LiveLaw Supreme Court Weekly Digest: July 1 - 15, 2026

Administrative Law — Extraordinary Jurisdiction — Article 142 Powers - The invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice is contextual and cannot be exercised mechanically - The Supreme Court will not invoke Article 142 to protect the services of irregularly or illegally appointed teachers at the cost of the students' future and the integrity of public employment streams. [Para 27-32] Najma Khatun v. State of West Bengal, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2026 INSC 691 Administrative Law — Rules of Business under Article 166 of the Constitution — Financial Implication and Deemed Consent - A delegated legislation/notification enhancing royalty rates approved by the Chief Minister (who is also the Minister-in-Charge of Mining) cannot be invalidated for want of explicit approval from the Council of Ministers or formal concurrence from the Finance Department, especially when there is no evidence of disagreement by the Finance Minister - In matters involving the collective responsibility of the Council, where a decision is taken by the Chief Minister at the helm, a deemed consent of the Finance Minister can be inferred under the peculiar facts and circumstances. [Paras 51-63] State of Haryana v. Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 673 : 2026 INSC 690 Advocates Act, 1961 — Sections 35 and 36 — Professional Misconduct — Exclusive Jurisdiction of Bar Councils — Autonomy and Self-Regulation — Held: The legal profession is sui generis(unique in nature) and cannot be equated with traditional commercial professions - The independence of the Bar, secured by the principle of self-regulation ("peers must regulate peers"), is an inextricable feature of the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law - Under the statutory scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961, the power to investigate, adjudicate, and punish an advocate for professional misconduct or negligence vests exclusively in the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India - Parallel adjudicatory mechanisms or unilateral blacklisting by external agencies like banks or banking associations are legally excluded - If a bank believes an advocate is guilty of misconduct, its appropriate remedy is to place the material before the competent State Bar Council. [Paras 30 - 36] Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 656 : 2026 INSC 670 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 16 — Doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz — Joinder of Non-Signatories — Group of Companies Doctrine — The determination of whether a non-signatory is a veritable party to an arbitration agreement involves a complex inquiry of factual, circumstantial, and legal aspects - True effect must be given to the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz under Section 16, which empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including intricate determinations of whether a non-signatory is bound by the agreement. [Relied on SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another (2005) 8 SCC 618; Deep Industries Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Another (2020) 15 SCC 706; unjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Emta Coal Limited and Another (2020) 17 SCC 93; Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. and Another (2024) 4 SCC 1; M/s Tarini Prasad Mohanty v. M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited 2026 INSC 566; Paras 21- 32] Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Company, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 677 : 2026 INSC 701 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 16, Section 5, and Section 34 — Constitution of India — Article 227 — Maintainability of Revision Petition against Arbitral Tribunal's order rejecting jurisdictional challenge — Extent of Judicial Intervention — The High Court is not justified in entertaining a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order of the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting an application under Section 16 of the Act (seeking deletion from the array of parties as non-signatories) - The statutory scheme of the Act mandates minimal judicial interference during ongoing arbitral proceedings - The remedy against the rejection of a Section 16 application strictly lies under Section 34 of the Act after the pronouncement of the final award. Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Company, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 677 : 2026 INSC 701 Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(1-B)(a) and Section 26 – Offence of possession of unlicensed firearms – Requirement of Conscious Possession – Mere recovery of firearms and incriminating articles from the house of the accused is not sufficient to establish guilt unless the prosecution proves that the accused had conscious possession and dominion over the articles – Coercive possession or possession under threat of life cannot be termed as "conscious possession” – Held - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment which set aside the concurrent findings of...

LiveLaw Supreme Court Weekly Digest: July 1 - 15, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

LiveLaw Supreme Court Weekly Digest: July 1 - 15, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers