Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: September 14 – September 18, 2026
1) Raksha Mantri Committee's 2015 recommendation to withdraw NANA litigation not "faithfully implemented": Supreme Court dismisses Union's appeals on Armed Forces disability pension
Disposing of an unusually large batch of appeals concerning disability pension of ex-servicemen, the Court recorded that the recommendation of the Ministry of Defence's own 2015 Raksha Mantri Committee, which called for the immediate withdrawal of pending appeals rejecting disability claims as "Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated" (NANA) by military service, has "not been faithfully implemented," notwithstanding the Ministry's formal acceptance of the recommendation in 2018. The Court made this observation while dismissing 271 civil appeals and special leave petitions filed by the Union of India, noting that such litigation continues to be filed even after the recommendation for withdrawal was accepted.
On the substantive controversy underlying this litigation, the Court held that the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008 do not bring about any fundamental alteration of the beneficial framework contained in the Entitlement Rules, 1982.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Col. NC Isaac (Retd.) (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 993)
Date of Judgment- September 15, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
2) Revenue and assessee must take “crust and crumb” together: Supreme Court on income tax reassessment after final ITSC settlement
The Court held that once a settlement is concluded before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), both the Revenue and the assessee must accept the consequences of that settlement in full, and neither side can later revert to the ordinary machinery of assessment to claim what it gave up by opting for settlement. The Court described this reciprocal finality using its own metaphor of the "crust and the crumb", holding that the benefits and burdens of settlement must be taken together, not selectively.
Dismissing the Revenue's appeal, the Court held that once the ITSC passes a final order under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an Assessing Officer cannot invoke reassessment powers to reopen an issue already covered by that settlement. The only route available to the Revenue to unsettle such an order is an application before the ITSC itself, on the specific grounds of fraud or misrepresentation.
Cause Title- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. M/s. Omaxe Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1000)
Date of Judgment- September 16, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
3) Non-disclosure of earlier litigation seeking same relief amounts to suppression of material facts disentitling litigants to any relief
The Court has held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the litigants had filed a writ petition earlier seeking the same relief amounts to suppression of material facts, and such conduct, without anything more, disentitles them to any relief.
The Apex Court was considering a challenge laid against the selection process, which commenced in the year 2011 with an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL) for filling up 2974 posts of Technician Grade-2 (Trainee) Electrical.
Cause Title- Vinit Kumar v. State of U.P. Through Secretary & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 997)
Date of Judgment- September 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
4) Burning test cannot prove seized substance is charas without scientific or other reliable evidence
The Court held that a seizure officer’s testimony identifying a substance as charas on the basis of a burning test cannot, by itself, establish its identity without scientific or other reliable material supporting that identification. The Court acquitted two appellants in an NDPS prosecution after discarding the forensic report because the prosecution had failed to establish the samples’ integrity and chain of custody.
The Court was hearing two criminal appeals challenging a common judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirming convictions and sentences imposed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Jabalpur. One appellant had been convicted under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B), and the other under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C), of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Cause Title- Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P. with Govind v. State of M.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1001)
Date of Judgment- September 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan
5) Loan recovery guidelines exist only on paper: Supreme Court directs RBI to ensure compliance by banks and NBFCs
The Court has directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to secure genuine compliance by non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) and scheduled commercial banks with its loan recovery guidelines, master circulars and clarifications, observing that they had existed only on paper without steps being taken to implement them. The direction came while allowing a borrower’s appeal concerning the unauthorised repossession and sale of a truck on which he depended for his livelihood.
The Court was hearing a civil appeal challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the borrower’s writ petition concerning the repossession and sale of his hypothecated vehicle following loan defaults. The High Court had rejected the petition on grounds including his belated approach to the Court.
Cause Title- Hari Dutta Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 998)
Date of Judgment- September 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
6) Defendant’s business location does not confer territorial jurisdiction on MACT u/s 166(2) MV Act
The Court held that the place where a defendant carries on business is not an independent basis for invoking a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal’s territorial jurisdiction under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court dismissed a claimant’s appeal and upheld the transfer of his compensation claim from Chennai to Chittoor, holding that the insurer’s business presence in Chennai did not justify entertaining the claim there.
The Court was hearing a claimant’s appeal against a Madras High Court order setting aside the Chennai Tribunal’s ruling on territorial jurisdiction and directing transfer of the proceedings to Chittoor. The dispute concerned whether a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 could be entertained in Chennai because the insurer carried on business there.
Cause Title- K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 996)
Date of Judgment- September 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
7) Failed test of proportionality: Supreme Court strikes down Maharashtra’s methanol denaturation rules
The Supreme Court has struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, holding them violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court observed that requiring the addition of denaturants and restricting purchase via Form A licenses severely affected downstream industries without preventing illicit liquor manufacturing.
It emphasized that cosmetic identification measures fail the test of proportionality and address surface-level symptoms rather than the core issues of pilferage and illegal diversion.
Cause Title- M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. [Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 1009]
Date of Judgment- September 18, 2026
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran
8) Each circumstance not proved beyond reasonable doubt: Supreme Court acquits four accused in 25 year old murder case
The Court reiterated that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires each circumstance to be established beyond doubt and the circumstances, taken together, to point to the accused’s guilt.
Finding substantial gaps in the prosecution’s case, it set aside the murder convictions of four appellants in an Odisha case and granted them the benefit of doubt.
The Court was hearing criminal appeals against an Orissa High Court judgment affirming the trial court’s convictions for murder with the aid of unlawful-assembly liability, rioting and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Although six people had been convicted, the appeals concerning two of them had abated following their deaths, leaving four appellants before the Supreme Court.
Cause Title- Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. Etc. v. State of Odisha (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1015)
Date of Judgment- September 18, 2026
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
9) Appointment disregarding terms of advertisement amounts to fraud on public: Supreme Court reiterates
While dealing with the issue of appointment to the post of Anganwadi Supervisor, the Court has reiterated that the appointment in disregard of the terms of the advertisement amounts to a fraud on the public.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by special leave challenging a judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court.
Cause Title- Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1002)
Date of Judgment- September 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
10) Mere receipt of money by third person cannot automatically result in criminal liability being imputed to public servant
The Court held that criminal liability under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be fastened on a public servant merely because money changed hands with a third party who is said to have acted on the public servant's behalf, unless the prosecution independently establishes that the intermediary was acting under the accused's authority and that the demand itself was attributable to the accused.
Acquitting the appellant in both appeals before it, the Court found that in each of the transactions relied upon by the prosecution, the evidentiary chain linking the intermediaries' receipt of money to actual acceptance or obtainment by the accused himself remained incomplete, resting at critical junctures on the uncorroborated testimony of pardoned approvers.
Cause Title- Bharat Raj Meena v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 999)
Date of Judgment- September 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
11) No vested right to promotion under repealed rules when policy change is fair and reasonable
The Court held that an employee does not acquire a vested right to be considered for promotion under repealed service rules merely because the vacancy arose before the rules were amended, provided the Government's policy decision to introduce the new rules is fair, reasonable and consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Reversing concurrent findings of the Kerala High Court, the Court clarified that officiating employees seeking promotion to the post of Rajbhasha Adhikari (formerly Assistant Director, Official Language) in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) could not bypass the written examination prescribed under the 2005 Recruitment Rules, since their case was squarely governed by the earlier three-judge distinction drawn between merely officiating employees and those who had secured a provisional promotion with an accrued statutory entitlement.
Cause Title- The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. G.N. Mani Ravinder and Others Etc., (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1007)
Date of Judgment- September 17, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
12) Reverse burden provisions do not relieve courts of duty to scrutinise prosecution evidence: Supreme Court acquits POCSO accused
The Court held that statutory presumptions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 do not relieve courts of their duty to scrutinise the prosecution evidence or justify mechanically accepting an improbable prosecution account. Applying this principle, the Court acquitted a man convicted of kidnapping and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a two-and-a-half-year-old girl, finding that the prosecution evidence contained material contradictions and that the accused had successfully rebutted its case.
The Court was hearing two appeals challenging a common Delhi High Court judgment affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by a designated POCSO Special Court under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Cause Title- Deepak in JC v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1008)
Date of Judgment- September 17, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
13) Protective or preservatory interim orders can't be passed pending disposal of leave application: Supreme Court clarifies civil court's jurisdiction u/s 92 CPC
The Court held that a Civil Court seized of a plaint under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, together with an application seeking leave to institute the suit, lacks the power to pass protective or preservatory interim orders during the pendency of the leave application. Until leave is granted, the Court held, there exists no validly instituted suit and consequently no jurisdiction to entertain interlocutory applications, including one for appointment of a receiver.
The Court, however, carved out a narrow exception: where facts disclose compelling urgency necessitating interim measures to safeguard the property of public charities, issuance of notice prior to grant of leave is not indispensable, though courts must exercise utmost care and circumspection in granting leave ex parte. This approach, the Bench held, harmonises the dual character of Section 92 as both a "protective shield" against vexatious litigation and a "remedial sword" against mismanagement of public trusts.
Cause Title- S. Panchalingu & Ors. v. People's Education Trust (R) & Others Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1010)
Date of Judgment- September 18, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan
14) If Payment is made in accordance with Order XXI Rule 1 CPC, liability to pay interest ceases: Supreme Court urges Law Commission to examine court deposit framework
The Court held that an Award-Debtor's liability to pay interest on a sum deposited to secure a stay of an arbitral award ceases only where the deposit is made in accordance with Order XXI Rule 1 of the CPC, that is, where it is unconditional and the Award-Holder is free to withdraw it. Where withdrawal is conditioned on furnishing security or otherwise resisted by the depositor, the deposit does not amount to payment, and interest continues to accrue on the outstanding sum until unconditional release actually occurs.
The Court further observed that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 offers no clear statutory guidance on the interplay between conditional deposits and accrual of interest, and that such disputes arise with unsettling regularity. Noting a wide asymmetry across High Courts in the manner deposits are received, invested and released pending appeals, the Bench has requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue, drawing on comparative practice from jurisdictions such as the United States and Canada, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the Ministries of Finance and Law and Justice.
Cause Title- National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India) (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1017)
Date of Judgment- September 18, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
15) CBDT circulars bind tax authorities but not courts
The Court held that a Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular binds departmental officers but not the High Courts or the Supreme Court, and does not prevent the Revenue from challenging a Tribunal ruling based on a reading of the circular contrary to the statute. Applying that principle to a claim for deduction on export-quota sale premiums, the Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s ruling against the assessee and dismissed its two appeals.
The Court was hearing the assessee’s appeals against a Delhi High Court judgment that had reversed the income-tax appellate authorities’ allowance of a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on premiums earned by selling export quotas.
Cause Title- Orient Crafts Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi
Date of Judgment- September 18, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria