Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: August 17, 2026 To August 23, 2026

Judgments

Fleeing After Friend's Drowning, Though Reprehensible Conduct, Not Per Se Suggestive Of Murder: Supreme Court

Case Details: Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr. v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 810

The Supreme Court has held that fleeing from the spot after witnessing a friend drown and failing to inform the deceased's family, though “reprehensible” conduct, cannot by itself be treated as an incriminating circumstance to establish murder.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran acquitted two individuals who were convicted over the death of a deceased who accidentally died by drowning in a river. Except for the appellants, there was no eyewitness to the incident; no one saw the Appellants last time with the deceased.

However, the prosecution emphasized the post-incident conduct of the Appellants, as they fled away from the place of the incident to watch a movie and didn't report the incident to the deceased's family promptly. The prosecution attributed such conduct of the appellants to be incriminating material against them.

Delay In Processing Compassionate Appointment Application Cannot Defeat Claim Of Otherwise Eligible Dependent : Supreme Court

Case Details: Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya & Ors. v. General Manager Western Coalfields Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 811

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be denied to a beneficiary merely on account of delay or inaction by the employer in processing an application.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where a son's application seeking a benefit of a compassionate appointment was rejected by the employer, Western Coalfields Limited, finding him to be crossing a permissible age limit at the time of consideration of his application.

According the Appellant no.2-son of the deceased, he had preferred an application for seeking a compassionate appointment on 14.06.2021, when he was below 35 years of age, and a delay/inaction on the part of the Respondent in processing his application for about 19 months before it was rejected on 03.02.2023, would not be a ground to reject his application on account of the Appellant no.2 age exceeding the permissible age limit at the time of consideration of the application.

Remand Not To Be Ordered When Appellate Court Can Decide Issue Omitted By Trial Court Based On Already Adduced Evidence : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shivappa v. Shantavva and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 812

The Supreme Court has reiterated that an appellate court should not routinely remand a case to the trial court merely because a particular issue was not separately framed, where the pleadings, evidence and issues already on record enable the appellate court to decide the dispute itself.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard the case where a Karta, out of a legal necessity to repay the loan taken for the daughter's marriage, had sold out the Hindu Undivided Family property to the buyer/Appellant. Based on the pleadings and issues arising thereof, the sale deed was upheld by the trial court.

In a First Appeal filed before the Dharwad Circuit Bench of the Karnataka High Court by the plaintiffs-co-sharers, a remand order was passed remanding the case back to the trial court for failing to frame a specific issue of whether the sale deed was sham and that an issue concerning limitation had also not been specifically framed.

Evidence Act | S.69 Can Be Invoked To Prove Will Only If Impossible To Prove Attestation Under S. 68: Supreme Court

Case Details: Pazhanathal (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. v. Alamathal (Dead) Through Lrs.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 813

The Supreme Court has held that Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked as an alternative to the ordinary mode of proving a Will under Section 68. The Court said that ordinarily a Will must be proved under Section 68, it can only be proved under Section 69 once the propounder establishes that no attesting witness can be found for proving a Will under Section 68.

“Section 69 of the Evidence Act is, therefore, not an alternative which the propounder may freely choose, but it is an exceptional mode available only when proof through an attesting witness has become impossible (under Section 68).”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while setting aside the Madras High Court's judgment which had upheld the validity of a Will by directly invoking Section 69 of the Evidence Act, bypassing the requirement under Section 68. The Court clarified that before a Will can be proved under Section 69, it must first be established that neither of the two attesting witnesses can be found.

Section 68 of the Evidence Act prescribes the ordinary statutory method of proving a Will. The propounder ordinarily has to examine at least one attesting witness for proving the Will. Section 69 provides a mechanism for proving execution when the normal attesting-witness evidence under Section 68 has become impossible. As per Section 69, a propounder of a Will must prove that at least one attestation is in the witness's handwriting and the maker's signature is in their own handwriting. Section 69 is comparatively an easier mode of proving a Will than Section 68.

Mere Official Reprimand By Superior Not Abetment Of Suicide Without Intent To Drive Subordinate To Death : Supreme Court

Case Title: Vinod Shivakumar v. State of Maharashtra (SLP Crl. 17179/2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 814

The Supreme Court has held that ordinary administrative directions, disciplinary supervision, adverse remarks on official performance or even stern behaviour by a superior officer cannot, by themselves, be treated as abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), unless there is additional material showing a conscious intention to drive the subordinate to take her own life.

The Court discharged a Deputy Conservator of Forests who was accused of abetting the suicide of a subordinate Forest Range Officer, holding that there was no “proximate act of instigation” immediately preceding the suicide that could be considered to have driven the deceased to commit suicide.

A Bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the order of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) and that of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting discharge, observing that the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide as under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) were not made out against the appellant.

Speedy Trial Also A Right Of Victim; Accused Cannot Use Pending Gangsters Act Case To Stall Other Trials : Supreme Court

Case Details: Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 815

Observing that a right to a speedy trial is not only the prerogative of the accused, but is also a valuable right of the victim, the Supreme Court (August 17) set aside the Allahabad High Court's order which had kept a murder trial against an accused in abeyance merely because a proceeding under the UP Gangsters Act was pending against him.

Allowing the complainant's appeal, a bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli rejected the Respondent-accused's argument about the precedence of proceedings pending under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”) over other regular criminal proceedings. The Court said that if an argument of the accused is accepted, then it would severely prejudice the right to speedy trial of the victim.

The accused had relied on Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, which gives precedence to cases pending under the Gangsters Act over regular criminal cases. He argued that since a case under the Gangsters Act was pending against him, until its adjudication, a regular criminal trial in a murder case cannot be proceeded with and has to be kept in abeyance.

ECI Affidavit Shows Lakhs Of Election Blackmoney Cases, But Low Convictions; Supreme Court Mandates HC Approval To Withdraw Prosecution

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Prathik Parasrampuria

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 816

While issuing directions to curb the circulation of black money during elections, the Supreme Court took note of statistics furnished by the Election Commission of India on seizures and FIRs registered during the 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections and State Assembly elections held between 2019 and 2025.

The data was placed before the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh in affidavits filed by the Election Commission, in an hearing an appeal arising out of a 2015 Karnataka High Court order that had quashed an FIR against the respondent. The respondent, Prathik Parasrampuria, was a candidate in the 2014 Lok Sabha bye-election from Bellary, and was alleged to have hoarded a large amount of cash for bribing the voters.

The affidavit filed by the Commission reveals that in respect of the FIRs registered during 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Gujarat (35,144) tops the list of States. This is followed by Uttar Pradesh (19,209); Maharashtra (18,928); West Bengal (17,493); Rajasthan (8,652); Telangana (8,550); Andhra Pradesh (6,489); Tamil Nadu (5,106); Punjab (4,869); and Karnataka (4,609).

'Black Money In Elections Corrupts Democracy': Supreme Court Issues Directions To Curb Use Of Unaccounted Cash During Polls

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Prathik Parasrampuria

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 816

The Supreme Court (17.08.2026) issued directions to curb the use of black money in elections, holding that unaccounted cash used to influence voters strikes at the root of free and fair elections and compromises the “very essence of democracy.”

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh issued the directions while hearing an appeal arising out of a 2015 Karnataka High Court order that had quashed an FIR against the respondent. The respondent, Prathik Parasrampuria, was a candidate in the 2014 Lok Sabha bye-election from Bellary, and was alleged to have hoarded a large amount of cash for bribing the voters. The High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that the complaint did not specify whom the accused intended to bribe or the mode he had planned to adopt.

While hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the proceedings to examine the larger systematic issue of black money in elections, and issued notice to the Election Commission of India, the Union government, and all States and Union Territories. Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal and Advocate (Dr.) Swapnil Tripathi were appointed as amici curiae.

Supreme Court Suggests Professional Bondspersons, Dedicated District Staff For Surety Verification

Case Title: Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara & Ors.

Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 14185 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 817

The Supreme Court suggested several measures to reform the system of surety verification, including introducing professional bail bondspersons, creating dedicated personnel in district courts for verification of sureties and developing a nationwide Surety Information Management System (SIMS).

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih made the suggestions while considering the problem of fake sureties in cases involving foreign nationals accused of offences involving commercial quantities under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The Court clarified that these were suggestions for consideration by the relevant authorities and were separate from the directions issued by it.

NDPS | Supreme Court Issues Directions To Curb Fake Sureties In Foreigners' Bail In Drug Cases

Case Title: Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara & Ors.

Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 14185 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 817

The Supreme Court issued a set of directions governing the grant of bail to foreign nationals accused in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih issued the directions while cancelling the bail granted to a Nigerian national, one Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, who was accused in a case involving around 5 kg of heroin.

The case assumed wider significance after the Court discovered that the surety furnished for Nawchara appeared to be fictitious. Investigations found that the address given by the surety did not exist, the employer denied ever employing him and the bank account details furnished in the surety bond could not be verified. The Court was also informed that in at least 38 cases investigated by the Narcotics Control Bureau and nine cases investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, foreign nationals, particularly from Nigeria and Nepal,had absconded after furnishing suspected fake sureties.

Can Pre-Deposit Be Mandated To Invoke Arbitration? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench, Doubts 2009 Precedent

Case Details: M/S Santosh Associate Private Limited v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 818

The Supreme Court (August 17) referred the question to a larger Bench as to whether pre-deposit conditions in arbitration clauses, requiring contractors to deposit a percentage of the claim amount before invoking arbitration, are valid.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan expressed doubt about the binding nature of the three-judge Bench decision in S.K. Jain v. State of Haryana (2009) 4 SCC 357, which had upheld the legality of pre-deposit clauses in an arbitration agreement.

The Court endorsed the decision of a two-judge bench in ICOMM Tele Ltd. vs. Punjab State Water Supply (2019), which had struck down the pre-deposit clauses, calling them ineffective and making arbitration expensive. Because the two-judge judgment of ICOMM (supra) could not override the principle of law enunciated by the three-judge Bench in S.K. Jain. (supra), the Court requested the Chief Justice of India to consider the desirability as to whether the issues formulated hereunder, or such other issues as may be deemed relevant, do warrant a reference to a larger Bench:

Teacher's Writ Petition Against Private School Maintainable To Enforce Statutory Pay Scale : Supreme Court

Case Details: Siyaram Education Society v. Chhaya D/O Baliram Dhave & Ors. (With Connected Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 819

The Supreme Court has held that a Writ Petition by a private teacher will be maintainable against the private unaided school over the enforcement of the statutory pay scales.

“Imparting education by an institution, recognized under a statute, is akin to performing a public duty. Therefore, teaching activity has a direct nexus in performance of that public duty and if rights of the teaching staff flow from a statute, a writ petition would lie for enforcement of those rights.”, observed a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.

The bench upheld the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench order, which allowed the Respondents-teachers ' writ petition filed under Article 226 for enforcement of a statutory pay scale by the Appellants-private unaided schools.

Sentences Imposed Along Life Imprisonment Must Run Concurrently, Not Consecutively : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna v. State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 820

The Supreme Court (August 18) reiterated that in cases where the convict was sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case along with other sentences for committing multiple offences, the sentence would not run consecutively, but concurrently.

“…in cases where the convict is awarded multiple sentences for multiple offences and one of the sentences awarded is life imprisonment, the sentences must only run concurrently and not consecutively.”, observed a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while modifying the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench order which had upheld the awarding of life sentence and fixed-term sentences to an accused to run consecutively.

“The Trial Court and the High Court awarded the Appellant a sentence of life imprisonment under Sections 449, 302, 364 of IPC and fixed-term sentences under Sections 392 and 201 of IPC which were directed to run consecutively. In light of the discussion above, we deem it appropriate to modify the direction affirmed by the High Court and hold that the sentences of the Appellant shall run concurrently.”, the Court observed, referring to the constitutional bench dictum of Muthuramalingam and Ors. vs. State (2016).

Insurer Not Liable For Risk Beyond Sum Assured Unless Premium Paid In Advance: Supreme Court

Case Title: New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. v. M/S Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 821

The Supreme Court (18.08.2026) has held that an insurer cannot be held liable for a loss occurring at a time when the insured's turnover had already exceeded the sum insured under a Marine Cargo Annual Turnover Policy, and premium for the enhanced turnover had not been paid in advance. The decision was made in view of the bar of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeals filed by the New India Assurance Company against the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), wherein the Commission had directed the appellant to pay the amount assessed by its own surveyor towards a fire loss claim.

The respondent had availed a Marine Cargo Annual Turnover Policy from the appellant for an expected turnover of Rs 1200 Crores, with premium payable in two equal instalments. A fire broke out at a Container Freight Station where the respondent had stored 41,481 cotton bales. Appellant's own surveyor had assessed the loss to be of Rs. 22,01,29,271.

Illegality In Appointment Cannot Be Regularised Citing Long Duration Of Service : Supreme Court

Case Details: Hemant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana (With Connected Appeals)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 822

The Supreme Court held that an illegal appointment cannot be allowed to acquire legality merely because the employee has continued in service for a long period, ruling that “illegality cannot be cured and made legal and valid by lapse of time.”

The judgment came in a batch of appeals concerning the deputation and subsequent absorption of four officers of the Haryana Development and Panchayat Department into the Public Works Department (Building & Roads). The officers, Pradeep Atri, Praveen Chaudhary, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia ,had been absorbed as Assistant Engineers/Sub-Divisional Engineers in the PW (B&R) Department.

The Court held that while the deputation of Atri and Chaudhary was illegal, that of Gaur and Bhatia was irregular, the absorption of all four officers was illegal, non est and void. The Court consequently quashed their absorption and directed their repatriation to the Development and Panchayat Department, where their cadre and seniority are to be determined in accordance with the applicable rules

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Abolish Hanging As Method To Execute Death Penalty, Says Union Free To Explore Alternatives

Case Title: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) No. 145/2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 823

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the abolition of death by hanging as a method to execute the death penalty.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude future constitutional scrutiny if compelling medical or scientific evidence emerges demonstrating a need to revisit the issue. The Court clarified that the judgment will also not preclude the Union Government from undertaking a comprehensive review of the method of execution through an expert body to examine if an alternative method will better serve the Constitutional objective of minimising pain and suffering while ensuring dignity.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pronounced the verdict in the petition which sought to declare unconstitutional Section 354 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per which the death sentence is to direct that the prisoner "be hanged by the neck till he is dead."

No Evidence Lethal Injection Is More Humane Than Hanging For Death Sentence: Supreme Court

Case: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) No. 145/2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 823

The Supreme Court observed that there is no concrete scientific material before it to establish that lethal injection (administering drugs intravenously to cause death) is a demonstrably superior or more humane method of executing a death sentence than hanging.

“The available material, therefore, does not establish that lethal injection has any added advantage over hanging as a mode of execution of a death sentence. Hence, the argument advanced by the petitioner that lethal injection is a better and more humane mode of execution of the death sentence is totally unconvincing,” the Court said.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observation while dismissing a plea seeking to strike down the statutory prescription of hanging as the mode of execution of death sentences.

Senior Citizens Tribunal Can Order Eviction Of Children From Parents' Property : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Details: Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 824

The Supreme Court has reiterated that tribunals constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have the power to order the eviction of children from a senior citizen's property when such eviction is necessary to ensure the parent's maintenance, protection and dignity.

“…we have no hesitation in holding that the tribunal under the Act has power to order eviction in order to ensure the maintenance or protection of a senior citizen.”, observed a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe,

The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order, which had overturned the tribunal's direction to evict the appellant's son and wife from his self-acquired property.

Judicial Interference In Tender Process At Advanced Stage Not Warranted, Challenge Must Be Prompt : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Utkarsh Enterprises & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 825

The Supreme Court (August 18) ruled against judicial interference in public procurement tenders at an advanced stage, noting that a belated challenge to tender conditions, after significant developments had taken place in the evaluation process, would be unfair and unjust to otherwise eligible bidders.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli dismissed appeals challenging tender conditions for procurement of sports goods and outdoor gymnasium equipment for government schools in Delhi, noting that the process had substantially advanced and third-party rights had crystallized.

“Judicial discretion, therefore, must be exercised with extreme circumspection to ensure that fence–sitters, proxies, and unscrupulous litigants who bring a challenge at an advanced stage, are not allowed to disrupt an ongoing process.”, the Court observed.

RPF Rules | Employee Who Suppressed Criminal Case Can Be Discharged At Any Point Of Time : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bappa Barai v. Union of India & Ors. (With Connected Cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 826

The Supreme Court has upheld the discharge of a group of Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) constables who failed to disclose pending criminal cases during the recruitment process.

The Court reiterated that the deliberate suppression of material information regarding criminal antecedents clearly bears on the character of the employee and justifies termination.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe noted that as per the RPF Rules, an employee can be discharged at any time for suppressing criminal cases.

Supreme Court Allows Candidate Who Secured Admission On False ST Certificate To Retain Degree

Case Title: Cynthia Julious Charlie v. Vice Chancellor & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 827

Setting aside the orders of the Bombay High Court, the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan allowed the appeals as per its earlier rulings in Ajay Dattatraya Bandewad v State of Maharashtra & Ors and Mrudula v State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The appellant was a pharmacy student at an institution affiliated to Sant Gadge Baba Amaravati University in 2014-15 under the ST category. When the college informed her that she was eligible for admission from the open category, she deposited fees commensurate with an open category student and completed her degree in 2018.

However, the Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected her caste certificate in 2017, for failure to furnish material substantiating her claim. Consequently, the University withheld her 6th and 8th semester marksheets and degree certificate.

Surplus Employee Entitled To Absorption Against Equivalent Or Lower Post, Not Higher Post : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Sudhakar Shivaram Teke & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 828

The Supreme Court has held that a surplus employee cannot claim absorption against a post higher than the one he was holding when declared surplus merely because the two posts carry the same pay scale or the higher post was vacant.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had directed the absorption of the Respondent No.1 to the post higher, i.e., Head of Department, than the post of lecturer he was holding while he was disengaged after being declared as surplus..

“The policy governing absorption could not, therefore, be invoked to confer upon such an employee, at the stage of absorption, a post higher than the post which he was holding when he was declared surplus.”, the Court observed.

Police Can Register FIR Even If Magistrate Rejected S.156 (3) CrPC Application : Supreme Court

Case Details: Pramod Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 829

The Supreme Court (August 19) held that an FIR can be registered by the police even after the dismissal of an application to a magistrate seeking FIR registration under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. / Section 175 (3) of BNSS.

“The rejection of an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.PC cannot curtail or extinguish the independent statutory obligation cast upon the Police under Section 154 of the Cr.PC.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed against the Allahabad High Court's judgment refusal to quash the FIR in a cheating case against the Appellant-accused. Before the High Court, the accused sought the quashing of an FIR on the procedural aspects, arguing that when the complainant's application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC was rejected by the magistrate, then a subsequent registration of an FIR by the police was impermissible.

PC Act | Recovery Of Bribe Amount Alone Insufficient Without Proof Of Demand: Supreme Court

Case Title: Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek v. State of Gujaratandsirajbhai Rasulbhai Vora v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 830

The Supreme Court (19.08.2026) has acquitted a former Talati-cum-Mantri and a Peon of a Gram Panchayat, who were convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the initial demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. It was also observed that mere recovery of a currency note from the co-accused could not sustain the conviction.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar set aside the Gujarat High Court judgment, which upheld the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 12, and 13 (1) (d) of the Act.

The complainant had approached the Mamlatdat to procure an Income Certificate. The application was examined and forwarded to the Talati-cum-Mantri of village Bechri (A1). It was alleged that A1 demanded Rs 120 (Rs 100 for himself and Rs 20 for the Peon, A2), for issuing the certificate. A complaint was filed before the Anti-Corruption Bureau and a trap was laid. The complainant allegedly gave a Rs 20 note to A2, who was caught with the tainted currency.

'All Parties Didn't Consent To Settlement', Supreme Court Sets Aside Lok Adalat Award In Land Acquisition Dispute

Case Details: Singapogu Babu Rao & Ors. v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 831

The Supreme Court (August 19) set aside Lok Adalat awards passed in a land acquisition dispute, holding that the awards could not be sustained as they did not reflect a genuine agreement under Section 29 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since all the disputing claimants were neither parties nor signatories to the settlement.

“…the High Court in its impugned judgment erred in upholding the awards passed by the Lok Adalat. The awards do not reflect a genuine agreement under Section 29 of the Act, 1894, since all disputing claimants were not parties or signatories thereto.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.

The case arose from the acquisition of land in Kommepalli Village for mining operations of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in 2013 determining compensation at ₹3,48,935 per acre. As disputes existed regarding the persons entitled to the compensation and its apportionment, the matter was referred to the District Judge under Sections 30 and 31 of the 1894 Act.

Motor Accident Claim | Acquittal In Criminal Case Per Se Won't Prove Lack Of Negligence : Supreme Court Explains Principles

Case: Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 832

Acquittals in Criminal Court cannot control or dictate the outcome of MACT proceedings, the Supreme Court has held, reiterating that criminal proceedings and motor accident compensation claims operate in distinct legal spheres and are governed by different standards of proof.

"A subsequent acquittal in a criminal case does not affect the assessment of tortious liability under the MV Act... The findings, quashment, or acquittals in Criminal Court cannot control or dictate the outcome of MACT proceedings, which must be evaluated independently on civil standards," the Court held.

The Court explained the following principles regarding the assessment of negligence in motor accident claims :

Referral Charges Received By Auto Dealers For Bank & Insurance Promotion Subject To Service Tax : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Tvs Motor Company Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-Iii

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 833

The Supreme Court (August 19) held that the referral charges received by automobile dealers from banks and insurance companies for facilitating vehicle loans and insurance policies are taxable as “Business Auxiliary Service” under the Finance Act, 1994.

“The assessee is promoting the business of the banks and the insurance company for which they receive an amount as stipulated in the agreement.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

TVS Motor Company Ltd., a dealer in automobiles, received 'referral charges' from banks (HDFC Bank & ICICI Bank) and insurance companies (Oriental Insurance Company) for referring customers who availed motor vehicle loans and took out insurance policies through the dealer's facilitation.

Supreme Court Rejects Retired Professor's Claim To Be Covered By GPF Scheme Instead Of Central Provident Fund Scheme

Case: K Suman Chandra v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 834

The Supreme Court (20.08.2026) has dismissed a petition filed by a retired Professor of the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD). The petitioner sought to be covered under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme (GPF Scheme) instead of the Central Provident Fund Scheme (CPF Scheme). The Court, however, dismissed it, holding that since the terms of his regularisation were never challenged, he could not raise the grievance after retirement, as he already accepted the benefits under the CPF Scheme.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ruled so while hearing the petitioner's challenge to an order passed by a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, which had set aside a favourable order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) (Hyderabad).

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Research Associate with NIRD on a contractual basis in 1984, and was covered under the CPF Scheme. His services were regularised in 1985. Subsequently, he was appointed as Assistant Director in 1992 on a regular basis, Deputy Director in 1999 on a regular basis, and Professor on contract in 2007. His service as Professor was later regularised in 2012, as his colleague, Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma.

Merely Lodging A False FIR Is Not Abetment Of Suicide: Supreme Court

Case: Patel Joshnaben Pravinkumar Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 835

The Supreme Court (18.08.2026) has held that lodging an FIR or serving a notice seeking maintenance, even if such proceedings are later found to be false, does not by itself amount to instigating the person against whom such proceedings are initiated, to commit suicide. The Court quashed an FIR registered against the in-laws of a man who died by suicide, holding that neither the FIR nor the suicide note left behind by the deceased dislosed the necessary ingredients of abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi ruled so while hearing an appeal against an order of the Gujarat High Court which had dismissed a plea seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the deceased's mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC (now Sections 108 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

The deceased was married to appellants' daughter, who lodged an FIR against her deceased husband under Sections 498A and 323 IPC (now Sections 85 and 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), alleging that he had assaulted her, following which she left the matrimonial home with her son and was later found in distress at railway station. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, a medical examination was conducted which found multiple contusions on her body.

UP Gangsters Act Stillborn, Doesn't Create Any Offence; Perpetuates Violence On Unsuspecting Citizens : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shiv Pratap Singh Alias Chinu v. State of U.P & Ors. (With Connected Case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 836

The Supreme Court declared the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, “stillborn”, holding that the legislation does not create any distinct criminal offence and cannot sustain prosecution and punishment merely on the basis of a person being labelled a “gangster”.

In a strongly worded judgment, the Court observed that the law, enacted ostensibly to curb violence and organised criminal activity, could instead operate against unsuspecting citizens. The Court said the legislation, “on the pretext of adjuring violence”, was in fact capable of “perpetuating” violence against citizen

The Court made these observations while quashing criminal proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against two advocates, observing that the Act merely defines the status of a "gangster" without creating a distinct offence, and the punishment prescribed under the Act is without any corresponding offence.

Caste Abuse Inside Enclosed Space Without Public Presence Is Not SC/ST Act Offence : Supreme Court

Case: Ramkrishna Chauhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 837

The Supreme Court (20.08.2026) quashed proceedings under Sections 3 (2) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 (SC/ST Act). The case was filed against a school manager, accusing him of assaulting and hurling caste-based abuses at the father of two students. The Supreme Court quashed the case, holding that the alleged utterances were made inside an enclosed room with no public access, and therefore did not satisfy the essential statutory requirement.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled so while hearing an appeal against a judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed the appellant's appeal under Section 14A (1) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant was the Manager of the school where the respondent's (R2) sons studied. Following a quarrel between two students, R2 approached the appellant, who allegedly abused and assaulted him along with the school-staff, and used caste-based abuses against him. An FIR under Sections 147, 323, 342, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now , Sections 191, 115, and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the SC/ST Act, was lodged against the appellant. A chargesheet was filed against him and the Special Judge took cognisance.

Once Service Rules Say PSC's Decision Is Final, Govt Cannot Inquire Into Candidate's Eligibility: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shailendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (With Connected Case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 838

The Supreme Court has held that where service rules expressly make the Public Service Commission's decision on a candidate's eligibility final, the government cannot independently reopen and exhaustively reassess the candidate's eligibility after the Commission has found the person eligible and recommended them for appointment.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard a case involving one Shailendra Kumar Patel, who was selected and recommended by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) for the post of Registrar in a State University. Despite the recommendation, the State Government constituted its own inquiry committee, which concluded that the Appellant did not possess the requisite experience, leading to his disqualification.

The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Division and Single Bench decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had justified the State Government decision to undertake an exhaustive enquiry into the eligibility of the Appellants, who were recommended and selected by the State PSC for the Registrar post.

Wife Earning No Reason To Reduce Father's Liability To Maintain Children : Supreme Court

Case: Sujata Kumari & Ors v. Rahul Kumar & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 839

The Supreme Court (20.08.2026) set aside the Allahabad High Court's order that reduced the amount of interim maintenance, holding that the obligation to maintain the children cannot be divided by arithmetic alone. The fact that the wife earns by itself is not a reason to reduce the husband's liability to maintain children, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the orders while hearing an appeal against the High Court's order which had altered the Family Court's order and reduced the amount of interim maintenance from Rs 60,000 to Rs 30,000.

Both the appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) are qualified doctors and got married in 2006. They have two minor daughters. Troubles arose between them which constrained the appellant to leave the matrimonial home. Thereafter, a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) was filed by the appellant seeking Rs 2,50,000 per month as maintenance. The Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month for each daughter, only in respect of the two minor daughters. It declined the interim maintenance to the appellant noting appellant's professional status (earning 1.5 lakh per month) and holding that interim maintenance is meant to protect a party from unemployment or an immediate inability to meet daily needs.

Reserved Candidate Selected On Open Merit Can Claim Better Reserved-Category Post Than Reserved Candidate Having Lower Marks: Supreme Court

Case Title – Chandan v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 840

The Supreme Court observed that a candidate belonging to a reserved category, who is otherwise eligible and has been selected in the open category on merit, is entitled to a better post under the reserved category than a reserved-category candidate who has secured lower marks.

The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale said the legal position was settled and had been reiterated in several judgments, the latest being the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. Ramesh Ram, (2010) 7 SCC 234.

“On the main issue, law is quite settled and has been reiterated by this Court in several judgments with the last one being that of a larger Bench in Union of India vs. Ramesh Ram and Ors. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 234. In such view of the matter, there is no difficulty in holding that a person who is otherwise eligible under the reserved category and has been fitted into the open category, is entitled to a better post under the reserved category as against a person who has secured lesser marks than him in the reserved category,” the Court said.

“Courtroom Most Profound Classroom”: Justice Vinod Chandran Dissents On Relaxing 3 Year Practice Rule For Judicial Service

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 841

Justice K Vinod Chandran has dissented from the Supreme Court judgment modifying the three-year practice requirement and reducing it to one year for recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division), holding that there was no ground to review the earlier judgment restoring the requirement.

Describing the courtroom as “the most profound of all classrooms”, Justice Chandran disagreed with the decision to replace the three-year practice requirement with a transitional arrangement of one year of deemed practice followed by one year each of training and law clerkship.

“The forensic and analytical skills of an adjudicator are better learnt in the profession by observing what happens in the Courts; not necessarily as a Presiding Officer controlling it, but as a keen and eager student of law; the Court room being the most profound of all classrooms. A Presiding Officer's mistake puts to peril a litigant, and her remedy is only by way of an appeal. A lawyer's mistake can be remedied by an experienced Presiding Officer, a seasoned Senior or an astute colleague, or even by a ministerial staff of the Court with first-hand experience of the proceedings. The requirement of experience is the need of the hour and essential in the immediate future, otherwise we would be accused of creating a cadre of careerists rather than of jurists capable of enriching a robust system, alive to the needs of the nation, society and its people”, the observed.

Supreme Court Reduces Practice Condition For Judicial Service To 1 Year; Adds 1 Year Each Training & Clerkship

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 841

Though the Supreme Court refused to review its May 2025 judgment mandating prior legal practice before entering judicial service, it substituted the 3-year practice requirement with one year. The selected candidates will have to undergo training at the judicial academy for one year and a further one-year clerkship under the supervision of Judges.

Also, for candidates in the transition period from May 20, 2025 (the date of the original judgment) till March 31, 2027, the Court waived the practice requirement. The law graduates in this transition period are eligible to appear for Civil Judge Junior Division exams without any practice requirement. However, such candidates, upon selection, will be appointed only as trainee judicial officers for one year. They also need to undergo a further period of one year structured clerkship.

The Court held that the sudden restoration of the three-year practice rule without any transitional arrangement has visited hardship on young lawyers and law graduates and hence, a limited intervention is warranted.

Supreme Court Waives Prior Practice Requirement For Civil Judge (Junior Division) Exams Till March 2027

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 841

The Supreme Court has waived the three-year practice requirement for candidates applying for Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations pursuant to recruitment notifications issued between May 20, 2025 and March 31, 2027.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran (dissenting) said all law graduates would be eligible to apply during this transitional period, notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement.

The Court said such candidates would be deemed to have completed one year of active practice for the purposes of their applications. They will not be required to furnish a separate certificate of practice for the deemed period.

Police Cannot Register FIR And Conduct Investigation For PC-PNDT Act Offences : Supreme Court

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 842

The Supreme Court held that police cannot register FIR and act as the main investigating authority for offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act). The Court held that the Appropriate Authority constituted under the Act is responsible for investigating complaints, while police can at most play a supplemental role when required by the Appropriate Authority.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh pronounced judgment in a case concerning the scope of police powers to register FIRs and investigate offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act).

The Court also held that a competent Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act on the basis of a chargesheet filed after a police investigation.

Mere Mutation In Revenue Records Cannot Extinguish One's Title In Property: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jamnabai and Others v. Vasudev and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 843

The Supreme Court (August 20) reiterated that a revenue record entry neither creates nor extinguishes title to immovable property.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih heard a case in which title rights in a joint family property were declared extinguished because of a subsequent entry in the revenue records in the name of another person.

The case involved agricultural land originally held by one Bhagwansingh, who had two sons, Ramprasad and Vasudev. Following Bhagwansingh's death, the property devolved upon both sons and was initially recorded jointly in their names.

'Child Witness Testimony Not Convincing' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction

Case Details: Ravi Kumar Singh Malhotra v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 844

The Supreme Court (August 20) overturned the murder conviction of a man accused of killing his wife and child, after finding that the child witness testimony relied upon by the trial court was suspect to tutoring and unsupported by any corroborating material.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment which had interfered with the trial court's decision to acquit the Appellant.

The prosecution's case was that the Appellant, residing separately with his deceased wife and two kids, had murdered the wife and one kid by strangulation while taking them on the pretext of a trip from Kanpur to Khajuraho. Among other aspects, the child witness, being of a tender age of 4 ½ years, became crucial for the determination of the Appellant's conviction. It was alleged that another kid (PW-28) of the Appellant managed to escape from the crime scene.

Pendency Of Criminal Case No Ground To Discharge Public Servant: Supreme Court

Case Details: Spo/Constable Irb Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 845

The Supreme Court has held that a public employer cannot discharge an employee merely because a criminal case is pending against him, particularly when the employee has not been allowed to defend himself.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that the discharge of a police constable was illegal because, at the time of his removal, there was no conviction against him and the order was based solely on the pendency of the criminal case.

“Appellant was discharged from service not because of his conviction on a criminal charge but merely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. He was not given an opportunity of raising his defence. We have not been shown any law which authorises a public employer to either dismiss or remove an employee serving the police for more 12 than a decade solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. The act of termination of service, in the circumstances, cannot be justified.”, the Court said.

Advocate Cannot Disclose Client's Confidential Information Even If She Turns Adversary : Supreme Court Upholds Lawyers' Suspension

Case Details: Rehana Khan v. Rizwan Siddhiquee (With Connected Case)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 846

The Supreme Court (August 21) affirmed the two-year suspension of an advocate's license to practice, holding that the disclosure of a former client's confidential information could not be justified on the ground of responding to public allegations.

“An advocate's duty is not conditional upon the client's continued good behaviour towards the advocate. An advocate cannot use information received in confidence against his client, and the fact that she has since become his adversary makes no difference.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while sustaining the Bar Council of India disciplinary committee order to suspend the bar license of the Respondent-advocate for two years.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the Appellant (actress Rehana Khana @ Rozlyn Khan) against her former advocate, i.e., Respondent (Rizwan Siddique), before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The appellant had engaged the respondent as her counsel in 2013-2014 in connection with allegations of sexual assault against a senior police official.

Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Costs On Actress & Her Advocate For Wasting Judicial Time

Case Details: Rehana Khan v. Rizwan Siddhiquee | C.A. No. 12256/2025 & Rizwan Siddiquee v. Rehana Khan | C.A. No. 7959/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 846

The Supreme Court (August 21) strongly disapproved of the conduct of Mumbai-based Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee and actress Rehana Khan, alias Rozlyn Khan, for wasting more than 11 years of the judiciary just for the sake of their reputation.

In view of the conduct of both sides, the Court also imposed costs. The appellant and the respondent were each directed to pay ₹5 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, with the Court directing that the amount would be recovered in accordance with law in the event of non-payment.

To briefly state, the issue arose after Khan accused Siddiquee of professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, alleging that he breached the fiduciary relationship by disclosing confidential client information to the media, issuing a public notice without consent, and making derogatory remarks about his client public. Khan made a complaint to the Bar Council of India, which initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the advocate.

Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Holding 'Art Of Living' Liable For Yamuna Riverplain Damage; Directs Rs 5 Crore Refund

Case Details: Vyakti Vikas Kendra India v. Manoj Misra (Dead) and Ors. | C.A. No. 683/2018

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 847

The Supreme Court (August 22) set aside an order of the National Green Tribunal, which directed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's Art of Living International Centre to pay Rs. 5 crore for the damage caused to the river Yamuna floodplains due to its World Culture Festival organised by Vyakti Vikas Kendra in March 2016.

A bench comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice NK Singh, allowed the appeal filed by Vyakti Vikas Kendra, an entity running the Art of Living International Centre, against the order passed by NGT in December 2017. The Bench held that there is no direct evidence that the cultural festival caused damage to the River Yamuna's fragile ecosystem.

The bench directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to refund the fine of Rs 5 crore paid by Vyakti Vikas Kendra.

'Industry' Definition Given In Bangalore Water Supply Case Must Govern Pending Cases Under ID Act 1947 : Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 848

A 9-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court answered the reference arising out of a 2002 appeal over the correctness of the 'triple tests' laid dow in the 1978 judgment in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa to determine whether an activity will fall within the definition of "industry" in Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

While four judges of the bench reformulated the tests to introduce a 'dominant commercial motive' aspect (as per the 1978 judgment, it profit element was unnecessary), five other judges had differing views.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, reformulated the triple test developed by Justice Krishna Iyer. However, they clarified that the new formula will only apply prospectively and will not disturb concluded decisions or affect pending proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. They further clarified that the interpretation is confined only to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and will not impact the new Industrial Relations Code, 2020.

'Industry' Definition : No Clear Majority Emerges From Supreme Court Judgment, Only 4 Out Of 9 Judges Back New Test

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 848

The Supreme Court's much-awaited nine-Judge Bench judgment on the meaning of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not appear to yield a clear majority in favour of the new test formulated by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

While the Chief Justice's formulation is supported by three other judges (Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vipul Pancholi), four judges [ Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, & Joymalya Bagchi ]specifically affirm the correctness of the interpretation laid down by the seven-Judge Bench in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa. Justice PS Narasimha reaches the conclusion of not disturbing Bangalore Water Supply, but on a different ground - that the Industrial Disputes Act has already been repealed and replaced by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.

CJI's new formulation gets support from four

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Can Be Rejected At Threshold When Limitation Bar Is Obvious From Pleadings : Supreme Court

Case Details: N Asha Devi v. R Aravind Kumar & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 849

The Supreme Court has held that a plaint can be rejected at the threshold stage if the pleadings make it evident that the plaint is barred by limitation.

“…the Court cannot be hesitant in granting relief of rejection of a plaint when it is so obvious from the pleadings itself.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran.

The Court said that while limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law which requires adjudication in trial, however, where the facts about the plaint being barred by limitation are glaring from the plaint averments themselves, the court must exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint at the threshold stage without waiting for a trial.

Execution Court Cannot Travel Beyond Decree To Grant Unintended Reliefs: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Etc. v. Jameet Singh & Anr. Etc. (With Connected Cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 850

The Supreme Court has reiterated that it is impermissible for the executing courts to go beyond the order/decree by granting such reliefs not intended or recorded in an order.

“The Execution Court could not have travelled beyond the order sought to be executed or gone behind the interpretation thereof, particularly, when the order itself did not require any further or special interpretation.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment passed in an execution proceeding where the High Court had gone behind the order and ordered an extension of the relief to the Respondents not contemplated in a judgment.

The respondents were School Lecturers appointed on a contract basis between 1998 and 2000.

SARFAESI | Earnest Money Deposit Shortfall Doesn't Vitiate Sale If 25% Sale Price Paid On Auction Day : Supreme Court

Case Details: Lakshmi Mohan (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr. v. M/S. Airtech Projects Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (With Connected Cases)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 851

The Supreme Court has held that an auction sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be set aside merely due to a shortfall in depositing of an earnest money deposit. The Court said that once the auction purchaser complies with the statutory mandate to deposit 25% mark of the sale price on the same day of auction, then a mere shortfall in deposit of EMD pales into insignificance.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the case where the sale certificate issued in favour of an Appellant-an auction purchaser- was interfered with merely on account of a shortfall in depositing the EMD price, despite the auction purchaser having complied with the requirement of submitting 25% of the sale price on the day of an auction.

The case arose after the borrower's loan account was declared as Non-Performing Asset by the bank, following which the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act began, which resulted in an auction sale proceedings of the borrower's secured property.

Orders and Other Development

Supreme Court Halts Allahabad HC Proceedings Against Rahul Gandhi In Plea Seeking CBI/ED Probe

Case: Rahul Gandhi v. S. Vignesh Shishir and Ors. Diary No. 47728-2026 (And Connected Case)

The Supreme Court directed the deferral of proceedings in the Allahabad High Court in a petition seeking CBI and ED investigations against Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi on a complaint alleging that he possessed assets disproportionate to his income.

Hearing a petition filed by the Congress MP against the Allahabad High Court's direction to the CBI and the ED to verify the allegations, the Supreme Court further restrained both the central agencies from submitting any report to the High Court. The bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, on being informed that the High Court has posted the matter next on August 20, directed that the proceedings in the High Court will stand deferred till further orders. Gandhi has also filed a separate petition seeking the transfer of the proceedings from Allahabad High Court to the Delhi High Court.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Rahul Gandhi, submitted that the High Court proceedings were "unknown to law" and that it amounted to a "witchunt through a process not recognised by law." Sibal questioned the locus standi and the bona-fides of the petitioner before the High Court, saying that he was repeatedly filing petitions against Rahul Gandhi. Sibal submitted that the petitioner in the High Court suppressed that he was an RSS worker, and that there was another order by the High Court criticising him.

Supreme Court Asks Karnataka To Comply With Cauvery Authority's Directions On Water Release To Tamil Nadu

Case: Ma 2445/2026 In C.A. No. 2453/2007 Diary No. 46527 / 2026 State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court directed Karnataka to comply with the directions of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) on the release of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu, while posting Tamil Nadu's application to August 24. The Court also called for a status report from the authority.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea filed by Tamil Naduseeking implementation of the CWMA's direction requiring Karnataka to release water.

Appearing for Tamil Nadu, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan told the court that Karnataka was not complying with the CWMA's directions and that the State was not receiving the water required for release to farmers.

Sikkim SIR : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Challenging ECI Decision To Keep 2002 As Base Year

Case: Sikkimese Mulniwasi Surakcha Sangh (Smss), A Registered Public Trust v. Election Commission of India and Ors. | W.P. (C) No. 979/2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Election Commission of India's decision to use the 2002 electoral roll as the reference point for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Sikkim.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard a Public Interest Litigation filed by a Sikkim-based organisation challenging the use of the 2002 electoral roll. The petitioner had sought special treatment for Sikkim, arguing that an earlier Intensive Revision conducted in 1979, 1983, 1988 or 1993 should instead be used as reference material.

The petitioner's counsel argued that Sikkim's demographic profile was different from that of other States and that its population data did not correspond with the electoral data. The counsel also pointed to changes in population figures following successive revisions and questioned the basis for selecting 2002.

Already Issued Transgender Identity Cards Won't Be Affected By 2026 Amendment : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case: Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. | W.P. (C) No. 548/2026 and Connected Cases.

The Central Government told the Supreme Court that transgender identity cards which have already been issued will not be affected by the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

The transgender identity cards issued earlier will continue, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana during the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the 2026 amendment, which took away the right to self-identification of gender.

Earlier, the Court had sought the Centre's response to the concerns raised by the petitioners that the 2026 amendment has affected the rights enjoyed by individuals who were issued transgender cards earlier. During the hearing on August 3, the Court had orally expressed that the 2026 amendment cannot affect rights which have already accrued. After taking instructions from the Centre, the SG submitted that the previous transgender identity cards will continue.

Supreme Court Directs Meta To Restore AAP Gujarat's Facebook, Instagram Pages

Case Details: Aam Aadmi Party & Ors v. Uoi | Ia 22668 In WP 576/2026

The Supreme Court (August 17) allowed interim relief to the Aam Aadmi Party, directing Meta to restore its Instagram and Facebook pages of the Gujarat State unit, subject to the removal of objectionable posts.

The present order was passed in an interlocutory application filed in the main matter where AAP raised the larger issue regarding the blocking of content and accounts without informing the users. IA has been filed for an interim order to restore the Instagram page of AAP's Gujarat unit, '@aapgujarat', and its Facebook page, which cumulatively had over 10.39 lakh followers before it was ordered to be blocked on April 24. It has been stated that an interim order is necessary because blocking of the social media pages results in choking the entire communication channel of a national political party.

A bench comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the order. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat (for the petitioner) appeared before the bench and prayed that the interim relief may be allowed, considering that the Union has again sought an adjournment. When the matter was first taken up, it was passed over, since Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was in another court. The bench, before adjourning, had indicated that it would grant the interim relief.

Ram Mandir Donation Theft : Supreme Court Allows Public To Give Suggestions To Solicitor General Regarding SIT Probe

Cases: Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and Others | WP (C) 790/2026; Ajay Kumar Rai and Another v. Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust | WP (Crl) 241/2026; Sudhakar Singh v. Union of India and Others | WP (Crl) 256/2026; Hindu Dharma Parishad v. Union of India and Ors. | WP (C) No. 827/2026

The Supreme Court permitted the petitioners and other public-spirited persons to submit suggestions to the office of the Solicitor General regarding any aspect which should be investigated by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in connection with the allegations of theft of the donations received by the Ram Mandir trust in Ayodhya.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana said that suggestions could be submitted on aspects that may require thorough investigation by the SIT constituted by the Uttar Pradesh police.

The Court directed the office of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to forward the suggestions to the SIT, expressing confidence that they would be objectively considered. The Court also directed the SIT to submit a status report in sealed cover for its perusal.

Are Courts Limited By SHANTI Act In Determining Nuclear Accident Compensation? Supreme Court Asks Union

Case Title: Eas Sarma and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., W.P. (C) No. 240/2026

The Supreme Court called on the Union of India to clarify that regardless of the provisions of the SHANTI Act, nothing would preclude constitutional courts from determining "fair and just" compensation amount if there is a nuclear accident.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order seeking clarifications on two aspects - (i) any fetters on the power of constitutional courts to fix compensation, and (ii) Section 17 (4) of the Act which deals with appointment of members to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).

Notice was issued to the Union of India and the AERB on these limited points.

BCI Being Regulatory Body Can't Run Law College : Prashant Bhushan Tells Supreme Court

Advocate Prashant Bhushan stated before the Supreme Court that a petition challenging Bar Council of India's running of a law college, while being a regulatory body for law colleges, is in the process of being filed.

The counsel apprised about the same to a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya bagchi and Justice V Mohana, while the bench was dealing with the plea of EAS Sarma (and others) challenging thevalidity of the SHANTI Act.

Bhushan was arguing on the conflict arising on account of the fact that members of the AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) are appointed on the recommendation of a selection panel formed by the Atomic Energy Commission (which operates nuclear power plants). He contended that due to this conflict, the purpose of having an independent regulatory board is defeated.

Over 98000 Govt Schools Lack Functional Washrooms For Girls : Plea In Supreme Court

Case: Reepak Kansal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P. (C) No. 987/2026

The Supreme Court considered a petition raising the issue of lack of proper sanitation facilities for girls in government schools.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the public interest litigation filed by Reepak Kansal (and another) flagging the lack of proper sanitation facilities for girls in government schools.

While agreeing that the issue raised was important, the CJI pointed out that a bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala issued comprehensivedirections in this regard vide a judgment on January 30, and that matter is now being taken up for monitoring.

Supreme Court Directs Nationwide Survey On Steps To Prevent Blocking Of Elephant Corridors

Case: Prerna Singh Bindra v. Niraj Singhal, Ifs, W.P. (C) No. 489/2018

The Supreme Court orally observed that no State/Union Territory can cause any obstruction in elephant corridors, even on the purported ground of likely harm to persons or property.

Ordering a nationwide survey by the Union, the Court called for a comprehensive report, which shall indicate what steps have been taken by the states to prevent such obstruction and prohibit hulla parties (groups of local youth armed with iron rods/spikes and burning mashaals), use of fireballs, mashaals, etc. against elephants.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with an application filed in the Prerna Bindra case related to human-elephant conflicts. In 2024, the Court had issued notice to the West Bengal government on a contempt petition filed in the case, assailing continuous use of sharp spikes and burning mashaals to drive away elephants.

'AK 47 Fired During Student Protests But None Injured' : Bihar Govt Tells Supreme Court, Denies Using Excessive Force

In the PILs alleging police brutality against student protesters, the Bihar government has filed a counter affidavit before the Supreme Court denying use of 'disproportionate force' to cause any harm to the protestors.

On the accusation of use of AK47 rifle at Siwan, it says that 4 shots were fired into the air by one of the constable as he got trapped in the crowd. However, no one was injured as a result. The affidavit further mentions that near Hathi Chowk, an ASI fired 2 rounds from his 9 mm pistol to disperse the mob and 3 protestors suffered “minor firearms injuries”.

The affidavit also underlines that these 3 protestors were not injured by the AK47 rifle, nor were they present at the location where the rifle was used. Even so, it is added that ballistic examination is ongoing to find out the type of weapon, distance of fire, angle of fire, etc.

No Excessive Force Used Against Student Protesters, Parliament March Was Illegal : Delhi Police To Supreme Court

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others | WP (C) 280/2026

AfterBihar, the Delhi Police has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court denying the use of excessive force against student protestors.

In a counter-affidavit filed by Dy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma, the police defended its use of force, saying the protests had ceased to be peaceful after sections of the crowd allegedly breached multiple layers of barricades and attempted to move towards Parliament. The affidavit was filed in response to the petitions seeking Court-monitored investigation into alleged police excesses and is also intended as a common reply in four connected petitions.

It states that the police used a graded force. About 5000 police officers were trying to manage a crowd of over 30,000 people, spread across 3 kms. As the crowd went completely out of control, struggle ensued and both protestors as well as police personnel were injured. More than 240 personnel/uniformed officers and around 200 public persons/protestors received injuries.

Supreme Court Flags Anomalies In Fixing Consumer Fora Jurisdiction Based On Consideration Paid, Seeks Centre's Response

Case Details: M/S Avon Elastomers (India) v. M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors.

The Supreme Court has flagged certain anomalies which can arise from the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, if the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer fora is determined as per the value of consideration paid by the consumer for goods or services, and sought the response of the Union Government.

Unlike the repealed 1986 Act, where the pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer commissions was determined based on the aggregate value of goods or services involved and the compensation claimed, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, marked a significant departure by limiting jurisdictional computation to the value of the goods or services paid as consideration.

The bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli was essentially considering a consumer dispute arising from an insurance contract. During the hearing, the bench expanded the consideration to the larger issue.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre, States On Plea Against Police Posting Images Of Accused On Social Media

Case Details: Hemendra Patel v. Union of India and Ors | Diary No. 32704/2026

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre, the States, and social media platforms X and Meta, on a petition seeking directions to prevent police from uploading on social media photographs and videos that reveal the identities of accused persons or depict them in a dehumanising manner.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the petition. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the petitioner.

The petition seeks directions to the States to immediately take down posts published on official police social media accounts that reveal the faces or identities of accused persons or portray them in degrading or humiliating circumstances. The examples cited include images of accused persons being handcuffed, tied with ropes, beaten with sticks, made to kneel, dragged or pulled down stairs.

Gen Z Protests : Supreme Court Expresses Intention To Quash FIRs Against Students, Says 'Question Of Their Future'

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 44078/2026 and Connected Cases

The Supreme Court expressed its intention to quash the FIRs registered against student protesters over the protests held in different parts of the country last month over issues such as exam paper leaks. The Court however clarified that cases against persons having a past history of grievous offences, who infiltrated the protests, will not be quashed.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that it was a question of the future of thousands of students, and indicated that Article 142 powers could be invoked to quash the cases.

The CJI also reiterated the intention of the Court to constitute a high-powered committee to examine the issues related to the student protest violence, and indicated that the committee will comprise a former Supreme Court Judge, former High Court Judge and a former DGP. On the first day of the hearing of the petitions as well, the Court had expressed the plan to form a committee to monitor the investigation of allegations of police violence. The CJI revealed that the consent of a former CBI Director and a former DGP (not from any of the States involved in the present issue) has been obtained, and the bench will pass orders after considering all aspects. The CJI allowed the parties to give written suggestions regarding the mandate and scope of the committee.

Supreme Court Approves Centre's Appointment Of New CMD For Unitech Ltd

Case Details: Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd.

The Supreme Court (August 17) approved the appointment of retired IAS officer Giridhar Aramane as the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of real estate company Unitech Limited, following the end of the tenure of former CMD Yudhvir Singh Malik.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan took note of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs' application seeking approval for the appointment of Aramane, a 1988-batch IAS officer, as the new Chairman and Managing Director on the board of Unitech.

“We take notice of the fact that the tenure of Mr. Yudhveer Singh Malik, former chairman and managing director on board of Unitech Ltd., has come to an end. Came to an end on 20th of July 2026. The Ministry has now appointed Shri Giridhar Aromane, IAS, RETD, retired, 1988 batch, to function as chairman and managing director on the board of Unitech Ltd. We approve the appointment of Mr. Giridhar Aromane as the chairman and managing director on the board of Unitech Ltd.”, the Court said.

Facial Recognition Tool Only Captures Persons Having Criminal Records At Protests : Delhi Police To Supreme Court

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others | WP (C) No. 280/2026 (And Connected Cases)

In itsaffidavitfiled before the Supreme Court, the Delhi Police has taken a stand that facial recognition software deployed during student protests over examination paper leaks only captured the images of criminals or history sheeters.

The police says that the use of the technology was a proportionate policing measure. The software, according to the affidavit, does not automatically capture profile of every individual present at the protest site, nor is it deployed for indiscriminate surveillance or collection of personal information of peaceful protestors unless he has a previous criminal record.

The police further claims that no action is taken solely on the basis of facial recognition software. A field verification is also carried out to be sure that the person in question was present at site or not. Further, the software only captures persons who have a past criminal record for serious offenses, not petty offenses like traffic challans.

Supreme Court Issues Notice In PIL Seeking Applications Of Money Laundering, Anti-Corruption Laws On Paper Leak Accused

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P. (Crl.) No. 264/2026 Diary No. 40857 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 18) issued notice in a public interest litigation seeking that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Money Laundering Act, and the Benami Property Act should be applied in such cases to determine their prior liabilities in cases of paper leaks.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice after briefly hearing advocate and petitioner-in-person Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

He had filed the petition in the backdrop of the NEET paper leak, which affected lakhs of students. He argued that there have been continued failures on the part of the authorities to prevent, investigate and effectively prosecute those responsible for the paper leaks.

Supreme Court Deprecates Judicial Officers Directly Approaching It For Service Disputes, Asks Them To Move HC Committees First

Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors.

In the All India Judges Association case, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of judicial officers directly approaching it to redress their service-related grievances.

The Court surmised that this might be due to the failure of the High Court administrative committees to redress the issues in a timely manner.

Therefore, to avoid judicial officers approaching the Supreme Court at the first instance, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana urged the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to sensitise their administrative committees. Earlier, the Court had directedthe High Courts to constitute "Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary" to deal with the grievances of the judicial officers.

'Treat Elephant Like Deity, Not Servant': Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Welfare Of Captive Elephants

Case: Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P. (C) No. 743/2014

The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions to ensure the welfare and upkeep of captive elephants, while stressing that there shall be no ownership/transfer of elephants without compliance with the relevant rules as well as clear documentation as to the transferor and transferee and the purpose of the transfer.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana further directed the MoEFCC/Captive Elephant Healthcare and Welfare Committee (constituted by the MoEFCC) to explain whether DNA profiling of the elephants is complete, and if so, whether the same is reflected on the Gajah Suchana App.

The Court noted that the population of captive elephants had gone up from 2675 in 2018 to 2725 in 2026, out of which 1678 were stated to be possessed by private persons. It emphasized that its concern for now was not with the ownership of the elephants, but rather, their health, well-being and upkeep.

Supreme Court Mulls CBI Probe Against Mamata Banerjee Over Alleged Obstruction Of ED's I-PAC Raid

Case Detail: Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. | W.P. (Crl.) No. 16/2026

The Supreme Court (August 18) expressed its intention to transfer the investigation into former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's alleged obstruction of the Enforcement Directorate's raid of I-PAC, the political consultant of the All India Trinamool Congress, in January this year, to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The Court was hearing the writ petition filed by the ED and its officers seeking FIR and investigation against Mamata Banerjee and certain police officials who allegedly abetted her act.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the matter. At the outset, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy (for the former Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee) submitted that since there has been a change of government, the State police can investigate.

Shiv Sena Row | Speaker Cannot Equate Legislative Majority With Political Party: Kapil Sibal To Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP (C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (And Connected Case)

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended before the Supreme Court that Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar had illegally conflated the Shiv Sena's legislative party with the political party while refusing to disqualify MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

Sibal argued that the Tenth Schedule does not contemplate a situation where members of a legislature party become the political party merely because they constitute a majority in the House.

“The Speaker has completely exceeded his jurisdiction under the Tenth Schedule and disregarded the Shiv Sena political party leadership through an exercise that is contrary to the scheme and structure of the Tenth Schedule,” Sibal submitted.

Zubeen Garg Death | Diligently Proceed With Trial, Supreme Court Tells Assam; Defers Mahanta's Bail Plea

Case Title: Shyamkanu Mahanta v. State of Assam | SLP (Crl.) 11523/2026

The Supreme Court on August 17 directed the State of Assam to diligently proceed with the trial in the case of event organiser Shyam Kanu Mahanta in an alleged murder and cheating case in connection with the death of Assamese singer Zubeen Garg during a yacht trip in Singapore in September 2025.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the bail plea of Mahanta but deferred the hearing to October, considering the submissions of the State of Assam that it will examine material witnesses in the upcoming weeks.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for Mahanta) submitted that the State is yet to examine 11 witnesses who are based in Singapore. Responding to this, the State's Advocate General Devajit Saikia stated that they will be examining those witnesses soon. Oralling remarking that the trial should be expedited, the Court deferred the hearing.

Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into Alleged Financial Irregularities By Indiabulls Housing Finance's Promoters

Case Title: Citizens Whistle Blower Forum v. Union of India, SLP (C) No. 2993/2025

The Supreme Court directed the CBI to probe allegations of financial irregularities levelled against the promotors of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (now Sammaan Capital Limited).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, calling on the CBI conduct the investigation notwithstanding the report of Delhi Police's Economic Offenses Wing qua 5 out of 6 allegations in the ED's prosecution complaint.

The order was passed in a PIL alleging serious financial misconduct, including round-tripping of funds, siphoning of money and violation of the Companies Act by Indiabulls' promoters. Earlier, the Court had sharply criticized the EOW and CBI over a failure to apprise the progress of investigation.

Goa Government Moves Supreme Court Seeking Life Sentence For Tarun Tejpal In Rape Case

The Goa government has approached the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed on former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 rape case, asking that he be sentenced to life imprisonment instead of the 10-year rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Bombay High Court.

The State clarified it challenges only the quantum of punishment and does not seek to reopen or question the findings of conviction recorded by the High Court.

The Bombay High Court's Goa bench, comprising Justices Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar, had on August 6 overturned Tejpal's acquittal by the trial court and convicted him in the 2013 case. The court subsequently sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.

Ex-Lok Sabha MP Moves Supreme Court For Fixation Of MSP Based On Swaminathan Commission Report, Crop Loan Waiver

Case: Vadde Sobhanadreeswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr., Diary No. 27847-2026

A PIL has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking implementation of a legally enforceable Minimum Support Price (MSP) for all notified agricultural crops based on C2 (actual cost of cultivation) plus 50 percent (profit margin) formula in terms of the recommendations of the Swaminathan Commission.

The plea, filed by farmer and former Member of Lok Sabha Vadde Sobhanadreeswara Rao, also seeks formulation of a timebound debt relief mechanism, which may include a one-time waiver of crop loan dues of small and marginal farmers affected by agrarian distress.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana tagged the petition with a similar case.

Pending Trials Against MP/MLAs Remain Same Despite Courts' Monitoring, Amicus Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | WP 699/2016

A fresh report submitted to the Supreme Court has raised concerns over the continued pendency of criminal cases against sitting and former Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, despite years of judicial monitoring aimed at ensuring speedy trials.

As per a status report filed in the Supreme Court, 4192 criminal cases are pending against MPs and MLAs, out of which 519 cases have been pending for more than 10 years. 14 out of 28 Chief Ministers of States have declared cases against them, the highest being the Chief Minister of Telangana, Anumula Revanth Reddy.

The report notes that despite continuous monitoring from Courts, the pending cases have remained almost the same since 2018, with the highest number of cases pending under the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court.

As Centre Brings Back Persons Sent To Bangladesh, Supreme Court Disposes Of Plea

Case: Union of India v. Bhodu Sekh | SLP (Crl) No. 18658/2025 & Union of India v. Amir Khan & Ors | SLP (Crl) 18891/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of petitions filed by the Union government challenging directions of theCalcutta High Court to repatriate certain Bengali-speaking individuals who had been sent to Bangladesh on suspicion of their citizenship, after the Centre informed the court that the persons had been brought back to India.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the Union's challenge to the Calcutta High Court's directions requiring the authorities to repatriate the individuals.

The proceedings effectively came to an end after the Union brought the persons back to India as a special case.

“If You Don't Decide, We Will”: Supreme Court Pulls Up Odisha Over Delay In Dara Singh's Remission

Case Details: Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. State of Odisha | Diary No. 11407-2024

The Supreme Court (August 19) gave one last opportunity to the Orissa Sentence Review Board to decide on the premature release of Dara Singh, aka Rabindra Kumar Pal, who is serving a life sentence in the murder case of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons in 1999. It orally said that on next hearing if no decision is taken, the Court will take its own decision.

At the last hearing, the Court asked the Odisha Government to decide on the premature release by August 19. However, a bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was informed that no decision has been taken yet. The advocate initially sought a passover, but when the Court questioned him on why no decision has been taken, he placed on record a letter from the Directorate General of Prisons. The Court questioned asked the letter has been placed when the decision of the review board is relevant.

The advocate informed that the DG Police has mentioned that information regarding antecedents has been called for from the State of Uttar Pradesh, where he belongs.

NEET-UG : Supreme Court Scrutinises NTA Capacity, Says Dedicated & Scientifically Equipped Body Like UPSC Needed

Case Details: Federation of All India Medical Association v. National Testing Agency and Ors. | W.P. (C) No. 651/2026 and Others

The Supreme Court sought the Union government's response on the steps taken to implement recommendations of the expert committee headed by former ISRO chairman K. Radhakrishnan, as improved by the expert committee headed by Nandan Nilakeni, for reforms in the National Testing Agency (NTA).

The Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing petitions filed by the Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA) and United Doctors Front (UDF) seeking structural reforms in the NTA in the wake of the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.

SG explains question-paper security system

NEET-UG | Why Nilakeni Task Force Formed? New Law Doesn't Address Liability Of NTA Officials : Doctors Body To Supreme Court

The Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA) has filed a detailed response before the Supreme Court challenging the adequacy of measures outlined by the National Testing Agency (NTA) in its compliance affidavit on examination reforms, arguing that several recommendations of the K. Radhakrishnan Committee have either not been implemented or have not been adequately explained.

At the outset, FAIMA questioned why the Union has constituted a new High-Powered Task Force under the chairmanship of Nandan Nilekani, when there is already a High-Level Committee of Experts (HLCE) headed by Dr K. Radhakrishnan. It has been stated that the Centre has not provided any reasoning why the recommendations of the earlier committee have not been followed in letter and spirit.

"The said reasoning is important since the students cannot afford to have repeated instances of paper leaks and see a new committee been formed after each year, without the recommendations of that Committee being executed fully by the authorities."

Shiv Sena Row | Can We Declare Eknath Shinde Disqualified Today? Supreme Court Asks UBT Group

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP (C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (And Connected Case)

In the Shiv Sena matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court asked the Uddhav Thackeray faction whether Eknath Shinde (and other splinter group MLAs) can be consequentially declared disqualified as per the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution if the Maharashtra Speaker's order refusing to disqualify them is set aside.

The judge posed to Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing along with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for the UBT faction, whether the Court can return a finding which incurs Shinde's disqualification even though the Maharashtra Speaker did not disqualify him and Shinde has been since re-elected pursuant to fresh elections.

"Can we declare him (Shinde) disqualified today? Can we assume the role of Speaker and hold him disqualified?" Justice Bagchi asked.

Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench To Pronounce Judgment Tomorrow On Correctness Of 'Industry' Definition

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh | C.A. No. 897/2002

Update on August 21 - 'Industry' Definition Given In Bangalore Water Supply Case Must Govern Pending Cases Under ID Act 1947 : Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench

The Supreme Court will tomorrow pronounce its judgment on reconsideration of the expansive definition of "industry" given in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978).

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M Pancholi heard on the limited issue of whether the Bangalore Water Supply judgment was rightly decided and reserved for judgment on March 19.

'If You've System For Men, How Can You Deny To Women?' : Supreme Court Grills Coast Guard Over Denial Of Permanent Commission

Case Title: Priyanka Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave To Appeal (C) 3045/2024

The Supreme Court urged the Indian Coast Guard to grant Permanent Commission to a Short Service Commission-woman officer Priyanka Tyagi. It was said that if the ICG does not do the needful, the court will pass an appropriate direction.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana conveyed its opinion to Attorney General R Venkataramani, while dealing with Tyagi's petition challenging Delhi High Court's denial of interim relief for her continuation as a Deputy Commandant.

Notably, in 2024, the top Court had transferred to itself Tyagi's writ petition before the High Court. By way of an interim order, theCourt also allowed her to continue in the ICG at the same post as she had prior to retirement in December 2023.

Disconnect Power & Water Of Bulk Waste Generators Violating Solid Waste Management Rules : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bhopal Municipal Corporation v. Dr Subhash C. Pandey & Ors. (With Connected Appeal)

The Supreme Court (August 18) directed District Collectors across the country to identify all Bulk Waste Generators (BWGs) within their respective jurisdictions within six weeks, while putting such entities on notice that continued non-compliance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 could invite coercive measures, including temporary disconnection of electricity or water supply.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a matter concerning the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, where it emphasized that the effective implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 requires responsibilities to be fixed not only upon municipal authorities but also upon those who generate waste in substantial quantities.

“Every local body shall, through its Chairman/Commissioner/Secretary, as directed by the jurisdictional District Collector, communicate in writing to every BWG within its limits the obligations viz, (i) segregation, storage and handover of solid waste generated; and (ii) the consequence of non-compliance resulting in the temporary disconnection of water and electricity supply by order of the District Collector's Special Cell, restorable upon submission of a compliance certificate by the BWG.”, the Court ordered.

Can Challenge To Testator's Title Be Raised In Probate Proceedings? Supreme Court To Decide

Case Title: Chandrahas Laxman Kanhere & Ors. v. Sunil Waman Bhide

The Supreme Court appointed Rajasthan Additional Advocate General Padmesh Mishra as amicus curiae to assist it in determining whether revocation of probate can be sought on the ground that the title of properties bequeathed under a Will did not belong to the testator.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice returnable on September 21, 2026, on a plea challenging a Bombay High Court judgment which held that questions relating to title or ownership of property cannot be adjudicated in probate proceedings, as such disputes fall outside the jurisdiction of a Probate Court.

“Considering the importance of the issue involved, we request and appoint Shri Padmesh Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General as amicus curiae to assist the Court (pro bono)”, the Court observed.

UGC Equity Regulations 2026 Being Reconsidered : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Abeda Salim Tadvi and Anr. v. Union of India | W.P. (C) No. 1149/2019 & Connected Case

The Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that the Union Government was reconsidering the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, which were formulated to address caste discrimination in colleges and universities.

Noting this, the Court adjourned the batch of petitions challenging the 2026 regulations till four weeks. In January, the Courthad stayed the operation of the 2026 regulations, after prima facie observing that they were vague and capable of being misused.

Today, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that the UGC regulations were under reconsideration, and requested that the bench may defer the formulation of questions to be determined until the process is over.

Tarun Tejpal Moves Supreme Court Against Conviction In 2013 Rape Case

Former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the Bombay High Court's order of conviction and sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment in the 2013 rape case.

This comes days after the Goa Government also approached the Supreme Court for enhancement of punishment to life imprisonment while not challenging the finding of conviction.

The Bombay High Court's Goa bench, comprising Justices Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar, had on August 6 overturned Tejpal's acquittal by the trial courtand convicted him in the 2013 case. The court subsequently sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.

Supreme Court Bench Hearing PMLA Review Batch Reconstituted By Parties' Consent; Justices Bhuyan & NK Singh Replaced

Case Title: Karti P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement | RP (Crl) 219/2022 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court reconstituted the bench hearingreview petitions challenging theVijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment, which upheld certain provisions of the PMLA.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana will now be hearing the review petitions. Earlier, the bench comprised CJI Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N Kotiswar Singh.

When the matter was taken up, the CJI said that if the earlier bench continues to hear the matter, 3 benches will have to be broken. The Chief Justice said that he wanted to be frank with the parties and get their take on reconstitution.

'How English Can Be Treated As Non-Native?' : Supreme Court Urges CBSE To Revisit Language Policy, Suggests Relaxation For Class 6

Case: Yashica Bhandari Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others. W.P. (C) No. 694/2026 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court flagged certain issues in the 3-language policy of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and urged the Union, the NCERT and the Board to revisit the same

The Court orally expressed reservations about the policy to treat English as a "non-native language." The Court also asked if the Class 6 students of the current academic year can also be given a relaxation. Further, the Court raised concerns over the availability of teachers and textbooks for the indigenous languages.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a bunch of petitions challenging CBSE's circulars introducing the 3-language policy. As per these circulars, the new policy is sought to be introduced from the academic year 2026-27.

Supreme Court Forms 5-Member Committee Led By Ex-SC Judge Subhash Reddy To Probe Student Protest Violence

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others | WP (Crl) 280/2026

The Supreme Court has constituted a five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) to independently examine allegations of violence during the student demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, and other locations across the country last month.

The Committee has been asked to examine both the allegations of excessive and disproportionate use of force by police and paramilitary forces against protesters, as well as the alleged use of violence by protesters against security personnel and injuries sustained by them.

The HPEC will be chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy. Its other members are former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Delhi High Court judge Justice Shalinder Kaur, former CBI Director Rishi Kumar Shukla and retired Meghalaya Director General of Police Dr. L.R. Bishnoi.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks CBI Probe Into Jharkhand Service Exam Irregularities

Case Details: Harisharan Devgan v. Uoi & Ors | WP (C) No. 1047/2026

Social activist Harisharan Devgan has moved the Supreme Court, seeking an independent, time-bound investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged malpractices in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination.

The petition, filed through Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, has sought the transfer of investigation from the State to the CBI to ensure an impartial probe into the public officials and examination agencies. The probe has been sought in light of the plea that the State's cancellation of the examination doesn't eliminate the need to uncover the "systematic corruption".

Other prayers sought are that the physical and digital evidence must be secured, including original and candidate-held OMR carbon copies, CCTV footage, and server audit logs, to prevent tampering.

If Eknath Shinde Found To Have Defected, Basis For ECI Recognition Goes : ShivSena UBT To Supreme Court

Case: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP (C) No. 1644-1662/2024 (And Connected Case)

In the Shiv Sena matter, the Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (UBT) party argued before the Supreme Court that the official bow-and-arrow symbol should be allotted to it, else the same should be frozen. If the Uddhav side cannot have it, so shouldn't the Eknath Shinde faction, UBT said.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, for ShivSena (UBT), contended Eknath Shinde and his followers are continuing to reap benefits of their defection by retaining the official symbol. He argued that the symbol was granted to the Shinde faction on the basis of an erroneous reliance on the test of legislative majority. As the Speaker refused to decide the disqualification petitions in time, the party symbol went to the splinter group.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the plea filed by Uddhav Thackeray faction member Sunil Prabhu challenging the MaharashtraSpeaker's refusal to disqualify MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction under the 10th Schedule. Another petition, filed by Uddhav Thackeray, was also listed before the bench, which challenges the ECIdecisionthat recognized the Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena and allowed it the use of the 'bow and arrow' symbol.

Supreme Court To Pronounce Judgment On Review Petitions Against 3-Year Practice Rule For Judicial Service Tomorrow

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

The Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict on a batch of review petitions challenging its earlier judgment which made three years of legal practice mandatory for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service through direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division).

The Court also heard a writ petition seeking the relaxationof the 3-year rule for persons with disabilities.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice August George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard submissions from various counsel, intervenors and the amicus curiae, and reserved the judgment on July 28. As per the causelist, the judgment is to be pronounced by Justice Chandran.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Inclusion Of District Police Chief In Kerala Public Prosecutor Appointments

Case Title – Vishnuprasad Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors.

The Supreme Court on August 19 issued notice on a plea challenging the inclusion of the District Police Chief in the State of Kerala's procedure for appointing Public Prosecutors under Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The petitioner contends that Section 18 (4) requires the District Magistrate to consult the Sessions Judge and does not permit the Police Chief, who heads the investigating agency, to be part of the consultative process.

The petitioner has also challenged the State's procedure of allowing the District Collector to prepare an initial list of eligible advocates before consulting the Sessions Judge.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Order Allowing Dayanidhi Maran To Summon Telecom Secretary As Court Witness

Case Details: State v. Dayanidhi Maran | SLP (Crl) No. 13933/2026 Diary No. 40341 / 2026

The Supreme Court (August 21) set aside the Madras High Court's orderdirecting the Trial Court to summon the Union Telecom Secretary as a court witness in a criminal case against DMK MP and former Union Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran concerning alleged misuse of BSNL telecom facilities. However, the Court has reserved the right of Maran to summon the Secretary as a defence witness.

This comes after the CBI, through Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, approached the Supreme Court challenging the order. When the matter was first taken up on August 10, a bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli asked whether the CBI would have any objection if the Telecom Secretary is summoned as a defence witness.

Based on ASG Raju's instructions, the Court directed that the Telecom Secretary may be examined as a defence witness. However, Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Nalin Kohli objected to the Telecom Secretary being considered as a defence witness. Luthra said the secretary is not a defence witness and urged that the High Court's order be not stayed. He said: "He is a court's witness, which would be appropriate, as the court can put to him what is the procedure and what is the norm and come to a determination. It would be very onerous on me."

Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Treat Post-Graduation As Equivalent To Practice At Bar For Civil Judge Recruitment

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Connected Cases

The Supreme Court has rejected the contention that post-graduation in law should be treated as equivalent to practice at the Bar for the purpose of eligibility for recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division).

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran rejected the contention while deciding review petitions challenging the Court's May 20, 2025 judgment restoring the requirement of prior legal practice for entry-level judicial service.

The Chief Justice, while pronouncing the judgment, said: “The contention that post-graduation should be treated equivalent to practice, that we have not been able to accept.”

Supreme Court Closes 2023 Pleas Against 'The Kerala Story'; Allows To File Fresh Plea For Guidelines On Films Promoting Hate

Case: Qurban Ali v. Central Board of Film Certification and Anr., SLP (C) No. 10166/2023 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court disposed of 3 petitions pertaining to the movie 'The Kerala Story' which attracted widespread controversy in 2023.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter. While one of the petitions (by producer-Sunshine Pictures) was withdrawn, Advocate Nizam Pasha, for petitioners (Qurban Ali and BR Aravindakshan) in two other cases, stressed that despite the release of the movie, issues survive.

Pasha urged that the High Court had disposed of the petitioner's writ petition on similar issue, observing that a writ petition is not maintainable against the grant of certificate to a movie by CBFC. He said that while statutory remedy is available only to the producer, other persons aggrieved by a movie have to take recourse to a writ petition.

Supreme Court Orders Premature Release Of 105-Year Old Life Convict In 1988 Murder Case

Case: Rasik Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, W.P. (Crl.) No. 313/2020

The Supreme Court ordered premature release of a 105-year old life convict, Rasik Chandra Mondal, after confirming his interim bail/parole in a 1988 murder case.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order.

Mondal was booked by West Bengal police in 1988 for the offenses under Sections 143, 448, 302 and 324 of IPC. On December 12, 1994, he was convicted under Section 302. In 2018, the Calcutta High Court dismissed his appeal against conviction. He approached the Supreme Court as well, but the plea was dismissed.

Supreme Court Dismisses Ex-Punjab Dy CM Sukhbir Singh Badal's Plea To Quash Defamation Complaint By AKJ Leader

Case Details: Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Rajinder Pal Singh | Diary No. 35327-2026

The Supreme Court (August 21) refused to quash a defamation case against Shirmani Akali Dali president and former Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal, filed by Rajinder Pal Singh, spokesperson of the religious organisation Akhand Kirtani Jatha.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed his special leave petition. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Badal.

It may be recalled that Pal Singh in 2017 filed a complaint against Badal under Section 499 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code. He alleged that Badal, when he was the Deputy CM, made certain defamatory statements in several newspapers alleging that the complainant and the AKJ were a "political front" of the largest terrorist outfit, Babbar Khalsa International.

After Supreme Court Intervention, President Approves Gallantry Medal For Former Cop Who Killed Two Dacoits In 2003

Case Title – Govind Mohan v. Vivek Singh Chouhan

The Supreme Court was informed that President Droupadi Murmu has approved the conferment of the President's Medal for Gallantry on former police officer Vivek Kumar Chouhan, who shot dead two dacoits during an anti-dacoity operation in Madhya Pradesh in 2003.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a case related to contempt proceedings initiated by Chouhan in the High Court against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan for non-compliance with a High Court direction to confer the gallantry award on him.

After the Court earlier expressed displeasure over the delay in complying with the High Court order, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the President had taken a decision on the matter.

Supreme Court Closes 2015 Suo Motu Case Taken Over Parents' Suicide After Child's Death Due To Dengue

Case: In Re: Outrage As Parents End Life After Child's Dengue Death Smw (C) No. 1/2015

The Supreme Court closed a suo motu case taken up in 2015 over the suicide of a parent-couple following the tragic death of their 7-year old child due to dengue.

Allegedly, the child passed away after some hospitals denied him admission citing shortage of beds.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana closed the matter, while recording a statement of the counsel for Delhi Cantonment Board that the direction for filing of an action taken plan had been complied with. It further recorded her undertaking that the authorities are conscious of their responsibility and will continue to take necessary preventive measures in future.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Manan Kumar Mishra's Tenure As BCI Chairman, Seeks Audit Of BCI Finances & Its Law College

At a time when BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra is facing increased public scrutiny following the NALSAR fiasco, a writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court questioning his continuation as the head of the Bar Council of India.

The writ petition, filed by Advocate Yogamaya MG., challenges Mishra's tenure, and his prolonged continuance in the post.

The petition points out that Mishra first became BCI Chairman in 2012. After a brief break in 2014, he returned to the post in November 2014 and has remained Chairman since then. He was again elected unopposed in March 2025. The petitioner describes this as his seventh consecutive term.

400 Cases Settled On First Day Of Supreme Court's 'Samadhan Samaroh' Mediation Scheme

More than 400 cases were amicably settled on the first day of the Special Lok Adalat at the Supreme Court of India under the SAMADHAN SAMAROH2026, as the apex court's initiative to promote consensual resolution of disputes entered its culmination phase.

More than 600 cases were listed before 16 Special Lok Adalat Benches, each comprising two sitting judges of the Supreme Court, along with Senior Advocates, Advocates-on-Record and other advocates.

The Special Lok Adalat, which will continue until August 23, is being held under the guidance of the Chief Justice of India as part of the Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Disputes Harmonization Across Nation (SAMADHAN) initiative. The initiative commenced on April 21, 2026.

Contract Act | Limits Of Agent's Authority : Supreme Court Explains Law Of Agency

Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. v. M/S Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court has held that an agent's implied authority cannot extend to enlarging a risk or dispensing with a statutory precondition which the principal itself is not permitted to assume. The observation was made while hearing an appeal filed against an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), wherein the Commission had directed the appellant to pay the amount assessed by its own surveyor towards a fire loss claim.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeals filed by the New India Assurance Company against the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), wherein the Commission had directed the appellant to pay the amount towards a fire loss claim.

The respondent had availed a Marine Cargo Annual Turnover Policy from the appellant for an expected turnover of Rs 1200 Crores, with premium payable in two equal instalments. A fire broke out at a Container Freight Station where the respondent had stored 41,481 cotton bales. Appellant's own surveyor had accessed the loss to be of Rs. 22,01,29,271.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea By 35 Candidates Against Exclusion From Jharkhand Judicial Service Prelims Revised Merit List

Case: W.P. (C) No. 777/2026 Shubhendu Mishra v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission

The Supreme Court disposed of as infructuous a petition filed by 35 candidates who were excluded from the revised merit list of the Jharkhand Judicial Service Preliminary Examination, 2023, after the entire examination was cancelled.

The Court passed the order after counsel appearing for the petitioner informed a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that the entire exam has been cancelled.

The Civil Judge (Junior Division) Preliminary Examination under Advertisement No. 22/2023 was cancelled as part of the Jharkhand government's decision to cancel a batch of recruitment examinations amid student protests against alleged irregularities in the recruitment process.

'Shocking Pendency' Of Criminal Appeals In Jharkhand High Court: Supreme Court Flags 44-Year Delay in Murder Case

Case Details: Simon Soren v. State of Jharkhand | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No (S).9856/2026

The Supreme Court has flagged the “shocking pendency” of criminal appeals before the Jharkhand High Court after a murder case arising from a 1981 incident remained in the judicial system for nearly 44 years.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while hearing an appeal filed by on Simon Soren against the Jharkhand High Court's 2024 judgment convicting him in a double-murder case of 1981, noted that the trial itself took 22 years, while the appeal against the conviction remained pending before the High Court for another 22 years. The bench observed that the case projected "the failure of the judicial system."

The Court had earlier described the delay as “very disturbing.”

Judges Are Not Gods; Won't Get Every Judgment Right : Justice Sanjay Karol In Farewell Speech

Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Karol, on his last working day, said judges are not gods and must recognise the limits of their own judgment while ensuring that they see the person behind every case and not merely the petition before them.

“We, as judges, are not gods. I only speak about myself. And we will not get every judgment right. What was always in our hands was simpler – to see the person, not just the petition,” Justice Karol said during the ceremonial bench at the Supreme Court held in his honour.

“The Constitution does not make us merely to apply the law correctly. It asks us to apply it justly. That is perhaps why the responsibility of judging has always seemed larger to me than simply deciding who is legally right. We, as judges, are not Gods. I only speak about myself. And we will not get every judgment right. What was always in our hands was simpler to see the person, not just the petition.”

'MNREGA Did Wonderful Job,' Says Supreme Court Disposing Plea On Wages; Allows Petitioner To Challenge VB-GRAM G Act

Case: Aruna Roy and Ors. v. Union of India WP (C) No. 768/2015

The Supreme Court disposed of a 2015 PIL pertaining to payment of compensation for delayed payments to workers in terms of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the issues raised in the PIL were covered by the judgment in Swaraj Abhiyan case. Yet, considering the submissions of Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioners), it gave the petitioners liberty to file a fresh petition with regard to provisions of the Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 (the VB-G RAM G Act, which replaced the MNREGA Act).

To recap, the PIL raised two issues - payment of compensation for delayed wages under the MNREGA, and grant of state-prescribed minimum wages rather than the minimum wage prescribed under the Act.

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, Who Reported Ram Temple Donation Theft, Moves Supreme Court Against UP Police FIR

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who was among the first to report allegations of theft and irregularities in donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, has moved the Supreme Court challenging an FIR registered against him in Ghaziabad over an alleged road-rage incident.

Upadhyay has alleged that the FIR is based on false and concocted allegations and is an attempt to harass him for his independent investigative journalism. He has sought the quashing of the FIR and protection from arrest and other coercive action.

The FIR was registered at Indirapuram police station on August 18. According to the complaint, a motorcycle ridden by one person was allegedly hit by a Baleno car near Shipra Mall. The complainant alleged that the driver abused and threatened him after the incident and named Upadhyay in connection with the car.