Judgments

If Prosecution Fails To Examine Crucial Witness, Trial Court Must Question It : Supreme Court

Case Details: Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 875

The Supreme Court cautioned the trial courts to proceed with alacrity during trial, especially when there is a total failure of the prosecution for not conducting examination of the crucial witnesses.

“…when there is total failure of the prosecution, the Court should with alacrity question the prosecution's conduct in not examining crucial witnesses. The Trial Court is not a moot spectator and even in the role of an unbiased adjudicator has the responsibility to ensure that the best evidence is not suppressed by the prosecution…”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the concurrent findings of the Patna High Court and Trial Court's order rejecting the de-facto complainant Section 311 Cr.P.C. application seeking examination of the crucial witness which could have a direct impact on the outcome of the trial.

The case arose from an altercation in which the appellant and his father sustained injuries.

If Legal Assistance Is Inadequate, Constitutional Courts Must Ensure Quality Aid To Litigants : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ummed Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 878

The Supreme Court has disapproved of dismissing appeals on technical grounds like the absence of a delay condonation application when the litigant was not having proper legal assistance. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure quality legal assistance to the litigants.

“True that the appeal should have been accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, but the Constitutional Courts should also be alive to the travails of a litigant and if the legal assistance is not adequate, it has a duty to provide quality legal assistance to the litigants, whether it be a victim or an accused.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision which had dismissed the appeal against an acquittal in a dowry death case merely for want of an application seeking condonation of delay with an appeal.

The victim's mother filed the appeal against the accused's acquittal before the High Court with a 19-day delay. The High Court dismissed the appeal for failing to file a delay condonation application with the appeal and lack of representation on behalf of the Appellant.

Clarificatory Statement Does Not Qualify As Binding Undertaking For Contempt: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v. Matrix Pharmacorp Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 879

The Supreme Court (September 1) held that a clarificatory statement made before a court cannot be treated as an unconditional undertaking for the purpose of contempt proceedings unless it constitutes a solemn, express and unequivocal commitment intended to be acted upon by the court.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana upheld the Telangana High Court's decision declining to initiate contempt proceedings against IQuest Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., observing that the statement made by IQuest regarding its decision not to proceed with an acquisition was merely clarificatory in nature.

“The Statement made by IQuest before the Commercial Court, Hyderabad in its Counter Affidavit as recorded in the order dated 01.05.2024, cannot be treated as unconditional undertaking and hence the findings of the High Court that the statement does not invite a contempt action is upheld…”, the Court said.

Mere Delay In Depositing Foreign Travel Tax Not Same As 'Failure To Pay' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Penalty On Saudi Airlines

Case: M/S Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 880

The Supreme Court has (01.09.2026) held that mere delay in depositing Foreign Travel Tax (FTT) collected from passengers cannot be equated with failure to pay the tax, and hence, does not attract the penalty prescribed under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979. The Court also held that imposition of penalty under the provision is not automatic merely because there has been a breach of the statutory timeline.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the penalty imposed on Saudi Arabian Airlines by the customs authorities, the revisional authority under the Ministry of Finance. It has allowed an appeal against a 2010 judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court.

The airline (appellant) was authorised to collect FTT from passengers on international journeys, under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1979. It had delayed depositing the tax into the government treasury six times between 1994 and 1997. In five of these cases, demand drafts had already been purchased before the due dates, but could not be deposited on time; which the airline attributed to security restrictions. The other delay was attributed to the concerned employee being on emergency leave.

Litigant Cannot Be Worse Off For Filing An Appeal : Supreme Court Explains Doctrine Of 'No Reformatio In Peius'

Case: M/S Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 880

The Supreme Court (01.09.2026) has reiterated the principle that a litigant cannot be placed in a worse position merely for having availed a remedy provided under law. It also held that the penalty enhanced against an appellant on remand, after the appellant's own appeal led to the remand, could not be sustained.

The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ruled so while dealing with an appeal by Saudi Arabian Airlines, which had challenged a penalty imposed under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 for delayed deposit of Foreign Travel Tax (FTT). While allowing the appeal primarily on the interpretation of Section 38(3), the Court also discussed the doctrine against reformatio in peius (a change for the worse) after noting how the penalty was enhanced manifold once the appellant chose to pursue statutory remedies.

The airline (appellant) was authorised to collect FTT from passengers on international journeys, under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1979. It had delayed depositing the tax into the government treasury six times between 1994 and 1997. In five of these cases, demand drafts had already been purchased before the due dates, but could not be deposited on time; which the airline attributed to security restrictions. The other delay was attributed to the concerned employee being on emergency leave.

Post-Conviction Compromise Can Be Used To Quash Proceedings In Non-Heinous Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Punjab v. Avtar Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 881

The Supreme Court held that proceedings against an accused may be quashed on the basis of a post-conviction compromise between the accused and the complainant/victim in non-heinous offences.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar declined to interfere with the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision to quash criminal proceedings against the accused, even after his conviction for offences including unlawful assembly, kidnapping/abduction, and use of dangerous weapons.

Before the trial court, the complainant / victim made the statement, post-conviction of the Respondent-accused, stating that the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectable and relatives and was genuine without any pressure and undue influence and has been arrived at his/her own free will.

'CBI Failed Miserably' : Supreme Court Acquits Former Indian Bank Manager In Loan Fraud Case

Case Details: v. Balakrishnan v. State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 882

The Supreme Court (September 1) acquitted a former Indian Bank Branch Manager in a 1991 loan fraud case, holding that the CBI failed miserably not only in proving the allegations but also in properly framing the case, which the Court described as “fabricated” and having “no legs to stand.”

“The CBI has failed miserably in not only proving its case but also in framing the case.”, the Court said, while also calling for a report from the Indian Bank's Anna Nagar Chennai Branch Manager for keeping the excess money received by them in auction after satisfying the loan account. The Court expressed concern over the fact that the bank had apparently retained the surplus amount instead of disbursing it to the persons legally entitled to it.

“…we are concerned as to how the Indian Bank kept the excess money in auction received by them, without disbursal to the legal heirs, even if the predecessors-in-interest were arrayed as accused in this case….”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

Guilt Can't Be Presumed Merely Because Investigating Officer Faced Collusion Allegations : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dhrub Singh Etc. v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 883

The Supreme Court (September 1) observed that though a faulty investigation cannot, by itself, operate to the benefit of an accused, Courts also cannot presume guilt merely because the Investigating Officer (IO) was recalcitrant or faced allegations of collusion, particularly when the prosecution has failed to produce reliable evidence establishing the accused's guilt.

“A faulty investigation cannot inure to the benefit of the accused, but when there is no reliable evidence, merely because the I.O was recalcitrant or a complaint of collusion was raised against him, the Court cannot presume the guilt of the accused.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The prosecution case was that the deceased, along with four others (a son, an employee, a nephew, and a villager), were proceeding to fields when the accused ambushed the party, started indiscriminate firing, and shot the deceased in the back. The victim succumbed to the gunshot injury. A patrolling car with a Magistrate arrived at the spot, and the accused ran away.

Supreme Court Sets Aside ₹425-Crore Penalty As Customs Authority Used AI-Generated Fake Case Laws

Case: Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 884

The Supreme Court set aside a ₹425.27-crore customs penalty imposed on a diamond trader after finding that the adjudicating authority had relied on non-existent or incorrectly cited judicial precedents that appeared to have been generated or hallucinated by artificial intelligence.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu allowed the civil appeal filed by one Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya and quashed both the Gujarat High Court order and the original customs adjudication order.

The penalty had been imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, on October 8, 2025, under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had been accused of mis-declaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds in order to pay a lower tariff. The Gujarat High Court subsequently dismissed his challenge to the penalty on January 20, 2026.

No Absolute Bar On Interim Release Of Vehicles Seized Under Gujarat Prohibition Act : Supreme Court

Case Title: M/S Abc Express v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885

The Supreme Court (02.09.2026) has set aside orders of the Trial Court, the Sessions Court, and the Gujarat High Court, declining interim custody of a truck seized while transporting a large consignment of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), and directed that the vehicle be released to its owner on furnishing security. While setting aside the orders, the Court held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not operate as an absolute embargo against release of a seized vehicle to its owner pending trial, even where the quantity of liquor recovered exceeds the prescribed limit.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sree Chandrashekar ruled so while hearing a case relating to the seizure of an Ashok Leyland truck belonging to the appellant. The truck was seized while it was travelling from Modasa towards Vadodara via Lunawada. On interception, the driver could not produce any pass or permit for the goods being carried. On search, the vehicle was found to be carrying 8,064 bottles of IMFL, amounting to approximately 22,532.253 litres and valued Rs 17,02,656. It was concealed among consignments of edible goods worth around Rs 98.66 lakh.

Thereafter, a case was registered under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81, 116(b) and 83 of the Prohibition Act, and a chargesheet was filed against four accused, including the driver. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking interim custody of the truck. However, it was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lunawada which was subsequently upheld both by the Sessions Judge, Mahisagar and, by the Gujarat High Court.

Banks Can Invoke SARFAESI For Loans Acquired From NBFCs Not Covered Under Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Trupti Sanjay Mehta and Others (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 886

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court (September 2) held that banks can take recourse to the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to recover debts assigned to them by NBFCs, notwithstanding that such NBFCs were not covered under the Act at the time the debt was created.

“…when the institution (bank) is one to which the SARFAESI Act is already applicable, acquisition of a non-performing secured loan account by such institution from an entity, that does not come within the ambit of the SARFAESI Act, would immediately clothe the said loan account with the attributes of a 'secured debt' covered by the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva while setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had restricted the Kotak Mahindra Bank from invoking the SARFAESI Act for recovery of debts assigned to it by an NBFC that was not a notified financial institution under Section 2(1)(m) of the Act when the loans were advanced.

The dispute arose from loan accounts originally advanced by City Financial Consumer Finance Limited (CFCFL), an NBFC which, at the relevant time, was not a “financial institution” notified under Section 2(1)(m) of the SARFAESI Act.

'Several Missing Links' : Supreme Court Acquits Child Murder Case Convict After 16 Years' Imprisonment

Case Details: Sahab Singh Alias Sat Pal v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 887

The Supreme Court has acquitted the convict in a 2007 murder case involving the death of a six-year-old child, holding that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that several crucial links in the chain of circumstantial evidence were missing.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Sessions Court at Ambala, which had convicted appellant Sahab Singh under Sections 302, 201 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellant had already spent more than 16 years and seven months in custody. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier direction that he be released forthwith unless his continued detention was required in connection with another case

Supreme Court Calls For Cooperative Federalism Between Centre, Tamil Nadu In Regulating Purse Seine Fishing

Case Title – Fisherman Care v. Government of India Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 888

The Supreme Court observed the Union and State Governments must abide by the principle of cooperative federalism to ensure effective implementation of the regulatory framework governing purse seine fishing in India's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and territorial waters.

Purse seine fishing uses a large net to encircle and catch schools of fish. EEZ is the sea area extending up to 200 nautical miles from a country's coastline, where the country has special rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage marine resources such as fish, oil and gas.

The Court was dealing with a controversy that arose over Tamil Nadu's ban on using purse seine nets within its territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the coast), including prohibiting fishermen from carrying the nets through those waters to fish in the EEZ beyond 12 nautical miles. The issue was concerning the right of fishermen using purse seine nets to access the EEZ beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu.

Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Revision Under Karnataka Land Revenue Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: M.R.R. Setty (Dead), By Lrs v. Government of Karnataka and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 889

The Supreme Court (September 2) observed that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked to negate the limitation period provided in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva heard a matter wherein the Karnataka Government's land record authority, acting under its revisional powers, directed a fresh enquiry into land survey numbers in the Yediyur Lake area of Bengaluru, beyond the three-year limitation prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (“Act”).

The state government defended the move citing the applicability of the delay condonation provision of the Limitation Act applying mutatis mutandis to the appeals filed under the Act. Rejecting this argument, the Court observed that the question was not about the filing of an appeal under the Act, but exercising of the revision powers under the Act, whose proviso to Section 56(3) prescribes only three years limitation for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the authority.

NDPS Act | Drug Disposal Committee Cannot Dispose Of Seized Vehicle Without Trial Court's Orders : Supreme Court

Case: R Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 890

The Supreme Court has held that the power to confiscate a vehicle seized in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) vests exclusively in the court trying the offence under Section 63 of the Act. It also ruled that a Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) constituted under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, cannot independently proceed to dispose of a seized conveyance without orders from the court.

"Statutorily the power of confiscation is on the Court, trying the offence," the Court held.

Applying this, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran directed release of a lorry to its owner, whose vehicle had remained in custody even after the accused persons were acquitted in the NDPS case.

Supreme Court Explains Procedure For Disposal Of Vehicles Seized Under NDPS Act; Says Notice To Owner Mandatory

Case: R Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 890

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran ruled so while examining the interplay between Section 63 of the NDPS Act, which vests the power of confiscation in the court, and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling, and Disposal) Rules 2022, which permit disposal of seized conveyances through the DDC.

The petitioner's lorry, along with 66 kg of ganja allegedly recovered from it, was seized after interception. This led to prosecution of four persons under the NDPS Act. Later all four of them were acquitted by the Additional District and Sessions Court, (EC and NDPS cases, Pudukottai), stating discrepancies in the arrest memo, absence of any registered recording safe custody of the contraband, the prosecution's inability to explain how the lorry was permitted to ply during pandemic, and delay in sending samples to the court and the laboratory. While acquitting the accused, it had also directed release of the lorry to its owner once the appeal period lapsed.

However, when the petitioner approached the trial court once the appeal period was over, his plea was rejected. The Madras High Court affirmed the rejection under Section 52A, the Standing Orders, and the 2022 Rules, especially since the Investigating Officer had separately moved the trial court to refer the vehicle to the DDC. Aggrieved by the High Court's finding, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

Futures & Options Segment Investors Cannot Seek Reimbursement Of Losses From Professional Clearing Members : Supreme Court

Case Details: Edelweiss Custodial Services Limited v. Nse Clearing Ltd. & Anr. (With Connected Appeals)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 891

Highlighting the speculative nature of the Futures and Options (F&O) segment and the substantial losses suffered by investors despite the inherent risks involved, the Supreme Court (September 2) held that F&O investors cannot seek reimbursement of their financial losses from Professional Clearing Members (PCMs), whose role is just to facilitate the clearing and settlement of trades.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that in the F&O segment, the investor has a direct relationship with the Trading Member (TM), which deals with the investor and executes trades, while furnishing collateral or securities to the Professional Clearing Member (PCM) to secure its own obligations. Therefore, in the absence of any privity of contract between the PCM and the individual investors, the PCM cannot be held liable towards the investors for their losses.

“…there can be no claim laid against the PCM for the default committed by the TM, especially in the context of the TM having indulged in illegal schemes and the investors having participated with open eyes in such schemes on the assurance of an assured return, which, in the F&O Segment, is downright impossible.”, the Court observed.

First-Time Juvenility Claims Before SC Show 'Huge Gap' In JJ Act Implementation By Police, Trial Courts : Supreme Court

Case: Mahavir @ Avnish v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 892

The Supreme Court has flagged the increasing number of cases in which pleas of juvenility are being raised for the first time before it, observing that the trend points to a serious gap in the understanding and implementation of the Juvenile Justice Acts (JJAs) by police and courts.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, in a judgment delivered (September 2, 2026), set aside the 21-year-old conviction of a man who was found to have been a juvenile on the date of the offence. The Court held that once his juvenility had been established by the Juvenile Justice Board, the High Court was duty-bound to consider his case in accordance with the law applicable to children in conflict with law.

"This case brings to the limelight a serious issue which has hindered the implementation of the JJAs. We must remember that the impact of industrialisation, urbanisation and migration changed the people's daily lives. They started migrating from rural areas to the cities as a result of which there was an explosion in population. The cohesiveness of communities started weakening and the family gradually lost effective control over the children. Poverty, inequality, illiteracy and the discriminatory environment in which a child grows trigger delinquent behavior in the child, and he becomes a victim of the crime. The rise in the number of cases coming to this Court raising the plea of juvenility for the first time in this Court indicates in ample measures that there is a huge gap in the understanding of law by the stakeholders."

S. 362 CrPC Does Not Curtail High Court's Inherent Power To Recall Judgment Resulting In Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court

Case: Mahavir @ Anvish v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 892

The Supreme Court has held that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which generally bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing a judgment after it has been signed, does not obliterate the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to recall an order or judgment when allowing it to stand would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court made the observation while allowing the appeal of Mahavir alias Avnish, who was found to have been a juvenile on the date of the offence but had been convicted and sentenced by a regular criminal court. The Court criticised the High Court's approach in declining its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to recall its judgment convicting him, despite finding that he was a juvenile.

The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar overturned a 2018 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) which had declined to reopen his conviction under Section 201 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), on the ground that the judgment had attained finality and could not be revisited under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

'Child Should Not Be Treated As Criminal': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction On Juvenility Claim After 21 Years

Case: Mahavir @ Avnish v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 892

The Supreme Court (02.09.2026) has set aside the 21-year old conviction of a man who was found to be a juvenile on the date of the offence, holding that a High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) can be exercised to recall its own final judgment where a mistake by the court has caused grave prejudice to a party, even after the Special Leave Petition (SLP) for the same has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar has overturned a 2018 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) which had declined to reopen his conviction under Section 201 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), on the ground that the judgment had attained finality and could not be revisited under Section 482.

The case arose out of the death of one Bhuri and her infant daughter, whose bodies were found on a railway track in Morena, in 2004. An FIR was registered against Bhuri's husband, in-laws, and brothers-in-law (including the appellant), under Sections 302, 304B, and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC (now Section 103, 80, 238, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). Allegations of dowry harassment, murder, and destruction of evidence were put against the accused persons.

'Homebuyers Can't Be Penalised For Builders' Default' : Supreme Court Rejects NOIDA's Time-Extension Charges In CIRP

Case Details: Authorised Representative For Granite Gate Properties Private Limited Rakesh Verma v. M/S New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 893

The Supreme Court set aside directions treating NOIDA's time-extension charges as insolvency process costs in two delayed high-rise projects, holding that homebuyers and the new resolution applicant cannot be made to pay penalties for the original developer's default.

The Court held that homebuyers, who constitute a class of financial creditors in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of a defaulting developer, cannot be saddled with the liability to pay time extension charges for the underdeveloped project, especially when the project is being completed with the pooled financial contributions of the homebuyers themselves.

“The homebuyers and the SRA (Successful Resolution Applicant) are sought to be penalised for past sins of the Corporate Debtor, which cannot be allowed, especially in the context of the authority imposing penalty, ie: the local authority being concerned essentially with the development of the area under its control.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while allowing the appeal filed by the homebuyers, setting aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) directions upholding the NOIDA's demand to treat time extension charges as CIRP costs.

NCTE Executive Committee Empowered To Seek Annual Performance Appraisal Reports From Teacher Educational Institutes : Supreme Court

Case Details: National Council For Teachers Education v. Association of NCTE Approved Colleges Trust and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 894

The Supreme Court (September 3) upheld the National Council for Teacher Education's and its executive committee's power to call for annual Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR) from Teacher Education Institutes.

“…there is ample empowerment of the Council as well as the Executive Committee to call for annual Performance Appraisal Report from institutions imparting teacher education.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, while setting aside the Delhi High Court's Division Bench judgment which ruled against the NCTE's executive committee's authority to issue a notice calling for a Performance Appraisal Report from the Teacher Education Institutes.

“We fail to understand as to how a regulatory measure of a statutory body, empowered to achieve planned and coordinated development of teacher education system in the country could be restrained from calling upon the TEIs to file Performance Appraisal Report. We are of the opinion that even without a specific empowerment under the statute, such a regulatory measure can always be incidental and ancillary to the duties and functions of a regulator. As there is a performance audit of NCTE itself by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), it is but natural and incidental that NCTE would require the stakeholders, over which it exercises the regulatory jurisdiction, to provide the necessary Performance Appraisal Report.”, the Court said.

RBI Can Supersede Multi-State Co-operative Bank Board Beyond Six-Months; Consultation With State Not Needed : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sandeep S. Ghandat & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 895

Observing that the Banking Regulation Act applies to multi-state co-operative banks, the Supreme Court (September 3) held that the Reserve Bank of India's power to supersede the Board of Directors of a multi-state co-operative bank extends beyond the six-month limit prescribed under Article 243ZL(1) of the Constitution.

“…the power of RBI to supersede BoD of a multi-State co-operative bank under Section 36AAA (1) of BR Act is not circumscribed by the 6-month limit prescribed in Article 243ZL (1) of the Constitution.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, while affirming the Bombay High Court's judgment which had refused to interfere with the RBI's decision to supersede the board of directors of the Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Limited ('Bank') beyond the six-month limit prescribed under Article 243ZL (1) of the Constitution.

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellants (superseded board members) argued that the RBI's power to supersede the Board was subject to the six-month ceiling under Article 243ZL(1) of the Constitution. Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the third proviso to Article 243ZL(1) expressly makes the BR Act applicable to multi-State co-operative banks.

Supreme Court Allows NGO Energy Watchdog To Participate In Proceedings Against Companies Over Alleged Unauthorised Power Use

Case Details: M/S. Amalgam Steels and Power Ltd. and Anr. v. Energy Watchdog and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 896

The Supreme Court has permitted the NGO Energy Watchdog to participate in the proceedings initiated by Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. against two companies over alleged unauthorised supply and use of electricity.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to interfere with the interim order passed by the Jharkhand High Court permitting the NGO to participate in the proceedings so that collection and consideration of relevant information could be facilitated. The Court agreed with the High Court's impression that the long-standing complaint by the NGO against the unauthorised supply and use of electricity speaks that all is not well with the inquiry conducted by the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd (JBVNL).

An argument was raised by the petitioners-electricity companies challenging the High Court's order that the Electricity Act being an exhaustive code in itself, disentitles any third-party interventions in the proceedings.

Motor Accident Claim | Functional Disability Can't Be Reduced Just Because Victim Was Retained In A Specified Role : Supreme Court

Case: Reliance General Insurance Company v. Priyanka Das & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 897

The Supreme Court has held that assessment of functional disability in motor accident compensation cases must focus on a victim's ability to earn in the open, competitive labour market, rather than on the fact that the person continues to retain a job in a highly accommodated workplace.

"The calculation of functional disability depends on assessing the victim's earning capacity in the open, competitive market, rather than on retention in a specific, highly accommodated role," the Court said.

A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria made the observation while enhancing compensation to a woman who suffered complete blindness, serious pelvic injuries and a permanent colostomy following a 2011 road accident. The Court held that her continued employment could not, by itself, be treated as evidence that she had suffered little or no loss of earning capacity.

Supreme Court Allows Retiral Benefits To Employee Whose ST Certificate Was Found Invalid After 25 Years' Service

Case Details: Shirish Pandharinath Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 898

The Supreme Court (September 3) in exercise of its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution has protected the retiral and pensionary benefits of a retired employee, whose community certificate was subsequently found to be invalid after rendering over 25 years in service.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard the appeal filed by a Junior Engineer (Civil) who was appointed with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in 1994 based on a community certificate belonging to 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe. Later on, in 2020, the caste certificate was declared invalid by the scrutiny committee, whose decision was upheld by the Bombay High Court, leading to the filing of an SLP before the Supreme Court by the retired employee.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant continued in service pursuant to the interim order of the Court and ultimately retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 2025. Since, the appellant is now retired, he alternatively prayed for protection of the retiral and pensionary benefits of the appellant relying upon the Court's decision in Surekha Baljorsingh Thakur v. Caste Scrutiny Committee & Anr.(2024).

'Shoddy Investigation' : Supreme Court Overturns Conviction In Kidnapping & Murder Case

Case: Kondapaka Sridhar @ Shekar @ Madhu @ Gopi @ Chinna v. State of Telangana

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 899

The Supreme Court (03.09.2026) acquitted the (sole surviving) convict in a kidnapping for ransom and murder case, holding that the prosecution's investigation was shoddy and rested on inadmissible confessions and an unsubstantiated “story”, rather than on legally proved evidence.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing an appeal filed by the accused 1 (A1), whose conviction had been affirmed by the High Court even after it acquitted four of his five co-accused.

It was alleged that the victim went untraceable as he left his home for Hyderabad, following which his father (PW1) received a ransom call. Subsequently, a police complaint was registered and Rs 1,50,000 was deposited to a bank account belonging to the accused. Call records led to accused 6 (A6). Thereafter, A6 was arrested and his confession led to the recovery of the victim's body which was concealed inside a refrigerator. The confession also led to other co-accused (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5). The trial court convicted A1(appellant), A2, A3, A5, and A6 while A4 died during the trial itself. However, the High Court acquitted A2, A3, A5, and A6, while confirming the conviction of the appellant. It is to note that appellant's conviction was made relying on the testimony of PW 3 (a watchman in the apartment from where the body was recovered), and on appellant's failure to explain the presence of the body in a flat he had allegedly taken on lease, which was treated as an incriminating circumstance under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).

University Must Honour Teachers, Can't Deviate From UGC Regulations On Payscale : Supreme Court Gives Relief To Associate Professor

Case Details: Dr. Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Union of India & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 900

The Supreme Court held that universities could not depart from the statutory guidelines and regulations governing the pay scale of their teaching staff.

“University ought to honour its teachers and uphold their rights as they undertake to impart knowledge to vast number of students and they are estopped from departing from the regulations and guidelines. Hence, University cannot be permitted to deviate from the MHRD guidelines and UGC regulations.”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where the Appellant, posted as an Associate Professor at Uttarakhand Sanskrit University, Haridwar was denied the pay band of an Associate Professor mentioned in the advertisement post, as per MHRD & UGC norms, on the ground of a typographical error.

Housing Project Must Be Built As Per Brochure Given To Buyer: Supreme Court Directs CBI Enquiry Into DLF Construction

Case Details: Swarnpreet Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 902

The Supreme Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to proceed with a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) into issues surrounding the construction of the DLF Primus project in Gurugram, particularly the alleged deviation from the project plan and brochure shown to homebuyers.

A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan said a housing project must be delivered in accordance with the representations made to prospective buyers through the brochure and plan. The Court observed that the 24-metre-wide road shown as cutting across the DLF Primus project does not exist in the manner represented in the original plan.

The exercise to determine whether the nature of the road has been altered was entrusted by the Court to Saurabh Gupta IPS of the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI). In the CBI officer's status report dated August 3, 2026, it was found that the road did not exist as such within the project. According to the report and material placed before the Court, portions of the earmarked area were being used for parking, while other portions had been developed as a green track.

Orders and Other Developments

With No Foreigners Tribunals In West Bengal, Supreme Court Allows Illegal Migrants To Approach Magistrate For Bail Condition

Case: Ms Maja Daruwala and Anr. v. Union of India | T.C.(Crl.) No. 1/2013

The Supreme Court on August 31 clarified a May 2025order which directed the West Bengal government to identify and release on bail illegal foreign migrants languishing in the state prisons despite lapse of 3 years since completion of their post-conviction sentence.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana added the term 'jurisdictional trial court' besides 'Foreigners' Tribunal' in the order, after it was pointed out that two of the bail conditions recorded in the order contained the term 'Foreigners' Tribunal' but there is no such Tribunal in West Bengal.

The bench passed the order after Advocate Soutik Banerjee sought clarification.

Journalist Who Reported Ram Temple Donation Theft Moves Supreme Court Against UP Police Notice For X Account Data

Case: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who first reported on the Ayodhya Ram temple donation theft scam, has approached the Supreme Court seeking an immediate stay and quashing of a notice issued by the Ghaziabad Crime Branch asking social-media platform X to provide extensive digital information relating to his X account.

The application, filed in his writ petition challenging the UP Police FIR over a road rage incident, challenges a notice dated August 22 issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the Crime Branch Investigation Unit, Ghaziabad. According to the application, X's legal department informed Upadhyaya by email on August 26 that it had received a request from the Ghaziabad Crime Branch for information concerning his account, @upadhyayabhii. X said it was notifying him to enable him to take appropriate legal action to protect his interests.

Last week, the Supreme Courthad stayed coercive action against Upadhyay on the FIR.

'Those Attacking Doctors Don't Deserve Bail' : Supreme Court Questions Shiv Sena Corporator In Hospital Assault Case

Case Title – Ramesh Sukrya

Mhatre v. High Court of Judicature At Bombay

The Supreme Court questioned Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre over the assault of doctors at the Shastrinagar Hospital in Kalyan, observing that attacks on medical professionals inside hospitals could not be treated lightly.

The Court indicated that it was inclined to uphold the Bombay High Court's staying the bail granted to Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre booked for assaulting three doctors at the Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation run hospital.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing Mhatre's challenge to the Bombay High Court's July 18 order staying the bail granted to him and its order imposing stringent bail conditions. The orders were passed in suo motu proceedings initiated after the Magistrate granted bail to him and his associates.

4 States Urge Supreme Court To Quash FIRs Over Student Protests; Cite Centre's Commitment To CJP

The States of Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Assam have approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of 116 FIRs registered in connection with student protests held in July over the NEET exam paper leak, citing the Central Government's commitment given to the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) on July 25 that the cases would be withdrawn if the agitations were called off.

The States have urged the Court to invoke its special powers under Article 142 to quash the FIRs. The Centre had filed a similar application to quash the Delhi police FIRs against protesters, and sought permission to register a single FIR against 2873 persons who had grave criminal antecedents.

These applications have come ahead of the CJP announcing a fresh protest in Delhi on September 5, contending that the Centre had not honoured its commitment to honour the cases.

Why Can't Totalizer Method Be Used To Count Votes Instead Of Booth-Wise Counting? Supreme Court Asks Union, ECI

Case: Yogesh Gupta v. Election Commission of India WP(C) 422/201, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr W.P.(C) No. 927/2017 and Imran Khan v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 585/2014

The Supreme Court asked the Union government to state its position on introducing a “totalizer” system for counting votes recorded through EVMs, a proposal aimed at preventing candidates from determining the voting pattern of individual polling booths.

The Court specifically sought to know if there are any impediments to introducing such a mechanism and if there would be any negative impact because of it. The Election Commission of India has also been asked to submit its proposal to the Union.

The Court sought to know if a provision akin to Rule 59A of the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 - which allows use of a totalizer in ballot paper counting in certain circumstances - can be incorporated, as proposed by the Law Commission in its 255th Report. The Court sought the Union's views since it has the power to amend the Conduct of Election Rules.

Supreme Court Closes Suo Motu Case Over NCERT Textbook Chapter On 'Corruption In Judiciary'

Case Title: In Re: Social Science Textbook For Grade-8(Part 2) Published By Ncert and Ancillary Issues | SMW (C) 1/2026

The Supreme Court closed the suo motu proceedings concerning a controversial chapter on “Corruption in Judiciary” that had appeared in an NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook, after the chapter was subsequently withdrawn.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order noting that the chapter has been replaced based on the revisions suggested by an expert panel constituted by the Centre. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed that the textbooks with the new chapter are in circulation.

The Court had earlier taken strong objections to the previous chapter, and had ordered a ban on the textbooks containing the same. Contempt notices were also issued to the NCERT and Ministry officials who approved the chapter.

Withdrawing September 5 Protest : CJP Leader Saurav Das Tells Supreme Court As Centre Acts To Withdraw Cases

The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) withdrew its proposed September 5 protest march in Delhi, with its spokesperson Saurav Das telling the Supreme Court bench that the decision had been taken in view of steps initiated by the Centre to withdraw cases registered against protesters.

Das appeared before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana and informed the court that the organisation had decided to call off the proposed march.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the bench that the Centre(Delhi Police), and the States of Bihar, Assam, West Bengal and Maharashtra have filed applications seeking to quash the FIRs linked to student protests, and assuring that no future FIRs would be registered in respect of the protest related events from July 20 to July 25. The SG said that the applications have been filed to honour the assurance made by the Centre to the CJP leaders on July 25.

Supreme Court Quashes FIRs Across Country Over Student Protests; Bars Future FIRs

Case Title: Yashovardhan Azan and Others v. Union of India and Others (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court ordered that the FIRs registered across the country, in any State or Union Territory, over the student protests held between July 20 to July 25, should not be pursued or investigated and must be treated as closed for all intents and purposes.

The Court also quashed the FIRs over student protests which were specified in the applications filedby the Centre (Delhi Police), Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Assam.

Though only the Centre and the above-said four states filed the applications seeking to quash the FIRs, the Court extended the application of the order pan-India. The Court said that it was passing the order considering the future of the students who bona fide came to the protests.

Supreme Court Pulls Up MCD, ASI As Newspaper Reports Contradict Claims Of Preserving Heritage Structures

Case: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court has pulled up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for allegedly placing incorrect or misleading facts about the condition and encroachment status of several heritage structures before the court.

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh condemned the “total callousness” and “suppression of facts” on the part of the MCD after photographs published in the reports of The Hindustan Times and The Times of India newspapers appeared to contradict claims made by the civic body in an affidavit filed before the court.

The Court has been monitoring the preservation and upkeep of heritage monuments in Delhi in the proceedings arising out of a 2019 judgment of the Delhi High Court. Although the case initially concerned the Gumti of Shaikh Ali, the Court expanded the proceedings to cover the entire heritage sites in Delhi.

Undertrial Prisoner Release : Supreme Court Directs States To Ensure Effective Functioning Of District Committees

Case Details: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Supreme Court flagged non-compliance with the Centre's Standard Operating Procedure for the 'Support to Poor Prisoners' Scheme, directing all States to ensure that District Level Empowered Committees (DLECs) meet regularly and take timely decisions on cases of undertrial prisoners placed before them for consideration of release.

“We have also taken note of the fact that the meetings of the District Level Empowered Committees (DLECs) are not being regularly held, as mandated in the revised SOP dated 02.12.2025. Hence, it is directed that all the DLECs shall meet regularly, as mandated, and also take decisions on the cases that are pending consideration before them. The compliance of the above must be made and reported to the learned Amicus before the next date of hearing.”, the Court directed.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was hearing a miscellaneous application arising out of a lead case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577, where the court directed the creation of a mechanism for the release of the eligible undertrial prisoners so that they are not unnecessarily kept in custody.

Can Accused Inspect Evidence Not Relied By Prosecution Before Trial? Supreme Court Reserves Order

Case Details: State NCT of Delhi v. Devangana Kalita, SLP(Crl) No. 12447/2026, Diary No. 38990/2026

The Supreme Court reserved its order on a plea filed by the Delhi Police challenging the Delhi High Court order permitting Devangana Kalita, an accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, to inspect unrelied documents kept in the malkhana.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the matter.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, argued that an accused is entitled to receive the list of unrelied documents but cannot seek their inspection before the charges are framed. He submitted that the trial commences only after the framing of charges and that the right to seek inspection arises at a later stage.

Most HCs Agree To Raise District Judges' Retirement Age, Many States Undecided: Supreme Court Told

Case Title: All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

The Supreme Court was informed that most High Courts are in favor of enhancing the retirement age of district judges to 62 years, while several States and Union Territories are either opposing the move or are yet to take a final decision on it.

The opposition of the States/UTs was stated to be rooted in 3 issues - (i) additional burden on State exchequer (ii) "heartburn" among other employees of the State/UT, and (iii) effect on legitimate aspirations of young entrants in judicial service.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the All India Judges Association case, in which the Court had directed all States/UTs to consider enhancing the retirement age of district judges to 61/62 years after consulting their respective High Courts.

Supreme Court E-Committee To Consider Plea To Allow Compounding Of Traffic Offences In V-Courts Portal Without Pleading Guilty

Case: Prabhjot Singh Dhillon v. E -Commitee Supreme Court of India and Anr. Diary No. 31698-2026

The Supreme Court forwarded to its E-Committee a plea seeking modifications to the V-Courts portal managed by the Committee, so that citizens do not have to enter a plea of guilt when compounding traffic offenses.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Maninder Singh (for petitioner-Prabhjot Singh Dhillon). The order recorded that the issue raised was of paramount importance for better functioning of the V-Courts portal.

The petition was filed by Dhillon, through AoR Prabhas Bajaj, seeking a direction to the Supreme Court E-Committee to update the V-Courts portal (managed by the E-Committee) to include a clear and independent option for compounding offenses that do not require the user to enter a plea of guilt. It alleged that the portal had dark patterns and a confusing interface, which incorrectly equated fine payment with a plea of guilt, resulting in convictions for compoundable offenses.

Supreme Court Issues Directions For Faster Election Of New Bar Council Of India Members; Asks BCI To Involve AG & SG For Policy Decisions

Cases: M. Varadhan v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1049/2026; Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1092/2026

While hearing petitions challenging the continued tenure of Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra as the Chairperson of the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Supreme Court laid down concrete timelines for the composition of State Bar Councils, so that the election of new office-bearers of the BCI can be conducted soon.

Observing that the issues raised against Mishra's continuation at the BCI's helm can be addressed if the long-due BCI elections are expedited, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued the following directions :

The Court stated that it will consider the issue of composition of the BCI after the above exercise is complete.

'You Don't Continue To Be Democratically Elected, Only A Pro Tem Chairman Of BCI' : Supreme Court To Manan Kumar Mishra

Cases: M. Varadhan v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1049/2026; Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1092/2026

The Supreme Court reminded Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra that he is only a pro tem Chairman and not a democratically elected office-bearer, and hence, he can only manage the day-to-day affairs of the BCI.

The Court said that before taking any major policy decisions, the BCI must involve the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India, who are permanent ex-officio BCI members.

The observations came while hearing pleas challenging the prolonged continuation of Mishra as BCI Chairman as beyond the tenure prescribed under the BCI Rules.

Supreme Court Questions BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust : 'How Can BCI Office-Bearers Be Permanent Trustees Beyond Their Term?'

Cases: M. Varadhan v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1049/2026; Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1092/2026

The Supreme Court questioned the legality of provisions in the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust Deed that allow the current office-bearers of the Bar Council of India, including its Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, to continue as permanent trustees of the PEARL FIRST Trust even after they cease to be the office-bearers of the Bar Council of India (BCI).

The Court asked how an elected statutory body could create a trust with permanent trustees.

The issue arose before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, which was hearing petitions challenging the prolonged continuation of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and raising concerns regarding the functioning and administration of the BCI-PEARL FIRST [Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education (Legal and Professional) and Reforms in Law and For Improvement of Research and Social Training] Trust.

Supreme Court To Hear Centre's Plea To Clarify Judgment That Parental Salary Alone Can't Decide OBC Creamy Layer Status

Case Title – Union of India v. Rohith Nathan and Anr.

The Union Government has moved the Supreme Court seeking clarification regarding the implementation of its March 11 judgment holding that the creamy layer status of an Other Backward Class (OBC) candidate cannot be determined solely on the basis of the parents' salary income, and that the category of posts held by them have also to be considered.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan issued notice on the Centre's clarification application and kept the matter for hearing on 17th September, 2026.

The Centre has raised concerns about the consequences of applying the judgment retrospectively. It has stated that such an interpretation could affect recruitments and admissions already undertaken by the Central Government, 18 States and Union Territories,

Shiv Sena Row | SC Judgment Didn't Rule Out 'Legislative Majority Test' To Determine Real Party : Shinde To Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde, SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (And Connected Case)

In the Shiv Senacase, the Eknath Shinde faction argued before the Supreme Court that the Constitution Bench decision in Subhash Desaidid not completely rule out the legislative majority test for determining which side among two rival factions constitutes the majority.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena , made the submission before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. He was responding to the appeal filed by Uddhav Thackeray challenging the decision of the Election Commission of Indiato allot the official party symbol to the Eknath Shinde-led group.

"It's factually and legally incorrect to say that Subhash Desai said that in Symbols Order, legislative party has no mention and thus no place and can't be looked at. Subhash Desai says under Symbols Order, seats and votes secured are important considerations for freezing a symbol and for a political party to get symbol. Relying on Sadiq Ali, it says that legislative majority test is a relevant test under para 15", he said.

'Client Doesn't Care About Beautiful Judgment On Law; Lawyer's Focus Must Be To Secure Relief': Justice BV Nagarathna

Case Title – M/S Tara Techno Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Shree Rathi Steel Ltd.

Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court observed that the primary aim of a lawyer should be to secure relief for the client rather than pursue a “beautiful judgement” on a legal issue.

“See the attitude of the Counsel must be to get relief for the party rather than getting a beautiful judgement on maintainability. This law, that law, this doctrine, that doctrine – it is all meant for you (advocates) and us (judges), but the client will be saying 'what is there for me?',” Justice BV Nagarathna observed.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan dismissed an SLP challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition against an arbitral award granted to the petitioner, an MSME named M/s Tara Techno Machines Pvt. Ltd.

'Move HC' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Assault On Lawyers Protesting Against BCI Chairman

Case: Kunal Yadav and Others v. Manan Kumar Mishra and Others

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged assault of lawyers who were protesting outside the premises of the Bar Council of India (BCI) on August 21 seeking the resignation of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to appraoch the High Court.

The matter was orally mentioned by Advocate Prashant Bhushan before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for urgent listing.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Curbs On Entry To Government Schools Amid CJP Campaign

Case Details: Priya Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S). 1095/2026

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the restrictions imposed by education authorities in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh on the entry of outsiders, journalists, YouTubers, social-media users and civil-society representatives into government schools, as well as curbs on photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming.

The petition filed by Priya Mishra was heard by a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, which refused to entertain it. "We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India."

The petition assumed significance in the wake of the “School Thik Karo” campaign being undertaken by the Cockroach Janat Party to expose the deficiencies in government school infrastructure. It specifically challenged an August 16, 2026 circular issued by Rajasthan's Director of Secondary Education, which requires outsiders to obtain prior permission from the principal before entering the premises of government schools. It also requires prior written permission for photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming.

Supreme Court Suspends Contempt Sentence Imposed By Delhi High Court On YouTuber For Remarks Against Judges

Case Details: Gulshan Pahuja v. High Court of Delhi | Diary No. 37740 / 2026

The Supreme Court (September 3) suspended the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment imposed by the Delhi High Court on YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja for making videos scandalising the judiciary.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu passed the order while issuing notice on Pahuja's appeal after hearing Advocate Manish. The bench has ordered that the petitioner be released from custody immediately.

The High Court had initiated suo motu contempt against the YouTuber. A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja in May observed that Pahuja had shown “no regret” or “course correction” despite being found guilty of criminal contempt.

Bar Councils Have No Disciplinary Power Over Law Students; BCI Chairman's Directions Against NALSAR Bad In Law: Supreme Court

Case: Mihira Sood v. Bar Council of India | W.P.(C) No. 1040/2026

The Supreme Court held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils have no statutory power to take disciplinary action against law students. The Bar Councils get disciplinary control over law students only after they enrol as Advocates.

The Court clarified that disciplinary power over students vests only with their parent institution, or the authority prescribed under the regulations or byelaws governing such institution.

Applying this legal position, the Court declared that the directions issuedby the Bar Council of India Chairman [which were subsequently withdrawnby the BCI itself] to bar the enrolment of the 2026 graduating batch of the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, and seeking an inquiry against the students and faculty for their campaign against the CJI, were bad in law.

Supreme Court Asks SCBA Election Committee To Examine Complaints Against Results

The Supreme Court requested the Election Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association to examine the complaints raised against the counting process and the results of the held SCBA elections.

The Court declined to consider on its judicial side theapplications filedby six candidates who challenged the results of the SCBA Executive Committee Members' elections. The bench led by the Chief Justice of India observed that the issue can be raised before the Election Committee comprising five Senior Advocates and headed by Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta.

The bench was considering, on an oral mention, the interim application filed by six candidates. The applicants alleged various malpractices and discrepancies with respect to the counting process.

NEET-SS | Will Return All Unfilled Super-Speciality Seats To Tamil Nadu, Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Anr v. Uoi | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 771 of 2026

The Supreme Court was (September 3) orally informed that the Union Government has decided to give back all unfilled seats to Tamil Nadu in the Super Speciality admissions matter. The Union stated that it will take a call on the quantum of reduction of percentile and inform the Court.

This comes after a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, on July 28, directed the Directorate General of Health Services to return to the State only 50% of the unfilled seats reserved out of 151 for in-service candidates if the State decides to reduce the qualifying percentile after the second round of counselling.

Subsequently, theTamil Nadu Medical Officers Association filed an application seeking modification of the said order, praying that 100% of the unfilled in-service seats be returned to the State Government.

NEET PG 2026 : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Re-Test With Costs, Chides Petitioner & Counsel

The Supreme Court (September 3) dismissed a PIL filed seeking a re-conduct of the NEET-PG 2026 exam, and made strong critical remarks agaainst the petitioner and the advocate for filing such a plea to disrupt the exam process.

The petitioner sought re-examination for all students, alleging violation of the May 2025 order wherein the Court had orderedNEET PG to be conducted in a single shift.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe made strong oral observations against the advocate and the petitioner and remarked that they have become "full-time litigants". The bench orally expressed that it would take the matter with the Bar Council of India regarding misuse of the writ jurisdiction by the advocate. However, it ultimately dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs. 25,000.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On MBBS Student's Plea For Degree Certificate After NIA Seizes Fees Allegedly Paid By Maoists

Case: SLP(C) No. 29658/2026 Diary No. 43833 / 2026 Puja Kumari v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on an MBBS student's plea seeking direction asking Chettinad Academy of Research and Education to grant her course completion certificate and MBBS Degree Certificate without insisting on repayment of the fee which was seized by the NIA for alleged terror links.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta will hear the matter on 13th October.

The SLP has been filed by a student named Puja Kumari, against the order of a division bench of the Madras High Court, which upheld a Single Judge order refusing to direct the college and medical council authorities to release her course completion certificate and MBBS degree.

CCTVs In Police Stations | Don't Let Existing Funds Lie Dormant Citing Pending Modernization Scheme : Supreme Court To Centre

Case Title – In Re: Lack of Functional Cctvs In Police Stations

The Supreme Court asked the Union Government to ensure that funds already available under the Assistance to States and Union Territories for Modernisation of Police (ASUMP) scheme are utilised to address shortfalls in CCTV infrastructure in police stations, instead of allowing the funds to remain unused while the Centre works on a new police modernisation scheme.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the suo motu case concerning the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across the country.

The issue of funding was raised by Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave with reference to the affidavit filed by the Union of India on August 31, 2026.

Supreme Court Orders Allahabad HC To Initiate Preliminary Inquiry Against Judicial Officer For Failing To Report Trial Progress

Case:Farid Ahmad Khan v. Gyan Chand Mogha (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sree Chandrashekhar directed so while hearing a matter that relates to a 2020 order of the Supreme Court, by which the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within one year. However, the trial remained unconcluded years later, which prompted the Supreme Court to intervene again.

In January 2026, the Supreme Court noted that despite the 2020 order, the trial was yet to be concluded. Hence, the trial court was directed to submit a report. The report was not submitted even by February 2026, following which the Supreme Court granted a further two weeks time to do the same. When the report still was not filed, the Court again recorded the default in March 2026.

Due to the continued non-compliance, the Supreme Court had directed the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to apprise the trial court for sending a report immediately, after which a report was finally received on 12.05.2026, when the Supreme Court also directed that the trial be completed within the next six months. The trial court was also required to file its first status report on or before 21.08.2026.

Supreme Court Expresses Shock At 8 Year Custody Of Undertrial, Denies Bail Citing Antecedents; Fast-Tracks Trial

Case:Lisham Ibungotomba Singh v. State of West Bengal

The Supreme Court (01.09.2026) has declined to grant bail to an undertrial prisoner who has been in judicial custody for over eight-and-a-half years in a burglary case, holding that his antecedents involving offences of a similar nature to the present case weighed against exercise of the Court's discretion. However, taking note of the prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of trial, the Court directed the trial court to complete the entire trial within six months.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court's judgement by which his bail plea had been rejected. He, thereafter, approached the Supreme Court

The appellant, alongwith the other accused persons, was traced by the Anti-Dacoity Section of the Detective Department, Kolkata Police. The case relates to burglary inside a jewellery shop, in commission of which the accused persons assaulted the shop owner and his employees to take all the jewelleries kept in the display boxes. It is alleged that 752.100 grams (then amounting to Rs 21,66,048) of gold jewelleries were taken away in the said act. Appellant's bail plea was rejected by the Calcutta High Court, subsequent to which he approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Flags Off 26 Mobile eSewa Vans to Take eCourts Services, Legal Aid To Citizens' Doorsteps

The Supreme Court eCommittee, in collaboration with the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the Department of Justice, flagged off 26 Mobile eSewa Vans aimed at taking eCourts services, legal aid and dispute resolution facilities directly to citizens in remote and underserved areas.

The vans were flagged off at the Supreme Court's Administrative Buildings Complex in New Delhi as the first tranche of a planned fleet of 73 Mobile eSewa Vans to be progressively deployed across designated High Court and district court jurisdictions.

The initiative is part of the eCourts Project and is intended to address barriers faced by citizens who have limited access to physical court infrastructure, particularly those living in villages, tribal regions and other far-flung areas.

UP Police Team Entered Former Delhi Mayor's House Looking For Me : Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay Tells Supreme Court

Case: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has alleged in the Supreme Court that a Uttar Pradesh Police team entered the residence of former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri in Nizamuddin East during the intervening night of August 22–23 while purportedly searching for him.

In an additional affidavit filed on September 3 in his pending writ petition, Upadhyay relied on a publicly available report about the alleged incident. As per the report, Suri had approached the police seeking registration of FIR against the police personnel. He clarified that he was not personally present at Suri's residence and has sought official records to establish what the police team was doing there.

Upadhyay has asked the court to call for records including the authorisation for the Delhi visit, movement details of the police personnel and vehicles, communications with Delhi Police, and CCTV/body-camera and other electronic records.

Listing Case Under 'For Dismissal' Caption Improper : Supreme Court Criticises AP High Court

Case: K Ravi v. State of Andhra Pradesh | Diary No. 40946/2026

The Supreme Court has taken exception to the Andhra Pradesh High Court listing a case in the causelist under the caption "For Dismissal".

The Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar noted that such a practice is improper as it suggests that the Court had pre-decided the matter before hearing.

“We find that the High Court had listed the related criminal revision case under the caption 'For Dismissal' and thereafter dismissed the revision, though the matter was heard on merit on 21.11.2025. Listing of a case under such a caption itself indicates that a decision has already been taken before actual pronouncement of the order. This is not proper, more particularly in criminal matters,” the Court said.

Supreme Court Rejects ED's Plea Against Bail Granted To Ex-DMK Member Jaffer Sadiq, Expresses 'Reservations' About HC Order

Case Title – Assistant Director v. Jaffer Sadiq Etc.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Madras High Court's order granting bail to former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq and brother Mohamed Saleem in a money laundering case, while making it clear that it had “reservations” about the High Court's decision.

The prosecution has alleged that Sadiq was involved in money laundering arising out of three predicate offences for illegal export of narcotics.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih, however, said that since the High Court order had been passed more than a year ago, it was not inclined to interfere with it. The Court also directed that the High Court's decision would not be treated as a precedent.

Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From Union For Deputing IPS Officers In CAPFs Despite 2025 Judgment

Case: Mahendra Singh Deo v. Govind Mohan and Others

The Supreme Court has sought a detailed explanation from the Ministry of Home Affairs on the deputation of 46 Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to five Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), despite its earlier direction to progressively reduce deputation posts in the CAPF cadres.

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar passed the order on September 2 while hearing a batch of contempt petitions filed against the Ministry of Home Affairs Secretary Govind Mohan over alleged non-compliance with the Court's May 23, 2025 judgment in Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Court was examining compliance with its earlier directions and had specifically asked the Secretaries of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to file affidavits detailing the steps taken to implement the 2025 judgment.

Investigation Failures Under Spotlight As Supreme Court Overturns Three Murder Convictions In September First Week

In the first week of September, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction in three murder cases arising from markedly different crimes: a six-year-old child's murder, a broad-daylight killing, and a kidnapping-for-ransom case that culminated in murder, but shared a common thread i.e., the prosecution's failure to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In Dhrub Singh Etc. v. The State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 883, the Court on September 1 set aside the murder conviction of six accused persons, in connection with an alleged broad-daylight murder case in Bihar during the 2017 election day, after questioning the very foundation of the prosecution's case and the faulty investigation by the police.

Since the prosecution's case was built on the fact that the accused persons have opened up an indiscriminate firing, resulting in a death of a deceased, the failure of the police to recover the cartridges from the crime scene, coupled with the non-recovery of the alleged weapons and a failure to send the blood-stained earth collected from the scene for chemical analysis, proved fatal to the prosecution's case.