1) Judicial pronouncements are binding commands of law; State must exemplify obedience to them
The Court observed that judicial decisions, once they attain finality, are binding commands of law and not advisory opinions, and that the executive is constitutionally obligated to faithfully implement such decisions rather than resisting them through altered subordinate instruments.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising from a prolonged dispute concerning the enforcement of a levy that had earlier been declared ultra vires by a High Court, a declaration which had attained finality after the Supreme Court declined to interfere.
Cause Title- Adani Power Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
2) UAPA| "Terrorist Act" not confined to use of bombs & explosives; but includes design, intent, and effect to act
The Court, while delivering the Judgment on the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others, has observed that ‘Terrorist Act’ under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) is not confined to the use of bombs, explosives, firearms, or other conventional weapons alone but also involves the design, intent, and effect of the act.
The Court also observed that while constitutional safeguards protected against unconscionable detention, they did not authorize a mechanical override of laws designed to protect national security.
Cause Title- Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 2]
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
3) Sole witness testimony not of stellar quality: Supreme Court grants acquittal in 2004 murder case
While noting that the testimony of the sole witness was not of that stellar quality to form the sole basis of conviction and the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the accused, the Court granted acquittal in a murder case of 2004.
The Court was considering a Criminal Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
Cause Title- Anjani Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 3)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
4) Judicial officer should not be put through ordeal of disciplinary proceeding or prosecution merely because order is wrong or there’s error of judgment
The Court emphasized that only because an Order is wrong or there is an error of Judgment, a Judicial Officer is not put through the ordeal of a disciplinary proceeding.
The Court emphasized thus in a Civil Appeal relating to a Judicial Officer who, after 27 years of unblemished service, was removed from service.
Cause Title- Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 7)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
5) Right to object appointment of ineligible arbitrator can’t be taken away by mere implication
The Court held that the right to object to the appointment of an ineligible Arbitrator cannot be taken away by mere implication.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals arising from the common Judgment of the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench, by which the Appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) were dismissed.
Cause Title- Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Airports Authority of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 6)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
6) Creation of specific forum as substitute for civil court may not be enough to accept inference of implicit non-arbitrability
The Court reiterated that creation of a specific forum as a substitute for Civil Court or specifying the Civil Court may not be enough to accept the inference of implicit non-arbitrability.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal preferred against the Order of the Bombay High Court, by which the Single Judge allowed the Section 11 Application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) and appointed an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
Cause Title- Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited v. Santosh Cordeiro and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 5)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
7) Claimant not restricted to claims raised in pre-arbitration notice; claims and counterclaims can be amended before arbitral tribunal
The Court held that the arbitral process under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not limit a claimant to only those claims mentioned in a notice invoking arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement mandates adjudication of only specifically referred disputes.
The Court was hearing an Appeal challenging a Judgment of the Kerala High Court, which had set aside an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining disputes that were not specifically referred in the notice invoking arbitration.
Cause Title- M/s Bhagheeratha Engineering Limited v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 4)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
8) Plaintiffs are dominus litis; can’t be compelled to add party to defend suit against their wishes
The Court reiterated that the litigants who have instituted the suit are dominus litis and it is for them to choose their adversaries. It further held that they cannot be compelled to add a party to defend a suit against their wishes.
The Court was considering an Appeal challenging a Judgment setting aside the Order of the Court of first instance permitting the Appellant's impleadment as one of the Defendants to the suit.
Cause Title- Nak Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 8)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
9) Deceased driver’s death occurred during course of employment: Supreme Court restores order asking owner to pay compensation
The Court restored an Order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarding compensation to the wife of the deceased and fixing liability on the owner and the Insurance Company.
The Court noted that the deceased was employed as a driver and his death occurred during the course of and arising out of his employment. The Appellant approached the Court challenging the Telangana High Court Judgment allowing the Appeal filed by the insurer and setting aside the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour awarding compensation to the Appellant.
Cause Title- Panganti Vijaya v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 9)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih
10) Tendered unconditional apology: Supreme Court closes contempt petitions against Agra Development Authority
While closing the contempt proceedings against the Agra Development Authority, the Court asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to refund an amount of Rs 3,99,100 as the cost of unused expired nonjudicial stamp papers purchased by the petitioner. The Court also took note of the fact that the State had tendered an unconditional apology.
The Court was considering the Contempt Petitions instituted by the Appellant in the Civil Appeals alleging that the First Respondent (Agra Development Authority) had willfully failed to comply with the directions issued by the Court in its Judgment dated September 6, 2024, rendered in Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority.
Cause Title- Dharmendra Sharma v. M. Arunmozhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 10)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
11) No straitjacket formula with regard to readiness & willingness; same has to be construed with respect to facts & circumstances of each case
While dealing with a case of specific performance and bringing quietus to a dispute that protracted for over a decade, the Court held that there is no straitjacket formula with regard to ‘readiness and willingness’ and the same has to be construed with respect to the facts and circumstances of each case.
The Appellant approached the Court challenging the Delhi High Court Judgment setting aside the decree of specific performance granted in favour of the Appellant by the Single Judge.
Cause Title- Subhash Aggarwal v. Mahender Pal Chhabra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 11)
Date of Judgment- January 5, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
12) Right to speedy trial not eclipsed by the nature of offence committed; prolonged undertrial incarceration cannot become punishment
The Court held that the right to speedy trial, which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence alleged. The Court added that continued incarceration of an under-trial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, results in pre-trial detention being converted into punishment, which is impermissible in law.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising from proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, wherein the Appellant challenged the denial of bail despite having remained in custody for a substantial period, during which the trial had not commenced and showed no immediate likelihood of progress.
Cause Title- Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 12)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
13) Deprived of her documents for no fault of hers: Supreme Court asks Manav Bharti University to issue degree to law student
The Court came to the aid of a law student by directing Manav Bharti University to issue degree and marksheets to her. The Court noted that the student was deprived of her documents for no fault of hers for a substantial period of time.
The Appellant approached the Court seeking release of her marksheets of 5th to 10th semesters and a degree in law, having graduated from Manav Bharti University (MB University) on completion of the BA.LLB programme batch of 2017-2022.
Cause Title- Pratima Das v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 13)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih
14) Reserved category candidates availing any relaxation at any stage of exam aren’t eligible to be adjusted against unreserved vacancies
The Court held that the reserved category candidates who have availed of any relaxation or concession at any stage of the examination are not eligible to be adjusted against unreserved vacancies.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals challenging the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court passed in a Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 15)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
15) Corporation lacked jurisdiction absent board’s decision”: Supreme Court quashes disciplinary proceedings against retired employee
The Court quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation against a retired employee, holding that the Corporation lacked jurisdiction to do so in the absence of any specific rule or a conscious decision of its Board adopting the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
The Court was examining whether the corporation could have invoked post-retirement disciplinary powers by relying on a residuary provision in its Service Regulations, without demonstrating that the Pension Rules had been expressly adopted by its governing body.
Cause Title- Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 16)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
16) Claim for additional subsidy can only be made when eligible unit had availed its benefits in previous industrial policies
The Court held that a claim for additional subsidy can only be made when an eligible unit had already availed the benefits of the same and/or part of the same earlier in the previous industrial policies.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal arising from the Judgment of the Orissa High Court, by which it rejected a Writ Petition of a company and denied the sanctioned incentives of capital investment subsidy and Diesel Generator (DG) Set subsidy under industrial policy of 1989 in favour of industrial setup namely, Magneco Metrel Plant (MM Plant Unit).
