1) Once fact is discovered at one accused's instance U/S 27 Evidence Act, it cannot be re-discovered through co-accused
The Court has set aside the conviction of two accused in a murder case, holding that under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, once a location or object has been discovered at the instance of one accused, the same fact cannot be "re-discovered" through subsequent or identical statements made by co-accused.
The Bench noted that the journey from "may be true" to "must be true" requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, which was absent in this case. The Bench observed that while the last seen together theory is a relevant circumstance, it cannot form the sole basis for conviction when the secondary corroborative evidence, specifically the recovery of incriminating facts, is legally unsustainable.
Cause Title- Anand Jakkappa Pujari @Gaddadar v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 417)
Date of Judgment- April 27, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
2) State as a model employer cannot be indifferent to workforce who contributed indirectly to national endeavours: supreme court quashes ISRO’s labour scheme
The Court sets aside a restrictive employment scheme, Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012 for daily-wage workers at ISRO’s Mahendragiri unit, ruling that the State cannot bypass final judicial mandates for permanent regularisation through temporary stop-gap arrangements. The Court found it to be in direct contravention of earlier binding orders issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
It further observed that while the scheme purported to provide security until the age of 60, it effectively maintained the workers' status as temporary daily-rated employees without the benefits of a permanent establishment. By setting aside the restrictive clauses of this scheme, the Court ensured that the transition from ad hoc arrangements to structured, permanent employment, as originally mandated over a decade ago, is finally realised for workers who have served the organisation for periods ranging from 14 to 26 years.
Cause Title- R. Iyyappan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 431)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
3) Scripted enquiry fatal to prosecution when "innocent persons being crucified": Supreme Court acquits 9 surviving convicts in 2008 murder case
The Court held that a scripted enquiry has lethal consequences, particularly when it creates the possibility of totally innocent persons being "crucified". Consequentially, the Court acquitted the 11 appellants before it, though it noted that two had passed away during the long pendency of the appeal.
The Court further clarified that the higher credibility typically accorded to "injured eyewitnesses" is lost when the prosecution fails to prove the very injuries alleged. In this case, the lack of medical certificates and the failure to match blood samples from the scene meant the witnesses could not be granted greater credence than mere "chance witnesses".
Cause Title- Sadek Ali @ Md. Sadek Ali and Anr. v. The State of Assam and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 421)
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
4) Hate speech runs contrary to deeper civilizational ethos of India: Supreme Court cautious about "us vs them" mindset
The Court in its judgment on hate speech has observed that in a nation rooted in “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”, a binary of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ is antithetical to the Preamble’s promise of fraternity and moral fabric of the Republic.
On the modern exclusionary construct of ‘citizenship’, the Bench noted that selective exclusion or division runs contrary to deeper civilisational ethos of India.
Cause Title- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 943 Of 2021
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
5) Supreme Court approves deer translocation from A.N. Jha Deer Park to Rajasthan; directs statutory framework for wildlife translocation
The Court approved the translocation of deer from A.N. Jha Deer Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, to ecologically suitable wildlife reserves in Rajasthan, holding that such relocation constitutes a scientifically justified and legally permissible conservation measure.
The Court, while accepting the findings of the Central Empowered Committee, observed that continued retention of a large deer population in the park was neither sustainable nor permissible in law. The Court was hearing Special Leave Petitions challenging orders of the Delhi High Court, which had permitted relocation of deer based on a policy decision of the Delhi Development Authority, citing ecological constraints and management concerns.
Cause Title- New Delhi Nature Society v. Director Horticulture, DDA & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 419
Date of Judgment- April 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to protect merit-holders affected by closure of Rehbar-E-Taleem scheme in J&K: mandates TET/NCTE
The Court modified a Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court judgment concerning the closure of the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) scheme, holding that the formal closure of the scheme through a closure order dated November 16, 2018 cannot retrospectively impair the rights of candidates already placed in select panels, provided they meet the statutory educational standards.
The Bench said that while the State has the authority to discontinue recruitment schemes, it cannot create an arbitrary classification between candidates based solely on the pendency of litigation. Furthermore, the Bench noted that under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), possessing minimum qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), including the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET), is a non-negotiable prerequisite for any teaching appointment.
Cause Title- Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. v. Saba Wani and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 439)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
7) “Testimonies appeared to be gimmick, not honest contradiction”: Supreme Court acquits father-in-law in case u/s 498A IPC
The Court has set aside the conviction of a father-in-law under Section 498A IPC, holding that the prosecution evidence consisting of material improvements and "afterthought" testimonies failed the test of reliability. The Court noted that while Section 498A is a vital tool for the safety of women, it must not be misused to rope in all family members in the absence of specific, attributable roles.
The Bench further clarified that when two contradictory dying declarations exist, the version that appears free from tutoring and influence must be preferred. In this instance, the Court found the deceased's second declaration, attributing her injuries to suicide, to be more believable than the first declaration, which the Court suspected was recorded after the victim was tutored by interested parties.
Cause Title- Narendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 302 OF 2014
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
8) Ensure comprehensive mitigation reports & specialised legal teams in death penalty cases: Supreme Court issues directions
The Court directed Trial Courts and High Courts to procure detailed reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances at the earliest stages of capital sentencing to ensure a constitutionally compliant reformative approach. It has directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to institutionalise specialised legal aid teams and standardised inquiry fields for gathering socio-economic and mental health data.
It noted the necessity of providing skilled, adequately resourced legal representation regardless of whether a convict has engaged private counsel. These dedicated teams, comprising senior counsel and experienced advocates, are tasked with conducting fieldwork and interacting with convicts’ families to present a holistic account of mitigating factors, such as background, antecedents, and psychological status, to the Court.
Cause Title- Aman Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 424)
Date of Judgment- April 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
9) “Allegations appear politically motivated, influenced by political rivalry”: Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera
The Court granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera, observing that the purported allegations of forgery, appeared to be politically motivated and influenced by political rivalry, not warranting custodial interrogation.
The case originated from a Guwahati press conference where Khera alleged that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of the Assam Chief Minister, held multiple international passports and had invested ₹50,000 crores in a U.S.-based company. The Bench in the order, which it had reserved yesterday for pronouncement, observed that the threshold for depriving an individual of their liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must be higher.
Cause Title- Pawan Khera v. State of Assam (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 437)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
10) High Court’s supervisory powers under Article 227 cannot be used to substitute plausible views of execution courts
The Court reiterated that the High Courts while exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate evidence or substitute the plausible and reasonable findings of an executing court with its own view.
The Bench noted that a High Court exceeds its supervisory jurisdiction when it impleads the State to "clarify" or reinterpret its own statutory notifications during a private dispute to the prejudice of a party. Consequentially, the Bench restored a higher land valuation originally granted to the Decree Holder, holding that once a subordinate court adopts a reasonable interpretation of a guideline, the High Court is barred from supplanting it merely because an alternative interpretation is possible.
Cause Title- Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. v. B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 434)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
11) Corporate guarantees executed by corporate debtor constitute "financial debt" U/S 5(8) IBC
The Court held that liabilities arising from corporate guarantees squarely constitute "financial debt" within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
In a significant win for the State Bank of India (SBI) consortium, the Court held that the mere non-disclosure of such guarantees in a debtor's financial statements or technical defects in stamping cannot be used to strip lenders of their status as financial creditors. By reversing the concurrent findings of the lower tribunals, the Court reinforced the principle that a guarantor’s liability is coextensive with the principal borrower and remains enforceable throughout the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Cause Title- State Bank of India & Ors. v. Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 423)
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
12) Article 311 not applicable to ICAR employees; autonomous society staff do not hold civil posts under union or state
The Court held that Article 311 of the Constitution does not apply to employees of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), as it is an autonomous society and its employees do not hold civil posts under the Union or the State.
The Court was hearing civil appeals challenging the curtailment of tenure of an officer appointed to a research management position in ICAR, where the appellant contended that such curtailment amounted to a reduction in rank without compliance with the safeguards under Article 311(2).
Cause Title- Sadachari Singh Tomar v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 427)
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
13) “Grasp the nettle and decide”: Supreme Court issues guidelines on passing summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC in commercial suits
The Court articulated a proactive mandate for judges to "grasp the nettle and decide” summary judgment applications under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) when faced with neat points of law or construction. Noting that a "conventional trial no longer reflects modern reality", the Court held that judicial efficiency is best served by arresting proceedings at the threshold when a defense is merely "fanciful or speculative" rather than real and substantial.
The Bench while issuing guidelines, observed that the summary judgment procedure advances access to justice by providing a swift, cost-effective alternative to a full-fledged trial. The Court suggesting to ‘embrace a shift in the culture of efficiency in dispute resolution’, clarified that accessibility must be assessed in terms of affordability, timeliness, and proportionality, requiring procedural mechanisms to be tailored to the stakes of the litigation while ensuring the optimal use of judicial resources in cases where prolonged adjudication would serve no real purpose.
Cause Title- Reliance Eminent Trading and Commercial Private Limited v. Delhi Development Authority (Natural Citation: 2026 INSC 436)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
14) Supreme Court emphasizes neighborhood school’s obligation under RTE Act to give admission to students referred by state govt
While upholding a decision whereby a public school was asked to grant admission to a student into pre-primary class, the Court reiterated the constitutional and statutory obligation of a ‘neighborhood school’ to give admission to students forwarded by the State Government without any delay, even in cases where there is some disagreement with the selection by the Government.
The Apex Court was considering the school’s petition challenging the decision of the High Court to grant admission to the respondent student without any delay.
Cause Title- Lucknow Public School, ELDICO v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 422)
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
15) Admission of claim by resolution professional is mere recital of debt & not acknowledgment of liability U/S. 18 Limitation Act
The Court reaffirmed that an admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional is akin to a mere recital/reference of debt, which does not amount to an acknowledgement of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) directed against the impugned judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) affirming the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), admitting two separate petitions under Section 7 of the Code and initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Cause Title- Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 429)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe