Judgments

Prescribing Minimum Viva Voce Cut-Off For Judicial Appointments Is Reasonable: Supreme Court

Case Details: MANOJ GOYAL v. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS|CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8142 OF 2018

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 695

The Supreme Court dismissed a civil appeal by a judicial aspirant challenging a proviso to Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, on the grounds that he had participated in the whole process without raising any issue. The proviso prescribed a minimum of 25% marks in the interview for the appointment of Additional District Judges from the advocates' quota before it was expressly removed by the State government in 2017.

The Court upheld the validity of prescribing a minimum qualifying benchmark in the viva voce for appointments to the higher judicial service, holding that such a requirement is rationally connected to the objective of selecting suitable judicial officers and cannot be termed arbitrary merely because it results in the exclusion of candidates with higher aggregate marks.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice PB Varale held that the appellant's claim was entirely barred by the doctrine of estoppel since he participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the prevailing rules.

Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Quality Of MACT Judgments, Calls For Clear And Reasoned Findings

Cause Title: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS DURG ROADWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 696

The Supreme Court (July 20) expressed displeasure with the lack of legal reasoning in the Motor Accident Claim Tribunals' decisions. The Court observed that many tribunal orders merely reproduce pleadings and evidence without adequately explaining how the facts lead to the ultimate conclusion.

“The Tribunals are bodies that people approach, seeking compensation as a consequence of either accidents or deaths, both being entirely unwelcome scenarios. Then, it is only to be expected of the Tribunals that whatever their conclusion be, the same must be supported by adequate and clear reasoning.”, the Court observed.

The Court noted that it had encountered several cases where the nature and quality of tribunal orders had caused it "considerable disturbance."

'Was Aged Only 25 Yrs, Reformation Possible' : Supreme Court Reduces Life Term Of Gang Rape Convict To 20 Yrs

Cause Title: EHSAAN VERSUS STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 697

The Supreme Court (July 20) modified the sentence of a life convict in a gang rape case to a minimum sentence of twenty years, after noting that the convict is young, has no criminal antecedents, and there's a possibility of reformation.

“When a sentence is imposed on an offender, it is done so with trifold purpose i.e. punitive, deterrent and protective. The overall objective is to rid the society of criminal proclivity. The same is done by ensuring that the sentence imposed is proportional to the offence or in other words not overly influenced by the possibility of reformation and instead, striking a judicious balance between the interest of the victim, society and the accused, after following the due process of law.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while also laying down the aspects which needs to be looked into while imposing sentence.

The following aspects must be considered, it must:

Factors To Be Considered While Sentencing A Convict? Supreme Court Explains

Cause Title: EHSAAN VERSUS STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 697

The Supreme Court laid down the set of principles which must necessarily guide the decision on sentencing.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih laid down the following aspects which must be considered while deciding on sentencing:

“(a) Be in accordance with the nature and gravity of the crime;

Supreme Court Revives Over ₹16 Crore Service Tax Demand Against BPCL & HPCL For Facilitating CNG Sales For Mahanagar Gas

Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX MUMBAI VERSUS M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. ETC.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 698

The Supreme Court (July 20) restored the service tax demands exceeding ₹16 Crore against the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), who acted as 'commission agents' of the Mahanagar Gas Limited (MGL) while selling Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) through their retail outlets.

Referring to the agreement, a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria noted that since the two oil companies acted as a marketing agents and promoters of sale of CNG for MGL, and, no buying and selling of CNG took place between the parties under the Agreement, thereby, qualifying them as a 'commission agent' within the definition of "Business Auxiliary Service" under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act.

“The respondent Corporations are the commission agents rendering the services to the appellant in distributing CNG acting on the basis of terms and conditions of the Agreement, of course, they are free to perform the task which they are entrusted with by the appellant-principal as per the terms of the Agreements. They do the business as facilitator and promote to sell CNG for the appellant. The respondent Corporations may be enjoying certain “powers” but they do not have the authority to override the principal–appellant and to hold the goods with any titular authority… The commission is paid to the respondent Corporations for rendering such services. The respondent Corporations are covered within the ambit of “commission agent” as per Explanation (a) of the definition. The services rendered by the respondent Corporations are “taxable services” as defined and understood in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act.”, the Court held.

Supreme Court Upholds Husband's Conviction For Wife's Murder, Finds Extra Marital Affair Motive Established

Cause Title: PIYUSH SHYAMDASANI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 699

The Supreme Court (July 20) upheld the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife, holding that the substantial number of call exchanges with his lover constituted valid circumstantial evidence establishing both the existence of an affair and the motive to remove the wife as a barrier to their relationship.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the appeals filed by Piyush Shyamdasani (A1, husband), Renu @ Akhilesh Kanaujiya and Sonu Kashyap against their conviction, while also rejecting the State of Uttar Pradesh's appeal challenging the acquittal of Manisha Makhija(A2, alleged lover of A1).

The court noted that the longstanding marital discord between the Appellant and deceased-wife, and the deceased's opposition to the illicit relationship between A1 and A2 formed a motive for the Appellant to kill the deceased wife.

'Even In Terror Cases, Constitutional Safeguards And Right To Fair Trial Cannot Be Diluted': Supreme Court

Case Title – Abdul Hameed v. State of Rajasthan

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 700

The Supreme Court reiterated that the constitutional safeguards and the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence cannot be compromised even in cases involving terrorist violence and offences that shock the collective conscience of society.

The Court acknowledged that bomb blasts directed against innocent civilians generate fear, grief and public outrage. However, it stressed that such cases require greater adherence to constitutional principles rather than dilution of constitutional standards.

The Court observed, “These principles assume even greater significance when Courts are confronted with offences that shock the collective conscience of society. Acts of violence directed against innocent civilians, particularly those involving the use of explosives in public spaces, strike at the very foundations of social order and generate understandable feelings of fear, grief, and outrage. Yet, it is precisely in such cases that Courts must remain steadfast in their adherence to constitutional values. The gravity of the allegation cannot be permitted to dilute the standard of proof, nor can the enormity of the crime justify a departure from the settled principles governing criminal adjudication. The greater the public outcry, the greater becomes the responsibility of the Court to ensure that the determination of guilt is based solely upon law and evidence.”

FERA Complaint Cognisance Vitiated If There Was No Notice To Accused : Supreme Court

Cause Title : STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ANR. VERSUS ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 701

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot validly take cognizance of a criminal complaint under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) if the mandatory "opportunity notice" required under Section 61(2) of the Act was not served upon the proposed accused.

“…the service of an opportunity notice under the proviso to Section 61(2) of FERA is a mandatory requirement, without compliance of which no complaint under Section 56 or 57 of FERA respectively, can validly be instituted, and no Magistrate can validly take cognizance of the offence alleged therein.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, while quashing the complaints and summoning orders against the Standard Chartered Bank and its officer in charge in an alleged FERA violation case for unlawfully depositing about Rs. 30 lakhs for the benefit of a person resident outside India.

The Court set aside the Bombay High Court decision which refused to entertain the Appellant's quashing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. merely because of the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. i.e., filing of a revision application.

How Juvenile Justice Boards Should Conduct Preliminary Assessment Under S.15? Supreme Court Issues Guidelines

Case Title:X v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 702

The Supreme Court has issued guidelines as to what factors should be considered by the Juvenile Justice Board while conducting preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued these guidelines while dismissing an appeal challenging the Patna High Court's ruling which upheld the Appellate Court's order that set aside the Juvenile Justice Board finding that the appellant be tried as an adult.

The case arose from an alleged murder of a boy in Bihar in May 2022. The appellant, who was 16 years and four months old at the time of the incident, was accused of slitting the victim's throat with a knife. The appellant was apprehended while he was attempting to flee. While the Juvenile Justice Board held that he lacked mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and decided to try him as a juvenile, the Sessions Court set aside the order and directed that the juvenile be tried as an adult on an appeal filed by the complainant. The Patna High Court affirmed that ruling.

JJ Act - Murder Is 'Heinous Offence', Not 'Serious Offence'; S 302 IPC Implies Minimum Life Sentence: Supreme Court

Case Title: X v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 702

The Supreme Court has held that the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) is a "heinous offence" under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, ruling that imprisonment for life constitutes its implied minimum punishment even though the provision does not expressly prescribe a minimum sentence.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the appeal of a juvenile accused in a Bihar murder case, upholding the Patna High Court's decision affirming that he should be tried as an adult before the Children's Court. The Court also clarified that while an appellate court has the power under Section 101(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act to seek assistance from psychologists or medical experts, such assistance is discretionary and not mandatory in every case.

The case arose from the alleged murder of a boy in Bihar in May 2022. The appellant, who was 16 years and four months old at the time of the incident, was accused of slitting the victim's throat with a knife. While the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), by majority, initially held that he lacked the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and decided to retain the matter before itself, the complainant's appeal succeeded before the Sessions Court, which directed that the juvenile be tried as an adult. The Patna High Court upheld that decision.

'Wrong Statement' In Pleadings Not Necessarily A 'False Statement' : Supreme Court Quashes Perjury Case

Cause Title: PRABHAKAR YESHWANT MASRAM AND ANOTHER VERSUS SOU TULA NAMDEORAO JAIPURKAR AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 703

The Supreme Court (July 21) set aside the perjury proceedings against a litigant and his counsel for allegedly making 'typographical errors' in a memorandum of an appeal, noting that every instance of wrong statements cannot be treated as a 'false statement' unless a deliberate falsehood is shown.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench order which had upheld the Additional Sessions Court decision to initiate the perjury proceedings against the Appellants without forming any opinion as mandated under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.

“…holding of an inquiry is in fact expedient in the interests of justice is also a must. Ordering an inquiry without formation of any opinion as required by Section 340 (1) of the Cr.P.C. would render the order bad in law being not in accordance with the mandate of Section 340 (1).”, the Court observed.

S. 115 CPC | Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Correct Factual Errors, Even If Facts Are Allegedly Concealed : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MADAN MOHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VERSUS THAKAR DASS (DEAD) THR. LRS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 704

Observing that revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to correct mere errors of fact or law unless they relate to a jurisdictional error, the Supreme Court (July 21) set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had overturned concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the High Court exceeded the limited scope of its revisional powers by reappreciating facts and interfering solely on the ground that certain facts had allegedly been concealed.

“The primary reason why the High Court overturned the decision of the Courts below was that the landlady (Kamla Devi) had not come to the Court with clean hands and had concealed the availability of the third shop. It was observed that the said shop was used to store garbage. If the shop that is alleged to be an alternate accommodation was being used for storing waste material as has been held by both the RA and the AA, then that being the finding of fact, what occasioned the High Court to take a different view in civil revisional jurisdiction?”, the Court said.

S. 50 NDPS Act Applies Only To Personal Search, Not When Recovery Is From Articles Carried By Accused : Supreme Court

Cause Title: MEHBOOB SHAH Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 705

The Supreme Court (July 21) observed that the protection under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, would be available during the personal search of an accused and doesn't extend to searches when the accused was carrying a bag, container, or any other object.

“The protection under Section 50 is confined to cases where the recovery is sought to be effected through the personal search of the accused. It has no application where the search is of an article, such as a bag, container, suitcase or any other object, which the accused may be carrying.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while upholding the conviction of a man who was carrying a narcotic substance (smack) concealed in a water bottle.

The Appellant challenged his conviction relying on Section 50 of the NDPS Act, contending that failure to hold a search in the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer was an illegality warranting acquittal. Also, he complained about the non-compliance of Section 52A, arguing that failure to draw the collected sample in the presence of a magistrate proved fatal to the prosecution's case.

Article 142 Cannot Be Used To Supplant Concluded & Acted-Upon Settlement Between Parties : Supreme Court

Cause Title: VIJAYALAKSHMI R. VERSUS C. L. BALAJI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 706

The Supreme Court has observed that its inherent jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to supplant or amend the terms of the consensual arrangements between the parties.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed a wife's plea, which sought to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to recast the divorce settlement agreement arrived at between herself and her husband. The Court refused to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to accede to the Appellant-Wife's demand for creation of an additional corpus of approximately Rupees Six Crore to Rupees Six Crore Fifty Lakh towards higher education of the son as a one-time measure.

“As a necessary corollary, the prayer for creation of a corpus towards higher education of the son in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be acceded to. Issuance of such a direction would, in substance, amount to recasting a settlement which stands performed and discharged, and undertaking, in execution, a fresh determination of the quantum of maintenance, a course not open in the present proceedings. The jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, wide as it is, cannot be employed to supplant the concluded and acted upon terms of a consensual arrangement between the parties.”, the Court observed.

Offence Under Section 66 Information Technology Act Is Bailable : Supreme Court Overrules HC View

Cause Title: MAHARAJ SARAN VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 707

The Supreme Court has clarified that a computer-related offence punishable under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is a bailable offence.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment, which had treated a Section 66 offence as a non-bailable offence.

“…the view expressed by High Court that Section 66 of the IT Act has not been defined as a bailable offence under the IT Act, stands set aside.”, observed a bench, while emphasizing that the High Court erred in not taking into consideration Section 77B of the IT Act, which treats offences punishable up to three years imprisonment as a bailable offence.

Matrimonial Dispute Cannot Be Heard By MP/MLA Courts Just Because One Party Is A Legislator : Supreme Court's Prima Facie View

Cause Title: RAGHURAJ PRATAP SINGH PETITIONER VERSUS BHANVI KUMARI SINGH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 708

The Supreme Court has made a prima facie observation that MP/MLA courts specially designated to expedite criminal cases against the legislators lack jurisdiction to try matrimonial disputes.

“We are not convinced that a matrimonial dispute can be agitated before such a special Court merely for reason of one of the parties being a legislator.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while hearing a plea of MLA Raghuraj Pratap Singh (popularly known as Raja Bhaiya) against the Delhi High Court's decision upholding the issuance of a summon by a Rouse Avenue MP/MLA court against him in a case filed by his wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act).

The High Court said that the MP/MLA Court continues to remain a Court of Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Cr.P.C./BNSS, and therefore, proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act could validly continue before them.

No Motor Accident Compensation For Murder Inside Vehicle : Supreme Court

Cause Title: DILIP AGARWAL Versus RAJSHRI AGARWAL & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 709

The Supreme Court (July 22) held that a mere involvement of a motor vehicle in a chain of events leading to a person's death is not sufficient to hold the vehicle owner liable to compensate the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act unless there is a clear proximate relationship between the use of the vehicle and the death.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the concurrent findings of the Chhattisgarh High Court and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal holding the Appellant-vehicle owner liable to compensate the widow for the loss of life of the deceased husband while travelling in the Appellant's car. The Court noted that the Courts below have wrongly presumed that the injury suffered by the deceased while he was inside the car with the Appellant.

“A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below in a sense assume that the injuries suffered by the deceased took place while Dilip and Anand were in the car. How such a conclusion came about, is best known to them.”, the Court observed.

Delay In Granting Sanction Can't Be Reason To Curtail Liberty : Supreme Court Grants Bail In PC Act Case

Case Details: RAVINDER MEHTA v STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH|SLP(Crl.) No.9005/2026]

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 710

The Supreme Court granted regular bail to a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after it found that, despite the case being registered in 2025, sanction was not granted to prosecute him.

To briefly state, a first information report was lodged against the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was arrested on December 9, 2025, and the Allahabad High Court rejected his regular bail plea on March 20. This was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave(for the appellant) pointed out that the chargesheet was filed on February 7 and the prosecution intends to examine 19 witnesses. However, a sanction by the State government, which is required for cases against a public servant, is yet to be granted. Therefore, the Trial Court can't take cognisance till then.

