Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: June 22, 2026 To June 28, 2026
Debby Jain
6 July 2026 10:33 AM IST
Reports/Judgments
Case Title: M/s Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Arjun Gupta | SPL(C) No. 26434/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 636
The Supreme Court set aside a Labour Court award directing reinstatement of an employee with back wages, holding that an employee who remained absent without authorization and failed to substantiate claims of being prevented from rejoining duty cannot seek relief on the basis of unverified assertions.
The employee contended that the notice never reached him because it was sent to his permanent address in Bihar rather than his residence in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, and maintained that he had been illegally denied rejoining.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta rejected the employee's contentions and held that the employer could not be faulted for sending the notice to the address furnished by the employee himself.
Case Title: Arvind Malhotra v. High Court of Himachal Pradesh, | Diary no. 36875/2026
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a judicial officer from Himachal Pradesh seeking the consideration of his name for elevation to the High Court, orally observing that no judicial direction can be issued to the High Court Collegium.
The grievance of the petitioner was that the High Court Collegium forwarded the names of his juniors, which were ultimately approved by the Supreme Court Collegium. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that there was nothing on record to show that the High Court Collegium had rejected the petitioner's name.
Case Title : Pransu Jigarkumar Patel v. The Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 747/2026
The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed by one Pransu Jigarkumar Patel, a private candidate from Al Jubail, Saudi Arabia, who had challenged CBSE's failure to declare his Class XII Improvement Examination result despite the Board having framed a special assessment scheme for students in several Gulf countries where examinations were cancelled due to war-related tensions.
A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the order upon being informed by the Centre that it has notified a national policy addressing the situation of private students from Gulf countries affected by the cancellation of CBSE Class XII Board exams due to the international crisis.
Case Title: Rajat Kumar and Others v. S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalayya Sadhaura and Others
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 637
The Supreme Court held that it is legally impermissible for an Appellate Court to award a relief not prayed for in the pleadings. Also, the Appellate Court cannot, upon setting aside the decree, remand the matter to the executing court for adjudication of issues not arising from any subsisting decree.
A Bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice Atul S Chandurkar set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which had substituted decrees directing the removal of alleged encroachments with an award of compensation to the plaintiffs.
♦ Supreme Court Stays Order Granting Rs. 10 Lakh Compensation To Man Illegally Arrested By UP Police
Case Title: State of UP and Ors. v. Manoj Kumar and Anr.
The Supreme Court stayed the Allahabad High Court's order which had directed the State Government to make a payment of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation to a man for over three months' illegal detention after illegal arrest.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva passed the order in the State's appeal challenging the High Court's decision on the limited issue of the quantum of compensation. It was informed that disciplinary action had been initiated against the concerned SHO, who had since been placed under suspension.
Case Title: X v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 695/2026
The Supreme Court questioned the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) for opposing the adoption of a minor girl by her maternal aunt residing in the United States, orally remarking that the authority has adopted a negative attitude towards such adoptions.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by a 13-year-old girl and her adoptive parents challenging a CARA clarification that prevented processing of an inter-country relative adoption after the child had already been adopted under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).
“Why are you opposing adoption by family members? Why are you against this? Family wants to adopt but all bureaucratic red tape comes in the way. Very negative attitude by your department. This is not the first case we are coming across like this,” Justice Nagarathna remarked.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Singh v. Arvind Gupta & Anr., Diary No. 32125/2026
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with an Allahabad High Court order directing a high-level inquiry into allegations that government doctors attached to Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Prayagraj, are engaging in private practice despite a prohibition and operating a parallel healthcare system outside the government hospital.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed the withdrawal of an SLP filed by Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh, an Associate Professor in the Surgery Department of the medical college, after expressing disinclination to interfere with the High Court's order.
Case Title: Commissioner v. Rama Ravikumar, Diary No. 36337/2026
The Tamil Nadu Government approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's direction allowing the lighting of the lamp atop a stone pillar near a Dargah at the Thiruparankudram hill in Madurai district.
The Special Leave Petition was filed against the order passed by a division bench of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on January 6, which upheld an order passed by a single bench in December last year allowing the lighting of the 'Karthigai Deepam' at the spot.
The State's petition in the Supreme Court was filed on June 11, after the new government led by TVK's Vijay assumed charge.
Case Title: Paschim Benga Khet Majoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, Diary No. 37837/2026
The Supreme Court refused urgent listing of a writ petition challenging the move of the State of West Bengal to deny ration benefits to persons excluded from the voters' list after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
Saying that the High Court can be approached for the relief, a partial working days bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined the oral plea made by Advocate S Prasanna, who mentioned the matter for urgent listing. The petition was filed by a Bengal-based farm labour union, Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity.
♦ Zubeen Garg Death Case : Supreme Court Issues Notice To Assam Police On Bail Plea Of Event Organiser
Case Title: Shyamkanu Mahanta v. State of Assam, SLP (Crl.) 11523/2026
The Supreme Court issued notice on a bail plea filed by event organiser Shyam Kanu Mahanta in a murder and cheating case in connection with the death of Assamese singer Zubeen Garg during a yacht trip in Singapore in September 2025. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order.
The plea challenges a May 29 order of the Gauhati High Court rejecting Mahanta's application for bail. Mahanta was arrested on October 1, 2025 and has remained in custody since then.
The chargesheet alleges offences under Sections 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 103(1) (murder), 105 (culpable homicide not amounting murder), 238 (causing disappearance of evidence), 308(2) (extortion), 318(4) (cheating) and 316(5) (criminal breach of trust) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
♦ Supreme Court Stays Premature Release Of TADA Convict In 1993 Bowbazar Blast Case
Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Md. Rashid Khan | SLP(Crl) No. 11581/2026
The Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court order which directed the premature release of life-term convict Md Rashid Khan in the 1993 Kolkata (Bowbazar) blast case.
A bench comprising Justice PK Mishra and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Delhi High Court's order for the release of the TADA convict.
It was on June 5 that the Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Rashid Khan, who had spent over 33 years in prison. The High Court took into account Petitioner's long period of incarceration, prison conduct and the reformative philosophy underlying premature release.
Case Title: Mohammed Khaleel (D) through LRs & Ors. v. Jayamma
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 638
The Supreme Court reiterated that a party seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell must continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform its contractual obligations from the date of the agreement, holding that financial documents created years after institution of the suit cannot be relied upon to establish such readiness
“In the present case, there is no material whatsoever to show that the appellant/plaintiff had the balance sale consideration available either at the time of execution of the agreement, within the stipulated period of four months for performance of the contract, or even at the time of filing of the suit in the year 1993. Thus, in our view, the High Court has rightly observed that the availability of funds must be proved with reference to the relevant point of time and not by relying upon financial documents generated long after the filing of the suit.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.
♦ Long Lapse Of Time Without Similar Criminal Conduct Relevant While Moulding Sentence: Supreme Court
Case Title: Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, SLP (Crl) NO. 19486/2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 639
The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of a convict, who had been awarded five years' rigorous imprisonment for each of four offences, noting that there was no material on record to indicate his involvement in any similar criminal activity during the long intervening period.
“The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria, while modifying the sentence of the Appellant to the period of the sentence already undergone.
Case Title: Rajesh Sharma v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr | SLP (C) No.28644/2019
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 640
The Supreme Court held that the existence of a regulation framed under a statute cannot curtail or fetter legislative power to amend the parent enactment in a manner that overrides the regulation.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra made the observation while upholding the power of the Commissioner of the erstwhile North Delhi Municipal Corporation to dismiss a Group-A officer from service following his conviction in a corruption case.
Case Title: M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd. & Anr.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 641
The Supreme Court held that the loss of a right leg above the knee must be treated as 100% functional disability in the case of a mason, observing that compensation in motor accident claims cannot be determined merely on the basis of the percentage of physical disability without considering its impact on the victim's livelihood.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV. Anjaria enhanced the compensation payable to a Tamil Nadu mason from ₹29.01 lakh to ₹40.29 lakh after finding that the courts below had wrongly assessed his loss of earning capacity at 70%, corresponding to the percentage of physical disability certified by medical authorities.
"The functional disability suffered by the appellant is required to be assessed at 100% and not at 70% as assessed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court," the Court held.
Case Title: Harshvardhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., SLP(C) No. 21751/2026
A partial Court working days bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed a plea filed by a candidate belonging to the Economically Weaker Section seeking fixation of private medical colleges' fees at par with government colleges' fees.
When the petitioner contended that it was arbitrary to fix tuition fees in private medical colleges in Rajasthan at Rs 25 lakhs when the EWS income limit is Rs 8 lakhs per annum, the Court orally observed that self-financing institutions cannot be mandated to have the same fee structure as government colleges.
"Those who have, will pay...this one person cannot say that it is exorbitant in the private institution, make it on par with the govt institution", said Justice Nagarathna, adding that one who cannot pay has the option to avail a scholarship, subvention or a government college seat.
Case Title: Paschim Benga Khet Majoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, Diary No. 37837/2026
The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition challenging West Bengal government's move denying ration benefits to persons excluded from the voters' list after Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
A partial Court working days bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed the case to be withdrawn upon a mentioning by Advocate Prasanna S (for petitioner). Disposing of the case, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Case Title: Sarafat Ali (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 642
The Supreme Court held that since the registered sale deed holds a statutory presumption of validity, a minor discrepancy in the testimony of the attesting witness would not by itself render the execution of the sale deed doubtful.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria delivered a judgment in a case where the consolidation authorities and the High Court had declined to recognize the appellants' title, inter alia, on the ground that there was a discrepancy in the particulars of an attesting witness. While the certified copy of the sale deed described the witness as "Baru, resident of Nihandpur Suthari", the witness, while deposing nearly four decades later, described himself as "Baru, son of Nathu, resident of Nasirpur Kalan".
Rejecting the approach adopted by the Courts below, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra held that such discrepancies were insignificant and incapable of dislodging the presumption attached to a registered sale deed, as the presumption of the validity of a sale deed is not derived from the attestation.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Anr. Versus Union of India and Ors., WP(C) No. 771 / 2026
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking to restrain the Tamil Nadu government from surrendering 152 vacant in-service Super Speciality medical seats (2025-26) earmarked for in-service government doctors to the All India Quota.
A partial Court working days bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi called for the response of the authorities, while orally observing that cut-off for in-service candidates serving under the State should be lesser as they are serving in the public health sector and studying alongside.
Notably, Justice Nagarathna remarked during the hearing that, "a govt doctor, if acquires more skills, will serve public health better than private doctor". "How many can afford private hospital?" the judge questioned.
Case Title: Jacqueline Fernandez v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 11208/2026
Actor Jacqueline Fernandez withdrew from the Supreme Court her plea challenging trial proceedings in the Rs.200 crore money laundering case registered against her (and others) by the Enforcement Directorate.
A partial Court working days bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the case as withdrawn after counsel for Fernandez made the prayer for withdrawal with liberty to avail appropriate remedies available in law.
The underlying case originated from a complaint filed by one Aditi Singh in August 2021, alleging that she had been cheated of nearly Rs. 200 crores by a syndicate led by alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar who impersonated senior government officials while operating from jail. Based on the predicate offence registered by Delhi Police, the Enforcement Directorate lodged a money-laundering case under the PMLA.
Case Title: Jittu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 645
The Supreme Court observed that a delay occurred in filing an appeal against an externment order under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
“…unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellate authority (under the Adhiniyam) should retain the discretion to condone delay in appropriate cases.”, observed bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision which upheld the dismissal of the Appellant's appeal against the externment order as time barred.
Section 9 of the Adhiniyam prescribes a 30 days' time limit for filing of an appeal against an externment order.
The Court emphasized that in the absence of any prescription of an outer limit or a specific exclusion of the applicability of a general law, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, as per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, would apply to proceedings under special statutes.
Other Developments
♦ Supreme Courts Of India & Russia Sign MoU On Judicial Cooperation
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the field of judicial cooperation.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation Igor Krasnov signed the MoU in Moscow. The MoU reaffirmed the commitment to strengthening judicial cooperation through exchange visits, short- and long-term training programmes, and the organisation of joint seminars and conferences.
The two States identified the use of technology in the administration of justice as a key area of collaboration, with a focus on sharing experiences and best practices to enhance judicial efficiency and improve service delivery.
To advance this objective, the parties agreed to establish a Joint Working Group tasked with developing strategies and mechanisms for sustained technological cooperation and deeper institutional engagement between their respective judiciaries.
During an event in Russia, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that law, without equality, is essentially organized will of the stronger party.
The CJI was speaking at the 14th St. Petersburg International Legal Forum. The topic for the plenary session of the same was "Equal Justice, Equal Law: Access as the Measure of International Law's Humanity".
In the global context, the CJI commented that good intentions do not ipso facto ensure equitable outcomes in practice. He referred to key international conventions, like the Convention on Rights of the Child, Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, etc. to convey that despite the moral ambitions behind them, the international instruments have not been honored and monitored equitably.
The CJI also explicated that hurdles to equality are manifested in terms of geographical, social and economic disparities, which the Indian Courts have attempted to tackle by providing legal aid, entertaining letters and PILs and "treating procedure as servant of justice, not its master".
