Counting Past Service for Pension: Regularized Employees and the Old Pension Scheme
The Supreme Court addressed whether employees initially engaged on a contract, ad hoc, or daily-wage basis in the 1990s and subsequently regularized in 2004 are entitled to have their pre-regularization service counted as qualifying service for pension benefits under the old pension scheme. Dismissing the appeal filed by the Punjab School Education Board, the bench ruled that pension is a deferred wage for past services rendered, and artificial or administrative breaks in service must be ignored. Since the employees’ long-standing service commenced prior to the January 1, 2004 cutoff date for the new Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, they are eligible to be governed by the old pension regime and count their continuous service toward retiral benefits.
2026 INSC 965 : Punjab School Education Board and Another v. Satnam Singh and Others (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)
Service Law : Quo Warranto Petitions and Inquiries into Alleged Fake Ph.D. Degrees
The Supreme Court addressed whether a writ of quo warranto could be issued against an Assistant Professor appointed with a potentially forged Ph.D. degree when a Ph.D. was only a desirable qualification and the candidate otherwise fulfilled mandatory eligibility via the UGC-NET examination. Dismissing the appeals against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s orders, the bench held that unsuccessful candidates lacking locus standi cannot weaponize quo warranto to redress personal selection grievances. However, exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court permitted Maharshi Dayanand University to conduct a rigorous, formal inquiry into the authenticity of the sixth respondent’s Ph.D. degree in coordination with Bundelkhand University, leaving open criminal prosecution if the degree is proven to be fake.
2026 INSC 968 : Annu Kumar & Anr. v. Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak & Ors. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)
Arbitration : Directing Multiple Connected Contract Disputes to a Single Arbitrator
The Supreme Court addressed whether disputes arising from two distinct agreements—the Mahanet Agreement and the T-Fiber Agreement—between the same parties should be handled by separate arbitrators or consolidated before a single forum when cross-project set-off claims are involved. Allowing the appeal against the Delhi High Court’s order, the bench modified the impugned decision and appointed Ms. Saumya Tandon, the sole arbitrator already presiding over the Mahanet Agreement dispute, to also adjudicate the disputes relating to the T-Fiber Agreement. The Court underscored the fitness of consolidating proceedings before the first-appointed arbitrator while leaving all merits, contentions, and cross-project set-off claims open for the arbitrator’s evaluation.
2026 INSC 969 : M/s STL Networks Limited v. Caspian India Engicon Pvt. Ltd. (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)
Corruption: Reversing Convictions Lacking Pecuniary Advantage under the Prevention of Corruption Act
The Supreme Court addressed whether a conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be sustained when the court has recorded a categorical finding that no pecuniary advantage or valuable thing was obtained by the accused. Allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the conviction of the appellant—who served as a store in-charge certifying false receipts of medicines—ruling that an essential ingredient of Section 13(1)(d), namely obtaining a pecuniary advantage for oneself or another, is completely missing. The Court further highlighted that because the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) failed to challenge the High Court’s acquittal of the appellant under the substantive IPC charges, and given the absence of any proved money trail or pecuniary gain, the conviction could not stand.
2026 INSC 970 : Khanindra Kr. Dutta v. Central Bureau of Investigation (D.O.J.08.09.2026)
Flawed Prosecutions and Benefit of Doubt: Unraveling a Gunshot Murder Conviction
The Supreme Court addressed whether a murder conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act could be sustained based on testimonies of close family relatives when the investigation suffered from severe lapses, material contradictions, and an unexplained failure to inspect the scene of the crime or recover weapons. Setting aside the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, the bench granted the appellants the benefit of doubt and acquitted them. The Court emphasized that when related eyewitness accounts carry a ring of falsity, lack objective corroboration, and are coupled with suspicious circumstances—such as transporting the body directly to a police station rather than a hospital—the hypothesis of innocence must prevail.
2026 INSC 971 : Ashok Upadhyay and Anr. v. The State of Bihar (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)
Ambush and Accountability: Disentangling Common Intent and Partial Acquittals in a Fatal Family Feud
The Supreme Court examined multiple criminal appeals arising from a violent nighttime ambush that resulted in a fatal gunshot injury to one family member and physical assault on another, addressing the legality of high court acquittals granted to specific co-accused. Partially allowing the appeals filed by the de facto complainant, the bench set aside the acquittal of two accused (A6 and A12) who played active roles in holding the victim and exhorting the shooter, while upholding the acquittal of another co-accused (A13) due to a lack of substantive, consistent evidence. The Court emphasized the legal duty of courts to separate the grain from the chaff rather than applying the blanket doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, validating reliable eyewitness and medical evidence despite minor embellishments regarding peripheral participants.
2026 INSC 972 : Santosh Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)
Land Acquisition : Determining the Benchmark: Statutory Cut-Off Dates for Solatium and Interest Under the National Highways Act
The Supreme Court addressed whether the computation of solatium, interest, and interest on solatium for land acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 should be governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Partially allowing the appeal, the bench ruled that because the competent authority’s award under Section 3G of the NH Act was passed on July 11, 2014—prior to the statutory extension making the 2013 Act applicable to national highway acquisitions on January 1, 2015—the statutory benefits must be computed using the provisions of the 1894 Act. The Court clarified that while landowners whose lands are acquired under the NH Act are universally entitled to solatium and interest, the specific calculation regime depends on whether the initial award was finalized before or after the January 1, 2015 cut-off date.
2026 INSC 973 : Manav Bhanot v. National Highway Authority of India (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)
Infrastructure Gridlock: NOIDA’s Accountability Under the Zero Period Policy
The Supreme Court dismissed civil appeals filed by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and upheld the Allahabad High Court’s judgment, ruling that a developer cannot be denied the benefits of the “Zero Period Policy” when a primary 45-metre approach road remains encumbered, unacquired, and plagued by habitation. The bench emphasized that statutory developmental authorities must provide efficient and legitimate access rather than shifting blame onto developers for minimal, constrained workarounds.
2026 INSC 975 : New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Ors. v. M/s Sunshine Trade Tower Private Limited and Anr. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)
Arbitral Autonomy: The Boundaries of Judicial Review in Contract Termination and Excepted Matters
The Supreme Court addressed whether a writ appellate court can restrict an Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction by directing it to adjudicate claims strictly according to contract terms when examining a terminated works contract. Partially clarifying the Telangana High Court Division Bench’s order, the apex bench ruled that a court exercising judicial review under Article 226 cannot pre-determine or constrain the scope of the Arbitrator’s inquiry under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized that under the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, the Arbitral Tribunal possesses the exclusive competence to rule on its own jurisdiction—including whether the dispute over contract termination constitutes an “excepted matter” under Clause 63 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC)—without being fettered by pre-emptive judicial observations.
2026 INSC 976 : M/s. GVV Constructions Private Limited v. The Union of India & Ors. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)
Binding Non-Signatory Guarantors: Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses in Composite Financial Transactions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the National Skill Development Corporation, setting aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment and the Sole Arbitrator’s order which had deleted the second respondent (guarantor/managing director) from the arbitral proceedings. The bench ruled that where parties execute multiple interconnected and contemporaneous instruments—such as loan agreements and personal guarantees designated as mandatory pre-disbursement “Facility Agreements”—a deeming fiction within the principal contract effectively incorporates the arbitration clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, binding the non-signatory guarantor in his personal capacity.
2026 INSC 977 : National Skill Development Corporation v. Surya Wires Private Limited & Ors. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)
Equal Pay for Unequal Experience: Upholding Pay Differentiation Between Direct Recruits and Promotee Teachers
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by directly recruited Higher Secondary School Teachers, Junior (HSST Jr.) in Government-aided schools in Kerala, who sought parity in pay scales with teachers appointed by transfer or promotion. While the direct recruits and promotees performed identical duties, the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala had reversed the Single Judge’s decision granting full-time pay to direct recruits, noting that promotees brought long years of prior service and status that the government sought to protect. Upholding the Division Bench’s view, the Supreme Court emphasized that modern jurisprudence on “equal pay for equal work” requires a strict test beyond mere functional similarity of work, taking into account factors like source of recruitment, qualifications, and crucially, prior experience as a valid basis for reasonable classification.
2026 INSC 1004 : G.P. Sangeetha and Ors. Etc. Etc. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)
Clarifying the Scope of Attempt to Murder and Alteration of Charges
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by the petitioner challenging the concurrent lower court orders that refused to alter the criminal charge to Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) of the IPC. While clarifying that the absence of a life-threatening or grievous bodily injury is not a necessary precondition to invoke Section 307—since culpability hinges primarily on the intention or knowledge of the accused rather than the severity of the hurt—the Court declined to interfere with the trial’s late-stage application. Because the medical records were available from the investigation stage, no initial grievance was raised, and the material lacked clear allegations of an intent to kill, the Supreme Court upheld the rejection of the charge modification while noting that courts retain the inherent prerogative to alter charges if justified by ongoing trial evidence.