Cause Title- IFGL Refractories Ltd. v. Orissa State Financial Corporation & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 18)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
17) Mere undertaking to infuse funds into borrower does not amount to contract of guarantee u/s.126 Contract Act
The Court held that a covenant requiring a promoter to arrange the infusion of funds into a borrower to ensure financial discipline does not constitute a contract of guarantee within the meaning of Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising from a Judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, which had affirmed the dismissal of an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of corporate insolvency resolution proceedings based on an alleged guarantee.
Cause Title- UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Electrosteel Castings Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 14)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
18) Aluminium shelving for mushroom growing is liable to be classified under customs tariff item as ‘aluminium structures’
The Court held that aluminium shelving for mushroom growing is liable to be classified under the Customs Tariff Item as ‘Aluminium Structures’.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), wherein it held that the aluminium shelves imported by a company should be classified under Customs Tariff Item 84369900, as ‘parts’ of agricultural machinery, as opposed to Customs Tariff Item 76109010, as aluminium structures.
Cause Title- Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. M/s Welkin Foods (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 19)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
19) Issuance of notice u/s 10(5) ULC Act is mandatory & must be issued to person actually in possession of land
The Court emphasized that the requirement of issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act) is mandatory and must be issued to the person(s) actually in possession of the concerned land.
The Court emphasized thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court by which it dismissed an Appeal.
Cause Title- Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 21)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
20) Expectation of higher bid in subsequent auction cannot justify cancellation of valid auction
The Court held that an auction conducted in accordance with law cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that the auctioning authority expects to secure a higher bid in a subsequent auction, particularly when the highest bid received is above the reserve price, and there is no allegation of fraud, collusion or illegality in the auction process.
The Court was hearing Civil Appeals arising out of Judgments passed by the Allahabad High Court dismissing Writ Petitions filed by the Appellant challenging the cancellation of its highest bid by the Ghaziabad Development Authority in respect of an industrial plot auction.
Cause Title- Golden Food Products India v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 22)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
21) No incriminating circumstance; omission of accused’s involvement in Sec.161 CrPC statement: Supreme Court reverses conviction in double murder case
The Court granted acquittal to a bus driver in a double murder case after noting that there was no incriminating circumstance against him and the omission of the accused’s involvement in the Section 161 CrPC statement of the father of the deceased sons was fatal.
The Court was considering an Appeal challenging the Judgment affirming the conviction.
Cause Title- Jaswinder Singh @ Shinder Singh v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 23)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
22) State cannot apply executive instructions to override recruitment rules midway; selection must be finalised under rules in force on advertisement date
The Court held that a recruitment process must be finalised strictly in accordance with the statutory rules in force on the date of issuance of the advertisement, and that subsequent amendments introducing additional weightage or age relaxation cannot be applied to an ongoing selection process.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal arising out of a Judgment of the Patna High Court, which had dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the retrospective application of the Bihar Engineering Services Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022, to an ongoing recruitment process initiated under the 2019 Rules.
Cause Title- Abhay Kumar Patel & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 24)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
23) Triple tests govern when multiple offences can be tried jointly as “same transaction” under CrPC/BNSS
The Court clarified the legal principles governing when multiple offences may be tried together as forming part of the “same transaction” under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court held that the permissibility of a joint trial depends on the application of tests, which guide Courts in determining whether distinct acts are sufficiently connected to be treated as one transaction for the purposes of framing charges and conducting a trial.
Cause Title- State NCT of Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 25)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
24) Condonation of delay must precede act of taking cognizance u/s.138 of NI Act
The Court held that the Magistrate erred in taking cognisance of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned.
The Court held that the satisfaction in that regard, resulting in condonation of the delay, must precede the act of taking cognizance. It was considering an Appeal challenging the Order of the Karnataka High Court passed in a Criminal Petition.
Cause Title- S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 27)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
25) State cannot retain discretion to change admission policy midway through selection process; elastic norms enable arbitrariness and nepotism
The Court held that the State cannot retain discretion to change admission norms after the commencement of a selection process, and that leaving such norms undefined at the outset enables arbitrariness and nepotism, rendering the process legally unsustainable.
The Court was hearing Appeals arising from a Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had declined to interfere with changes introduced to the admission process after its commencement.
Cause Title- Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 26)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
26) Supreme Court asks West Bengal part-time teachers to submit representations on pay parity before school education department
While disposing of a batch of Contempt Petitions against the State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court asked part-time contractual teachers to submit their representations seeking pay parity with regular teachers working in the Higher Secondary Section in a Non-Government Aided Higher Secondary School before the School Education Department.
The Court was considering four Contempt Petitions instituted by the persons alleging non-compliance with the directions issued by the Court vide Order dated July 16, 2024, passed in SLPs preferred by the State of West Bengal. A direction was issued as per the Order requiring the part-time contractual teachers to submit representations before the Secretary, School Education Department, justifying their claim, to basic pay for the period from April 2007 to December 2009 and for the period subsequent to December 24, 2013.
Cause Title- Gurupada Bera v. Binod Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 20)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
27) Can’t find bias on judge merely because relative of party is head constable or court staff: Supreme Court allows wife’s appeal; sets aside transfer order
The Court allowed an Appeal filed by a wife and set aside an Order transferring the proceedings initiated on her complaint from Sangareddy to Hyderabad. It held that it cannot lightly find a bias on the Judge merely because the relative of a party is a Head Constable working in a Police Station coming within the jurisdiction of the Court and/or another relative is working in the District Court itself.
The Appellant wife approached the Court challenging the Judgment by which, on the request of the husband, the proceedings initiated on her complaint, was transferred to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.
Cause Title- A v. The State of Telangana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 30)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
28) Exoneration in departmental enquiry does not bar criminal prosecution: Supreme Court restores criminal prosecution on Lokayukta’s appeal
While restoring proceedings in a bribery case, the Court held that exoneration of an employee in a departmental enquiry does not, by itself, warrant quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of the same allegations, as disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecutions are independent in nature.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta challenging a Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which had quashed criminal proceedings against a public servant on the ground that he had been exonerated in a disciplinary enquiry arising out of the same set of facts.
Cause Title- The Karnataka Lokayukta, Bagalkote District, Bagalkot v. Chandrashekar & Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 31)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
29) Reducing disability without appeal by insurance company improper: Supreme Court asks TN State Transport Corporation to pay compensation
The Court asked the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to pay compensation in a case of a motor accident. It held that the High Court, without any Appeal by the Insurance Company, reduced the disability to 40%, which was improper.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the claimant who suffered a disability in a motor accident, seeking enhancement of the award amounts.
Cause Title- S. Shakul Hameed v.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 29)
Date of Judgment- January 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
30) Statutory consequences tied to commencement u/s 9 A&C Act must be assessed solely with reference to date of receipt of request u/s 21
The Court held that the statutory consequences tied to commencement, including the mandate under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) must be assessed solely with reference to the date of receipt of request invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, by which it dismissed an Appeal against the Order of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge.
Cause Title- Regenta Hotels Private Limited v. M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 32)
Date of Judgment- January 7, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
31) CLB doesn’t have power u/s 5 Limitation Act to condone delay in filing appeal u/s 58(3) Companies Act
The Court held that the Company Law Board (CLB) does not have power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay in filing an Appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which affirmed the Order of the CLB, Kolkata Bench condoning the delay of 249 days in filing the Appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act.
Cause Title- The Property Company (P) Ltd. v. Rohinten Daddy Mazda (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 33)
Date of Judgment- January 7, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
32) If courts are allowed to step in at every stage & arbitral awards are challenged via regular appeals, it would frustrate purpose of A&C Act
The Court remarked that if the Courts are allowed to step in at every stage and the Arbitral Awards are subjected to challenge before the Courts through Regular Appeals, it would frustrate and defeat the very purpose of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed by a private company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with an expertise in executing complex dredging operations.
Cause Title- Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 34)
Date of Judgment- January 7, 2026
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal
33) Readiness & willingness established: Supreme Court grants decree of specific performance
The Court allowed a Civil Appeal in a property dispute matter and granted a decree of specific performance after noting that the issue of readiness and willingness was wrongly decided against the plaintiff when he had paid the remaining sale consideration, which was accepted by the other co-sharers.
The Appeal before the Court was directed against the final Judgment of the Kerala High Court whereby the first Appeal preferred by the plaintiff-Appellant came to be dismissed, affirming the Judgment rendered by the Sub-Judge, Chavakkad, in an Original Suit by which the suit instituted by the plaintiff-Appellant seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell was dismissed.
Cause Title- Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 35)
Date of Judgment- January 7, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
34) Strong & cogent evidence required rather than mere probability of complicity while considering bail plea of accused added u/s. 319 CrPC
While granting bail to an accused in an Arms Act case, the Court held that when a person is added as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that person is ultimately arrested and prays for bail, the relevant consideration of the Court while considering his plea should be strong and cogent evidence rather than mere probability of his complicity.
The Court was considering an Appeal challenging the Order passed by the Jharkhand High Court by which the bail application filed by the Appellant in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)A, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act came to be rejected. The State of Jharkhand had also filed an Appeal against the Order granting anticipatory bail to two accused persons.
Cause Title- Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 36)
Date of Judgment- January 7, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
35) There need not be specific place to be declared as police station: Supreme Court sets aside Andhra Pradesh HC’s decision quashing FIRs registered by ACB
The Court set aside the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by which a spate of FIRs (First Information Reports) registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) were quashed.
The Court clarified that there need not be a specific place to be declared as a police station, as even a post being held by a police officer would constitute a police station.
Cause Title- The Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Anti-Corruption Bureau, A.P. & Anr. Etc. v. Dayam Peda Ranga Rao Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 37)
Date of Judgment- January 8, 2026
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
36) Admission in govt. college doesn’t mean right to appointment is automatically implied: Supreme Court sets aside direction to consider candidates for appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse
While allowing an Appeal filed by the State, the Court set aside a direction of the Allahabad High Court mandating the State to consider the candidature of Respondents for appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse in a Medical College, Hospital or Dispensary under the State Government.
The Bench held that while advertisements for private colleges explicitly state that admission does not grant a right to appointment, the absence of this specific disclaimer in government college advertisements does not mean a right to appointment is automatically implied. The Appeal before the Court was filed by the State challenging the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
Cause Title- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhawana Mishra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 38)
Date of Judgment- January 8, 2026
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
37) Presence of civil element in allegations of forgery or cheating does not bar criminal prosecution
The Court held that the mere presence of a civil element in disputes involving allegations of forgery or cheating in relation to settlement deeds cannot be treated as determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of quashing, and that criminal proceedings must be permitted to continue where the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences.
The Court was hearing Appeals arising from a Judgment of the Madras High Court, which had declined to interfere with changes introduced to the admission process after its commencement.
Cause Title- C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar And Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 39)
Date of Judgment- January 8, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
38) Fact that multiple cheques arise from one transaction won’t merge them into single cause of action
The Court observed that the fact that multiple cheques arise from one transaction will not merge them into a single cause of action.
The Court observed thus in a batch of Criminal Appeals arising out of two separate Judgments of the Delhi High Court in Petitions seeking quashing of a set of four complaints instituted under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
Cause Title- Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 40)
Date of Judgment- January 8, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
39) Mere apprehension of repetition of offences on grant of bail cannot justify preventive detention
The Court held that mere apprehension on the part of the detaining authority that the detenu, upon being released on bail, was likely to indulge in similar crimes prejudicial to the maintenance of public order would not constitute a sufficient ground to order preventive detention.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising from an Order of the Telangana High Court, which had declined to interfere with an Order of preventive detention passed against the detenu under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Others Act, 1986.
Cause Title- Roshini Devi v. The State of Telangana & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 41)
Date of Judgment- January 8, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
40) Supreme Court grants relief to Ultratech Cement; holds construction equipment vehicles used within closed premises not liable to road tax
The Court held that construction equipment vehicles such as dumpers, loaders, excavators, surface miners, dozers, drills and rock breakers, when used exclusively within factory premises or defined enclosed areas, are vehicles of a special type not meant for use on public roads and are consequently not liable to road tax.
The Court was hearing a batch of Civil Appeals filed by Ultratech Cement Limited challenging Judgments of the Gujarat High Court, which had upheld demands raised by the State authorities for registration of such vehicles as “motor vehicles” and levy of road tax under the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958.
Cause Title- Ultratech Cement Limited v. The State of Gujarat And Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 43)
Date of Judgment- January 8, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
41) S. 448 Companies Act can’t be read in isolation; must be read along with S. 447 Companies Act
The Court clarified that Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be read in isolation and must be read along with Section 447 of the Companies Act.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court by which the Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was dismissed.
Cause Title- Yerram Vijay Kumar v. The State of Telangana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 42)
Date of Judgment- January 9, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
42) “Purity of trial in POCSO matters of paramount importance”: Supreme Court cancels bail of accused in gang rape case
While cancelling the bail of an accused in a gang rape case, the Court held that preservation of a fair and untainted trial assumes paramount importance in cases involving serious sexual offences against minors.
The Court emphasised that bail granted without considering the gravity of the allegations, statutory rigour, and the vulnerability of the victim cannot be sustained. The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal challenging a Judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had granted bail to the accused in a case involving offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Cause Title- X v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 44)
Date of Judgment- January 9, 2026
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
43) Receipt of shares of amalgamated company in substitution of stock-in-trade can give rise to taxable business profits u/s 28 Income Tax Act
The Court held that the receipt of shares of the amalgamated company in substitution of stock-in-trade can give rise to taxable business profits under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA).
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals arising out of a common Judgment and final Order of the Delhi High Court, which remanded the matters to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for fresh adjudication on the question of whether the shares held in the amalgamating company constituted stock-in-trade or capital assets, upon observing that, if the shares were, in fact, held as stock-in-trade, the transaction would fall outside the purview of Section 47(vii) of ITA, and its taxability would consequently be governed by Section 28 under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”.
Cause Title- M/s Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II, New Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 46)
Date of Judgment- January 9, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
44) “Courts are not supposed to be insensitive”: Supreme Court reduces imprisonment sentence of 80 year old accused in 1992 homicide case
The Court reduced the sentence of an 80-year-old accused in a homicide case, who was on bail, to the period already undergone, stating that Courts cannot be insensitive. The Bench took note of the advanced age of the Appellant, and held that it would be harsh and inadvisable to send him back to prison at this stage.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal arising from a Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had altered the Appellant’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
Cause Title- Shrikrishna v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 45)
Date of Judgment- January 9, 2026
Coram- Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
45) Determination of victim’s age is matter of trial, not at bail stage: Supreme Court sets aside Allahabad HC directions mandating age determination test in POCSO cases
The Court held that the determination of age of the victim is a matter of trial and not at the stage of bail. It set aside the directions of the Allahabad High Court, by which it had mandated age determination test to be conducted in all cases involving the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
A Criminal Appeal was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, challenging the High Court’s Judgment by which the Single Judge granted bail to the accused and issued a number of directions.
Cause Title- The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 47)
Date of Judgment- January 9, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
46) Supreme Court asks Centre to consider introducing Romeo-Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from stronghold of POCSO Act
The Court asked the Government of India to consider the introduction of a Romeo-Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The Court set aside the directions of the Allahabad High Court, by which it had mandated age determination test to be conducted in all cases involving the POCSO Act.
Cause Title- The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 47)
Date of Judgment- January 9, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh