1. 'Investigating Officer Must Not Create Evidence' : Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal After Finding Witnesses Were 'Set Up'

Case Title: THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VERSUS ANCHLA @ CHANCHLA

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1014

Observing that the role of an investigating officer is to collect evidence, not to create it, the Supreme Court has acquitted a woman convicted in a double murder case after finding that the investigating agency had "set up" witnesses to create evidence and failed to explain what prompted it to record their statements during the investigation.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi heard the case, where, among other materials, the prosecution sought to establish the guilt of the accused based on the testimonies of a taxi driver and a hotel staff member, who were found to be created witnesses, as the investigation neither explained why, when, and under what circumstances their testimonies were recorded, nor did the said witnesses possess any incriminating material against the accused that would have prompted them to approach the police.

The case arose from the murder of a woman (D-1) and her son (D-2) at their residence in Diur, Himachal Pradesh, in 2011. The Respondent- accused, was the stepdaughter of D-1 and stepsister of D-2.

2. Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Over Alleged False Promise Of Marriage After Three-Year Consensual Relationship

Case Title: Martanda Singh v State of Chattisgarh & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1015

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of sexually exploiting a woman under the pretext of marriage, holding that a three-year consensual relationship could not be said to be based on coerced consent or misrepresentation.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal against the Chhattisgarh government and the complainant, observing that “a consensual relationship spreading over three years has eventually ended with a criminal case lodged against the appellant.”

In 2025, the complainant registered an FIR against the appellant alleging that he (accused/appellant) refused to marry her after exploiting her sexually under the pretext of marriage. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed in the case pursuant to which the accused filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

3. NDPS Act Prosecution Can't Be Quashed On Sole Ground That Disclosure Of Co-Accused Was Relied Upon : Supreme Court

Case Title: The State of Karnataka & Anr. Versus Sadiq Pasha

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1016

The Supreme Court has held that although a confession under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) or a disclosure statement under Section 53A cannot have evidentiary value to secure a conviction, the mere presence of such material cannot be a ground to quash a pending NDPS prosecution at the threshold.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that material disclosed by co-accused identifying an absconding accused may be used by the investigating officer to gather further evidence, which may ultimately form the basis of a chargesheet or conviction in a properly conducted trial.

The aforesaid observation came by a bench while hearing a State of Karnataka's appeal against the High Court's decision to quash the NDPS Act proceedings, at the threshold, against the accused for alleged possession of a 32.615 kg commercial quantity of 'ganja'.

4. Tax Classification Must Be Based On Form Of Goods At Stage Of Sale & Not Its End Use : Supreme Court

Case Title: ADDL. COMMR. COMMERCIAL TAX & ORS. VERSUS CADILA HEALTH CARE LTD & ANR.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1017

The Supreme Court has held that goods sold in the form of powder or biscuits cannot be classified as “non-alcoholic drinks and beverages” merely because they may subsequently be mixed with milk or water to prepare a beverage.

A bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Arun Palli considered an issue of whether the goods should be classified based on their end use, that is, the fact that they could be mixed with milk or water to make a drink, or based on their form when sold.

Answering the issue, the Court held that for the purpose of tax classification, the form in which goods exist at the time of sale is determinative, and their subsequent use by consumers cannot alter the taxable classification to levy a higher rate of tax on a consumer.

5. S.72 BSA | Courts Must Compare Signatures Themselves, Expert Evidence Cannot Be Called Routinely In Handwriting Disputes: Supreme Court

Case Title: GOPAL PATHAK VERSUS NITIN ALIAS PAPPU & ANR.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1018

The Supreme Court has observed that it is impermissible to send every case involving a disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression for expert examination when the Court can compare the signature or writing and reach its own conclusion.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan held that expert evidence cannot be called routinely on the mere ground that the Courts are not expert to ascertain the genuineness of the handwriting/signature/finger impression. The Court clarified that only when it has any doubt, or the writing/impression is smudgy, vague, or very light, can it exercise its discretion to call for expert evidence.

“This Court is further of the view that it is the duty of the Court to compare the signature or writing and come to its own conclusion and the same cannot be avoided by recourse to a statement that the Court is not an expert. In fact, the evidence of an expert is only an opinion which is not binding on the Court. Consequently, the finding of the High Court that obtaining expert opinion under Section 39 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is essential for determining the genuineness of the Will is untenable in law. However, the Court has full discretion to seek expert opinion like where it has any doubt or the writing/impression is smudgy, vague or very light.”, the Court observed.

6. Excess Salary Paid By Mistake Can Be Recovered From Employees Who Gave Undertaking: Supreme Court Dismisses Teachers' Plea

Case Title: Dr MK Ravi Varma etc etc v National Institute of Technology and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1019

The Supreme Court has upheld the recovery of Academic Grade Pay benefits that were given by mistake to the teachers of the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Calicut, holding that the recovery was valid because the teachers had given written undertakings to refund excess payments.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu ruled so while dismissing the appeals against the Kerala High Court Division Bench's judgment.

The case pertains to the grant of Academic Grade Pay to the appellants. The financial benefits were extended to them around October 2009 and withdrawn in January 2010, on the ground that they had not put in the requisite years of service, pursuant to which a writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court.

7. Original Status As Daily Wager Cannot Be Ground To Deny Annual Increment After Regularisation : Supreme Court

Case Title: Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

The Supreme Court (October 6) has held that daily-wage skilled workers who were treated as permanent employees under a government resolution and granted regular pay scales and retirement benefits cannot be denied the annual increment falling due after their retirement merely because they were originally engaged as daily wagers.

Setting aside the Gujarat High Court's division bench judgment, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva rejected the Gujarat government's contention that the appellants were not entitled to the increment because of their original appointment as a daily-wage worker.

The Court relied on the 1988 state government's resolution under which daily-wage skilled workers completing the prescribed service of ten years were treated as permanent employees and granted regular pay scales, allowances, pension and other retiral benefits.

8. Marks In Exam Cannot Cure Lack Of Essential Qualification Under Recruitment Rules: Supreme Court

Case Title: SANTOSH B. NAIK VERSUS STATE OF GOA & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1021

The Supreme Court has held that marks secured in the written examination cannot cure the absence of an essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules, reiterating that comparative merit can be considered only among candidates who first satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions.

The Court further held that recognition of an educational qualification by an educational board does not, by itself, make it equivalent to the specific qualification prescribed under Recruitment Rules.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the appointment of a candidate as Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the Government of Goa, who held a Secondary School Certificate (10th standard) obtained through the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), which was recognised by the Goa Education Board as equivalent to possessing a 10th standard under the 10+2 system of education. However, the Recruitment Rules required a candidate to have "passed 10th standard under 10+2 system of education” and do not treat NIOS 10th Standard as a requirement for the post.

9. Tendency To Colourize Civil Disputes Into Criminal Offences An Open Secret : Supreme Court

Case Title: SUDHA RAKESH VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a purely civil dispute cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution unless the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences are made out.

“The tendency of litigants to colourize civil disputes into criminal offences is an open secret in the present times. The courts have tried to put their foot down to prevent the litigants from obliterating the fine distinction between the two. We have done so to prevent the abuse of criminal process.”, observed a bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh while quashing criminal proceedings against a power-of-attorney holder arising out of a failed agreement to sell land in Karnataka.

The case arose after prospective purchasers failed to complete a land transaction within the agreed period. The landowners subsequently sold the property to a third party, following which the prospective purchasers filed a civil suit for specific performance as well as a criminal complaint alleging offences under Sections 420, 423, 120-B and 34 IPC.

10. Supreme Court Rebukes UP Govt For Not Paying Pension To Retired Peon For 10 Years, Calls For Chief Secretary's Report

Case Title: Jagdish Prasad Tripathi v State of UP through its Principal Secretary & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

The Supreme Court has pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government, expressing shock over its failure to pay retiral dues to a peon for nearly ten years after his retirement, and directed the Chief Secretary to file a report on the delay, the officers responsible and the compensation the state government proposes to pay.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) when it came heavily on the state government, observing that “grave injustice has been done to the petitioner.”

The petitioner was appointed as a peon in 1984. In 2016, he superannuated after nearly thirty-two years of service. His service was pensionable and he repeatedly requested release of his pension, filing several complaints.

11. High Court Should Not Suggest Custodial Interrogation Of Accused: Supreme Court

Case Title: Miteshgiri @ Mulrajgiri Sevagiri Goswami & Anr. v State of Gujarat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held so while setting aside a Gujarat High Court order that had rejected anticipatory bail sought by a retired school principal and his wife.

The appellants are husband (A1) and wife (A2). A1 was a Principal of Shri Secondary School, while A2 was President of the school's governing body. It is alleged that they tampered with the service record of A1 to change his date of birth from 19.06.1964 to 19.06.1965, which changed his date of retirement. It is also alleged that A1 thereby made unlawful gain at the cost of the public exchequer. Thereafter, an FIR was registered under Sections 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Appellants' plea seeking anticipatory bail was rejected by the Gujarat High Court in June 2026. In August this year, the Supreme Court directed that the appellants should not be arrested, on condition that they cooperate with the investigation.

12. RP Act | Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner Himself & Not Counsel : Supreme Court

Case Title: V. PON. PANEERSELVAM VERSUS S. REGUPATHY AND OTHERS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

The Supreme Court (October 7) has held that an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) must be presented by the election petitioner himself, and that non-compliance with this mandatory requirement renders the petition liable to be dismissed.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar upheld the Madras High Court's dismissal of an election petition challenging the election of DMK MLA S. Regupathy from the Thirumayam Assembly Constituency in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, after noting that the Election Petition was not filed by the election petitioner, but by his counsel.

“…an election petition is a serious proceeding which may result in the vitiation of an electoral process and that the procedure prescribed by an election statute must, therefore, be strictly followed. The requirement that the petition be presented “by” the petitioner enables the High Court, at the stage of presentation itself, to undertake a preliminary verification so as to ensure that the proceeding is not frivolous or vexatious.”, the Court observed, relying on its 2009 judgment of G.V. Sreerama Reddy and Another v. Returning Officer and Others.

13. Income Tax | Subsidy Can Become Taxable Depending On Purpose Test : Supreme Court

Case Title: M/S. MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE

Citation: 2026 LiveLAw (SC) 1027

The Supreme Court (October 7) held that an electricity subsidy calculated based on power charges incurred by an industrial undertaking is a revenue receipt liable to tax when it is intended to reduce operational costs rather than contribute to capital investment.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed an appeal filed by an assessee, upholding the tax authorities' and the Madras High Court's concurrent findings that the electricity subsidy of ₹16,20,745/- received by an assessee under the Puducherry Government's scheme was taxable.

The Court reiterated that the nature of a subsidy must be determined by applying the “purpose test”, examining the object for which it is granted and the scheme's actual operation.

14. Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case Over Unpaid Steel Dues, Calls Criminal Cases In Civil Disputes An Abuse Of Process Of Law

Case Title: Yogesh Premjibhai Suvariya & Anr. v State of Gujarat & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1028

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held so while setting aside the Gujarat High Court's order, which had discharged the appellants of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023/BNS) but sustained the charge of cheating under Section 420 IPC (now Section 318(4) of the BNS 2023) read with Section 114 IPC (now Section 54 of the BNS 2023).

The appellants are directors of Shivamy Enterprises Pvt Ltd., a company in the steel business. The informant (R2) is an employee of Hans Ispat Ltd. Since 2006, Shivamy Enterprises was buying steel bars from Hans Ispat Ltd. and selling them to third parties. It is alleged that the directors of Shivamy Enterprises (appellants) had purchased Thermo-Mechanically Treated (TMT) bars worth Rs 1,19,00,000 pursuant to which Hans Ispat Ltd (company in which R2 is an employee) raised the bills. The directors issued post-dated cheques which were dishonoured and the bills remained unpaid.

Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the appellants and a chargesheet was filed. Subsequently, the appellants' discharge application was rejected by the Magistrate. Their revision application before the Gujarat High Court was also dismissed in March 2021 as not maintainable. Later, in 2024, the Supreme Court held that the revision was maintainable and directed the High Court to decide it on merits.

15. If Breakup Ends Up With Suicide, It Cannot Always Be Termed Abetment To Suicide : Supreme Court

Case Title: Chittibarika Chandra Shekar & Ors. Versus The State of Telangana & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against six persons accused of abetting the suicide of a woman after her partner allegedly refused to marry her, holding that a refusal to marry, even if followed by suicide, does not by itself constitute abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that people react differently to situations and that a breakup ending in suicide cannot automatically be characterised as abetment to suicide.

The Court was hearing an appeal arising from a criminal revision before the Telangana High Court concerning a woman who had been in a consensual relationship with the first accused. The prosecution alleged that after he refused to marry her, she died by suicide.

16. Delhi Women Safety | Supreme Court Orders To Step Up Police Patrol, Verify Cab-Bus Drivers & Close Unauthorised Liquor Outlets

Case Title: In Re: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed its concern by observing that the question was not merely whether appropriate directions exist, but whether those directions translate into sustained, visible, and verifiable action on the ground.

The bench took suo motu cognisance following reports of a series of sexual offences against minor girls and women in Delhi-NCR, referring to the alleged gangrape of a 17-year-old girl at Aastha Kunj Park, the alleged gangrape and murder of a teenage girl in Swaroop Nagar, and the alleged sexual assault of a minor girl in a moving sleeper bus. The bus travelled over 47 km from Greater Noida to Delhi without being intercepted. The bench stated that these incidents pointed to a systematic failure on the part of law enforcement and public administrative authorities to guarantee basic public safety, adding that expressions of solidarity were not enough and that accountability had to be fixed on the authorities.

Last month, the bench had passed interim directions after taking suo motu cognisance of the incidents. Senior Advocate Liz Mathew was appointed as amicus.

17. Proof Of Robbery Or Attempted Robbery Essential Component For Conviction Under S. 394 IPC : Supreme Court

Case Title: APPA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

The Supreme Court (October 7) held that a conviction under Section 394 IPC / Section 309 (6) of BNS cannot be sustained unless it is proved that robbery or an attempt to rob took place.

“The robbery or attempted robbery is not at all a peripheral circumstance and is rather an essential component of the offense.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, while setting aside the conviction under Section 394 IPC, which punishes an act of voluntarily causing grievous injury in committing robbery.

The case arose from a January 1993 incident at a farmhouse in Maharashtra, where four assailants allegedly entered at night. The complainant identified Appa as the person who threatened her with a knife, injured her hand and punched her in the face, causing an upper tooth to fall out.

18. Procedural Violation Will Not Vitiate Seizure But Can Affect Evidentiary Value : Supreme Court

Case Title: RAMKRUSHNA PRAHLLAD DONGARDIVE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

The Supreme Court (October 8) held that a failure of the accused to furnish an explanation regarding the seizure made at his place cannot be regarded as incriminating material against him, and the burden of proving the valid seizure remains with the prosecution.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard the case where the accused's acquittal in an alleged offence of criminal breach of trust (under Section 409 IPC) was reversed by the Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench, where the High Court gave credence to the seizure of documents made at his house, despite being made in defiance of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C., particularly, the failure of the prosecution to supply the list of seized items to the accused, and the panch witnesses going hostile.

Initially, the trial court found that the procedure prescribed under Section 100(7) Cr.P.C. was not followed during the search and seizure. However, the High Court relied on the testimony of the Investigating Officer (“IO”) without any further corroboration to deem the seizure to be valid. Moreover, the High Court held that the absence of the appellant's signature on the seizure panchnama was not significant and relied on the IO's testimony. It reasoned that there was no reason for the police officer to falsely depose about the seizure.

19. Victim Also Has Right To Seek Speedy Trial Like Accused : Supreme Court

Case Title: RENUKA JAIN VERSUS THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

The Supreme Court has held that a victim of an offence has the locus standi to approach the High Court seeking expeditious disposal of a criminal trial, ruling that the right to a speedy trial is not the exclusive prerogative of the accused but is equally available to the victim.

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Delhi High Court order that had dismissed a complainant's petition seeking an expedited trial as frivolous and imposed costs of ₹10,000 on her.

“to say that the role of the victim is limited to being a witness, is not correct. A victim or the legal guardian of the victim is a definite stakeholder in the criminal justice system. Like the accused, she has also a vested right to insist on a speedy trial and also for a fair trial. Therefore, on a reading of the statutory scheme as enumerated supra, certainly a victim has locus standi to seek a speedy trial. She can certainly bring a petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S. seeking a direction from the High Court to the Trial Court to expedite the trial proceedings.”, the court observed.

20. Freebies To Doctors : Supreme Court Asks Union To Form Committee To Recommend Regulations On Pharma Marketing Practices

Case Title: Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(SC) 1034

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to constitute a committee to recommend statutory regulations to curb unethical marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies.

"The committee will consider the suggestions and representations and give its recommendations to the Union. The matter is directed to be listed on 29th January for consideration of compliance affidavit by the Union," the Court pronounced.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pronounced the order in a petition seeking statutory regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices to curb unethical interactions between pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

21. Govt Servant Cannot Claim Inter-District Transfer As Right; Education System Is For Students, Not Teachers' Convenience: Supreme Court

Case Title: Pratap Singh Baghel v Akanksha Shukla (Diary No. 10142/2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1035

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held so while setting aside an Allahabad High Court order that had prima facie found contempt in the rejection of a female teacher's inter-district transfer request, observing that it there was no contempt in the order rejecting her request, and that the reasons for rejection were fully justified.

The plea before the Supreme Court was filed by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, against an order of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in a contempt case. The High Court had prima facie found disobedience of its 2023 judgment in which the respondent (teacher) was the appellant. The High Court had passed directions to consider the respondent's claim in terms of Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008.

The bench examined the rejection order and found that it did refer to Rule 8(2)(d) of the 2008 Rules. For context, the rule provides that applications for inter-state transfer are not entertained for five years. In special circumstances, applications of female teachers are considered for inter-district transfer to the district of their husband's residence or in-law's place.

22. Hindu Widow's Limited Interest Became Absolute Under 1956 Succession Act : Supreme Court

Case Title: Sultan Singh (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. The Financial Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1037

The Supreme Court has held that a Hindu widow's limited interest in agricultural land can become absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that succession must be determined by considering the personal law applicable at the time of her death.

A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard the case concerning a dispute over approximately 45 bighas of agricultural land, between the heirs of a woman's first husband's family and her two sons from her second marriage.

The central issue was whether the land should revert to the heirs of the woman's first husband or devolve under the applicable succession provisions after her limited interest had become absolute ownership.

23. Supreme Court Acquits Man In POCSO Case Over Victim's Failure To Identify Him In Court, Unexplained Delay In FIR

Case Title: Charming Rupon v State of Meghalaya (Diary No. 32065/2022)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1038

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Meghalaya High Court. It found that the evidence of the victim's mother (informant), the victim and the victim's cousin was wavering and unreliable.

It is alleged that the appellant sexually assaulted the 40% intellectually disabled victim in 2015 when she was 11 years old, at her home when her mother (informant/PW 1) had gone out and she was alone. PW 1 allegedly saw the accused plucking mulberry leaves in the garden next to the house as she left. Thereafter, the victim then went to her cousin's house (PW 2) and stayed for the night. The cousin told the victim's mother about the incident the next day, but the mother did not take it seriously because the child did not confirm the accusation. Later, the victim disclosed the incident to her school teacher who informed the parents and an FIR was lodged nearly 10 days after the alleged incident.

The accused was then convicted by Special Judge (POCSO) and was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 Lakh. The accused appealed before the High Court which dismissed his appeal in 2022.

24. Lawyers, Journalists, Other Professionals Should Not Be Stopped From Doing Their Job Amid Delhi Protest Curbs : Supreme Court

Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v Govind Mohan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1039

Lawyers, journalists and other professionals should not be impeded from carrying out their professional duties, the Supreme Court categorically said during the CEC protest matter.

After allegations were levelled that Delhi Police prevented lawyers and journalists from carrying out their professional duties, a bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana impressed upon Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that these professionals must not be obstructed from carrying out their professional duties.

In the order, the Court recorded the SG's assurance (on instructions) that lawyers, journalists and other professionals will not be impeded in discharge of professional duties. It further directed that free movement of people shall be permitted across the city subject to traffic regulations.

25. CEC Protest: Supreme Court Directs No Illegal Detention Of Peaceful Protesters, Normal Metro & Rail Services, Free Movement, Undisturbed Internet

Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v Govind Mohan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1039

In a special Sunday sitting related to protests in Delhi against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the Supreme Court directed that there shall be no detention of any person except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly with respect to any assembly of peaceful and unarmed persons beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS prohibitory orders are in operation.

A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana also directed the authorities to take down the board concerning the imposition of Section 163 of BNSS in the area around the Supreme Court, if not already done, to ensure there is no apprehension regarding access to justice, including ingress and egress to any court of law.

The Court further directed that metro and rail facilities shall function normally unless restrictions are required to be imposed keeping in mind disturbances to public order, as contemplated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

Orders and Other Developments

1. Supreme Court Asks Centre To File Affidavit On Space Allotted Under Central Vista Plan For 135 Yr Old Library

Case Title: In Re: 135-Yr-Old Library 8.5 Lakh Books– And No Room In The New Central Vista Plan

The Supreme Court asked the Union Government to file an affidavit explaining the space allotted under the new Central Vista Plan for the 135-year-old Central Secretariat Library (CSL) in Delhi, housing about 8.5 lakh books, which is proposed to be relocated.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing the suo motu case registered over reports that the Central Vista Plan has no space allocated for the CSL.

The bench asked the Centre to file a detailed affidavit with full details of the area which would be allotted for the library. The affidavit should also indicate whether the space would be adequate to store not just the books presently in the CSL in Shastri Bhavan, but also the 2 lakh books which are lying in cartons in RK Puram.

2. Supreme Court May Close Reference On Legislative Privileges As TN Assembly Resolution Was Withdrawn In 2004

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

TheSupreme Court's 7-judge reference on the issue of legislative privileges vis-a-vis free speech might be disposed of as an academic issue, since the Court was informed that the 2003 resolution of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly, which was the trigger for the case, was withdrawn in 2004.

The reference originates from the 2003 case N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai, challenging the 2003 decision taken by the Tamil Nadu assembly to sentence 5 journalists of The Hindu for articles criticising the State Government. The matter was ultimately referred to the 7-judge bench to examine the interplay between Articles 194(3), 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. The reference remained pending for over two decades, and the Court, in August 2026, decided to commence the hearing from October 6.

A day before the scheduled hearing of the reference, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, for the State of Tamil Nadu, informed a 3-judge bench led by CJI Surya Kant that the 2003 resolution of the Assembly was revoked in 2004 itself. Though an affidavit was filed in the Court regarding this development, this fact was omitted to be noticed in the reference order. Since the cause of action for the case no longer survives, the reference may have become academic, Ramachandran suggested.

3. Great Nicobar Project: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Centre's Challenge To PIL Maintainability, Urges Calcutta HC To Decide Soon

Case Title: Union of India v. Meena Gupta and Ors.

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the Union's challenge to a Calcutta High Courtorder which upheld the maintainability of a PIL alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in obtaining consent for the Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project.

Noting that the matter is pending in the High Court and is fixed for hearing on November 25-26, the Supreme Court declined interference, urging the High Court to hear the matter on the date fixed itself.

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

4. Supreme Court Agrees To List Plea Seeking Permission For Peaceful Protests In Delhi Amid Agitation Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar

Case : Priya Mishra v. Union of India | Diary No. 62121/2026

The Supreme Court agreed to list a plea seeking directions to the Delhi Police to permit peaceful protests in Jantar Mantar in the national capital, amid protests being held in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The plea was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

Appearing for the petitioner, Adv Narendra Mishra submitted that the Delhi Police was not allowing peaceful protests in Delhi, including protests by students, citizens, office-bearers of registered political parties and Members of Parliament.

5. Supreme Court Refuses To Suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar Ex Parte, Issues Notice On Plea Challenging ECI Decisions

Cases : Rakesh Kumar Singh v Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026 & Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India, Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026, W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026

The Supreme Court declined to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, observing that it should first seek the response of the Election Commission and other respondents on the allegations that several SIR-related decisions were taken unilaterally by the CEC.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice to the Union of India, the Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sindhu, Dr Vivek Joshi, Dy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg IAS and DG(IT) Seema Khanna on the petition.

The petition was filed following a report of The Indian Express that 14 crucial decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision were taken in the name of ECI by the CEC, ignoring the objections recorded by two ECs.

6. Modified Form 6 Has Not Been Approved By Supreme Court : CJI Surya Kant

Case : Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Court has not approved any modified version of Form 6 used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), while hearing a petition seeking prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The observation of the CJI assumes significance because the Election Commission of India last week claimed thatthe new declaration annexed to the online Form 6 for the ongoing SIR process in some states has been approved by the Supreme Court.

It may be noted that the changes to the new Form 6 declaration had become a point of controversy after it emerged that two Election Commissioners had objected to the changes citing the reason that they cannot be carried out without the Central Government amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. After The Indian Express reported that the new Form 6 declaration was implemented despite the objections of the Election Commissioners, the ECI issued a press release on September 26 suggesting that the Supreme Court had upheld the Form 6 declaration in the May 2026 judgmentrelating to Bihar SIR.

7. 'Let Him Contest': Supreme Court Adjourns West Bengal Plea Against Interim Bail Of Nandigram Congress Candidate Milan Pradhan

Case Title: The State of West Bengal v. Milan Pradhan

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 18996/2026

After Justice Joymalya Bagchi's recusal, the Supreme Court adjourned the plea filed by West Bengal government challenginginterim bail granted by the Calcutta High Court to Milan Pradhan, who is contesting the Nandigram Assembly by-election on Congress ticket.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana adjourned the matter to October 7, after Justice Bagchi recused citing a 'conflict of interest'. The judge said that during his practice years, he represented some of the parties in the underlying case involving Pradhan.

Last week, the Court haddenied Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's plea for urgent listing of the matter. The SG had submitted that the bye-election was scheduled for Monday and the matter would become infructuous by then. The CJI however declined the request, indicating that the Court was inclined to dismiss the State's plea. "We can assure we will dismiss it, but will dismiss", the CJI said.

8. 'His Arrogance' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Actor Rajpal Yadav For Failing To Deposit Rs. 5 Crores In Cheque Dishonour Cases

Case Title: Rajpal Naurang Yadav and another v. M/s Murli Projects Pvt Ltd

Case Number: SLP(Crl) 16923/2026

The Supreme Court pulled up Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav, who has been convicted in 7 cheque dishonour cases, for failing to deposit Rs. 5 Crores with the Court Registry despite repeated court orders.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing Yadav's petition challenging the conviction and sentence in the cheque dishonour cases.

On noting that he has not complied with the direction to deposit, Justice Bagchi said, "We tried to ignore the way he is treating us. To ensure and secure your (complainant's) money. Or we just give him what he deserves, i.e., a dismissal. We want to dismiss his appeal, but we want to also balance equities. To ensure your client gets some money. His (Yadav's) arrogance needs to be kept in its right place."

9. 'Women In Delhi Must Feel Safe Even Walking Alone At Night; Men Should Fear Committing Sexual Offences' : Supreme Court To Police

Hearing the suo motu case taken on the rising sexual offences in the National Capital Region, the Supreme Court today(October 5) in the strongest terms expressed the need to take all preventive steps to prevent offences against women.

While addressing the general feeling that women are not safe in Delhi, it ordered that all public places such as the metro, bus stands, railways stands must be continuously monitored by beat patrolling units, and halting points of Delhi police control room vans must be strengthened. Additionally, it stressed that, given the festive season is approaching, the miscreants will be on the run, so the police need to ensure that the women are safe.

"You need to create a fright or fear in the mind of a man who is prone to commit offences. Unless and until you don't create that fright or fear in that goon or anti-social element that 'ab kuch kia toh mar jayenge', you will not be able to prevent commission of such crimes...Every girl molested is our sister, our mother. Huge challenge for NCT Delhi police. Don't allow such things to happen," the Court orally said.

10. Lakhimpur Kheri Case: Supreme Court Sends Vigilance Report On Trial Judge To Allahabad HC CJ; State Appoints New Prosecutor

Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P.

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022

The Supreme Court directed that a vigilance report concerning the trial judge in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case be placed before the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for an appropriate decision.

The development came during the hearing of the bail matter concerning former Union Minister Ajay Mishra's son, Ashish Mishra, who is an accused in the case. In the earlier hearing, the victims, represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, had raised doubts about the Presiding Officer as well as the Prosecutor.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Allahabad High Court, informed a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that the report of the Vigilance Officer of the High Court had been sent directly to the Supreme Court.

11. Identify Authority Which Will Ensure Every Road Has Footpath : Supreme Court To Centre

Case Title: IN RE: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO WALK AND FOOTPATH Vs MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 844/2026 Diary No. 38826 / 2026

The Supreme Court asked the Centre to identify a central authority responsible for ensuring that wherever there is a road, there is a footpath, and directed the Union Government to identify five towns where the Court's directions can initially be implemented as a pilot project.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj to obtain instructions on identifying such an authority and file a report before the Court. The bench was monitoring compliance with its June judgment which declared that right to walk on a footpath is a fundamental right, and that every road must have a demarcated footpath.

The Court said that the authority entrusted with the task must have adequate infrastructure, space, human resources and funds to effectively undertake the responsibility.

12. Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL To Fill Vacancies In State Human Rights Commissions

Case Title: ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS OF INDIA Versus NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND ORS.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1202/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL seeking filling up of vacant positions in State Human Rights Commissions across the country within a timebound period prescribed by the Court.

The Court called for the authorities' response, after it was informed that most of the State Human Rights Commissions are either lying vacant or non-functional. "Even NHRC website is not updated" the petitioner's counsel told the Court.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the PIL filed by Association of Retired judges of Supreme Court and High Courts of India. The petitioner seeks to ensure that State Human Rights Commissions remain fully functional in compliance with Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the Supreme Court's directions in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal.

13. Can Bail Be Granted In NDPS Case For Failure To Supply Arrest Grounds Though S.37 Conditions Not Met? Supreme Court Reserves Order

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu Rep By The Inspector of Police v. Vignesh

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 12743/2026 Diary No. 38255 / 2026

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the issue whether an accused in an NDPS case can be granted bail on account of failure to supply grounds of arrest as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution, without satisfying the stringent twin conditions for bail prescribed under Section 37 of the Act.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan reserved judgment in appeal filed by State of Tamil Nadu against a Madras High Court order granting bail to a man arrested for alleged possession of 50 kg of Ganja.

The state's plea has raised the issue – “Whether the High Court could have granted bail by primarily relying upon an alleged infirmity regarding communication of grounds of arrest without first recording findings on the statutory conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?”

14. Great Nicobar Project | 'Preservation Of Culture Is A Constitutionally Protected Fundamental Right': Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Case Title: Union of India v. Meena Gupta and Ors.

Case Number: Diary No. 44246/2026

During thehearing of a matter pertaining to the Centre's Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project, Justice Joymalya Bagchi orally said that preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the Union's challenge to a Calcutta High Court order, which upheld the maintainability of a PIL alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in obtaining of consent for the project.

After hearing Attorney General R Venkataramani (for Union) and Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar (for respondent/PIL petitioner), the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court order.

15. CEC & Election Commissioners Enjoy Greater Legal Immunity Than Even Judges, Remarks Supreme Court

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India, Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026, W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026

The Supreme Court (October 5) orally observed that the legal protection granted to the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners under the 2023 law may be broader than the protection available even to constitutional court judges, during thehearing of petitions challenging the decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by CEC Gyanesh Kumar in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the petitions.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners(Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, had substantially enhanced the authority and immunity of the CEC and Election Commissioners.

16. Punjab Govt Moves Supreme Court Against HC Order For CBI Probe Into Corruption Allegations Linked To Chief Minister's Office

Case : State of Punjab v Nikhil Saraf | Diary No. 62464/2026

The Punjab government has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a criminal case and probe allegations of corruption linked to the office of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann.

The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the State government, challenging the order passed by the High Court.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, for the State of Punjab, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India, seeking an urgent hearing. However, CJI Surya Kant refused to grant a listing for today, and said can consider listing for tomorrow or day after tomorrow.

17. Supreme Court 7-Judge Bench Disposes Reference On Legislative Privilege As Infructuous

Case : N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai | W.P. (Cri.) No. 206 - 210/2003

The Supreme Court closed the7-judge reference on the issue of legislative privileges vis-a-vis free speech, noting that the 2003 resolution of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly, which was the trigger for the case, was withdrawn in 2004.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice PK Mishra, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Vipul Pancholi, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice V Mohana was constituted to hear the matter, which had been pending for nearly 2 decades.

Today, while disposing of the matter as infructuous, the bench noted that the withdrawal of the impugned resolution skipped the notice of the Court while passing the reference order.

18. Bench Clerk's Experience Can't Be Treated As Equal To Law Clerk's For Judicial Service : Supreme Court

Case : TAPASMITA SUTAR Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1224/2026 T

Case Title: TAPASMITA SUTAR Vs UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1224/2026

The Supreme Court (October 6) dismissed a writ petition seeking to treat the experience of a bench clerk in the district judiciary as equivalent to that of a law clerk for the purpose of fulfilling the one-year legal practice requirement for appearing in the judicial service examination.

Orally observing that the experience of a bench clerk was "ministerial" in nature and was different from that of a law clerk, the Court dismissed the matter.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Mohana made the observations while hearing a plea filed by a bench clerk working in the district judiciary, who sought to have her experience as a bench clerk counted towards the eligibility requirement of prior legal practice.

19. Sensitise Indian Fishermen Not To Cross Into Sri Lankan Waters : Supreme Court Tells Centre

Case Title: A.K. SELVARAJ Vs UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SECRETARY

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 561/2008 Diary No. 22484 / 2008

The Supreme Court today(October 6) orally remarked that the Indian Tamil fishermen need to be sensitised against entering the territorial sea of Sri Lanka for fishing at the Katchatheevu island.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing writ petitions challenging the "unconstitutional ceding" of the Katchatheevu island to Sri Lanka through the Indo-Sri Lankan Maritime Agreement 1974, and also the 1976 agreement restricting the rights of fishermen. While adjourning this matter today, as was sought by the Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani, the Court questioned how long it can keep the matter pending.

Justice Kumar also asked if there is any development in the matter about the interpretation of the international treaty: "Are you talking to them about the treaty?"

20. 3 New Supreme Court Judges Take Oath, Total Strength Rises To 37

Three newly appointed judges of the Supreme Court took oath of office, taking the working strength of the Court to 37 (including the CJI).

The sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges is 38. Before today's swearing-in ceremony, the Court was functioning with 34 judges (including the CJI).

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant administered the oath to Justice Sunita Agarwal, Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh at a ceremony held at the Supreme Court.

21. Supreme Court Gets 3 Women Judges With Justice Sunita Agarwal's Elevation

With the appointment of Justice Sunita Agarwal, former Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, the Supreme Court now has three sitting women judges.

The highest number of women judges the Supreme Court had at a time was 4, when Justices Indira Banerjee, Hima Kohli, BV Nagarathna and Bela Trivedi were present simultaneously from August 2021 till Justice Banerjee's retirement in September 2022. Justice Hima Kohli retired in September 2024 followed by Justice Bela M. Trivedi in May 2025. After Justice Trivedi retired in May 2025, Justice Nagarathna was the sole woman judge until the elevation of Justice Mohana a year later.

Notably, this is the second appointment of a woman judge by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant-led Collegium afterJustice Mohana.

22. Supreme Court Acquits Govt Clerk Who Already Served Sentence In 16 Year Old Bribery Case

Case Title: Ajit Kumar v State of Jharkhand (Diary No. 29811/2026)

Case Number: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1023

The Supreme Court (05 October) has set aside the conviction of a government employee under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) who had already served his sentence, holding that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held so while hearing an appeal filed by the government employee who had already served his sentence, and had pursued the appeal only to “get his name cleared.”

The appellant was an Assistant in the District Education Office and the complainant (PW 1) was appointed as an orderly in a Government High School but was not paid his salary. It was alleged that the appellant demanded Rs 5,000 as bribe in 2010 for releasing the salary. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Vigilance Bureau pursuant to which a trap was laid down leading to the arrest of the appellant and recovery of tainted money of Rs 5,000.

23. Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas Against Delhi HC Verdict Diluting Mandatory Attendance Requirement For Law Students

Case Title: SVKMS Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies v. Bar Council of India

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 9450/2026 Diary No. 28872 / 2026

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on pleas challenging the Delhi High Court's November 2025 ruling that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations or continuing their academic pursuits solely on account of shortage of attendance.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih reserved the verdict in pleas filed by Bar Council of India (BCI) and Narsi Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) challenging the High Court judgment which also directed BCI to reconsider mandatory attendance requirements for three-year and five-year LL.B. courses.

High Court Ruling

24. Shiv Sena Row | ECI's Symbol Allotment May Have To Be Revisited If Speaker's Refusal To Disqualify Is Found Erroneous, Says Supreme Court

Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024

In the Shiv Sena case, the Supreme Court pondered whether the Election Commission's decision recognising the Eknath Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena and awarding it the party's reserved election symbol would have to be revisited if the Court were to find that the Maharashtra Speaker wrongly rejected disqualification petitions against the faction's MLAs.

“If let us say the disqualification decision is reversed by this court. What will be its impact on the symbol order? If the decision is found to be erroneous, will it not amount to the decision of the Election Commission allotting a symbol to someone who ought to have been disqualified if the law was correctly applied”, Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the challenge made by Uddhav Thackeray to the Election Commission's decision recognising the Eknath Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena and allowing it the use of the 'bow and arrow' symbol.

25. CJI To Take A Call On Application To Recall Verdict In CEC Appointment Law

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that he will examine the application which has been filed seeking the recall of the split verdict in the CEC Act case.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the application before the CJI. He clarified that it was an interlocutory application filed seeking recall of the September 23 verdict passed by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in the petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

He further informed the bench that another party has filed a curative petition against the split verdict.

26. Justice Sharma Didn't Disclose Son's Link To ECI During CEC Appointment Case Hearing : Petitioner To Supreme Court

An application for recall of the 2-judge benchsplit verdict in Election Commissioners' Appointment case has been filed before the Supreme Court claiming that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, who was part of the bench which rendered the decision, did not disclose hisson's association with the Election Commission.

"The Petitioners state on record that the engagement of Hon'ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma's son as the standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was not disclosed to the parties by Hon'ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma at any point in time during the 5 hearings in the matter."

The application, filed by Naman Sherstra, avers that had the association of Justice Sharma's son with ECI been known prior, the applicants would have requested for recusal of the judge. The absence of disclosure deprived them of the opportunity to make such a request before the split verdict was pronounced, they state.

27. 'What Is This Scant Attitude To Court?' : Supreme Court Rebukes Centre For Non-Compliance On Welfare Of Disabled Military Cadets

Case Title: IN RE: CADETS DISABLED IN MILITARY TRAINING STRUGGLE

Case Number: SMW(C) No. 6/2025

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Union government for failing to comply with its earlier directions to reconsider welfare measures for officer cadets boarded out of military training due to injuries or disabilities.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice DK Upadhyaya was hearing the suo motu case concerning the plight of such cadets. The Court expressed sharp dissatisfaction over the Centre's affidavit, noting that there had been no genuine reconsideration of the recommendations of the 2015 Sabharwal Committee report despite clear directions issued on August 4, 2026.

The recommendations included granting Ex-Serviceman status and disability pension to such boarded out cadets. The Union had in 2022 rejected these recommendations.

28. Supreme Court Requests Allahabad High Court Chief Justice To Examine Giving Priority To Pension Cases

Case Title: Jagdish Prasad Tripathi v State of UP through its Principal Secretary & Ors

The Supreme Court has requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to examine whether matters relating to non-release of pension cases can be given prioritised hearing and early disposal, noting that the petitioner's writ petition has not been listed before the High Court for nearly two years, despite his application for early hearing.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a retired peon who had not received his retiral dues for nearly ten years after superannuation, when it came heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government.

The petitioner was appointed as a peon in 1984. In 2016, he superannuated after nearly thirty-two years of service. His service was pensionable and he repeatedly requested release of his pension, filing several complaints.

29. 'Make A Good Movie, You Can Restore Your Image': CJI To Rajpal Yadav After He Deposits 1.15 Cr In Cheque Bounce Cases

Case Title: Rajpal Naurang Yadav and another v. M/s Murli Projects Pvt Ltd

Case Number: SLP(Crl) 16923/2026

While interacting with Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav, who suffered a cheque dishonour case conviction, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant suggested on a lighter note that the actor make new movies to entertain the public and restore his public image.

Yadav, who was personally present in Court, told the bench comprising CJI Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that he had suffered great loss over his film project 'Ata Pata Lapata'. The bench was hearing Yadav's petition challenging his conviction and 3-month sentence in 7 cheque dishonor cases.

To recap, on September 15, the Court hadgrantedhim “last opportunity” to deposit at least ₹2 Crores out of ₹5 Crores with the Court Registry, extending his interim protection from surrender until October 5., the Courthad pulled up Yadav over his continuing failure to depositthe amount with the Court Registry.

30. Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Interim Bail To Congress Nandigram Candidate Milan Pradhan

Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Milan Pradhan

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 18996/2026

The Supreme Court upheld the interim bail granted to Congress candidate Milan Pradhan, who is contesting the Nandigram Assembly by-election, observing that the purpose of the relief was to enable him to contest the election and participate in the counting of votes.

Pradhan was arrested on 18th September, 2026 in criminal cases dating back 19 years arising from the 2007 Nandigram agitation.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana dismissed the West Bengal government's plea challenging the High Court's September 29 order granting Pradhan interim bail till October 21. Voting for the by-election took place on October 6, while counting is scheduled for October 9.

31. Supreme Court Asks AP High Court To Monitor Probe Into Death Of Girl After Anti-Malaria Drive

Case Title: NALLAPU MANIDEEP VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Taking suo motu cognisance of the reported death of a seven-year-old girl and the illness of several residents of Gollaguppa village in Polavaram District, Andhra Pradesh, allegedly after administration of chloroquine tablets during an anti-malaria drive, the Supreme Court asked the Andhra Pradesh High Court to monitor the investigation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana took cognizance based on a letter dated September 2, 2026 addressed to the CJI by one Nallapu Manideep.

The letter referred to a news report stating that around 52 villagers fell ill and were hospitalised after being administered anti-malaria tablets. It also stated that a seven-year-old girl died and 23 other children were shifted to Telangana for medical treatment.

32. Supreme Court Flags Delhi HC Judgment Impeding Speedy Execution Of Civil Decrees

Case Title: PERIYAMMAL DEAD THR. LRS. Vs V. RAJAMANI

Case Number: MA 1889-1891/2025 in C.A. No. 3640-3642/2025

The Supreme Court today(October 7) orally said that it will have to do something about a division bench judgment of the Delhi High Court that is apparently coming in the way of the Court in expeditiously disposing of the execution petitions. At the same time, it expressed some hope considering that in the last six months, a significant number of execution petitions have been disposed off, particularly led by the Gujarat High Court.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran has been hearing a matter concerning the disposal of pending execution petitions across the country. To recall, onMarch 6, 2025, the Supreme Court asked the High Courts to collate data on the pendency of 8.8 lac execution petitions across the District Courts nationwide. It appointed Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan as amicus in this case and set a deadline of six months to dispose of the petitions.

In today's hearing, the amicus referred to his report and pointed out that around 17,000 fresh execution petitions came to be pending before the Delhi High Court in the last six months. He stated that the reason could be that the division bench of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Works Pvt (2021) modified the earlier judgment of Bhandari Engineers, wherein the single judge had set mandatory guidelines for disclosure of assets and income by the judgment-debtor with an aim to dispose of the execution petitions.

33. Shiv Sena Row | Supreme Court Questions ECI Using 'Legislative Majority' Test, Asks Why Official Symbol Wasn't Withheld From Both Factions

Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024

In the Shiv Sena case, the Supreme Court questioned whether the Election Commission of India (ECI), while deciding the dispute between the rival Shiv Sena factions under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order, considered the option of not awarding the party's reserved election symbol to either faction.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the challenge made by Uddhav Thackeray to the Election Commission's decision under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order recognising the Eknath Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena and allowing it the use of the 'bow and arrow' symbol.

Justice Bagchi questioned the Election Commission's reliance on the legislative majority test to recognise the Eknath Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena and asked why ECI did not even consider the option of refusing to recognise either faction as the political party.

34. 'ASI Lost Credibility': Supreme Court Lambasts Agency After Lodhi-Era Monument Found Used As Cow Shed, Dumping Yard

Case Title: Rajeev Suri v Archaeological Survey of India

Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).s/2019

The Supreme Court (October 7) passed some serious orders against the authorities of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) after finding serious deficiencies in the preservation of heritage sites in Delhi.

The Court was aghast to note that a Lodhi-era monument was now being used as a cow-shed, and that a 13-th century structure was under private encroachment.

The bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice NK Singh told the Director General of the ASI, who was present in the Court pursuant to its last order, that none of the heritage sites is worth visiting because of the apparent negligence on the part of the ASI. It also stated that the MCD is no more capable of maintaining any heritage sites in Delhi.

35. Supreme Court Adjourns Punjab Plea Challenging CBI Probe Against CM Bhagwant Mann's OSD Till Tomorrow

Case Title: State of Punjab v Nikhil Saraf

Case Number: Diary No. 62464/2026

The Supreme Court today(October 8) adjourned till tomorrow the pleafiled by the Punjab Government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a criminal case and probe allegations of corruption linked to the office of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann.

The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu. As soon as the matter was taken, Justice Datta said that the matter will be taken tomorrow, as the file reached Justice Nagu late.

When Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, for the State, requested that an interim order be passed against precipitative steps, Justice Datta asked how can it be passed when the other Judge did not get the opportunity to study the files.

36. Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Appointment Of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Sandhu & Vivek Joshi

Case : Suri Payala v. Union of India | Diary No. 63078/2026

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking writs of quo warranto against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, alleging that their appointments were made in breach of the procedure prescribed under the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The writ petition, filed under Article 32 by Suri Payala, challenges the March 14, 2024 notifications which appointed Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu as Election Commissioners. The petition further challenges Gyanesh Kumar's appointment as the CEC through the notification dated February 17, 2025, and Vivek Joshi's appointment as Election Commissioner through the same notification.

The petitioner alleges non-compliance with Sections 5, 6 and 8(1) of the Act in the appointments.

37. Supreme Court Mulls Dedicated Corpus For Financial Assistance To Spinal Muscular Atrophy Patients

Case Title: IN RE : LACK OF ADEQUATE AND SYSTEMATIC TREATMENT FOR SMA PATIENTS AND OTHER ANCILLARY ISSUES Versus

Case Number: SMW(C) No. 20/2026

The Supreme Court called for suggestions on the creation of a dedicated corpus for providing financial assistance to people suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy, a rare genetic disorder.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a suo motu case taken up over lack of adequate and systematic treatment for SMA patients. Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh (appointed as Amicus Curiae) and ASG Anil Kaushik appeared.

The case is an offshoot of the proceedings related to comedian Samay Raina and others, who were accused by M/s Cure SMA Foundation of makinginsensitive jokes about Persons with Disabilities (including those suffering from SMA). Aftercertain directions by the Court, the comediansapologized and took steps for making amends. Thereafter, the proceedings were closed and the Court took up the present suo motu case to address the issue of systematic issues in treatment of SMA.

38. 'Because Of Supreme Court's Forgiving Nature, Country Facing Crimes' : Justice Datta On Death Penalty Commutations

Case Title: Jitender & Ors. v. Sonia & Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.

While hearing a remission matter today, Justice Dipankar Datta orally criticised the forgiving nature of the Supreme Court in commuting death sentences into life imprisonments. He stated that the Court will someday have to draw a line because the country is facing a crisis due to the increased number of crimes.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a challenge by the victims' family against the Punjab and Haryana's order for the premature release of two persons who were convicted in the murder of former MLA Relu Ram Punia and eight members of his family.

While hearing the matter, Justice Datta orally commented that there was a time when murder convictions were based on the 'rarest of rare' doctrine because the offence of murder in those days was also rare. But such is not the case at present.

39. Supreme Court Questions Jharkhand DGP Appointment Rule, Asks Amicus To Examine Validity Of Other States' Rules

Case Title: PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: WP(C) No. 310/1996

In the Jharkhand DGP Appointment case, the Supreme Court passed an order calling on Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, to examine the statutes/rules pertaining to DGP appointments in other states.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana prima facie observed that a 2025 Jharkhand rule, which allowed an officer with residual service of less than 6 months before superannuation to be considered for DGP Appointment, was contrary to thelaw laid down by the Court inPrakash Singh case.

It was referring to the rule contained in Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Regulations, 2025.

40. Shiv Sena Row | ECI Was Bound To Award Bow And Arrow Symbol Once It Found Shinde Faction Was Real Party: Kaul Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024

The Election Commission of India was bound to allot the Shiv Sena's reserved election symbol to the Eknath Shinde faction once it concluded that the faction represented the real political party, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued before the Supreme Court in the Shiv Sena case.

He also submitted that the symbol cannot be treated as a “continuing cause of action” capable of shifting between rival factions based on subsequent developments. He argued that ECI's decision awarding the bow-and-arrow symbol to the Shinde faction cannot be reopened even if the faction is subsequently disqualified, as the determination under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order has to be made on the facts existing when the ECI decides the dispute.

“If the ECI in its wisdom comes to a conclusion that legislative test is all that we are left with, they try every conceivable test and say we have no option but to do this, in that kind of a scenario, my lords, at that stage, it had no option, but to hold them to be the real political party, and once they hold that, the symbol must go. And in such a situation, to say that, 'could they have considered an option of not giving it to anyone or not at least giving it or would it change with passing of time with a decision changing on disqualification?' would play violence, in all humility, would do great violence to the Symbols Order and the object behind the Symbols Order and what your lordships have held”, he said.

41. Supreme Court Asks NALSA To Consider Plea For Better Pay Scale Of Permanent Lok Adalat Members

Case Title: ROONAM KAUSHIK AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Case Number: Diary No. 36768-2026

While hearing a plea seeking better pay scale for Permanent Lok Adalat members, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that Permanent Lok Adalat members render a voluntary service and cannot demand pay parity with others.

"These are part of the legal aid scheme. If you find that it's not workable, please leave it. It's a kind of voluntary service. There are retired judges, advocates who offer their services. These are not kind of services where conditions of service, parity, equality these things will apply. [Legal Service] Authorities have their own limited funding, they have to equitably distribute their funds and see which are the priorities...it varies from state to state that what kind of financial aid under different Act", the CJI observed.

"Even if I want to help them, I may not be in a position because there is structural change required in the routine allocation of funds. There are challenges to be addressed on administrative side", he added.

42. Can High Courts Be Directly Approached For Anticipatory Bail Bypassing Sessions Courts? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Title: MOHAMMED RASAL.C & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on a challenge to the Kerala High Court's order, which granted pre-arrest bail even though the petitioners had not approached the Sessions Courts at the first instance. Although the Court had made the interim protection absolute, it raised a larger question as to whether the High Courts should directly entertain anticipatory bail applications without the matter first being heard by the Sessions Courts.

The matter was reserved by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh in Mohammed Rasal C v State of Kerala recently.

On a previous occasion when the matter was first heard, the Court had disapproved of the practice by High Courts directly entertaining such applications. A bench comprising Justice Nath and Justice Mehta had referredthe matter to a three-judge bench in light of conflicting decisions.

43. SIR-Deleted Voters Move Supreme Court For Expeditious Disposal Of Appeals Before Kolkata, Howrah Municipal Elections

Five persons deleted from West Bengal electoral rolls after the Special Intensive Revision have approached the Supreme Court seeking expeditious decisions on their appeals by the Appellate Tribunals so they can cast their votes in the Kolkata and Howrah municipal elections in November.

By way of an application, filed through Advocate Prashant Bhushan, in theWest Bengal SIR matter, the applicants claim that their names were deleted without any notice to them.

They also seek constitution of a Special Investigation Team to enquire into the SIR decision-making process and original records underlying the initiation thereof.

44. Guruvayur Temple | Hold Udayasthamana Pooja On Ekadashi As Last Year, Supreme Court Directs Devaswom Board

Case Title: P.C. HARY Vs GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE

Case Number: C.A. No. 15381/2025 Diary No. 46884 / 2025

The Supreme Court today(October 8) directed the administration and the Chief Thantri(priest) of the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple to continue conducting the Udayasthamana Pooja as has been performed as per earlier practice on Vrishchikam Ekadasi, falling this year on November 21.

The Court reiterated a similar order that it had passed last year on October 25 against the decision of the temple administration cancelling the pooja on Ekadashi due to crowd management concerns.

It may be recalled that a dispute arose after the temple administration, supported by the Thantri decided to forgo the Udayasthamana Pooja on Vrishchikam Ekadasi, citing difficulties in crowd management and a desire to allow more devotees time for darshan. This was challenged by the temple's hereditary priestly family, contending that the decision violated age-old custom, as the concerned pooja is conducted on Ekasadi to increase the divinity of the deity.

45. 'Shocking' : Supreme Court Questions MP High Court For Reducing Murder Conviction In Cryptic & Casual Manner

Case Title: RAMPAL PARTETI VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

The Supreme Court (October 8) questioned the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to reduce a man's conviction for murdering his wife under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part II of Section 304 IPC.

A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran found that the High Court had dealt with the evidence in a "very cryptic" and "very casual" manner and had ignored the evidence of the deceased's sister, who was an important witness to the alleged oral dying declaration.

The Appellant-accused was convicted by the Trial Court for murdering his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that he assaulted her on December 28, 2021, following which she suffered serious head injuries and died on December 30.

46. Supreme Court Orders Integration Of Digital Portals On Road Accidents To Curb Fake Claims

Case: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS TUNI PATI & ORS.

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

Case Number: SLP(c) 5582/2023

In a major push toward digital integration and systemic efficiency in motor accident claim settlements, the Supreme Court has directed the Union government, States, Union Territories to mandatorily integrate key digital platforms, including the Electronic Detailed Accident Report (eDAR), VAHAN, SARATHI, and the Insurance Information Bureau (IIB), within four weeks to facilitate seamless sharing of accident-related information, vehicle and insurance records, and previous claim histories.

The directions have been passedin a case where the Court has been dealing with the issue of fake accident claims.

The integration must also extend to hit-and-run cases and the PM-RAHAT Scheme, enabling early accident alerts to be transmitted directly to insurers, the court said.

47. 'We Are Conscious' : Supreme Court To Consider Plea To Prioritise SIR-Deleted Voters' Appeals Ahead Of Kolkata, Howrah Municipal Elections

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea to prioritise the appeals filed in the SIR appellate tribunals by deleted voters from Kolkata and Howrah municipalities where elections are due in November.

The Chief Justice of India said that he will examine if the matter can be taken up on October 16.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the matter before CJI Surya Kant seeking urgent listing. Sankaranarayanan stated that the West Bengal SIR matter has been pushed to October 30, and requested for an earlier hearing date.

48. Supreme Court Dismisses Andhra Pradesh Govt Plea Against HC Quashing 34% Backward Class Quota In Local Body Elections

Case Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs THANDAVA YOGESH

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 35539/2026

The Supreme Court (October 9) dismissed the Andhra Pradesh government's challenge to the High Court's order quashing two government orders that provided 34% reservation to Backward Classes in rural and urban local body elections.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed the State's plea, after noting that the High Court passed a very reasonable order. It stated that the High Court had questioned the State's data for fixing the reservation at 34%.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi(for the AP Government) submitted that there is no reason why the High Court rejected the data as unreliable. To this, Justice Datta asked where the High Court "erred" in recording that the data on which the State has also relied on the Unified Family Survey is not relevant.

49. Justice Sheel Nagu Recuses From Punjab Govt Plea Against CBI Probe Into CM Office Graft Allegations

Case Title: State of Punjab v Nikhil Saraf

Case Number: Diary No. 62464/2026

Justice Sheel Nagu of the Supreme Court (October 9) recused himself from hearing the pleafiled by the Punjab Government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a criminal case and probe allegations of corruption linked to the office of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann.

The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu. When the matter was taken up, Justice Datta said, "It can't be heard by Justice Nagu; it will be assigned to another bench by the CJI."

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta for the petitioner submitted that Justice Nagu, as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, had passed certain orders dismissing the petitions filed by the PIL petitioner (on whose petition the High Court has passed the impugned order). Gupta, however, clarified that the State was not relying on those orders.

50. Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Investigation Of Delhi Police FIRs Over Jantar Mantar Student Protests Of July

Case : L Ramanthan v Union of India | WP(c) 1020/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking an investigation of the FIRs registered by the Delhi Police against student protesters over the July Jantar Mantar protests, observing that the petitioner was essentially seeking a review of the Court's earlier order quashing the FIRs.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a PIL filed by L Ramanathan who argued that there cannot be any judicial interference in the police functions, as they are "independent and sovereign". Notably, the petition was filed before the Courtpassed the September 1 order quashing the FIRs.

Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, appearing for the petitioner, questioned the maintainability of public interest litigation in the absence of actual litigants, remarking that people approached the Court as though it were their "private property".

51. Andhra Pradesh Local Body Elections | Conduct Polls As Per Old Rolls If SIR Not Complete Before Notification: Supreme Court

Case Title: PAKA SURESH Vs UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 35786/2026

The Supreme Court clarified that the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls cannot be a ground to delay local body elections in Andhra Pradesh, and that the polls should be conducted using the existing electoral rolls if the revised SIR rolls are not published before the election notification.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the clarification while hearing a challenge to the Andhra Pradesh High Court's October 1 order directing the State Election Commission (SEC) and the State Government to expeditiously commence the process of holding elections to rural and urban local bodies, preferably within six weeks.

The bench noted that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had proposed to publish the final SIR electoral rolls on October 16, 2026, while the SEC had not yet notified the local body elections.

52. Plea In Supreme Court Against Cancellation Of Trains, Metro In Delhi Ahead Of October 10 Protests Against CEC

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the cancellation of the train services to Delhi, the shutdown of metro stations and the internet imposed in the capital ahead of the October 10 protests announced by the CJP against the Chief Election Commissioner.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal made an urgent unlisted mentioning before the Chief Justice of India, seeking the hearing of the matter.

"What is happening to my country?" Sibal exclaimed. He submitted that various trains which are scheduled to arrive in New Delhi and Nizamuddin stations between 4 AM and 2 PM on October 10 have been cancelled, and hotels have been asked to stop taking guests. Also 57 metro stations spread across Central, South, North, North-West, North-East and East Delhi have been shut from 9 PM onwards.

53. Supreme Court Stays Trial In Criminal Defamation Cases Filed By BJP Leader Ramesh Bhiduri, Nephew Against TV Today Network

Case Title: TV Today Network Ltd v. Rajpal Poswal

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 4389/2026 Diary No. 10567/2026

The Supreme Court stayed the trial in criminal defamation cases filed against TV Today Network Ltd., which owns Aaj Tak and the India Today group, filed by BJP leader Ramesh Bidhuri and his nephew Rajpal Poswal. The case concerns alleged defamatory news connecting Bhiduri's nephew to a gang rape and abduction case.

TV Today's petition challenges a November 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court which refused to discharge TV Today Network Limited in the criminal defamation case. The SLP has been filed on the ground that a company cannot be made accused in a defamation case.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan allowed Bhiduri and Poswal to file their counter affidavit in the SLP by December 2026 and granted interim stay on trial proceedings, noting that the next date before the trial court is next week on October 16, 2026.

54. Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against TN Speaker Dropping Disqualification Proceedings Over AIADMK MLAs' Cross-Voting

Case Title: P.V. SELVAKUMAR Versus THE SPEAKER, TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND ORS.

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 34136/2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Madras High Court's dismissal of a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to challenge the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker's decision to drop disqualification proceedings against certain AIADMK MLAs who had voted against the party whip during a confidence motion in favour of Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay of the TVK party.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana refused to entertain the petition filed by one PV Selvakumar in the "peculiar facts and circumstances of the case." The bench clarified that it has left the questions of law open.

Court's Observations

55. Don't Completely Stop Trains/Metro In Delhi To Handle October 10 Protests : Supreme Court To Centre

Case : MA Baby v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 63560/2026

Case Title: MA Baby v. Union of India and others

The Supreme Court directed the Centre not to completely stop train services to Delhi and close the Delhi Metro stations ahead of the October 10 protests announced by the CJP and opposition parties in the national capital against the Chief Election Commissioner.

The Court asked the Centre to allow these services in a regulated manner, keeping in mind the principles of proportionality, so that the public is not inconvenienced.

The Court noted that Mail/Express trains arriving in New Delhi and Nizamuddin Railway Stations tomorrow have been instructed to be cancelled, and 57 Delhi Metro stations are to be closed from 9 PM today. The Court observed that the "notifications are overreaching, as they impose a complete ban upon essential public transportation".

56. Supreme Court Asks Centre To Decide On Reconsidering Jantar Mantar As Designated Protest Venue

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to consider whether another location should be designated for peaceful protests in place of Jantar Mantar, considering the suggestion that an alternative venue equipped with adequate amenities for protesters needs to be identified.

The Court passed the direction after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the competent authority would consider designating a place other than Jantar Mantar for peaceful protests, and requested to record the statement in the order. The SG said that Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal was also agreeable to the suggestion.

“During the course of hearing, it was also suggested, and learned senior counsel/counsel for Parties are ad idem that it's high time that some suitable place where all basic amenities can be provided for peaceful and lawful protestors needs to be identified and designated. Let the competent authority consider the suggestion and take an appropriate decision,” the Court ordered.

57. Supreme Court Pulls Up Kerala Govt Over Compliance With Direction On Elephant's Upkeep

Case Title: KRISHNANKUTTY Vs JAYAKRISHNA MENON

Case Number: D No. 56030/2026

The Supreme Court today(October 9) pulled up the Kerala government for not showing compliance with its June order to take over the custody of Raman, a captive elephant known to be the tallest in Kerala.

It may be recalled that in June, the Court held a Kerala resident, Krishnankutty, guilty of contemptfor violating an undertaking that the elephant would not be subjected to commercial exploitation pending the adjudication of the present dispute. Subsequently, it directed the State to take over the custody of Raman and house it in an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation centre.

Today, the matter came up before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu. When Justice Datta asked about the whereabouts of the elephant, the caretaker informed that it was with him because the elephant was in a state of musth and couldn't be shifted. The State's counsel also supported this argument, but the petitioner's counsel opposed it, stating that whenever there is an order to shift the elephant, the state of musth is "induced artificially."

58. Supreme Court Seeks Response On Plea To Declare Parts Of MP District Epidemic Prone After Deaths Of 35 Tribal Children

Case Title: Ajab Lal Lilhare v. Union of India

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1252/2026 Diary No. 59530 / 2026

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to declare the Baiga-dominated Birsa and Baihar blocks of Madhya Pradesh's Balaghat district an epidemic-prone area under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, following deaths of over 30 tribal children due to measles-rubella and severe malnutrition.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice to the Union, the State, NHRC and other official respondents on the plea after hearing Advocate Varun Thakur for the petitioner.

The petition alleges that administrative negligence, inadequate healthcare facilities, malnutrition and a failure to ensure timely immunisation contributed to the deaths of children in remote tribal settlements. It seeks compensation for affected families, the provision of safe drinking water and nutritious food, and implementation of government welfare schemes for the tribal community.

59. Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Fill Vacancies In Electricity Regulatory Commissions In 15 States, J&K

Case Title: Energy Watchdog v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1240/2026 Diary No. 59541 / 2026

The Supreme Court (October 9) issued notice on a PIL filed by NGO Energy Watchdog over prolonged vacancies and absence of legally qualified members in State Electricity Regulatory Commissions of 15 States and Jammu and Kashmir.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice.

The plea contends that the prolonged vacancies amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment inState of Gujarat v. Utility Users' Welfare Association.

60. Supreme Court Restrains Delhi Private Hospital From Discharging Acid Attack Survivor, Directs Treatment Regardless Of Cost

The Supreme Court directed Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi to provide all necessary treatment, regardless of cost, to an acid attack survivor admitted there after sustaining damage to both her eyes.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order when the matter was mentioned around 4 PM by a woman appearing in-person on behalf of the survivor.

The woman informed the Court that the acid attack survivor was currently in Ganga Ram Hospital but was being threatened with discharge. She alleged that the hospital was claiming that it was not "specialized" in the required treatment.

61. Supreme Court Issues Notice On Karnataka Govt Plea Against Suspension Of Ex-Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni's Murder Conviction

Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA v VINAY RAJASHEKHARAPPA KULKARNI AND ANR & ORS

Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 18004/2026

The Supreme Court today(October 9) issued notice to the State of Karnataka's plea challenging the Karnataka High Court's order staying the conviction of former Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni for the murder of BJP Zilla Panchayat member Yogesh Goudar in 2016.

Recently, the High Court stayed the former MLA's conviction until his appeal challenging the conviction is disposed of. Additionally, the High Court had granted him bail subject to certain conditions. It may be noted that the High Court also suspended the sentence of the other accused–Chandrashekhar Indi @ Chandu Mama and Channakeshava B Tingarikar.

Today, a bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar issued notice on the State's plea challenging the suspension of the conviction and sentence of not just the former MLA, but also Chandrashekhar and Channakeshava.

62. Contempt Plea Filed In Supreme Court Alleging Arbitrary Metro Station Closures & Train Cancellations Violating Court Order

A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court alleging that authorities continued to shut down Delhi metro stations and restrict public transport services in violation of theCourt's October 9 order, which directed that there should be no complete prohibition on transport services to handle the October 10 protests announced by CJP and opposition parties against the Chief Election Commissioner.

The petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi (who was one of the petitioners who sought an independent probe into the violence during the July Jantar Mantar student protests), seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan IAS, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar IPS and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) Chairperson D Thara IAS for allegedly wilfully disobeying the Court's directions.

The petitioner alleges that the authorities continued with the arbitrary closure of Metro stations and unwarranted cancellation of train services despite the Supreme Court directing that public transport should be permitted to operate in a regulated manner to avoid inconvenience to Delhi residents.

63. When Can ECI Choose Not To Hold Bye-Election? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Interpretation Of S.151A RP Act

Case Title: Election Commission of India v. Sughosh Joshi & Anr.

Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 200/2024

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the interpretation of Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prescribes a six-month period for holding bye-elections to fill casual vacancies in Parliament and State Legislatures, subject to certain exceptions.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta reserved the judgment in the Election Commission of India's plea challenging a December 2023 Bombay High Court judgment directing it to hold a bye-election for the Pune Lok Sabha constituency.

Section 151A provides that a bye-election to fill a casual vacancy "shall be held within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy." However, the proviso states that the provision will not apply if "the remainder of the term of a member in relation to a vacancy is less than one year." A further exception applies where the Election Commission, in consultation with the Central Government, certifies that it is difficult to hold the bye-election within the six-month period.

64. CJI Intervenes For Release Of Lawyers Detained Over Protest March

After the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) urgentlywrote to the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, about several advocates being detained and taken to Yamuna Sports Complex for peacefully protesting outside the Supreme Court, the CJI has communicated to the authorities that the lawyers be released.

The SCBA passed a resolution this morning bringing to the CJI's attention the excessive use of force against the lawyers, including women advocates. Subsequently, Advocate Devvrat, President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, also communicated the matter to the CJI.

Devvrat has confirmed that the CJI has communicated to the authorities for the release.

65. CJI Surya Kant Constitutes 'Judicial Well-Being Committee' For Judges' Mental Health

To foster the physical and mental well-being of judges across the country, the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, has constituted a Standing Committee chaired by Justice K. V. Viswanathan. The committee on 'Judicial Well-being' has been constituted on the occasion of World Mental Health Day, celebrated across the world on October 10 each year.

The committee will comprise four other members, including Dr. Savita Malhotra, Former Dean, PGIMER Chandigarh and Professor & Head, Department of Psychiatry; Mr. Rajat Mitra, Psychologist, Director and Co-founder, Swanchetan Society for Mental Health; Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India; and Ms. Aarti Singh, Registrar (J), Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court of India.

The initiative aims to address occupational stress, workload, and mental well-being of judicial officers who discharge their responsibilities under demanding circumstances. This is based on an empirical research undertaken by the Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court, examining the well-being of judicial officers in the District Judiciary.

66. ED Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi HC Order Quashing Money Laundering Case Against NewsClick & Prabir Purkayastha

Case Title : DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT vs M/S PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIOS PVT. LTD Case Number : DIARY NO. 63217/2026

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Supreme Court challenging theDelhi High Court's decision to quash the FIR registered against digital news portal NewsClick and its founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha over alleged irregularities in foreign funding.

In a judgment delivered on May 29, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR registered by the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and the connected money laundering proceedings initiated by the ED, holding that the continuation of the proceedings amounted to a gross abuse of the process of law.

The High Court had found that the allegations did not disclose the commission of the offences invoked in the FIR and that the proceedings were not legally sustainable.

67. Menaka Guruswamy Files Habeas Petition In Supreme Court Against Detention Of Political Leaders During Delhi Protests

Case Title: MENAKA GURUSWAMY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Case Number: Diary No. 63858-2026

Senior Advocate and TMC MP in the Rajya Sabha, Menaka Guruswamy, has approached the Supreme Court against the detention of political leaders during the protests in Delhi against the Chief Election Commissioner.

Guruswamy has filed an Article 32 writ petition seeking the relief of habeas corpus, which is listed to be heard by a special benchcomprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana sitting on Sunday. As per her petition, she has challenged the detention of former Chief Minister of Delhi, Aravind Kejriwal, former Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamta Banerjee, former Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, former Tripura CM Manik Sarkar, amongst others.

She has also stated in her petition that many of the politicians were picked up from their homes and taken to undisclosed locations before they could even reach the protest site.

68. CEC Protest: CJP Member Moves Supreme Court Seeking Release of Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das & Others Over Alleged Detention

Update at 1:01 am: The Advocates who filed the petition has clarified that the petition is not filed by the Cockroach Janta Party in its official capacity. As per latest developments, the petitioner Gaurav Bharti, has sought withdrawal.

Cockroach Janata Party member has filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court seeking production and release of its founder Abhijeet Dipke, co-convenor Saurav Das, spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka and other persons allegedly detained in connection with the party's proposed protest in Delhi on October 10 over issues concerning the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The petition has been instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by Gaurav Bharti, CJP Coverage Coordinator, through Advocates Rajesh G. Inamdar and Shashwat Anand.

69. Contempt Petition Filed In Supreme Court Against Delhi Police Commissioner Over Alleged Violence Against Civilians Amid CEC Protests

Case Title: Aman Prasad v Amit Kumar IPS

A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, IPS, alleging that Delhi Police personnel resorted to indiscriminate violence against citizens during the protests against the Chief Election Commissioner in the national capital on October 10, in violation of the principles laid down by the Court.

Filed by advocate Aman Prasad, the petition alleges that police personnel detained and assaulted several unarmed citizens, manhandled women protesters and operated without visible name tags or identifiers.

The petitioner has alleged that the police action violated the Supreme Court's earlier orders in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, which dealt with allegations of police excesses during the July student protests in Delhi, and its October 9 order inM.A. Baby v. Union of India concerning restrictions on public transport during protests.

70. RJD MP Manoj Jha Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi Police Actions During Protests Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar

RJD MP Manoj Jha has approached the Supreme Court alleging disproportionate use of force by the Delhi police during the October 10 protests at Delhi against CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission.

Jha alleges that the police indulged in illegal detention/abduction/house arrests of unarmed protestors, student leaders, advocates, politicians and civilians, as well as "sexual harassment of women protestors".

He points out that another protest call has been issued by the Cockroach Janta Party for today, that is, October 11.

71. PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Scrutiny Of Central Delhi Internet Shutdown During CEC Protest

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking judicial scrutiny of the suspension of mobile internet services within a four-kilometre radius of the Janpath–Kartavya Path crossing in Central Delhi on October 9 and 10 during protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Filed by advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, the petition seeks production of the original reasoned order authorising the suspension, the material relied upon to justify the restriction, records relating to publication of the order and details of the statutory Review Committee's proceedings.

As per the plea, the suspension was imposed from 10 PM on October 9 to 10 PM on October 10, pursuant to an authorisation attributed to the Union Home Secretary.

72. 'Prima Facie Case Made Out' : Supreme Court Issues Notice To Authorities In Contempt Plea Over Metro Closure For October 10 Protests

Case Title: SHAILENDRA MANI TRIPATHI v. GOVIND MOHAN

Case Number: Diary No.63801/2026

In the Delhi Protests matter, the Supreme Court issued notice on a contempt petition alleging that metro services in Delhi remained substantially shut on October 10 despite the Court's earlierorder that metro and rail services in the capital can be regulated, but not stopped.

A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, in a special sitting on Sunday, was dealing with the contempt petition filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi alleging violation of the Court's order that there should be no complete prohibition on transport services to handle the October 10 protests announced by CJP and opposition parties against the Chief Election Commissioner.

Finding that a "prima facie" case was made out, the Court issued notice to the respondents (alleged contemnors). However, for the time, it dispensed with their personal appearance.

73. Lawyers' Body Moves Supreme Court; Says Protests Cannot Paralyse Delhi, Impede Lawyers' Livelihood

A lawyers' body has moved the Supreme Court alleging that successive demonstrations by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Delhi are aimed at attracting media attention and are disrupting the livelihood and professional functioning of advocates.

The plea has been filed by Lawyers Voice seeking permission to intervene in contempt proceedings arising out of a plea concerning protests called by CJP.

The contempt plea alleges that metro services in the national capital remained substantially shut on October 10 despite the Court's earlier order that metro and rail services in the capital can be regulated, but not stopped.

74. Did Authorities Seek CJI Surya Kant's Permission Before Imposing S.163 BNSS Outside Supreme Court?: Sr Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan

During the hearing of the CEC Protest matter, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan questioned whether the authorities took permission from the Chief Justice of India before erecting a board imposing prohibition under Section 163 BNSS around Supreme Court area.

Gopal S posed to the respondents-side, including Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, "Did you take permission from the Chief Justice of India [for uploading the board on imposition of S.163]?"

Initially, SCAORA President Devratt submitted before the Court that the lawyers' body was not informed about the imposition of Section 163 prohibition around the Supreme Court. Responding to the submission in a lighter vein, Justice Bagchi said that if the prohibitory order was not properly published, it would be a good ground to quash it.

75. Supreme Court Takes Note Of Fake Medical College In UP Operating From Farmhouse With Illiterate Tea Seller As Chairman

Case Title: Case: Ayesha Jain v. Amity University, Noida & Ors.

Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 531/2025

The Supreme Court has taken note of a purported fake medical college in Uttar Pradesh allegedly operating from a dilapidated farmhouse, where an illiterate tea seller was shown as the institution's chairman and reportedly admitted to regularly signing documents provided by the person running it.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N.V. Anjaria directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) and all regulatory authorities to issue public advisories cautioning people against taking admission to, or dealing with, educational institutions without first verifying their authenticity.

The Court also directed the Union Government to monitor compliance with the directions by the regulatory authorities.

76. ''Is There An Undeclared Emergency?': Sr Adv Menaka Guruswamy Flags Mass Detentions; Reminds Supreme Court Of ADM Jabalpur Verdict

Case Title: MENAKA GURUSWAMY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Case Number: Diary No. 63858/2026

During the hearing of the CEC protest matter, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy alleged several fundamental rights' violations by police authorities and questioned whether the State had indirectly imposed an undeclared Emergency.

The senior counsel reminded the court of its decades-old ADM Jabalpur decision, while relying on other judicial precedents which ruled that Article 19 rights, such as freedom of speech and expression, can be restricted only during an Emergency.

"The Constitution says in Article 358 that Article 19 rights can be restricted only in the case when an Emergency is imposed. Is the State saying that they have brought in an un-imposed Emergency? In the past, there were judgments passed that only in case of Emergency, Article 19 rights can be suspended. You are assembled here today because something graver is at stake. Suspension of citizens' right to peacefully protest. The last time the Court had to consider such challenges was at the time of Emergency. We come back 50 years later - your lordships had (then) passed ADM Jabalpur" Guruswamy said before a bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

77. Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas Writes To CJI Alleging Delhi Police Assault, Seeks Judicial Intervention

Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha and CPI(M) leaderJohn Brittas has written to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant seeking his intervention against the "appalling incident" of police brutality perpetrated against him during the protest over Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

He has stated that a credible investigation cannot be left exclusively to a chain of command whose personnel or supervisory officers may themselves be implicated. He has requested the communication be placed before an appropriate Bench of the Supreme Court for consideration, in accordance with law, of such judicial intervention as may be warranted, including the possibility of taking cognizance or directing appropriate proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Describing his incident, he has stated that he was forcefully dragged while demanding the resignation to Gyanesh Kumar: "At around 12.30 p.m. today, having learnt that some youth activists were being assaulted and detained, I reached the Connaught Place area and began speaking to journalists. I was peacefully exercising my democratic right to speak to the press. Nevertheless, personnel of the Delhi Police and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) forcibly manhandled and dragged me for approximately 50 metres, despite repeated assertions by me and the journalists present that I am a sitting Member of Parliament. A few police personnel lifted me bodily into the air and carried me towards a police vehicle, treating a sitting Member of Parliament as though I were an object to be hauled away. There was no provocation whatsoever to justify this high-handed action."