Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: June 09 – June 12, 2026
|1) Labour Court decides whether misconduct is proved; competent disciplinary authority decides what punishment follows
The Court held that the Labour Court decides whether misconduct is proved, whereas a competent disciplinary authority decides what punishment follows in service law. The Bench clarified that while an employer may successfully prove an employee's misconduct through de novo evidence before a Labour Court after an internal inquiry is set aside, this process operates solely at the stage of proving guilt. It does not displace or extinguish the disciplinary authority’s statutory obligation to independently evaluate the surviving findings before deciding on the final punishment.
Further, it held that a disciplinary authority cannot mechanically act upon a stale, pre-remand show-cause notice that was originally based on a vitiated domestic enquiry. Because the legal foundation of the misconduct shifts entirely to the post-remand adjudicatory findings of the Labour Court, the competent authority is legally mandated to apply its mind afresh to the quantum of punishment. This requires a conscious evaluation of mitigating, individual variables, such as the employee's length of service, past record, and the absence of fatal indicators like corruption or financial fraud, rather than treating judicial confirmation as an automated mandate for dismissal.
Cause Title- Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 639)
Date of Judgment- June 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
2) Confirmed auction sale under SARFAESI Act can be set aside if process adopted is legally infirm or violates statutory rules
The Court held that the rights of an auction purchaser and the sanctity attached to a confirmed auction sale under the SARFAESI Act are not absolute and cannot override mandatory statutory requirements governing the auction process.
It observed that where the very process leading to the sale is shown to be legally infirm or inconsistent with the statutory framework, judicial scrutiny cannot be foreclosed merely because the sale has been confirmed.
The Court was hearing a civil appeal challenging the judgment of the Madras High Court, which had upheld recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act culminating in the auction sale of a mortgaged property belonging to the legal heirs of a deceased guarantor.
Cause Title- M. R. Vasumathi v. The Authorized Officer & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 633)
Date of Judgment- June 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
3) Psychological or psychiatric evaluation of children in custody & visitation disputes not barred: Supreme Court lays down guidelines
The Court held that psychological or psychiatric evaluation of minor children in custody, visitation and parental access disputes is not altogether barred. However, the Court clarified that such evaluations must be guided by the principles of demonstrable necessity, minimum intrusion, institutional neutrality, proportionality and paramount consideration of the child's psychological well-being.
It further laid down guidelines to govern psychological and psychiatric assessment of children in custody-related proceedings to protect them from re-traumatisation and unnecessary psychological exposure.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by the mother of a minor child, challenging orders of the Bombay High Court that had modified an earlier direction for the appointment of a single independent expert. Instead, the Bombay High Court had directed the evaluation of the child by a panel of multiple experts in proceedings concerning parental access and visitation rights. The dispute arose against the backdrop of pending POCSO proceedings involving allegations of sexual abuse against the father.
Cause Title- SVT v. CA (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 638)
Date of Judgment- June 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
4) Tree branch falling on vehicle not ground & injuring passenger for MACT claim: Supreme Court grants ₹25L relief to claimant on humane grounds
The Court directed the Commissioner of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the Insurance Company, and the State Horticulture Department to pay an enhanced compensation of Rs 25,00,000 to an autorickshaw passenger who suffered permanent paraplegia after a roadside tree branch collapsed onto the vehicle.
While settling the question of law in favor of the civic body by holding that the stationary vehicle played no proximate role in the accident under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Division Bench invoked its extraordinary plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The Court emphasized that a mechanical dismissal based strictly on the lack of a statutory nexus to the motor vehicle would be inhumane, choosing instead to sustain the prior apportionment of liability to ensure the victim received meaningful and immediate financial succour.
Cause Title- The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 637)
Date of Judgment- June 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
5) Rule 23(1) of Haryana Civil Services Rules applies to compassionate financial assistance & not compassionate appointment
The Court observed that Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 applies only to claims for ‘compassionate financial assistance’ and does not extend to a claim for ‘compassionate appointment’.
The Court has set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, directing the State of Haryana to consider the claim of an applicant for compassionate appointment on its own merits within three months, entirely uninfluenced by an ongoing criminal appeal against his mother.
The apex court observed that while the statutory rule constitutionally bars "compassionate financial assistance" during pending criminal trials to prevent wrongdoers from getting state funds, its explicit text lacks any corresponding provision to block a "compassionate appointment."
Cause Title- Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana and Ors. (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 640)
Date of Judgment- June 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
6) Scope of reference to third judge U/S 392 CrPC limited to points of dissent? Supreme Court refers Sajjan Singh judgment to larger bench
The Court referred its 26-year-old precedent in Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 1 SCC 315 to a larger Bench to authoritatively determine the jurisdiction of a referee judge under Section 392 CrPC. While making the reference, the Court questioned whether a third judge can reopen unanimous concurrent findings of guilt against co-accused when a Division Bench splits only on the culpability of one specific accused.
The Bench observed that a referee judge’s scope must be strictly restricted to the points of dissent, rather than treating a single composite appeal as an opportunity to review the entire case afresh. In the analysis, the Court highlighted that the current interpretation under Sajjan Singh leads to highly irrational and unequal outcomes in criminal appellate procedure.
It noted that allowing a referee judge to disturb unanimous findings simply because the co-accused filed a joint appeal creates an unconstitutional disparity against those who file separate appeals. By focusing on the intentional statutory shift in language from the 1898 Code to the 1973 Code, the Court said that judicial discipline and comity require that concurrent decisions of a Division Bench remain final and untouched by a referee judge.
Cause Title- Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 632)
Date of Judgment- June 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
7) She is my temple, my mosque, my kaaba & kashi: Supreme Court quotes hindi poem to denounce female foeticide; calls for strict enforcement of PCPNDT Act
The Court, invoking celebrated poetess Subhadra Kumari Chauhan's moving lines from “Balika ka Parichay” strongly denounced the practice of female foeticide, calling for strict implementation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Consequently, the Court ruled that the strict enforcement and structural integrity of regulatory legislation like the PCPNDT Act remain absolutely essential.
While evaluating the nation's demographic trajectory, the Court observed that while the current sex ratio scenario is markedly better than it was in the mid-1990s, the official data does not support complacency. The Bench noted that despite a myriad of central and state welfare initiatives aimed at the survival, education, and financial security of the girl child, the progress made remains visibly incomplete and uneven across different states.
Cause Title- Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 635)
Date of Judgment- June 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
8) Application of constructive res judicata dependent on facts and circumstances: Supreme Court in family property dispute matter
While allowing an appeal pertaining to a property dispute and setting aside an order dismissing a declaration suit as being barred by the constructive res judicata principle, the Court observed that the application of Constructive Res Judicata principle is not uniform and instead is dependent on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
The Apex Court was considering a Civil Appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs challenging the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in a long-standing property dispute that began somewhere in the 1960s.
Cause Title- Makardhwaj Ram v. Jagdish Rai (Dead) Th. Lrs. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 636)
Date of Judgment- June 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
9) Appointees need not suffer on account of irregularity by officials: Supreme Court directs cooperative society to consider appointments afresh
The Court directed the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society to reconsider the appointments of employees who were removed from service after their appointments were invalidated for procedural irregularities in the approval process.
It observed that candidates appointed through a duly advertised recruitment process cannot be deprived of their appointments merely because of irregularities committed by officials at the stage of approval of appointments.
The Court was hearing appeals against a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had upheld orders annulling the appointments of employees appointed in 2014 as Clerk-cum-Salesmen and Peon-cum-Chowkidars in the Cooperative Society.
Cause Title- Gaurav Mehla & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 641)
Date of Judgment- June 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
10) Homemakers are “nation builders”; invisible contribution should be made visible: Supreme Court adds "loss of domestic care" as additional head in motor accident compensation matters
The Court held that homemakers are the true "Nation Builders", whose often invisible and undervalued domestic labour forms the foundation upon which families, professionals, workers, and society at large function and contribute to the nation's progress. The Court expressed concern over the reality of third-generation litigation where accident victims' families are forced to wait decades for final adjudication, severely compounding their trauma.
To standardise this recognition, the Court observed that in motor accident claims involving the death of a homemaker, a separate, substantive head of "Loss of Domestic Care" must be mandatorily factored into the final computation of compensation. The Bench categorically questioned that when Indian society calls a homemaker ‘grihaswamini’ (the owner of the house), then why are we still ‘groping in the dark’ by undervaluing her contribution as a mere dependent.
Cause Title- Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram & Ors. v. Surjeet & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 634)
Date of Judgment- June 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
11) MACT appeals pending for years: Supreme Court issues directions to reduce adjournments, directs claimants to file proof with claims to curb delays
The Court expressing concern over the prolonged pendency of motor accident compensation cases, noted that appeals under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 remain pending for an average of 8 years in High Courts and 6 years before MACTs.
To address the issue, the Court has issued a series of directions aimed at reducing adjournments and expediting the adjudication of compensation claims. The Court observed that a significant cause of delay is the filing of bare claim petitions unsupported by necessary documents.
As a result, claimants frequently seek adjournments to produce evidence, leading to prolonged proceedings and delayed compensation to victims and their families. In the judgment holding that the homemakers are the true "Nation Builders", the Bench has observed that in motor accident claims involving the death of a homemaker, a separate, substantive head of "Loss of Domestic Care" must be mandatorily factored into the final computation of compensation.
Cause Title- Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram & Ors. v. Surjeet & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 634)
Date of Judgment- June 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
12) Doctrine of forum non conveniens rarely applies when writ jurisdiction is invoked for pursuing constitutional remedies
The Court ordered acquittal of a former Indian Reserve Battalion Constable after he served almost 12 years in prison for the murder of his superior.
Finding no convincing evidence and noting that the informant had identified the accused only from his voice and not by clear visual recognition, the Bench allowed the appeal and granted him the liberty to seek reinstatement.
Cause Title- Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 630)
Date of Judgment- June 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
13) Supreme Court dismisses Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea against rejection of Rajya Sabha nomination
The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Indian National Congress (INC) leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her nomination papers for the upcoming Rajya Sabha by-election in Madhya Pradesh.
A Vacation Bench declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32, emphasizing the absolute constitutional mandate of Article 329(b) which insulates the ongoing electoral process from intermediate judicial intervention.
The apex court held that it could not create exceptions for "manifestly arbitrary" or "glaring" errors at the threshold stage, clarifying that the aggrieved candidate must seek recourse through the standard statutory remedy of an election petition after the conclusion of the polls.
Cause Title- Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India W.P.(C) No. 766/2026
Date of Judgment- June 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul S Chandurkar