Supreme Court Judgments Summary

September 2026

Protecting Foreign Decrees and Corporate Veil Scrutiny: Balancing Execution Rights with Commercial Stability

The Supreme Court disposed of a batch of civil appeals arising from execution proceedings, contempt petitions, and company law matters concerning the enforcement of a massive foreign decree valued at approximately Rs. 949.96 crores. While upholding the High Court’s view that a certain statement made by IQuest did not amount to a clear legal undertaking punishable under contempt, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of honoring foreign decrees from reciprocating territories under Section 44A of the CPC. To prevent asset dissipation and protect the decree holder’s interests while balancing the operational needs of corporate entities, the Court directed the respondents to furnish an additional security of Rs. 200 crores and commanded the Commercial Courts to expedite the pending execution proceedings within four months.

2026 INSC 932 : Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v. Matrix Pharmacorp Private Limited & Anr. (D.O.J. 01.09.2026)

Why Belated Tax Remittances Do Not Attract Automatic Penalties

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal filed by M/s. Saudi Arabian Airlines, setting aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and the revenue authorities’ orders that imposed hefty penalties for the delayed payment of Foreign Travel Tax (FTT). The Court authoritatively ruled that a mere delay in remitting collected taxes does not amount to a “failure to pay” (non-payment) under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979, and instead falls under the lesser breach provision of Section 38(4). Furthermore, the Court established that penalty imposition is not automatic upon a timeline breach, as statutory authorities possess the discretion to condone delays and consider technical or bona fide reasons. The bench also strongly reaffirmed the principle of reformatio in peius, holding that a litigant cannot be placed in a worse position or face an enhanced penalty simply for pursuing a legal appeal.

2026 INSC 933 : M/s. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Union of India & Ors. (D.O.J. 01.09.2026)

Upholding Post-Conviction Compromises in Non-Heinous Private Disputes

This appeal examined whether the High Court correctly exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings and set aside a conviction based on an amicable settlement reached between the parties after the conclusion of the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offenses of a predominantly private nature can be annulled even post-conviction to secure the ends of justice and promote community harmony.

2026 INSC 934 : The State of Punjab v. Avtar Singh & Ors. (D.O.J.25.08.2026)

Fatal Flaws in Prosecution and Perverse Inquests : The Collapse of a Murder ConvictionThe Collapse of a Murder Conviction Due to Total Lack of Investigation

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals and set aside the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, acquitting them of all charges. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran found that the prosecution case suffered from a complete lack of reliable investigation rather than merely a faulty one—highlighting that the inquest was conducted before the First Information Statement (FIS), no weapons or cartridges were recovered, blood-stained earth was never chemically analyzed, and the medical expert evidence flatly contradicted the ocular accounts. The Court held that the High Court erred gravely by leaning on an unproduced complaint against the Investigating Officer to presume the guilt of the accused despite a vacuum of credible evidence.

2026 INSC 935 : Dhrub Singh Etc. v. The State of Bihar (D.O.J. 01.09.2026)

Fabricated Conspiracies: The Complete Collapse of a Two-Decade-Old CBI Corruption Case

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by V. Balakrishnan, a former bank branch manager, setting aside concurrent judgments of conviction under Section 420 IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held that the prosecution case built by the CBI was entirely fabricated and lacked any substantive evidence, noting that the loans in question were officially sanctioned by the Regional Office rather than unilaterally by the appellant, fully satisfied through subsequent property auctions, and that no illegal gratification or criminal conspiracy was ever established. The Court granted a clean acquittal to the appellant, canceled his bail bonds, and initiated a separate inquiry into the Indian Bank’s retention of excess auction proceeds.

2026 INSC 936 : V. Balakrishnan v. State Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (D.O.J. 01.09.2026)

Fishing in Exclusive Economic Zones

This judgment addresses the complex regulatory framework governing the rights of fishermen using purse seine nets to transit through the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu to access the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for fishing. The Supreme Court established that while the State has autonomous legislative competence to regulate marine fishing within its territorial waters to conserve marine ecology, it cannot obstruct access to the EEZ—which falls under central jurisdiction—provided statutory rules and tracking mechanisms are strictly adhered to by the fishers.

2026 INSC 937 : Fisherman Care v. The Government of India Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries and Ors. (D.O.J.2.09.2026)

 

The Mandate of Reason: Setting Aside Laconic Orders in Criminal Appeals

This appeal challenged a cryptic, unreasoned High Court order that dismissed an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act against a trial court order summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed in its fundamental duty to provide reasons for its decision, reiterating that a reasoned order is a mandatory safeguard ensuring application of mind and enabling effective judicial review.

2026 INSC 938 : Rajeev Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (D.O.J.31.08.2026)

Granting Divorce on Grounds of Desertion After Decades of Separation

This civil appeal examined whether continuous separation and the refusal of a spouse to resume cohabitation constituted desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Supreme Court held that where parties have lived separately for over two decades with no children born and all reconciliation efforts having failed, the marriage is irretrievably broken down, and the appellant-husband successfully established the ground of desertion.

2026 INSC 939 : Bijendra v. Rekha (D.O.J.02.09.2026)

Releasing Seized Transport Vehicles Pending Trial Under the Gujarat Prohibition Act

This appeal addressed whether a commercial truck seized for transporting a large quantity of prohibited Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) could be released into the interim custody of its owner pending trial under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 497 of the BNSS, despite the restrictive provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. The Supreme Court held that Section 98(2) does not operate as an absolute embargo against the release of vehicles, and courts must exercise their discretionary powers to prevent seized property from decaying indefinitely at police stations.

2026 INSC 940 : M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat (D.O.J.02.09.2026)

Navigating Liability and Clearing Member Duties in the Derivatives Market

This consolidated appeal before the Supreme Court examined whether Professional Clearing Members (PCMs) can be held liable to restitute or compensate individual retail investors for securities liquidated following defaults by Trading Members (TMs) in the Futures & Options (F&O) segment. The Court held that PCMs do not have a statutory obligation or real-time visibility to verify the debit and credit positions of individual clients of a TM under the regulatory framework active during the relevant period. Furthermore, the Member and Core Settlement Guarantee Fund Committee (MCSGFC) lacks the statutory power to order monetary restitution or disgorgement under exchange byelaws.

2026 INSC 941 : Edelweiss Custodial Services Limited v. NSE Clearing Ltd. & Anr. (D.O.J.02.09.2026)

The Supremacy of Juvenile Justice Rights Over Technical Finality

This appeal examined whether the High Court can refuse to entertain a plea of juvenility under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the matter had attained finality up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the bar of finality and Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot override the mandatory statutory protections granted to a juvenile, and that the High Court possesses inherent powers to recall judgments to prevent a miscarriage of justice when a juvenile has been wrongly tried and convicted as an adult.

2026 INSC 942 : Mahavir @ Avnish v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (D.O.J.02.09.2026)

The Legality of SARFAESI Enforcement on Assigned Debts

These appeals addressed whether a bank defined under Section $2(1)(c)$ of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 can utilize its provisions to recover a debt assigned by a financial entity that was not governed by the SARFAESI Act when the debt was originally created. The Supreme Court ruled that when a live debt is acquired by a bank to which the SARFAESI Act already applies, the loan account immediately assumes the attributes of a secured debt under the statute, allowing the assignee bank to initiate recovery measures regardless of the original lender’s initial status.

2026 INSC 943 : Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Trupti Sanjay Mehta and others (D.O.J.02.09.2026)

The Impermissibility of Revoking Decades-Old Land Survey Records

This appeal evaluated whether the revisional authority under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 can initiate proceedings to cancel city survey numbers decades after their allotment. The Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction exercised after 35 years was patently time-barred under the three-year limitation period stipulated in the proviso to Section 56(3) of the Act, and that authorities cannot bypass statutory limitations or upend settled third-party rights on the strength of stale complaints.

2026 INSC 944 : M.R.R. Setty (Dead), by LRs v. Government of Karnataka and others (D.O.J.02.09.2026)

Acquittal in a Brutal Child Murder Case Due to Fatal Gaps in Evidence

This appeal challenged the concurrent judgments of the High Court and Trial Court which convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 201, and 377 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence, a “last seen” theory, an extra-judicial confession, and subsequent disclosures. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the crime, burdened as the case was by major discrepancies, fabricated timelines, and an unreliable extra-judicial confession.

2026 INSC 945 : Sahab Singh alias Sat Pal v. State of Haryana (D.O.J.02.09.2026)

Vehicle Release and Confiscation Powers Under the NDPS Act

This appeal addresses the legality of denying the release of a vehicle seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) following the acquittal of the accused, and clarifies whether such conveyances fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) or the trial court.

2026 INSC 946 : R Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (D.O.J. 24.08.2026)

Custom Duty : Setting Aside Adjudications Polluted by AI Hallucinations

This appeal challenged a Gujarat High Court order which had upheld a massive customs penalty imposed on the appellant for allegedly mis-declaring natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds. The Supreme Court set aside both the High Court order and the original adjudication order, ruling that the reliance by the customs authority on non-existent, fake, or AI-hallucinated case laws and citations vitiated the entire decision-making process, as artificial intelligence can only serve as an assistive tool and never substitute genuine judicial adjudication.

2026 INSC 947 : Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India & Anr (D.O.J.2.9.2026)

The Burden of Proof in Matrimonial Suicides: Overturning an Unwarranted Acquittal Reversal

This criminal appeal examines the legality of a High Court judgment that overturned a trial court acquittal and convicted a husband under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code following the tragic suicide of his wife. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and restoring the original acquittal due to a lack of evidence proving active abetment or cruelty.

2026 INSC 948 : Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (D.O.J. 03.09.2026)

Equitable Protections: Safeguarding Retiral Benefits Despite an Invalidated Scheduled Tribe Claim

This civil appeal addresses the validity of a caste scrutiny committee’s order invalidating an individual’s claim to the “Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe and the subsequent protection of his pensionary benefits following his superannuation after more than three decades of service.

2026 INSC 949 : Shirish Pandharinath Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (D.O.J. 03.09.2026)

Comprehensive Compensation Assessment: Navigating Functional Disability and Retiral Rights in Motor Accident Claims

These civil appeals arise from a devastating vehicular accident on April 10, 2011, involving a heavy goods vehicle and a motorcycle, which resulted in the instantaneous death of the driver, Sushant Prabhakaran, and severe, life-altering injuries—including total blindness and a permanent colostomy—to the pillion rider, Priyanka Das. The Supreme Court addressed critical questions regarding the correct multiplier based on the deceased’s age, the apportionment of compensation to a non-legally wedded partner, and the rigorous re-evaluation of functional disability versus physical impairment for an injured survivor working under corporate accommodations. The apex court dismissed the insurance company’s appeals while partially allowing the claimant’s appeal to enhance compensation to Rs. 3,77,84,297 based on a 100% whole-body permanent physical impairment certified by a multi-disciplinary medical board.

2026 INSC 950 : Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Priyanka Das and Others (D.O.J. 03.09.2026)

Overturning a Murder Conviction Based on Unsubstantiated Confessions

This criminal appeal challenges a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the sole appellant (A1) for kidnapping and murder while acquitting all co-accused. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution relied entirely on inadmissible confessions, unverified electronic evidence lacking mandatory Section 65B certificates, and a failure to prove the essential links connecting the appellant to the crime scene.

2026 INSC 951 : Kondapaka Sridhar @ Shekar @ Madhu @ Gopi @ Chinna v. The State of Telangana (D.O.J. 03.09.2026)

Relief for Homebuyers: Waiver of Time Extension and Penalty Charges in Corporate Insolvency Resolution

This civil appeal addresses the plight of homebuyers and the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) who faced severe liabilities in the form of time extension and penalty charges imposed by NOIDA after a real estate developer (“Granite Gate Properties Private Limited”) was subjected to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the homebuyers’ Authorized Representative and dismissed NOIDA’s appeal, ruling that penal time extension charges resulting from the original developer’s defaults cannot be validly mulcted on the innocent homebuyers and the SRA as CIRP costs.

2026 INSC 952 : The Authorised Representative for Granite Gate Properties Private Limited, Ms. Rakesh Verma v. M/s New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Ors. (D.O.J. 03.09.2026)

Empowering Educational Regulators: Upholding NCTE’s Mandate to Mandate Performance Appraisal Reports for Teacher Training Institutions

This civil appeal addresses the statutory authority of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to mandate the online submission of annual Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR) along with a processing fee from recognized Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench judgment, ruling that the NCTE and its Executive Committee possess full statutory and ancillary powers under the NCTE Act, 1993, to enforce accountability and regulatory oversight over educational institutions.

2026 INSC 953 : The National Council for Teacher Education v. Association of NCTE Approved Colleges Trust and Ors. (D.O.J. 03.09.2026)

Electricity Regulation: Supreme Court Declines to Interfere with Interim Order Permitting Third-Party Participation

This special leave petition challenges an interim order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, which rejected the petitioners’ preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by ‘Energy Watchdog’ and allowed the respondent to participate in departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim measure under Article 136 of the Constitution, noting that the High Court’s cautious approach aimed to ensure transparency in an inquiry involving alleged unauthorized power supplies and massive cross-subsidy surcharge defaults.

2026 INSC 954 : M/s. Amalgam Steels and Power Ltd. and Anr. v. Energy Watchdog and Ors. (D.O.J. 03.09.2026)

Safeguarding Financial Stability: Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Authority to Supersede Boards of Multi-State Co-Operative Banks

These civil appeals address the critical interplay between the constitutional democratic governance of co-operative societies under Part IXB and the statutory powers of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (BR Act), to supersede the Board of Directors (BoD) of a multi-State co-operative bank. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Bombay High Court’s judgment, ruling that the RBI’s power to supersede a multi-State co-operative bank’s board under Section 36AAA of the BR Act is not restricted by the six-month limit in Article 243ZL(1) of the Constitution and can be extended beyond the original elected term of the board up to an aggregate outer limit of five years.

2026 INSC 955 : Sandeep S. Ghandat & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. (D.O.J. 03.09.2026)

Balancing Environmental Compliance and Administrative Pragmatism in Bio-Medical Waste Management

This appeal arose from a National Green Tribunal (NGT) judgment that set aside the Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent to Establish (CTE) granted to M/s Punahchakran Private Limited for setting up a Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF). The Supreme Court examined whether the Revised Guidelines of 2016 (RG, 2016) are mandatory, whether land area relaxations were permissible under rural exemptions, and whether prior land allotment is a mandatory precondition for submitting Form 1 or obtaining a CTE. The Court also analyzed the validity of relying on a previously issued Terms of Reference (ToR) after an earlier EC was quashed.

2026 INSC 956 : M/s Punahchakran Private Limited v. Indotech Waste Solution & Ors. (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

Corporate Criminal Liability and the Requirement of Natural Person Arraignment

This appeal addresses whether criminal proceedings can be maintained against a corporate entity independently, without any of its directors, employees, or natural persons being identified and arraigned as co-accused, specifically for offences requiring proof of mens rea (criminal intent) and conspiracy. The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the doctrines of corporate criminal liability, the “identification principle,” and rules of attribution spanning English and Indian jurisprudence.

2026 INSC 957 : Sanofi India Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

Justice Delayed by Fatal Flaws: The Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Landmark POCSO Case

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by Dhanraj, setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Rajasthan High Court and the Special POCSO Court which had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment. The Apex Court based its acquittal on critical investigative lapses, including the complete failure of the prosecution to secure a substantive dock identification of the accused by the child victim during trial, material contradictions regarding the age of the victim’s injuries as noted by the medical jurist, and the withholding of key evidence like the police-sketches.

2026 INSC 958 : Dhanraj v. State of Rajasthan (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

Dignity to a Widow: Supreme Court Directs Payment of Family Pension from the Original Date of Due with Interest

This appeal addressed whether a widow’s entitlement to family pension should be restricted to the date she approached a judicial forum or granted from the exact date it fell due upon her husband’s death. The Supreme Court examined a conflict between two-judge bench precedents—S.K. Mastan Bee (which favored granting pension from the due date for widows) and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (which generally restricted arrears to three years prior to filing a writ petition). Relying on the doctrine of binding precedents and coordinate bench discipline, the Court held that S.K. Mastan Bee specifically dealt with family pension claims and should prevail over conflicting general limitations when systemic delays and institutional faults are evident.

2026 INSC 959 : Maya Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors. (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Supreme Court Refers Question of Stamp Duty Undervaluation and Fraud Intent to Larger Bench

The Supreme Court addressed whether invoking Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, requires proof of a fraudulent intent or wilful undervaluation, or if it is purely a valuation-based enquiry. Expressing strong reservations regarding the correctness of the three-judge bench decision in V.N. Devadoss, which read “fraudulent intent” as a necessary prerequisite for undervaluation references, the Bench deferred the matter and referred crucial questions of law to a larger Bench.

2026 INSC 963 : Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) & Anr. (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

State Rules on Human Rights Courts: A Procedural Safeguard for Direct Access

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 is ultra vires the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment, which had previously struck down the rule as unconstitutional. The bench held that the 1993 Act establishes two distinct, complementary mechanisms: Human Rights Commissions (which perform inquisitorial and recommendatory roles) and Human Rights Courts (which exercise judicial power for speedy trials). The Supreme Court ruled that approaching a Human Rights Commission is not a mandatory prerequisite to invoking the jurisdiction of a Human Rights Court, and that delegated rule-making powers under Section 41 of the Act sufficiently empower states to lay down procedural mechanisms for these courts.

2026 INSC 964 : Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (D.O.J. 25.08.2026)

Counting Past Service for Pension: Regularized Employees and the Old Pension Scheme

The Supreme Court addressed whether employees initially engaged on a contract, ad hoc, or daily-wage basis in the 1990s and subsequently regularized in 2004 are entitled to have their pre-regularization service counted as qualifying service for pension benefits under the old pension scheme. Dismissing the appeal filed by the Punjab School Education Board, the bench ruled that pension is a deferred wage for past services rendered, and artificial or administrative breaks in service must be ignored. Since the employees’ long-standing service commenced prior to the January 1, 2004 cutoff date for the new Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, they are eligible to be governed by the old pension regime and count their continuous service toward retiral benefits.

2026 INSC 965 : Punjab School Education Board and Another v. Satnam Singh and Others (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Service Law : Quo Warranto Petitions and Inquiries into Alleged Fake Ph.D. Degrees

The Supreme Court addressed whether a writ of quo warranto could be issued against an Assistant Professor appointed with a potentially forged Ph.D. degree when a Ph.D. was only a desirable qualification and the candidate otherwise fulfilled mandatory eligibility via the UGC-NET examination. Dismissing the appeals against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s orders, the bench held that unsuccessful candidates lacking locus standi cannot weaponize quo warranto to redress personal selection grievances. However, exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court permitted Maharshi Dayanand University to conduct a rigorous, formal inquiry into the authenticity of the sixth respondent’s Ph.D. degree in coordination with Bundelkhand University, leaving open criminal prosecution if the degree is proven to be fake.

2026 INSC 968 : Annu Kumar & Anr. v. Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak & Ors. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Arbitration : Directing Multiple Connected Contract Disputes to a Single Arbitrator

The Supreme Court addressed whether disputes arising from two distinct agreements—the Mahanet Agreement and the T-Fiber Agreement—between the same parties should be handled by separate arbitrators or consolidated before a single forum when cross-project set-off claims are involved. Allowing the appeal against the Delhi High Court’s order, the bench modified the impugned decision and appointed Ms. Saumya Tandon, the sole arbitrator already presiding over the Mahanet Agreement dispute, to also adjudicate the disputes relating to the T-Fiber Agreement. The Court underscored the fitness of consolidating proceedings before the first-appointed arbitrator while leaving all merits, contentions, and cross-project set-off claims open for the arbitrator’s evaluation.

2026 INSC 969 : M/s STL Networks Limited v. Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd. (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

Corruption: Reversing Convictions Lacking Pecuniary Advantage under the Prevention of Corruption Act

The Supreme Court addressed whether a conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be sustained when the court has recorded a categorical finding that no pecuniary advantage or valuable thing was obtained by the accused. Allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the conviction of the appellant—who served as a store in-charge certifying false receipts of medicines—ruling that an essential ingredient of Section 13(1)(d), namely obtaining a pecuniary advantage for oneself or another, is completely missing. The Court further highlighted that because the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) failed to challenge the High Court’s acquittal of the appellant under the substantive IPC charges, and given the absence of any proved money trail or pecuniary gain, the conviction could not stand.

2026 INSC 970 : Khanindra Kr. Dutta v. Central Bureau of Investigation (D.O.J.08.09.2026)

Flawed Prosecutions and Benefit of Doubt: Unraveling a Gunshot Murder Conviction

The Supreme Court addressed whether a murder conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act could be sustained based on testimonies of close family relatives when the investigation suffered from severe lapses, material contradictions, and an unexplained failure to inspect the scene of the crime or recover weapons. Setting aside the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, the bench granted the appellants the benefit of doubt and acquitted them. The Court emphasized that when related eyewitness accounts carry a ring of falsity, lack objective corroboration, and are coupled with suspicious circumstances—such as transporting the body directly to a police station rather than a hospital—the hypothesis of innocence must prevail.

2026 INSC 971 : Ashok Upadhyay and Anr. v. The State of Bihar (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Ambush and Accountability: Disentangling Common Intent and Partial Acquittals in a Fatal Family Feud

The Supreme Court examined multiple criminal appeals arising from a violent nighttime ambush that resulted in a fatal gunshot injury to one family member and physical assault on another, addressing the legality of high court acquittals granted to specific co-accused. Partially allowing the appeals filed by the de facto complainant, the bench set aside the acquittal of two accused (A6 and A12) who played active roles in holding the victim and exhorting the shooter, while upholding the acquittal of another co-accused (A13) due to a lack of substantive, consistent evidence. The Court emphasized the legal duty of courts to separate the grain from the chaff rather than applying the blanket doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, validating reliable eyewitness and medical evidence despite minor embellishments regarding peripheral participants.

2026 INSC 972 : Santosh Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Land Acquisition : Determining the Benchmark: Statutory Cut-Off Dates for Solatium and Interest Under the National Highways Act

The Supreme Court addressed whether the computation of solatium, interest, and interest on solatium for land acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 should be governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Partially allowing the appeal, the bench ruled that because the competent authority’s award under Section 3G of the NH Act was passed on July 11, 2014—prior to the statutory extension making the 2013 Act applicable to national highway acquisitions on January 1, 2015—the statutory benefits must be computed using the provisions of the 1894 Act. The Court clarified that while landowners whose lands are acquired under the NH Act are universally entitled to solatium and interest, the specific calculation regime depends on whether the initial award was finalized before or after the January 1, 2015 cut-off date.

2026 INSC 973 : Manav Bhanot v. National Highway Authority of India (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Infrastructure Gridlock: NOIDA’s Accountability Under the Zero Period Policy

The Supreme Court dismissed civil appeals filed by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and upheld the Allahabad High Court’s judgment, ruling that a developer cannot be denied the benefits of the “Zero Period Policy” when a primary 45-metre approach road remains encumbered, unacquired, and plagued by habitation. The bench emphasized that statutory developmental authorities must provide efficient and legitimate access rather than shifting blame onto developers for minimal, constrained workarounds.

2026 INSC 975 : New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Ors. v. M/s Sunshine Trade Tower Private Limited and Anr. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Arbitral Autonomy: The Boundaries of Judicial Review in Contract Termination and Excepted Matters

The Supreme Court addressed whether a writ appellate court can restrict an Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction by directing it to adjudicate claims strictly according to contract terms when examining a terminated works contract. Partially clarifying the Telangana High Court Division Bench’s order, the apex bench ruled that a court exercising judicial review under Article 226 cannot pre-determine or constrain the scope of the Arbitrator’s inquiry under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized that under the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, the Arbitral Tribunal possesses the exclusive competence to rule on its own jurisdiction—including whether the dispute over contract termination constitutes an “excepted matter” under Clause 63 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC)—without being fettered by pre-emptive judicial observations.

2026 INSC 976 : M/s. GVV Constructions Private Limited v. The Union of India & Ors. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Binding Non-Signatory Guarantors: Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses in Composite Financial Transactions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the National Skill Development Corporation, setting aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment and the Sole Arbitrator’s order which had deleted the second respondent (guarantor/managing director) from the arbitral proceedings. The bench ruled that where parties execute multiple interconnected and contemporaneous instruments—such as loan agreements and personal guarantees designated as mandatory pre-disbursement “Facility Agreements”—a deeming fiction within the principal contract effectively incorporates the arbitration clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, binding the non-signatory guarantor in his personal capacity.

2026 INSC 977 : National Skill Development Corporation v. Surya Wires Private Limited & Ors. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Market Manipulation: Supreme Court Clarifies Escrow Release Does Not Bar Fraud Probes, Remands Vedanta Buyback Case

This statutory appeal by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) challenged an order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) which had set aside penalties imposed on Vedanta Limited and its directors for allegedly making a misleading share buyback announcement. The Supreme Court held that releasing an escrow account under Regulation 15B(8) of the Buyback Regulations does not automatically grant immunity or act as a statutory bar against independent investigations and proceedings for fraud under the PFUTP Regulations. However, because both the Adjudicating Officer and SAT failed to properly scrutinize crucial discrepancies in historical trading data and internal investigative reports, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to SAT for a fresh adjudication strictly on the question of fraud.

2026 INSC 978 : Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Vedanta Limited & Ors. (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

Retiring Partners in Dissolved Firms Entitled to Current Market Value of Property, Not 1983 Rates

This civil appeal arose from a long-standing property and accounts dispute stemming from the dissolution of a partnership at will, M/s Viraj Constructions, originally formed in 1964. After the original plaintiff (Kasireddy Lakshmi Narayana Reddy) issued a notice of dissolution on October 18, 1983, protracted litigation ensued regarding whether his 25 percent share in a valuable land asset located in Begumpet, Hyderabad, should be valued based on its worth as of the 1983 dissolution date or at its current market value. The Supreme Court held that while profits and losses must be calculated up to the date of dissolution (October 18, 1983), the valuation of immovable partnership assets for final distribution must reflect contemporary market realities rather than frozen historical rates. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s directive for the Advocate Commissioner to auction the property and distribute 25 percent of the sale proceeds to the legal representative of the original plaintiff.

2026 INSC 979 : V. Sumitra Reddy & Anr. v. K. Ranganadha Reddy & Ors. (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

Service Law : Quashing Arbitrary Compulsory Retirement

The Supreme Court of India set aside the compulsory retirement of an Indian Trade Service officer, declaring the government’s order under Fundamental Rule 56(j) as arbitrary, perverse, and vitiated by malice in law. The Court admonished the reviewing authorities for ignoring the officer’s consistently outstanding service record and recent merit-based promotion, emphasizing that a flawless career cannot be negated by unsubstantiated allegations to unfairly label a dedicated official as dead wood.

2026 INSC 980 : S.S. Das v. Union of India (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

Supreme Court Upholds National Duty Over Administrative Delays in Sports Administration

This appeal arises from a common judgment and order dated 11.08.2026 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, which had dismissed the appellant’s writ petition seeking a direction to relieve respondent No.3—a government physical education teacher and recognized coach—to serve as the Chief Coach for the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team for the Asian Games. The Supreme Court examined whether prolonged executive inaction and subsequent administrative rejection could override urgent national sporting requirements, ultimately setting aside the High Court’s decision and directing authorities to immediately issue the necessary clearances.

2026 INSC 981 : Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Sovereign Assurance vs. Sentence Computation: Supreme Court Rejects Abu Salem’s Premature Release Plea

This criminal appeal challenged the Bombay High Court’s April 15, 2026 judgment, which dismissed the appellant’s writ petition seeking habeas corpus and mandamus for immediate release from custody. The appellant, extradited from Portugal following a solemn sovereign assurance that his imprisonment would not exceed 25 years, claimed he had already completed the maximum sentence when factoring in undertrial custody, post-conviction incarceration, and jail-earned remissions. The Supreme Court evaluated the correctness of the appellant’s sentence computation and the applicability of remissions to a life sentence governed by an extradition assurance, ultimately dismissing the appeal as premature.

2026 INSC 982 : Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Revenue Entries, Dedication, and Adverse Possession

This civil appeal arises from a long-standing property dispute over agricultural land in Muktsar, Punjab, originating from a civil suit filed in 1981. The competing claims involved a registered sale deed dated May 13, 1965, asserted by the plaintiffs versus a claim of prior dedication for religious and charitable purposes in favor of Dera Bhai Mastan Singh and alternative acquisition of title by adverse possession, asserted by the defendants. The Supreme Court reviewed the correctness of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s second appellate judgment, which had set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.

2026 INSC 983 : Bhag Singh (D) Thr. Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (D) Thr. LRs. and Others (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Supreme Court Clarifies Age Determination Under POCSO and Powers to Convict for Rape Under IPC in Absence of Specific Charge

This criminal appeal challenges a final judgment by the High Court of Meghalaya, which had upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, sentencing him to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution successfully proved the victim’s minority under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and whether an accused can be convicted of rape under Section 376 of the IPC when a specific charge was not formally framed by the trial court.

2026 INSC 984 : Pynchemalangaki Bareh v. State of Meghalaya (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Supreme Court Affirms Restrictions on Stale Electricity Demands and Disconnection Rights

This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), which had dismissed the distribution licensee’s challenge to an order by the Electricity Ombudsman setting aside a multi-million-rupee demand for Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charges (MCGC). The Supreme Court evaluated whether a distribution company can raise and recover delayed electricity charges and exercise statutory disconnection rights for unbilled amounts dating back nearly a decade, in light of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2026 INSC 985 : Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Vidyut Lokpal, Uttar Pradesh and Others (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Quashing of FIR : Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Section 69 BNS

The Supreme Court addressed whether a broken promise of marriage can automatically constitute an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The appellant challenged a Gujarat High Court decision that refused to quash an FIR registered against him for sexual relations under the pretext of a marriage promise. The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings, ruling that a consensual relationship where a marriage proposal later falls through due to family disapproval does not amount to a deceitful promise or a misconception of fact.

2026 INSC 987 : Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. The State of Gujarat & Anr. (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

Food Safety: Safeguarding Citizens and Children in India

The Supreme Court of India evaluated a miscellaneous application concerning the implementation of Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) for packaged foods to protect public health, particularly among growing children, from High in Fat, Sugar, or Salt (HFSS) and Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF). While acknowledging that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) submitted a proposal featuring a “red hexagon” warning label, the Court identified several operational ambiguities, requiring the FSSAI to file a comprehensive clarification via affidavit within ten days.

2026 INSC 988 : 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr. (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Supreme Court Mandates Full Payment of Provident Fund and Gratuity by Resolution Applicants Amid Insolvency

This batch of civil appeals challenged orders passed at the instance of the Central Board of Trustees under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF & MP Act), which mandated that the share of workmen’s dues—specifically Provident Fund (PF) and Gratuity (GF)—must be kept outside the liquidation estate and paid in full by Successful Resolution Applicants (SRAs). The Supreme Court reaffirmed that statutory first charges and worker dues override standard resolution waterfalls and non-obstante clauses under frameworks like the SARFAESI Act and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Furthermore, because of conflicting views regarding whether the imposition of penalties under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act is strictly mandatory or leaves room for quasi-judicial discretion, the Court referred the specific question regarding Section 14B to a larger Bench.

2026 INSC 990 : M/s Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Central Board of Trustees and Anr. (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Interference with Public Examination Answer Key

This appeal arose from a judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in a review application, which had set aside concurrent dismissal orders and directed the appellant-Commission to award a mark to the respondent-writ petitioner and grant him appointment. The dispute centered around a multiple-choice question in a recruitment examination regarding book-author/subject matching. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order, holding that constitutional courts must exercise extreme judicial restraint and should not interfere with the evaluation of answer keys by examining bodies unless a glaring, patent mistake is demonstrated without requiring any inferential reasoning.

2026 INSC 991 : Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission v. Ashok Yadav & Ors.

(D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

A Definitive Review on Disability Pension Rights for Ex-Servicemen

This landmark batch of appeals brought by the Union of India challenged various orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and High Courts, which had granted the disability element of service pensions to ex-servicemen. These former personnel had been assessed by Release Medical Boards (RMB) as having disabilities that were “Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated” (NANA) by military service. The Supreme Court addressed the core tension between the protective, beneficial jurisprudence established in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India (governed by the Entitlement Rules 1982) and the restrictive framework introduced by the subsequent Entitlement Rules 2008. Crucially, the Court undertook a deep constitutional and administrative review of the legitimacy of the 2008 rules, evaluating whether they possessed binding legal force and whether they could dilute established beneficial entitlements.

2026 INSC 993 : Union of India & Ors. v. Col. NC Isaac (Retd.) and Connected Appeals (D.O.J. 15.09.2026)

Empowering Menstrual Hygiene and School Infrastructure Compliance

This judgment addresses a compliance hearing regarding school infrastructure, sanitation facilities, and menstrual hygiene management (MHM) under Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1000 of 2022. Reviewing compliance affidavits filed by the Union of India and various States/UTs, the Supreme Court evaluated the distribution framework of sanitary products, toilet facilities, and waste disposal systems. Recognizing critical environmental concerns regarding oxo-biodegradable plastics highlighted by the Indian Compostable Polymer Association, the Court modified its prior directives to mandate the provision of eco-friendly, biocompatible, and compostable sanitary napkins. Furthermore, expressing strong dissatisfaction with superficial data reporting and data discrepancies from multiple States/UTs, the Court instituted stricter accountability protocols, mandating surprise inspections by District Education Officers (DEOs) and a shift toward gap-focused reporting.

2026 INSC 994 : Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors. (D.O.J. 01.09.2026)

Admissibility of Successive Writ Petitions by Lessees Over Disputed Land

This civil appeal challenges the common judgment of the High Court’s Division Bench which had dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the interim protection granted to the lessees of a disputed property. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the concurrent orders of the High Court’s Single Judge and Division Bench. The Apex Court held that once a previous Special Leave Petition concerning the principal trust’s eviction was withdrawn without any interim protection and with liberty to file a civil suit, subsequent writ petitions filed by the trust’s lessees solely to protect possession and bypass earlier findings were an abuse of process and ought not to have been entertained under writ jurisdiction.

2026 INSC 995 : The State of Telangana and Others v. M.A. Garden Function Hall and Others Etc. (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

MACT : Territorial Jurisdiction of Claims Tribunals under the Motor Vehicles Act

This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Chennai to entertain a claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Madras High Court’s order, which had set aside the Tribunal’s decision and transferred the proceedings to the appropriate Tribunal at Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. The Apex Court held that since the accident occurred in Tirupati, the claimant resided in Chittoor, and no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai, the Chennai Tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court clarified that an insurer impleaded as a party-respondent has the full right to raise preliminary objections regarding territorial jurisdiction at the initial stage, distinguishing such pre-award objections from post-award appeals governed by Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2026 INSC 996 : K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

Challenging Validity of Technician Grade-2 Selection and Appointment Process in UPPCL

This Supreme Court judgment under Article 32 of the Constitution dismisses a challenge brought by unsuccessful candidates against the 2011 recruitment process for Technician Grade-2 (Trainee) Electrical posts in the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). The petitioners sought to quash the revised select list and appointment lists, requesting a fresh recruitment cycle and an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Apex Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioners failed to meet the prescribed cut-off marks, were guilty of suppressing material facts regarding prior parallel litigation, and failed to establish any legal ground for a CBI inquiry into long-standing appointments.

2026 INSC 997 : Vinit Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. Through Secretary & Ors. (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

Curbing Unlawful Repossession and Enforcing Fair Recovery Practices

This civil appeal arose from a challenge to an Allahabad High Court order that dismissed the appellant-borrower’s writ petition against the forceful repossession and subsequent sale of his commercial vehicle by a financing company. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and ruling that the finance company’s action of seizing the truck in the dead of night without mandatory prior notice or due process violated Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines, contract terms, and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. While the Court declined to overturn the third-party sale of the vehicle due to the lapse of time, it ordered the financier to close the loan accounts, refund the sale proceeds with interest, pay heavy compensation for loss of livelihood and mental agony, and directed the RBI to ensure strict compliance with its fair practice codes.

2026 INSC 998 : Hari Dutta Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors. (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

Decoding Corruption: The Limits of Intermediary Evidence and Proof of Demand in Anti-Corruption Trials

The Supreme Court of India allowed two criminal appeals filed by Bharat Raj Meena, setting aside concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court of Kerala that had convicted him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case originated from a comprehensive anti-corruption investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging that the appellant, while serving as the Divisional Security Commissioner for the Railway Protection Force (RPF) in Palakkad, orchestrated a system of taking bribes through subordinate intermediaries (approvers) in exchange for service-related transfers and postings. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts of direct or indirect demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that uncorroborated accomplice testimony (approvers) and mere recovery of money from intermediaries, unaccompanied by a complete chain of proof linking the actual receipt or intent to the accused public servant, cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

2026 INSC 999 : Bharat Raj Meena v. Central Bureau of Investigation (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

The Finality of Tax Settlements: Barring Reassessment After ITSC Orders

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal filed by the Revenue (Income Tax Department), upholding the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had quashed a reassessment notice and order issued against the respondent-assessee, M/s. Omaxe Limited. The core controversy revolved around whether the Assessing Officer (AO) retained the jurisdiction to reopen a concluded assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to disallow housing project deductions under Section 80IB(10) after the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) had already passed a final settlement order under Section 245D(4). The Supreme Court ruled that Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act is a self-contained code. Once an application for settlement is admitted and a final order is issued, it attains absolute finality under Section 245-I, and the regular assessment machinery cannot be invoked to bypass this conclusiveness. The Court clarified that if the Revenue wishes to challenge a settlement order on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, its sole exclusive remedy is to approach the ITSC directly under Section 245D(6)—not to initiate parallel reassessment proceedings.

2026 INSC 1000 : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. M/s. Omaxe Limited (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

Acquittal Under NDPS Act Due to Flawed Sampling and Unproven Contraband

The Supreme Court of India allowed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants Abdul Rajik and Govind, setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had convicted them under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The appellants had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 8 years respectively, following allegations that they were caught carrying charas. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution fundamentally failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized samples, pointing out severe lapses, including the total non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act (drawing samples without a Magistrate), missing entries in the malkhana register regarding the exit of samples, a silent carrier constable, and an unexplained five-day delay before the samples reached the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Consequently, the FSL report became untrustworthy, and with no other reliable scientific proof that the recovered material was actually charas, the Court granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them.

2026 INSC 1001 : Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P. (with Criminal Appeal No. 1562 of 2014, Govind v. State of M.P.) (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

Setting Aside Ineligible Selection to Protect Merit

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal filed by Sunita Lahu Panchpande, upholding the Bombay High Court’s judgment that had set aside her appointment as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik District. The appellant, who originally served as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon District, applied for and was appointed to the post in Nashik despite an express restriction in the advertisement and the governing Government Resolution (G.R.) dated November 17, 2001, mandating that applicants must possess ten years of work experience specifically within Nashik District. Although the Divisional Commissioner had erroneously issued a clarification stating that experience from other districts was acceptable, the Supreme Court ruled that a subordinate administrative official cannot issue clarifications contrary to statutory G.R.s and recruitment advertisements. Citing the doctrine that appointments made in disregard of advertised qualifications amount to a fraud on the public, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order directing the appointment of the eligible wait-listed candidate (the sixth respondent) in her place, while acknowledging the compassionate observation permitting the appellant’s accommodation in her home district.

2026 INSC 1002 : Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector & Ors. (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

Shielding Litigants from Tribunal Portal Failures

The Supreme Court of India allowed the civil appeal filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, setting aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) order which had rejected the appellant’s application for condonation of delay and dismissed its appeal as time-barred. The appellant had challenged an NCLT order approving a resolution plan for Rolta India Limited. Although the appeal was e-filed one day after the maximum condonable period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, the delay was entirely attributable to technical failures (one-time password/OTP delivery errors and backend portal defects) on the NCLAT’s own e-filing system while the appellant was attempting to file within the deadline. The Supreme Court held that while the NCLAT lacks the statutory power to condone delays beyond the 15-day grace period under Section 61(2), it erred in not invoking the foundational maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no man). The Court ruled that when a litigant is prevented from filing within time solely due to a systemic portal failure, the tribunal must treat the date of the first bona fide filing attempt as the date of presentation, ensuring that a party is not shut out due to court-side technical glitches.

2026 INSC 1003 : Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani & Ors. (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Equal Pay for Unequal Experience: Upholding Pay Differentiation Between Direct Recruits and Promotee Teachers

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by directly recruited Higher Secondary School Teachers, Junior (HSST Jr.) in Government-aided schools in Kerala, who sought parity in pay scales with teachers appointed by transfer or promotion. While the direct recruits and promotees performed identical duties, the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala had reversed the Single Judge’s decision granting full-time pay to direct recruits, noting that promotees brought long years of prior service and status that the government sought to protect. Upholding the Division Bench’s view, the Supreme Court emphasized that modern jurisprudence on “equal pay for equal work” requires a strict test beyond mere functional similarity of work, taking into account factors like source of recruitment, qualifications, and crucially, prior experience as a valid basis for reasonable classification.

2026 INSC 1004 : G.P. Sangeetha and Ors. Etc. Etc. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Upholding Specific Performance and Long-Standing Possession Over Altered Monetary Compensation

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Trial Court’s decree for specific performance based on a 1975 agreement to sell, reversing the High Court and First Appellate Court’s modifications. The plaintiff had successfully obtained court execution of the sale deed in 1979 and remained in continuous possession for over four decades. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in altering the genuine decree of specific performance to an exorbitant monetary refund of Rs. 15,00,000/- under the guise of equity, emphasizing that equity truly favoured the plaintiff who had held ownership and possession since 1979.

2026 INSC 1005 : Sobaran Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Gordhan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. (D.O.J. 15.09.2026)

Clarifying the Scope of Attempt to Murder and Alteration of Charges

The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by the petitioner challenging the concurrent lower court orders that refused to alter the criminal charge to Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) of the IPC. While clarifying that the absence of a life-threatening or grievous bodily injury is not a necessary precondition to invoke Section 307—since culpability hinges primarily on the intention or knowledge of the accused rather than the severity of the hurt—the Court declined to interfere with the trial’s late-stage application. Because the medical records were available from the investigation stage, no initial grievance was raised, and the material lacked clear allegations of an intent to kill, the Supreme Court upheld the rejection of the charge modification while noting that courts retain the inherent prerogative to alter charges if justified by ongoing trial evidence.

2026 INSC 1006 : Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Service Law: Distinguishing Regularisation Rights in BSNL Promotions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), setting aside the High Court judgments that had directed the consideration of private respondents for promotion to ‘Rajbhasha Adhikari’ under old rules. The Supreme Court held that the respondents’ case was governed by CMD, BSNL v. Mishri Lal rather than Medini C. v. BSNL because the respondents were merely working on a local officiating basis without any regular or provisional promotion. Furthermore, reinforcing the principle laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, the Court emphasized that employees do not possess a vested right to be considered under repealed rules for vacancies that arose prior to an amendment, and that recruitment must be evaluated based on the rules existing at the time of consideration.

2026 INSC 1007 : The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. G.N. Mani Ravinder and Others Etc. (D.O.J. 17.09.2026)

The Shadow of Presumption vs. The Standard of Proof: Acquittal in a POCSO Case

In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court addressed the interplay between statutory presumptions of guilt under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the foundational criminal jurisprudence principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant challenged a common judgment of the Delhi High Court which had confirmed his conviction under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that while Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act shift the initial evidential burden onto the accused via a rule of reverse burden, they do not absolve the prosecution from establishing foundational facts or proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the accused successfully rebuts the presumption through inherent contradictions in ocular testimony, contradictory medical/FSL evidence, and a probable defense, the presumption vanishes.

2026 INSC 1008 : Deepak in JC v. State Government of NCT of Delhi (D.O.J. 17.09.2026)

Striking Down Arbitrary Restrictions on Methanol and Charting a Blueprint Against Hooch Tragedies

In this batch of writ petitions and civil appeals, the Supreme Court evaluated the constitutional validity of Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, inserted via a 2011 notification to curb the misuse of methanol in spurious liquor following past tragedies. The impugned rules mandated the addition of specific colourants and bitterants to methanol before sale to non-drug manufacturers, restricted its purchase via Form A licenses, and authorized the confiscation of unlicenced methanol.
The Supreme Court allowed the petitions and the appeal, striking down the impugned rules as unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court held that while the state’s intent to prevent hooch tragedies is a legitimate aim, the means adopted were disproportionate, manifestly arbitrary, and lacked a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Furthermore, the addition of denaturants severely crippled downstream chemical, pharmaceutical, and industrial manufacturing processes without effectively stopping illicit diversion. Alongside the ruling, the Court issued a comprehensive 15-point framework of meaningful suggestions for all States and Union Territories to tackle the root causes of bootlegging and manage public health emergencies.

2026 INSC 1009 : M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (D.O.J. 18.09.2026)

Can Civil Courts Issue Interim Orders Before Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC?

In this appeal, the Supreme Court of India addressed whether a Civil Court can pass protective or preservatory interim orders (such as appointing a receiver) while a leave application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is still pending. The Court held that a suit against public charities is “stillborn” and not validly instituted until leave is granted, meaning interim orders or supplemental proceedings cannot be invoked beforehand. However, to prevent urgent harm or waste of trust properties, the Supreme Court clarified that courts may dispense with prior notice to defendants and grant leave ex parte for compelling, recorded reasons, allowing immediate protection without violating statutory safeguards.

2026 INSC 1010 : S. Panchalingu & Ors. v. People’s Education Trust (R) & Others Etc. (D.O.J. 18.09.2026)

Admissibility at the Threshold: Can an Unregistered Document Ground the Rejection of a Plaint?

In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court of India considered whether the non-admissibility or lack of registration of a document relied upon by a plaintiff can serve as a valid ground to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that the issue of admissibility of a document is a matter of trial and cannot be used to non-suit a plaintiff at the threshold stage. Because an application under Order VII Rule 11 must rely solely on the averments made in the plaint and its accompanying documents—taking them at face value—a defense concerning a document’s registration or inadmissibility is premature and irrelevant for plaint rejection.

2026 INSC 1011 : Sheo Kumar Singh and Others v. M/S Sharda Educational Society and Others (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

Arbitration: Striking Down Arbitrary Tribunal Appointments and Unilateral Interim Orders

In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court of India addressed a dispute where the respondent bank unilaterally appointed an Arbitral Tribunal—despite clear objections regarding the tribunal’s close ties to the bank and a lack of proper consent from the appellants—which then proceeded to pass drastic interim orders freezing accounts and seizing properties. The Supreme Court held that arbitration cannot be conducted in an arbitrary manner, declared the very initiation of the arbitration proceedings to be non est in law, and set aside both the High Court’s dismissal and the tribunal’s coercive interim orders. Furthermore, the Court ordered the immediate remittance of funds taken from the appellants’ accounts, restored possession of their properties, and appointed a neutral independent arbitrator to resolve the underlying disputes.

2026 INSC 1014: Arth Micro Finance Private Ltd. And Ors. v. Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd. (D.O.J. 17.09.2026)

Overturning Murder Convictions Based on Pitch-Dark Identification and Broken Circumstantial Chains

In these criminal appeals, the Supreme Court of India examined a case where the appellants were convicted of murder and rioting based primarily on the testimonies of related eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was unsustainable because the incident occurred on a pitch-dark night, rendering visual identification from a distance impossible, and the remaining circumstantial evidence failed to forge a complete, unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, gave the appellants the benefit of the doubt, and acquitted them of all charges.

2026 INSC 1015 : Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. Etc. v. The State of Odisha (D.O.J. 18.09.2026)

Conditional Deposits, Interest Liability, and the Call for Judicial Standardization: A Blueprint for Reform

In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court of India addressed whether an award-debtor remains liable to pay interest on a conditional deposit made to secure a stay during challenge proceedings, and highlighted systemic inconsistencies in how Indian courts handle and invest litigation deposits. The Supreme Court held that under Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a deposit must be unconditional and freely withdrawable by the decree-holder to cease the accrual of interest; because the appellant made a conditional deposit and resisted its withdrawal at every stage, its liability to pay interest continued until the funds were finally released. Furthermore, taking note of national and international practices (such as pooled registry systems in the US and Canada), the Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the systemic asymmetry in court deposits and recommend a unified legislative framework.

2026 INSC 1017 : National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India) (D.O.J. 18.09.2026)

Income Tax: Taxability of Export Quota Premiums and the Limits of CBDT Circulars

In this batch of civil appeals, the Supreme Court of India addressed whether premium receipts from the domestic sale of export quotas qualify for deductions under Section 80HHC or Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether administrative circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) can override statutory text or bind courts of law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and held that export quota premiums cannot be equated with export incentives under Sections 28(iiia) to 28(iiic) of the Act, 1961, as they lack a direct nexus with export earnings and do not involve the receipt of foreign exchange. Reaffirming its constitutional principles established in Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, the Court ruled that while CBDT circulars are binding on departmental revenue officers, they cannot override explicit statutory provisions or dictate judicial interpretation, thereby upholding the High Court’s decision in favor of the Revenue.

2026 INSC 1018 : Orient Crafts Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (Along with M/s Samtex Fashions Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax) (D.O.J. 18.09.2026)

Principal-Employer Immunity: Controlling Authority Lacks Jurisdiction to Determine Gratuity Liability for Contractor Employees

This appeal addressed whether a principal employer (ONGC) can be held directly liable to pay gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act to workers deployed through a contractor, and whether the Controlling Authority possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate such a question of liability. The Supreme Court held that the Controlling Authority’s statutory power is strictly limited to computing the amount of gratuity payable to an actual “employee,” and it has no jurisdiction to decide or fasten liability onto a principal employer where no direct employer-employee relationship exists. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Appellate Authority’s decision in favor of ONGC, while protecting the workers from any recovery of amounts already paid.

2026 INSC 1019 : M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Suryakand D. Lad & Ors. (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

Procedural Overreach: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Preliminary Trial on Limitation

This civil appeal arose from a property dispute where the Trial Court, after the plaintiff had already concluded evidence and defendants had entered theirs, entertained an application to treat the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court modified the order into a rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), and the High Court subsequently held the suit to be within limitation under Article 65. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, clarifying that while framing all issues does not automatically bar a preliminary trial of a qualifying legal issue, once a court has embarked upon a composite trial of issues generally, the statutory power to direct an issue to be “tried first” is exhausted. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the courts below, dismissed the interlocutory application, restored the suit to the Trial Court, and requested a decision on merits within three months.

2026 INSC 1020 : John Mathew v. Santha Paul & Ors. (D.O.J. 21.09.2026)

Upholding the Scope of Investigation and Default Bail Standards Under the UAPA

In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether an extension of time to file a charge sheet under Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) can be invalidated—and default bail granted—solely because the prosecution cited pending sanction and ongoing analysis of electronic forensic evidence while possessing sufficient initial material. The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment, which had granted default bail to the respondents. The Court held that the High Court erred in treating the investigation as “complete” merely because the prosecution stated it had enough evidence for a charge sheet, and reaffirmed that the domain of investigation belongs exclusively to the police, meaning courts cannot prematurely cut short investigative steps such as forensic data analysis.

(2026) INSC 1021 : The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri & Anr. (D.O.J. 21.09.2026)

Constitutional Shield Against Unlawful Detention: Re-Arrest Guardrails and Article 22 Compliance

This criminal appeal addressed an issue of profound constitutional importance concerning personal liberty: whether an accused person who has suffered a breach of both clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India (non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest and detention beyond 24 hours without magistrate production) can be re-arrested for the same offense. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order which had granted the police sweeping liberty to re-arrest the appellant. The Court ruled that while a procedural or constitutional violation at the threshold of arrest does not grant permanent immunity from investigation, any subsequent re-arrest cannot be left to the unbridled discretion of the erring police authority. Instead, it must follow strict judicial and administrative safeguards, requiring prior judicial imprimatur, formal written grounds, superior officer endorsement, and the transfer of investigation to a new officer.

2026 INSC 1022 : Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (D.O.J. 21.09.2026)

Shielding Insurers: The Fall of Inflated Claims and False Declarations

This civil appeal challenged an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had directed an insurance company to pay substantial compensation along with interest, penalty interest, and litigation costs to an insured company following a fire incident. The Supreme Court allowed the insurance company’s appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal filed by the insured. The Court held that the insurance company was fully justified in repudiating the claim at the threshold because the insured breached fundamental policy conditions by making false declarations, manipulating books of accounts to show nonexistent inventory, submitting inflated claims for obsolete and dead scrap material, and failing to act with honesty and transparency.

2026 INSC 1023 : M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. M/s. Hemkund Duplex and Board Pvt. Ltd. (D.O.J. 21.09.2026)

Bidding Beyond Rules: Rejecting Ineligible Tenders in Public Contracts

These civil appeals arose from an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had quashed the acceptance of the technical and financial bids of the highest ($H_1$) bidder (Micky Traders) and directed the issuance of a Letter of Acceptance to an eligible tenderer. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the $H_1$ bidder and the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, upholding the High Court’s ruling. The Court held that the tendering authority’s acceptance of an ineligible bidder based on a misinterpretation of mandatory experience criteria was patently arbitrary and outside the scope of permissible administrative discretion. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that revenue considerations and higher financial bids cannot cure fundamental ineligibility or override explicit tender conditions designed to ensure professional competence and accountability.

2026 INSC 1025 : Micky Traders v. L.R.Y. Labour Contractor & Ors. (D.O.J. 21.09.2026)

Time-Barred Claims: Re-evaluating Section 28A Limitation in Land Acquisition

These civil appeals arose from an impugned order of the High Court directing the entertainment of applications filed by party respondents under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s order, holding that an application under Section 28A must be filed within three months from the date of the first enhancement or the relevant foundational award, and subsequent appellate orders or repetitive applications do not furnish a fresh cause of action or reset the period of limitation. The Court clarified that while a Section 28A application can be maintained if a reference court initially rejects a reference and an appellate court later grants an enhancement at the first instance, the limitation period strictly runs from that initial appellate enhancement date and cannot be artificially extended by later judgments simply following the precedent.

2026 INSC 1026 : New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Anr. v. Rajveer Singh & Ors. (D.O.J. 21.09.2026)

Trademark Jurisdictions: The Clash Between the Trade Marks Act and the Commercial Courts Act

This appeal addressed whether the restriction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, requiring trademark infringement suits to be instituted before a court not inferior to a District Court, is overridden or rendered ineffective by notifications under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which empower Civil Judges (Senior Division) to function as Commercial Courts. Noting an apparent conflict between judicial precedents—such as Kandla Export Corporation and Jaycee Housing—regarding whether specialized IP and arbitration statutes yield to the Commercial Courts Act, the Supreme Court stayed the pending commercial suit and recommended placing the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for reference to a larger bench. The bench underscored that legislative mandates restricting jurisdiction to the District Judiciary should not be inconsistently diluted by disparate state-level High Court notifications.

2026 INSC 1027 : I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (D.O.J. 21.09.2026)

Overturning Circumstantial Murder Convictions in the Absence of Proof

This criminal appeal was filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the High Court’s judgment that acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for which they had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal, upholding the acquittal on the grounds that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—ranging from delayed disclosures by an interested witness to stage-managed recoveries of weapons and clothing days after the arrest—fell short of establishing an unbroken, conclusive chain of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2026 INSC 1028 : The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Varinder Verma @ Jatti & Anr. (D.O.J. 17.09.2026)

Supreme Court Orders De Novo Investigation into the Brutal Rape and Murder of a Minor

This appeal was filed by the mother of a 17-year-old victim who was brutally raped and murdered in October 2012 in Dharmasthala Village, Karnataka. Challenging the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition, the Supreme Court expressed profound shock over systemic lapses and tainted investigations conducted by local police, the CID, and the CBI, which had previously resulted in the acquittal of the sole prosecuted accused, Santhosh Rao. Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court invoked its constitutional powers under Articles 226 and 227 to order a de novo investigation by a newly constituted Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure the real perpetrators are brought to justice, while safeguarding the previously acquitted individual under constitutional double jeopardy protections.

2026 INSC 1030 : Kusumavati Gowda v. The Government of Karnataka & Ors. (D.O.J. 21.09.2026)

Mere Recovery Is Not Enough to Prove Bribery

This criminal appeal challenged the concurrent judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the Special Judge, which had convicted the appellant (a Patwari) under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, ruling that proof of prior demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for establishing an offence under the PC Act. Citing landmark precedents like Neeraj Dutta and Aman Bhatia, the Court reiterated that mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes, in the absence of direct proof of demand, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Because independent shadow and official witnesses testified that neither the demand nor the exchange of money occurred in their presence, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

2026 INSC 1031 : Jaswinder Singh (Dead Through LRs.) v. State of Punjab (D.O.J. 22.09.2026)

Trial Must Proceed Despite Absence of Original Document in Forgery Cases

This criminal appeal challenged the High Court’s order discharging the accused-respondent from offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had previously discharged the accused on the premise that because the prosecution failed to place the original building plan on record (alleged to be forged), a charge of forgery could not be sustained. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the discharge order, holding that the absence of the original document by itself is not fatal to a prosecution case and does not warrant quashing proceedings at the threshold. The Court emphasized that forgery can be established through other circumstantial or supporting evidence at trial. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred in entertaining a repetitive writ petition that re-agitated issues already decided against the accused by a coordinate bench in an earlier round of litigation, violating the principle of issue-estoppel.

2026 INSC 1032 : Antonetto J D’Souza v. Aldila Braganza and Others (D.O.J. 22.09.2026)

Hindu Widow’s Limited Estate Expands into Absolute Property

This civil appeal arose from a regular second appeal judgment by the Karnataka High Court, which had reversed concurrent lower court decrees in favor of the plaintiff. The dispute centered over residential properties left behind by the propositus, Gangaram, who died intestate in 1949, leaving a son (the plaintiff) from his first wife and a second wife (Kashibai). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s ruling, holding that by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, Kashibai succeeded to a share of her deceased husband’s estate. The Court reaffirmed that under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a widow’s pre-existing limited interest or estate automatically blossoms into absolute ownership, and a formal physical partition is not a prerequisite for this statutory conversion. Consequently, Kashibai possessed valid disposable title to execute a registered Will in favor of her daughter, Defendant No. 1, who subsequently validly transferred a portion of the property to Defendant No. 3.

2026 INSC 1033: Ganapati (Dead) by his LRs Prabhakar & Others v. Shantukala & Others (D.O.J. 22.09.2026)

The Limits of Anti-Suit Injunctions in Matrimonial Disputes

This civil appeal challenged a judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which had set aside an anti-suit injunction granted by an Alipore trial court in favor of the appellant-husband. The trial court had restrained the respondent-wife from prosecuting divorce and financial relief proceedings before the Central Family Court in the United Kingdom (UK). The Supreme Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the High Court’s order vacating the injunction. The Court held that anti-suit injunctions must be granted sparingly and with utmost caution, as they interfere with the judicial sovereignty of foreign courts. The Supreme Court ruled that it is premature to stall foreign proceedings on the mere apprehension that a foreign court might grant a divorce on grounds (such as irretrievable breakdown) not recognized under Indian law, especially when the UK court represents the natural, convenient forum due to the parties’ extensive marital history and habitual residence in London.

2026 INSC 1034 : Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria (D.O.J. 22.09.2026)

Contractual Bars on Interest: Dissecting General Conditions of Contract in Arbitration

This civil appeal challenged a judgment of the Meghalaya High Court, which had allowed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and restored the pre-reference interest awarded by an Arbitral Tribunal to the respondent contractor. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment to the extent it restored pre-reference interest. The Court drew a crucial distinction between the older Arbitration Act of 1940 and the 1996 Act, emphasizing that under Section 31(7) of the 1996 Act, party autonomy is paramount and an express contractual bar against interest overrides the tribunal’s power to award it. The Court held that Clause 54 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) in this case—which explicitly bars interest on money lying with the corporation due to a dispute or due to delay in making periodical/final payments—is distinguishable from the clause in State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, and instead aligns with Sayeed Ahmed & Co., thus effectively operating as a complete bar on pre-reference interest.

2026 INSC 1036 : North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) v. Astra Construction Private Limited (D.O.J. 22.09.2026)

Misuse of Public Interest Litigation in Tender Disputes

In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is an appropriate legal remedy to challenge the validity of a tender process involving the inter-se comparative assessment of competing private bidders. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the PIL, noting that the petitioner acted as the alter ego of an unsuccessful bidder and that the monetary magnitude of the work (Rs. 23 crores) did not justify claims of public resource wastage. Considering that a portion of the road construction work was already completed and upon receiving an undertaking from the appellant to finish the remaining work without compromising quality, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s directive to re-tender and granted the appellant three months to complete the project.

2026 INSC 1037 : O.P. Mehta v. Mohinder Kalta & Ors. (D.O.J. 23.09.2026)

Territorial Jurisdiction Over Arbitration Challenges

In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed before the District Judge at Sundargarh was maintainable regarding jurisdiction and limitation. The High Court had earlier dismissed the Section 34 petitions, ruling that Cuttack was the juridical seat of arbitration by operation of Section 42 because the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court at Cuttack, and that the petitions were time-barred. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, noting that both sides conceded the finding on limitation was erroneous and holding that Cuttack was merely a physical venue chosen for administrative convenience rather than the designated legal seat. The Court emphasized that courts within the territorial jurisdiction where the work was executed (Sundargarh) possess proper jurisdiction, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Section 34 petitions to the District Court at Sundargarh.

2026 INSC 1038 : Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd & Ors. v. M/s GSCO (Gurmeet Singh and Company) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (D.O.J. 23.09.2026)

Safeguards, Sanctions, and Section 156(3) CrPC: Supreme Court Clarifies Pre-Cognizance Scope and Overturns High Court Quashing Order

In these criminal appeals, the Supreme Court examined the legality of a High Court order that quashed a magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and a consequential FIR against police officials on the grounds of a lack of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and non-compliance with the guidelines in Priyanka Srivastava. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the requirement for prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC applies only at the stage of taking cognizance, not at the pre-cognizance stage of ordering an investigation or registering an FIR. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellant had substantially fulfilled the requirements of Priyanka Srivastava by repeatedly approaching local and higher police authorities (including the DGP) before turning to the magistrate, particularly given that the complaints were directed against local police personnel. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside and the investigation was ordered to be resumed.

2026 INSC 1039 : Sri Anumandala Rajesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka and Anr. (D.O.J. 24.08.2026)

Supreme Court Division on Referencing the 2023 Election Commissioners Act to a Constitution Bench

In this landmark split verdict, a two-judge Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered differing opinions on whether to refer the challenge against the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 to a five-judge Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. Justice Dipankar Datta held that the challenge only required the application of settled constitutional principles from Anoop Baranwal regarding the independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and voted against a reference. Conversely, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma maintained that the question of whether Parliament can exclude a neutral arbiter and vest appointment power predominantly in the executive is a novel, substantial question of law requiring a Constitution Bench. Owing to this split, the matter was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a larger Bench, while the judges jointly flagged serious institutional concerns regarding the delayed disposal of constitutional references and recommended establishing a permanent Constitution Bench.

2026 INSC 1040 : Dr. Jaya Thakur and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (D.O.J. 23.09.2026)

Family Alienation: Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Decree in Coparcenary Property Dispute

In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s dismissal of a partition suit filed by the wife and sons of the late Renukaiah. The dispute centered around two items of ancestral land sold by Renukaiah in 1993, which the plaintiffs challenged as lacking legal necessity. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s well-reasoned decree based on unsubstantiated allegations of the father’s vices, especially given the plaintiffs’ selective exclusion of four other partitioned properties, the failure of the plaintiff-wife to enter the witness box, and valid proof that the sale proceeds were utilized to discharge construction loans for the family’s Bengaluru house.

2026 INSC 1041 : H.G. Pattabi v. K.R. Suraj and Others (D.O.J.16.09.2026)

Shielding Minors from Parental Alienation and Safeguarding Their Welfare: Supreme Court Grants Mother’s Custody and Relocation Plea

In this sensitive custody battle concerning two minor children, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court and Family Court judgments that had granted sole custody to the respondent-father and rejected the appellant-mother’s relocation plea. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by branding the mother’s career-driven relocation as a “nomadic lifestyle” and ignoring her superior financial stability. Critically, the Court observed that granting custody to the father was wholly unwarranted given that a chargesheet had been filed against him under the POCSO Act following the son’s spontaneous disclosure at NIMHANS. Consequently, the Supreme Court permitted the mother to relocate with the children to the United Kingdom, where she is employed as a lecturer, while expunging premature observations made by the High Court regarding the criminal proceedings.

2026 INSC 1043 : Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty v. Suman Sankar Bhunia (D.O.J. 23.09.2026)

High Court Cannot Remit Section 37 Appeal to Arbitral Tribunal as Section 17 Application

This appeal centered on whether a High Court, while exercising its statutory appellate jurisdiction under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the rejection of a Section 9 interim relief application, can by consent of the parties remit those appellate proceedings to a newly constituted Arbitral Tribunal to be treated as a Section 17 application. The Supreme Court ruled that such a remittance is impermissible in law because an Arbitral Tribunal cannot exercise appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over a court’s order, and the powers under Section 9, Section 37, and Section 17 are fundamentally distinct. While setting aside the specific direction to treat the appeal as a Section 17 application, the Supreme Court upheld the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and the ongoing proceedings, noting that the parties had already entered into a subsequent supplementary agreement.

2026 INSC 1044 : Union of India & Others v. Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. (D.O.J. 18.09.2026)

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointing Authority and Article 311 Protection for Railway Protection Special Force Personnel

This appeal arose from a challenge to the dismissal of a Second Appeal by the Allahabad High Court, which had affirmed the First Appellate Court’s decision declaring the removal of the respondent (‘Rakshak’ in the Railway Protection Special Force) null and void under Article 311(1) of the Constitution. The lower appellate courts held that because the respondent received an initial call letter from the Commandant, his removal by an Assistant Commandant/Adjutant violated Article 311(1) as being by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the call letter was merely a conditional invitation to undergo training, whereas the actual appointment was validly made upon completion of training by the Assistant Commandant. Since the removing authority (Adjutant) was of equivalent rank and competent under the rules, there was no violation of Article 311(1), and the ex-parte departmental inquiry conducted after the respondent’s unauthorized absence was valid.

2026 INSC 1047 : Union of India & Ors. v. Ramdhani Prasad (D.O.J. 24.09.2026)

Sessions Courts Cannot Impose Life Imprisonment Without Remission and Modifies Sentence

This criminal appeal challenged the High Court’s dismissal of the appellants’ appeal and the affirmation of their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for a triple murder, along with a Trial Court direction that they “remain in prison till rest of their life”. While the conviction was not contested, the Supreme Court examined whether a Sessions Court has the competence to issue a special category sentence excluding statutory remissions. The Supreme Court ruled that Sessions Courts lack the power to curtail statutory remission or commutation powers, which is an exclusive prerogative of Constitutional Courts (Swamy Shraddananda and V. Sriharan principles). Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the “rest of their natural life” direction and substituted it with a fixed term of rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without statutory remission, based on a holistic evaluation of the gravity of the crime, the appellants’ incarceration period, and their satisfactory prison conduct.

2026 INSC 1048 : Naval Kishore & Anr. v. State of Punjab (D.O.J. 24.09.2026)

Curbing the Misuse of POCSO in Bitter Matrimonial Custody Battles

In a landmark ruling addressing the alarming rise of false criminal accusations in bitter matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court emphasized that children often become the worst sufferers when parents engage in vicious custody battles. The case involved a father (‘R’) and mother (‘E’) locked in a prolonged custody battle over their minor child ‘M’. Amidst ongoing litigation, the mother lodged a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and IPC provisions, alleging sexual assault of the child by the father and paternal family members.

2026 INSC 1049 : ‘R’ v. ‘E’ & Anr. (Along with connected criminal and contempt appeals) (D.O.J. 24.09.2026)

Echoes of Silence: A Mother’s Pursuit of Justice Within the Home

This criminal appeal arises from a concurrent judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the aggravated sexual assault and murder of his six-year-old step-daughter, and confirmed his death sentence. The core prosecution case rested on the ocular testimony of the victim’s mother (PW-1)—who witnessed the appellant sexually violating the child and subsequently throttling her to death within their home. Due to a serious procedural flaw at the trial involving a lack of effective legal representation during the initial cross-examination of PW-1, the Supreme Court invoked its powers to order a curative further cross-examination. Upon a meticulous reappraisal of the augmented record, medical reports establishing homicidal asphyxia and genital injury, the victim’s dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, and the appellant’s incriminating conduct, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction on all charges, ruling that the core testimony of the mother remained fully reliable, corroborated, and unshaken.

2026 INSC 1050: Waris v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (D.O.J. 24.09.2026)

The Victim’s Right to Appeal Against Acquittal

This criminal appeal addressed the correct legal forum for a victim to file an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate in a bailable offence. The petitioner—whose son suffered from depressive disorders and tragically died by suicide while admitted to a hospital—alleged medical negligence against a doctor and a nurse, which resulted in the Magistrate acquitting the accused under Section 304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the High Court rejected the petitioner’s appeal on the ground of maintainability and directed him to approach the Sessions Court, the Supreme Court examined the relevant statutory provisions under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The apex court upheld the High Court’s view, ruling that under the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS read with Section 415(3), a victim’s appeal against a Magistrate’s order of acquittal must lie before the Sessions Court, and granted protection from delay for the time spent pursuing the remedy in the wrong forum.

2026 INSC 1052 : Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (D.O.J. 22.09.2026)

Unlocking the Check: Proving Prejudice in Negotiable Instrument Disputes

This criminal appeal arose from a High Court order in revision which had remanded a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case back to the trial stage for a fresh trial from the defense evidence stage, based on a misapplication of procedural precedents regarding defense affidavits. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a mechanical order of remand cannot be sustained in a completed trial when the accused has admitted their signature, failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and—crucially—never pleaded or demonstrated any actual prejudice before the trial or first appellate courts. The apex court set aside the High Court’s remand order and restored the revision petition back to the High Court for fresh consideration on its merits.

2026 INSC 1053 : Sanu Varghese v. Shoukkathali (D.O.J. 22.09.2026)

Why Voluntarily Accompanying an Accused Precludes a Rape Conviction Without Credible Evidence

This criminal appeal challenges a judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which affirmed the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rape. The Supreme Court examined the testimony of the prosecutrix and found it to be riddled with major contradictions, noting that she had voluntarily accompanied the appellant over several days across crowded locations and intersections without raising any alarm or attempting to escape. Because the trial court had already acquitted the appellant of kidnapping (Section 366 IPC) on the finding that the prosecutrix was a major who accompanied him willingly, the Supreme Court held that the very same evidence could not be partially accepted to sustain a rape conviction. Stressing that immorality or unethical conduct cannot substitute for hard, credible evidence, the Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts and acquitted the appellant.

2026 INSC 1054 : Paramjit Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab (D.O.J. 25.09.2026)

Anchoring Admiralty Arrests: Valid Termination of a Bareboat Charter Displaces Sister-Ship Liability

This civil appeal arose from a maritime dispute concerning the continued arrest of the vessel M.V. Nereus Progress under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. The respondent, a creditor of the vessel’s erstwhile demise charterer (Nereides) under a separate charter, obtained an ex-parte arrest order against the appellant’s vessel as a sister-ship on the premise that Nereides remained the demise charterer. The Supreme Court held that a validly issued notice of termination under a standard BIMCO BARECON 2017 form brings the demise charter to an end upon service, and physical repossession operates merely as a practical mechanism to transfer control. Furthermore, because Clause 32 of the charter stipulated that the charterer holds the vessel solely as a “gratuitous bailee” pending physical handover, Nereides ceased to be a demise charterer prior to the arrest date. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgments and vacated the arrest of the vessel.

2026 INSC 1055 : Owners and Parties Interested in M.V. Nereus Progress v. Om Freight Forwarders Ltd. (D.O.J. 25.09.2026)

Beyond the Ticketless Travel Myth: Restoring Railway Compensation for Untoward Incidents

This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which had set aside a Railway Claims Tribunal award granting compensation to the parents of a young man who tragically died after falling from a crowded train. The High Court had rejected the claim primarily because the travel ticket was lost and specific train details were missing. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Tribunal’s award of 8 lakhs along with interest. The Court reaffirmed that under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the initial burden discharged by the claimants through a sworn affidavit regarding a lost ticket shifts the onus onto the Railways. Because the railway officials failed to search the victim’s pockets and delayed mandatory investigations by seven months, the absence of a physical ticket cannot defeat a bona fide claim for strict liability compensation.

2026 INSC 1056 : Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana and Another v. Union of India (D.O.J. 25.09.2026)

Consensual Appointment of Sole Arbitrator and Modification of Interim Injunctions

This civil appeal arose from an interim order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, which had stayed a Commercial Court’s Section 9 injunction order restraining the respondent from manufacturing and marketing certain electric vehicles in an ongoing commercial dispute. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, both parties concurred in requesting the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve all disputes arising from their three core agreements executed on August 26, 2025. The Supreme Court appointed Justice R.V. Raveendran (former Judge of the Supreme Court) as the sole Arbitrator and granted liberty to the parties to file an interim relief application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court and Commercial Court orders, substituting a targeted interim restriction against the launch or manufacture of specific agreement-defined vehicles to operate strictly until the arbitral tribunal decides the Section 17 application.

2026 INSC 1057 : Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited v. Saera Electric Auto Limited (D.O.J. 24.09.2026)

Supreme Court Dissolves Matrimonial Discord via Mutual Consent and Quashes Multi-City Litigations

In this judgment delivered by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the Supreme Court of India exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve a marriage by mutual consent. Faced with a complete breakdown of marital ties and a web of 18 multi-city civil and criminal litigations spanning several years between the couple and their families, the Court stepped in to achieve complete justice. Noting that the parties willingly agreed to part ways and that the husband had paid a mutually agreed enhanced permanent alimony of ₹35,00,000, the bench dissolved the marriage, quashed all pending inter se proceedings, and barred the parties from initiating any fresh cases against each other.

2026 INSC 1060 : Shikha w/o Varun Surekha @ Shikha d/o Sharadkumar Raniwala v. State of Odisha & Others (D.O.J. 28.09.2026)

Resolving Decades of Deferred Dues: Supreme Court Directs Payment of Interest and Compensation for Defunct Corporation Employees

In this judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, the Supreme Court of India addressed residual issues arising from the long-standing statutory reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Bihar and the subsequent closure of five State-owned inter-State corporations. Building upon an earlier final report and order, the bench adjudicated three unresolved matters: the verification of remaining untraced workers, the entitlements of daily-wage employees, and the computation of interest on delayed salaries and provident fund dues. The Court concluded a multi-decade saga by setting a 12-month window for unverified claimants, awarding a one-time lump-sum compensation of ₹1,00,000 to daily-wage workers, and mandating statutory interest of 12% per annum on delayed Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) dues and 6% per annum on delayed salary arrears from the respective States of Bihar and Jharkhand.

2026 INSC 1061 : Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karamchari Maha Sangh and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (D.O.J. 28.09.2026)

Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit Validated: Supreme Court Dismisses Bidder’s Plea in IBC Liquidation Auction

In this judgment delivered by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, the Supreme Court of India upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) decision, which had affirmed the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and additional deposits made by a successful auction bidder under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The appellant had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated 90-day period. The Supreme Court ruled that explicit terms in the e-auction notice mandating forfeiture upon default override general regulations, and dismissed the appellant’s attempt to use pending title deed disputes and an alleged “Triple Test” as excuses for its wilful default.

2026 INSC 1062 : M/s ASJ Finsolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikram Bajaj (D.O.J. 28.09.2026)

Safeguarding Women’s Dignity: Supreme Court Intervenes Suo Motu on Systemic Safety Lapses in Delhi-NCR

Taking suo motu cognizance of alarming media reports detailing brutal crimes against women and minors across Delhi-NCR—including the gang rape and murder of a teenager in Swaroop Nagar and the sexual assault of a minor inside a moving sleeper bus—the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran expressed deep anguish over systemic law enforcement failures. Highlighting that public safety is an intrinsic facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court emphasized that mere expressions of concern by public authorities are insufficient. It mandated a measurable response with fixed institutional accountability, directing comprehensive status reports on existing safety infrastructure, laying down immediate interim measures such as specialized vulnerability mapping and strict enforcement against tinted vehicle windows, and appointing Ms. Liz Mathew, Senior Counsel, as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

2026 INSC 1063 : In Re: Safety, Security and Protection of Women and Children in Public Spaces (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal)) (D.O.J. 28.09.2026)

Unraveling the PHED Scam: Supreme Court Grants Regular Bail to Accused Public Servant and Private Intermediary

In these criminal appeals arising from the dismissal of regular bail applications by the Rajasthan High Court, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu considered the cases of two appellants—Shubhanshu Dixit, a former public servant who served as Secretary of the Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board (RWSSMB), and Sanjay Badaya, a private individual alleged to be an intermediary for the former Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) Minister—who were implicated in a massive financial scam involving forged IRCON certificates and tender irregularities. Noting that both appellants had already undergone substantial pre-trial detention ( Dixit arrested on February 17, 2026, and Badaya on May 11, 2026), that co-accused individuals including the principal political executive had already been granted bail or protection, and that continued incarceration would serve no fruitful purpose, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and granted regular bail to both appellants subject to specific terms and conditions.

2026 INSC 1065 : Sanjay Badaya v. State of Rajasthan (With Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13461 of 2026 – Shubhanshu Dixit v. State of Rajasthan) (D.O.J. 29.09.2026)

Oral Agreements and Barred Suits: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree

In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court of India addressed the legality of concurrent decrees granting specific performance based solely on an oral agreement. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside both the Trial Court and High Court judgments. The bench held that the subsequent suit for specific performance was fundamentally not maintainable under the rigours of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), because the plaintiff had previously filed and withdrawn a suit for permanent injunction without seeking leave of the court to reserve the claim for specific performance. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the plaintiff failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required to establish a concluded oral contract, noting critical inconsistencies in pleadings, lack of proper corporate authorization, and unencashed advance instruments.

2026 INSC 1066 : Bombay Garage Ahmedabad Limited & Ors. v. JP Iscon Private Ltd. & Anr. (D.O.J. 29.09.2026)

Liberty Overlooked: Supreme Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order and Imposes Costs

In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court of India set aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court and quashed an order of preventive detention issued under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) against the appellant. The bench held that a confessional statement made to a police officer—particularly one alleged to have been extracted under torture and threats of death—cannot form the sole or primary basis for forming subjective satisfaction to sustain preventive detention, as it violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The Court further ruled that the detaining authority relied heavily on undisclosed and unsupplied material (such as missing CCTV footage and erased phone data), and that the detention order was an improper attempt to subvert judicial orders granting bail in regular criminal cases, effectively making the process a punishment. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, ordered the immediate release of the appellant, and imposed costs of Rs. 10 lakhs on the State.

2026 INSC 1067 : Mulla Afroz v. Union of India and Ors. (D.O.J. 29.09.2026)

Supreme Court Overrules Radial Step-Down Model in Land Acquisition Disputes

In this batch of civil appeals filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals filed by landowners, setting aside a 2019 common order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The dispute arose from the acquisition of land across six villages in District Fazilka, Punjab, for the construction of the Aspal Extension Drain (Ditch Canal). The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in adopting an abstract radial “hub-and-spoke” step-down pricing model to reduce land market values based on distance from urban centers. Reaffirming the doctrine of project-wide contiguity and parity, the Court restored the uniform market value of Rs. 5,00,000 per acre determined by the Reference Court. Furthermore, the Court restored the 50% severance charges calculated on the value of remaining unacquired land due to the severe physical barriers created by the massive canal, while upholding the High Court’s restrictions on claiming statutory solatium and additional interest on auxiliary assets like tubewells and fruit-bearing trees.

2026 INSC 1068: Surinder Ahuja & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (D.O.J. 29.09.2026)

Presumption of Valid Service: Dispatching Statutory Notice to Correct Address Satisfies Section 138 NI Act Requirements

The Supreme Court of India set aside a Kerala High Court judgment that had acquitted an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) on the ground that the statutory demand notice was received by the accused’s mother rather than the accused personally. Reaffirming the legal principle established in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, the Supreme Court held that sending a demand notice by registered post to the correct address creates a rebuttable presumption of valid service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Bench declared the previous decision in M.D. Thomas v. P.S. Jaleel as per incuriam and restored the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence.

2026 INSC 1069: Sainaba v. State of Kerala & Anr. (D.O.J. 30.09.2026)

Insolvency and Bankrupty: Supreme Court Rules Fraudulent Initiation Does Not Inevitably Extinguish CIRP Proceedings

The Supreme Court of India held that the Adjudicating Authority (AA/NCLT) possesses the power and jurisdiction to recall the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) when it is established that the Section 9 petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was initiated fraudulently and in collusion with the Corporate Debtor. However, the Court clarified that setting aside the collusive applicant’s petition does not automatically require the absolute termination or recall of the entire CIRP. Because an admitted CIRP transitions into an in rem proceeding involving third-party rights and the collective interest of multiple creditors—including homebuyers—the AA has the discretion to preserve and continue the CIRP by removing the fraudulent applicant and considering the views of the Resolution Professional (RP) and Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order that had completely terminated the CIRP and restored the matter to the NCLT to determine whether the CIRP should continue.

2026 INSC 1070 : Orris Infrastructure Private Limited v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. (D.O.J. 30.09.2026)

Illegality Cannot Claim Sanctity: Supreme Court Quashes Flawed SARFAESI Auction Sale of Hill Resort

The Supreme Court of India set aside an e-auction sale and sale certificate under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, holding that procedural safeguards under Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 are mandatory conditions for the exercise of power by secured creditors. The Court ruled that an auction process conducted in violation of a subsisting tribunal restraint order, without providing the mandatory 30-day notice period to the borrower, and culminating in the issuance of a sale certificate to an entity that was non-existent on the auction date and did not submit a bid, is completely illegal and void. Sanctity of auction sales is a reward of legality, not a substitute for compliance with law.

2026 INSC 1071: Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited v. M/s P.M. Associates & Ors. (D.O.J. 30.09.2026)

Executive Arbitrariness Overruled: Supreme Court Restrains Unilateral Cross-Contractual Bill Deductions Without Natural Justice

The Supreme Court of India held that the State/Employer cannot unilaterally deduct or adjust alleged unadjudicated claims or overpayments pertaining to one contract from payments due to a contractor under separate, distinct, and ongoing contracts without explicit contractual authorization and without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that an unadjudicated claim for overpayment detected during a technical audit remains a disputed claim rather than an admitted, ascertained debt presently due. Therefore, recovering such disputed amounts from separate running contracts—while completely ignoring contractually mandated procedures like giving an opportunity to show cause and obtaining CEO approval—violates public law and natural justice. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court order and directed the immediate refund of ₹84,17,003/- with 6% annual interest.

2026 INSC 1072: M/s Awadhesh Singh Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (D.O.J. 30.09.2026)