LiveLaw Supreme Court Weekly Digest: July 16 - 23, 2026

Administrative Law & Public Services – Interview/Viva-Voce Benchmarks – Administrative Necessity - Prescription of Minimum 25% Qualifying Marks in Viva-Voce – The introduction of a minimum qualifying benchmark for the interview stage is neither arbitrary nor whimsical; it is rooted in profound administrative necessity to preserve the integrity, calibre, and quality of judicial administration - While a written examination evaluates academic legal knowledge, the viva-voce is essential to judge crucial personal and intellectual qualities such as alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, and decisive capability required for a high judicial office like an Additional District Judge - A candidate cannot claim a right to appointment based solely on a high aggregate score if they fail to clear the minimum interview threshold. [Relied on Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan, (1988) 3 SCC 241; Paras 19-25] Manoj Goyal V. Rajasthan High Court, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : 2026 INSC 699 Civil Procedure & Practise – Doctrine of Withdrawal – Effect of Substantive Interim Orders - Withdrawal of Writ Petition with Liberty to Approach High Court – The doctrine of withdrawal cannot be weaponized to erase a prior, conscious, and substantive judicial determination by the Court declining a specific prayer. When a specific prayer challenging finalized appointments is dismissed by the Supreme Court, the subsequent withdrawal of the surviving petition (e.g., academic challenge to the vires of a rule) does not resurrect the challenge against selected candidates or wipe away the finality attained by those appointments. [Paras 25-30] Manoj Goyal V. Rajasthan High Court, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : 2026 INSC 699 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Scope of interference in Second Appeal – Concurrent findings of fact - The High Court displaced the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court regarding the genuineness of the transaction and execution of the contract by drawing fresh inferences from surrounding circumstances, without recording any finding of perversity - Held: The High Court transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC - The First Appellate Court is the final court of fact. The High Court in a Second Appeal cannot interfere with findings of fact merely because it would have arrived at a different conclusion on the appreciation of the same evidence - Interference is permissible only where the findings are recorded without evidence, ignore material evidence, or are otherwise vitiated by perversity - Findings on the execution of the agreement, readiness and willingness, and the falsity of a defence are pure findings of fact unassailable in a second appeal unless characterized as perverse. [Relied On: Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314; Paras 15 – 27] Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 682 : 2026 INSC 700 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 154 — Multiple FIRs — Test of Sameness — Clubbing and Consolidation of FIRs — Cyber Fraud involving similar modus operandi but distinct victims and transactions - Permissibility of Second/Multiple FIRs - Registration of multiple FIRs is impermissible only if they relate to the exact same incident or form part of the "same transaction" - where a subsequent FIR relates to a distinct occurrence, an independent transaction, or a separate offence, its registration is entirely permissible - Triple-Test for 'Same Transaction' - To ascertain whether a series of acts form part of the same transaction, the Supreme Court applied the triple-test: (i) unity of purpose and design; (ii) proximity of time and place; and (iii) continuity of action - If there are several transactions and distinct offences in relation to different victims, separate trials must take place - Application to Cyber Fraud -The mere fact that a part of the defrauded amounts from different victims across multiple states (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Odisha) was transferred into a single bank account belonging to the petitioner's proprietary concern does not establish a live link or mean the incidents form part of the "same transaction" - Although the modus operandi appeared similar, the victims, the amounts involved, the transactions, and the consequences suffered were entirely distinct - the alternative relief for clubbing and composite investigation cannot be granted, especially when the investigation is at a nascent stage requiring intricate digital and forensic analysis. [Relied on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181; Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254; Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384; State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja 2026 SCC OnLine SC 19; Paras 14-18] Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. State...

LiveLaw Supreme Court Weekly Digest: July 16 - 23, 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 16 - 23, 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