Supreme Court Directs Bihar Govt To Clear Encroachments Along Banks Of Ganga In Patna Within Six Weeks

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Sinha v. Union of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No.3367/2020

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 711

The Supreme Court granted the Bihar government six weeks to remove all unauthorised structures, constructions and encroachments between Nauzar Ghat and Nurpur Ghat in Patna along the banks of the Ganga, directing that its order be complied with irrespective of any interim orders passed by the High Court or district courts.

“We grant six weeks' time to the State of Bihar to ensure that each and every unauthorized structures/ construction and the encroachments are removed between Nauzar Ghat to Nurpur Ghat in Patna. We direct that a compliance report in this regard by way of an affidavit shall be filed by a competent authority by the next date of hearing. Any laxity in this regard will be viewed strictly…We are informed that various courts have passed some interim orders, restraining the authorities from proceeding further with removal of encroachments. Irrespective of any order that may be in operation, our directions shall be fully complied with”, the Court ordered.

The Court also gave all States a final opportunity to furnish information on Ganga encroachments, warning that it would summon the Chief Secretaries of defaulting States if they failed to do so.

Promotion Does Not Cease To Be Promotion Just Because Employee's Grade Pay Doesn't Change : Supreme Court

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VERSUS HARBANS LAL VERMA (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 712

The Supreme Court held that promotions earned by Railway Guards within the Guard cadre must be counted while determining entitlement under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), ruling that employees who have reached the post of Mail/Express Guard are not entitled to further financial upgradations to higher Grade Pays under the scheme.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed appeals filed by the Union of India and set aside Rajasthan High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) orders which had directed grant of second and third MACP financial upgradations to retired Mail/Express Guard Harbans Lal Verma.

The Court restored the Railway administration's decision rejecting the employee's claim for Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600 and Rs. 4,800 under the MACPS.

MHADA Can Enforce Developer's Promise To Rehabilitate Occupants In Redeveloped Building: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mrs. Mahabanoo Contractor and Anr. Versus M/s. Kalikund Developers and Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 713

The Supreme Court has held that the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) is empowered to enforce a developer's obligation to provide permanent alternate accommodation to occupants of cessed buildings undergoing redevelopment and directed a Mumbai developer to execute a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) and hand over possession of three flats to the legal heirs of an occupant within two months.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by Mrs. Mahabanoo Contractor and another, setting aside a Bombay High Court judgment which had restrained MHADA from taking coercive steps against the developer for failing to honour the rehabilitation agreement.

The dispute arose from the redevelopment of a cessed building in Mumbai undertaken under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The appellants claimed entitlement to permanent alternate accommodation under a PAAA executed in 2019 after they vacated the old premises for redevelopment. MHADA had subsequently directed the developer to execute and register the agreement and hand over possession of the promised flats, besides issuing a show-cause notice for non-compliance.

When Alteration Of Cheque Is Patently Clear, Further Evidence Not Necessary : Supreme Court Sets Aside S.138NI Act Conviction

Case Title: Rajasab v Hulagappa

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 714

The Supreme Court has set aside a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), after finding that the cheque had been visibly and materially altered from Rs 10,000 to Rs. 1,10,000.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed the appeal filed by the accused, holding that the High Court and the Trial Court have erred in calling for additional proof of the alteration.

“When the alteration of the cheque is patently clear on the face of it, the Courts below ought not to have insisted on any further evidence in that regard.”, the bench observed.

Non-Mentioning Of Specific POCSO Provision Wasn't Material : Supreme Court Affirms Conviction

Cause Title: SUPTAN MARAK VERSUS STATE OF TRIPURA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 715

The Supreme Court has held that the failure of a trial court or a High Court to specifically mention sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act while convicting an accused did not vitiate the conviction or sentence, as the facts of the case clearly attract that provision..

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar refused to interfere with the conviction of a man under Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, for committing an offence of penetrative sexual assault against a child.

Section 4(2) of POCSO mandates strict punishment for penetrative sexual assault committed against a child. The provision is attracted once the child's age is proved to be below 16 years and imposes a minimum sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, which can be extended till the remainder of life.

Mere Transfer Of Defrauded Amount To Accused's Account Doesn't Establish Same Transaction To Club FIRs : Supreme Court

Cause Title: RUTVIJ BHAGAT SINGH WAKHARE Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC 716

The Supreme Court (July 24) refused to grant relief of clubbing of FIRs to a person accused of cyber fraud, noting that mere involvement of the accused bank account for the purpose of transferring the defrauded amounts would not be sufficient to hold that the incidents form the part of the same transaction to justify clubbing of FIRs.

The Court noted that each FIR had been lodged by a different complainant who was allegedly induced to part with money on different occasions. The mere fact that part of the defrauded amounts allegedly reached the petitioner's bank account did not establish a "live link or connectivity" between the separate incidents, it held.

“The mere fact that a part of the defrauded amounts is alleged to have been transferred in the bank account of petitioner's proprietary concern does not, by itself, establish that all the incidents form part of the same transaction. Though the alleged modus operandi appears to be similar, the victims, the amounts involved, the transactions complained of and the consequences suffered are distinct. Prima facie, therefore, the subject FIRs relate to separate transactions disclosing distinct offences and cannot be said to arise out of the same transaction.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

Stamp Duty On Mining Leases Based On Anticipated Royalty, Not Dead Rent : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 717

The Supreme Court (July 23) ruled that stamp duty payable on mining leases must be calculated based on anticipated royalty and not dead rent.

Relying on the proviso to Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to uphold the levy of stamp duty by the District Collector on the anticipated royalty, instead of dead rent.

“As reproduced supra, the Section deals with payment of stamp duty in cases where at the time of the execution of the agreement, the value of the subject matter is indeterminate. The proviso (proviso to Section 26) thereto, deals specifically with mining leases and provides that in such cases the estimated royalty or value of the share thereof shall be sufficient for the purposes of determining stamp duty. It further clarifies that in cases where the government is the lessor, the estimation is to be carried out by the Collector.”, the Court observed.

TRAI's Direction To Comply With Regulations Is Not 'Adjudication' : Supreme Court

Cause Title: TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VERSUS M/S POLIMER CABLE NETWORK AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 718

The Supreme Court (July 24) held that a direction of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to comply with the provisions of the Act cannot be termed as 'adjudication' under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.

“A direction to obey a regulation operates upon the regulated entity in the discharge of TRAI's regulatory function under Section 11(1)(b) read with Section 13; it is not a determination of a lis inter se…Accordingly, neither the direction nor the Show Cause Notice bears the essential attributes of “adjudication”, and TRAI has not trespassed upon the exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction of the TDSAT.”, observed a bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria, while setting aside the TDSAT findings, which held against the TRAI's regulatory power to issue direction under the Act.

The case relates to the issuance of a show cause notice by the TRAI to the Multi-System Operator (“MSO”) based on the Local Cable Operators' complaint to TRAI that the MSO had abruptly disconnected the cable television signals for which the LCOs had contracted.

Supreme Court Directs Centre, CBSE To Amend APAAR Consent Form To Give Opt-Out/Refuse Option; Restricts Third-Party Sharing Of Data

Case Details : ABHISHEK BAXI Vs UNION OF INDIA|WP.(C) No. 832/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 719

The Supreme Court directedthe Union Government and the Central Board of Secondary Education to amend the model consent form prescribed under the Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (APAAR) Scheme to expressly provide an option enabling parents or guardians to withhold or refuse consent.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the directions contained in paragraph 19 of an Orissa High Court judgment in Rohit Anand Das v State of Odisha(2025) should be given effect to on a pan-India basis by the authorities implementing the APAAR scheme.

In paragraph 19, the High Court had directed: "Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis made hereinbefore, this Court finds that the Petitioners have made out a good case for interference by this Court. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The opposite party-authorities are directed to consider amendment of the model consent form to include an opt out/refusal of consent option therein. The model consent form incorporating such changes as provided by learned counsel for the Petitioners to the learned DSGI may also be considered. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within two months from today."

Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Case Lodged By Wife Against Husband's Sister, Flags Trend Of Dragging In-Laws Into Family Dispute

Case : AS v State of Maharashtra

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 720

The Supreme Court observed that it has become customary for in-laws to be dragged into criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes and children are often used to vilify each other.

“It is commonplace, nay customary that in-laws are dragged in to settle scores in cases arising out of marital discord and often children are used to vilify each other”, the Court observed.

The Court made this observation while quashing a POCSO case against a woman accused of sexually assaulting her five-year-old nephew, highlighting that the case was allegedly a counterblast to another case against the complainant-mother's brother.

Orders and Other Developments

"Even If Building Is Demolished Today, I Won't Allow Listing": CJI Surya Kant Deprecates Practice Of Directly Approaching Supreme Court

The Supreme Court declined to urgently list a plea seeking protection against the demolition of a property, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant refusing to entertain the matter directly and reiterating that litigants should first approach the jurisdictional High Court.

Seeking a same-day listing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the authorities were proceeding with the demolition despite the existence of a sanctioned building plan. The counsel argued that while the authorities alleged that the construction had come up in a pond area, the building had been raised pursuant to a duly sanctioned plan.

The CJI, however, refused to grant an urgent hearing or pass any interim protection.

Will Ask CBSE To Give Opt-Out Option In APAAR Consent Forms For Students: Supreme Court In Plea Against Aadhaar Linkage

Case : ABHISHEK BAXI Vs UNION OF INDIA WP.(C) No. 832/2026

The Supreme Court said that it will direct the Central Board of Secondary Education to implement adirection of the Orissa High Court to amend the model consent form for generation of APAAR (Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry) IDs to explicitly provide parents with an option to refuse consent or opt out of the scheme.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the parents of four students challenging the constitutional validity of the APAAR ID scheme for students on the ground that it compelled students to obtain Aadhaar IDs. The petitioners also raised concerns about the protection, storage and processing of students' personal data, and sought strict compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said that it will also pass a direction to the CBSE to address these concerns.

HC Judges' Post-Retirement Benefits Must Be Uniform Across Country : Supreme Court Asks Centre To Form Committee

Case: JUSTICE V.S. DAVE PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATION OF RETD. JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS v. KUSUMJIT SIDHU . AND ORS. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 425-426/2015 In W.P.(C) No. 523/2002 and connected matters

The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to constitute a committee within two weeks to frame uniform guidelines on post-retirement facilities for former Chief Justices and judges of High Courts, observing that essential amenities currently vary widely from State to State.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, was hearing a writ petition concerning the security and other post-retirement facilities available to retired High Court judges.

The Court noted that the issue before it concerns "certain benefits/facilities to be made admissible to retired Chief Justices and judges of High Courts."

Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre For Delaying Decision On Ex-Cop's President's Gallantry Award For Anti-Dacoity Operation

Case : GOVIND MOHAN Vs VIVEK SINGH CHOUHAN | MA 2056/2026 in SLP(C) No. 10821/2026 Diary No. 40866 / 2026

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the Union Government's continued refusal to comply with a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction to confer the President's Gallantry Award on a former police officer who shot dead two dacoits during an anti-dacoity operation more than two decades ago.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an application filed by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan seeking time to comply with the order directing the conferment of the award to police officer Vivek Singh Chouhan.

Appearing for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the Centre had filed a review petition against the Supreme Court's order approving the High Court's judgment. He submitted that the objection was "in principle" and not against the individual officer.

Supreme Court Stays HC Order Allowing Accused To Inspect Unrelied Electronic Evidence In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

Case Details: STATE NCT OF DELHI Vs DEVANGANA KALITA|SLP(Crl) No. 12447/2026 Diary No. 38990 / 2026

The Supreme Court (July 20) stayed the Delhi High Court's order,which allowed Devangana Kalita, accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, to inspect electronic evidence collected by the Delhi Police during the investigation but not relied upon by the prosecution.

It may be recalled that on June 6, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court dismissed Kalita's plea seeking videos of the CAA-NRC protests and WhatsApp chats relied on by the Delhi police against her due to the sensitive information involved. However, the judge allowed her to inspect the un-relied documents stored in police custody.

This order was challenged by the Delhi Police before the Supreme Court. Before a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted that in two judgments of the Court - Debendra Nath Padhi and Sarla Gupta - clearly held that the accused is not entitled to inspect unrelied documents at the stage of framing of charge. Raju stated that seeking to inspect unrelied documents at this stage is nothing but a tactic to delay the trial.

Supreme Court Affirms Delhi HC Verdict Quashing MEA Tenders On Outsourcing Consular Services At 4 Indian Missions

Case : UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. E TRAV TECH LIMITED AND ANR.| SLP(C) No. 24271-24277/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union Government's challenge to the Delhi High Court's judgmentsetting aside tenders for outsourcing Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) services at Indian missions in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra. However, the Court permitted the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Engineers India Limited (EIL) to make interim arrangements to ensure uninterrupted services until a fresh tender process is completed.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order after hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union Government and Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi and Shyam Divan for the private parties.

During the hearing, the Solicitor General submitted that the Delhi High Court had erred in quashing the tender process and contended that the evaluation criteria had been applied on the basis of each bidder's individual competence.

Supreme Court Questions BCI's Opposition To Enrolment Of Advocate With Pending Criminal Case

Case Title – K.R. Sudersan v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry

The Supreme Court pulled up the Bar Council of India (BCI) over its opposition to the enrolment of law graduates facing pending criminal cases. The Court orally remarked that the bigger concern was the BCI granting recognition to law colleges run in garages, while failing to point to any statutory provision barring such enrolment.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan was hearing a petition filed by K.R. Sudersan, a Chartered Accountant who later obtained a law degree but was denied enrolment as an advocate by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry because a criminal case is pending against him.

The Madras High Court in 2015 via a Single Judge directed the Bar Council of India to ensure that law graduates facing pending criminal cases are not enrolled as advocates. A Full Bench in another case later affirmed the direction as a temporary measure to operate until Parliament amended the law.

'Many Pujaris Wasting Properties' : Supreme Court On Priests' Plea Against State Control Of Temples

Case Details: PURANDAS Vs UNION OF INDIA| W.P.(C) No. 828/2026 Diary No. 33767 / 2026

The Supreme Court (July 20) issued notice in a writ petition filed by 237 hereditary pujaris and owners of private temples contending that their temples, built on private land, are being auctioned by the government.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the matter and issued notice to the Union of India, and authorities in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan . As per the petitioners, who are hereditary pujaris and owners of private temples situated in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan, their temples were established by ancestors and have always remained private temples. However, executive circulars have been issued where Collectors were appointed as managers.

At the outset, Justice Kumar questioned if the names of District Collectors were entered by virtue of the 1974 circular, what were the petitioners doing for 60 years.

Don't Politicise Ayodhya Ram Temple Donation Theft, Cautions Supreme Court

Cases : Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 790/2026; Ajay Kumar Rai and another v. Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust | WP(Crl) 241/2026; Sudhakar Singh v. Union of India and others | WP (crl) 256/2026; Hindu Dharma Parishad v. The Union Of India And Ors. | WP(C) No. 827/2026

The Supreme Court observed that the Ayodhya Ram Mandir donation theft issue should not be politicized.

Hearing petitions seeking CBI investigation and audit of the temple Trust finances, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, “We are only putting a word of caution. Don't play any politics. The Courts are not meant for this. Don't politicize the issue. It is a simple prima facie case of commission of an offense", the CJI said.

Indicating that the Court would pass certain directions, the CJI's bench adjourned the matter so as to go through a status report filed by the Uttar Pradesh government.

Supreme Court Affirms Ban On Commercial Activity In Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor

Case Title: M/S JUNGLE HUT Versus THE HONBLE SEGUR PLATEAU ELEPHANT CORRIDOR INQUIRY COMMITTEE AND ORS. SLP(C) No. 32019/2025 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court categorically ruled out any sort of commercial activity in the Segur plateau (Western Ghats area), which was declared as an Elephant corridor.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana disposed of a bunch of petitions challenging the Madras High Court order which upheld the findings of a Supreme Court-appointed committee, declaring as null and void the land bought by resort owners in the Segur plateau.

It however gave persons aggrieved by the High Court order, who have lost their livelihood, liberty to seek alternative sources of livelihood. The Court further gave the State of Tamil Nadu liberty to identify the land which was worth acquisition in the area and not possessed/owned by tribal communities.

'Will Jail You, You Duped Whole Country' : Supreme Court Warns Parsvnath Directors Over Non-Compliance With HRERA Orders

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

The Supreme Court again came down on Haryana-based Parsvnath Developers, calling on its directors to deposit the total recovery amount in connection with undelivered flats or else face jail.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with writ petitions filed by senior citizen homebuyers in the Parsvnath Exotica Project (Gurugram), who have been awaiting possession of their flats since over 2 decades despite payment of entire consideration.

Earlier, the Court had passeda slew of coercive directions against the directors, calling for their appearance and freezing their personal bank accounts. It had further passed remarks against the Haryana authorities (considering their non-action despite the Developers' non-compliance with HRERA orders) and called for compliance affidavits by the Haryana Chief Secretary, the DGP, all Collectors and all banks concerned.

Supreme Court Stays Allahabad HC Proceedings In Which CBI Was Directed To Secure Evidence In 2009 UP Police Custodial Death

Case Details: AJAY KUMAR MISHRA v ASSOCIATION FOR ADVOCACY AND LEGAL INITIATIVES & ORS.|Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).17458-17459/2026

The Supreme Courtstayed further proceedings before the Allahabad High Court concerning the custodial death of a disabled man in Uttar Pradesh in 2009.

The High Court bench comprising Justice Atul Shreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan, in its order passed on May 16, rebuked the Uttar Pradesh police and the National Human Rights Commission for their "institutional failures" in closing the 16-year-old custodial death case.

A High Court bench, in the impugned order passed on May 18, severely criticised the NHRC for closing the case by treating the police's version as gospel truth without conducting any independent investigation. Particularly, the High Court had expressed anguish over videography and photography of the crime scene and the postmortem not being made available to it for the last 16 years. Orders were passed directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to secure missing video evidence within 60 days. The High Court retained the matter for further consideration, and listed it to August 10.

Shiv-Sena UBT Moves Supreme Court Against Lok Sabha Speaker Approving Merger Of Its 6 MPs With Shinde Sena

Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray faction approached the Supreme Court (July 21) against Lok Sabha Speaker approving merger of its 6 Members of Parliament with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena.

The matter was mentioned by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat before a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant seeking urgent listing of the plea.

As the court asked about the urgency, Kamat said, "My functioning as a political party in the Parliament has come to absolute standstill. These MPs are not with me. The Speaker has recognized their merger with another party. And this is for this Parliament session".

Third Supreme Court Judge Recuses From Hearing Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea In 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case

Case Title: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No. 3742/2023

The Supreme Court (July 21) ordered that the bail plea of lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case should be heard by a bench not comprising Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.

The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar. At the outset, an advocate on behalf of Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for the National Investigation Agency) sought a passover, while Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioner. However, Justice Mishra said the matter will go before another coordinate bench since Justice Chandrashekhar has some difficulty.

"It will go to some other combination; my brother has some difficulty. Post before the bench in which one of us is not there," Justice Mishra said.

1996 Samleti Bus Bomb Blast: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Trial Of Death Row Convict Citing Ineffective Legal Representation

Case details: Crl.A. No. 1827-1829/2019 Diary No. 38125 / 2019 ABDUL HAMEED Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The Supreme Court (July 21) set aside the death penalty of Dr. Abdul Hameed, who was convicted in the 1996 Samleti Bus Bomb Blast involving an IED which detonated on a passenger bus travelling from Agra to Bikaner near Samleti village, killing 14 persons and injuring 37 others.

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta set aside the 2019 Rajasthan High Court judgement to the extent it upheld the conviction and death sentence of Hameed, citing ineffective assistance of counsel.

The judges have now ordered a de-novo trial in the matter.

Supreme Court Deletes Direction On Supervision Of Kerala Waqf Board By Govt Official, Asks HC To Decide Plea Expeditiously

Case Title: THE KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD AND ORS. Versus SHONE GEORGE AND ORS. SLP(C) No. 24194/2026 (and connected case)

The Supreme Court (July 21) deleted Kerala High Court's direction that the State Waqf Board shall function under supervision of the government's Joint Secretary/Additional Secretary of government.

The court passed the order in the Board's plea challenging the Kerala High Court's orderrestraining it from taking major policy decisions over absence of 2 non-Muslim members. The Apex Court meanwhile asked the High Court to expeditiously decide the case.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered,

'Not A Matter For Us': Supreme Court Defers Hearing On Plea Seeking SoP For Time-Bound Probe In Exam Paper Leaks

Case Details: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(Crl.) No. 264/2026 Diary No. 40857 / 2026

The Supreme Court (July 21) expressed its reluctance about entertaining a public interest litigation seeking a “Standard Questionnaire and Special Investigation Procedure” to ensure time-bound investigations in cases involving question paper leaks.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe orally remarked “It's not a matter for us [to consider].”

It indicated that it's already monitoring the petitions raising structural concerns with the National Testing Agency (NTA) conducting the NEET examination. On the insistence of Senior Advocate Vikas Singh(for petitioner, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay), the Court deferred the matter to be heard after one week after it has heard the NEET petitions.

Honeymoon Murder Case: Supreme Court Suggests Sonam Raghuvanshi Surrender, Questions Delay In Raising Plea Of Non-Supply Of Arrest Grounds

Case Title: STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SONAM RAGHUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU | SLP(Crl) No. 11944/2026

The Supreme Court (July 21) suggested that Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, surrender and face trial while questioning why she had not raised the plea of non-supply of grounds of arrest at the earliest opportunity.

The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing the Meghalaya government's challenge to the bail granted to Sonam by the High Court.

During the hearing, Justice Sundresh posed a series of questions to Sonam's counsel regarding her conduct and the timing of the challenge to her arrest.

BrahMos Espionage Case: Supreme Court Issues Notice On UP Govt's Appeal Against Acquittal Of Former Engineer

Case Details: Anti-Terror Squad, Through Investigating Officer Lucknow Uttar Pradesh vs Nishant|SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 32039/2026

The Supreme Court (July 13) issued notice on an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging a Bombay High Court judgment acquitting former BrahMos Aerospace engineer Nishant Agarwal of charges of cyber-terrorism and espionage.

Although the trial was conducted in Nagpur and the appeal against conviction was decided by the Bombay High Court, the Uttar Pradesh government has approached the Supreme Court since the case was investigated by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Lucknow (UP).

The matter was mentioned by Uttar Pradesh's Standing Counsel, Advocate Shaurya Sahay, before a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, which issued notice to Maharashtra and Agarwal.

BREAKING| Supreme Court Defers SCBA Reforms To 2027-28 Elections, Upcoming Polls To Be Held Under Old Rules

Cause Title: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VERSUS B.D. KAUSHIK & ANR.

The Supreme Court has partially modified its earlier order on electoral reforms for the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections, stating that the suggested reforms, including new voter eligibility norms based on court appearances and a two-year term for office-bearers, will take effect only from the 2027-28 election cycle.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan agreed to accept a “unanimous request" from the Bar that the reforms should not be applied to the upcoming 2026-27 elections, as the electoral roll had already been finalized on May 26, 2026 with a cut-off date of February 28, 2026.

“The election for the year 2026-27 will be held as per the regime that was obtained prior to the order of this Court dated 29.05.2026 since the electoral roll already stood finalized before the order of 29.05.2026, with the cut-off being 28.02.2026.”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Woman Advocate Alleges Assault By Bar Association Office Bearer Over Land Grabbing Case In Lucknow District Court

A practicing Supreme Court advocate alleged before the Court that she and her client were beaten up by a Bar Association office bearer in connection with a land grabbing case at the Lucknow District Court.

Just as the Chief Justice of India's bench was rising for the day, the counsel appeared online and submitted, "A very urgent matter your lordships...I am a practicing advocate in Supreme Court...I came to Lucknow District Court to attend a hearing. The defendant is a Bar Association Office bearer. He is not letting us appear in the matter. He has assaulted us. Our client is still in the captive of the Bar Association office here."

"I request your lordships' kind indulgence. He is interfering in the administration of justice in the entire District Court! We are not able to enter inside the Court. He has assaulted us. He has beaten us. And now we had to flee to the High Court. It's impossible to enter inside the District Court. It's risky for us. He [office bearer] is carrying a gun!", she added.

Remaining Maharashtra Local Body Elections Can Be Conducted Without Breaching 50% Reservation, Says Supreme Court

Case Title: RAHUL RAMESH WAGH v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 19756/2021 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court orally said that elections of 20 Zilla Parishads and 211 Panchayat Samitis, which are yet to be held in the State of Maharashtra, can be conducted without exceeding the reservation ceiling limit of 50 per cent.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was dealing with a bunch of petitions related to Maharashtra local body elections, which remained held up between 2022 and 2025 over issues pertaining to reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

In May 2025, the Court had passed an interim order paving way for the local body polls to be held in the state. Subsequently, however, certain applications were filed before it, contending that the ceiling limit of 50% reservation (contemplated by a Constitution Bench in K Krishna Murthy judgment) was breached in case of some local bodies. This led the Court to later observe that the Maharashtra authorities misconstrued its 2025 order and that the 50% limit was not to be exceeded.

'No Allegation That He Exhorted Violence' : Supreme Court On 2020 Rioting Case Against Punjab Minister Aman Arora Over AAP Protest

Case Title: U.T. CHANDIGARH v. AMAN ARORA, Diary No. 40158-2026

In a rioting case against Punjab Minister Aman Arora (AAP), the Supreme Court orally opined that mere presence in an unruly group does not per se result in sharing of common intention so as to attract Sections 147/148 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court also orally commented that there was no allegation that Arora had exhorted violence.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was dealing with the Chandigarh administration's challenge to a Punjab and Haryana High Court order which quashed the rioting case against Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann, Aman Arora and other AAP leaders.

Collegium Faces Casual Criticism From Those Unaware Of How Judiciary Functions : CJI Surya Kant

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that the Supreme Court Collegium often faces "casual criticism" from people who do not understand how the judiciary functions or the rigorous process involved in selecting judges for constitutional courts. He stressed that the Collegium considers a range of objective factors, including merit, performance, experience, inclusiveness and diversity, while recommending appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts.

The CJI made the remarks while addressing a felicitation ceremony organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to welcome the newly appointed Supreme Court judges - Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice Arun Palli and Justice V Mohana - who took oath on June 2.

"I can assure you that despite the casual criticism the Supreme Court Collegium sometimes faces, particularly from people who do not know the functioning of the judiciary and how the Supreme Court Collegium evolved, what kind of criteria it factors in, and the issues that are deliberated... the Collegium, while taking decisions, considers so many important and relevant factors while shortlisting Judges for appointment to the Supreme Court and even the High Courts. We follow the same criteria for the appointment of Chief Justices as well," the CJI said.

'Don't Waste Our Time' : Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Listing Of Plea Against Police Action On Student Protesters

The Supreme Court refused to allow urgent listing of a letter petition raising the issue of the Delhi police attack on student protesters in the national capital during the protests called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) seeking the resignation of the Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over exam paper leaks.

"Don't waste our time, and don't waste your time," the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant told Advocate Narendra Mishra, who mentioned the matter. Mishra has sent a letter petition to the CJI regarding the issue.

The lawyer said that the students are raising important issues such as proper conduct of the NEET exam, and reforms in the National Testing Agency.

Kapil Sibal Files Plea In Supreme Court Against Political Defections Under Guise Of Mergers

Case : Kapil Sibal v. Union of India | Diary No. 42846/2026

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal has moved the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition as a party-in-person challenging the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution that permits legislators to avoid disqualification under the anti-defection law by taking the route of a political party merger.

In his petition, Sibal has questioned the constitutional interpretation of the provisions relating to mergers under the Tenth Schedule, contending that the existing interpretation allows splinter groups to escape the rigours of the anti-defection law by engineering mergers with other political parties.

Sibal mentioned the matter for urgent listing before the Chief Justice of India.

Bhojshala Dispute : Will Allot A Nearer Spot For Friday Namaz, MP Govt Tells Supreme Court

In the Bhojshala dispute, Muslim parties have filed an application in the Supreme Court objecting to the Madhya Pradesh administration's choice of the plot allotted for Friday namaz.

They contended that though the Supreme Court had directed that a plot which is adjacent to the Bhojshala complex must be given for Friday namaz, the site given by the administration is located 2 kilometres away from it.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi mentioned the application before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant this morning for urgent listing tomorrow.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Lok Sabha Speaker On Shiv Sena UBT Challenge To Merger Of MPs With Shinde Sena

Case Details: ARVIND GANPAT SAWANT v HONBLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 886/2026

The Supreme Court (July 22) issued notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker in a plea filed by Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (UBT) member Arvind Ganpat Sawant challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision approving the merger of its six Members of Parliament with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena. However, the Court refused to grant interim relief at this stage.

Before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Senior Advocate Devadutt Kamat(for UBT) argued that no disqualification petitions are pending before the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla; therefore, there was no occasion to pass an order approving the merger. He pressed for an interim relief for a stay on the Speaker's order. He also raised a contention that the merger order has been signed by some Joint Secretary and not by the LS Speaker.

He said: "This raises important questions of constitutional morality and propriety, goes to the heart of parliamentary democracy. 6 MPs out of 9 chosen on my party symbol; no disqualification proceedings are pending. Question on merger has not arisen as what your lordships said in Subhash Desai...whole thing orchestrated only for the purposes of parliament session, my lords may take it next week."

Prosecution Should Focus On Securing Conviction Than Opposing Bail: Supreme Court Flags Increasing SLPs Against Bail Orders

Case Title: CHAITANYA BHAGHEL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SLP(Crl) No. 17232/2025 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court voiced serious concerns over the growing number of appeals against bail orders reaching the apex court, observing that prosecutors should focus more on securing convictions than opposing bail and reiterating that bail matters should ordinarily rest with the High Courts.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana refused to cancel the bailgranted to Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, in the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam. While dismissing petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the State Economic Offences Wing (EOW), the Court expunged certain adverse remarks made by the Chhattisgarh High Court against the prosecution, holding that they were "completely uncalled for."

During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the increasing tendency of prosecutors to challenge bail orders before the Supreme Court instead of concentrating on ensuring successful prosecutions.

Consider Increasing Retirement Age Of District Judges To 61 : Supreme Court To States/UTs

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

The Supreme Court directed all States/UTs to consider enhancing the retirement age of District Judges to 61 years, after consulting with the respective High Courts.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the All India Judges Associationcase, where one of the issues being considered is whether the age of superannuation of members of District Judiciary should be enhanced to 62 on pan-India level despite any resistance shown by any State/UT or High Court.

The Court indicated that it will decide the issue as to whether the retirement age needs to be uniform on pan-India level at the earliest. But in the meantime, its earlier interim order (permitting District Judges in some states to continue till 61) is modified to hold that district judges who are due to retire may continue working till the age of 61, provided the State/UT they are working in and the respective High Court are in concurrence over increase in the retirement age.

Supreme Court Asks Union, CPCB To Explain Utilisation Of 'Environment Relief Fund'

Case Title: GYAN PRAKASH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 1093/2019

The Supreme Court has called for a comprehensive affidavit from the Union of India and the CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board) on the "Environment Relief Fund" established under the Public Liability Insurance Act.

For context, the ERF was created to provide financial relief to victims of transport accidents involving hazardous materials. A person plying a vehicle on road is supposed to have a policy covering third-party risk, but those carrying hazardous materials must have an additional insurance in terms of the PLIA. Since its creation, over Rs.1000 crores are stated to have been received in the ERF.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi called for the affidavit, while dealing with a public interest litigation initiated by Jabalpur-based social activist Gyan Prakash. At his request, the bench also agreed to appoint an Amicus Curiae in the matter.

Law Students Can't Be Barred From Ongoing Academic Session Exams Over Attendance Shortage: Supreme Court Grants One-Time Relief

Case Title – Prakruthi Jain v. Bar Council of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Supreme Court has held that law students whose academic session was ongoing when the Delhi High Court delivered its November 3, 2025 judgment diluting attendance norms, which was later stayed, cannot be barred from appearing in their final examinations for that academic session on the ground of shortage of attendance.

“we hereby direct and provide that the students whose academic session was ongoing when the judgment dated 3rd November, 2025 was rendered by the Delhi High Court, shall not be detained or prevented from appearing in the final examinations for the said academic session”, the Court directed.

The Court clarified that this is a one-time measure in view of the confusion created by the Delhi High Court's direction that no law student could be barred from taking examinations solely on the ground of lack of minimum attendance and the Bar Council of India's subsequent circular implementing it.

Supreme Court Metro Station Closure Amid Student Protest : CJI Says Will Intervene If No Solution By Lunch

The closure of the Supreme Court Metro station in the wake of the ongoing student protests was raised before the Supreme Court by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh, who urged that at least lawyers, litigants and court staff with valid access to the apex court be permitted to use the station.

Mentioning the issue before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Singh said that persons holding valid Supreme Court entry passes, along with Registry staff, should be allowed to exit at the Supreme Court Metro station after appropriate security screening.

"In the metro, there is one advantage that when they come out of the train, there is an exit point. There they can be screened. People having proximity cards, and Registry staff, can be permitted to come out, and the rest can be told to take the other train and go. So people will be able to use the train also," Singh submitted.

Honeymoon Murder Case : Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Sonam Raghuvanshi

Case Title: STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SONAM RAGHUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU | SLP(Crl) No. 11944/2026

The Supreme Court set aside the bail grantedto Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, holding that the High Court and the trial court erred in granting her relief on the ground of alleged defects in the communication of the grounds of arrest.

A Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale, however, granted Sonam three weeks' time to surrender. The Court also observed that if the trial is not concluded within six months, she will be at liberty to move a fresh bail application.

Allowing the appeal filed by the State of Meghalaya, the Court held that while service of grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1), the present case did not involve a complete failure to serve the grounds of arrest.

Supreme Court Dilutes Earlier Order Banning Industrial Activity In Taj Trapezium Zone, Allows Processing Of Applications

Case Title: IN RE: REGULATION OF INDUSTRIES IN THE TAJ TRAPEZIUM ZONE Versus SMW(C) No. 9/2026

The Supreme Court diluted its earlier order that effectively barred fresh industrial activity in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) without its prior approval, permitting the TTZ Authority to process around 410 pending applications, most of them filed by micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) seeking permission for industrial establishment, expansion or relocation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order in the suo motu case "In Re Regulation of Industries in Taj Trapezium Zone."

The Court modified itsOctober 14, 2024 order, under which the TTZ Authority had been restrained from permitting the setting up or expansion of industries without obtaining prior approval from the Supreme Court.

Inadequate Grounds Of Arrest Don't By Themselves Vitiate Arrest, Prejudice To Accused Must Be Shown: Supreme Court

Case: State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu | SLP (Crl.) No. 11944/2026

Drawing a distinction between complete non-service of grounds of arrest and inadequate communication of the reasons for arrest, the Supreme Court held that while the former would vitiate an arrest, in the latter case the Court must examine whether prejudice has been caused to the accused.

On this reasoning, the Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, holding that the Meghalaya High Court and the Trial Court erred in granting her bail on the ground that she was not supplied with valid grounds of arrest.

The Meghalaya High Court had upheld the Trial Court's bail order in her fourth bail application after finding that the grounds of arrest documents referred to non-existent Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103(1).

'Bureaucrats Deciding Land Compensation Prima Facie Unacceptable': Supreme Court Recommends Amendment To National Highways Act

Case Title: M/S RIAR BUILDERS PVT LTD & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (with connected matters)

The Supreme Court urged the Union government to make suitable amendments to the National Highways Act so that land acquisition compensation disputes thereunder are decided by "judicially trained minds" and not government officers.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a batch of SLPs that arose from the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which declared Sections 3G and 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, unconstitutional.

These provisions constitute the statutory framework for determining compensation through arbitration when landowners dispute the amount awarded. The concern of the Court is grounded in a disparity between landowners whose lands were acquired under the NH Act vis-s-vis those whose lands are acquired under other statutes. This is because the compensation disputes under the former are decided by government officers, while the latter's are decided in courts.

Can MLAs Merge With Another Party Without Original Political Party's Consent? Supreme Court To Hear Goa Case In December

Case : Girish Chodankar Vs Speaker, Goa Assembly | SLP(c) 5256/25

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the petition filed by Goa Congress leader Girish Chodankar challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) which approved the defection of 8 Congress MLAs to the Bharatiya Janata Party as a valid merger.

Granting leave to appeal in Chodankar's Special Leave Petition, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana posted the matter for hearing in December 2026.

The central issue raised in the petition is whether the legislative party (the group of MLAs elected on the party ticket) can claim the defence of merger under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution if their act had no approval of the original political party merely because they constituted 2/3rd of the MLAs.

Supreme Court Orders FIR & SIT Probe In Custodial Death Of Gujarat Man Booked In Cow Slaughter Case

Case Title :TOFIK SHAIKH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. SLP(Crl) No. 11532/2026

The Supreme Court ordered the registration of a First Information Report and a Special Investigation Team probe into the death of a man alleged to have died in the custody of Gujarat police after he was booked in a cow slaughter case. The man's son claims that he died due to the consumption of 100 anti-diabetes pills and relies on a dying declaration.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the direction, after hearing Senior Advocate IH Syed for petitioner (the man's son). At the petitioner's request, the bench further ordered the Commissioner of Police to assess the threat perception and take appropriate action for the protection of the petitioner.

The Court directed that the FIR to be investigated by the SIT be registered initially without naming any suspect. The same shall be pursued from the angle of unnatural death, in the context of relevant provisions. A final report shall be submitted by the SIT before the jurisdictional Magistrate as early as possible and preferably within 3 months.

Supreme Court Sets Aside 2016 Uttarakhand HC Directions On Forest Fire Control, Relegates Matter To HC For Monitoring

Case Title: THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR v. IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTECTION OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY, WILDLIFE ETC. FROM THE FOREST FIRE ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1249/2019

The Supreme Court relegated to the Uttarakhand High Court a matter pertaining to forest fires in the State for issuance of appropriate directions and monitoring of periodic measures to control their menace.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Rajiv Datta (applicant in person), Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (for CEC) and Uttarakhand Deputy Advocate General Jatinder Kumar Sethi.

Disposing of the matter, the Court set aside the 2016 judgment of the High Court, whereby a slew of directions were issued on the issue of forest fires. The bench observed that the High Court directions were issued 10 years back, and given the lapse of time and technological advancements, the directions required to be revisited.

Supreme Court Takes Note Of Widespread River Pollution, Asks Rajasthan To Invoke Graver Offences Against Polluters

Case: In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8 of 2025

The Supreme Court sought Rajasthan Government's response to fresh reports alleging industrial pollution in different parts of the State, observing that the allegations, if found to be true, may point to a larger systemic failure in enforcement of environmental laws.

The Court also asked the State to explain why prosecutions relating to illegal discharge of untreated industrial effluents had not invoked graver offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the directions while considering the Second Status Report of the High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee constituted to oversee restoration of the Jojari-Bandi-Luni river system and the Committee's comments on the first report filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Manipur Violence : Supreme Court Proposes Special Courts For Day-to-Day Trials, Seeks Faster Completion Of Probes

Case : CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. ARUN KHUNDONGBAM @NANAO | SLP(Crl) No. 5756/2026 and connected cases

The Supreme Court proposed the constitution of special courts to conduct day-to-day trials in criminal cases arising out of the 2023 ethnic violence in Manipur, expressing concern over the prolonged delay in investigations and emphasizing that pending probes must be completed within a reasonable time.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted the status reports filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Special Investigation Teams (SITs), and former Maharashtra DGP Dattatray Padsalgikar, who was appointed by the Court to monitor the investigations.

The Court recorded that the CBI has filed charge sheets in 21 cases, while investigations are continuing in 11 cases. Closure reports have been accepted in three cases, and four cases remain under investigation. It further noted that SITs investigating 3,020 cases across eight districts have filed charge sheets in 301 cases, with trials having commenced in only 10 cases.

Supreme Court Bans Uploading & Sharing Of Audio-Video Recordings Of Court Hearings Without Prior Permission

Case : Harshita Grover v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 751/2026

The Supreme Court passed an interim order prohibiting the extraction, editing, dissemination, reposting, uploading or monetisation of audio and video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission from the concerned court.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed an interim order to the effect that "there there shall be no extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing, or hosting of the audio-video recording(s) of the judicial proceedings on social media or any other digital platforms without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India or the Registrar Generals of the jurisdictional High Courts."

The Court clarified that the interim direction would not affect news reporting of court proceedings.

NEET-UG | 'Can't Go On Like This, No More Ad-Hocism': Supreme Court Says It Will Closely Monitor NTA Reforms

Case Details: FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 651/2026 and others

The Supreme Court indicated that it will closely monitor the institutional reforms being undertaken to overhaul the National Testing Agency (NTA), stressing that recurring paper leaks and ad hoc responses to examination security "cannot go on like this."

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe adjourned to August 3 a batch of petitions seeking structural reforms to the NTA after the Union Government sought time, stating that it was finalising measures that may go beyond the recommendations of the High-Level Committee headed by former ISRO Chairman Dr K Radhakrishnan. The petitions were filed after the NEET-UG 2026 exam held in May was cancelled due to paper-leak.

Appearing for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the government was "very serious" about safeguarding the future of students and assured the Court that any suggestions made by the Bench would be implemented without reservation.

'We Will Entertain' : Supreme Court To Hear On Monday Pleas Against Police Force On Student Protesters Across Country

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors. Diary no. 44078/2026

The Supreme Court agreed to hear two petitions alleging excessive use of police force against students participating in protests across the country over the issue of exam paper leaks.

The matter was mentioned before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan this afternoon.

Mentioning the urgency, Sankaranarayanan informed the Court that two petitions concerning the alleged violence against student protesters had now been formally filed.

'Courts Can't Be 24/7 Entertainment Channel': Supreme Court Rethinks Livestreaming, Seeks Reports From HCs On Its Impact

Case : Harshita Grover v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 751/2026

"Courts cannot be 24×7 entertainment channel", the Supreme Court orally expressed, as it expressed a need to rethink continuous livestreaming of the proceedings.

Hearing a petition against the unauthorised circulation of Court clips, the Court passed an interim order restraining the uploading and circulation of audio-visual recordings of Court proceedings on social media.

The Court also called for reports from the High Courts on their adoption of the Supreme Court 'Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings' and the impact and feasibility of continuous livestreaming.

If Bar Council Seats Are Increased, Women's Reservation Also Needs Proportionate Increase: Supreme Court Indicates

Case Title – M. Varadhan v. Union of India

The Supreme Court orally observed that the Bar Council of India's decision to increase the number of seats in State Bar Councils after elections would also require proportionate implementation of the 30% reservation for women.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a batch of petitions concerning various issues arising out of State Bar Council elections.

During the hearing, it was highlighted that BCI had at its General Council meeting on July 19, resolved to increase the number of elected seats in State Bar Councils, after the elections had already concluded.

Supreme Court Urges Star Health Insurance To Withdraw Case Against Cyber Expert Who Exposed Vulnerability In System

Case Title: HIMANSHU PATHAK Versus MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ORS.

In an attempt to put a quietus to the dispute, the Supreme Court told Star Health and Allied Insurance Company to withdraw its case against cybersecurity expert Himanshu Pathak who allegedly "hacked" into the company's data to expose vulnerabilities.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana called on Advocates S Shivathanu Mohan and Shloka Narayanan, the Star Health counsels, to obtain instructions, saying, "whatever it may be...you are not facing a class action over vulnerability. Take instructions whether you can put a quietus to it".

Justice Bagchi, in particular, noted that no harm had been caused to Star Health due to the petitioner's conduct. Rather, owing to the same, it had perhaps come out wiser. "At the end of the day, no harm has been caused to you. Maybe that this information, and the anxiety to make money out of that information, has really put you on the right track, and you became wiser than what you have been in the past", the judge expressed.

CJP Protests : PIL In Supreme Court Seeks FIR Against Delhi Police, CAPF Officials Over Use Of Force On Student Protesters

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking registration of FIRs against Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) personnel over the alleged use of excessive force against students who protested at Delhi's Jantar Mantar against Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan from July 20 onwards during the protests called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP).

The petition also seeks an independent investigation into the incidents, preservation of CCTV footage, body-camera recordings and other electronic evidence, besides compensation for protesters found to have suffered injuries.

The petition contends that peaceful student demonstrators protesting against the NEET-UG paper leaks and demanding comprehensive reforms in the examination system were subjected to disproportionate police action, including lathi-charge, physical assault, use of tear gas and unlawful detention. It further alleges that unidentified persons in civilian clothing assaulted protesters in the presence of police personnel, warranting an independent investigation.

14 Exclusive Courts For NIA Trials Established Across Country, 113 For NDPS : Union Tells Supreme Court; More Courts In 4 Weeks

Case Title: IN RE: CREATION OF SPECIAL EXCLUSIVE COURTS Versus, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026

In the suo motu caseconcerning the creation of exclusive courts to tackle cases under special statutes like UAPA, etc., the Supreme Court was informed on July 20 by the Union that a total of 14 designated courts have been established across the country exclusively for the trial of NIA cases.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was apprised of the development by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati. The ASG said that the requisite notifications would be issued within the week.

As per the information provided, the 14 designated courts have been established in - Jharkhand (3), J&K (1), Maharashtra (2), Bihar (1), Gujarat (3), Chhattisgarh (1), Manipur (1), Assam (1) and Punjab (1). In case of Delhi, it was informed that approval has been accorded for 3 exclusive NIA courts and the notification would be issued shortly.

States With Less Than 1000 Consumer Cases May Abolish Some District Commissions : Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court clarified that States where the total pendency of consumer cases is below 1,000 may abolish some District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions and entrust their work to serving judicial officers, subject to the prior concurrence of the jurisdictional High Court.

The direction was issued in continuation of theCourt's February 11, 2026 order, which had permitted States and Union Territories with very low consumer case pendency to devise alternative arrangements for consumer dispute redressal instead of maintaining full-fledged Consumer Commissions.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order.