Summary Supreme Court July 2026

Supreme Court of India

Summary of July 2026 Judgments 

Recording “Pre-charge evidence”: When an offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Session

In the matter of Neeraj Gupta vs. Pardeep Kumar Bansal & Ors. (2026 INSC 660), the Supreme Court of India clarified that when an offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, a Magistrate is not required to record “pre-charge evidence” under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court held that the High Court erred in remanding the matter to the Magistrate for such evidence, noting that the CrPC has abolished time-consuming committal inquiries to ensure expeditious trials. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed it to re-hear the pending revision petitions on their merits.

2026 INSC 660: Neeraj Gupta V. Pardeep Kumar Bansal & Ors.(D.O.J. 01.07.2026)

MACT: Standardized principles for assessing the annual income of deceased persons

 In the matter of Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. vs. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (2026 INSC 661), the Supreme Court of India established standardized principles for assessing the annual income of deceased persons/claimants when computing “just and fair compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court ruled that while Income Tax Returns (ITRs) are vital, they must be assessed differently based on employment status: for salaried individuals, the previous year’s ITR is generally sufficient, whereas for self-employed individuals, an average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs should be used, alongside consideration of business-specific factors like growth patterns and the nature of the industry.

2026 INSC 661: Rashmirekha Tripathy And Anr. V. Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited And Ors. (D.O.J. 01.07.2026)

Compromise: A lawyer cannot unilaterally conclude substantial legal rights of client without clear instruction.

In the matter of Krishna Kumar Ojha & Ors. vs. Jitendra Chaudhary & Ors. (2026 INSC 662), the Supreme Court of India upheld the decision to set aside a compromise decree dated February 22, 1994, passed in a 1989 partition suit. The Court held that the compromise failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), as it lacked the express authorization or signature of the defendant, and emphasized that a lawyer cannot unilaterally conclude substantial legal rights of a client without clear instruction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed that the partition suit be adjudicated through a full trial.

2026 INSC 662: Krishna Kumar Ojha &Ors. V. Jitendra Chaudhary & Ors. (D.O.J. 01.07.2026)

Balancing the removal of unauthorized encroachments with the protection of vendor livelihoods

In the matter of Malkit Singh and Anr. vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. (2026 INSC 663), the Supreme Court of India issued comprehensive directions to regulate street vending in Chandigarh, aiming to balance the removal of unauthorized encroachments with the protection of vendor livelihoods. The Court mandated that vending zones be made fully operational with basic amenities, security measures like CCTV, and a streamlined appeal process for vendors. Furthermore, the Court quashed the July 17, 2020, notification that had expanded the definition of “Essential Service Providers” (ESP) and extended vending hours, effectively restoring the status quo ante to ensure regulated street usage.

2026 INSC 663: Malkit Singh And Anr. V. State Of U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. (D.O.J. 01.07.2026)

Rejection of Plaint: Rejected on ground of limitation

In the matter of Shobha Vasant Bhoir & Ors. vs. Soni @ Vandana Gurumukhdas Jagiasi & Ors. (2026 INSC 664), the Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal and ordered the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, ruling that the suit was barred by limitation. The Court emphasized that a suit for specific performance based on an unregistered agreement from 1984, filed thirty-eight years later, constitutes an abuse of the judicial process and that courts must proactively “nip in the bud” such fictitious or time-barred litigation to prevent the waste of judicial time.

2026 INSC 664: Shobha Vasant Bhoir & Ors. V. Soni @ Vandana Gurumukhdas Jagiasi & Ors. (D.O.J. 01.07.2026)

Representation of the People Act: Does not apply to municipal elections

In the matter of Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2026 INSC 665), the Supreme Court of India addressed a challenge to a criminal proceeding initiated against an electoral candidate for failing to disclose certain immovable properties owned by her spouse in her election affidavit. The Court clarified that candidates are legally obligated to disclose assets owned by their spouses, and while the trial magistrate erred by taking cognizance solely under the Representation of the People Act (RPA)—which does not apply to municipal elections—this was deemed a curable irregularity under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration of cognizance while affirming that filing a false affidavit in an electoral process is an offense against society requiring investigation.

2026 INSC 665: Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda V. State Of Gujarat & Anr. (D.O.J. 01.07.2026)

Default Bail: Failure to file additional copies of the charge-sheet

In the matter of Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2026 INSC 666), the Supreme Court of India ruled that the failure of the investigating agency to file additional copies of the charge-sheet, as required under Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, does not entitle an accused to “default bail”. The Court clarified that the right to default bail is extinguished the moment a charge-sheet containing the requisite details is filed within the statutory period, and that procedural requirements concerning the supply of copies are directory rather than mandatory for the purpose of defeating a default bail claim.

2026 INSC 666: Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh V. Central Bureau of Investigation (D.O.J. 01.07.2026)

Release of Life Convicts: More liberal policy exists on the date of consideration, convict is entitled to its benefits.

In the matter of Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2026 INSC 667), the Supreme Court of India held that the ‘Policy Regarding Release of Life Convicts 2002’ (2002 Policy) is an exercise of the Governor’s constitutional power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it cannot be superseded or overridden by the statutory ‘Premature Release of Life Convicts 2008’ (2008 Policy) issued under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Consequently, the Court set aside the rejection of the appellant’s remission application, ruling that he is entitled to be considered under the more beneficial 2002 Policy.

2026 INSC 667: Parveen Kumar@ Parveen Chauhan V. State Of Haryana & Ors. (D.O.J. 01.07.2026)

“Fake and hallucinated” legal precedents generated through Artificial Intelligence

In the matter of Pooja Ramesh Singh vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr. (2026 INSC 668), the Supreme Court of India set aside the judgments of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) because they relied upon “fake and hallucinated” legal precedents generated through Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Court declared a “zero-tolerance” policy regarding the use of unverified AI-generated material in judicial proceedings, emphasizing that any decision based on such material is unsustainable and violates the sanctity of the adjudicatory process.

2026 INSC 668: Pooja Ramesh Singh vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr (D.O.J. 02.07.2026)

Will: lliterate testator completely disinherits dependent spouse with whom he had cordial relations in favor of strangers

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment, thereby restoring the decree passed by the Trial Court. A Division Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ruled that the propounder of a Will bears an absolute duty to satisfy the “conscience of the Court” by dispelling all suspicious circumstances. The Court held that when an illiterate testator completely disinherits a dependent spouse with whom he had cordial relations in favor of strangers, and the document contains factual inaccuracies, a high rule of prudence must be applied. Furthermore, the Bench strictly emphasized that satisfying the judicial conscience is a question of fact, and the High Court exceeded its statutory jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by aggressively interfering with sound, concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal.

2026 INSC 669: Sardari Lal V. Bishan Dass&Ors. (D.O.J. 06.07.2026)

Advocate added in caution list of Bank: Provisions not applicable on not for bona fide professional errors or negligence.

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the High Court’s dismissal and declaring the inclusion of the advocate’s name in the Caution List to be impermissible and without jurisdiction. A Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe ruled that writ maintainability under Article 226 focuses on the public nature of the function performed rather than the formal classification of the respondent under Article 12, especially when a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) is infringed. On the merits, the Court clarified that Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circulars issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, authorize a Caution List strictly for fraudulent acts involving mens rea, not for bona fide professional errors or negligence. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils possess exclusive statutory jurisdiction over professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. While striking down the bank’s parallel blacklisting system, the Court directed systemic internal updates: ordering the BCI to conduct a performance audit of its disciplinary mechanisms and to institutionalize a framework for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) alongside a proposed National Legal Academy (NLA).

2026 INSC 670: Ajay Vijh V. Indian Banks Association &Ors. (D.O.J. 07.07.2026)

Eviction: Merger of Bank – Change of tenant without landlord consent

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the eviction decree. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NongmeikapamKotiswar Singh ruled that an amalgamation scheme under Section 45 of the BR Act is purely administrative, not legislative, in nature. The Court held that Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act does not differentiate between voluntary and involuntary transfers; the moment a tenant merges into another entity and divests itself of legal control and physical possession without the landlord’s prior written consent, the ground for eviction is automatically satisfied. PNB was ordered to peacefully vacate the premises by January 31, 2027.

2026 INSC 671: British Motor Car Company (1939) Ltd. V. M/S Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. Since Has Been Merged Into Punjab National Bank &Anr. (D.O.J. 09.07.2026)

Customary Law of Inheritance: Burden of Proof on party claiming custom

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the concurrent judgments and decreeing the plaintiff’s suit. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NongmeikapamKotiswar Singh ruled that under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is fully justified in reversing concurrent findings if they ignore material evidence, suffer from perversity, or cause grave injustice. On the merits, the Court held that a party asserting a specific tribal custom bear the absolute burden of proving it through continuous, long, and consistent usage under Section 48 of the Evidence Act. The Bench determined that while the custom of a father adopting a ghardamad exists, the defendants failed to establish that an uncle-in-law has any right to adopt his niece’s husband as a ghardamad. Consequently, the general rule of Oraon agnatic succession prevails, making the nearest male agnate (the plaintiff) the rightful owner of the estate.

2026 INSC 672: BejlaOraon V. Kali Das Oraon&Ors.(D.O.J. 09.07.2026)

Auction Sale by Bank: Minor procedural omissions not invalidate auction

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the concurrent judgments of the lower courts and upholding the validity of the auction sale. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NongmeikapamKotiswar Singh ruled that the fairness required of a statutory corporation cannot be stretched to disable it from recovering public money from persistent defaulters. The Court held that minor procedural omissions, such as the absence of a formal valuation report, do not automatically vitiate a confirmed auction sale in the absence of concrete proof of fraud, collusion, or material prejudice. Highlighting that the auction purchaser had been in settled possession of the property for three decades, the Bench declared that crystallized statutory property rights should not be lightly unsettled.

2026 INSC 673: Bihar State Financial Corporation &Anr. V. Bhushan Singh &Ors. (D.O.J. 09.07.2026)

Commercial Courts: Expedite business litigation – Procedural timelines to be strictly construed.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s rejection. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NongmeikapamKotiswar Singh ruled that the CCA is an economic experiment designed to expedite business litigation and improve the “ease of doing business” in India, requiring its procedural timelines to be strictly construed. The Court held that under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC, a plaintiff must establish a genuine “reasonable cause” for the non-disclosure of documents at the time of filing the suit. Voluminous records, poor management, or a tactical desire to counter points raised during cross-examination do not constitute a reasonable cause. The Bench strictly prohibited a “piecemeal” or “stop and go” approach to commercial trials and clarified that under Section 15 of the CCA, the strict amended provisions of the CPC retrospectively apply to all pending suits transferred to commercial divisions.

2026 INSC 674: M/S. Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. V. M/S. Standard Chartered Bank &Anr. (D.O.J. 09.07.2026)

POCSO: FIR Against School Headmistress Valid – Strict interpretations of mandatory reporting obligations

In Linda Sema&Ors. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh &Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 675, decided on July 9, 2026], the Supreme Court of India adjudicated a critical criminal appeal regarding the strict interpretations of the mandatory reporting obligations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The dispute arose from a 2020 FIR filed by the mother of an 8-year-old girl, alleging that the child was sexually assaulted by a senior juvenile student at her school in November 2019. Although the child immediately reported the assault to a minor head girl, who then notified the school’s Headmistress, the school management conducted a private “verification exercise” and chose not to inform the police or the parents because they found no visible injuries or eyewitnesses. The Trial Court and the Gauhati High Court concurrently discharged all the school officials—including the Principal, Headmistress, and teachers—from offenses under Sections 176/201/120B of the IPC and Section 21 of the POCSO Act, concluding that the lack of visible signs meant the officials lacked the requisite “knowledge” or “reason to believe” a crime had occurred.

2026 INSC 675: Aaa V. Linda Sema&Ors. (D.O.J. 09.07.2026)

Service Law: Tribunals cannot issue a mandamus substituting their own assessments to direct promotions.

In Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research &Ors. v. Anil Earnest [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 677, decided on July 10, 2026], the Supreme Court of India adjudicated a civil appeal concerning the judicial review of promotion assessment procedures executed by an expert body under the CSIR Scientists Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2001. The dispute arose when the respondent, a scientist eligible for promotion to Senior Scientist, was graded “Not yet Fit for Promotion” by the Assessment Committee in 2016 because his ‘Work Report’ score of 82% fell below the mandatory 85% suitability threshold, despite his Annual Performance/PMS scores averaging an “Outstanding” 92.1%. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Karnataka High Court concurrently intervened, interpreting the rules to mean that the final evaluation score must be a mathematical average of both the annual performance marks and the ‘Work Report’ marks—a combination that would push the respondent above the 85% line.

2026 INSC 677: Director General, Council of Scientific And Industrial Research &Ors.  V. Anil Earnest (D.O.J. 10.07.2026)

Security deposits carry no interest, is a valid term: But delay in refund will carry interest

Supreme Court held that Clause 19 of the contract, which stipulates that security deposits carry no interest, is a valid and binding commercial term. However, the Court further clarified that while the State is not liable to pay interest on the security deposit during the currency of the contract, it is obligated to refund the deposit within three months of the contract’s determination. If the State retains the security deposit beyond this three-month period, the contractor becomes entitled to interest on that amount.

2026 INSC 678: State of Haryana & Ors. vs. M/s. Jai Durgaa Finvest P. Ltd. (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Constitutional validity of rules to compute mining royalties held valid

Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Explanation to Rule 38 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, and Rule 45(8)(a) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017. The Court affirmed that including payments made towards royalty, District Mineral Foundation (DMF), and National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) in the “average sale price” (ASP) calculation—which serves as the basis for calculating royalty—is a valid legislative measure to check tax evasion and under-invoicing in the mining sector.

2026 INSC 679: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

SEBI Penalty Upheld: Regulatory compliance is mandatory regardless of whether a violation results in profit or loss to investors,

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company Limited (KOTAK AMC), Kotak Mahindra Trustee Company Limited, and their senior executives, upholding the Securities Appellate Tribunal’s (Tribunal) order. The Court held that the appellants failed to exercise due diligence in investing in debt securities of the ESSEL Group, violated the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, by failing to redeem close-ended schemes upon maturity, and provided inadequate disclosures. The Court emphasized that regulatory compliance is mandatory regardless of whether a violation results in profit or loss to investors, and upheld the penalties imposed by SEBI.

2026 INSC 681: Nilesh Shah & Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr. (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Land Acquisition held valid: Objections by land owners and hearing were substantially complied

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the landowners and upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, which had validated the land acquisition process initiated by the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited (JMRCL) and the State of Rajasthan under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court affirmed that the procedural requirements of Section 5A of the Act—which grants landowners the right to file objections and receive a hearing—were substantially complied with, and that the authorities had not acted in violation of these mandatory statutory provisions.

2026 INSC 682: Alok Kotahwala & Ors. v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Ors. (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Refusal to refund the premium paid for unutilized additional Floor Space Index held arbitrary, discriminatory

The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the authorities’ refusal to refund the premium paid for unutilized additional Floor Space Index (FSI) was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court ordered the refund of the premium amount, along with simple interest at 7% per annum, noting that the state cannot justify withholding funds paid for a benefit that was never utilized.

2026 INSC 683: Prasad Pandurang Tapkir and another vs. The Assistant Director of Town Planning, Pune District, Pune and others (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Plaintiff is mandatorily bound by the 120-day time limit to file a written statement – Order not appealable

The Supreme Court of India held that in commercial suits governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a plaintiff is mandatorily bound by the 120-day time limit (30 days ordinarily, extendable to 120 days for sufficient cause) to file a written statement to a defendant’s counter-claim. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an order denying leave to file such a belated written statement is not appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, as it is not an order enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

2026 INSC 684: A.K. Ghosh & Company and others v. Biman Bose and others (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Chain of circumstantial evidence not complete: Wife acquited in Husband Murder Case

The Supreme Court of India upheld the acquittal of the respondents regarding charges of murder (Section 302) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), citing the prosecution’s failure to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. However, the Court confirmed the conviction of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC for causing the disappearance of evidence, as they were caught red-handed transporting the victim’s body.

2026 INSC 685: State of Maharashtra v. Monika Kiran Suryawanshi & Ors. (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Mere recovery of firearms from house does not automatically establish the house owner’s “conscious possession”

The Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court’s acquittal of the respondent (Jagdish Lakra), ruling that mere recovery of incriminating items like a firearm from a house occupied by members of an extremist organization (MCC) does not automatically establish the house owner’s “conscious possession” or “dominion” over the weapon. The Court recognized the social reality in regions like Jharkhand, where villagers are often coerced by extremist groups to provide shelter under threat of violence, and thus declined to disturb the High Court’s findings that the respondent lacked voluntary intent.

2026 INSC 686: State of Jharkhand v. Jagdish Lakra (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

No insolvency proceedings on base of recovery certificate issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal

The Supreme Court held that a recovery certificate issued by a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the pre-amended Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy (RDB) Act does not constitute a “decree or order” for the purpose of initiating insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency Act. Consequently, the Court affirmed that such a certificate cannot serve as the basis for serving an “insolvency notice” against a debtor.

2026 INSC 688: H.D.F.C. Bank Limited vs. Kishore K. Mehta (Dead) Thr. LRS. (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Service Law: Disability during service – Mandatory duty on employers to provide reasonable accommodation.

The Supreme Court upheld the reinstatement of a CRPF Constable who had become visually impaired during service, ruling that the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) Act, 1995, imposes a mandatory duty on employers to provide reasonable accommodation. The Court rejected the employer’s contention that the respondent had waived his rights by accepting disability pension, affirming that the protection under Section 47 of the PwD Act is a statutory mandate that cannot be bypassed by procedural technicalities or subsequent retrospective exemption notifications.

2026 INSC 689: Union of India & Ors. vs. Bali Ram (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

State has power to increase royalty and dead rent rates during the subsistence of a mining lease.

The Supreme Court of India upheld the State’s power to increase royalty and dead rent rates during the subsistence of a mining lease. The Court ruled that mining leases are statutory grants governed by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and the relevant rules, meaning the State’s power to revise rates under these statutes is an implied condition of the lease, even if not explicitly stated in the deed. Additionally, the Court held that the decision to enhance these rates was valid, as it was approved by the Chief Minister and did not violate the Rules of Business of the Government of Haryana, 1977.

2026 INSC 690: State of Haryana & Ors. vs. M/s Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals & Anr. (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Service Law: No relief when appointments were made in violation of established rules

In the case of various petitioners v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court of India adjudicated a batch of 49 writ petitions filed by over 350 teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized and aided madrasahs in West Bengal who alleged they were deprived of legitimate service benefits. The Court rejected the claims of all petitioners, concluding that the appointments were made in violation of established recruitment rules, lacked transparency, and, in several instances, involved fraudulent or ante-dated documentation. The Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a valid appointment process and that the State holds no liability to pay salary or arrears to individuals whose appointments were illegal and void ab initio.

2026 INSC 691: Najma Khatun & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Failure of a Children’s Court to pass a reasoned order That child should be tried as an adult is a fatal procedural lapse that vitiates the trial

The Supreme Court held that the failure of a Children’s Court to pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) regarding whether a child in conflict with law (CICL) should be tried as an adult is a fatal procedural lapse that vitiates the trial. While the Juvenile Justice Board had performed the preliminary assessment required by Section 15, the subsequent trial by the Children’s Court without a formal determination under Section 19(1) rendered the conviction and sentence unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

2026 INSC 692: Sagar vs. The State of Haryana (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Sales tax exemption retrospectively withdrawal held valid: No penality on retrospective transactions

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of a retrospective amendment to the Karnataka Sales Tax (KST) Act, which limited a previously granted sales tax exemption on “sugar” to only that which was “produced or manufactured in India”. While affirming the State’s legislative competence to impose this retrospective tax liability, the Court ruled that it would be inequitable to impose penalties and interest for the period preceding the amendment, as the assessees had acted in good faith under the law as it stood at the time of the original transactions.

2026 INSC 693: Asia Sugar & Chemical Co. v. State of Karnataka & Ors (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Foreigners Tribunal: Tribunal under obligation to conduct a proper inquiry, examine State evidence, and record a reasoned opinion

Supreme Court ruled that a mechanical declaration of a person as a “foreigner” by a Foreigners Tribunal—rendered without a meaningful, fair, and lawful adjudication—cannot be sustained, even when the proceedings are ex parte. While acknowledging that Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, places the burden of proof on the proceedee, the Court held that this does not relieve the Tribunal of its own obligation to conduct a proper inquiry, examine State evidence, and record a reasoned opinion based on facts. Consequently, the Court set aside the ex parte opinions in the subject cases and remanded them to the respective Tribunals for a fresh adjudication in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

2026 INSC 694: Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Husband acquited in 25 year old case: Credibility of Defense Evidence

Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, who had been convicted for marital cruelty and dowry death, after spending 25 years in the legal system. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were “soulless reiterations” of dowry demands contradicted by credible defense evidence, including proof of joint investments and medical records. The Court further emphasized that trial courts must approach defense evidence with the same attention as prosecution evidence and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must inure to the accused.

2026 INSC 695: Brajesh Kumar @ Birjesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

MACT: Cases must be decided on “preponderance of probability” rather than strict standard of “beyond reasonable doubt,

Supreme Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court, which had erroneously dismissed compensation claims by relying on suspect, late-produced photographs of the accident scene. The Supreme Court held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the tanker, which was parked on a public road at night without any warning signals or hazard indicators. Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur and emphasizing that motor accident compensation cases must be decided on the “preponderance of probability” rather than the strict standard of “beyond reasonable doubt,” the Court awarded just and fair compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.

2026 INSC 696: Manju Singh vs. Avinash Singh & Ors. (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Hindu Succession: Right to Pre-emption held valid

Supreme Court of India upheld the applicability of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) to agricultural land, affirming that it confers a valid preferential right to Class-I legal heirs to acquire inherited property over outsiders. The Court clarified that Section 22 of the HSA is distinct from the now-invalidated Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, because it is rooted in the law of succession, falling under Entry 5 of List III of the Constitution rather than being a general, unconstitutional restriction on property transfer.

2026 INSC 698: Mahinder & Others v. Puran Singh (D.O.J. 14.07.2026)

Service Law: Recruitment authority has the discretion to prescribe minimum qualifying marks for interviews

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Manoj Goyal, affirming the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to uphold the recruitment process for Additional District Judges conducted under the 2011 amended rules. The Court ruled that candidates who participate in a selection process without protest are estopped from challenging the rules after being declared unsuccessful. Furthermore, the Court held that the recruitment authority has the discretion to prescribe minimum qualifying marks for interviews to ensure the suitability of candidates for high judicial office, and that the Shetty Commission’s recommendations are guidelines rather than rigid statutory mandates.

2026 INSC 699: Manoj Goyal v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (D.O.J. 14.07.2026)

Specific Performance: – Aggrement to Sell – Clause for refund of earnest money not a bar

The Supreme Court of India set aside the judgment of the High Court, affirming that a clause in an Agreement to Sell providing for the refund of earnest money in the event of default does not automatically bar a decree for specific performance. The Court held that such a clause is a consequence of non-performance rather than an alternative option for the defaulting party, and it cautioned that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by disturbing concurrent findings of fact without establishing perversity.

2026 INSC 700: Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar (D.O.J. 14.07.2026)

Arbitration Award : Jurisdictional objections should be addressed through the statutory remedy provided under Section 34

The Supreme Court of India set aside the interim order dated 02.09.2025 and the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Gauhati High Court, ruling that a Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable against an Arbitral Tribunal’s decision rejecting a jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court reaffirmed that the Act mandates minimal judicial interference and that jurisdictional objections should be addressed through the statutory remedy provided under Section 34 of the Act following the final award, unless a “patent lack of inherent jurisdiction” is evident.

2026 INSC 701: Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. M/s Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited & Ors. (D.O.J. 14.07.2026)

PMLA: Case transfered to Delhi: Concealment of “proceeds of crime” occurred in Delhi

The Supreme Court of India ordered the transfer of a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) prosecution from the Special Judge in Gurugram, Haryana, to the Special Judge (PMLA), Saket Court Complex, Delhi. While rejecting the petitioner’s request to quash the prosecution, the Court held that because part of the offence—specifically the concealment of “proceeds of crime”—occurred in Delhi and the related scheduled offence had already been transferred to Delhi, it was expedient for the ends of justice to consolidate the proceedings in the same jurisdiction.

2026 INSC 702: Summary of Judgment: Amit Katyal v. Union of India & Anr. (D.O.J. 14.07.2026)

Evidence Act, Section 68: Registered Sale deed do not require compulsury attestation

The Supreme Court of India set aside the High Court of Kerala’s judgment in a Second Appeal, ruling that the High Court failed to fulfill the mandatory statutory requirement under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to formulate and answer substantial questions of law. The Supreme Court further clarified that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting that Section 68—which pertains to documents required by law to be attested—is inapplicable to registered sale deeds, as they do not require compulsory attestation. The matter has been remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration.

2026 INSC 703: R.Veronica & Anr. v. Rudrayani Devaki (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. (D.O.J. 14.07.2026)

MACT: Apportionment of enhanced compensation

In M. Sabitha and Ors. v. Brahma Swamulu and Anr. (2026 INSC 704), the Supreme Court allowed a Miscellaneous Application to rectify an omission in its previous judgment regarding the apportionment of enhanced compensation among the claimants. The Court clarified the distribution of the enhanced award amount following the death of the 4th appellant (the mother of the deceased) and ordered the full disbursement of funds to the surviving claimants, noting that the children of the deceased have now attained the age of majority.

2026 INSC 704: Sabitha and Ors. v. Brahma Swamulu and Anr. (D.O.J. 14.07.2026)

Rectification of conveyance cannot be done in the absence of the original transferor’s participation.

In Venkatesha and Anr. v. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. (2026 INSC 705), the Supreme Court set aside the High Court and First Appellate Court’s judgments, restoring the Trial Court’s decree that dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title and injunction. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the identity of the suit property, specifically failing to prove that Survey No. 1/4 (conveyed in sale deeds) and Survey No. 162 were the same property. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a rectification deed cannot unilaterally alter the essential subject matter of a prior conveyance without the participation of the original transferor.

2026 INSC 705: Venkatesha and Anr. v. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. (D.O.J. 14.07.2026)

The Ballot Box Clash: Sudden Fight and Culpable Homicide

This appeal arose from a cross-firing and violent clash between two rival groups during a Parent-Teacher Association school election in Madhya Pradesh. The appellant, Mehmood Khan, was initially convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder by the trial court, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the single stab wound inflicted during a sudden, unpremeditated election altercation constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Apex Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, noting the absence of an intention to cause death, and sentenced the appellant to the period already undergone.

2026 INSC 706: Mehmood Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(D.O.J.18.07.2026)

Conviction set aside in 41 years old murder case – Highly Unusual Circumstances

Supreme Court set aside the conviction and life sentences of the accused-appellants, acquitting them of all charges. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as the foundational narrative regarding the timing and manner of the occurrence was significantly undermined by “highly unusual circumstances” and serious investigative lapses, leading to the conclusion that the First Information Report (FIR) was a post-investigation document.

2026 INSC 707: Deo Prasad and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (D.O.J. 15.07.2026)

Limitation: Probate of a Will is a “continuous right”

Supreme Court held that an application for the probate of a Will is a “continuous right” and is not subject to an absolute three-year limitation period starting from the date of the testator’s death. The Court further clarified that questions regarding the limitation of a probate application and the potential “suspicious” nature of a Will cannot be adjudicated summarily under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), as these constitute mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence.

2026 INSC 708: Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjay Bhardwaj v. Krishnadhan Khaware and Ors (D.O.J. 15.07.2026)

High Court failed to provide a reasoned, transparent judgment in its capacity as final court of fact

Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment that had overturned a civil court’s partition decree regarding the execution of a Will. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to provide a reasoned, transparent judgment in its capacity as the final court of fact and improperly included disparaging remarks against the trial judge, directing the first appeal to be heard afresh.

2026 INSC 709: Lakshmi. v. Gopi & Ors (D.O.J. 15.07.2026)

Service Law: Compassionate Appointment – Employer cannot rely on its own administrative delays

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment that had upheld the denial of a compassionate appointment. The Court ruled that an employer cannot rely on its own administrative delays—specifically, failing to process an application for medical retirement filed before the employee reached the age of 55—to later reject a dependent’s claim for compassionate appointment on the grounds that the employee crossed the age threshold while the application was pending.

2026 INSC 710: Rahul S/o. Ramnarayan Madankar & Anr. v. The New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. (D.O.J. 16.07.2026)

Railway Claim: Failure to prove initial quantity loaded- No liability for the alleged shortage

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court, which denied the appellant’s claim for compensation due to a reported shortage of salt bags during transit. The Court affirmed that because the goods were booked at “owner’s risk” with a “said to contain” railway receipt—and because the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the initial quantity loaded—the railway administration could not be held liable for the alleged shortage.

2026 INSC 711: M/S Bajaj Trading Company v. Union of India  (D.O.J. 16.07.2026)

Second Appeal: Interference in findings of fact

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment, restoring the First Appellate Court’s original order. The Court ruled that the High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 by setting aside findings of fact that were arrived at by a competent civil court after a proper appreciation of evidence. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the High Court violated the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, by deciding the writ petition ex parte without notifying or hearing the appellants, whose property rights were directly impacted by the decision.

2026 INSC 712: Basamma & Anr. v. Goparappa and Ors. (D.O.J. 16.07.2026)

Compassionate release of elderly (above 70 years) and terminally ill prisoners – Directions issued

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing that incarceration does not extinguish the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court directed all States and Union Territories to formulate comprehensive, time-bound policies for the early or compassionate release of elderly (above 70 years) and terminally ill prisoners. These policies must be integrated with the National e-Prisons Portal to ensure transparency, accountability, and the effective involvement of Under Trial Review Committees (UTRCs) and medical boards.

2026 INSC 713: National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & Ors.  (D.O.J. 16.07.2026)

Railway: Establishing Liability in Untoward Railway Incidents

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent dismissal of a compensation claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Court held that when a passenger dies in an “untoward incident” (falling from a running train), the absence of a recovered ticket does not automatically negate the status of a bona fide passenger. Emphasizing the “no-fault liability” principle under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Court ruled that once the claimant establishes the foundational facts through an affidavit, the burden shifts to the Railways. Technical lapses and the inability to recover personal belongings should not defeat the humanitarian and welfare objectives of the legislation.

2026 INSC 715: Lata v. Union of India & Anr. – (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

Excluding Nominated Members from Local Authority Elections

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Karnataka’s decision to exclude nominated members of Town Panchayats from participating in Legislative Council elections for Local Authorities’ Constituencies. The Court ruled that under the constitutional framework established by the 74th Amendment (Part IX-A), nominated members, who serve only in an advisory capacity, lack the democratic mandate of elected representatives. Consequently, their inclusion in the electoral roll was declared unconstitutional, and the Court affirmed the direction to conduct a recount of votes after segregating the invalid votes cast by these nominated members.

2026 INSC 716: Pranesh M.K. v. Shanthegowda & Ors. – (D.O.J. 16.07.2026)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy: Finality of Resolution Plans and Extinguishment of Sub-judice Claims

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (Appellant-SRA), ruling that upon the approval of a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), all claims—including those pending adjudication (sub-judice)—that are not specifically provided for in the plan stand extinguished. The Court held that the “clean slate” doctrine is fundamental to the IBC, preventing unresolved or contingent claims from resurfacing and undermining the revival of the corporate debtor. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court orders and dismissed the civil suit and arbitration proceedings initiated by operational creditors, affirming that they are bound by the terms of the approved Resolution Plan.

2026 INSC 717: M/S Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha & Anr. (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

Admissibility of Deceased Witness Testimony Against Absconding Accused

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of West Bengal, ruling that the deposition of a deceased witness recorded in an earlier trial is admissible in a subsequent trial against an absconding accused, provided the requirements of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are met. The Court clarified that the provision serves to preserve evidence when an accused deliberately absconds, preventing them from benefiting from the unavailability of material witnesses due to the passage of time. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, which had denied the admission of the victim’s testimony, confirming that the statutory preconditions—the accused absconding and no immediate prospect of arrest—were satisfied at the time the witness deposed.

2026 INSC 718: The State of West Bengal v. Kader Khan – (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

Obscenity: Defining the Boundaries of Criminal Liability for Verbal Altercations

The Supreme Court of India partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 294(b) (obscene acts/words) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while maintaining the conviction under Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) with a modified sentence. The Court clarified that mere use of abusive, vulgar, or profane language does not equate to “obscenity” under Section 294(b) IPC unless the words are shown to be lascivious, appealing to prurient interests, and tending to deprave or corrupt. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that for criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, there must be clear intent to cause alarm or compel an act, which was not established in this instance.

2026 INSC 719: Mani @ Subramaniyam v. State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (D.O.J. 16.07.2026)

Doctrine of Proportionality in Sentencing for Heinous Crimes

In this appeal, the Supreme Court of India examined the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant-convict, who was convicted under Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code (gang rape) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. While refusing to interfere with the conviction, the Court focused on whether the sentence met the doctrine of proportionality. Considering the appellant’s young age (25 at the time of the offense), lack of criminal antecedents, and good conduct during incarceration, the Court modified the sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of remission.

2026 INSC 720: Ehsaan v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi-(D.O.J. 20.07.2026)

Liability of Insurers for Accidents Occurring Outside India

In this appeal, the Supreme Court of India examined whether an insurance company is liable to indemnify an insured for an accident occurring in Nepal, despite the insurer’s argument that the policy was geographically limited to India and that no additional premium had been paid to extend coverage. The Court held that because the vehicle held a valid “special permit” issued under the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) authorizing travel to Nepal, the “Limitations as to Use” clause in the insurance policy provided the necessary coverage. The Court affirmed that the non-obstante clause in Section 147(5) of the MVA imposes a mandatory duty on insurers to indemnify the insured for liabilities the policy purports to cover, regardless of regulatory constraints like the India Motor Tariff (IMT), and directed the immediate disbursement of compensation to the accident victims.

2026 INSC 722: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durg Roadways Private Limited & Ors.-(D.O.J. 20.07.2026)

Fueling Service Tax: The Legality of CNG Distribution and Principal-gent Dynamics

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether the activities undertaken by public sector oil companies (BPCL and HPCL) in selling Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) supplied by Mahanagar Gas Limited (MGL) through their retail petrol pump outlets qualify as a “Business Auxiliary Service” under the Finance Act, 1994, thereby attracting service tax liability. Setting aside the common order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which had favored the oil corporations, the Supreme Court held that the contractual arrangement between MGL and the respondent-Corporations creates a “Principal-Agent” relationship rather than an outright “Principal-to-Principal” sale. Consequently, the Court ruled that the profit margins or commissions received by BPCL and HPCL constitute consideration for marketing and promotional services rendered as commission agents, making them fully liable to pay service tax.

2026 INSC 723: Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai v. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Etc.(D.O.J. 20.07.2026)

The Perjury Threshold: Evaluating Wrong Statements in Pleadings

This criminal appeal examined the legality of initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against a litigant and his counsel for alleged false statements made in a memorandum of appeal and a stay application. The trial court had directed the filing of a complaint under Sections 193, 199, and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on a prima facie finding that “wrong statements” had been made, which the High Court subsequently upheld. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside both orders, ruling that inadvertent typographical errors or “wrong statements” do not equate to “false statements” carrying a deliberate intent to deceive. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that initiation of Section 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings requires a clear recording of satisfaction that an inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice to protect the administration of justice, rather than acting on mere inaccuracies.

2026 INSC 724: Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram and Another v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar and Another(D.O.J. 21.07.2026)

Two Decades of Legal Ordeal: Rectifying Arbitrary Penalties and Securing Service Benefits in the CRPF

This civil appeal arose from a deeply protracted service dispute where a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) officer’s career, initiated in 1986, was severely derailed by administrative apathy, flawed departmental procedures, and prolonged litigation spanning over twenty-five years. After being terminated following disciplinary proceedings, facing multiple rounds of remands, and enduring a second arbitrary termination order based on a flawed bureaucratic interpretation of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) advice, the High Court eventually intervened to protect the officer’s minor penalty decision. However, subsequent review Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) failed to correctly restore his seniority and back wages, driving the appellant back to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the minor penalty must relate back to the initial termination date, ensuring proper notional promotions, back wages, recalculated retirement benefits, and a cost payment of ₹10 lakhs to bring closure to the quarter-century litigation.

2026 INSC 725: Prakash Kumar Dixit v. Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors.(D.O.J. 21.07.2026)

Acquittal in Circumstantial Murder Case: Supreme Court Rules on Fatal Motorcycle Accident vs. Homicide

The Supreme Court of India allowed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants, setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court which had convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Apex Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The Court concluded that the medical evidence, the presence of a damaged motorcycle with human blood, and unproven motives strongly pointed toward the death being the result of a motorcycle accident rather than a homicidal act.

2026 INSC 726: Didar Singh @ Dari v. The State of Haryana(D.O.J. 14.07.2026)

 Unjustified Delays and Procedural Lapses: Supreme Court Quashes Decades-Old FERA Prosecution Against Standard Chartered Bank

This criminal appeal challenges a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay, which had declined to quash criminal complaints and summoning orders issued against Standard Chartered Bank and its officer under Sections 56(1) and 73(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. It held that the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 397 of the CrPC does not bar a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. Furthermore, the Court ruled that non-compliance with the mandatory pre-condition of issuing an opportunity notice under Section 61(2) of FERA vitiates the cognizance taken by the Magistrate, and that an inordinate, unexplained prosecution delay of over three decades violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2026 INSC 727: Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. v. Enforcement Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.(D.O.J. 21.07.2026)

Navigating Juvenile Justice: Supreme Court Clarifies Preliminary Assessments and Heinous Offence Classifications

This criminal appeal arose from a judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which had dismissed the appellant’s revision application and affirmed the lower appellate court’s order directing the Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board) to transfer the trial to the Children’s Court for the appellant to be tried as an adult. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an offence under Section 302 of the IPC (carrying a punishment of death or imprisonment for life) prescribes life imprisonment as its minimum punishment and must therefore be classified as a “heinous offence”. The Court further clarified that the expert assistance provision under Section 101(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is directory/discretionary rather than mandatory, and emphasized that the JJ Board must independently evaluate all statutory parameters along with the Social Investigation and Social Background Reports during a preliminary assessment.

2026 INSC 728: X v. State of Bihar & Anr.(D.O.J. 21.07.2026)

Upholding Conviction While Modifying Sentence: Supreme Court Rules on NDPS Act Procedural Compliance and Sentencing

The Supreme Court of India addressed an appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, which convicted the appellant under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for carrying 100 grams of smack concealed in a water bottle. While the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s arguments regarding the non-compliance of Sections 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act and hostile independent witnesses, it partly allowed the appeal solely on the quantum of sentence, reducing the rigorous imprisonment from 14 years down to the unamended statutory minimum of 10 years.

2026 INSC 729: Mehboob Shah v. State of Madhya Pradesh(D.O.J. 21.07.2026)

Supreme Court Restores Eviction Decree: Revisional Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence and Substitute Concurrent Findings

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment which had reversed concurrent eviction orders passed against the respondent-tenant. The Apex Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by reappreciating evidence, re-examining facts, and interfering with concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority regarding the landlord’s bona fide requirement.

2026 INSC 730: Madan Mohan (Dead) Through LRs. v. Thakar Dass (Dead) Thr. LRs.(D.O.J. 21.07.2026)

Supreme Court Affirms Settlement Terms: Income-Linked Maintenance Ceases Upon Full Lump-Sum Payment

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal filed by the appellant-wife, thereby affirming the concurrent judgments of the Family Court and the High Court. The Apex Court held that under a true and harmonious construction of Clauses 8, 9, and 10 of the mutual settlement petition, the interim income-linked maintenance obligation (Clause 9) automatically ceased and stood satisfied upon the full payment of the agreed lump-sum amount of Rupees Two Crore Twenty Lakhs (Clauses 8 and 10). The Court ruled that execution proceedings cannot be used to rewrite or alter the clear terms of a concluded consent decree.

2026 INSC 731: Vijayalakshmi R. v. C. L. Balaji (D.O.J. 21.07.2026)

Supreme Court Demolishes Intra-Court Appeal Bar: Clarifies Scope of Articles 226 and 227 and Decries “Bench-Hunting”

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the Division Bench, Single Judge, and State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) orders which had gone against the appellant-transport operator. The Apex Court held that the Division Bench committed a grave error of law by dismissing an intra-court appeal on the ground of maintainability under the misconception that a challenge to a tribunal’s order falls exclusively under Article 227 rather than Article 226 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court clarified the wide amplitude of writ jurisdictions, ruled on stage carriage permit allocations under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and issued systemic guidelines to High Courts to curb the menace of “bench-hunting”.

2026 INSC 733: Ajit Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

Trial Judgment & Appellate Proceedings Summary: Samleti Bus Bomb Blast Case

This batch of criminal appeals arises from a protracted legal battle spanning nearly three decades concerning a devastating terrorist bomb blast that occurred on May 22, 1996, inside a Rajasthan Roadways bus near Samleti village. The explosion resulted in the tragic deaths of fourteen innocent passengers, injuries to thirty-seven others, and substantial destruction of public property. The prosecution alleged that the bombing was part of a larger, pre-planned terrorist conspiracy hatched by operatives of the Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF) and Harkat-ul-Ansar. Across the multi-layered judicial proceedings, Accused No. 9 (Dr. Abdul Hameed) and Accused No. 12 (Pappu @ Salim) faced rigorous prosecution, conviction, and sentencing. While the trial court and the High Court concurrently found Dr. Abdul Hameed guilty of planting the explosive device and affirmed his death sentence, several co-accused individuals were ultimately acquitted due to a lack of direct, substantive, and independent corroborative evidence.

2026 INSC 734: Dr. Abdul Hameed v. State of Rajasthan (D.O.J.21.07.2026)

Upholding the Presumption of Innocence: The Limits of Interference in Concurrent Acquittals

The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution challenging the judgment of the Patna High Court. The High Court had earlier affirmed the trial court’s acquittal of Respondent No. 2 (Nakul Prasad @ Nakul Yadav) for offenses punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Apex Court held that concurrent findings of acquittal do not warrant interference unless proven to be perverse, manifestly illegal, or resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice, as the prosecution failed to eliminate reasonable doubts arising from medical discrepancies, hostile independent witnesses, and reliance primarily on interested testimonies.

2026 INSC 735: Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Anr.(D.O.J. 21.07.2026)

The Mirage of Motor Accidents: When Murder and Mobility Fail to Meet

The Supreme Court of India allowed the civil appeals filed by the appellant, setting aside the concurrent decisions of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court that had awarded compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Apex Court held that for compensation to be claimable under the Motor Vehicles Act, a clear causal relationship (“arising out of the use of a motor vehicle”) must be established between the use of the vehicle and the resulting injury or death. In this case, although the victim was last seen in the appellant’s car before being found murdered days later, the complete absence of forensic links or evidence connecting the vehicle to the fatal injuries rendered the motor accident claim legally unsustainable.

2026 INSC 736: Dilip Agarwal v. Rajshri Agarwal & Ors. (D.O.J. 22.07.2026)

Statutory Shield for Occupants: Supreme Court Upholds Redevelopment Entitlements and PAAA Enforcement

This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding the enforcement of a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) executed during the redevelopment of a cessed building under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHAD Act) and Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 (DC Regulations). The Supreme Court examined whether a developer can renege on a statutory redevelopment agreement and challenge an occupant’s long-standing status after obtaining vacant possession. The Court held that the High Court erred in treating the PAAA as a purely private arrangement not amenable to writ jurisdiction, and firmly established that developers cannot unilaterally disown statutory obligations or validly executed alternate accommodation pacts due to internal partnership disputes or management changes.

2026 INSC 737: Mrs. Mahabanoo Contractor and Anr. v. M/s. Kalikund Developers and Ors. (D.O.J. 23.07.2026)

Determining the Yardstick: Supreme Court Upholds Anticipated Royalty for Stamp Duty Calculation on Mining Leases

This civil appeal arose from a dispute over whether the stamp duty for a limestone mining lease granted by the State of Madhya Pradesh should be calculated based on the “dead rent” or the “anticipated royalty”. The appellant, M/S Birla Corporation Limited, challenged a demand notice requiring them to pay stamp duty based on anticipated royalty, arguing instead that stamp duty should be pegged to dead rent. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, appropriately handles instruments with indeterminate values at execution, and its proviso specifically authorizes the Collector to estimate royalty for mining leases. Because the statutory Form-K lease signed by the parties explicitly utilizes anticipated royalty as the metric, and since the state’s notification safeguarding government revenue is valid, the calculation based on anticipated royalty stands.

 2026 INSC 738: M/S Birla Corporation Limited Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (D.O.J. 23.07.2026)

Upgrading the Guard Cadre: Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of MACPS and Counts Promotional Hierarchy for Financial Progression

This batch of civil appeals, led by Union of India’s challenge against retired Mail/Express Guard Harbans Lal Verma, addressed whether internal promotions within the Indian Railways Guard cadre should be counted for financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS). The respondent had advanced through the Guard hierarchy—from Goods Guard to Passenger Guard and ultimately to Mail/Express Guard—while the Sixth Central Pay Commission compressed multiple pre-revised scales into a uniform Grade Pay of Rs. 4200. Lower tribunals and the Rajasthan High Court had ruled in favor of the employees, granting MACP upgradations to Grade Pay Rs. 4600 and Rs. 4800. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that functional promotions within the same Grade Pay must be counted under Paragraph 8 of the MACPS, and that an employee cannot receive an upgrade exceeding the promotional ceiling of their cadre. However, the Court protected the employees from any recovery of benefits already disbursed.

2026 INSC 739: Union of India and Others Versus Harbans Lal Verma (D.O.J. 23.07.2026)

 Navigating Multiple Cyber Fraud FIRs: Jurisdiction, Distinct Transactions, and the Limits of Article 32

The Supreme Court of India addressed a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the quashing of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered across different States (Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Odisha) or, alternatively, their clubbing and consolidation under a single investigating agency. The FIRs involved allegations of cyber fraud where victims were duped into transferring money into a bank account belonging to the petitioner’s proprietary concern. The Court held that a writ petition under Article 32 directly before the Supreme Court is not an appropriate substitute for remedies available under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 before the High Court, especially when no fundamental right violation or exceptional circumstance is established. Furthermore, the Court declined to club the FIRs, ruling that distinct offences involving different complainants, separate transactions, and independent timelines cannot be amalgamated merely because a similar modus operandi was used or because funds hit the same bank account.

2026 INSC 740: Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Balancing Fairness and Executive Discretion in ITI Instructor Recruitment

The present batch of civil appeals arose from a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court, challenging the recruitment process of Instructors in Government Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) initiated by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the 2014 Rules. The core controversy revolved around whether the State erred in diluting the Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate from a mandatory essential qualification to a mere preferential/desirable qualification, contrary to Central Government directions. While the Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the State regarding the general bar on challenging a selection process after participation, it closely examined the selection records. The Court discovered that the Selection Committee had arbitrarily introduced unauthorized cut-off marks to screen out candidates instead of adhering strictly to the statutory shortlisting mechanism outlined in Rule 16 of the 2014 Rules. Noting that substantial vacancies remained unfilled and that the appellants were subjected to arbitrary treatment midway through the selection, the Supreme Court invoked its powers to grant meaningful relief by directing their consideration and appointment against vacant or newly created supernumerary posts.

2026 INSC 741: Arvind Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (along with connected appeals)

Regulatory Authority vs. Appellate Tribunal: Delineating TRAI’s Enforcement Powers from TDSAT’s Adjudicatory Jurisdiction

This civil appeal filed under Section 18 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act), challenged an order passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). The TDSAT had held that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) lacked both exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction to issue directions or show-cause notices concerning a dispute involving signal disconnection between a Multi-System Operator (MSO) and Local Cable Operators (LCOs). The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme governing TRAI’s regulatory powers under Sections 11, 13, and 36 against TDSAT’s exclusive dispute resolution domain under Section 14. The Supreme Court held that issuing regulatory directions to enforce compliance with IC Regulations and initiating criminal complaint proceedings under Section 34 for non-compliance does not amount to “adjudication” of a private contractual dispute. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the TDSAT, allowing TRAI’s appeal and clarifying the distinct boundaries between regulatory enforcement and judicial dispute settlement.

2026 INSC 742: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. M/s Polimer Cable Network and Others

 Striking the Balance: Safeguarding Custodial Rights vs. Ensuring Effective Police Investigation

This appeal by special leave was filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the High Court’s judgment, which had partially modified a Magistrate’s order imposing restrictive conditions on the police custody of a police inspector accused of a custodial death. The Supreme Court examined whether the stringent conditions—such as confining interrogation strictly to prison premises, continuous transit videography, and rigid advocate access—unduly hampered the Special Investigation Team’s (SIT) statutory duty to investigate. The Court held that while constitutional safeguards and transparency measures are paramount, imposing unworkable physical restrictions and foreclosing statutory windows for remand under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) frustrate the objectives of a fair and effective criminal investigation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with modifications to the custody conditions.

2026 INSC 744: The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju (D.O.J. 27.07.2026)

Protecting the Lifeline: Safeguarding the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary from Illegal Sand Mining

This judgment addresses the persistent ecological degradation of the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary caused by organized illegal sand mining, destruction of wildlife habitats, and enforcement deficiencies across the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Reviewing compliance affidavits, status reports, and the Third Report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the overall progress in curbing illegal mining networks. Consequently, the Court issued a comprehensive set of binding directions—including mandatory notifications under Section 218(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to protect frontline forest personnel, joint revenue-forest inspections, integration of APARs for accountability, financial investigations via the Enforcement Directorate, and the establishment of a public online monitoring dashboard—while deferring the consideration of a uniform national framework to a later date.

2026 INSC 745: In Re: Protection of National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary (Suo Motu) [Derived from context regarding National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary proceedings] (22.07.2026)

Protection Under Insolvency Moratorium Does Not Extend to Non-Corporate Debtor Respondents in Consumer Complaints

The present civil appeals arose from an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had rejected applications filed by homebuyer appellants seeking the continuation of a consumer complaint against Respondent Nos. 2 to 7, and adjourned the matter sine die. The NCDRC took this action because a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) had been initiated against the primary developer (Respondent No. 1). The Supreme Court of India partly allowed the appeals, holding that the statutory protection of a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC applies exclusively to the corporate debtor and cannot be stretched to shield other parties such as associated companies, promoters, directors, or landowners unless specifically provided by law. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order and directed it to proceed with the consumer complaint against Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 while keeping the proceedings against the corporate debtor (Respondent No. 1) under suspension as mandated by the moratorium.

2026 INSC 746: Tejas J. Shah & Amisha T. Shah & Ors. v. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors. (D.O.J. 27.07.2026)

Revival of Rights: Supreme Court Clarifies Impleadment of Pendente Lite Purchasers and Res Judicata

This civil appeal challenged an interim order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had allowed applications for condoning a long delay, restoring a regular second appeal, and impleading subsequent purchasers (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) as parties in both the main second appeal and cross-objections. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, ruling that since an earlier application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC filed by the subsequent purchasers had been dismissed on merits and attained finality, the principle of res judicata barred a second attempt for the same relief in the main appeal—even if the initial order was based on a factual misconception. However, because the prior application was restricted to the main appeal and did not cover the cross-objections where the purchased property was directly involved, and keeping in view the risk of collusion and abandonment of interest by the transferors, the Supreme Court upheld the impleadment of the subsequent purchasers in the cross-objections while setting aside the restoration of the main appeal.

2026 INSC 747: Sanjiv Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi and Others (D.O.J. 27.07.2026)

Interim Custody of Commercial Vehicles: Registration Certificates Do Not Overrule Beneficial Control and Undertakings

This criminal appeal challenged a common judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which granted interim custody of subject vehicles (such as a Bolero pick-up, excavators, and a tipper) to the respondent company (M/s Earth Stein Private Limited) pending criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the power to grant interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC requires a prima facie assessment of entitlement, possession, and prevention of property decay rather than an absolute rule favoring registration certificates. The Court noted that multiple factors weighed in favor of the respondent company, including that the vehicles were seized from the company’s operational site, loan EMIs were discharged using company accounts, and the appellant had previously executed a written undertaking permitting the company to operate the vehicles.

2026 INSC 748: Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Etc. (D.O.J. 27.07.2026)

Supreme Court Restricts Compensation and Cancels Malafide Allotments in GIDC Industrial Plot Dispute

This civil appellate judgment delivered by the Supreme Court addresses a major land scam involving the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC). The GIDC had arbitrarily transferred twenty fully developed industrial plots to the appellant in exchange for private agricultural land that had originally been subject to long-standing ceiling proceedings. The High Court of Gujarat had previously set aside this exchange deed, ruling it illegal and mala fide. The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of the exchange deed and the finding of mala fides, narrowing the remaining dispute strictly to the determination of a fair compensation amount for the original agricultural land purchased by the appellant in 2016.

2026 INSC 750: Mohammadali Ansarahmad Khan v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. (D.O.J. 24.07.2026)

Supreme Court Modifies Punishment in Electricity Board Bribery Case

This criminal appeal addresses a corruption case where a Junior Engineer with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was caught red-handed accepting a bribe during a trap laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing. While both the Trial Court and the High Court convicted the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction based on solid corroborative evidence but partly allowed the appeal by reducing the substantive sentence to the statutory minimum period.

2026 INSC 751: Damodaran v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (D.O.J. 24.07.2026)

Supreme Court Quashes Sanction for Prosecution and Penalizes State for Malafide Review

This criminal appeal addresses the misuse of administrative power and political coercion in granting sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After the competent authorities initially declined to grant sanction due to a lack of evidence and clear indications of foul play during a trap, the Chief Minister’s office exerted undue pressure to compel a review on the exact same material. The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s Special Leave Petition, strongly deprecating political interference in sanction decisions, and upheld the High Court’s ruling to quash the tainted sanction order while imposing costs on the State.

2026 INSC 752: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dev Kant Meena (D.O.J. 23.07.2026)

Supreme Court Protects Country Liquor Licensees from Arbitrary Penalties

This civil appeal, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India, addressed whether the State of Uttar Pradesh could legally penalize retail country liquor licensees for shortfalls in lifting their Monthly Minimum Guaranteed Quota (MGQ) during isolated months, even when the licensees successfully fulfilled and lifted the entire Annual MGQ and paid all requisite annual licence fees. The Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision, ruling that the revenue authorities’ rigid insistence on monthly targets—ignoring accumulated credit balances from excess lifting in prior months and failing to issue contemporaneous notices under Rules 14 and 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002—was arbitrary, erroneous, and unsupported by statutory rules. Consequently, the appeals filed by the State were dismissed, affirming the quashing of demand notices and ordering the refund of withheld security deposits.

2026 INSC 753: State of U.P. & Ors. v. Zafar Ali & Ors. (with connected Civil Appeals) (D.O.J. 28.07.2026)

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Decades-Old Murder Case

This criminal appeal arose from a challenge against the High Court’s order, which had remanded a decades-old murder case back to the Trial Court for a fresh review of evidence following a criminal revision application filed by the victim’s brother against an initial order of acquittal. The incident dated back to February 14, 1988, involving the alleged murder of one Qavi. Upon a thorough re-appreciation of the evidence, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a credible chain of circumstances: the eyewitnesses were untrustworthy chance witnesses, the dying declarations lacked consistency and medical backing, the scene of occurrence was suspicious, and weapon recoveries alone could not sustain a conviction. Emphasizing that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and that plausible views taken by trial courts should not be lightly disturbed, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s remand order, and restored the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal.

2026 INSC 754: Khalil Pasha & Ors. v. Abdul Rasheed & Anr.(D.O.J. 28.07.2026)

Supreme Court Rules National Commission for Scheduled Castes Lacks Power to Issue Binding Service Orders

In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) possesses the jurisdiction to pass binding executive or mandatory orders in service matters—specifically, directing an employer to pay salary arrears within a stipulated timeframe. The appellant, Mumbai Port Authority, challenged an NCSC order that directed the reinstatement of service benefits and payment of arrears following the demotion of a Scheduled Caste employee due to a seniority reset. The Supreme Court held that while the NCSC is a vital constitutional body designed to protect the rights of Scheduled Castes under Article 338 of the Constitution, its powers are strictly recommendatory, advisory, and investigative in nature, rather than adjudicatory. The NCSC cannot act as a court or tribunal to issue binding executable decrees or mandate financial payouts. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and declared the NCSC’s binding directions regarding the payment of arrears to be non-est in law.

2026 INSC 755: Mumbai Port Authority v. National Commission for Scheduled Caste & Ors.(D.O.J. 28.07.2026)

The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Common Carrier Liability and Joint Tortfeasor Responsibility in Elevator Accidents

This judgment by the Supreme Court of India addresses appeals arising from a tragic elevator accident on March 20, 2003, at the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) office complex in New Delhi, which resulted in the death of a senior officer while he was being rescued from a trapped elevator. The Supreme Court firmly established that passenger elevators in modern urban settings must be legally deemed “common carriers,” imposing a heightened duty of care akin to common carriers upon manufacturers, operators, and premises owners due to inherent passenger vulnerability. The Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. (“OTIS”), upholding the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) apportionment of joint and several liability—attributing 70% to OTIS, 25% to the Military Engineering Service (MES), and 5% to RAW—while directing the execution proceedings initiated by the victim’s family to proceed forthwith.

2026 INSC 756: M/s. Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. Rashmi Handa & Ors. (D.O.J. 29.07.2026)

The Scope of Gifting Undivided Shares in Hindu Succession

This civil appeal addressed whether a sole surviving husband could execute a valid gift deed for the entirety of a property inherited jointly with his daughter under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Supreme Court held that while the husband possessed absolute ownership over his undivided half share and could legally gift it without the co-sharer’s consent, he could not validly transfer the entire property. Because the plaintiff claimed absolute title and possession over the whole property rather than a partial undivided share, and failed to establish delivery of possession, the apex court partially allowed the appeal to recognize her title strictly over the undivided half share under the gift deed while leaving her to pursue a separate partition suit for physical demarcation.

2026 INSC 757: Periyaraja and others v. Maragadham (D.O.J. 29.07.2026)

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Prior Permission for Airmen Seeking Civil Employment

This judgment by the Supreme Court of India addresses an appeal filed by an Airman (Corporal) challenging the concurrent decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the Delhi High Court, which had dismissed his plea against the refusal of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and discharge from the Indian Air Force (IAF). The appellant had applied for and secured selection as an Assistant Professor through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission without obtaining prior permission as mandated by Air Force Order (AFO) No. 33/2017. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the procedural requirements outlined in the AFO are mandatory because they directly relate to operational preparedness and manning levels in the armed forces. The Court reaffirmed that members of a disciplined force do not possess an unqualified right to depart from service at will, and failure to secure prior permission validly results in the denial of an NOC.

2026 INSC 758: Nakhat Singh v. Union of India and Others (D.O.J. 29.07.2026)

Supreme Court Upholds Promotees’ Rights Under Uttarakhand Civil Services Rules

This batch of civil appeals before the Supreme Court of India arose from a final judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand regarding the entitlement of promotee Deputy Collectors to count their continuous ad hoc service towards seniority. The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment and allowed the appeal filed by the promotees, holding that since their initial ad hoc promotions on October 1, 2007, were made against vacancies well within their prescribed quota and subsequently regularized, they are entitled to the benefit of continuous service under the proviso to Rule 24(4) of the Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005. The Court ruled that the statutory requirement to consult the Public Service Commission under Regulation 5(a) of the 2003 Regulations is directory rather than mandatory; therefore, the State cannot deny seniority benefits to employees due to its own failure or delay in seeking such consultation. Consequently, the appeal of the promotees was allowed, while the appeals filed by the State and direct recruits were dismissed.

2026 INSC 759: The State of Uttarakhand v. Jagdish Chandra Kandpal & Ors. (D.O.J. 29.07.2026)

Supreme Court Clarifies Condonation of Delay and Abatement Under the CPC

This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of India examined the correctness of a High Court order that set aside the abatement of an appeal and allowed the impleadment of legal representatives (LRs) after an inordinate delay of 501 days, despite the complete absence of a formal application for condonation of delay. While the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning that courts can entirely dispense with a separate condonation application or accept vague excuses like advocate pre-occupation, it nonetheless upheld the final operative relief allowing substitution. The Court grounded its decision on the unique factual circumstances of the case: the LRs—estranged daughters of the deceased appellant—had no knowledge of the proceedings until they received a notice from the local authorities in October 2015, and they promptly pursued their remedies thereafter. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of by upholding the restoration of the first appeal on merits, subject to the payment of costs.

2026 INSC 760: Bishen Prasad Tiwari v. Sheela Devi (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

Balancing Ecology and Development: The Legality of Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances

This landmark judgment by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court addresses the fundamental tension between the existential right to a clean environment and the aspirational right to sustainable development. The core issue revolved around the legality of granting ex post facto (retroactive) environmental clearances (ECs) to projects that commenced construction or operation without obtaining prior EC as mandated by the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. Reviewing conflicting precedents and previous rulings (including the recall of Vanashakti-I), the Court meticulously evaluated the statutory powers of the Central Government under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Supreme Court held that while the prior EC regime under the 2006 Notification is strictly mandatory, the Central Government possesses the delegated legislative competence under Section 3 of the 1986 Act to enact narrow, time-bound, and exceptional amnesty measures like the 2017 Notification. However, routine administrative instructions functioning as a perpetual regularisation mechanism—such as the 2021 Office Memorandum (OM)—are ultra vires the Act and violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. To prevent widespread disruption to vital public infrastructure projects, the 2021 OM was quashed prospectively under Article 142.

2026 INSC 761: Vanashakti v. Union of India (D.O.J. 29.07.2026)

The Extent of Consequential Benefits for Wrongfully Discharged Judicial Officers

This miscellaneous application, filed by the Rajasthan High Court on its administrative side, sought a clarification on whether the direction to reinstate a wrongfully discharged judicial officer with “all consequential benefits including continuity of service and seniority” automatically entitles him to the Selection Scale or Super Time Scale despite the lack of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for six out of the last seven years—a shortage caused entirely by his unlawful removal from service. The Supreme Court held that an employer cannot take advantage of its own wrong to deny career progression to an employee who has been completely exonerated. Applying the established legal principle that evaluations must be based on remaining valid ACRs when the lack of records is attributable to the employer, the Court ruled that the judicial officer is fully entitled to the Selection Scale from July 16, 2018, and the Super Time Scale from July 16, 2021, aligning with the dates his juniors were granted these scales.

2026 INSC 762: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Abhay Jain (D.O.J. 29.07.2026)

Why Heavy Industrial Machines Inside Enclosed Depots Escape Motor Vehicle Classifications

This appeal arose from an accident on September 5, 2013, at the Inland Container Depot (ICD) in Tughlakabad, New Delhi, where the claimant suffered severe injuries resulting in the amputation of his right leg after being hit by a Reach Stacker. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially dismissed the compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA), holding that a Reach Stacker is not a “motor vehicle” because it is a special-purpose machine meant exclusively for enclosed premises. However, the Delhi High Court reversed this view, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the High Court’s ruling and restored the MACT’s order, holding that an ICD is a customs-bonded area with restricted access and thus does not qualify as a “public place” under Section 2(34) of the MVA. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a Reach Stacker—due to its massive weight, specialized container-handling utility, and exclusion under the second part of Section 2(28)—falls outside the definition of a “motor vehicle”.

2026 INSC 763: Container Corporation of India Limited v. Rishi Ranjan Mishra & Ors. (D.O.J. 29.07.2026)

Scope of Remissions and Judicial Review

This batch of four criminal writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenged the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life (with or without restrictions on remission). The petitioners contended that the Indian Penal Code (IPC) recognizes only two punishments under Section 302—death or ordinary life imprisonment—and that awarding imprisonment for the remainder of natural life is unconstitutional, defeats statutory rights under Section 432 of the CrPC, and improperly interferes with executive clemency powers. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed all the writ petitions, holding that a five-judge Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan and a three-judge Bench in Swamy Shraddananda (2) conclusively settled that courts possess the power to award a special category of life sentence spanning the remainder of natural life without remission in rarest of rare cases to substitute the death penalty.

2026 INSC 764: Ramasrey @ Fakkad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (D.O.J. 29.07.2026)

Navigating Succession and Title: Decoding Property Rights Among Multiple Wives Under Christian Law

This civil appeal arises from a long-standing property dispute among the step-siblings and descendants of late Mattus Anthony (MA), who belonged to the Christian faith and contracted two valid marriages during his lifetime. MA had purchased the disputed land in 1959 explicitly in the names of his two wives, Filomina and Shyam Bai. Following successive deaths and a subsequent sale of a portion of the land by the second wife’s descendants, conflicting decisions were rendered by the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

2026 INSC 765: Shakuntala & Ors. v. Robert Anthony & Ors. (D.O.J. 30.07.2026)

Shielding Investigation Over Quashing: Curbing High Court Interference in Anti-Corruption FIRs

This batch of seven criminal appeals was filed by the State of Karnataka against the common judgment and orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka, which had quashed six First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against police officials, including an Assistant Commissioner of Police and a Police Inspector. The FIRs involved allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The High Court had originally quashed the proceedings on grounds of unexplained delay, lack of direct demand and recovery, potential second FIR multiplicity, and perceived malafides.

2026 INSC 766: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Prabhu Shankar & Anr.(D.O.J. 30.07.2026)

Driving Without Valid Renewal: Fixing Insurer Liability and the Crucial Need for License Compliance

This civil appeal arose from a motor accident that occurred on October 14, 2009, wherein the offending vehicle hit a two-wheeler, resulting in a major compensation claim. While the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) held the driver and owner liable—absolving the insurance company on the grounds that the driver lacked a valid driving license at the time of the accident—the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed this finding and placed the liability on the appellant-insurer after accepting oral statements and communication letters regarding data transfer errors by transport authorities.

2026 INSC 767: Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Om Prakash & Ors. (D.O.J. 30.07.2026)

Extending Parity in Sentencing: Commutation and Release Based on Prolonged Incarceration

This miscellaneous application was preferred by the applicant, Sudesh Pal, seeking a modification of a 2023 Supreme Court judgment that had confirmed his life imprisonment sentence arising from a 2003 murder case. The applicant sought relief on the grounds of old age, good conduct, prolonged incarceration (exceeding twenty-four years with remissions), and specifically on the principle of parity with a co-accused named Madan. Co-accused Madan—who originally faced the death penalty alongside the applicant at the trial stage—had his sentence modified by the Supreme Court to a fixed term of twenty years, leading to his release.

2026 INSC 768: Sudesh Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (D.O.J. 30.07.2026)

Validating Cooperative Rule Amendments and Reinstating Promotion Rights

This civil appeal arose from a challenge to a promotion order dated December 30, 2010, whereby the appellant, S.P. Chandrakar, was promoted to the post of Additional Manager in the District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. The promotion was challenged via a writ petition by respondent No. 5 (Kishor Bagh), which was allowed by the learned Single Judge thirteen years later and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that Rule 5(3)(a) of the 1982 Rules could not be amended by a mere executive circular or letter issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies without following formal legislative amendment procedures.

2026 INSC 769: S. P. Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (D.O.J. 30.07.2026)

Why Revisions, Not Appeals, Govern First-Time Convictions by Appellate Courts

The Supreme Court addressed a crucial legal question concerning the maintainability of a criminal appeal when an accused, initially acquitted by a trial court, is convicted for the first time by a Sessions Court in an appeal against acquittal. The appellant husband, who faced charges under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was acquitted by the Trial Court but subsequently convicted by the Sessions Court. When he challenged this conviction via a criminal appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, his appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable, holding that only a revision petition lies. Upholding the High Court’s view, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that since the right of appeal is strictly a creature of statute, Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) does not contemplate a second appeal or an appeal against a judgment delivered by an appellate court. Consequently, the proper remedy against such a first-time appellate conviction is a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC. However, to prevent any prejudice due to the absence of a statutory first appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that High Courts must exercise their revisional powers with greater circumspection and can invoke powers akin to an appellate court under Section 401(1) to ensure comprehensive scrutiny.

2026 INSC 770: Vishnu Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (D.O.J. 30.07.2026)

Why Cruise Ship Operations Qualify for Presumptive Taxation under Section 44B

The Supreme Court addressed whether international cruise operations—specifically round-trip voyages offering on-board hospitality and entertainment—qualify as the “carriage of passengers” under Section 44B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of presumptive taxation. The Revenue contended that such round-trip cruise excursions were primarily entertainment and hospitality services rather than transport, warranting a higher estimated deemed income of 25% instead of the statutory presumptive rate of 7.5%. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, holding that ancillary hospitality and entertainment services on a cruise do not strip the voyage of its primary character as the carriage of passengers. The Court ruled that a restrictive interpretation requiring movement strictly from point A to point B is unwarranted, and concurrent findings confirming the applicability of Section 44B at the 7.5% presumptive rate do not warrant judicial interference.

2026 INSC 771: The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. M/s Star Cruises (India) P. (D.O.J. 30.07.2026)

Criminalizing Civil Disputes: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Arising Out of a Real Estate Development Agreement

The Supreme Court allowed a criminal appeal filed by land owners seeking to quash criminal proceedings and a chargesheet initiated against them under Sections 406 and 420 read with Sections 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The dispute stemmed from an unfulfilled Joint Development Agreement for property development where planning permission was rejected because the land formed part of an unapproved layout. The Court held that the dispute was purely civil in nature arising out of a contractual breach, that the essential ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust were completely absent from the inception, and that utilizing criminal prosecution as a tool to exert pressure in a civil dispute amounts to an abuse of the judicial process.

2026 INSC 772: G. Saminathan & Another v. The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police & Another (D.O.J. 31.07.2026)

Statutory Components of Compensation: Unraveling the Court Fee Conundrum in Land Acquisition Appeals

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which challenges exclusively the statutory benefits (such as solatium, additional amount, and statutory interest) rather than the basic market value of land, requires an ad valorem court fee under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, or a fixed court fee. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Uttarakhand High Court’s directive, ruling that statutory additions form an integral, inseparable part of a composite compensation award. Consequently, any appeal seeking to reduce or exclude these components is an appeal relating to compensation, thereby mandating payment of an ad valorem court fee.

2026 INSC 773: Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. v. S.P. Singh & Ors. (D.O.J. 31.07.2026)

Justice for Stray Animal Victims: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation and State Action

In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India addressed the tragic reality of accidents caused by stray cattle and bovines on public roads. The appeal was filed by the widow of a deceased victim who was severely injured after being hit by a stray bull in 2007. While the High Court’s Division Bench had earlier dismissed the claim on the grounds that it involved “disputed questions of fact” not fit for writ jurisdiction, the Supreme Court strongly disagreed. Given the prolonged pendency of the litigation and the undisputed nature of the accident, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, allowed the appeal, and awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs to the appellant. Furthermore, the Court issued extensive guidelines and suggestions for the Centre and State Governments to curb the stray cattle menace, enforce animal tagging, establish proper shelters, and formulate a streamlined mechanism for compensating victims of bovine-related accidents.

2026 INSC 774: Nisha v. Municipal Council Sangrur & Ors. (D.O.J. 31.07.2026)

Safeguarding Fair Trial Rights: Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Due to Non-Compliance with Section 299 CrPC

In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether evidence recorded during a trial against one co-accused can be used against an absconding co-accused who was apprehended and tried later, when the mandatory statutory safeguards under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) were ignored. The appellant had absconded following a murder in 1999 while the co-accused was tried and acquitted. Years later, after the appellant was arrested and tried, the lower courts relied on the deposition of a crucial eyewitness (PW1) from the earlier trial who had since passed away. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that in the absence of a formal, reasoned order satisfying the twin jurisdictional requirements of Section 299 CrPC during the initial trial stage, prior testimonies cannot be legally used to deprive an accused of their invaluable right to cross-examination.

2026 INSC 775: Mahendra Singh v. The State of Chhattisgarh (D.O.J. 31.07.2026)

Navigating Discretionary Equity: Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Decree Denying Specific Performance

In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether evidence recorded during a trial against one co-accused can be used against an absconding co-accused who was apprehended and tried later, when the mandatory statutory safeguards under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) were ignored. The appellant had absconded following a murder in 1999 while the co-accused was tried and acquitted. Years later, after the appellant was arrested and tried, the lower courts relied on the deposition of a crucial eyewitness (PW1) from the earlier trial who had since passed away. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that in the absence of a formal, reasoned order satisfying the twin jurisdictional requirements of Section 299 CrPC during the initial trial stage, prior testimonies cannot be legally used to deprive an accused of their invaluable right to cross-examination.

2026 INSC 776: V.N.A.S. Chandran v. S. Venila and Others (D.O.J. 31.07.2026)

Upholding Trial Integrity: Supreme Court Bars Late-Stage Counter-Claim Court Fee Deposit After Conclusion of Evidence

In this civil appeal arising from a property transaction spanning over two decades, the Supreme Court examined the limits of appellate interference with the discretionary and equitable relief of specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The sole appellant (original defendant) had entered into an agreement to sell a property in Udhagamandalam for ₹2,25,00,000, but the transaction collapsed amid allegations of bounced cheques, mutual lack of candor, inconsistent pleadings, and criminal complaints. While the trial court decreed only a refund of the advance amount of ₹85,00,000 with interest, the High Court reversed it and granted specific performance. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the trial court’s decree. It held that the plaintiffs failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness, approached the court with unclean hands due to retaliatory criminal proceedings, took contradictory stances regarding property assignment, and that the long passage of time combined with the advanced age of the appellant rendered specific performance inequitable.

2026 INSC 777: IJM Corporation Berhad v. M/s Lakshmi Sai Constructions Company and Anr. (D.O.J. 28.07.2026)

Proving Adultery at the Threshold: Supreme Court Rules on Interim Maintenance and Private Investigation Evidence

In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a husband’s application under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) alleging adultery by the wife can be deferred until the final adjudication of the main maintenance proceedings, or if it must be considered at the threshold when determining interim maintenance. The appellant-husband had opposed interim maintenance by presenting electronic evidence (photographs and videos) indicating an adulterous relationship, but the lower courts dismissed his application on the grounds that such allegations could only be proved during final trial. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and remanded the matter to the Trial Court. The Court held that if a husband presents clear, cogent, and ex-facie evidence at the threshold establishing adultery, interim maintenance can be barred or suspended, and such applications cannot be routinely postponed to the final judgment. Additionally, the Supreme Court highlighted the legal lacuna surrounding unregulated private detective agencies and directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Law Commission of India for appropriate legislative consideration.

2026 INSC 778: Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.O.J. 31.07.2026)

Fragile Threads of Suspicion: Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in the Absence of Corroborating Circumstances Beyond Last Seen Theory

In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on the basis of a weak “last seen” theory without any other corroborating incriminating circumstances. The appellant, who was the son-in-law of PW1, was convicted alongside other co-accused based on testimonies of witnesses including PWs 1 to 4, some of whom were initially declared hostile before turning to implicate the accused. Although the appellant had already been released on remission, he pursued the appeal seeking a clean acquittal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the testimonies regarding the last seen theory did not inspire confidence and that a conviction cannot rest merely on the last seen theory in the complete absence of other incriminating evidence.

2026 INSC 780: Munu Sen v. The State of Chhattisgarh (D.O.J. 29.07.2026)