of resolution plans are currently pending, with delays ranging from 48 days to 738 days, and in some cases extending up to four years. It observed that such prolonged delays defeat the very purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, as they undermine its core objective of ensuring time-bound resolution, preserving asset value, and maintaining economic efficiency. While the sanctioned strength of the NCLT benches stands at 63 members, only 28 judicial members and 26 technical members are currently in position. The Court noted that this deficit has led to frequent changes in bench composition, resulting in half-day sittings and further delays.

Supreme Court Upholds Lalu Prasad Yadav's Sentence Suspension In Deoghar Fodder Scam, Urges HC To Decide Appeal In 6 Months

Case: SLP(Crl) No. 1550/2020 THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Versus LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV and connected matters

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Jharkhand High Court's order suspending the sentence of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Deoghar fodder scam case, while requesting the High Court to decide his pending criminal appeal within 6 months.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging a July 12, 2019 order of the Jharkhand High Court suspending the sentence of RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Deoghar treasury fodder scam case.

"Upon hearing the learned counsels, we are not inclined to interfere with the order particularly since seven years have elapsed since then. The appeals are of the year 2018 and therefore it will only be appropriate to request the High Court to expedite the hearing," the Bench observed.The bench observed that it would be preferable to decide the appeals within 6 months.

Supreme Court Seeks Delhi Police Status Report On Probe Into Assault Of SC Advocate

Case Title – Pankaj Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

The Supreme Court sought a status report from the Delhi Police regarding the investigation into the alleged assault of a Supreme Court advocate in the national capital.

The Court directed that the status report, along with details of the action taken on the victim's second complaint alleging threats to withdraw the FIR, be filed by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police. The Bench also directed that adequate protection be ensured to the advocate.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order in a writ petition filed by advocate Pankaj Sharma.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging CRZ Clearance For Additional Floors At Shah Rukh Khan's Mumbai Home 'Mannat'

Case : SANTOSH DAUNDKAR Vs SECRETARY | D No. 27598/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance granted for the addition of two floors to actor Shah Rukh Khan's Mumbai residence, Mannat, refusing to interfere withan order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that had rejected the challenge.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the NGT's Western Zone Bench, Pune, which had rejected the petition by Mumbai-based activist Santosh Daundkar alleging violations in the approvals granted for the proposed construction.

Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam argued that the matter should not be viewed differently merely because it concerned a prominent film star. He added that the petitioner had earlier exposed the Adarsh housing scam and was a respected activist.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Muslims' Appeals Against Bhojshala Temple Verdict, Declines To Allow Namaz There In Interim

Cases: QUAZI MOINUDDIN Versus HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE (REGD. TRUST NO. 976) AND ORS., Diary No. 32281-2026; MAULANA KAMALUDDIN WELFARE SOCIETY Versus HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE (REGD. TRUST NO. 976) AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 22119-22120/2026; JEBRAN ANSARI AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 33643-2026; HAJI MUNEER AHMAD AND ANR. Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 23490/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on petitions filed by various Muslim parties challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment, which declared that the historical Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex site in Madhya Pradesh's Dhar is a Temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati and prohibited the offering of namaz there.

However, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana declined the petitioners' request for an interim order restoring the status quo ante, under which Muslims were permitted to offer namaz on Fridays alongside Hindu worship on designated days.

"Let us not pass any order which can cause tension," the CJI commented.

Should District Judges' Retirement Age Be Raised From 60 To 61-62? Supreme Court Seeks Views Of Union, States & High Courts

Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

While dealing with the All India Judges Association case, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India, all States/Union Territories and the High Courts on the issue of increasing District Judges' retirement age from 60 to 61-62.

As an interim measure, the Court directed that the petitioner-judicial officers, who are due to retire having reached the age of 60 years, shall continue in service until the age of 61 (unless already relieved from service).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and Siddharth Bhatnagar (Amicus Curiae).

'Learning A Language Never Goes Waste' : Supreme Court Refuses To Stay CBSE's 3 Language Policy

Case : Amandeep Kaur and others v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 820/2026, Yashica Bhandari Jain and others v. Union of India and others. W.P.(C) No. 694/2026 and connected cases.

The Supreme Court (July 14) declined to stay the three-language policy of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) introduced from the current 2026-27 academic year, and deferred the hearing of the petitions challenging the Board's decision to next week.

The petitioners submitted before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that as per the new policy, the students have to study two Indian languages from Class 9. This would mean that they would have to drop the languages which they have been continuously studying since Class 5. The petitioners also flagged that English is treated as a non-native language as per the policy and raised concerns about the availability of teachers and textbooks for native languages.

The Court issued notice on the fresh petitions and fixed the matter for detailed hearing next Wednesday. No interim stay on the operation of the circulars was granted at this stage. In May, the Court had issued notice to the Union, NCERT and the CBSE on an earlier batch of petitons.

West Bengal Withdraws Appeal In Supreme Court Against Calcutta HC Verdict Striking Down OBC Status For 77 Communities

Case Details : THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. Versus AMAL CHANDRA DAS Diary No. - 27287/2024

The West Bengal government withdrew its appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court's judgmentthat had struck down the inclusion of 77 communities, mostly Muslim communities, in the State's Other Backward Classes (OBC) list.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana permitted the withdrawal after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State, informed the Court that the West Bengal Cabinet had taken a decision to withdraw the appeal. It is significant to note that the decision has taken after the government led by the BJP assumed power in the State in May after the 2026 assembly elections. The appeals were filed by the previous government led by the Trinamool Congress.

The State Backward Classes Commission also withdrew its separate appeal filed against the High Court's verdict.

'Taken Court For A Ride' : Supreme Court Raps Samay Raina, Imposes 3 Lakh Cost

Case Title: M/S. CURE SMA FOUNDATION OF INDIA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 460/2025

The Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs 3 lakhs on comedian Samay Raina, observing that he had "taken the Court for a ride" by failing to comply with the undertakings given in proceedings arising out of the India's Got Latent controversy over insensitive jokes targeting persons with disabilities.

The Court also imposed the same cost on four other comedians - Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagadish Tanwar.

Earlier, the Court had accepted their undertakings that they would make amends for their insensitive jokes by conducting special shows to showcase the achievements of persons with disabilities and generate funds for the treatment of those suffering from rare diseases.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Freeze On Lok Sabha Seat Allocation Based On 1971 Census

Case :NISHANT KHATRI Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 737/2026

Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Plea Challenging Delimitation Amendments, Suggests Representation to Authorities

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the 84th and 87th Constitutional Amendments governing the delimitation of Parliamentary and State Assembly constituencies, while suggesting that the petitioner first make a representation to the competent authorities.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing the petition, which questioned the continued reliance on the 1971 and 2001 Census figures for delimitation. The petitioner also challenged Articles 55, 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution to the extent that they permit reliance on population figures from the 1971 and/or 2001 Census.

Patna High Court Ruling That 'Attempt To Remove Salwar, Pressing Chest' Is Not Attempt To Rape Flagged Before Supreme Court

Case Title: IN RE: ORDER DATED 17.03.2025 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1449/2024 AND ANCILLARY ISSUES | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta flagged before the Supreme Court a Patna High Court order which held that allegations of attempting to remove a woman's salwar and physically molesting by pressing her chest do not constitute 'attempt to rape'.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana were informed about the order during the hearing of the suo motu case taken up over the Allahabad High Court verdictthat grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama and trying to drag her beneath a culvert would not come under the offence of 'attempt to rape'.

The Allahabad High Court had observed in the said case that the acts would prima facie constitute the offence of 'aggravated sexual assault' under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which carries a lesser punishment.

Brinda Karat Seeks Review Of Supreme Court's Clean Chit To Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma In Hate Speech Case

CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat has moved the Supreme Court seeking a review of its April 29 judgment which held that no cognizable offence was made out against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over their alleged hate speeches during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign.

The review petition challenges the portion of the judgment in which the Court, after holding that prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not required for a Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3), nevertheless agreed with the conclusion that no cognizable offence was disclosed by the speeches.

Karat had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's order, which had upheld the Magistrate's refusal to direct the registration of a First Information Report against the BJP leaders under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Supreme Court Seeks BCI Response On Plea To Regulate Advocates' Use Of Social Media For Advertising And Solicitation

Case Title – Anil Pandey and Anr. v. Bar Council of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL seeking directions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to take action against advocates allegedly engaging in digital solicitation, social media advertisements, influencer collaborations and creation of promotional content in violation of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice returnable on 15th September.

“The Petitioners seek this Hon'ble Court's intervention against the rampant and unchecked proliferation of digital solicitation, the commercialisation of advocacy, and the flagrant misuse of judicial precincts by certain members of the Bar. These actions, manifested through social media platforms, represent a systematic subversion of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules, thereby threatening the very dignity and integrity of the administration of justice)”, the plea states.

Supreme Court Approves Guidelines On Judicial Sensitivity In Sexual Offence Cases; Directs All Courts To Follow

Case Title: IN RE: ORDER DATED 17.03.2025 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1449/2024 AND ANCILLARY ISSUES | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

The Supreme Court approved a report placed before it by the National Judicial Academy's Expert Committee containing guidelines on judicial sensitivity in sexual offense cases.

Further, it directed all Courts in the country to strictly follow the expressions used in the approved guidelines/handbook.

As per the order, the approved guidelines/handbook shall be uploaded on the websites of the Supreme Court, all High Courts as well as District Courts (where such websites exist). They shall also be circulated to the National and all State Judicial Academies, as well as National Law Universities and Law Departments of other Universities.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea To Consider Law Officers' Experience Towards 3 Year Practice For Judicial Service

Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider an application seeking that law officers' work experience in public sector undertakings (PSUs) be also counted towards the 3-year practice rule for entering judicial service.

The application was mentioned on July 13 before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana during the hearing of the All India Judges Association case. It was filed by AoR Anuja Pethia and argued by Advocate Vanshaja Shukla.

The CJI said that the application would be considered along with the pleas seeking review of the Court's 2025 judgment on the 3-year practice rule.

Supreme Court Questions Laws Barring Persons With More Than 2 Kids From Local Elections, Cites Declining Fertility Rates

Case Details: MANGALA BHIMRAO INGLE PRATIK v THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DIVISION AND ORS.|SLP(C) No. 30772/2025

The Supreme Court (July 15) questioned the rationale of the policy barring of persons having more than two children from contesting elections to the Panchayat and other local bodies in Maharashtra.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a matter regarding disqualification incurred by a former Sarpanch at the Kakoda Gram Panchayat, Mangala Bhimrao, under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, on the birth of her third child. The 1959 Act imposes a bar on having more than two children from September 13, 2000, when the amendment to the legislation was enforced.

The bench orally stated that the judgment upholding a similar State law in Haryana, the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, needs reconsideration. In Javed v State of Haryana(2003), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1994 Act, which disqualified candidates with more than two living children from contesting local elections.

'Tamil Nadu A Vibrant State, People Well Versed Even Without TV Channels': Supreme Court Refuses Plea For District Information Channels

Case: S. Vijayapandian v. The Principal CM Secretary and Ors., SLP (C) No. 15172/2026.

The Supreme Court (July 15) refused to entertain a plea seeking the establishment of District Revenue Information Channels across Tamil Nadu, observing that the issue lay squarely within the executive's policy domain. During the hearing, the Court orally remarked that Tamil Nadu was a "very vibrant State" whose people were well-informed even without dedicated television channels.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana dismissed the special leave petition filed against a Madras High Court order rejecting similar relief.

Responding to the petitioner's contention that the absence of District Revenue Information Channels deprived nearly seven crore people of their "Right to Know" about government schemes, the CJI said:

NEET UG 2026 | Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging NEET Retest As Infructuous

Case Details: MANGALA KOHLI v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 753/2026

The Supreme Court today(July 15) dismissed a writ petition challenging the National Testing Agency's (NTA) decision to cancel and re-conduct NEET-UG 2026 for nearly 22 lakh candidates as infructuous.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe told the counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the examination has already taken place, the issue doesn't survive. The counsel, however, mentioned that they have also sought institutional reforms within the NTA. She requested that the matter may be tagged with otherpending petitions raising larger issues on NEET examination.

Justice Narasimha orally told the counsel that the petitioner can intervene in the other batch of petitions (seeking NTA reforms).

Telugu Actor-Producer Bandla Ganesh Moves Supreme Court Against Bank Auction Of Property

Case : Bandla Ganesh Babu v Union Bank of India and others | SLP (Civil) Diary No. 41225 of 2026

Telugu film actor and producer Bandla Ganesh Babu has approached the Supreme Court challenging the auction of one of his mortgaged properties under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, raising significant questions on the interplay between the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

Ganesh has filed a Special Leave Petition challenging a common judgment dated July 3, 2026, passed by the Telangana High Court, which had set aside an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT), Hyderabad.

The dispute arises from credit facilities extended by Union Bank of India to M/s. Sri Parameswara Poultry Farm Private Limited, Hyderabad. Ganesh and his family had mortgaged their privately owned properties as collateral security for the loans. During the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and auctioned one of the mortgaged properties.

Supreme Court Dismisses Tamil Nadu Plea Challenging Madras HC's Interim Protection To Ex-Minister EV Velu

Case: SLP(Crl) No. 12472-12474/2026 Diary No. 40844 / 2026 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs E.V. VELU

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Madras High Court's interim order protecting former Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader E. Velu from coercive action in a corruption case relating to alleged irregularities in the execution of road infrastructure projects.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed a plea filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the High Court's order.

Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the interim order had effectively granted anticipatory bail in proceedings where no such relief had been sought.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Prevent Circulation Of Influencer's Videos Against Prophet Mohammed

Case Details: MD ANAS CHAUDHARY Vs UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF HOME PRINCIPAL SECRETARY | W.P.(Crl.) No. 255/2026

The Supreme Court today(July 15) dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to prevent the circulation of objectionable comments allegedly made by an influencer against Prophet Muhammad.

Rejecting the plea, a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe orally said that the purpose of filing such petitions seemed to be to sensationalise the matter.

At the outset, the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Pulkit Agarwal, submitted: "This is about certain remarks made in a podcast hurting a particular religious community. What we are currently seeking essentially is that there is no censorship on social media. Constitutional silence is there. This Court has to determine it at some stage. Pan-India people are making podcasts and reels."

Supreme Court Directs AIIMS To Assess IIT Kharagpur Student Seeking Transfer To IIT Roorkee On Medical Grounds

Case : XXX v. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and others | WP(C) 889/2025

The Supreme Court directed the Director of AIIMS, New Delhi, to constitute a medical board to assess a student of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur, who has sought transfer to IIT Roorkee on medical grounds.

The Court also directed IIT Roorkee to keep one seat vacant pending consideration of his plea. The petitioner, belonging to Scheduled Caste, has sought transfer for mental healthcare treatment, on the ground that he was suffering from depression, and therapy facilities were not available at Kharagpur.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan passed the interim directions after noting that the last date for admissions is July 17, 2026.

Oral Pronouncement Not Final, Judges Can Make Changes & Re-Hear Matter Until Judgment Is Signed: Supreme Court

Case Title: VIDYADAS BABAJI v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 789/2026

The Supreme Court orally said that oral pronouncement of a judgement in open Court does not make it final. Instead, changes can be made and matter re-listed for hearing until the same has been signed by the concerned judge(s).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the case of Sr Anjaneya Temple head priest - Vidyadas Babaji, who sought a direction to the Karnataka High Court to upload the judgment pronounced in open Court.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, for the petitioner, contended that the judgment was initially reserved by the High Court in November, 2025. However, the matter was listed for re-hearing on March 25. On this date, judgment was reserved again, which came to be pronounced in April. The case status showed that the writ petition had been allowed. The matter was then fixed for giving information about criminal cases pending against the petitioner, if any, which was statedly supplied by the State Advocate General. Yet, till date, the judgment has not been uploaded.

Graham Staines Murder | Decide Dara Singh's Premature Release By August 19 : Supreme Court To Odisha Govt

Case Details : RABINDRA KUMAR PAL @ DARA SINGH Versus STATE OF ODISHA | Diary No. 11407-2024

The Supreme Court asked the Odisha Government to take a decision on the premature release of Dara Singh, aka Rabindra Kumar Pal, who is serving life imprisonment in the murder case of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons, by August 19.

Before a bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, counsel for the State of Odisha sought adjournment for a short period of time. The adjournment was sought on grounds that the Odisha State Sentence Review Board(Committee), which was to decide on the remission, has called for remaining records. Stating that the Court expects the Committee to take a decision soon, the bench posted the matter to be heard on August 19.

"A request has been made on behalf of the State that the matter may be adjourned for a short period as the Committee which was to take a decision has called for the records and those records are yet to be made available to them. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to adjourn this matter to 19.08.2026. In the meantime, we expect that the Committee shall take its decision."

Air India Crash | AAIB Opposes Need For Supreme Court-Monitored Investigation, Says Its Probe As Per International Treaty

Case Title – W.P.(C) No. 1031/2025

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has told the Supreme Court that there is no need for a court-monitored investigation into tinto the June 12, 2025 Air India AI171 crash in Ahmedabad, which claimed 260 lives, stating that its inquiry is being carried out in compliance with India's obligations under international aviation treaties.

According to the AAIB, the remaining investigation activities are expected to be completed within approximately six weeks, subject to pending external dependencies. Thereafter, a draft final report is expected to be ready around October 2026.

Opposing pleas for an independent judicial probe, the Bureau has contended in its counter affidavit that petitioners' prayers relating to compensation, regulatory reforms and criminal prosecution fall outside the scope of an accident investigation under the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2025.

Supreme Court Paves Way For Shifting Of Uttarakhand High Court To Haldwani

Case Title: HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND., DIARY NO. - 22967/2024

The Supreme Court set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's 2024 order rejecting the State government's offer of alternate land in Haldwani for relocating the High Court, which is presently situated in Nainital.

The Supreme Court opined that these are issues to be determined on the administrative side, not judicial.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered that the possession of the land in Haldwani, stated to have been allocated for the new building of the High Court, be handed over to the High Court at the earliest.

Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking Access To Source Code Of Its Case Management Software

Case Title: SUNIL AHYA v. THE SECRETARY GENERAL, THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND ANR., Diary No. 17407-2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking citizens' access to study the Free and Open Source Software utilised in the Court's Case Management System.

Flagging security and privacy concerns, the Court said that if the petitioner has a proposal for sharing the source code without affecting the security aspect, he may share the same.

"We are not inclined the consider this petition under Article 32. However, if the petitioner has any valuable suggestion for improvement of internal functioning of the Supreme Court registry or the establishment, such suggestions are always welcome. An endeavor shall be made to incorporate the same suitably", the Court ordered.

'Should Country Remain Standstill'?: Supreme Court Approved UP Govt's Night Safari & Zoo Project In Kukrail Reserve Forest

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Sharma, Indian Forest Service (Retd.) & Ors. v. Union of India, WP(C) No.1164/2023

The Supreme Court approved the Uttar Pradesh government's night safari and zoological park project in the Kukrail Reserve Forest.

Slamming opposition to the same, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant questioned whether the country should remain standstill, even as zoos have turned "outdated".

A bench of CJI Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the UP government's application seeking approval for its ambitious project. The State informed that the Court had called for a report from the Centrally Empowered Committee, which accorded approval for some aspects of the project and denied permission for others. Accordingly, the Court ordered,

'Though Removed From Electoral Roll, You're Entitled To Certain Benefits' : Supreme Court Asks SIR-Excluded Person To Move HC For Ration

Case Title: MOHIBULLA MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 791/2026

The Supreme Court orally observed that persons excluded from electoral rolls after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal remain entitled to certain benefits (like ration).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the plea of one Mohibulla Mondal, who sought directions to prevent deletion/cancellation/suspension of his ration card following the order passed by the state's Department of Food and Supplies in June.

The petitioner further prayed that the supply of subsidized food grains to him be not disturbed, atleast until his appeal challenging exclusion from the electoral rolls is decided by the Appellate Tribunal.

'Mahaprabhu Jagannath' Movie Makers Approach Supreme Court Against Orissa High Court's Ban On Its Release

The makers of the animation movie 'Mahaprabhu Jagannath' approached the Supreme Court challenging the Orissa High Court's order banning the countrywide release of the film.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat made an urgent mention of the matter before the Chief Justice of India, requesting a hearing, as the film was slated for release the next day.

Kamat submitted that the film was an animation movie about Lord Jagannath meant for children, and the High Court banned its release, saying that the film was not made as per the 'Skanda Purana'. He added that the Central Board of Film Certification has already cleared the film by giving it a certificate as per Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act. He informed that the High Court's order was uploaded at 9 PM, and the ban order would result in immense prejudice and hardship for the producer, who has invested crores of rupees. Over 300 theatres were chartered for the screening of the film, the senior counsel stated, urging for a hearing.

Ashish Mishra & Ajay Mishra Not Involved In Witness Intimidation In Lakhimpur Kheri Case : UP Police To Supreme Court

Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022

The Uttar Pradesh Police informed the Supreme Court that its investigation has found no evidence to suggest that Ashish Mishra, or his father, former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, was involved in the alleged intimidation of witnesses in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing Mishra's plea seeking bail. He continues to be on bail granted by the Court, which is monitoring the progress of the trial.

The bench was informed about the status report filed by the State as per which the investigation into the FIR alleging witness intimidation had concluded and that nothing incriminating had been found against Mishra.

Don't Introduce Third Language In Class 9, It's Stressful To Students: Justice BV Nagarathna To Centre

Case: SLP(C) No. 33459/2017, State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumari Maha Sabha

Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna expressed concern over the introduction of a third language at the Class 9 level under the CBSE curriculum, observing that it places unnecessary stress on students preparing for board examinations.

The remarks were made during the hearing of the Tamil Nadu government's appeal against a Madras High Court direction to facilitate the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in every district of the State. Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed the setting up of JNVs, citing concerns over the three-language policy followed by the schools.

Although the validity of the CBSE language policy was not directly in issue in the case, Justice Nagarathna made a series of observations on the timing of introducing a third language. Notably, the CBSE three-language policy is presently under challenge in separate public interest petitions before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The CJI's benchhas refused to stay the implementation of the CBSE's policy, and has posted the matter for hearing next week.

Supreme Court Criticises Delhi Police For Not Invoking Attempt to Murder Charge In Attack On Advocate, Transfers Probe To Crime Branch

Case Title – Pankaj Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

The Supreme Court criticised the Delhi Police for failing to invoke the offence of attempt to murder in an FIR registered over an alleged attack on an advocate practising before the Court, and directed that the investigation be transferred to the Crime Branch.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that, considering the nature of the injuries allegedly inflicted on a vital part(head) of the victim's body, the offence of attempt to murder ought to have been included in the FIR.

"Taking into consideration the nature of injury on vital part of the body where it is inflicted, it seems to us that prima facie an offence like attempt to murder ought to have been included in the FIR, subject to final outcome of the investigation," the Bench observed.

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Contempt Pleas Alleging Violation Of 'Bulldozer' Judgment, Sends Matters To High Courts

The Supreme Court refused to entertain contempt petitions alleging that demolitions were carried out in violation of its landmarkNovember 2024 judgment laying down safeguards against "bulldozer justice", saying such grievances should be raised before the concerned High Courts.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, observing that there will be different factual disputes involved in each case, took the view that the Supreme Court cannot go on adjudicating each claim on facts.

The bench therefore passed an order relegating all the contempt petitions to the respective High Courts, leaving open all the issues. The Court had previously issued notice to the authorities in some of the contempt petitions.

Supreme Court Refuses Plea To Expedite Election Petitions' Hearings In Madras High Court

Case : K. VENKATACHALAPATHY Vs HIGH COURT OF MADRAS | W.P.(C) No. 796/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking directions to the Madras High Court to expedite the hearings of election petitions and decide them within a timeline.

Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court for suitable directions, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu informed the bench that at least 54 election petitions have been filed in the High Court concerning the 2026 assembly polls. One petition concerns a victory by a margin of a single vote, Naidu highlighted.

'Everyone Does Naarebaazi In Democracy': Supreme Court Not Inclined To Revive Case Against Bhagwant Mann Over Protest March

Case Title: U.T CHANDIGARH v. BHAGWANT MANN AND ANR., Diary No. 21434-2026

The Supreme Court orally expressed that it is not inclined to entertain Chandigarh administration's pleaagainst quashingof a rioting case against AAP leaders, including Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann over holding a protest march in 2020 against electricity tariff hike.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the Chandigarh administration's challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court order which quashed the rioting case arising out of a 2020 protest.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for Chandigarh, urged that the administration is facing some technical objection to the 3 cases filed by it challenging separate orders. He prayed for some time to address the issue.

Troubled By View That Public Servant's Murder Isn't 'Rarest Of Rare' : Supreme Court On Anand Mohan's Remission, Reserves Judgment

Case Details:TELUGU UMADEVI KRISHNAIAH Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR|W.P.(Crl.) No. 204/2023 Diary No. 18261 / 2023

The Supreme Court today(July 16) orally remarked that the Patna High Court's observation that murder of a public servant doesn't fall in the 'rarest of the rare' category would actually encourage criminals to commit crimes against public servants.

The remarks were made while a bench comprising Justice Dipankar and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a petition challenging the decision of the Bihar Government to grant premature release to former Bihar MP Anand Mohan in the case for the mob lynching of Gopalganj District Magistrate G Krishnaiah in 1994. It also made serious remarks about the apparent concealment of pending cases against him, including the one allegedly committed while in custody in the present case. The bench has reserved the case for judgment.

The present petition was filed by Uma Krishnaiah, the widow of District Magistrate G Krishnaiah, who was killed after an attack by a mob led by Mohan. Mohan was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence. However, he walked out of jail on April 24, 2023 after serving 14 years of imprisonment in view of the remission of sentence granted by the Bihar Government.

Following Bihar SIR Judgment, Supreme Court Closes Tamil Nadu SIR Cases

Case Title: R. SIVA Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 1109/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a batch of petitions challenging Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, in the backdrop of the judgment in Bihar SIR batch of cases, where the Election Commission's power to conduct SIR was upheld.

The Court however granted the petitioners liberty to pursue any other remedy available under the law.

Supreme Court Unveils Plans For Faster Disposal Of Old Matters, Better Case Management

The judges of the Supreme Court have unveiled a series of measures aimed at expediting the disposal of long-pending cases, improving case management and streamlining court procedures, including a plan to prioritise the oldest pending matters after a special drive to clear over 9,000 cases.

The decisions were taken at a Full Court meeting held on July 15, where all the judges resolved to participate in the ongoing Samadhan Samaroh, an initiative that will culminate in a Special Lok Adalat on August 21, 22 and 23.

As part of the pendency reduction exercise, the Full Court resolved to take up around 100 bunch matters that are ready for final hearing. These matters will be listed before appropriate benches for out-of-turn disposal and are expected to result in the disposal of approximately 9,177 connected cases.

Supreme Court Deplores Wives' Practice Of Complaining To Husbands' Employers Over Matrimonial Disputes

The Supreme Court orally expressed concern over wives writing to husband's employers during matrimonial litigation, observing that such complaints could result in loss of employment and ultimately affect maintenance.

The observations came while a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a transfer petition filed by a woman seeking transfer of a defamation suit filed against her by her husband's friend (respondent) from Assam to Ghaziabad, UP. The wife sought transfer on the ground that she is already engaged in multiple litigations against her husband in Ghaziabad.

Justice Nagarathna observed that many wives were adopting this course of action by writing to their husband's employers, leading to termination of employment.

Supreme Court Asks Union To Consider Rail Fare Concessions, Emergency Quota For Acid Attack Survivors

Case Title: ATIJEEVAN SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 30/2026

The Supreme Court called on the Union of India to consider including acid-attack survivors in the category of Persons with Disability (PwD) who are granted concessions and/or emergency quotas by the Railways for treatment/periodical checkups.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana asked Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave to obtain instructions, after hearing Advocate Anandh Venkataramani (for petitioner-Atijeevan Society).

The present public interest litigation was filed seeking concessional fares and emergency quota in the Railways for acid attack survivors. During today's hearing, ASG Dave informed that the government is already deliberating on provision of emergency quotas to all persons with disabilities (including acid attack survivors).

After Courtroom Ruckus, Supreme Court To Ask Party-In-Persons To Forego Live-Streaming & Video Recording If Appearing Physically

In the wake of instances of litigants appearing in person allegedly indulging in unruly conduct, the Supreme Court has decided that parties-in-person who opt to appear physically before the Court will have to forgo live-streaming and video recording of their appearance.

The decision was taken by the Full Court in its meeting held on July 15 while approving an amendment to the procedure governing parties appearing without legal representation.

Under the existing framework, Order IV Rule 1(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 requires a party-in-person to interact with the Registrar and explain why they are not engaging an advocate before their petition is processed.

Supreme Court Asks Producer To Release 'Mahaprabhu Jagannath' Movie After Puri Rath Yatra

Case : ELE ANIMATIONS PVT. LTD. Vs MAHESH KUMAR SAHU | SLP(C) No. 23905/2026 Diary No. 41972 / 2026

The Supreme Court declined to allow the release of the animation film Mahaprabhu Jagannath (the scheduled release date), directing the producers to postpone its release until after July 27, when the annual Lord Jagannath Rath Yatra in Puri concludes.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a petition filed by the producer of the film, Ele Animations Pvt. Ltd, challenging the order passed by the Orissa High Courton July 15 banning the countrywide release of the film.

The bench refused to stay the High Court's order, noting that the Lord Jagannath Rath Yatra commenced and will continue till July 27.

Kerala Wakf Board Moves Supreme Court Challenging HC Order Restraining It From Taking Major Decisions

The Kerala Wakf Board has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court's recent order restraining the Board from taking major policy decisions.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant agreed to list the matter on Monday/Tuesday after it was mentioned for urgent listing. Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh mentioned the matter, saying that through an interim order without notice to the other side, the Board has been made virtually defunct. The senior counsel pointed out that in a similar order concerning the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the Supreme Court had granted interim relief.

The High Court passed the restraint order after noting that the State Wakf Board was constituted without including two non-Muslim members and one Shia member as per the mandatory requirements introduced as per the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act.

Supreme Court Admits Somnath Bharti's Appeal Challenging Election Of Satish Upadhyay In 2025 Delhi Assembly Polls

Case Details: SOMNATH BHARTI Versus SATISH UPADHYAY|Diary No. 10053-2026

The Supreme Court today(July 17) has agreed to hear Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Somnath Bharti's plea challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party's Satish Upadhyay from Malviya Nagar Assembly constituency in the 2025 Delhi assembly elections.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta granted leave to appeal, after briefly hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal(for Bharti) and Senior Advocate Maninder Singh(for Upadhyay).

Sibal submitted that the Delhi High Court rejected Bharti's election petition on the erroneous grounds that he failed to make Congress candidate Jitender Kumar Kochar a necessary party.

Lok Sabha MP Moves Supreme Court Seeking Municipalities In Urban Places Falling In Scheduled Tribe Areas

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court for the effective implementation of the constitutional scheme governing democratic urban local self-goveranace in Scheduled Areas under Article Article 243ZC read with the Fifth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.

The petition filed by Rajkumar Roat, member of the Lok Sabha from Rajasthan, says that the Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, inserted Part IX-A into the Constitution with the objective of establishing democratic institutions of urban local self-government. However, Article 243ZC excludes Scheduled Areas from the automatic application of Part IX-A.

Roat points out that similar amendment Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992 inserted Part IX into the Constitution for local rural self-governance. Subsequently, the Parliament enacted the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 for extending Part IX to Scheduled Areas. However, more than three decades have passed since the 74th amendment but no corresponding legislation has been enacted for urban local governence.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Case On Access To Life-Saving Drugs, Flags Kerala HC's Delay In Deciding Similar Plea

Case - In Re : Access to Life Saving Medicines and Judicial Expediency in Article 21 matter | Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.19/2026

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the issue of access to life-saving medicines after noting the prolonged pendency of a petition before the Kerala High Court concerning the affordability of patented cancer drugs.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana considered the suo motu case -which was registered on July 16 - today. While issuing notice to the Union on the suo motu case, the bench also requested the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court to ensure the expeditious disposal of the writ petition (WP(c) 18999/2022), which has remained pending for over four years.

At the outset, the Chief Justice said that the bench will request the High Court to decide the matter. "Several times it(Kerala HC matter) has been adjourned."

Supreme Court Defers Bengaluru Municipal Corporation Elections To December In View Of Karnataka SIR Exercise

Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Versus M. SHIVARAJU AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 15181-15183/2020

The Supreme Court directed that elections to the five municipal corporations in Bengaluru be held in December 2026, taking note of the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Karnataka.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that since the SIR exercise is expected to conclude in November, the civic polls should be scheduled thereafter.

"In view of the fact that Karnataka is having SIR and process will be completed in November, it is directed that elections of all five corporations be held in December, 2026," the bench ordered.

SIR | Removal From Electoral Roll Doesn't Mean Loss Of Citizenship : Supreme Court

Case Title: PRASENJIT BOSE v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 819/2026

The Supreme Court orally reiterated that deletion from the electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise will not automatically result in the loss of the citizenship status.

The Court pointed out that it had made it clear in the Bihar SIR judgment that the ultimate authority to determine citizenship was not the Election Commission of India, and the removal from electoral rolls cannot, by itself, result in the deprivation of citizenship.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Prasenjit Bose, seeking various reliefs to streamline the hearing process in the appellate tribunals constituted to hear the appeals of SIR-excluded persons.

'Lack Of Funds No Excuse': Supreme Court Asks States/UTs To Ensure Availability Of Functional Washrooms In All Courts

Case : SARIKA TYAGI v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 770/2026

The Supreme Court called on all States/Union Territories to take steps for ensuring availability of washrooms in all Courts within their jurisdiction, including those at the district and taluqa level.

The Court said that access to washroom is a basic human right and revenue-deficit with any State/UT shall be no excuse for failure to provide the same.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana conveyed the aforesaid in attendance of Advocate Generals of all States/UTs. The States/UTs were directed to file affidavits within 6 weeks to the effect that the work has commenced.

Supreme Court Dismisses Rajkot Bar Association's Plea Seeking Transfer Of Its Plea From HC To SC

Case Details: RAJKOT BAR ASSOCIATION Vs BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT|T.P.(C) No. 1658/2026 Diary No. 27752 / 2026

The Supreme Court (July 17) dismissed a petition filed by the Rajkot Bar Association seeking transfer to the Top Court of a petition pending before the Gujarat High Court concerning the suspension of the Association's Secretary and issues relating to the functioning and strengthening of the Bar Association.

Before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Senior Advocate Asim Pandya referred to aFebruary order passed by the Court in a suo moto reference, which arose out of a Madras High Court decision on dispute over membership to the Madras Bar Association.

Refering to the order, he submitted that the present plea raises a similar issue and therefore pleaded that the matter be transferred to it.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Separate Legal Identity, Protection For Intersex Persons

Case Title: SHAMSHRAVISH REIN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 764/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union on a public interest litigation seeking separate legal identity and protective safeguards for persons born with congenital variations in sex characteristics (intersex persons).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after hearing petitioner-in-person Shamshravish Rein.

The petitioner, a practicing advocate at the Supreme Court, filed the present PIL seeking a declaration that persons born with congenital variations in sex characteristics constitute a distinct and identifiable class "for the limited purpose of ensuring targeted constitutional protection and appropriate legal safeguards", without affecting the rights of transgender persons.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On SCBA Plea Seeking Representation Of Women Advocates In Govt Panels, Stipend For Juniors

Case Title: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 825/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association seeking adequate representation in government panels, retainership opportunities, and caregiving support for women advocates as well as minimum stipend support for junior advocates.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order and tagged the plea with a similar pending matter.

Briefly put, the petition has been filed by SCBA primarily seeking gender inclusive representation and equitable professional opportunities for women advocates across the country. It seeks a policy for ensuring adequate representation of women advocates in government panels as well as non-discriminatory mechanism for equitable allocation of government litigation work, briefing and retainership opportunities.

AgustaWestland Chopper Scam | UK-Based Businessman Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Against ED Warrants

Case: Shravan Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 66063/2025

The Supreme Court allowed former MGF Group chairman Shravan Gupta, who is accused in a money laundering related to the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, to withdraw his plea challenging non-bailable warrants (NBWs) issued against him by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

Gupta has been abroad since leaving India in November 2019. Earlier, the ED has said that it is pursuing extradition proceedings against him, and an Interpol Red Notice was issued against him in August 2023.

The ED has alleged that Gupta in received ₹24 crore in proceeds of crime laundered through foreign companies as part of the laundering of alleged kickbacks in the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal. It has further stated that Gupta failed to join the investigation despite repeated summonses after leaving India in 2019.

SCAORA Submits Recommendations On Supreme Court's Draft AI Regulations, Raises Concerns

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has submitted its comments and recommendations on the Draft Regulations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 to Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, who chairs the Supreme Court's Artificial Intelligence Committee, urging a cautious and phased deployment of AI in the judicial system.

The Association's Executive Committee presented the report to Justice P.S. Narasimha, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, along with Justice Alok Aradhe. Justice Narasimha appreciated the efforts undertaken by SCAORA and assured that the recommendations and the Draft AI Regulations would be deliberated upon extensively in the coming weeks.

In June, the Supreme Court's Artificial Intelligence Committee, comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, had released the Draft Regulations governing the use of AI in the Supreme Court and invited comments from stakeholders.

Ayodhya Donation Theft : Nirmohi Akhara Moves Supreme Court Seeking To Restructure Ram Janmabhoomi Trust As Public Trust

Case : M.A filed by Sri Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara in M.Siddiqui and others v. Mahant Suresh Das and others | C.A 10866/2010

The Nirmohi Akhara has moved the Supreme Court seeking directions to restructure the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, which manages the Ayodhya Ram Mandir, contending that the Trust, as presently constituted, is inconsistent with the spirit of the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment and lacks adequate accountability.

The miscellaneous application has been filed in the disposed Ayodhya title dispute proceedings, seeking implementation of the directions issued by the Constitution Bench in its November 9, 2019 judgment. The Akhara contends that while the judgment envisaged an “appropriate role” for it in the management of the temple, the scheme framed by the Central Government has effectively excluded it from both the governance of the Trust and the conduct of religious affairs.

The application has been filed by Shri Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara through its Sarpanch, Mahant and Sarvakar, Mahant Raja Ramchandracharya Ateet Guru Raghunath Das, who claims to have been appointed and recognised by a resolution dated July 5, 2026. The application states that the Akhara is a Panchayati Mutt whose decisions are taken through a democratic process by its Panchayat, and asserts that it was one of the principal parties in the Ayodhya title dispute.

Supreme Court Stays Demolitions Of Petitioners' Structures Near Rajasthan Indo-Pak Border For 2 Weeks, Asks Them To Move HC

Case : Taj Mohd and others v. State of Rajasthan and others | WP(c) 818/2026

The Supreme Court (July 17) halted the demolitions of structures belonging to the petitioners near the India-Pakistan border in Rajasthan for two weeks, while asking the affected parties to approach the division bench of the Rajasthan High Court for relief.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to entertain the writ petition filed by eight petitioners, and asked them to file intra-court appeal in the Rajasthan High Court.

On July 13, a single bench of the Rajasthan High Court had dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the demolition drive in the border region affecting various structures, including mosques, kabarstans and dargahs. The demolitions were carried out following the expansion of the Border Security Force's area of operations to a 50-kilometre radius from the international border. The High Court observed that the matter pertained to national security and rejected the allegations of religious discrimination. The High Court further held that in issues relating to national security, strict adherence to principles of natural justice was not required.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Elections In Maharashtra Local Bodies Treating Reservation Above 50% As Open Seats

Case Title: SANGRAM GOVINDRAO PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 806/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra State Election Commission on a petition seeking directions for immediate conduct of local body polls in Maharashtra, which have not been held despite a lapse of 506 days since the expiry of the respective local bodies' tenures.

The petition seeks directions to immediately conduct elections to the concerned Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis, declare that reservations beyond the 50% ceiling be treated as open category seats, direct that elections under Part IX of the Constitution shall not be postponed on account of constitutionally impermissible reservation structures, and frame guidelines to ensure timely local body elections while adhering to constitutional limits in future.

The petition assails the non-conduct of elections to Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis in the State of Maharashtra allegedly on account of reservations exceeding the 50% ceiling limit laid down by the Court in K Krishna Murthy v. Union of India and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra.