In Venkatesha and Anr. v. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. (2026 INSC 705), the Supreme Court set aside the High Court and First Appellate Court’s judgments, restoring the Trial Court’s decree that dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title and injunction. The Court held that the plaintiff
Supreme Court ruled that a mechanical declaration of a person as a “foreigner” by a Foreigners Tribunal—rendered without a meaningful, fair, and lawful adjudication—cannot be sustained, even when the proceedings are ex parte. While acknowledging that Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, places the burden of proof on the
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of a retrospective amendment to the Karnataka Sales Tax (KST) Act, which limited a previously granted sales tax exemption on “sugar” to only that which was “produced or manufactured in India”. While affirming the State’s legislative competence to impose this retrospective tax liability,
The Supreme Court held that the failure of a Children’s Court to pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) regarding whether a child in conflict with law (CICL) should be tried as an adult is a fatal
In the case of various petitioners v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court of India adjudicated a batch of 49 writ petitions filed by over 350 teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized and aided madrasahs in West Bengal who alleged they were deprived of legitimate service benefits. The Court
The Supreme Court of India upheld the State’s power to increase royalty and dead rent rates during the subsistence of a mining lease. The Court ruled that mining leases are statutory grants governed by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and the relevant rules, meaning
The Supreme Court upheld the reinstatement of a CRPF Constable who had become visually impaired during service, ruling that the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) Act, 1995, imposes a mandatory duty on employers to provide reasonable accommodation. The Court rejected the employer’s contention that the respondent had waived his rights by
