1) Section 498A IPC covers live-in relationships that qualify as "relationships in nature of marriage" between consenting adults with intent to marry
The Court held that Section 498A IPC is not confined only to legally valid marriages, and can extend to a live-in relationship that bears the attributes of marriage, provided the relationship is between consenting adults and the intent to marry is established as an intrinsic part of it. T
The Court was hearing appeals against the Karnataka High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A IPC and other provisions, where the accused disputed the existence of a valid marriage and argued that Section 498A could not apply unless the complainant was a legally wedded wife.
Cause Title- Dr Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 784)
Date of Judgment- August 03, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
2) Apex Court decisions apply retrospectively unless expressly made prospective
The Court dismissed a suit for specific performance, ruling that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to fulfil his obligations under the agreement to sell. The Court observed that financial documents generated years after the institution of the suit cannot be relied upon to prove the availability of funds during the relevant period for performance of the contract.
The Court reiterated that readiness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, relates to the financial capacity of the plaintiff, while willingness is reflected through his conduct. Both requirements, the Court held, must be continuously satisfied from the date of the agreement until adjudication of the suit.
Cause Title- Government of India & Anr. v. Sri Devraj Urs Medical College (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 799)
Date of Judgment- August 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
3) Benefit of defective investigation enures to accused where substantive evidence is infirm: Supreme Court upholds acquittal of 20 accused in murder case
The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the informant and the State challenging the acquittal of 20 accused in a murder case while observing that a defect in investigation does not by itself entitle an accused to an acquittal where the substantive evidence is found to be reliable, but where the substantive evidence is itself infirm, the lapses assume significance and their benefit enures to the accused.
The Apex Court was considering a criminal appeal preferred by the informant, and another appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the common judgment of the Bombay High Court reversing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court whereby twenty of the accused had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The High Court had allowed all six appeals and acquitted them of the offences charged.
Cause Title- Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 787)
Date of Judgment- August 03, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
4) Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC does not permit party to cross-examine recalled witness
The Court set aside a Telangana High Court order that permitted the plaintiffs to reopen their evidence and recall a witness at the fag end of the trial, after final arguments had substantially progressed, holding that Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not permit a party to cross-examine a recalled witness and that the mere absence of prejudice to the opposing party cannot, by itself, justify invoking the provision.
Reiterating that Order XVIII Rule 17 exists solely to enable the trial court to recall a witness for the limited purpose of clarifying its own doubts on the evidence already on record, the Court held that the provision cannot be used to fill gaps or omissions in a party's case. It further held that the Telangana High Court had travelled beyond the scope of the Rule by directing that the recalled witness be made available for cross-examination, even though the provision empowers only the court, not the parties, to put questions to a recalled witness.
Cause Title- K. Bharathamma v. Bandaru Sakku Bai and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 795)
Date of Judgment- August 04, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
5) Once signature on cheque is admitted, it means accused was aware of its contents unless proved otherwise
The Court held that once the signature on a cheque stands proved, the necessary corollary is that the accused was aware of its contents unless the contrary is proven, while setting aside a Karnataka High Court order that had acquitted a cheque-bounce accused in revisional jurisdiction. Restoring his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court held that the High Court had impermissibly conducted a fresh, appellate-style re-appreciation of evidence to reverse concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court.
Noting that the accused had failed to rebut the mandatory statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act once his signature on the cheque stood admitted, the Court held that the High Court had erred in accepting the accused's argument that the complainant's modest monthly income of Rs. 20,000–25,000 made it improbable he could have advanced a hand loan of Rs. 4.5 lakh, particularly where the complainant had produced corroborating witnesses who testified to having extended him credit for that very purpose.
Cause Title- Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 790)
Date of Judgment- August 04, 2026
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
6) Supreme Court directs nationwide overhaul of motor insurance enforcement, mandates four-layer policy structure and extended third-party cover
The Court issued a comprehensive set of directions to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDA), and the insurance industry, to close the enforcement gap on mandatory motor vehicle insurance, after finding that nearly 16.54 crore of India's 30.48 crore registered vehicles, 56% currently ply the roads without valid insurance.
Holding that the statutory safeguard of accident-victim compensation under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is "often delayed, if not defeated" by this compliance gap, the Court directed integration of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera data with the Insurance Information Bureau and VAHAN portal for automatic e-challans, handheld verification devices for traffic police, a four-layer standardised insurance policy structure for private vehicles, and an increase in the mandatory tenure of third-party insurance purchased at the time of registration, from three to four years for new cars, and five to six years for new two-wheelers.
Cause Title- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Thungala Dhana Laxmi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 793)
Date of Judgment- August 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
7) Dismissing appeal without deciding additional evidence application is jurisdictional error: Supreme Court sheds light on Order XLI Rule 27 CPC
While reiterating the principles relating to Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC, the Supreme Court has affirmed the view that dismissing an appeal without deciding a pending application for additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error and results in a severe miscarriage of justice.
The Apex Court was considering a matter where the High Court failed to consider and dispose of an application filed for receiving additional evidence.
Cause Title- Chowdappa v. Hanumantharayappa and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 816)
Date of Judgment- August 06, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
8) Sale deed executed with knowledge of part consideration can’t be rendered void on non-payment of balance consideration
While asking the litigants to pay the balance sale consideration in a property dispute matter, the Court held that a sale deed executed with full knowledge of the part consideration alone having been passed cannot be rendered void or inoperative merely because the balance consideration promised to be paid, which promise was incorporated in the sale deed, had not been complied with.
The legal heirs of the original sole defendant had approached the Apex Court challenging the reversal of the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court by the High Court in a second appeal.
Cause Title- Raziya Begum & Ors. v. Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 814)
Date of Judgment- August 07, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
9) Filing of suits for protection of statutory rights conferred cannot be termed as intimidatory or vexatious: Supreme Court on Pepsico's suit against farmers
The Court observed that the filing of suits for the protection of rights conferred under the Statute cannot be held to be intimidatory or vexatious.
The Apex Court was considering a matter where the allegation was raised merely with reference to various suits filed by the PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Company, alleging infringement against individual farmers.
Cause Title- Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 811)
Date of Judgment- August 05, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
10) Criminal proceedings are not a measure of recovery of money
While restoring an order refusing cognizance, the Court held that if there is a money transaction and the litigant has a demand for its return, the remedy is not to initiate criminal proceedings but to file a civil suit for recovery.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the decision to set aside the order refusing cognizance.
Cause Title- Sandeep Shukla v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 817)
Date of Judgment- August 05, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
11) Revenue cannot artificially split indivisible turnkey contracts governed by Finance Act 1994 to levy service tax
The Court held that the Revenue cannot artificially split indivisible turnkey contracts to levy service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, in the absence of a statutory authority permitting such vivisection of a composite transaction into separate taxable components.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai, challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, which had set aside service tax demands raised against M/s Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. on 33% of the gross consideration received from banks under turnkey ATM contracts.
Cause Title- Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai v. M/s Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 808)
Date of Judgment- August 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
12) Xerox India’s activity of "kitting" of modules to make photocopier as per customer’s specification doesn't fall under term "manufacture" under Central Excise Act
While upholding an order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the Court clarified that the subject activity of pinning and plugging different parts together, which is called kitting to make a complete set as per the customer’s specification, does not fall within the definition of ‘manufacture’ under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order passed in a Central Excise Appeal.
Cause Title- Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV v. M/S Xerox India LTD. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 805)
Date of Judgment- August 05, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
13) Confession extracted by third-degree methods, 22 years erased out of accused’s life: Supreme Court grants acquittal in triple murder case
The Court granted acquittal in a triple murder case after noting that the testimony of the eyewitness was shaky and the accused was taken into custody on mere suspicion, from whom a confession was extracted employing third-degree methods, thereby cumulatively resulting in 22 years being erased from his life without any reliable evidence.
The Apex Court was dealing with a matter revolving around the murder of three women. The appeal was filed by the appellant with assistance from legal services after undergoing 22 years in prison, with a delay of 3703 days, which was condoned by a Coordinate Bench.
Cause Title- Arjun Jani @ Tuntun v. State of Orissa (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 802)
Date of Judgment- August 04, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
14) Defendant can put queries to plaintiff who affirms trademark infringement even if written statement is not on record
The Court held that when the plaintiff affirms trademark infringement, even if the written statement is not on record, the defendant can put queries to the plaintiff on the document to substantiate the time from which such brand name was used by the plaintiff.
The issue which arose before the Apex Court was whether the defendant (appellant) was entitled to put a question with respect to the brand name asserted by the plaintiff. The infringement of the brand name was the foundation of the relief of damages claimed by the plaintiff in the suit.
Cause Title- Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 819)
Date of Judgment- August 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
15) Civil Courts can decide disputes of succession & partition involving exclusively non-tribal parties in scheduled areas
The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts can decide disputes on succession & partition involving exclusively non-tribal parties although the property is situated within scheduled areas.
The Apex Court was considering a challenge made against the order passed by the Telangana High Court by a Single Judge, setting aside the judgment in the First Appeal by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, allowing the appeal suit and thereby overturning the judgment and decree which dismissed the plaintiffs' (appellants’) suit for partition and separate possession.
Cause Title- Mukkera Venkata Ratnam v. Vantasala China Venkateswarlu (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 810)
Date of Judgment- August 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
16) Supreme Court directs MoEF&CC to frame guidelines for imposition & collection of environmental compensation under SWM Rules
The Court observed that the determination and imposition of environmental compensation for violations of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, cannot be left to the discretion of regulatory bodies, tribunals, or courts, and must instead be governed by a structured regime.
The Court accordingly directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to take into account the judicially evolved principles on environmental compensation, along with rules already operating in the field, while formulating guidelines under Rule 17(2) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026.
Cause Title- Amravati Municipal Corporation v. Ganesh Dadarao Anasane (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 796)
Date of Judgment- August 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
17) Can’t remove employee for more than one decade solely on ground criminal case pendency: Supreme Court grants ₹5L compensation to former Punjab SPO
The Court ordered the authorities to pay Rs 5 lakh to a former SPO who worked in Punjab while observing that no law authorises a public employer to either dismiss or remove an employee serving the police for more than a decade solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the reversal of an original decree in a first appeal, resulting in the dismissal of a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, which was affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Cause Title- SPO/Constable IRB Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 798)
Date of Judgment- August 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
18) Child accident compensation must account for the lost future, not merely victim’s existing status
The Court, while enhancing compensation awarded to a child who suffered permanent disability in a motor accident when she was six months old, has held that in cases involving child victims, the law must account for “the future which has been lost” and not merely the victim’s status at the time of the accident.
The Court also held that a child who suffers permanent disability cannot be treated as an ordinary non-earning person merely because she had not entered employment on the date of the accident, and that compensation must be assessed in a realistic, humane and welfare-oriented manner. The Court was hearing an appeal by the mother and natural guardian of the injured child, seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded ₹30.12 lakh, which the Orissa High Court enhanced to ₹45.40 lakh. The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s award and enhanced the compensation to ₹83.38 lakh with 9% interest.
Cause Title- SPO/Constable IRB Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 798)
Date of Judgment- August 03, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N.V. Anjaria
19) Employee who accepted consequences of resignation cannot later challenge technical defect in its acceptance
The Court held that an employee who has acted upon his resignation, accepted the benefits flowing from it, and used the consequential service certificate to secure another appointment cannot later challenge the resignation on a technical defect in the mode of its acceptance.
Cause Title- Delhi Technological University v. B.S. Rawat (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 797)
Date of Judgment- August 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
20) Land is considered the new gold: Supreme Court restores 1955 mutation of 280-acre Gurugram Shamilat land in favour of Wazirabad gram panchayat
The Court, while allowing appeals concerning nearly 280 acres of shamilat land in Gurugram, has restored the 1955 mutation recorded in favour of Wazirabad Gram Panchayat, holding that the disputed Haiderpur land formed part of shamilat deh (village-owned) and would now enure to the benefit of Municipal Corporation Gurugram as its successor-in-interest.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by Suraj Bhan and others, and by Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad, against a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had set aside the Commissioner’s order restoring the panchayat mutation and had revived orders recognising ownership in favour of private claimants.
Cause Title- Suraj Bhan and others v. Ashvarya Estate Pvt. Ltd. and others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 786)
Date of Judgment- August 03, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
21) ‘Washed-off theory’ may operate in promotional matters but not for assessing compulsory retirement
While upholding an order of compulsory retirement passed against a former CISF Inspector, the Court held that the “washed-off theory” may operate in matters relating to promotion, but it has no application where the competent authority assesses the suitability of an employee for continued retention in service.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and upholding the orders of compulsory retirement passed against him by the competent authority.
Cause Title- Sushil Sharma v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 809)
Date of Judgment- August 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
22) Omission of Rule 96 (10) CGST benefits exporters in pending proceedings for refund claim
The Court upheld the view that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 would be applicable to every pending proceeding as on the date of its omission. The Apex Court clarified that the omission would inure to the benefit of the assessee in the pending proceedings, wherein there was a claim of refund of integrated tax paid on goods and services exported out of India.
The Apex Court was considering a batch of petitions filed by the Union of India and the Department against the impugned judgment having held that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 would be applicable to every pending proceeding as on the date of its omission.
Cause Title- M/s Goodluck India Limited v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 821)
Date of Judgment- August 06, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
23) Mere marking of document as exhibit not proof of its content: Supreme Court reiterates
While dealing with a civil matter pertaining to testamentary proceedings, the Court reiterated that mere marking of a document as an exhibit is not proof of the contents thereof. The Apex Court further held that the contents of the documents which have been marked/exhibited would have to be proved in accordance with law.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the Madras High Court.
Cause Title- S. Sangeetha & Ors. v. Tmt. P. Ponni (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 813)
Date of Judgment- August 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
24) "Temporary status" after state-led administrative exercise not empty label: Supreme Court directs regularisation of Goa PWD labour society workers
The Court held that a temporary status conferred on workers after a structured administrative exercise involving Cabinet decisions, categorisation and assessment of suitability carries legal consequences, and reflects the State’s considered intention to absorb such workers in service.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by members of the PWD Labour Supply Society against the Bombay High Court at Goa’s decision refusing to give effect to the PWD order that had granted them temporary status and recognised their entitlement to absorption in the Public Works Department as and when vacancies arose.
Cause Title- Rupesh R. Gaonkar & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 792)
Date of Judgment- August 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
25) Supreme Court directs Rajasthan government to set up integrated coordination group, river authority for Jojari-Bandi-Luni restoration
The Court directed the State of Rajasthan to constitute, within seven days, an Integrated Coordination Group headed by the Chief Secretary and to set up an independent River Commission/River Rejuvenation Authority to streamline the restoration of the Jojari-Bandi-Luni river ecosystem.
The Court further directed the State to establish a QR Code-based environmental grievance platform for reporting illegal effluent discharge, groundwater extraction, riverbed encroachments, hazardous waste dumping and allied violations affecting the river system.
The Court was hearing the matter concerning contamination in the Jojari River, along with connected civil appeals, after considering the Second Status Report of the High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee, the Special Investigation Team’s report, and the compliance material filed by the State of Rajasthan pursuant to earlier directions.
Cause Title- In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 812)
Date of Judgment- August 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
26) Non-Signatory consultant shareholder can be veritable party for arbitration due to his involvement in performance of underlying contract
While holding a non-signatory consultant shareholder to be a veritable party to the Memorandum of Settlement and amenable to having his disputes referred to arbitration, the Court affirmed that a person or entity may not sign an arbitration agreement, yet give the appearance of being a veritable party to such agreement due to that person/entity’s legal relationship with the signatory parties and involvement in the performance of the underlying contract.
The Apex Court was considering a matter revolving around the issue of whether the first respondent, who was arrayed as a respondent in the arbitration petition before the High Court, would also be bound by the clauses in the Memorandum of Settlement and would qualify as a veritable party for the purposes of the arbitration proceedings initiated thereunder.
Cause Title- KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashiesh Shukla (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 803)
Date of Judgment- August 05, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
27) Father has to first build confidence in the child: Supreme Court while granting child custody to maternal grandparents
While observing that the exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction was expedient in a custody case of a minor child who lost his mother, the Court granted relief to the maternal grandparents who alleged that there was contempt of a previous order and the child was not even once sent to them.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the maternal grandparents of the minor child, alleging non-compliance of an earlier judgment. The mother of the child (daughter of the petitioner) was no more, and the grandparents were looking after the child.
Cause Title- A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 818)
Date of Judgment- August 07, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran