1) Disallowing amount not treated as allowance by assessee is impermissible under Income Tax Act
While setting aside an order of the Assessing Officer, the Court held that disallowing an amount not treated as an allowance by the Assessee is impermissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by an assessee who was aggrieved by the redetermination of the net taxable income.
Cause Title- M/S. Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi -II (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1162)
Date of Judgment- October 27, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N. V. Anjaria
2) Grant of jagir not to be misconstrued as one of title over the property
The Court held that a grant of jagir confers only rights in respect of land revenue and cannot be treated as a grant of title over the land. Any limited interest a jagirdar held, it said, was extinguished once jagirs were abolished and vested in the State.
The Bench dismissed a batch of appeals by private claimants to lands in Miyapur village, Ranga Reddy District. It held that the revenue entries relied on by one set of claimants were made without authority after vesting, and are therefore a nullity. It also held that the claimants who traced title to the jagirdar were barred by concluded Atiyat proceedings and by the commutation amount received.
Cause Title- Bandari Ramchander & Ors. v. Maitri Coop. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1175)
Date of Judgment- October 29, 2026
Coram- Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
3) Income-Tax reassessment without Section 143(2) notice is invalid; assessee’s participation cannot cure its absence
The Court held that an Assessing Officer cannot undertake reassessment under Section 143(3), read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without issuing a notice under Section 143(2). The Court further ruled that an assessee’s participation in the proceedings does not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer or cure the complete absence of the mandatory notice.
The Court was hearing connected civil appeals filed by the Revenue against orders of the Orissa High Court affirming the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision to set aside reassessment orders concerning Orissa Mining Corporation Limited and another assessee.
Cause Title- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar v. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1171)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
4) Overlap of disputes with mother agreement cannot be ground to refuse reference u/s 11 A&C Act at threshold
The Court held that the bar on bail for foreign nationals under Section 43D(7) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is not attracted merely because a valid entry later turned into an illegal stay. The Court held that the entry itself must have been unauthorized or illegal.
The Court held that once the prosecution prima facie establishes the ingredients of Section 43D(7), the provision sets a very high bar for the accused. It clarified that the sub-section overrides only sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 43D and therefore does not bar default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, as applied by Section 43D(2).
Cause Title- Union of India v. Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1160)
Date of Judgment- October 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
5) Six years erased from his life: Supreme Court directs UP govt. to pay 6 Lakh as compensation to man acquitted in kidnapping & murder case
Calling the investigation in a kidnapping and murder case slipshod, the Court ordered the Uttar Pradesh Government to pay Rs 6 lakh to a man who had to undergo an incarceration of 6 years before being acquitted.
The Apex Court held that the State Police would do well to educate their officers in the process of investigation. The Apex Court was considering a matter where the petitioner sought bail after six years of custody as an undertrial.
Cause Title- Arun @ Deepak v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1150)
Date of Judgment- October 26, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
6) Once foundational facts are proved, prosecution need not negate every hypothetical income source in disproportionate-assets case
The Court held that, once the prosecution establishes a public servant’s known sources of income and demonstrates that the assets possessed during the check period were disproportionate to that income, it is not required to negate every hypothetical source subsequently claimed by the accused.
Applying this principle, the Court upheld the conviction of a former Sub-Registrar under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging a Kerala High Court judgment which affirmed the appellant’s conviction for possessing disproportionate assets but reduced his sentence from two years to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and the fine from ₹5.5 lakh to ₹2 lakh.
Cause Title- V. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1172)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
7) Definition from another statute applies only if laws are pari materia or legislature adopts it by reference or incorporation
The Court held that a definition under one statute cannot be imported into another unless the enactments are pari materia or the legislature provides for its application through reference or incorporation. Applying this principle, the Court refused to import the Central Excise Act, 1944 definition of “manufacture” into the Textiles Committee Act, 1963, and dismissed an appeal against the quashing of a ₹2.68 lakh textile-cess demand.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the Assessing Officer of the Textiles Committee against an Allahabad High Court judgment which had quashed the cess imposed on a company engaged in bleaching, dyeing and processing fabrics supplied by powerloom and handloom units.
Cause Title- The Assessing Officer, Textiles Committee v. M/s Premium Suiting Private Limited and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1158)
Date of Judgment- October 26, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
8) Arbitral Tribunal cannot rewrite contract or grant relief contrary to its terms
The Court held that an arbitral tribunal cannot rewrite a contract, supplant its express provisions with new terms or grant relief contrary to the parties’ agreement.
The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision setting aside a majority award which granted specific performance of a 2003 agreement titled “Agreement for Development” and directed the execution of a conveyance deed for the landowners’ share.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by the developer against the High Court’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Although it did not restore the majority award, the Court directed the landowners to refund the amounts received under the agreement with 9% simple interest.
Cause Title- Shreeram Builders v. Upendra Kantilal Thanawala and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1176)
Date of Judgment- October 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
9) Apprehensive of false complaints made with lure of future settlement: Supreme Court says rape case can’t be quashed solely on compromise
The Court set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order quashing a rape case solely based on a compromise and directed the trial to proceed. The Court, however, separately granted anticipatory bail to the accused, subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court.
The Court was hearing a special leave petition seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 64(1), 331(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. During the proceedings, it was informed that the High Court had separately quashed the complaint after accepting a compromise.
Cause Title- Gopal Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1164)
Date of Judgment- October 26, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
10) Material relating to private body which can be accessed by public authority can also fall under definition of information under RTI Act
While directing the Joint Registrar (General) to supply a copy of the construction agreement between the appellant/Co-operative Bank and a Labour Co-operative Society as well as a copy of the minutes of the last General Body Meeting, the Supreme Court has held that such material relating to a private body, which can be accessed by a public authority, on the strength of statutory powers conferred, would fall under the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the Right To Information (RTI Act).
The Apex Court was considering a matter where a member of the Bank had put up an application under the Right To Information Act for a copy of the construction agreement between the appellant/Co-operative Bank and a Labour Co-operative Society, which was entrusted with the construction of a building, and a copy of the minutes of the last General Body Meeting of the appellant-Bank.
Cause Title- The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. The State Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1153)
Date of Judgment- October 26, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
11) Supreme Court declines to supervise arbitral awards execution through clarification plea; requests Law Commission to study enforcement
The Court held that it cannot be asked, in the guise of a clarification, to supervise execution proceedings pending before another court. It ruled that its jurisdiction on a certified question of law ends once the question is answered.
Dismissing the Miscellaneous Application and disposing of the appeal against the Delhi High Court’s interim order, the Court held that it is for the executing court, and the appellate court above it, to decide questions arising in execution. It also requested the Law Commission of India to undertake a focused study of the framework governing enforcement and execution of arbitral awards.
In an epilogue, the Court expressed concern that the parties were still litigating enforcement more than twenty-four years after the award. It observed that an arbitral regime must be measured by whether the successful party can realise the award’s fruits within a reasonable time. It flagged asset disclosure, coordination of execution modes, repetitive objections and delay as matters needing scrutiny.
Cause Title- M/s Royal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s National Projects Construction Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1167)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
12) Life sentences awarded for multiple offences in single trial can’t be directed to run consecutively; remission in one won’t result in remission in other
The Court held that the life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single Trial, cannot be directed to run consecutively, but such sentences would be superimposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority qua one does not result in remission of the sentence awarded for the other.
The Apex Court was considering a criminal appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in a Criminal Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Raju Shantaram Koli v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1161)
Date of Judgment- October 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Arun Palli and Justice K. V. Viswanathan
13) Financial creditor’s role in navigating corporate debtor’s policy suffices for related-party status, barring CoC participation under IBC
The Court held that a financial creditor’s role in navigating the corporate debtor’s policy and channelising its business interests can establish related-party status under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, thereby barring its representation, participation and voting in the Committee of Creditors.
The Court was hearing appeals by ECL Finance Limited, a debenture holder and lender, and IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited, the debenture trustee, challenging an NCLAT order affirming their exclusion from the CoC of Palm Developers Private Limited as related parties.
Cause Title- ECL Finance Limited and Another v. Abhinav Mukherjee and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1159)
Date of Judgment- October 27, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
14) “What a policy says, it is”: Supreme Court grants war injury pension for disability during operation rakshak posting
The Court held that courts will give effect to the plain language of a policy and not to what the policymaker may have imagined it to mean. It ruled that the Ministry of Defence cannot read into its own policy an exclusion that the policy does not contain.
Dismissing the Union of India’s appeal, the Court held that Category E(i), which covers “operations specially notified by the Govt. from time to time”, is enabling in nature. Once an operation is notified, the benefit follows unless the policy or the notification indicates otherwise. The Court added that, in future, the Government must declare in clear terms whether War Injury Pension applies to an operation it notifies.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Narender Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1166)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
15) Income tax reopening notice valid when based on tangible material with live link; change of opinion requires conscious application of mind
The Court held that a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is valid where the recorded reasons rest on tangible material that has a rational connection or live link with the belief that income has escaped assessment. It held that a change of opinion presupposes a conscious application of mind and the formation of an opinion in the original assessment, and that the sufficiency of the reasons is not justiciable at the notice stage.
The Court held that an investigation report prepared after the assessment is fresh material on which the Assessing Officer can act. It held that an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment, so no question of change of opinion arises. It also held that a conclusion that a transaction needs investigation differs from having reasons, post investigation, to issue a notice.
Cause Title- Chetan Sabharwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1163)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
16) Principle of finality of litigation shouldn't become an engine of fraud: Supreme Court reiterates
The Court reiterated that the principle of finality of litigation cannot be invoked to protect fraud by dishonest litigants. Applying the principle, the Court set aside a Karnataka High Court Division Bench judgment which had rejected landowners’ challenge to an acquisition on the grounds of res judicata and delay.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by landowners whose challenge to the acquisition of their lands for a cooperative society’s housing scheme had been rejected by the Division Bench. The Division Bench had relied upon Karnataka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Limited v. Karithimmaiah (2001), which concerned the same acquisition.
Cause Title- N. Arasappa v. State of Karnataka and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1151)
Date of Judgment- October 26, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
17) Execution application filed under Order XXI Rule 97-101 CPC is on par with regular suit
The Court held that Order XXI Rule 101 of the CPC explicitly bars a separate suit to establish title, while an application under Rules 97–101 is on par with a regular suit.
After separately examining the title and possession evidence, the Court declared the original applicant’s legal representatives the lawful owners and possessors of the disputed property.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the legal representatives of an applicant whose objection under Order XXI Rules 97–101 of the CPC had been dismissed by the executing court. The Karnataka High Court had affirmed the dismissal and held that the applicant should approach the civil court for a declaration concerning the decree.
Cause Title- Balakrishna (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. G.N. Kanniah Naidu (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1155)
Date of Judgment- October 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
18) Government approval u/s 3(F)(Vi) Land Acquisition Act must be for actual cooperative housing scheme with layout & blueprint, not mere requisitions
The Court held that prior government approval under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring land to implement a cooperative society’s housing scheme must cover an actual, formulated scheme containing its layout and blueprint.
The Apex Court clarified that the approval of the society’s mere requisition or the proposed extent of land is insufficient. The Court consequently set aside the Karnataka High Court Division Bench’s judgment and restored the Single Judge’s order quashing the acquisition.
The Court was hearing appeals by landowners against a common Division Bench judgment which had dismissed their challenge to the acquisition on the grounds of delay and res judicata, reversing a Single Judge’s finding that the proceedings were vitiated by fraud and colourable exercise of power.
Cause Title- N. Arasappa v. State of Karnataka and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1151)
Date of Judgment- October 26, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
19) Physical intimacy that occurred during currency of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as acts of rape
The Court held that sexual intimacy during a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as rape merely because the relationship later soured. Courts, it said, must view the entire relationship holistically and not from the perspective of its end.
The Court discharged a man facing charges under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It held that the complainant continued to cohabit with him for seven years despite learning of his earlier marriage within months, so her consent could not be said to rest on a belief in a lawful marriage.
Cause Title- Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State-Station House Officer, Kadirur Police, Tellicherry, Kannur District & Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1179)
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2026
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
20) Writ Court can restore electricity supply on minimum 50% deposit if provisional assessment in theft case is prima facie arbitrary
The Court held that where a provisional assessment arising from alleged electricity theft is prima facie arbitrary, a High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, may, for recorded reasons, restore the disconnected supply upon payment of an amount not less than 50% of the demand.
Upholding the Gujarat High Court’s order granting reconnection on a 50% deposit, the Court dismissed the distribution licensees’ appeals, subject to a clarification concerning the appellate remedy and determination of civil liability.
The Court was hearing two appeals by Gujarat electricity distribution companies concerning whether electricity disconnected over alleged theft could be restored on payment of half the provisionally assessed amount and whether the assessment procedure and appellate remedy under Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, applied in theft cases.
Cause Title- Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited and Another v. Vaibhav Metal Crusher with Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited and Another v. Jamanbhai Nanajibhai Bhuva (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1157)
Date of Judgment- October 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
21) This Court is not only the Court of law but also a Court of equity: Supreme Court directs ₹125 crore payment to settle loan dispute
The Court observed that it is “not only the Court of law but also a Court of equity” while directing a borrower company to pay an additional ₹125 crore to the asset-reconstruction company to which State Bank of India had assigned its debt, as full and final settlement of the assignee’s claims.
The Court was hearing appeals against a Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment concerning SBI’s classification of the company’s loan account as a non-performing asset and the subsequent assignment of the debt to an asset-reconstruction company for ₹250 crore.
Cause Title- Atibir Industries Co. Ltd. v. State Bank of India and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1156)
Date of Judgment- October 26, 2026
Coram- Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
22) No withdrawal of application or approved resolution plan once CoC approves plan & it is placed before adjudicating authority
The Court held that withdrawal of an application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be sought only until the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approves the resolution plan. Once the plan is placed before the Adjudicating Authority, neither the application nor the approved plan can be withdrawn.
The Court held that the ruling in Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd., delivered in the context of withdrawal sought by a successful resolution applicant (SRA), applies squarely to the CoC as well. It added that improved profitability of the corporate debtor alone cannot justify refusing approval if the plan meets the requirements of Section 30(2).
Cause Title- Bank of India & Ors. v. S.M. Kamal Pasha & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1154)
Date of Judgment- October 26, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
23) Legislature cannot nullify judgments of constitutional courts: Supreme Court strikes down Karnataka Validation Act for 2011 KPSC recruitment
The Court held that a legislature cannot annul a cancellation of a recruitment that the High Court and the Supreme Court have upheld, and thereby nullify their judgments. It held that the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 did exactly that and is unconstitutional.
Setting aside the Act and the High Court orders that had upheld it, the Court held that appointments made under it will also come to an end. It directed the State to notify recruitment for the vacant Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts under the existing rules, with a one-time age relaxation for the six appellants, the petitioners in the pending proceedings before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, and the appointed candidates not found tainted. It laid down protections on seniority, back wages and pension.
Cause Title- Srinivasa T. & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. etc. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1173)
Date of Judgment- October 29, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
24) Procedural defect in mode of service of grounds of arrest by itself not a ground for bail
While cancelling the bail granted to an accused booked for transmitting sensitive military intelligence to foreign handlers belonging to a Pakistani intelligence agency, the Court held that in the absence of demonstrable prejudice or denial of an opportunity to defend, an alleged procedural defect in the mode of service cannot invalidate detention or entitle an accused to regular bail, more so in cases involving grave allegations of espionage affecting national security and sovereign integrity.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal directed against the impugned judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court whereby the respondent was enlarged on regular bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 35 and 96 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and Sections 152 and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Cause Title- State of Rajasthan v. Jhabra Ram (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1169)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2026
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
25) Decisions of highest Court to be followed, without which there will be mayhem: Supreme Court sets aside APTEL’s Order
While allowing an appeal filed by the Damodar Valley Corporation and imposing a cost of Rs 1.5 lakh on Steel Authority of India Limited, the Supreme Court has held that finality and closure are an expedient need in litigation. The Apex Court further held that Article 141 is a Constitutional imprimatur which ensures the decisions of the highest court of the land to be followed, without which there will be mayhem.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the impugned order, which was passed in a petition seeking review of an order of the year 2019, which was allowed in 2024, after more than five years. against the established orders of tariff fixation under the Electricity Act, 2003, also on the strength of a decision of this Court in Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Limited & Ors. v. Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors (2018).
Cause Title- Damodar Valley Corporation v. Maithan Alloys Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1178)
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
26) Statutory bar on appeal against compromise decree does not apply to stranger
The Court held that a person who was neither a party to a suit nor to the compromise on which a consent decree rests cannot be barred by Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Order XXIII Rules 3 and 3A. The bar and the estoppel, it said, operate only against parties to the compromise.
The Court dismissed an appeal against the Gujarat High Court’s orders granting leave to appeal against a 2013 consent decree, condoning an 11-year delay and continuing an ex parte ad interim injunction. It clarified that non-party status confers no unrestricted right of appeal. Such a person must prima facie show a legally cognisable interest prejudicially affected by the decree.
Cause Title- Girishbhai Natwarlal Patel v. Gautam Punjabhai Palkhiwala (Dead) by LRs & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1177).
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
27) Party participating before sole arbitrator without objection waives right to insist on three-member tribunal under agreement
The Court held that a party which participates in arbitration before a sole arbitrator, consents to extensions of time and files a counter-claim is deemed to have waived its objection that the agreement required a three-member tribunal. It also held that the power to extend an arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vests in the “court” defined in Section 2(1)(e), not in a High Court acting under Section 11.
The Court upheld the Patna High Court on waiver and on the standing of a corporate debtor to pursue arbitration. It held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not impair a corporate debtor’s own claim. It set aside the High Court’s finding on Section 29A, lifted its earlier embargo on the award and directed that the award be passed within six weeks.
Cause Title- South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. India Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1165)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
28) Supreme Court cautions against release of accused convicted for heinous offences on ground of no possibility of appeal being heard
While cancelling the suspension of sentence granted in favour of an accused in a Sapranch candidate murder case, the Court cautioned against the release of accused, especially those convicted for heinous offences, after conviction by one Court on the ground of there being no possibility of the appeal being heard immediately.
The Apex Court was considering a criminal case allegedly arising from a political rivalry, leading to the murder of a person standing for election as Sarpanch.
Cause Title- Hanuman Prasad @ Hanuta Ram v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1180)
Date of Judgment- October 27, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
29) Total ban seems ideal but we lack adequate data: Supreme Court permits green crackers in Delhi-NCR for two days during Diwali
The Court, while declining to impose a complete ban on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR for the upcoming Deepawali festival, granted permission to burst firecrackers in Delhi-NCR on the same lines as its earlier order, directing the authorities to ensure that bursting of firecrackers was allowed only between 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M. and between 8:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. on 7th and 8th November, 2026, on the occasion of Deepawali.
The Court observed that, though a blanket ban appeared to be the ideal solution, it was short of adequate data to conclude whether such a ban would solve the problem, and that the complete ban was facilitating the illegal sale of conventional firecrackers under the guise of Green Crackers.
While hearing the matter, the Court orally observed that it was not inclined to impose a complete ban on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR as it could have a spiralling effect, but cautioned the authorities not to push it to take a harsh stand. The Bench stressed that its orders would become a “mockery” if the implementing mechanism was not put into operation on the ground, and directed the Union of India to file an affidavit on the enforcement measures taken.
Cause Title- Arjun Gopal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [IA No. 325852/2025 in Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 728/2015]
Date of Judgment- October 27, 2026
Coram- Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale