1) Special Police establishment not an "intelligence & security organisation": Supreme Court strikes down MP notification granting it exemption from RTI
The Court held that the Special Police Establishment constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, for assisting the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta in corruption-related investigations, cannot be exempted from the operation of the Right to Information Act, 2005, by treating it as an “intelligence and security organisation”.
The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Special Police Establishment, Madhya Pradesh, and upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that directed the disclosure of information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, concerning the sanction granted for the prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Cause Title- Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 644)
Date of Judgment- June 15, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
2) Candidates not at fault: Supreme Court orders TNPSC to finalize motor vehicle inspector recruitment after workshop re-verification
The Court upheld the Madras High Court's decision to conduct a fresh verification exercise regarding candidates' workshop experience, observing that administrative delays in granting retrospective renewals to automobile workshops should not penalize candidate-applicants who had no control over the process.
It disposed of a batch of civil appeals concerning the selection of 113 Motor Vehicle Inspectors-Grade II by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC).
Furthermore, the Apex Court affirmed that certificates issued by the Heads of Institutions were sufficient to claim benefits under the 'Persons Studied in Tamil Medium' (PSTM) quota, and directed the TNPSC to individually communicate evaluation marks to candidates falling outside the zone of consideration to ensure public transparency and bring finality to the protracted litigation.
Cause Title- S Senthil Kumaran Bose v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. and other connected matters. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 645)
Date of Judgment- June 15, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
3) Order passed without available substantial question of law & by making out new prayer: Supreme Court asks high court to reconsider second appeal
The Court asked the Punjab and Haryana High Court to reconsider the appeals in accordance with Section 100 of the Code Of Civil Procedure after noting that the impugned order setting aside the decree passed in favour of the original plaintiffs was passed without an available question of law for consideration and also by making out a new prayer.
The Apex Court was considering the appeal filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff in a property dispute.
Cause Title-Rajat Kumar v. S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalaya Sadhaura (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 648)
Date of Judgment- June 19, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N Bhatti and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
4) Legislative intent was to make commissioner the disciplinary authority: Supreme Court upholds NDMC commissioner’s power to dismiss executive engineer
The Court upheld the dismissal of an Executive Engineer (a Group A Officer), holding that the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, which substituted Section 59(d) of the Act, vested the Commissioner with disciplinary authority over such officers. Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that after the statutory amendment, the Commissioner was competent to act as the disciplinary authority and impose major penalties, including removal from service.
It said that the statutory qualifier "subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf" explicitly signals a forward-looking regime rather than preserving existing rules. The Bench emphasized that subordinate legislation cannot freeze or limit the power of a competent legislature to restructure executive functions within a principal act. Consequently, until fresh regulations are formally enacted under the newly amended statutory framework, the explicit operational and disciplinary powers conferred upon the designated authority remain fully robust and legally unassailable.
Cause Title- Rajesh Sharma v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 646)
Date of Judgment- June 17, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra
5) Citizens can enforce restitutionary remedy if fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpath is violated
While observing that the right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution and a citizen can enforce restitutionary remedy if this right to walk on a demarcated footpath is violated, the Court suggested the institution of a regulatory body to oversee such matters and effectuate such a right.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by a man who lost his young son. The five-year-old boy was crushed by a tanker on his way to school.
Cause Title- Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 647)
Date of Judgment- June 19, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidigantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar