Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: August 31 – September 04, 2026
1) Error of law evident from the record is open to correction by High Court by invoking certiorari jurisdiction
The Court upheld an order of the Delhi High Court setting aside the order passed by an Arbitrator and observed that though the scope for interference in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction would be limited, an error of law is open to correction by the High Court.
The Apex Court was considering the appeals challenging the interference caused by the Delhi High Court in setting aside the order passed by the Arbitrator under Section 61 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 as affirmed in appeal under Section 76 by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal.
Cause Title- Shri Prakash Narain Sharma v. M/S. Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 927)
Date of Judgment- August 31, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
2) Several missing links; police might have come up with story to pacify villagers: Supreme Court grants acquittal in 6-yr-old boy’s murder case
The Supreme’ Court has ordered the release of a convict undergoing incarceration of over 16 years for the murder of a 6-year-old boy. The Apex Court found several missing links in the chain of events and also stated that the police came up with a story that the case had been solved and the culprit caught with a view to pacify the villagers.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellant against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence.
Cause Title- Sahab Singh Alias Sat Pal v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 945)
Date of Judgment- September 02, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
3) Court ought not sit on seized property for years without cause; applications U/S.451 CrPC have to be disposed of expeditiously & judiciously
While directing the handover of the interim custody of a vehicle allegedly found transporting IMFL under the guise of transport goods to the , the Supreme Court has held that the Court ought not sit on seized property for years without cause.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Ahmedabad High Court in a criminal case concerning the transportation of prohibited Indian-Made Foreign Liquor in an Ashok Leyland Truck.
Cause Title- M/S ABC Express v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 940)
Date of Judgment- September 02, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
4) RBI's power to supersede multi-state co-operative bank boards U/S 36AAA Banking Regulation Act not bound by six-month limit under Article 243ZL(1) Constitution
The Court held that the Reserve Bank of India's power to supersede the Board of Directors of a multi-State co-operative bank under Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is not circumscribed by the six-month ceiling on supersession prescribed under Article 243ZL(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the third proviso to Article 243ZL(1), which makes the Banking Regulation Act "also apply" to co-operative societies carrying on banking business, operates as an independent, additive provision rather than a restrictive exception, thereby preserving RBI's specialised regulatory authority over such banks.
The Bench further held that an order of supersession under Section 36AAA(1) can validly be extended beyond the original term of office for which the superseded Board had been elected, rejecting the appellants' contention that once their five-year statutory term expired, there remained no Board left to supersede and that successive extension orders were therefore unsustainable.
Cause Title- Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 915)
Date of Judgment- September 03, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
5) Union & State Of Tamil Nadu must follow cooperative federalism for purse seine fishing access To EEZ
The Court held that effectively regulating purse seine fishing access to the Exclusive Economic Zone, while transiting through Tamil Nadu’s territorial waters, requires the Union and the State to act in accordance with cooperative federalism. The Court directed Tamil Nadu to frame necessary rules or regulations designating a specified channel under Rules 15(5) and 15(6) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 for transit of vessels from territorial waters to the EEZ for fishing using purse seine nets.
The Court was hearing an interlocutory application in a writ petition concerning the right of fishermen using purse seine nets to access the EEZ beyond Tamil Nadu's territorial waters, while also noting that the judgment sufficiently encompassed the connected Special Leave Petition and writ petitions pending before it.
Cause Title- Fisherman Care v. The Government of India Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 937)
Date of Judgment- September 02, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
6) Accused’s guilt can’t be presumed merely because complaint of collusion was raised against investigating officer
While granting acquittal to 5 murder convicts, the Supreme Court has held that a faulty investigation cannot inure to the benefit of the accused but when there is no reliable evidence, merely because the Investigating Officer (IO) was recalcitrant or a complaint of collusion was raised against him, the Court cannot presume the guilt of the accused.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal in a case of murder which occurred in broad daylight presumably on an election day leading to the conviction of six accused. Five of them had appraoched the Court since the first accused had served his term and was released on remission.
Cause Title- Dhrub Singh Etc. v. The State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 935)
Date of Judgment- September 01, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
7) Multiplier for assessing motor accident compensation for bachelor’s death must be based on deceased’s age, not parents'
The Supreme Court has held that the multiplier for assessing compensation arising from the motor accident death of a bachelor must be determined according to the deceased’s age and not the age of his dependent parents. Upholding the multiplier of 16 applied for a 33-year-old deceased, the Court dismissed the appeals filed by the insurer and the claimant against the compensation award and its apportionment.
The Court was hearing cross-appeals against a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had substantially affirmed the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while increasing the claimant’s share from ₹5 lakh to ₹7.5 lakh.
Cause Title- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Priyanka Das and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 950)
Date of Judgment- September 03, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
8) Earning capacity must be assessed in open labour market: Supreme Court enhances compensation for IBM manager who suffered 100% disability in motor accident
The Court held that functional disability in a motor accident compensation claim must be assessed with reference to the victim’s earning capacity in the open and competitive market, not merely by looking at retention in an accommodated employment role. The Court shifted the assessment from 80% to 100% functional disability and enhanced compensation to Rs. 3,77,84,297, with 7.5% interest, for an IBM Group Manager who suffered 100% permanent physical impairment due to post-traumatic head injury with cortical blindness, pelvic fracture and permanent colostomy.
The Court was hearing connected civil appeals filed by the insurer and the injured claimant challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order in motor accident compensation proceedings, where the High Court had enhanced the Tribunal’s assessment of functional disability from 60% to 80% and awarded Rs. 2,94,82,617.
Cause Title- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Priyanka Das and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 950)
Date of Judgment- September 03, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
9) Regulatory power to demand accountability can be incidental even without express mandate: Supreme Court upholds NCTE's PAR directive
The Supreme Court has held that a statutory regulator's power to demand accountability from institutions under its jurisdiction need not always be traceable to an explicit provision of the parent statute, since such regulatory measures can be incidental and ancillary to the regulator's core duties and functions. Applying this principle, the Court upheld the National Council for Teacher Education's (NCTE) authority to direct Teacher Education Institutes (TEIs) to submit annual Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR), reversing a Delhi High Court judgment that had quashed the underlying public notice as procedurally unsustainable.
The Bench specifically rejected the Delhi High Court's technical approach of scrutinising whether a specific proforma had been formally placed before and approved by the Council, holding instead that once the Council had approved the concept of a Performance Appraisal Report and authorised the Executive Committee to implement it, the Committee's issuance of a notice through its Member Secretary was a legitimate exercise of delegated regulatory authority, not requiring further Council-level ratification of implementation details.
Cause Title- The National Council for Teachers Education v. Association of NCTE Approved Colleges Trust and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 953)
Date of Judgment- September 03, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
10) High Court can recall orders to prevent miscarriage of justice: Supreme Court quashes conviction u/s 201 IPC after accused found juvenile on date of crime
The Supreme Court has held that a High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall its own orders where doing so is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and on this basis has quashed a conviction under Section 201 Part II of the IPC after the accused was found, through a Juvenile Justice Board inquiry, to have been a juvenile on the date of the crime, decades after the original conviction and years after his own appeal to the Supreme Court had been dismissed as withdrawn.
The Court held that the bar under Section 362 of the CrPC against altering or reviewing a final judgment does not extend to orders passed without jurisdiction, and that the Madhya Pradesh High Court had erred in treating itself as powerless to correct the appellant's conviction merely because the matter had, at an earlier stage, already travelled up to the Supreme Court.
Cause Title- Mahavir @ Avnish v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 9420)
Date of Judgment- September 02, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
11) Every judicial order must meet basic standard required from High Court judge: Supreme Court laments lack of reason
While quashing an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a case pertaining to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Supreme Court has held that the lack of reasons is indicative of non-application of mind and it handicaps the higher Court from discerning the basis upon which the conclusion was arrived at and testing its legality and/or correctness.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging a judgment of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court whereby, their appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was dismissed.
Cause Title- Rajeev Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 938)
Date of Judgment- August 31, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
12) Entrusting AI with pilot’s seat is dangerous: Supreme Court sets aside customs penalty order based on fake citations
The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposing a penalty of Rs 425 crore by relying on fake AI-generated case laws and citations. The Apex Court also put up a word of caution by stating that AI may serve as training wheels but entrusting it with the pilot’s seat would be both imprudent and dangerous.
The appellant approached the Apex Court by filing an appeal against an order dismissing his challenge made against the penalty imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat.
Cause Title- Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 947)
Date of Judgment- September 02, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
13) Article 142 can be invoked in exceptional circumstances to protect post retiral benefits despite annulment of caste certificate
The Supreme Court has granted retiral and pensionary benefits to a retired employee whose caste claim to the “Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe was invalidated. The Supreme Court held that generally, invalidation of a caste or tribe claim upon verification would have consequences in law, but the power under Article 142 of the Constitution may be exercised where the equities of the case so warrant, to do complete justice.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and affirming the order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (second respondent) invalidating the caste claim of the appellant as belonging to the “Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe.
Cause Title- Shirish Pandharinath Patil v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 949)
Date of Judgment- September 03, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
14) Bank acquiring non-performing secured loan from entity outside SARFAESI Act can recover it under it
The Supreme Court has held that when a bank covered by the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 acquires a non-performing secured loan account from an entity outside the Act, the loan account becomes a secured debt recoverable under the SARFAESI Act.
The Court was hearing connected civil appeals concerning whether Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited could invoke the SARFAESI Act to recover loan accounts assigned to it by City Financial Consumer Finance Limited, a non-banking financial company which was not a “financial institution” under Section 2(1)(m) of the SARFAESI Act when the loans were created.
Cause Title- Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 915)
Date of Judgment- September 02, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
15) Automatic imposition of penalty and exclusion of mens rea are two different things: Supreme Court quashes penalty on Saudi Arabian airlines for late deposit of foreign travel tax
The Supreme Court has set aside penalties imposed on Saudi Arabian Airlines for delayed deposit of Foreign Travel Tax, holding that even where a statutory provision does not require proof of mens rea for a breach, it does not follow that imposition of penalty becomes automatic, the two questions, the Court held, are entirely distinct, and whether penalty must follow depends on the scheme of the statute and the adjudicatory process it prescribes.
Applying this principle, the Court held that where the law requires a show cause notice, an opportunity to reply, and a hearing before penalty can be imposed, treating penalty as mandatory or a foregone conclusion would render that entire adjudicatory process meaningless, since the power to impose penalty necessarily includes the power not to impose it.
Cause Title- M/s. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 933)
Date of Judgment- September 01, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
16) Some disputes or discord in matrimonial life not sufficient in itself to attract offence of abetment of suicide
While granting acquittal to a husband in a case of cruelty and suicide abetment, the Supreme Court has held that some disputes or discord in the matrimonial life of the accused and the victim would not be sufficient in itself to attract the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the acquittal of the appellant in a case registered under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 having been overturned by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Cause Title- A v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 948)
Date of Judgment- September 03, 2026
Coram- Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
17) Externment cannot be ordered routinely or on mere registration of multiple cases
The Supreme Court has held that the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against a person does not ipso facto justify an order of district banishment. Reaffirming that an order of externment directly impinges upon valuable fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, the Court held that such extraordinary measures cannot be passed as a matter of routine or on mere ipse dixit.
The Bench held that the Chhattisgarh High Court grossly erred in refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by turning away the petitioner to an alternative statutory appellate remedy under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, despite the externment order being passed without jurisdiction, without objective material, and in total breach of natural justice principles.
Cause Title- Vijay Kumar Rajpoot alias Vijju v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 926).
Date of Judgment- August 31, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
18) Revisional jurisdiction u/s.56 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act is to be exercised within three years
While quashing a re-enquiry notice issued in the year 2014 by the Joint Director/Registrar of Land Records, the Supreme Court has clarified that there is a clear mandate as to the time frame within which revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the same is three years.
The Apex Court was considering two appeals arising out of a judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
Cause Title- M.R.R. Setty (Dead), by LRs v. Government of Karnataka and others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 944)
Date of Judgment- September 02, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
19) NOIDA though involved in commercial venture can’t be divorced from essential purpose of welfare measures without mere profit motive
While observing that the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) involved in a commercial venture, cannot be divorced from the essential purpose of welfare measures without a mere profit motive, the Supreme Court has set aside the directions to consider NOIDA’s time extension charges as CIRP costs.
The Apex Court was considering a case involving the plight of home buyers, who invested their hard-earned life savings in grandiose high-rise buildings promised by the developer but were left in a lurch.
Cause Title- The Authorised Representative for Granite Gate Properties Private Limited v. M/s New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 952)
Date of Judgment- September 03, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
20) Undertaking must be solemn, express & intended to be acted upon: Supreme Court upholds dismissal of contempt petition
While dealing with an appeal filed by Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA) relating to the execution of a money decree in its favour, the Supreme Court upheld the view that an undertaking must be solemn, express, and intended to be acted upon by the Court.
The Apex Court asked Hyderabad Industrialist Nimmagadda Prasad, Matrix Pharmacorp Pvt. Ltd., Tianish Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., IQuest Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Moschip Technologies Ltd. to furnish an additional Security of Rs 200 crore with the Registry over and above the sums/assets already deposited. The Court further clarified that the encashment of security deposited with the Registry would be subject to the outcome of the Execution Proceedings pending before the Commercial Courts of Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy.
Cause Title- Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v. Matrix Pharmacorp Private Limited & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 932)
Date of Judgment- September 01, 2026
Coram- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
21) Professional clearing members owe no statutory duty to verify debit/credit positions for trading member on default
The Supreme Court has held that Professional Clearing Members (PCMs) in the Futures & Options segment cannot be saddled with a statutory obligation to verify the debit/credit positions of a Trading Member's individual clients before liquidating collaterals furnished by the Trading Member on default. The Court found that the regulatory framework, as it stood during the period in question, did not provide the PCM visibility of such individual client positions, and that the absence of privity of contract between the PCM and the Trading Member's clients was a valid defence against claims of restitution.
The Bench further ruled that the Member and Core Settlement Guarantee Fund Committee (MCSGFC) constituted by NSE Clearing Ltd. had no jurisdiction to direct restitution of liquidated securities, since Section 9(3)(b) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 expressly bars stock exchange byelaws from prescribing any penalty involving payment of money, a power reserved exclusively for SEBI under Section 11B of the SEBI Act and Section 12A of the Securities Act. Consequently, the orders of the Securities Appellate Tribunal upholding such restitution were set aside.
Cause Title- Edelweiss Custodial Services Limited v. NSE Clearing Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 941)
Date of Judgment- September 02, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
22) Professional clearing members owe no statutory duty to verify debit/credit positions for trading member on default
The Supreme Court has held that Professional Clearing Members (PCMs) in the Futures & Options segment cannot be saddled with a statutory obligation to verify the debit/credit positions of a Trading Member's individual clients before liquidating collaterals furnished by the Trading Member on default. The Court found that the regulatory framework, as it stood during the period in question, did not provide the PCM visibility of such individual client positions, and that the absence of privity of contract between the PCM and the Trading Member's clients was a valid defence against claims of restitution.
The Bench further ruled that the Member and Core Settlement Guarantee Fund Committee (MCSGFC) constituted by NSE Clearing Ltd. had no jurisdiction to direct restitution of liquidated securities, since Section 9(3)(b) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 expressly bars stock exchange byelaws from prescribing any penalty involving payment of money, a power reserved exclusively for SEBI under Section 11B of the SEBI Act and Section 12A of the Securities Act. Consequently, the orders of the Securities Appellate Tribunal upholding such restitution were set aside.
Cause Title- Edelweiss Custodial Services Limited v. NSE Clearing Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 941)
Date of Judgment- September 02, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
23) Victim must be party to settlement for quashing criminal proceedings; informant’s settlement not enough
The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed based on a settlement unless the real victim, and not merely an informant who set the criminal law in motion, is a party to the settlement relied upon for quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dismissing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of criminal proceedings arising from a land-related complaint alleging forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Cause Title- Anand Kumar @ Sanjay Lalwani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 928)
Date of Judgment- August 31, 2026
Coram- Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli