Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: September 21 – September 25, 2026
1) Inordinate delay in deciding references is source of institutional embarrassment: Supreme Court requests CJI to consider constituting permanent 5-Judge Bench
The Bench of the Supreme Court, while delivering a split verdict in the matter concerning the reference in the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner Act, 2023, has requested the Chief Justice of India to consider constituting a permanent 5-Judge Bench to decide pure constitutional issues.
Despite their difference of opinion, both judges issued a concurring procedural order directing the case papers to be placed before the Chief Justice of India to consider constituting a Constitution Bench directly, avoiding the procedural delay of a three-judge bench, while also highlighting the urgent institutional need to address long-pending references.
Justice Dipankar Datta has also opined that it has become "fashionable nowadays" to blame the Collegium for every infelicitous choice.
Cause Title- Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union Of India and other connected matters (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1040)
Date of Judgment- September 23, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
2) "Judges appointing judges" is a myth; sanctity of collegium resolution is lost each time executive implements it selectively: Justice Dipankar Datta Says in Election Commissioner appointment case
While delivering his opinion on the matter of reference in the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, Justice Dipankar Datta has opined that it has become "fashionable nowadays" to blame the Collegium for every infelicitous choice.
Justice Datta highlighted that the Collegium's role is merely recommendatory and that the executive holds final decisive control—frequently overriding recommendations, delaying reiterated names, and forcing the judiciary into a Hobson's choice to keep the institution running.
Despite delivering the split verdict, both judges issued a concurring procedural order directing the case papers to be placed before the Chief Justice of India to consider constituting a Constitution Bench directly, avoiding the procedural delay of a three-judge bench, while also highlighting the urgent institutional need to address long-pending references.
Cause Title- Dr Jaya Thakur Vs Union Of India and other connected matters [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1040]
Date of Judgment- September 23, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
3) Supreme Court quashes POCSO case against father in custody battle; frames safeguards to curb misuse of child abuse laws in matrimonial dispute
The Court quashed an FIR alleging sexual assault by a father on his minor daughter, after a CBI investigation directed by the Court itself found the child's allegations unreliable, uncorroborated, and inconsistent with CCTV evidence and psychiatric evaluation. The Court held that continuing the prosecution on such material would amount to a gross abuse of process, and restored legal custody of the child to the father, who had been granted custody through prior proceedings culminating before this Court in 2023.
Opening the judgment, the Bench observed that when parental acrimony escalates to the level of falsely attributing sexual assault to one parent, the harm inflicted extends beyond the child's trauma to a lasting injury on the parent-child bond itself, compounded by the humiliation the accused parent suffers even after exoneration. Recording this as part of a "growing menace", the Court proceeded to lay down structured safeguards to prevent such misuse of the POCSO Act in the specific context of ongoing matrimonial disputes.
Cause Title- R v. E & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1049)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2026
Coram- Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
4) Allegation of forcible sex hard to accept when prosecutrix voluntarily travelled & stayed with accused: Supreme Court acquits rape accused
The Court acquitted a man sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the IPC, noting that forcible intercourse without consent was hard to accept given that the prosecutrix had voluntarily absented herself from home for five to six days, traveling all around with the accused and staying with him.
Setting aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Bench observed that a court cannot selectively rely on a prosecutrix's testimony to convict on one charge after finding the same evidence untrustworthy to acquit on a related charge. Pointing to major internal contradictions, including conflicting details of their journey and her failure to raise an alarm or attempt escape on crowded streets over several days, the Court held that her claims of forcible confinement and non-consensual intercourse were uncredible, emphasizing that moral impropriety cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Cause Title- Paramjit Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1054)
Date of Judgment- September 25, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
5) A father facing POCSO case cannot be considered entitled to child custody
The Court held that a parent facing prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act cannot be considered entitled to custody of a child, irrespective of the eventual outcome of the criminal proceedings, so long as the prosecution remains pending. The Court clarified that the safety and disclosure of a child cannot be subordinated to a parent's claim to custody merely because the underlying criminal case has not attained finality. The parties married in 2011, and their son and daughter were born in 2013 and 2019 respectively, where in 2023, the son made a disclosure of sexual abuse by the father during counselling at NIMHANS, leading to registration of an FIR under the POCSO Act and, subsequently, a chargesheet. The Family Court nonetheless granted sole custody to the father in 2024, a decision affirmed by the Delhi High Court in January 2026, prompting the present appeals.
Ruling on cross-appeals arising out of a prolonged custody dispute, the Court also permitted the mother to relocate the two minor children to the United Kingdom, where she is employed as a university lecturer, holding that continued denial of relocation would aggravate the complete parental alienation of children already caught in litigation spanning over seven years.
Cause Title- D v. S (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1043)
Date of Judgment- September 23, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Mother's attempt to cement her position in academic world & pursuing jobs cannot be branded as "nomadic lifestyle": Supreme Court in child custody case
The Court held that a mother's continuous pursuit in employment, undertaken to secure a stable and better future for her children, cannot be characterised as a "nomadic lifestyle" disentitling her to custody. The Court found such a description "absolutely unjustified and far removed from reality", holding that the lower courts had failed to appreciate the compulsions behind the mother's career moves.
The Court further permitted the mother to relocate both children to the United Kingdom, where she is employed as a university lecturer, holding that continuing to deny relocation would only deepen the parental alienation already afflicting the children during their formative years.
The mother, an academician holding a doctorate in engineering, left the matrimonial home in 2018 while pregnant with her second child, after which she held custody of both children while moving between academic postings at IIT Jodhpur, VIT Vijayawada, and Bengaluru, before securing a lectureship at the University of Hull, UK.
Cause Title- D v. S (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1043)
Date of Judgment- September 23, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
7) Possibility of his reformation: Supreme Court commutes death sentence of man who raped & throttled his 6 year-old step-daughter to death
The Court commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of sexually assaulting his six-year-old step-daughter over several months and finally throttling her to death, holding that the State had failed to lead any evidence to show that he was incapable of reformation, a burden that, rests squarely upon the prosecution before the extreme penalty can be sustained. The Court found that notwithstanding the gravity of the crime, the absence of criminal antecedents, the convict's unblemished conduct in custody, and the State's silence on the question of incorrigibility together foreclosed the death sentence in favour of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
While upholding the conviction, the Court also made pointed observations on the credibility of the child's mother, the sole eyewitness to the crime, who had testified against her own husband. Rejecting the suggestion that her continued presence in the matrimonial home undermined her account, the Bench held that a woman whose movements, contacts and access to a telephone are all regulated by her husband is "a woman whose liberty is in the keeping of another", and that a mother would ordinarily be the last person to falsely implicate an innocent man while shielding the actual killer of her own child.
Cause Title- Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1050)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
8) Section 413 BNSS- appeal by victim against order of acquittal passed by magistrate has to be filed before Sessions Court
The Court held that as per the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), an appeal filed by a victim against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate has to be filed before the Sessions Court.
The Apex Court was considering a Special Leave Petition filed against an order rejecting the appeal filed before the High Court from an order of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate, giving liberty to file an appeal before the Sessions Court.
Cause Title- Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1052)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
9) Article 311(1) bar applies only when dismissing authority is subordinate to actual appointing authority
The Court reiterated that Article 311(1) of the Constitution is attracted only when an employee is dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate in rank to the authority that actually appointed the employee.
Applying this principle, the Court restored the removal of a Railway Protection Special Force Rakshak after finding that the Adjutant who removed him was not lower in rank than the Assistant Commandant who had appointed him.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the Union of India against an Allahabad High Court judgment affirming the First Appellate Court’s decision invalidating the removal on the ground that it had been ordered by an authority subordinate to the purported appointing authority.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Ramdhani Prasad (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1047)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
10) Anti-suit injunction restraining spouse from pursuing foreign matrimonial proceedings ordinarily unwarranted at inchoate stage
The Court held that an anti-suit injunction restraining a spouse from pursuing matrimonial proceedings before a foreign court is ordinarily unwarranted when those proceedings remain at an inchoate stage and have not culminated in a final decision. The Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision vacating an ex parte interim injunction that restrained a wife from pursuing divorce and financial proceedings before a United Kingdom Family Court.
The Court was hearing the husband’s appeal against the Calcutta High Court judgment setting aside an anti-suit injunction granted by an Alipore Civil Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Cause Title- MPB v. VJB (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1034)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
11) NCDRC cannot brush aside surveyor reports in fire insurance claims without identifying specific deficiency
The Court held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot disregard statutory surveyors’ reports in fire insurance claims without identifying a specific deficiency in their assessment. Setting aside an award of ₹2.40 crore in favour of a paper-board manufacturer, the Court upheld New India Assurance Company Limited’s repudiation of the fire-insurance claim after finding that the insured had made false declarations and breached the policy conditions.
The Court was hearing cross-appeals against an NCDRC order directing the insurance company to pay ₹2.40 crore with interest, ₹3 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service and ₹1 lakh towards litigation costs. While the insurer challenged the award, the insured sought enhancement based on its claim exceeding ₹7.31 crore.
Cause Title- M/s New India Assurance Company Limited v. M/s Hemkund Duplex and Board Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1023)
Date of Judgment- September 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
12) Once Article 22 of Constitution is breached, re-arrest of accused cannot be left to police discretion; requires prior judicial imprimatur
The Court held that once an accused is released on account of a breach of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, the power to re-arrest that person cannot rest with the same police authority responsible for the violation, and must instead carry the imprimatur of a Magistrate before custody can be resumed. The Court held that this judicial check applies not merely to the constitutional guarantee of being informed of the grounds of arrest, but equally to the guarantee of being produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours, both of which the Court found had been breached in the case before it.
Referring to Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500, the Bench directed that any application by the investigating agency seeking custody of a person so released must disclose the reasons for re-arrest, explain the earlier non-compliance, and carry the endorsement of an officer superior to the one who committed the violation, so that departmental accountability is triggered alongside any fresh custody request; the Magistrate must then decide such an application expeditiously, preferably within a week, applying principles of natural justice.
Cause Title- Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1022)
Date of Judgment- September 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
13) Revenue considerations can't cure ineligibility of bidders
The Court held that revenue considerations cannot cure ineligibility of a bidder, and the High Court would be justified in exercising the power of judicial review when the tendering Committee’s interpretation is patently arbitrary and dehors the terms of the DNIT Detailed Notice Inviting Tender (DNIT).
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the High Court quashed the acceptance of the technical as well as the financial bid of Micky Traders ( H1 Bidder) and directed the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board ( Board) and the Market Committee, Ludhiana to issue a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) in favour of the eligible tenderer.
Cause Title- Micky Traders v. L.R.Y. Labour Contractor & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1025)
Date of Judgment- September 21, 2026
Coram- Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe
14) Investigation is police’s exclusive domain; courts cannot decide when it must stop except in exceptional cases
The Court held that investigating a crime falls within the police's exclusive domain and that courts cannot determine when it must stop, except in exceptional cases or where a statutory bar restricts further investigation. Setting aside a Bombay High Court judgment granting default bail to accused persons in a UAPA case, the Court upheld the additional time granted to the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad to complete its investigation.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the State of Maharashtra and the Anti-Terrorism Squad against the Bombay High Court’s decision invalidating a second extension of time for filing the charge sheet and granting default bail to the accused under Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Cause Title- State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1021)
Date of Judgment- September 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
15) Hindu Succession Act| widow becomes absolute owner of property devolved in her favor upon husband’s demise; partition not sine qua non
The Court held that by operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the widow becomes an absolute owner of the property devolved in her favour upon the demise of her husband and the partition is not a sine qua non for continuing to enjoy the right as an independent or absolute owner of the property left behind by the prepositus.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the legal representatives of the Plaintiff, assailing the decision of the Karnataka High Court.
Cause Title- Ganapati (Dead) by His Lrs v. Prabhakar & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1033)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
16) Mere conduct of arbitral proceedings can't per se determine juridical seat of arbitration
While explaining the distinction between “seat” and “venue” of arbitration, the Court held that the mere conduct of arbitral proceedings can not, per se determine the juridical seat of arbitration.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the High Court whereby it was held that the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the Appellants was not maintainable.
Cause Title- Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v. M/S GSCO Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1038)
Date of Judgment- September 23, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
17) Mere recovery of tainted money without proof of bribe demand cannot sustain conviction under PC Act
The Court reiterated that mere acceptance or recovery of alleged illegal gratification cannot sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, without proof of the underlying demand.
Finding that the prosecution failed to prove either demand or acceptance, the Court set aside the conviction of a deceased former Patwari whose legal representatives had continued his appeal.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment affirming the former Patwari’s conviction under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Trial Court had sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹10,000.
Cause Title- Jaswinder Singh (Dead Through Legal Representatives) v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1031)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli
18) Absence of recovery of bonafide passenger’s ticket can't result in defeating railway accident compensation claim
While directing the Railways to satisfy an award within thirty days, the Court held that the victim was a bona fide passenger and the absence of recovery of his ticket cannot result in defeating the claim for compensation.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the parents of one Maheshbhai, who, while travelling to Surat via Ahmedabad, was a victim of an untoward incident.
Cause Title- Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1056)
Date of Judgment- September 25, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
19) Arbitral Tribunal can’t exceed jurisdiction U/S.31(7)(A) A&C Act by awarding interest when contractual clause bars such interest for pre-reference period
The Court held that when a clause of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) bars the grant of interest for the pre-reference period, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award such interest by exceeding the bounds of its jurisdiction under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the order whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was allowed and the grant of pre-reference interest by the Arbitral Tribunal, earlier disallowed by the Commercial Court, was restored.
Cause Title- North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited v. Astra Construction Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1036)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
20) Absence of original document not fatal for prosecution in forgery case; can be proved by circumstantial evidence
The Court held that the non-production of an original document alleged to have been forged cannot, by itself, be the basis for discharging an accused of a forgery charge, since the offence may still be established through other evidence on record, provided that evidence excludes every reasonable possibility of doubt. The Court held that whether the prosecution has in fact discharged this burden is a matter for trial and cannot be pre-judged at the stage of framing of charge by treating the mere absence of the original document as fatal to the entire case.
Furthermore, it noted that once a Division Bench of a High Court has, in an earlier writ petition, specifically considered and rejected a challenge to an order framing charge on a particular ground, it is not open to the same accused to file a second writ petition before the same court re-agitating the identical ground; such a course is barred by the doctrine of issue estoppel, which precludes reopening an issue of fact or law already decided between the same parties in the same proceedings.
Cause Title- Antonetto J D'Souza v. Aldila Braganza and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1032)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
21) Sessions Court cannot sentence murder convict to "remain in prison till rest of their life”
The Court held that a Sessions Court cannot direct a murder convict to remain imprisoned for the rest of their natural life where the direction excludes the statutory powers of remission and commutation.
While affirming the conviction of two men for the murder of three persons, including two children, the Court substituted their special-category life sentences with rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without statutory remission.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment affirming the appellants’ conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Trial Court’s direction that they remain imprisoned for the rest of their lives.
Cause Title- Naval Kishore & Anr. v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1048)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
22) Can state notifications under commercial courts act dilute restriction to institute suit before any court inferior to district court? Supreme Court refers matter to larger bench
The Court referred to the larger Bench the issue of whether the restriction contained under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to institute a suit for infringement before any Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit would be rendered otiose by the notification issued under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, by certain States notifying the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court.
The matter before the Apex Court pertained to a Commercial Suit.
Cause Title- I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Case No.:SLP (C) No.6793 of 2026)
Date of Judgment- September 21, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
23) Framing all issues does not exhaust court's discretion to try a preliminary issue first: Supreme Court clarifies Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC
The Court held that the mere framing of all issues in a suit does not, by itself, foreclose a court's power under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the CPC to direct that a qualifying issue of law, one touching jurisdiction or a statutory bar, be tried in advance of the rest.
What forecloses that power, the Court clarified, is the commencement of a common trial on all the issues; once evidence has begun to be led generally, the issue in question ceases to be one "awaiting" prior treatment and becomes part of a composite trial already in motion.
The Court further explained that the power conferred by the provision is to "try" an issue first, not merely to decide or pronounce upon it first, and that this ordering can only operate prospectively. A court cannot, midway through a trial in which evidence has already been led on all issues, reach back and notionally carve out one issue as though it were still awaiting separate, prior adjudication.
Cause Title- John Mathew v. Santha Paul & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1020)
Date of Judgment- September 21, 2026
Coram- Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli
24) Shocks the very conscience of the court: Supreme Court orders de novo probe into 2012 Dharmasthala minor's rape & murder case
The Court set aside a Karnataka High Court order refusing re-investigation into the 2012 rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl in Dharmasthala, holding that the manner in which three successive investigating agencies conducted the probe "shocks the very conscience of the court" and could not be allowed to stand despite the acquittal of the sole person prosecuted.
Directing that a de novo investigation be carried out by a freshly constituted Special Investigation Team, the Court clarified that the power of constitutional courts to order reinvestigation survives the commencement, and even the conclusion, of a trial, but drew a firm line: the accused already tried and acquitted, Santhosh Rao, cannot be subjected to further investigation or prosecution in the same FIR, since he enjoys protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the CrPC against being tried twice for the same offence.
The criminal appeal was filed by the mother of the deceased victim after the death of the original writ petitioner, her husband, during the pendency of proceedings.
Cause Title- Kusumavati Gowda v. The Government of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1030)
Date of Judgment- September 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
25) Bareboat charter can end on valid termination notice without physical repossession of vessel: Supreme Court vacates arrest of vessel
The Court held that physical repossession of a vessel is not a precondition for terminating a bareboat charter where the contractual terms make a valid termination notice sufficient to end the demise charter. The Court consequently vacated the arrest of a vessel, M.V. Nereus Progress, after finding that the former charterer held it only as a gratuitous bailee when the arrest was effected.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the registered owner against a Madras High Court judgment affirming the vessel’s arrest under Sections 5(1)(b) and 5(2) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 at the instance of a creditor of the former demise charterer.
Cause Title- Owners and Parties Interested in M.V. Nereus Progress v. Om Freight Forwarders Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1055)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2026
Coram- Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana