Supreme Court of India

                                                    Summary of August 2026 Judgments

Restoring Justice for the Innocent: Supreme Court Reaffirms That Every Act of Child Sexual Abuse Is an Assault Upon Humanity

This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a brutal incident on February 17, 2016, where the appellant, Balesh Kumar Kuraiti, lured a 3-year-old minor girl and subjected her to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. While the Trial Court convicted him under Section 376(2)(i) 22222222222222222of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment, the High Court erroneously modified the sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment by retroactively applying the 2019 Amendment to the POCSO Act. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s modification, and firmly restored the life imprisonment sentence, holding that retrospective application of enhanced penalties violates Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India and that child sexual abuse is a grave assault on humanity itself.

2026 INSC 850 : Balesh Kumar Kuraiti v. State of Chhattisgarh (D.O.J. 12.08.2026)

Supreme Court Rules Provisional Assessment Orders for Electricity Theft Invalid Without Concrete Inspection Evidence

This civil appeal arose from a surprise inspection conducted at the premises of the appellant, a High Tension consumer, where authorities subsequently issued a provisional assessment order amounting to over ₹3.23 crores alleging electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. While the Single Judge of the High Court quashed the provisional assessment due to a lack of conclusive evidence in the inspection report, the Division Bench reversed this decision on the ground of alternative remedies. Setting aside the Division Bench ruling, the Supreme Court held that suspicion cannot replace strict proof, establishing that a provisional assessment order cannot be sustained unless the underlying inspection report explicitly records a finding of theft alongside concrete details of evidence collected. The Court further affirmed that a writ petition under Article 226 remains maintainable against provisional assessment orders since Section 127 provides a statutory appeal solely against final assessment orders.

2026 INSC 851 : M/s. Himadri Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited & Ors. (D.O.J. 12.08.2026)

Superstition Over Rule of Law: Supreme Court Upholds Life Imprisonment in Witch-Hunting Murder Case

This criminal appeal arose from a tragic incident on February 17, 1998, where the appellant, Balku Oram, along with a co-accused, dragged a woman named Puni Naik from her home and severely assaulted her with a lathi after blaming her for practicing witchcraft that allegedly caused the death of a villager’s young daughter. Both the Trial Court and the High Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, relying primarily on the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s daughter (PW-3). Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court firmly upheld the conviction and life sentence, ruling that a natural relative who witnesses a crime cannot be discredited as an “interested witness” merely due to family ties, and strongly condemned the persistent social evil of witch-hunting as an affront to human dignity and constitutional morality.

2026 INSC 852 : Balku Oram v. State of Odisha (D.O.J. 13.08.2026)

Beyond the Agreement: Supreme Court Rules Execution of an Agreement to Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Tenancy

This civil appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by landlords against a tenant occupying a shop premises who subsequently entered into an agreement to sell for the purchase of the property. While the tenant resisted eviction by arguing that the execution of the agreement to sell and payment of part consideration altered the jural relationship from landlord-tenant to vendor-vendee and protected his possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the Small Causes Court, Appellate Court, and the High Court concurrently ruled against him and ordered his eviction. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings, holding that the mere execution of an agreement to sell does not ipso facto terminate a tenancy or amount to part performance unless express or implied surrender is established and the continuous possession is directly referable to the agreement to sell rather than the original lease.

2026 INSC 853 : Nazim Shaikh Hasan v. Nasir Mushtaq Shaikh & Ors. (D.O.J. 13.08.2026)

Supreme Court Clarifies Mandatory Duties and Safe Harbors Under Section 42 of the NDPS Act

This criminal appeal arose from a narcotics interception on May 4, 2014, wherein police authorities apprehended a vehicle carrying commercial quantities of poppy husk and subsequently convicted the appellant under Section 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. While the High Court affirmed the conviction and ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, the appellant challenged it before the Supreme Court, raising concerns over procedural compliance regarding secret information and search mandates. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that while routine FIR registration and transmission under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot substitute the independent statutory obligations under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, emergent transit situations permit substantial compliance, and minor procedural variations do not vitiate a lawful recovery.

2026 INSC 854 : Kashmir Ram @ Pappi v. State of Punjab (D.O.J. 12.08.2026)

Supreme Court Rules Lands Earmarked for Aravalli Afforestation Entitled to Equal Protection from Mining

This batch of civil appeals challenged judicial directions that permitted commercial mining on land located in Village Musnota, Haryana, on the premise that actual tree planting had not yet physically commenced on that specific parcel. Setting aside the High Court’s orders, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana firmly held that lands identified and earmarked for near-future afforestation and reforestation under the Aravalli Project must bear the exact same protective status as lands where plantations already exist. The Supreme Court emphasized that permitting mining merely because actual saplings have not yet been planted would create a perverse incentive to delay ecological work, and accordingly canceled environmental clearances and directed the immediate termination of mining rights across all such earmarked areas.

2026 INSC 855 : Sunder Singh & Anr. v. M/s. Satish Kumar Garg & Company & Ors. (D.O.J. 29.07.2026)

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Restricts Scope of Section 182 IPC Complaints

The Supreme Court examined an appeal arising from the refusal of the High Court to quash a criminal complaint under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The dispute originated from severe marital discord between the second respondent and her husband (since deceased), during which the appellant (the husband’s sister) and the respondent’s family engaged in cross-litigation and mutual complaints. Although the parties eventually executed a comprehensive settlement deed resolving their disputes, a solitary proceeding under Section 182 IPC (Police Kalendra) persisted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, noting that the Officer-in-Charge of the Women Police Station was neither the public servant to whom the allegedly false statements were made nor administratively superior to the public servant concerned, rendering the cognizance legally unsustainable.

2026 INSC 856 : Lilly Goyal v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. (D.O.J. 11.08.2026)

The Limits of Remand: Supreme Court Reverses High Court Order in Partition Dispute

The Supreme Court addressed an appeal challenging a High Court judgment that had set aside a trial court’s decision regarding a specific item of property in a partition suit and remanded the matter back for framing new issues and recording further evidence. The Apex Court held that remand should not be adopted as a matter of ordinary course when the parties have already adduced oral and documentary evidence according to the burden and onus of proof fastened on them. Ruling that the appellate court incorrectly exercised its discretion by ordering a remand instead of deciding the case on its merits based on the existing record, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s remand order and restored the appeals for fresh disposal on merits.

2026 INSC 857 : Shivappa v. Shantavva and Others (D.O.J. 13.08.2026)

Navigating Excise Valuation and Limitation: Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Body-Built Vehicles

The Supreme Court addressed civil appeals concerning whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, could be invoked against job-workers engaged in the body-building of motor vehicles. The Court resolved two primary questions: on merits, it upheld the Revenue’s position that the assessable value of a completed motor vehicle built on a chassis must incorporate the 110% statutorily fixed value of the chassis (inclusive of the 10% notional profit under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000). However, on the issue of limitation, the Court ruled in favor of the assessees, holding that since the department was fully aware of the facts, any omission could not amount to “wilful suppression,” thereby rendering the extended limitation period and consequential demands barred by time.

2026 INSC 858 : Audi Automobiles and Others v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore (D.O.J. 13.08.2026)

Suspicion Is Not Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Two Men in River-Drowning Murder Case

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal and acquitted two men who had been convicted by the lower courts for the murder of their friend, who drowned in a river. The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the prosecution failed to establish a homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt, as the medical evidence heavily favored the defense’s hypothesis of an accidental drowning. The Court ruled that although the subsequent behavior of the accused—such as fleeing the scene and going for a movie instead of immediately reporting the incident—was reprehensible, such conduct cannot substitute for concrete evidence or be treated as an incriminating circumstance to sustain a conviction for murder.

2026 INSC 859 : Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr. v. State of Gujarat (D.O.J. 13.08.2026)

Unproven Wills and Family Disputes: Supreme Court Restores Partition Decree and Rejects Testamentary Claims

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside concurrent lower court findings that had upheld a disputed Will, thereby restoring the original partition decree. The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh ruled that when the propounder of a Will fails to satisfy the rigorous legal requirements of due execution, proper attestation under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, and the removal of suspicious circumstances, the document cannot be legally sustained. The Court emphasized that mere registration or the testatrix’s long survival after execution cannot cure fundamental defects in proof or substitute for cogent independent evidence required to satisfy the judicial conscience.

2026 INSC 860 : Pazhanathal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Alamathal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. (D.O.J. 13.08.2026)

Evidentiary Boundaries and Two-Decade Delays: Supreme Court Dismisses RIL Appeal in NTPC Gas Suit

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) challenging a Bombay High Court order that had redacted portions of witness evidence affidavits in a long-standing commercial dispute. A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe upheld the redaction of oral testimony attempting to indirectly bring on record internal correspondence and documents that had already been held irrelevant to determine whether a concluded contract existed. Expressing strong disapproval over the two-decade-long pendency of the suit at the evidence stage, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on RIL for repetitive and obstructive procedural litigation.

2026 INSC 862 : Reliance Industries Limited v. NTPC Limited (D.O.J. 14.08.2026)

Limits of Statutory Exemption: Supreme Court Rules Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC Protection Is Personal to the Judgment-Debtor

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s judgment that had protected a residential property from attachment during the execution of a recovery decree. A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that the exemption from attachment of a residential house under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is a personal privilege meant exclusively for the judgment-debtor and does not extend to or benefit the legal representatives after the debtor’s demise. The Court further clarified the proper interplay and procedural transition of execution proceedings from civil courts to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, reversing unjustified interference by the High Court.

2026 INSC 863 : Sheela Gehlot v. Mohini Hardayal Singh & Ors. (D.O.J. 14.08.2026)

Refining Motor Accident Compensation: Supreme Court Expands Scope of Parental Consortium and Income Evaluation

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal filed by the legal representatives of a motor accident victim, seeking further enhancement of compensation. A bench comprising Justice N.V. Anharia examined the principles governing the assessment of a deceased person’s monthly income and the entitlement of children to parental consortium under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Apex Court held that established salary certificates and records must be given due weight in evaluating income, and reaffirmed that children are legally entitled to parental consortium, thereby modifying and enhancing the total compensation awarded to the grieving family.

2026 INSC 864 : Sameem Begum and Others v. K. Venkat Swamy and Another (D.O.J. 14.08.2026)

Supreme Court Ruling on Rural Reservation Eligibility for Students from Transitional Areas

This civil appeal challenges the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), which held that students whose schools are located in “transitional areas” (governed by a Nagar Panchayat under Article 243-Q(1)(a) of the Constitution) lose their rural status and cannot claim the 75% rural area reservation under the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Selection Test Scheme (JNVST-2026). The appellants contended that the High Court’s decision ran contrary to an earlier coordinate bench ruling in Jiya Jitendra Nagrale v. State of Maharashtra and ignored valid rural certificates issued by competent authorities under the JNVST Prospectus.

2026 INSC 865 : Adarsh Dinkar Sontakke (Minor) & Ors. Etc. v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors. Etc. (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

Supreme Court Verdict on the Precedence of Gangsters Act Trials and Protection of Speedy Justice

This criminal appeal arises from an Allahabad High Court order that had stayed a murder trial (Session Trial No. 934 of 2023) under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, giving absolute precedence to a newly initiated Gangsters Act trial. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling, affirming that Section 12 is designed to prevent trial delays from scheduling conflicts rather than to indefinitely freeze advanced murder trials that are already near completion. Because the Supreme Court had earlier directed the trial court to proceed, the murder trial has already concluded with the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC.

2026 INSC 866 : Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh And Anr. (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

Supreme Court Ruling on Abetment to Suicide: Strict Standard of Proximate Act and Mens Rea Required

This criminal appeal challenges the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s discharge application under Section 227 CrPC in connection with the tragic suicide of a Forest Range Officer on March 25, 2021. The deceased left suicide notes accusing the appellant (her superior officer) of severe workplace harassment, rude behavior, and past altercations. The Supreme Court examined the legal requirements for an offense under Section 306 (Abetment to Suicide) read with Section 107 IPC, emphasizing that ordinary strictness, administrative supervision, or distant past incidents without a clear, live, and proximate link/mens rea cannot legally constitute abetment to suicide.

2026 INSC 867 : Vinod Shivakumar v. The State of Maharashtra (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

Purifying the Electoral Stream: Combating Black Money and Safeguarding Democracy

This criminal appeal arises from a 2014 raid conducted by the Election Commission’s flying squad during the Lok Sabha bye-elections in the Bellary constituency, where cash, cheque books, and electronic devices were seized from the respondent candidate, leading to an FIR under Sections 171E and 188 of the IPC. Although the Karnataka High Court previously quashed the FIR citing a lack of specific averments on intended bribery targets, the Supreme Court utilized these proceedings to deeply examine the systemic threat posed by black money, corruption, and the misuse of illicit funds in compromising the integrity of free and fair elections.

2026 INSC 868 : The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Prathik Parasrampuria (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

Unreliable Eyewitnesses and Faulty Convictions: Untangling a Three-Decade-Old Rioting and Murder Case

This criminal appeal arises from a long-standing 1993 rioting and murder case involving an unlawful assembly and a violent altercation over a land dispute. The Trial Court had convicted several accused persons—including the appellant Nepal Singh—while acquitting others, a decision subsequently upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Upon reviewing the matter, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and quashed the High Court’s judgment, holding that the primary eyewitnesses suffered from severe contradictions, embellishments, and material improvements that rendered their testimonies untrustworthy, alongside noting that the lower courts failed to justify why similar evidence resulted in selective convictions rather than wholesale acquittals.

2026 INSC 869 : Nepal Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

Supreme Court Imposes Strict Safeguards and Mandatory Surety Verification for Foreign Nationals in Drug Cases

This criminal appeal by the Union of India challenged the Bombay High Court’s order granting regular bail to a foreign national (a Nigerian accused) involved in a major drug trafficking case concerning approximately 5 kilograms of heroin under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and cancelled the bail after discovering that the accused had jumped custody and that the local sureties furnished on his behalf were completely fictitious and non-existent. Expressing grave concern over systemic vulnerabilities where foreign drug offenders escape trial using fake guarantees, the Supreme Court exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to issue sweeping nationwide guidelines and strict verification protocols to govern bail and surety procedures for foreign nationals.

2026 INSC 870 : Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara & Ors. (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

Bridging the Pre-Deposit Paradox: Resolving Conflict in Arbitration Clauses and Constitutional Fairness

This civil appeal arose from an order passed by the Commercial Court, Gurugram, which upheld an arbitral tribunal’s decision to dismiss the appellant-contractor’s claims in their entirety due to non-compliance with a contractual stipulation requiring a 10% pre-deposit security of the total claim amount before reference to arbitration. The appellant challenged this condition as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 under various precedents (ICOMM Tele Ltd., Lombardi Engineering, and CORE), while the respondent defended it relying on the three-judge bench decision in S.K. Jain v. State of Haryana. The Supreme Court examined the apparent judicial conflict concerning whether a mandatory refundable security/pre-deposit clause prior to invoking arbitration violates the constitutional guarantee of non-arbitrariness and equality.

2026 INSC 872 : M/s Santosh Associate Private Limited v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

Constitutional Validity of Hanging as a Sole Method of Execution: A Judicial Review

The Supreme Court of India dismissed a public interest litigation filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and its equivalent Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The petitioner contended that hanging by the neck as the sole method of executing a death sentence is barbaric, cruel, and violates the right to live and die with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court, speaking through Justice Sandeep Mehta, reaffirmed the binding precedent set by the three-judge bench in Deena v. Union of India (1983) and approved by a Constitution Bench in Shashi Nayar v. Union of India, which held that hanging does not violate Article 21. The Court held that the petitioners failed to provide concrete, unimpeachable scientific or empirical evidence demonstrating that alternative methods, such as lethal injection or shooting, are demonstrably superior, less painful, or free from systemic flaws. Consequently, the challenge was dismissed, leaving any future policy changes regarding penal methods to the domain of the Legislature and the Executive.

2026 INSC 873 : Rishi Malhotra & Anr. v. Union of India (D.O.J. 18.08.2026)

Navigating MSME Arbitration: Consent to Normal Mode Forfeits Statutory Benefits

The Supreme Court disposed of a civil appeal arising from a dispute concerning the maintainability of arbitration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Because the core legal question regarding the requirement of filing a memorandum under Section 8 of the Act (as established in Silpi Industries) was pending before a larger three-judge bench, and to prevent prolonged delays in resolving the small-scale industry’s claims, the parties consented to pursue regular independent arbitration. The Supreme Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, explicitly ruling that by choosing to opt out of the Facilitation Council mechanism and proceed via normal arbitration by consent, the appellant forfeits any statutory benefits provided under the MSMED Act, 2006.

2026 INSC 874 : M/S Indo Engineering Works v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL) & Ors. (D.O.J. 13.08.2026)

Election of Remedies: Prior HRERA Proceedings Bar Parallel Section 9 Arbitration Measures

The Supreme Court of India allowed the developer’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the Commercial Court’s decision. The dispute arose from commercial agreements (Builder Buyer Agreements and MoUs) for retail and food court spaces in a Gurugram project, which included assured return schemes. After defaulting on assured returns and delaying the project, the purchasers initially approached the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), obtained a favorable final order, and subsequently initiated execution proceedings. When the developer later issued communications regarding leasing out the premises and demanded development/fit-out charges, the purchasers invoked an arbitration clause and sought interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which the High Court had granted. The Supreme Court held that once the purchasers elected to pursue their remedies before the HRERA and initiated execution proceedings, they could not institute parallel proceedings by invoking arbitration and seeking interim relief under Section 9 for substantially the same grievances.

2026 INSC 875 : Neo Developers Private Limited v. Rahul Bhargava and Ors. (D.O.J. 11.08.2026)

Statutory Preconditions Trump Agent Assurances: No Post-Facto Regularization of Marine Insurance Risk

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals filed by the insurance company, setting aside the final judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The dispute arose from the repudiation of a marine cargo insurance claim following a fire incident that destroyed a large quantity of cotton bales stored at a Container Freight Station. The insurer rejected the claim on the grounds that the respondent’s actual turnover had far exceeded the initial insured sum of INR 1200 Crores prior to the fire, and additional premium had not been paid in advance, thereby hitting a statutory bar under Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. While the NCDRC had ruled in favor of the insured based on an email clarification issued by a Divisional Manager stating that coverage would continue even if the turnover exceeded the limit, the Supreme Court held that statutory mandates cannot be overridden by agent representations or post-facto regularizations. The Court ruled that Section 64VB strictly prohibits the assumption of risk unless premium is received in advance, and an agent cannot confer a liability on the principal that is legally barred by statute.

2026 INSC 876 : The New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. v. M/s Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. (D.O.J. 18.08.2026)

Quashing Criminal Proceedings: Absence of Specific Allegations Warrants Section 482 Relief

The Supreme Court of India allowed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant, setting aside the High Court’s judgment which had dismissed his application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The dispute originated from a complaint filed by a practicing advocate (the second respondent) against the third respondent (her client) regarding unpaid legal fees, alongside allegations that the appellant—a Central Government employee and friend of the client—had telephonically threatened her. Upon reviewing the First Information Report (FIR) and the voluminous chargesheet, the Supreme Court observed that the core grievances and heinous acts were directed solely against the client, and the chargesheet lacked any specific, credible allegations against the appellant. Consequently, the Court ruled that continuing criminal proceedings against the appellant constituted an abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR and chargesheet with respect to him.

2026 INSC 877 : Kanad Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

Legal Battle Over Civil Engineering Deputations and Absorptions in Haryana

This batch of civil appeals challenges the judgment and order dated March 15, 2023, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana regarding the legality of deputing four officers—Shri Pradeep Atri, Shri Praveen Chaudhary, Shri Pankaj Gaur, and Shri Arun Bhatia—from the Development and Panchayat Department to the Public Works Department (Building and Roads) [PW (B&R) Department], Government of Haryana, and their subsequent permanent absorption as Assistant Engineers (Civil)/Sub-Divisional Engineers. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the deputation and absorption under the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965, were tainted by political interference and backdoor entry tactics, and how inter se seniority should be structured between these absorbed officers and regularly selected direct recruits.

2026 INSC 878 : Hemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana (D.O.J. 18.08.2026)

Quashing Criminal Prosecution: Mother Cannot Be Roped Into Son’s Alleged Matrimonial Breach and Consensual Affairs

The Supreme Court of India allowed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant (the mother of the primary accused) and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against her in Special (Atro) Case No. 14 of 2024 before the Special Court, Modasa. The second respondent had initiated a criminal complaint alleging that the appellant’s son had established a physical relationship under a false promise of marriage and had misappropriated funds by selling her car, further claiming that the appellant actively connived in the matter. Upon reviewing the First Information Statement (FIS), chat transcripts, and the chargesheet, the Supreme Court noted that the allegations against the mother inspired no confidence and lacked criminal culpability. Furthermore, evidence from the second respondent’s own father indicated that she was already married and estranged without a formal divorce, making the premise of a legally tenable promise of marriage entirely untruthful. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellant could not be roped into the prosecution and set aside the proceedings against her.

2026 INSC 879 : Ilaben v. The State of Gujarat and Anr. (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

Limits of Suo Motu Revisional Power: Appellate Court Cannot Enhance Sentence Without Appeal, and Life Sentences Must Run Concurrently

The Supreme Court of India partly allowed the criminal appeals filed by the appellant, modifying the Madras High Court’s judgment regarding the enhancement of sentence and the consecutive running of sentences. The case arose from a gruesome triple murder and robbery incident where the appellant and a co-accused were convicted by the Trial Court for multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment on various counts, alongside fixed-term sentences, all directed to run consecutively. While hearing the appeal and reference proceedings, the High Court exercised its suo motu revisional jurisdiction and enhanced the appellant’s life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. The Supreme Court set aside the enhancement, reiterating that an appellate court cannot enhance an accused’s sentence in an appeal filed solely by the accused without a formal appeal or revision for enhancement preferred by the State, victim, or complainant. Furthermore, relying on constitutional bench precedents, the Court ruled that multiple life sentences or a combination of life and fixed-term sentences must run concurrently rather than consecutively.

2026 INSC 880 : Gopi Sahaya Puruna v. The State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police (D.O.J. 18.08.2026)

Validating Public Tenders: Supreme Court Dismisses Challenges Against Tender Conditions Due to Significant Delay and Laches

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeals challenging the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated April 29, 2026, which had refused to interfere with the tender conditions issued by the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, for procuring sports goods and outdoor gymnasium equipment for government schools. The appellants had contended that various tender clauses—such as past performance thresholds, physical sample requirements, denial of MSME relaxations, and the requirement of a functional office and warehouse in Delhi/NCR for the past three years—were arbitrary, onerous, and exclusionary. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view that a challenge to tender eligibility conditions must be brought with prompt expedition. Because the appellants delayed filing their writ petition until the tender process had materially advanced (with some contracts already awarded and others at the financial evaluation stage) and many of the challengers had not even participated in the tenders, judicial intervention was unwarranted. The Court also distinguished previous case law, noting that operational requirements for swift school supplies differ from restrictive local-sourcing barriers, and accordingly dismissed the appeals.

2026 INSC 881 : M/s. Utkarsh Enterprises & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (D.O.J. 18.08.2026)

Suppressing Criminal Antecedents: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Constables for Concealment in RPF/RPSF Recruitment

The Supreme Court of India dismissed a batch of civil appeals filed by candidates challenging a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld their discharge from service as constables in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF). The appellants were discharged between 2015 and 2017 after it was discovered that they had deliberately suppressed the pendency of criminal cases against them by ticking “No” in the relevant columns of their attestation and verification forms, in violation of the RPF Rules, 1987, and the employment notice. Relying on the landmark principles established in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court affirmed that deliberate suppression of multiple pending criminal cases is material concealment that justifies termination or discharge from service. The Court rejected arguments regarding parity with other candidates who were acquitted prior to filing forms or reinstated pursuant to specific judicial directions, holding that the appellants’ deliberate non-disclosure warranted no leniency.

2026 INSC 882 : Bapa Barai v. Union of India & Ors. (D.O.J. 18.08.2026)

Absorption of Surplus Employees: Pay Scale Equivalence Does Not Confer Right to Direct Appointment on Higher Cadre Posts

This appeal arose from a judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay which had allowed a writ petition filed by respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1, formerly working as a Lecturer in an engineering institute, was declared surplus under a government resolution and disengaged from service. While he was subsequently absorbed into the equivalent post of Lecturer (where he served until his superannuation in 2024), he sought direct absorption onto the higher post of Head of Department (Civil Engineering) on the grounds that the pay scales for both posts were equivalent and he met the seniority criteria under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal, holding that a surplus employee can only be absorbed against the post they actually held at the time of disengagement, and that pay scale equivalence or statutory promotion criteria do not grant a right to direct absorption onto a higher promotional post.

2026 INSC 883 : The State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Sudhakar Shivaram Teke & Ors. (D.O.J. 11.08.2026)

Abetment of Suicide: Lack of Proximate Nexus and Vague Omnibus Allegations in a Suicide Note Do Not Warrant Framing Charges

This criminal appeal, filed by the wife of the deceased, challenged the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had discharged the accused-respondents (Deepak Shivhare, Prakash Shivhare, and Ranjeet Singh) from offences punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The deceased had died by suicide and left behind a six-page suicide note alleging harassment, blackmail, and massive financial extortion by multiple individuals. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the accused, ruling that a temporal gap of nearly two months between the last alleged transaction and the suicide, combined with the lack of any intervening acts of harassment or a live and proximate causal nexus, rendered the allegations insufficient to sustain a charge of abetment of suicide.

2026 INSC 884 : Kiran Deshmukh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Etc. (D.O.J. 11.08.2026)

Execution Proceedings Limit: Executing Courts Cannot Travel Beyond the Original Decree or Relief Granted

These civil appeals filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenged a batch of orders passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in execution proceedings. The respondents (School Lecturers appointed between 1998 and 2000) had originally filed writ petitions in 2013 seeking parity with the judgment in Rakesh Chand, which granted JBT Teachers the initial of the pay scale attached to JBT posts. During the execution of these orders, the High Court misconstrued the scope of relief and erroneously granted broad allowances akin to a different set of rulings, while also condoning a 12-year delay for fence-sitters. The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeals, reiterating that an executing court cannot travel behind the original decree or go beyond the specific terms and intents of the judgment being executed.

2026 INSC 885 : State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Jameet Singh and Anr. Etc. (D.O.J. 11.08.2026)

Trivializing Legal Recourse: Why Filing an FIR and Seeking Maintenance Cannot Constitute Abetment to Suicide

In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether a family member can be prosecuted for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) simply because they supported the deceased’s wife in lodging a criminal case and seeking maintenance. The appellants—the mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law of the deceased—challenged a Gujarat High Court order that had refused to quash an FIR. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that exercising a legal right to file an FIR or seek maintenance does not constitute instigation or abetment to commit suicide, and quashed the consequential proceedings against the appellants.

2026 INSC 886 : Patel Joshnaben Pravinkumar Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (D.O.J. 18.08.2026)

Rejection of an Initial Section 156(3) CrPC Application Does Not Bar a Subsequent FIR or Police Investigation

This criminal appeal challenged an order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed the appellant’s petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from an FIR registered for cheating, forgery, extortion, and criminal intimidation. The complainant alleged that the appellant had taken substantial amounts of money under the false pretense of securing public employment for his son and grandson, subsequently furnishing forged examination results and issuing threats. Although an earlier application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) of the CrPC had been rejected by the Magistrate based on a preliminary police report suggesting a land dispute, a subsequent FIR was registered. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the dismissal of a Section 156(3) application does not operate as an adjudication on merits or attract res judicata, and it does not extinguish the independent statutory duty of the police to register and investigate an FIR when fresh material disclosing a cognizable offense is presented.

2026 INSC 887 : Pramod Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (D.O.J. 19.08.2026)

Unraveling Title Disputes: Lok Adalat Awards Cannot Override Statutory Adortionment and Title Adjudication in Land Acquisition

This civil appeal challenged the judgment and order of the High Court of Telangana, which had dismissed the appellants’ writ petition and upheld multiple Lok Adalat awards concerning land acquisition compensation. Following the acquisition of land for mining operations by the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., the Land Acquisition Officer referred a title and apportionment dispute to the jurisdictional civil court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. During a separate writ petition challenging the acquisition, the matter was referred to the Legal Services Committee, resulting in Lok Adalat awards based on a physical “enjoyment survey”. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that an enjoyment survey cannot determine legal title, that a Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate inter se title disputes without the active participation and signatures of all conflicting claimants, and that principles of representative suits (Order I Rule 8 CPC) do not apply to adversary title disputes. The matter was remitted to the Principal District Judge for a de novo hearing and determination of the apportionment reference.

2026 INSC 888 : Singapogu Babu Rao & Ors. v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) & Ors. (D.O.J. 19.08.2026)

Navigating Tragedy and Justice: Re-evaluating Contributory Negligence and Assessing Just Compensation in Motor Accident Claims

This batch of civil appeals arose from a common judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka concerning a fatal motor vehicle collision that occurred on October 14, 2005, between a Hyundai Santro car and a KSRTC heavy passenger bus. The accident resulted in the tragic deaths of three passengers in the car (including the claimant’s husband and mother-in-law) and caused grievous injuries to the claimant, who survived. While the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) had attributed 100% negligence to the bus driver, the High Court modified the award by imposing a 50% deduction for alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased car driver and substantially reducing compensation under various heads. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that criminal acquittals and post-accident site sketches showing vehicle final rest positions cannot override police charge sheets and direct oral testimony to establish contributory negligence. Furthermore, the Court permitted additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in view of welfare jurisprudence under the Motor Vehicles Act to properly reflect the IT entrepreneur earnings of the deceased, setting aside the 50% contributory negligence ruling and enhancing the total compensation.

2026 INSC 889 : Reena v. The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Others (D.O.J. 19.08.2026)

Unsubstantiated Demands and Tainted Traps: Supreme Court Acquits Public Servants in Anti-Corruption Appeal

This criminal appeal challenged the common judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, which had upheld the conviction of the appellants—a Talati-cum-Mantri and a Panchayat Peon—under Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the appellants demanded a bribe of Rs. 120 (Rs. 100 for the first appellant and Rs. 20 for the second appellant) for issuing an income certificate to the complainant. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the conviction, holding that the foundational element of an initial demand was never proven beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant’s versions were contradictory and the official certificate had already been handed over before the money was passed. The Court emphasized that statutory presumptions under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked without proof of a valid demand, and additionally noted that the sanction for prosecution granted by a Deputy District Development Officer was legally defective.

2026 INSC 890 : Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek v. State of Gujarat (D.O.J. 19.08.2026)

Parity is Not a Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Denies Bail to Principal Conspirator in Brutal Murder Case

This special leave petition challenged an order of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which had rejected the petitioner’s second application for bail in connection with a gruesome murder case registered under Sections 302, 201, 342, and 120-B of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, motivated by a property dispute, lured the victim to his residence, wrongfully confined and brutally assaulted him, and then disposed of his body tied to a heavy stone in a river with the help of co-accused persons. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically when the petitioner stands on a distinct footing as the principal architect of the crime, whereas co-accused granted bail played lesser or facilitating roles. While refusing bail due to the gravity of the offense and the risk of witness tampering, the Court directed the Sessions Court to expedite the trial by recording the testimonies of eight sensitive vulnerable witnesses within one year, granting liberty to the petitioner to renew his bail plea thereafter.

2026 INSC 891 : Rajendra Prasad v. State of Goa & Anr. (D.O.J. 18.08.2026)

Steering Clear of Penalties: Supreme Court Upholds Business Auxiliary Service Taxability on Referral Charges but Sets Aside Penalties

This civil appeal challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) concerning the taxability of “referral charges” under Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994, as Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The appellant, an automobile dealer, received referral charges from banks and insurance companies for facilitating vehicle loans and insurance policies for its customers. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, affirming that promotional activities linked to banking and financial services constitute a taxable Business Auxiliary Service. However, because the assessee had paid the entire tax liability prior to the issuance of the show cause notice and given the prevailing confusion surrounding tax classification during the relevant period (2003-2007), the Court set aside the penalties imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act.

2026 INSC 892 : M/S TVS Motor Company Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III (D.O.J. 19.08.2026)

Unlocking Pension Claims: Regularization Terms and Post-Retirement GPF Shift Denied

In this civil special leave petition, the Supreme Court evaluated whether a retired professor of the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) could claim coverage under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension (GPF) Scheme instead of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme. The petitioner, whose services as a Professor were regularized on May 4, 2012, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) post-retirement after accepting all benefits under the CPF Scheme. Citing its precedent in a co-employee’s identical case (National Institute of Rural Development v. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma), the Supreme Court held that the terms and conditions of regularization—which explicitly kept employees under the CPF Scheme and took effect from the date of the order—could not be challenged retroactively after accepting retirement benefits, thereby dismissing the petition.

2026 INSC 893 : K. Suman Chandra v. Union of India and Others (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

The Stillborn Gang Act: Supreme Court Declares U.P. Gangsters Act Invalid Due to Absence of a Created Offence

In these criminal appeals, the Supreme Court evaluated the validity of proceedings initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and its corresponding 2021 Rules against practicing advocates. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the charge sheets and consequential proceedings, holding that the U.P. Act is “stillborn” because it fails to create a distinct substantive offence or penal act within the statute itself, instead punishing individuals based merely on executive status-determination via a police-prepared “Gang Chart”. The Court clarified that while independent prosecutions under ordinary penal laws (like the IPC) must proceed as usual, the penal provisions of the U.P. Act cannot be sustained without a legally defined offence.

2026 INSC 894 : Shiv Pratap Singh Alias Chinu v. State of U.P. & Ors. (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Unseen and Unsubstantiated: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charges for Incident Inside Enclosed Room

In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) could be sustained against the appellant (manager of a school) following a dispute with the complainant. The appellant challenged a High Court order that had declined to set aside his summoning order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and quashing the SC/ST Act proceedings. The Court ruled that the essential statutory requirement of the offense—that the alleged caste-based insults or abuses must occur at a place “within public view”—was not satisfied, as the incident took place inside an enclosed room with no public access, and the witness statements failed to establish that any public members saw or heard the utterances.

2026 INSC 895 : Ramkrishna Chauhan v. State of U.P. & Anr. (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Interim Maintenance for Minor Daughters, Ruling Wife’s Independent Income Does Not Halve Father’s Liability

In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether a working mother’s independent income justifies reducing a father’s interim maintenance obligation toward his minor children. The appellants—the wife (a practicing gynaecologist) and her two minor daughters—challenged an Allahabad High Court order that had halved the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court from INR 30,000 to INR 15,000 per month per child simply because the wife was gainfully employed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the Family Court’s original grant of INR 30,000 per month to each daughter. The Court ruled that a mother’s earnings and her physical caretaking contributions cannot be used by an affluent father to arbitrarily split or dilute his financial responsibility toward his children.

2026 INSC 896 : Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr. (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Supreme Court Streamlines Multi-State Litigation Over Land Possession, Restores Interim Application, and Appoints Advocate Receiver

In this batch of civil appeals arising from concurrent legal battles across both the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court, the Supreme Court addressed a complex scramble for possession of agricultural land measuring roughly 18 acres in Sanathal village, Gujarat. The dispute stemmed from a consent decree for specific performance passed by the Bombay High Court in 2016, subsequent execution proceedings involving a court receiver, and independent tenancy claims asserted by the appellants under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, ruling that the Bombay High Court’s Division Bench had traversed beyond the scope of the appeal by prematurely dismissing the appellants’ underlying interim application, which the Supreme Court ordered to be restored for a proper hearing. Concurrently, to manage competing claims of possession and status quo orders in Gujarat, the Court modified the Gujarat High Court orders to appoint an Advocate Receiver for the administration and supervision of the suit property pending final adjudication of the pending Special Civil Applications.

2026 INSC 898 : Parbatsinh Dolatsang Dodiya and Others v. Rembhai Harjibhai Makwana and Others (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Flawed Chain and Tutored Testimony: Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Decades-Old Double Murder Case

In this criminal appeal arising from a 1989 incident, the Supreme Court evaluated the correctness of a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had reversed a trial court’s acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC for the alleged murder of his wife and child. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s conviction, and restored the appellant’s acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. Specifically, the sole eyewitness—the minor child who was 4.5 years old at the time—gave tutored testimony inconsistent with medical evidence, independent recovery witnesses turned hostile, motive was absent, and there was an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR despite police knowing the child’s statements early on.

2026 INSC 899 : Ravi Kumar Singh Malhotra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Beyond Revenue Entries: Supreme Court Restores Concurrent Decrees in Favor of Co-Ownership and Partition

In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court examined the validity of a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had exercised its second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to reverse concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court. The dispute concerned co-ownership and partition of ancestral agricultural land measuring approximately 12.41 acres in Village Kanadia, Indore. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the concurrent decrees of the lower courts in favor of the appellants. The Court ruled that the High Court had severely overstepped the bounds of Section 100 by reappreciating evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact without establishing any demonstrable perversity, reiterating that unverified revenue mutation entries and vague, unproven relinquishment documents cannot legally extinguish an inherited title to immovable property.

2026 INSC 900 : Jamnabai and Others v. Vasudev and Others (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Decisive Ruling on the Enforcement Architecture of the PCPNDT Act

The Court definitively held that regular police have no authority to independently register an FIR, conduct investigations, or file a chargesheet for violations strictly falling under the PCPNDT Act. The statutory architecture of this social-welfare legislation vests the exclusive primary investigating and prosecuting powers in the statutory “Appropriate Authority” (AA). Consequently, a competent Magistrate is legally barred under Section 28 of the Act from taking judicial cognizance of a PCPNDT offence based solely on a standard police report or chargesheet.

2026 INSC 901 : State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Brij Pal Singh & Anr. (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Public Service Commission vs. Appointing Authority: The Finality of Eligibility Selection

The Supreme Court of India set aside the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had upheld the State Government’s order declaring the appellant, Dr. Shailendra Kumar Patel, ineligible for the post of Registrar after he was selected and recommended by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. The Court ruled that while selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, the Appointing Authority cannot conduct a detailed, de novo re-examination of a candidate’s eligibility once it has been determined and finalized by a constitutional body like the Public Service Commission under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983. The Court directed the State Government to issue an appointment order in favor of the appellant within three weeks.

2026 INSC 902 : Shailendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Civil Infrastructure & Bona Fide Public Interest Litigation: Expeditious Execution of Public Utility Projects

The Supreme Court of India disposed of an appeal challenging a Madras High Court order that had declined to set a fixed timeframe for constructing a Limited Use Subway (LUS) replacing Level Crossing No. 81 at Vaniyambadi, Tamil Nadu. Taking on record the formal assurances and progress reports submitted by the State Government and Southern Railway, the Apex Court issued strict time-bound directions for land acquisition and construction. The Court commended the appellant for pursuing genuine, selfless public interest litigation over nearly two decades and directed the completion of the railway portion within six months of contract award, alongside mandatory compliance filings within eight months.

2026 INSC 903 : Madurai Farooq Ahmed v. The Principal Secretary to Government & Ors. (D.O.J. 21.08.2026)

Judicial Service Recruitment Standards: Phased Framework for Entry-Level Eligibility

In a 2:1 majority decision authored by Chief Justice Surya Kant (on behalf of himself and Justice Augustine George Masih), the Supreme Court of India modified its earlier May 20, 2025 judgment (which had mandated a strict 3-year Bar practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment). While reaffirming the core necessity of practical court exposure before assuming judicial office, the majority established a transitional scheme allowing all law graduates to apply for recruitment notifications issued up to March 31, 2027 (deeming them to have completed 1 year of practice), followed by 1 year of State Judicial Academy training and 1 year of structured Law Clerkship. For recruitments advertised on or after April 1, 2027, candidates must possess 1 year of verified actual practice in District Courts, followed by 1 year of academy training and 1 year of Law Clerkship. In a dissenting opinion, Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the review petitions, holding that no ground for review was made out and that a strict 3-year practice requirement should remain intact.

2026 INSC 904 : Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Others (D.O.J. 21.08.2026)

Limits of Review Jurisdiction: Setting Aside Re-Appreciation of Merits and Instant Disposal of Appeals

The Supreme Court of India set aside a High Court Single Judge’s common order that allowed review petitions by re-hearing the merits of dismissed appeals, as well as the consequential judgment that instantly allowed those appeals without separate proceedings. The Apex Court held that review jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appeal in disguise. Restoring the original dismissal orders, the Court granted liberty to the aggrieved respondents to challenge the original appeal dismissal orders before the appropriate forum within 60 days.

2026 INSC 906 : G. Sita Ram Chander v. Tummala Suresh Chandra Chatterjee (D.O.J. 05.08.2026)

Breach of Client Confidentiality vs. Unclean Hands: Limits of Public Disclosures and Misconduct Under the Advocates Act

In a cross-proceeding arising out of a disciplinary order of the Bar Council of India (BCI), a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, authored by Justice Vikram Nath, upheld the BCI’s finding of professional misconduct against Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee for disclosing privileged client communications on national television. The Court maintained his two-year suspension from practice along with monetary penalties, while simultaneously dismissing the client’s appeal for enhancement of punishment and compensation due to her suppression of facts and “unclean hands”. Expressing strong disapproval of both parties for abusing judicial machinery and wasting public time for eleven years, the Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹5,00,000/- on each party.

2026 INSC 907 : Rehana Khan v. Rizwan Siddiquee (D.O.J. 21.08.2026)

Rejection of Plaint for Limitation: Illusory Cause of Action and Unilateral Public Notices Cannot Extend Time Limits

In a Civil Appeal against a High Court order affirming the Trial Court’s refusal to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the lower courts’ orders and rejected the plaint. The Apex Court held that where the cause of action extracted in the plaint itself conclusively establishes that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the court cannot hesitate to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). It further ruled that self-serving public notices issued after years of inaction cannot create a fresh cause of action to bypass the law of limitation.

2026 INSC 908 : N. Asha Devi v. R. Aravind Kumar & Anr.(D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

Validating Auction Sales and Minor EMD Shortfalls under SARFAESI Act

This appeal challenges a common judgment rendered by the Madras High Court which had upheld the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal’s (DRAT) decision to set aside a public auction conducted under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the auction-purchasers and the Bank, holding that a minor, non-statutory technical shortfall in the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) does not vitiate an otherwise valid auction, particularly when the mandatory 25 percent of the total sale price was deposited on the auction date and no prejudice was caused to the borrower.

2026 INSC 909 : Lakshmi Mohan (Dead) Through LRs. & Anr. Versus M/s. Airtech Projects Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (D.O.J. 21.08.2026)

Eco-Cultural Accountability: Setting Aside Environmental Compensation for the Yamuna Floodplain Event

This appeal challenges the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) common judgment holding the appellant liable for environmental degradation and ordering environmental compensation in connection with the World Culture Festival held on the Yamuna floodplains. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NGT’s judgment, ruling that the NGT erroneously relied on flawed, shifting expert committee reports and failed to establish a direct causal link proving the appellant caused the damage, particularly when contemporaneous evidence demonstrated the site was already in a dilapidated and debris-strewn condition prior to its allotment.

2026 INSC 910 : Vyakti Vikas Kendra India Versus Manoj Misra (Dead) & Ors. (D.O.J. 22.08.2026)

Supreme Court Upholds Promotion Eligibility for Open University Graduates

This appeal addresses whether an employee who obtained educational qualifications via open university foundation courses prior to subsequent policy revisions can be disqualified from promotion. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Madras High Court’s division and review bench orders, and restored the single judge’s directive to consider the appellant for promotion. The Court held that the subsequent invalidation of open university foundation courses via executive orders cannot be applied retrospectively to penalize employees or invalidate longstanding service eligibility governed by prevailing norms.

2026 INSC 911 : R.J. Gajendra Kumar Versus Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (D.O.J. 22.08.2026)

Supreme Court Sets Aside Demolition Directive Amid Pending Regularization Proceedings

This appeal addresses whether a High Court can direct the immediate demolition of alleged unauthorized constructions while a statutory regularization application and related larger issues regarding the validity of governing Government Orders are sub judice before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Madras High Court’s division bench order, holding that issuing coercive demolition directions runs contrary to earlier binding interim protections granted to the property owners and creates judicial inconsistency while the main regularization framework is still pending final adjudication.

2026 INSC 912 : G. Sathyanarayana Bothra & Others Versus M.D. Lokeswari & Another (D.O.J. 22.08.2026)

Supreme Court Rules on Court Fee Payability and Plaint Rejection for Non-Executants

This appeal addresses whether a trial court can reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for want of an ad-valorem court fee when co-owners, as non-executants, challenge a fraudulent transfer deed and seek a declaration with separate possession. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s revision order, restoring the trial court’s decision that refused to reject the plaint at the threshold. The Court held that while evaluating an application for plaint rejection, courts must strictly look at the plain averments made in the plaint—such as claims of joint possession—and that determining whether an ad-valorem court fee is ultimately payable must be deferred until evidence is led during trial.

2026 INSC 913 : Neelam Sharma and Others Versus Amita Passan and Others (D.O.J. 21.08.2026)

Supreme Court Clarifies Standards for Election Petitions and Form-25 Attestation

This civil appeal arose from an order passed under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which had rejected an election petition filed against the successful candidate from the No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency, Assam. The High Court had dismissed the petition due to improper attestation of the copies. The Supreme Court examined whether variations in attestation stamps and missing notarization details on Form-25 copies warranted the peremptory dismissal of an election petition. The Court allowed the appeal, reversed the High Court’s dismissal order, and restored the election petition for a merit-based evaluation.

2026 INSC 915 : Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors. (D.O.J. 24.08.2026)

Navigating Malicious Prosecutions, Police Closure Reports, and Locus Standi in Criminal Jurisprudence

This judgment addresses a batch of Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) filed by the petitioner, Kailash Ram, challenging multiple orders and judgments passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench). The core controversy revolved around two aspects: first, the refusal to quash FIRs filed against the petitioner and his late associate following a withdrawn human trafficking complaint; and second, the dismissal of petitions seeking to keep criminal complaint cases alive despite being withdrawn by the original complainant. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner constituted a malicious abuse of process and examined the validity of withdrawing public-interest complaints. Ultimately, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s refusal to quash the FIRs—noting that the police had already filed a final closure report based on a “mistake of fact,” leaving the trial court to handle the matter. Concurrently, the Court dismissed the companion petitions challenging the closure of the complaint cases, finding a lack of bona fides on the petitioner’s part, though it later exercised judicial mercy to waive the initially imposed costs.

2026 INSC 916 : Kailash Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Etc. (D.O.J. 13.08.2026)

Supreme Court Settles Bail Pleas in a Premeditated Heinous Murder Case

This batch of criminal appeals arose from separate orders passed by the High Court of Bombay (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur) and the Additional Sessions Court, Satara, concerning regular bail applications in connection with a brutal murder case (FIR No. 261 of 2024 registered at Satara Taluka Police Station). The incident involved a premeditated attack where the complainant was doused in petrol and set on fire over a wedding dispute, subsequently resulting in his death. While the High Court and trial court had granted regular bail to some accused individuals and rejected it for others, the Supreme Court evaluated the active participation, common intention, and gravity of the offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the State’s appeals to cancel the bails granted to certain key participants, dismissed the appeal of accused Yash seeking bail, and affirmed the bail granted to an accused who was not physically present at the scene.

2026 INSC 917 : Yash Mahesh Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Supreme Court Quashes Domestic Violence Proceedings Post-Mutual Divorce Agreement

This criminal appeal challenged the judgment and order dated October 26, 2018, passed by the High Court of Kerala, which had dismissed the appellant-husband’s petition to quash a complaint filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The Supreme Court evaluated whether proceedings under the DV Act could be legally maintained after the parties had voluntarily executed a comprehensive Settlement Agreement and obtained a mutual consent divorce decree under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, wherein the wife had relinquished all future monetary and maintenance claims. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that continuing the DV proceedings against the husband constituted an abuse of the process of law, though it carved out an exception for the adult daughter who was not a party to the original settlement.

2026 INSC 918 : Reji Baby v. Subi Mary & Ors. (D.O.J. 24.08.2026)

Supreme Court Upholds Port Trust’s Liability for Customs Duty on Pilfered Goods

This civil appeal arose from an order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which had allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent-Port of Bombay Trust and quashed both a customs notification dated October 11, 2000, and show cause-cum-demand notices for customs duty on pilfered goods. The Supreme Court examined the intersection between the custody of imported goods under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, and the statutory obligation to pay customs duty on pilfered goods under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962. Reversing the High Court’s view in part, the Supreme Court held that the Commissioner of Customs is legally empowered under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act to approve a Port Trust as a custodian, and that Section 45(3) validly fastens an independent statutory liability to pay customs duty on pilfered goods, overriding any conflicting civil liability frameworks under separate enactments through its non-obstante clause.

2026 INSC 919 : Union of India & Others v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (D.O.J. 25.08.2026)

Supreme Court Quashes GST Notices Issued Under Extended Period Without Foundational Facts of Fraud

This civil appeal challenged the validity of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and subsequent Order-in-Original issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), concerning financial years 2018-2019 to 2020-2021. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the Revenue can invoke the extended five-year period of limitation under Section 74—reserved for cases involving fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts—through a mechanical recital of statutory keywords without establishing concrete foundational facts. Allowing the appeal, the Court held that the SCNs and consequential orders were unsustainable due to the absence of the requisite independent satisfaction and foundational facts demonstrating deliberate evasion, though it granted liberty to the Department to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 74 if supported by proper foundational facts before the outer limitation expires.

2026 INSC 920 : M/s Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance and Ors. (D.O.J. 25.08.2026)

Supreme Court Upholds Settlement and Reaffirms Limits of Third-Party Locus Standi in Execution Proceedings

This civil appeal arose from a multi-layered litigation originating from a partition suit filed way back in 1940. The core controversy centered around an execution proceeding initiated in 1979 concerning a property in Solapur, where the original decree-holder entered into a compromise and settlement with third-party purchasers (predecessors of the appellants) who had bought a portion of the land from a co-sharer. While the High Court of Karnataka had interfered with and set aside the executing court’s acceptance of the compromise based on jurisdictional and third-party objections, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that since the contesting respondents did not claim through the original decree-holder and asserted an independent share, they lacked the locus standi to challenge a compromise that solely concerned the decree-holder’s personal rights and concessions made to the purchasers.

2026 INSC 921 : Pradeep and Ors. v. Jagadishwari and Ors. (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Supreme Court Rules Manufacturing Outlets Constitute Industrial Property for Stamp Duty

This civil appeal addressed whether a multi-story property subject to a gift deed should be classified as “industrial” or “commercial” for computing stamp duty under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. While the deed was registered on the basis of residential land valuation (which carries a higher stamp duty than industrial land), the Sub-Registrar sought commercial re-valuation because retail sales of manufactured goods (carpets) took place on-site. After concurrent findings by the Collector and the Rajasthan Tax Board favored an industrial classification due to active manufacturing, the High Court reversed it on the ground that retail sales made it a commercial building. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the actual active use of the premises for manufacturing—along with statutory registrations under the Factories Act and District Industries Centre—qualifies the land as industrial under state circulars, and the incidental sale of manufactured goods does not strip away its industrial character.

2026 INSC 922 : Harinder Singh Sodhi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.(D.O.J. 24.08.2026)

Resolving Land Disputes: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Article 131 for Statutory Authorities

The Supreme Court addressed an appeal arising from a nearly 2.5-decade-old writ petition initially filed by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) against the Union of India and defence establishments regarding interference with a developed colony’s land. The Allahabad High Court had previously dismissed the petition after collaborative efforts failed, erroneously ruling that the dispute lay between the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India, thereby directing parties to seek remedy under Article 131 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, emphasizing that the LDA—as a statutory body corporate under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973—is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 rather than a constituent “State” qualified to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 131. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the High Court for a fresh, expeditious decision.

2026 INSC 923: Lucknow Development Authority v. Union of India & Ors. (D.O.J. 21.08.2026)

Supreme Court Protects Long-Standing Private Title and Company Court Auctions from Executive Overreach

The Supreme Court allowed a set of civil appeals challenging a High Court appellate order that had set aside the confirmation of a public auction involving 65.94 acres of land previously held by M/s Circar Paper Mills Ltd. (a company in liquidation) and purchased by M/s Jeevaka Kandasari Sugar Mills. The State had belatedly claimed that 40.65 acres of this land constituted “assigned lands” which reverted back to the government due to unauthorized transfers under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Concurrently, individual appellants (Sundaramma and others) challenged the denial of revenue passbooks for adjacent lands originating from the same chain of title. The Supreme Court held that long-standing private titles, backed by decades of uninterrupted possession, registered deeds, and revenue mutations, cannot be abruptly ousted through summary executive proceedings or state objections raised at the eleventh hour of a court-supervised liquidation auction. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate orders, revived the Company Judge’s original confirmation of the sale, and restored the related writ petitions for a fresh merits-based adjudication in the High Court.

2026 INSC 924 : M/s Circar Paper Mills Ltd. v. District Collector, Nellore Distt. & Ors. (D.O.J. 25.08.2026)