1) Writ petition not a substitute for statutory remedies under BNSS for FIR registration absent imminent threat to life or liberty
The Court held that Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked as a substitute for the statutory remedies provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for registration of an FIR, particularly in the absence of any imminent threat to life or liberty.
The Court was hearing criminal appeals arising from an interim order of the Bombay High Court directing the police to record the statement of the complainant and take action in accordance with law, pursuant to which an FIR came to be registered against the appellants.
Cause Title- Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 442)
Date of Judgment- May 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
2) Can't expect teachers without job security to guarantee a child’s future: Supreme Court directs exclusive selection for SSA para-teachers
The Court held that the executive cannot expect Para-Teachers to guarantee a child's future and education while denying them the security of their own employment. The Court observed that the teacher-student bond is a long-term relationship that requires stability, making it fallacious for the State to resist regularisation while simultaneously failing to implement its own statutory framework for their absorption.
Consequently, the Bench observed that while a "direct leap" from scheme-based posts to the state cadre bypassing statutory rules is prohibited, the State must immediately conduct exclusive recruitment drives to fill 50 percent of sanctioned vacancies from the pool of eligible para-teachers.
Cause Title- Sunil Kumar Yadav and Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 462)
Date of Judgment- May 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
3) “Public employment can’t be an instrument of fraud”: Supreme Court directs proceedings against constable who secured dual police jobs
The Court, while directing the initiation of criminal proceedings against a constable accused of securing appointments in both the Jharkhand and Bihar Police under different identities using forged and fabricated credentials, observed that public employment, particularly in the police service, cannot be converted into an instrument of fraud.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand, challenging a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court that had set aside the dismissal of a constable from service in departmental proceedings relating to allegations of impersonation, dual employment, forgery, and unauthorised absence.
Cause Title- The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 466)
Date of Judgment- May 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan
4) Corporate veil must be lifted when group companies are ‘inextricably connected’ & form one concern: Supreme Court grants relief to over 4000 buyers
The Court held that project lands leased to subsidiaries may be treated as holding company assets in insolvency where entities are “inextricably connected”, observing that where, in reality, group companies form part of one concern, the corporate veil must be lifted.
While criticising the prolonged inaction of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), the Bench noted that it cannot portray itself as an “uninformed and injured victim at this late stage” and accordingly lifted the corporate veil to prioritise the interests of homebuyers, holding that project completion outweighs rigid adherence to the separate legal identity of subsidiary landholding entities. The judgment impacts thousands of home and office space buyers in stalled projects since 2016, including 4,229 allottees in Earth Towne (1,878 admitted claims) and 536 units in Earth Copia, by restoring resolution plans and ensuring completion without GNIDA’s penal dues.
Cause Title- Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 449)
Date of Judgment- May 05, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
5) Indian Railways is a "consumer" under Electricity Act; cannot evade surcharges by claiming "deemed licensee" status
The Court affirmed that the Indian Railways, while a department of the Central Government, remains liable for Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) and Additional Surcharge when procuring electricity through open access for its own consumption. The Court held that the mere authority to maintain distribution installations under the Railways Act does not translate into the functional role of a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003.
The Court clarified that "distribution" involves the twin requirements of operating a distribution system and supplying electricity to third-party consumers within a specific area. Since the Railways consumes the electricity it procures for its own operations, such as locomotives and stations, it functions as an end-user or consumer rather than a distributor. Consequently, it must fulfil the same statutory financial obligations as any other consumer availing open access to the transmission grid.
Cause Title- Indian Railways v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 464)
Date of Judgment- May 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
6) Judicial process cannot validate benami transactions forbidden by statute; courts must pierce the veil of clever drafting & illusionary cause of action
The Court held that courts must undertake a meaningful and holistic reading of a plaint while exercising powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to prevent frivolous or statutorily barred claims from proceeding to trial. The Bench observed that clever drafting cannot create an illusory cause of action to validate transactions prohibited by law.
The Court held that admission of a plaint is not automatic and courts must verify statutory compliance before issuing summons. It further clarified that prohibited benami transactions cannot be indirectly enforced through legal proceedings. Furthermore, the Court established that once a transaction is judicially declared benami and such determination attains finality, the properties are liable to immediate confiscation under Section 27 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT), 1988, bypassing the need for separate administrative adjudication.
Cause Title- Manjula and Others v. D.A. Srinivas (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 465)
Date of Judgment- May 08, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
7) Bar U/S 25 Hindu Succession Act on inheritance rights of murder accused applies to both intestate & testamentary succession
The Court following its observations on the mandatory duty of courts to reject suits based on 'clever drafting', further delineated the rigors of statutory disqualification under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It has observed that a person accused of murdering someone from whom they claim inheritance is legally barred from asserting any rights to that person's estate.
Crucially, the Court held that this disqualification is not limited to cases where a person dies without a will (intestate) but extends to testamentary succession (where there is a Will) as well. The Bench further clarified that a formal criminal conviction is not a condition precedent for the bar to operate in civil proceedings. Since the disqualification under Section 25 results in a civil consequence, the issue can be examined based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than the stricter standard of beyond reasonable doubt required for a criminal conviction.
Cause Title- Manjula and Others v. D.A. Srinivas (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 465)
Date of Judgment- May 08, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
8) Supreme Court sets aside NGT orders directing closure of formaldehyde units operating without prior environmental clearance
The Court has set aside orders passed by the National Green Tribunal directing the closure of several formaldehyde manufacturing units in Rajasthan and Haryana for operating without prior Environmental Clearance.
The Court was hearing a batch of civil appeals filed by formaldehyde manufacturing units challenging orders passed by the National Green Tribunal on 03.06.2021 in Original Applications concerning the operation of formaldehyde units without prior EC under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
Cause Title- Neetu Solvents v. Vineet Nagar & Ors. and connected matters (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 455)
Date of Judgment- May 06, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
9) "Fence-Sitters" barred from disputing seniority, consequential promotions & validity of order once matter concluded
The Court reaffirmed the principle that "fence-sitters" are barred from raising disputes regarding seniority or challenging promotion orders or validity of an order once a matter has reached its conclusion.
Accordingly, the Bench allowed the appeals, setting aside the Madras High Court and declared the subsequent promotions of the appellant to Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer as valid. The Bench observed that Division Bench overlooked key developments and wrongly interfered with a decades-old Government Order post-retirement, risking disruption of settled promotions.
Cause Title- The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. R. Sasipriya & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 446)
Date of Judgment- May 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan
10) Power generating utility cannot recover depreciation from consumers beyond approved PPA period
The Court held that a power generating utility cannot recover depreciation charges from consumers beyond the period during which electricity was actually supplied under the approved Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). It observed that Regulation 6.32 of the DERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2011 must be harmoniously construed with the broader statutory framework safeguarding consumer interests.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission challenging the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which had directed that the entire capital cost of a gas-based power plant be recovered through depreciation over its fifteen-year useful life, notwithstanding the admitted position that the plant had ceased supplying electricity after March 2018.
Cause Title- Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 461)
Date of Judgment- May 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
11) Mere presence at crime scene insufficient to invoke Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court alters conviction in 1999 murder case
The Court, while altering the conviction of an accused in a 1999 murder case from Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 307 IPC, reiterated that the mere presence of an accused at the place of occurrence, without proof of participation or shared intention, is insufficient to sustain a conviction with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court convicting the appellant for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in connection with a firing incident that occurred in 1999.
Cause Title- Sanjay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 467)
Date of Judgment- May 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
12) Absence of name in register entry not conclusive of “member” status for purpose of Sections 397 & 398 Companies Act
The Court held that the absence of entry of a person’s name in the register of members is not conclusive in determining “member” status for Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, and that such status must be assessed in light of the broader definition under Section 2(27) and the surrounding statutory framework.
The Court was hearing civil appeals arising from judgments of the High Court affirming the orders of the Company Law Board, which had treated the respondent as a “member” entitled to maintain a petition alleging oppression and mismanagement.
Cause Title- Dr Bais Surgical And Medical Institute Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Dhananjay Pande (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 447)
Date of Judgment- May 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
13) Specific performance decree does not automatically stand rescinded for delay in deposit; courts retain power to extend time U/S 28 Specific Relief Act
The Court held that a decree for specific performance does not automatically stand rescinded merely because the decree-holder fails to deposit the balance of the sale consideration within the time stipulated in the decree.
The Court further observed that courts retain continuing jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to either rescind the contract or extend time for deposit after considering the equities of the case. The Court was hearing an appeal arising from execution proceedings in a suit for specific performance where the execution court had dismissed the execution application on the ground that the decree-holder had failed to deposit the balance of the sale consideration within the period stipulated in the decree. The High Court had affirmed the order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Cause Title- Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 463)
Date of Judgment- May 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan
14) Application U/S 28 Specific Relief Act not mandatory; court not powerless to treat contract as rescinded for non-compliance of condition
The Court clarified that moving a formal application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for the rescission of a contract is not a mandatory requirement for a court to grant relief. The Bench held that a court is not powerless to treat a contract as rescinded when a decree holder fails to comply with the essential condition of depositing the balance sale consideration within the period stipulated in the decree.
It set aside the High Court and Executing Court orders, rendering the decree inexecutable due to the respondent’s failure to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated three-month period. Finding that the respondent failed to seek a time extension and showed a lack of continuous readiness, the Bench directed the closure of execution proceedings and ordered the appellant to refund the ₹80,000 earnest money with 8% simple interest from the date of receipt in 2005.
Cause Title- Habban Shah v. Sheruddin (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 451)
Date of Judgment- May 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti
15) IBC not forum for adjudication of individual contractual claims; can’t be used as tool for coercion & debt recovery
The Court dismissed an appeal of a Bank where permitting the invocation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code would have amounted to converting insolvency proceedings into a coercive mechanism for recovery.
The Apex Court held that the same was impermissible as the Code is not a forum for the adjudication of individual contractual claims, and it cannot be used as a tool for coercion and debt recovery by individual creditors. The appeal before the Apex Court was filed assailing the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), whereby the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) was set aside.
Cause Title- Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited v. Mohammed Javed Sultan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 460)
Date of Judgment- May 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
16) Upon death of alleged medically negligent doctor, his legal heirs can be impleaded: Supreme Court clarifies survival of claims under Consumer Protection Act
The Court has held that, in consumer cases, the death of a medical professional during the pendency of consumer proceedings does not automatically result in the abatement of the entire claim. The Court held that upon the death of the alleged medically negligent doctor, his/her legal heirs can be impleaded and brought on record.
The Bench clarified that while purely personal actions may perish, claims targeting the estate of the deceased doctor for pecuniary loss remain maintainable. By interpreting the survival of the 'right to sue', the Court held that the legal heirs of a deceased doctor step into their shoes under Section 2(11) CPC to represent the estate.
Cause Title- Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 443)
Date of Judgment- May 04, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
17) Disciplinary authority cannot punish employee on completely different charge which was not framed without issuing fresh show-cause notice
The Court granted relief to a 76-year-old pediatrician, holding that a disciplinary authority cannot punish an individual on a completely different charge than the one originally framed.
The Bench observed that after the doctor successfully defended the initial allegation of appearing for two simultaneous medical college inspections by proving he was abroad, the authorities shifted to a charge of "mis-declaration" without issuing a fresh show-cause notice. This failure to provide a fresh opportunity for explanation was deemed a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice.
Cause Title- Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain v. National Medical Commission & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 453)
Date of Judgment- May 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
18) Mere non-production of selection records doesn’t mean that candidates cleared test: Supreme Court rejects inference drawn by high court to order appointment
While setting aside the orders granting appointment to the candidates to the post of Plant Attendant at Durgapur Steel Plant, the Court has held that mere non-production of records of the selection process does not justify drawing an inference that the candidates had cleared the written test.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upholding the direction of the Tribunal to offer appointments to the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant.
Cause Title- Durgapur Steel Plant v. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 459)
Date of Judgment- May 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
19) Revenue records do not confer ownership or title; serve only fiscal purpose
The Court by summarising a long line of precedents, reaffirmed that entries in revenue records do not confer, create, or extinguish proprietary title, serving instead the limited fiscal purpose of identifying the person liable to pay land revenue.
The Court noted that a writ forum cannot expand its scope of judicial review to declare title, particularly when claimants fail to produce primary evidence like an original patta or grant. The Bench dismissed the civil appeal, involving a claim over 600 acres of land in Kalvalanagaram Village, Telangana, where the Appellants contended that their predecessors were granted pattas by the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1931-32. However, the Government initiated proceedings in 1950 to notify the area as a reserve forest.
Cause Title- Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao & Ors. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 450)
Date of Judgment- May 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
20) Eligibility of candidate is assessed based on particulars & documents furnished at time of application: Supreme Court allows RPSC appeal
While allowing the appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the Court held that the eligibility of a candidate is assessed based on the particulars and documents furnished at the time of application, and there is no provision for subsequent supplementation or resubmission of such documents at a later stage.
The appeals before the Apex Court were filed by the Commission assailing the order affirming the judgment passed by the Single Judge directing the Commission to issue admit cards to the private respondents and permit them to appear in the preliminary examination for the posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer.
Cause Title- Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Lavanshu Sankhla & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 444)
Date of Judgment- May 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta