1) Foreign judgment rendered in summary proceedings & failing Section 13 CPC test not enforceable in India
The Court held that a foreign judgment passed in summary proceedings, where leave to defend is refused despite the existence of bona fide triable issues, cannot be regarded as a judgment on merits under Section 13 CPC, and is consequently not enforceable in India.
The Court was hearing an appeal arising out of proceedings seeking enforcement of a decree passed by an English Court under summary jurisdiction, where the respondent had been denied leave to defend.
Cause Title- Messer Griesheim GmbH (Now Called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) v. Goyal MG Gases Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 401)
Date of Judgment- April 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
2) Rights of prisoners with disabilities must be recognized: Supreme Court directs committee to formulate action plan; asks states, UTs to place compliance affidavits
While observing that the rights of prisoners with disabilities must be recognized and effectuated in a manner that accords with a humane approach, the Court asked the High-Powered Committee to formulate a comprehensive and implementable action plan for safeguarding their rights and making provision of appropriate assistive devices.
The Court was considering a matter relating to the rights, conditions of detention, and institutional safeguards available to prisoners with disabilities within prison systems across the country.
Cause Title- Sathyan Naravoor v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 397)
Date of Judgment- April 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
3) Government notification rates for prosthetic limbs abysmally low: Supreme Court enhances motor accident compensation
The Court held that the rates prescribed in a Government Notification for prosthetic limbs cannot be relied upon where they are abysmally low and inconsistent with the requirement of awarding just compensation, and accordingly, enhanced compensation under the head of prosthetic limb in a motor accident case.
The Court was hearing an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to an accident victim who had suffered amputation of his right leg, particularly under the head of prosthetic limb and its maintenance.
Cause Title- Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 396)
Date of Judgment- April 21, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
4) Sovereign grants under Government Grants Act 1895 take effect by their tenor & prevail over Delhi Rent Control Act
The Court has held that a perpetual lease deed emanating from a government grant is governed exclusively by the tenor of the grant itself, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of general tenancy laws like the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958.
The Court noted that Section 3 of the Government Grants (GG) Act, 1895, carries a wide amplitude, ensuring that the terms and conditions of such grants prevail over any inconsistent rule of law, statute, or legislative enactment.
Cause Title- Union of India v. Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 406)
Date of Judgment- April 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
5) Merits of proposed plea irrelevant at amendment stage; legal heirs can continue bonafide need claim after landlord’s death
The Court held that courts deciding amendment applications cannot test the merits of the proposed plea, as its correctness is for trial. It further held that a landlord’s death does not automatically extinguish an eviction claim based on bona fide need, and legal heirs may rely on amendment to bring subsequent events on record.
The Court further held that in exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction, the High Court cannot reassess merits or interfere with discretionary orders allowing amendment as if sitting in appeal. It reiterated that courts may consider subsequent events affecting relief, subject to fairness to both sides.
Cause Title- Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh v. Natwarlal Shamji Gada & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 416)
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
6) Service inam land granted to mosque assumes waqf character & cannot be alienated as personal property
The Court held that lands granted as service inam for religious purposes partake the character of Wakf property, and cannot be treated as personal inam or subjected to partition and subsequent alienation to confer a valid title upon private individuals.
Furthermore, it held that recitals in foundational title documents describing land as service inam for religious use are determinative of its character, and such property cannot be treated as privately owned or freely transferable.
Cause Title- A.P. State Wakf Board v. Janaki Busappa & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 413)
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2026
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih
7) Knowledge of second marriage insufficient to fasten liability u/s 494 IPC on husband’s family; participation must be shown
The Court held that mere knowledge of a second marriage is insufficient to attract liability under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the husband’s relatives and that the complainant must prima facie establish overt acts or participation by the accused in the solemnisation of such marriage.
The Court further held that general and omnibus allegations against relatives of the husband, without specific material, cannot sustain prosecution under Sections 498A and 494 IPC.
Cause Title- Sivaraman Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 412)
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
8) Essential Eligibility Criteria Cannot Be Substituted By Higher Academic Degree Or Purported Relaxation
The Court held that a candidate must fulfil the minimum essential eligibility criteria prescribed in recruitment rules before any preferential higher qualification can be considered. The Court clarified that while a higher degree such as an MTech may provide an advantage among otherwise eligible candidates, it cannot substitute for a lack of mandatory work experience.
Furthermore, it noted that allowing superior academic credentials to override primary eligibility requirements would effectively rewrite selection terms after the commencement of the process, introducing impermissible subjectivity into public employment.
Cause Title- Himakshi v. Rahul Verma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 391)
Date of Judgment- April 20, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
9) Determination of municipal limits under MMC Act legislative in nature; civil court cannot adjudicate its validity
The Court held that the determination and alteration of municipal limits under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, is legislative in character and cannot ordinarily be subjected to adjudication before a Civil Court through suits seeking declaration and injunction.
Furthermore, it held that challenges to statutory determination of municipal limits and actions taken thereunder cannot be entertained in civil suits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Cause Title- Unchgaon Village Panchayat & Ors. v. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 405)
Date of Judgment- April 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
10) Right to speedy trial cannot dilute mandatory statutory rigours u/s 37 NDPS Act: Supreme Court sets aside bail order
The Court reaffirmed that the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to unilaterally bypass the mandatory statutory rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
Furthermore, it noted that judicial satisfaction regarding the "twin conditions", reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences, is a mandatory jurisdictional pre-condition for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.
Cause Title- State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 411)
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
11) Conferment of bhumidhari rights on public utility lands prohibited; diversion of such land through administrative process illegal
While dealing with a matter where an attempt was made to divert the khalihan and pasture land meant for public utility through an invalid re-categorisation, the Court held that Section 132 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZALR Act) expressly prohibits the conferment of bhumidhari rights in respect of public utility lands, including pasture lands and khalihan.
The Apex Court further held that the diversion of public utility land through administrative processes cannot be countenanced by law.
Cause Title- Babu Singh v. Consolidation Officer And Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 395)
Date of Judgment- April 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
12) Legal representative of deceased party can challenge arbitral award u/s.34 Arbitration Act
The Court held that the appropriate relief for a legal representative to challenge an arbitral award is under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and not under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 115 of the CPC.
The Court was of the view that denying a legal representative the right to challenge an award under Section 34 would defeat the very object of the Act.
Cause Title- V K John v. S. Mukanchand Bothra and Huf (Died) (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 393)
Date of Judgment- April 20, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
13) Mere entry in MCD property records not sufficient to establish title over land
The Court held that a mere entry in the records maintained by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) is not sufficient to establish title over land and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of ownership.
The Court was hearing a civil appeal arising out of a challenge to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, which had reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and upheld the decision of the Municipal Corporation declining to incorporate certain plots in the layout plan.
Cause Title- Pawan Garg & Ors. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 389)
Date of Judgment- April 20, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
14) Supreme Court explains difference between transfer & change in cadre; imposes ₹1L cost on UP govt for delay in dealing with reallocation dispute
While observing that the distinction between a transfer and a change in cadre operates in entirely different domains, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the Uttar Pradesh Government for the delay shown in fructifying a government employee’s request for being posted in his home State.
The appeal was filed by an employee challenging a decision of the Allahabad High Court whereby he had sought a direction to issue a mandamus to the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal, thereby effecting his change of cadre from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand, on account of the fact that when he appeared for the Combined Lower Subordinate Service Examinations in 1995, he had opted for ‘hill region’ posting, which was rejected.
Cause Title- Rajendra Singh Bora v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 404)
Date of Judgment- April 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
15) Alienee acquiring interest in deceased’s estate before probate proceedings an interested party
The Court held that an alienee who has acquired an interest in the estate of the deceased before the institution of probate proceedings is an interested party and is entitled to be cited in such proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, failing which the grant of probate is liable to be revoked.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the order of the High Court, which had set aside the revocation of probate granted in respect of a Will, despite findings of suppression of material facts and non-impleadment of necessary parties.
Cause Title- S. Leorex Sebastian & Anr. v. Sarojini & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 400)
Date of Judgment- April 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
16) Extreme lack of solicitude for rule of law: Supreme Court orders closure of school for taking possession under SARFAESI Act
The Court directed permanent closure of Chaitanya Public School & Junior College, Kolhapur and has authorised the use of police force to secure possession for a creditor. It observed that while it had previously prioritised the welfare of students, the repeated failure of the educational trust to honor financial undertakings and its active obstruction of court-appointed administrators necessitated a decisive termination of the litigation.
By ordering the school’s closure effective May 1, 2026, the Bench noted that an institutional debt recovery under the SARFAESI Act cannot be indefinitely stalled by borrowers who demonstrate an "extreme lack of solicitude for the rule of law".
Cause Title- Chaitanya Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. v. Auxilo Finserve Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 408)
Date of Judgment- April 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
17) Unsuccessful party in arbitration can seek post-award interim measures u/s 9 A&C Act
The Court categorically held that the right to apply for interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is available to any party to an arbitration agreement, including those who have been unsuccessful in the arbitral proceedings. It clarified that the expression ‘a party’ as defined under Section 2(h) cannot be contextually modulated or narrowed to refer only to a ‘successful party’ or ‘award-holder’ once the award is rendered.
Expanding the locus, it further held that even an unsuccessful party challenging an award under Section 34 of the Act may seek interim relief, though subject to a significantly higher threshold and strict judicial scrutiny.
Cause Title- Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 415)
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan
18) Contradictory positions across different forums on debt quantum bar creditor from pressing insolvency proceedings: Supreme Court imposes ₹5 lakh costs
The Court held that a party taking contradictory positions across different forums regarding the same set of facts cannot be permitted to treat a debt as an undisputed fact for the purpose of initiating insolvency proceedings. It observed that while a money decree does provide a fresh cause of action under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, this principle does not operate in a vacuum and does not entitle every decree holder to invoke the insolvency process as a matter of right in preference to civil execution.
Consequentially, imposed ₹5 lakh costs on the respondent, holding that insolvency is meant for revival, not backdoor debt recovery, and using IBC to enforce a civil decree against a solvent company is abuse of process.
Cause Title- Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. Shubh Gautam (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 410)
Date of Judgment- April 23, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
19) Contempt proceedings must ordinarily be initiated within one year from the date of alleged contempt
The Court reiterated that contempt proceedings must ordinarily be initiated within one year from the date of commission of the alleged contempt, and delay beyond this period disentitles a party from invoking the contempt jurisdiction of the Court.
The Court was hearing a contempt petition filed alleging violation of an earlier status quo order passed by the Court in proceedings relating to land transactions.
Cause Title- The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. S. Raja & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 407)
Date of Judgment- April 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
20) Reluctance of independent witness to testify in violent crimes fearing retaliation cannot be held fatal to prosecution
The Court has held that the reluctance of independent witnesses to come forward and testify in violent crimes, owing to fear of retaliation, cannot be held fatal to the prosecution's case, particularly where the evidence on record is otherwise credible and reliable.
The Court was hearing criminal appeals challenging the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 307, 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising out of a fatal shooting incident.
Cause Title- Adalat Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 403)
Date of Judgment- April 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
21) Ineligibility at initial stage vitiates appointment to public post; higher standard of scrutiny required in uniformed services
The Court held that appointments to public posts, particularly in uniformed services, must be subjected to a higher standard of scrutiny, and any appointment made despite a lack of eligibility cannot be sustained once such ineligibility comes to light.
The Court was hearing civil appeals challenging the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had upheld the order of the Services Tribunal directing reinstatement of a constable despite findings of ineligibility.
Cause Title- State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Malik (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 394)
Date of Judgment- April 20, 2026
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N.V. Anjaria
22) Rejection of plaint not automatic upon finding of deficit court fee
While explaining the principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held that the rejection of a plaint is not automatic upon a finding of undervaluation or deficit court fee, but it is conditional upon non-compliance with the opportunity granted by the Court.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against an order of the Madras High Court whereby the revision preferred by the respondents was allowed, the order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was set aside, and the plaint was rejected.
Cause Title- M/s. Marg Limited v. Sushil Lalwani (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 402)
Date of Judgment- April 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
23) DNA test showed that man is not her biological father: Supreme Court upholds order denying maintenance to child
The Court dismissed an appeal filed by a mother against the order rejecting the plea to grant maintenance to her daughter. It noted that, as per the DNA test report, the man on whom the liability was sought to be imposed was not the biological father, and the test had attained finality as the mother had consented to the same.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by a mother (appellant) challenging the finding of the Delhi High Court regarding her daughter not being entitled to maintenance to be paid by the respondent (alleged father).
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 399)
Date of Judgment- April 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
24) Taking pending disputes to press to allege bias against judge unbecoming of advocate: Supreme Court refuses to interfere with contempt proceedings
The Court held that an advocate carrying a pending judicial controversy into the public domain and alleging bias against a sitting judge is inconsistent with professional discipline. The court refused to interfere with ongoing contempt proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court.
Holding that professional ethics require advocates to ventilate grievances through established legal remedies, the Court observed that public commentary capable of influencing perceptions about judicial integrity or fairness, particularly through press conferences, may prima facie scandalise the institution and warrant scrutiny under contempt jurisdiction.
Cause Title- Nilesh C. Ojha v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 390)
Date of Judgment- April 20, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
25) "Marred by humongous administrative delay": Supreme Court pilots systemic automated premature release software for convicts in agra & lucknow
The Court piloted a systemic digital framework for processing premature release cases in Central Jail, Agra and District Jail, Lucknow, while indicating that the model may serve as a template for wider adoption across States.
It noted that the “E-Prisons Early Release Processing Module”, developed by National Informatics Centre (NIC) with inputs from multiple stakeholders and informed in part by the software model demonstrated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, is intended to create a seamless, accountable and largely automated mechanism for consideration of early release applications. The Court made clear that the long-term objective is development of a broader interoperable system capable of replication across jurisdictions.
Cause Title- Surendra @ Sunda v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 414)
Date of Judgment- April 13, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
26) Absence of notice cannot extend limitation U/S 8 WB land reforms Act for contiguous raiyat’s pre-emption claim
The Court held that absence of notice of transfer cannot extend limitation for a contiguous raiyat seeking pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, holding that such claims must be brought within four months from the date of transfer and not from the date of knowledge.
Furthermore, it noted that where the statute expressly prescribes the commencement of limitation, courts cannot read into it an alternative trigger based on lack of notice. The Court clarified that the notice framework under the Act distinguishes co-sharers from other classes of pre-emptors, and adjoining raiyats cannot claim parity with co-sharers to seek a notice-based extension of limitation.
Cause Title- Sib Nath Chatterjee v. Tulsidas Chatterjee & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 409)
Date of Judgment- April 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi