Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: May 25 – May 29, 2026
|1) Supreme Court orders time-bound clearance of encroachments across Agasthyamalai Landscape; directs closure of resorts, deployment of forces
The Court issued extensive directions for the removal of encroachments, dismantling of illegal infrastructure and restoration of forest land across the Agasthyamalai landscape in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, observing that the ecologically sensitive region is a globally significant biodiversity hotspot requiring urgent institutional protection.
The Court held that despite measures initiated by the State of Tamil Nadu, the pace and scale of compliance remained significantly below the threshold demanded by the gravity and urgency of the situation. The Court was hearing appeals concerning the preservation of Reserve Forests, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Tiger Reserves in Tamil Nadu, along with issues relating to the rehabilitation of displaced tea estate workers evicted from the Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Limited (BBTCL) estate after the area was declared a Reserved Forest, Wildlife Sanctuary and Tiger Reserve under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Cause Title- A. John Kennedy & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 605)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
2) Demolition after 17 years would be contrary to public interest: Supreme Court directs regularisation of commercial complex
The Court held that demolition of a shopping mall and hotel complex functioning for over seventeen years in the IT Park Sector at Vashi, Navi Mumbai would be contrary to public interest, observing that the economic and social harm caused by demolition would far outweigh the public benefit sought to be achieved.
The Court accordingly directed regularisation of the allotment subject to payment of the market value of the land along with interest and additional amounts determined by the Court. The Court was hearing appeals filed by K. Raheja Corp. Private Limited, employees of the shopping mall and hotel, and the Retailers Association of India, challenging a Bombay High Court judgment directing restoration of the allotted plot at Vashi, Navi Mumbai, to its original condition and delivery of vacant possession to CIDCO on the ground that the original allotment was illegal and arbitrary.
Cause Title- K. Raheja Corp. Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 551)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
3) Courts must uphold contractual interest rates unless it shocks judicial conscience; party autonomy in arbitration sacrosanct
The Court held that where parties have consciously agreed to a contractual rate of interest in a commercial agreement, courts must ordinarily uphold such a bargain while examining arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court observed that party autonomy is one of the most sacrosanct principles of arbitration law, and courts cannot interfere with agreed contractual terms merely on considerations of reasonableness unless the rate of interest is so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court.
The Court was hearing an appeal arising out of arbitral proceedings between Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MPRDC) and a concessionaire company concerning termination of a concession agreement relating to a road infrastructure project executed on a Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis.
Cause Title- Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director v. M/s Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 590)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
4) Courts cannot substitute "simple interest" with "compound interest" by invoking power U/S 33 A&C Act: Supreme Court restores arbitral award
The Court held that Section 33(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be invoked to alter the substantive terms of an arbitral award, ruling that substituting simple interest with compound interest goes far beyond correction of clerical or computational errors.
The Bench also rejected the Board’s argument that the arbitrator’s mandate had expired before delivery of the award. It noted that although the arbitrator had extended the mandate multiple times, the Board continued participating in proceedings without raising any timely objection and only questioned jurisdiction after the award had been delivered. The Court held that the Board had tacitly accepted the extensions and was estopped from challenging the award on that ground.
Cause Title- Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 552)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
5) Primogeniture ends with “gaddi”, not private property: Supreme Court holds former ruler’s personal estates devolve under personal law
The Court clarifying succession to properties of erstwhile princely families, held that the rule of primogeniture survives only in relation to succession to the Gaddi (throne) and does not govern private personal properties declared by rulers under merger covenants. The matter pertained to a long-standing inheritance dispute concerning properties of the former Kapurthala royal family in Punjab.
The Court ruled that once sovereignty ceased after accession and merger with the Dominion of India, such private properties devolved in accordance with ordinary personal law and later under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 rather than exclusively upon the eldest male heir.
Cause Title- Tikka Shatrujit Singh & Ors. v. Sukjit Singh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 571)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti
6) Negligence need not be proved in claim U/S.163A MV Act; discrepancies which don’t go to root of occurrence can’t defeat motor accident compensation claim
While exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and granting over Rs 14 lakh as motor accident compensation, the Court observed that in a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the enquiry is narrower as negligence is not required to be proved. It is sufficient that the injury is reasonably connected with the motor vehicle in question. The Apex Court further held that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the occurrence cannot defeat a claim.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court affirming the dismissal of a claim petition filed by the original claimant, the injured, under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries resulting in permanent disability allegedly sustained in an accident which occurred in 2004.
Cause Title- Raj Kumar Das (D) Thr. Lrs. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 541)
Date of Judgment- May 25, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
7) Conflating adult sex work with sex trafficking undermines dignity: Supreme Court issues nationwide guidelines for rescue, post rescue & rehabilitation of victims
The Court issued a significant nationwide framework on anti-trafficking and victim protection, cautioning against conflating voluntary adult sex work with trafficking offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and holding that moral assumptions often deprive adult sex workers of dignity and equal legal protection. The Bench also noted that the rescue operations must not, as a matter of routine, be conducted through unplanned or publicised ‘mass raids’.
The Bench observed that legal and social responses frequently blur the distinction between trafficked victims and consenting adult sex workers, creating a binary between the “innocent victim” and the “guilty participant”. The Court noted that such notions of immorality make it easier for law enforcement agencies and even civil society to treat voluntary adult sex workers as persons less deserving of constitutional dignity and protection. Emphasising that trafficking and consensual adult sex work cannot be viewed through the same lens, the Court said the law must remain sensitive to individual agency while ensuring robust action against exploitation and organised trafficking.
Cause Title- Prajwala Union v. Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 609)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
8) High Court can order criminal probe in probate dispute to protect estate from fraud: Supreme Court upholds Bombay HC order in ₹100-Crore Parsi estate case
The Court upheld a court-monitored criminal investigation ordered by the Bombay High Court into the alleged siphoning of assets from a disputed ₹100-crore Parsi estate, holding that a High Court exercising testamentary jurisdiction does not lose its plenary constitutional powers to protect property brought under the court’s custody.
The Bench observed that an Administrator appointed under Section 247 Indian Succession Act, 1925 acts as an officer of the court and remains under its immediate control. Once such an estate is in custodia legis, the Court said, it carries a duty to ensure preservation of the property and may devise appropriate procedures, including directing criminal investigation, where civil remedies prove inadequate.
Cause Title- Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust v. Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 540)
Date of Judgment- May 25, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
9) Every entry in ACR has to be communicated to public servant: Supreme Court holds retired IRMS medical officer entitled to promotional pensionary benefits
While observing that prejudice had been shown to have been caused to a retired Assistant Medical Officer due to the non-communication of her ACRs (Annual Confidential Reports), the Supreme Court has held that every entry in the ACR of a public servant has to be communicated to him/her.
The issue raised before the Apex Court related to the entitlement of the appellant to promotion to the post of Chief Medical Director (Higher Administrative Grade) in the Indian Railway Medical Service. The claim of the appellant was turned down by the Central Administrative Tribunal, and this decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court in 2009.
Cause Title- Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director v. M/s Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 590)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
10) Non-release of convict after grant of parole and furnishing of sureties amounts to illegal detention
The Court held that the continued detention of a convict, despite a judicial order granting parole and the completion of verification of sureties, constitutes illegal detention, entitling the detenue to compensation under public law. The Court observed that once a judicial order directing release remained operative and unstayed, the State was bound to obey it and could not delay implementation on the ground that it was considering filing an appeal.
The Court was hearing an appeal arising from a Rajasthan High Court order concerning a convict sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment who was granted permanent parole by a Single Judge of the High Court on 5 November 2024.
Cause Title- Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 599)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
11) Failure To Examine Independent Witness To Recovery Of Dead Body Creates Doubt About Recovery At Accused’s Instance
The Supreme Court has held that failure of the prosecution to examine an independent witness allegedly present during recovery proceedings creates a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the alleged recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused.
The Court observed that the requirement of independent witnesses under Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is intended to lend credibility to the investigation and that withholding such a material witness undermines the prosecution's case.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by the complainant and the State of Rajasthan challenging the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court acquitting the accused persons of offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 396 and 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court had earlier convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Cause Title- Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Manoj Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 539)
Date of Judgment- May 25, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
12) Illegal gratification demand is gravamen of offence under prevention of Corruption Act: Supreme Court upholds acquittal of central excise officers
While upholding the acquittal of Central Excise Officers in a corruption case, the Supreme Court has observed that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence and in the absence thereof, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not arise.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court acquitting the respondents of the charges levelled against them.
Cause Title- State of Uttar Pradesh v. A.K. Gaba (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 568)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
13) Rampant illegal sand mining cannot brook prolonged “administrative delays”: Supreme Court directs states of MP, UP, Rajasthan to fast-track enforcement in Chambal Sanctuary
The Court issued a sweeping set of directions to the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh to intensify enforcement against illegal sand mining in and around the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary, observing that continuing ecological degradation, destruction of protected wildlife habitats and threats to critical public infrastructure cannot be permitted to persist due to prolonged administrative timelines and weak enforcement.
The Bench noted that although the three States had initiated certain measures pursuant to earlier directions, including surveillance proposals, budgetary sanctions and enforcement steps, several critical measures remained at a preliminary stage and had not yet translated into effective on-ground implementation.
Cause Title- Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director v. M/s Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 590)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
14) "Story of her life will be an eye-opener for many”: Supreme Court upholds husband’s conviction in dowry death case involving "simulated hanging"
The Court upheld the conviction of a man for murdering his wife in a dowry-related case, holding that where signs of assault or struggle are found on a body later discovered hanging, courts cannot lightly disregard the possibility of “simulated hanging”. The Court, further observed that repeated attempts at compromise despite continuing abuse had ended in a tragic and preventable death.
The Bench also noted that the deceased had repeatedly reached out to her family for help, but every complaint was met with efforts at reconciliation and assurances that things would improve. Opening the judgment on a poignant note, Justice Viswanathan observed that whether Soma’s life could have been saved would remain unanswered, but expressed hope that “the story of her life will be an eye-opener for many”.
Cause Title- Gour Acharjee v. The State of Tripura & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 535)
Date of Judgment- May 25, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K. V. Viswanathan
15) State compassionate assistance to widow can't negate mother's independent claims: Supreme Court restores motor accident compensation for dependent mother
In a significant judgment reinforcing the protective ambit of social welfare legislation, the Supreme Court held that financial benefits derived by specific family members under state compassionate assistance rules cannot be used by insurance companies to deny just compensation to other distinct dependents.
The Court partly set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had drastically slashed a motor accident claim payload, restoring ₹11,30,600/- specifically for the deceased constable's dependent mother.
The Apex Court emphasizes that while deducting state-provided financial assistance from the claims of the receiving widow and daughter is valid to prevent double enrichment, extending that deduction to an ineligible mother's share would lead to a gross miscarriage of justice and cause illegal enrichment for private insurers at the cost of a bereaved parent.
Cause Title- Sarla Devi & Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 575]
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
16) Supreme Court issues binding guidelines formulating strict timelines for High Courts to pronounce reserved judgments & expedite bail orders
The Court officially intervened to address the persistent and widespread delays in the pronouncement of reserved judgments across various High Courts.
Recognizing that such delays often diluted or negated the legal reliefs sought by litigants, the Court expanded the scope of individual petitions into a broader constitutional matter.
To assist in this systemic reform, the Court appointed an Amicus Curiae, who painstakingly gathered and analyzed structural data from across the country. Despite initial challenges arising from inconsistent reporting formats, the Amicus Curiae successfully compiled and submitted a comprehensive, four-volume report mapping out the extent of delayed verdicts nationwide.
Cause Title- Pila Pahan@ Peela Pahan & Ors. V. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (W.P.(Crl.) No. 169/2025)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
17) Railway servants are members of civil service of central government
The Court held that employees of the Indian Railways continue to hold civil posts under the Union and remain Central Government servants, notwithstanding the existence of a separate service framework governing railway administration. Setting aside orders of the Kerala High Court, the Court restored the relief granted to a former railway employee who was denied weightage in pay fixation after joining the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (“KSEB”).
On the second issue, the Court held that KSEB could not withdraw a benefit after accepting the appellant’s prior service and acting upon its own Board Orders and settlements. The Bench expressed surprise that benefits already extended to the employee were later sought to be withdrawn through internal audit objections and administrative directions.
Cause Title- Bency v. John Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 562)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
18) Courts can modify arbitral awards instead of setting them aside where it would cause significant hardship & delay: Supreme Court ends 14-year-old dispute
The Court reiterated that courts may modify arbitral awards instead of setting them aside where annulment would cause hardship and delay, while bringing a quietus to a 14-year-old construction dispute between a Delhi property owner and a builder by exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In the matter, the dispute was that a 2010 redevelopment agreement under which the Bhayana family agreed to allow reconstruction of their old building in Delhi, while the builder was entitled to retain the second floor.
The builder was also required to pay ₹64 lakh to the owners as earnest money and compensation. The agreement further stipulated that construction had to be completed within 12 months, with a two-month grace period, failing which the builder would pay a penalty of ₹10,000 per day for delay.
Cause Title- Bhupesh Bhayana and another v. Kunal Seth and another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 546)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
19) Arbitration Act 1940| Award obtained during suit pendency without court's leave unenforceable against non-consenting party
The Court observed that an arbitral award obtained without seeking the leave of the court before which a civil suit is pending, in respect of the same subject-matter, cannot be set up as a defence against the plaintiff's claims in that suit. The Court affirmed that the three chapters governing arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940, Chapters II, III, and IV are mutually exclusive, and once a suit is pending between the parties on the same subject-matter, only Chapter IV read with Section 21 provides the permissible route to arbitration.
The Court further held that an award falling outside this mandatory framework can be given effect in a pending suit only if all parties interested provide post-award consent to treat it as a compromise or adjustment under the proviso to Section 47 of the 1940 Act. Consistent opposition by a party throughout litigation negates such consent entirely, and no court may non-suit a plaintiff on the basis of such an award in the absence of that consent.
Cause Title- Ashok And Ors. Padam Chand And Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 591)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
20) “Flimsy prosecution story”: Supreme Court acquits two on death row in 2012 gang rape-murder case
The Court acquitted two death row convicts in a rape and murder case from Uttarakhand, holding that the prosecution failed to prove either the “last seen together” circumstance or the unbroken chain of custody of alleged recoveries and forensic evidence forming the basis of conviction. In a strongly worded finding, the Court observed that the detached shirt pocket relied upon by the prosecution appeared to have been created later to support an otherwise flimsy prosecution story.
The Court found serious infirmities in the investigation, questioned the authenticity of crucial exhibits, and held that the chain of circumstantial evidence remained incomplete, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Examining the seizure records and forensic evidence, the Court found unexplained delays in forwarding crucial exhibits to the Forensic Science Laboratory. While some articles had been forwarded earlier, the plain soil, blood-stained soil, torn pocket and the shirt allegedly worn by the accused were sent only on January 24, 2013, despite having been seized weeks earlier. Pertinently, the alleged incident had occurred on December 29, 2012.
Cause Title- Mehtab v. State Of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 578)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
21) CCI cannot convert penal adjunct U/S 45(2) Competition Act into general power of review: Supreme Court quashes regulatory suspension of amazon merger
The Court allowed Amazon’s civil appeal, quashing the regulatory order that kept its validly approved merger in abeyance and setting aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) judgment that largely affirmed that suspension by Competition Commission of India (CCI). The Bench noted that Section 45(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 cannot be used as an independent power of review to nullify or suspend an approval granted under Section 31(1) once the Section 20(1) limitation period has expired.
The Bench held that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) cannot convert an information-related penal adjunct into a general power of review to indefinitely freeze an implemented transaction or compel a de novo merger filing under Form II. The Court ruled that once a combination has been approved and implemented, the regulator cannot bypass the statutory one-year limitation period governing combination inquiries by cloaking a fresh competition review under the guise of ongoing information-contravention proceedings.
Cause Title- Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 576)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
22) ACP panel cutting, grooving for cladding not ‘manufacture’: Supreme Court explains transformation & marketability test for excise duty
The Court held that cutting, routing and grooving Aluminium Composite Panels (ACP) for cladding and façade installation does not amount to “manufacture” under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the process does not result in the emergence of a distinct commercial product. The Court clarified that levy of excise duty requires satisfaction of a cumulative two-fold test: first, transformation of the goods into a commercially distinct product with a new name, character or use; and second, proof that the transformed goods are marketable as such.
The Bench, after a detailed discussion on the legal position governing Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the meaning and scope of “manufacture” under Section 2(f), summarised the governing principles. It held that excisability of goods has a direct nexus with the rate of duty for assessment purposes; superficial changes made merely to facilitate use, without altering the fundamental properties of goods, do not amount to manufacture; and the burden to establish marketability of the alleged manufactured goods lies on the Revenue, which must prove through objective material that the goods are commercially recognised as a distinct marketable product.
Cause Title- M/S Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Central Excise Bangalore II (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 582)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
23) "Tax-Fee distinction may have blurred, but continues to remain": Supreme Court upholds NMMC’s power to levy property tax in MIDC area
The Court held that although the traditional distinction between a tax and a fee has narrowed over time, it has not disappeared in law, and MIDC’s service charges for civic amenities cannot be equated with municipal taxation. Deciding a long-running dispute between the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, the Court ruled that MIDC’s levy of charges for roads, drainage, water supply and related amenities does not bar the Corporation from imposing property tax under the municipal law.
At the same time, the Court held that the exemption under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 extends to industrial units on MIDC land so long as MIDC itself continues to provide civic amenities, and ceases once those responsibilities are transferred to the municipal corporation.
Cause Title- Small Scale Enterpreneurs Association & Ors. v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 570)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
24) Judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC cannot be passed where triable issues require adjudication
The Court held that a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot be passed where the dispute involves substantial triable issues requiring the appreciation of evidence. The Court further held that while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, the High Court cannot substitute its own interpretation merely because another view is possible.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a Delhi High Court judgment whereby the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, had set aside an order passed by the Additional District Judge refusing to decree a recovery suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and had proceeded to decree the suit based on an alleged admission contained in a written statement.
Cause Title- Pushpa & Ors. v. Dayawati & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 603)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
25) Supreme Court grants relief to RIL; sets aside SEBI’s fraud finding & ₹447 crore disgorgement in 2007 RPL futures trading case
The Court while granting relief to Reliance Industries Limited, set aside findings of fraud and market manipulation recorded by SEBI in connection with Reliance Petroleum Ltd. futures and cash market trades undertaken in November 2007. The Court quashed SEBI’s direction requiring disgorgement of ₹447.27 crore along with interest, holding that the record did not establish a fraudulent or manipulative scheme under the PFUTP Regulations.
The Bench held that Reliance’s futures positions through twelve entities could not, by themselves, be treated as a fraudulent device merely because SEBI alleged concentration or breach of position limits. The Court clarified that even assuming limits prescribed under the SCRA framework were exceeded, such breach could not automatically be termed fraud or manipulation under the PFUTP Regulations framed under the SEBI Act.
Cause Title- Reliance Industries Limited & Ors. v. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 585)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
26) PFUTP Regulations| Fraud cannot be inferred from every regulatory breach; SEBI cannot exercise “unfettered powers” to decide fraud
The Court held that a breach of regulatory requirements under the securities law framework cannot, by itself, be elevated into a finding of fraud under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations). The Court clarified that the market regulator cannot exercise “unfettered powers” while determining fraud and that both mens rea and actus reus cannot be made into irrelevant factors for deciding fraud.
On Regulation 2(1)(c) of the PFUTP Regulations, the Bench described the provision as “an illustration of inelegant legislative drafting”, cautioning that an excessively literal interpretation could render the definition of fraud so broad that it risks covering virtually every market act or omission.
The Court drew an important distinction between a regulatory infraction under SEBI’s circular framework and a finding of fraud under the PFUTP Regulations, holding that the latter requires a distinct and higher threshold. It observed that concentration of trading positions or violation of disclosure norms may indicate regulatory non-compliance, but such conduct cannot automatically be treated as fraudulent unless accompanied by material establishing manipulation of the securities market or conduct designed to induce investors to trade to their detriment.
Cause Title- Reliance Industries Limited & Ors. v. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 585)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
27) Appellate Court must itself hear convict on sentence after reversing acquittal, cannot relegate matter to trial court
The Court held that an appellate court reversing an acquittal and convicting an accused for the first time must itself hear the convict on the question of sentence and cannot remit the matter to the trial court solely for sentencing. Holding that the High Court committed an error in directing the trial judge to impose sentence, it set aside that portion of the judgment and restored the criminal appeals to the High Court’s file.
The Court found that the procedure adopted by the High Court was legally unsustainable. Referring to Section 235(2) CrPC and Section 386(a) CrPC, the Bench held that where an appellate court records a conviction after reversing an acquittal, it carries a corresponding obligation to hear the accused on sentencing and pass sentence according to law.
Cause Title- Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State (UT Of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 559)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
28) Suicides & starvation deaths: Supreme Court directs Bihar, Jharkhand to clear dues of defunct corporation employees after 25-year-delay
The Court directed the States of Bihar and Jharkhand to clear outstanding salary arrears, provident fund dues and retiral benefits payable to employees of five defunct State Corporations, a dispute unresolved for nearly twenty-five years following the bifurcation of Bihar under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. During the period the Court's proceedings disclosed reported instances of suicides and starvation deaths among affected employees and their families.
The Court held that provident fund accumulations are vested statutory rights incapable of defeat by administrative lapses or financial incapacity of defunct corporations. Pertinently, the Court had constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Judge (Retd.), Supreme Court which conducted twenty-five sittings over the course of nearly a year and submitted its final report on April 30, 2026.
Cause Title- Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Araj Karamchari Maha Sangh & O₹ v. State Of Bihar & O₹ (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 607)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
29) Betting on games of skill is a gambling enterprise, not a protected trade: Supreme Court upholds Tamil Nadu & Karnataka laws banning online rummy & poker
The Court held that the protection afforded to games of skill under Entry 34 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, cannot be construed as protection to betting on those games, which essentially becomes a gambling enterprise. Overturning the judgments of the High Courts, the Court held that State legislatures are fully competent under Entry 34 to prohibit betting on games of skill, and that the constitutional immunity historically associated with skill-based games does not survive the introduction of monetary stakes.
The Court further held that once wagering enters the picture, the nature of the underlying game ceases to be of relevance, and that activities falling within "betting and gambling" are res extra commercium, placing them entirely outside the protection guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The test of proportionality, the Court held, does not arise where no fundamental right is available to begin with.
Cause Title- State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 594)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
30) Online gaming platforms are suppliers of actionable claims in betting & gambling, not mere intermediaries: Supreme Court upholds 28% GST on full stakes
The Court held that organised online gaming platforms, including fantasy sports and rummy operators, are not mere intermediaries facilitating transactions between players but themselves constitute suppliers of actionable claims arising from betting and gambling, liable to GST on the full value of stakes placed by participants.
The Court held that once participation in an online gaming activity is conditioned upon staking money upon uncertain outcomes, the resulting transaction acquires the character of betting and gambling irrespective of whether the underlying game involves skill or chance. Online gaming transactions accordingly attract GST at 28% on the entire value of bets placed, and not merely on the platform fee.
Cause Title- Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (HQS) and Ors. v. Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 595)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
31) Can’t discard evidence merely on account of panch witnesses turning hostile if recovery is proved through investigating officer
While upholding the conviction of a convict in a case of the murder of four members of one family, the Court reiterated that merely on account of the panch witnesses turning hostile cannot be a ground to discard an important piece of evidence, if the recovery is proved through the Investigating Officer.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal directed against the final judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a Criminal Appeal, upholding the conviction of the accused appellant.
Cause Title- Uperndra Khare v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Case No.: Criminal Appeal 1937 of 2013)
Date of Judgment- May 25, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
32) No absolute requirement of unanimity in every case U/S 48 Trusts Act; effect must be given to governing instrument
The Court while interpreting Section 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 has held that it does not enact an absolute requirement of unanimity in every case and that the governing instrument may prescribe a different mode. In such a scenario, effect must be given to the governing instrument.
A batch of appeals were filed involving Birla Corporation Limited, three West Bengal-based societies, Hindustan Medical Institution, Eastern India Educational Institution and Belle Vue Clinic, and Anamika Lodha. The dispute concerned competing claims over who was authorised to exercise voting rights attached to the societies’ shareholding in Birla Corporation during annual general meetings. The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the validity of the disputed 2021 resolutions or rival claims over trusteeship, and restored the suits and interlocutory applications to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Cause Title- Hindustan Medical Institution v. Birla Corporation Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 554)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
33) Conviction can be based on uncorroborated approver testimony if court finds it safe to rely upon
The Court held that corroboration of an approver’s testimony is not a mandatory requirement of law and that an accused can be convicted solely based on such testimony if the Court is satisfied that it is safe to rely upon it even in the absence of independent corroboration.
The Court clarified that corroborative evidence, where required, may be direct or circumstantial and need only render the approver’s testimony believable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Court was hearing criminal appeals arising from a Delhi High Court judgment affirming the conviction of the appellant in two murder cases relating to the killing of a truck driver and a cleaner during the commission of dacoity.
Cause Title- Gopi Chand @ Pappu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 598)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
34) Modifying life imprisonment & imposing fixed sentence is permissible when period imposed exceeds 14 years of imprisonment
While modifying the sentence of a murder convict from life imprisonment to the period already undergone by him, the Supreme Court has held that modifying a sentence of life imprisonment and imposing a fixed sentence is permissible as long as the period imposed is more than fourteen years of imprisonment.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment in a Criminal Appeal passed by the Gujarat High Court confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Trial Court) in a murder case.
Cause Title- Munna Moyuddin Shaikh v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 558)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
35) Supreme Court upholds Election Commission’s power to conduct Special Intensive Voter revision
The Court disposed of a batch of writ petitions by upholding the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The landmark judgment affirmed that under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Article 324 of the Constitution, the ECI is fully empowered to undertake systemic, nationwide verification exercises to ensure the accuracy and integrity of voter lists, provided appropriate procedural safeguards are maintained.
The Court clarified that while the ECI can conduct limited inquiries into citizenship status to determine voter eligibility, such decisions carry strictly limited electoral consequences and do not amount to a final legal determination of an individual’s citizenship under the Citizenship Act. To prevent arbitrary exclusion, the Bench ordered the ECI to refer all cases where voter deletion occurred due to citizenship doubts to the competent central authority within four weeks for formal adjudication.
Cause Title- Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and other connected matters [W.P.(C) No. 640/2025]
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi
36) Decision of DGFT on classification of items under ITC (HS) final and binding; Hexane not petroleum oil or motor spirit
The Court held that the binding clarification issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade classifying Hexane under Chapter 29 of the ITC (HS) is decisive and binding upon customs authorities.
The Court further held that n-Hexane, being a separately chemically defined saturated acyclic hydrocarbon existing in commercially pure form, could not be classified as a petroleum oil or motor spirit under Chapter 27 merely because its flash point was below 25°C.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, challenging the judgment of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal affirming the classification of imported “n-Hexane” or “Exxsol Hexane” under Customs Tariff Heading 2901.10 and Central Excise Tariff Heading 2901.90.
Cause Title- Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, Gujarat v. M/s Reliance Industries Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 536)
Date of Judgment- May 25, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
37) Supreme Court questions P. Mohanraj precedent on nature of cheque bounce case proceedings; refers Part III IBC moratorium issue to larger bench
The Court referred the critical question of whether personal insolvency and bankruptcy moratorium protections under Part III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) grant a comprehensive stay on criminal prosecutions for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) to a larger three-judge Bench.
The Bench said that even though Section 138 NI Act arises from a civil dispute over repayment of debt, it cannot be treated as a civil recovery proceeding; the deeming fiction makes cheque dishonour a punitive criminal offence. To authoritatively settle the resulting legal friction and overlapping statutory text, the Court has referred this second question, introducing a distinct "tiered proceeding" doctrine to navigate the statutory conflict. Through the referral, the Bench directly questioned the three-judge Bench precedent in P. Mohanraj v. Shah Bros. Ispat (P) Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 258 which had characterised Section 138 as a "civil sheep in a criminal wolf’s clothing".
Cause Title- Dineshchand Surana v. UCO Bank (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 579)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
38) Use of lethal firearm to abduct child perfectly satisfies offence U/S 364A IPC: Supreme Court confirms conviction in kidnapping case
While confirming the conviction of the convicts booked for kidnapping an 8-year-old boy, the Supreme Court has affirmed the view that the use of a lethal firearm to compel compliance and abduct the child perfectly satisfies the second condition of Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court upholding the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court in a case registered under Sections 364A/368 of the IPC. The appellants have been undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment.
Cause Title- Harjindra Singh v. The State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 569) Appearance
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
39) Permission from Magistrate required for further investigation after filing of closure reports
The Court reiterated that the investigating authorities were required to obtain express permission from the Magistrate to initiate further investigation into the same set of allegations after the closure report had been filed twice.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by 4 accused persons who were booked in a case registered under Sections 406, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and were aggrieved by the rejection of their prayer for quashing of the case pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.
Cause Title- Paliniswamy Veeraraja & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 561)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
40) Central Govt. has last word on VRS of All India Services Officers: Supreme Court directs reconsideration of IPS officer Abdur Rahman’s VRS plea
The Supreme Court has set aside the Central Government’s decision rejecting IPS officer Abdur Rahman’s request for voluntary retirement and directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to reconsider his application afresh within three months. The matter arose against the backdrop of multiple disciplinary proceedings against the officer, including charges linked to his public opposition to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and participation in protests against the law.
Examining Rule 16(2A) of the All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 and the Department of Personnel and Training’s 1980 guidelines governing acceptance of voluntary retirement notices, the Court held that the Central Government indeed has the “last word” in deciding such requests. A series of complaints were filed against Abdur Rahman, a 1997-batch IPS officer of the Maharashtra cadre, including allegations of domestic cruelty, contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, and a speech delivered at the launch of his book Denial and Deprivation.
Cause Title- Abdur Rahman v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 550)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
41) Law doesn’t permit use of ‘unsatisfactory performance’ as disguise to bypass formal disciplinary proceedings
While terming a termination order passed against a Bank employee as bad in law, the Court held that while an employer retains the right to terminate services for genuine inefficiency, the law does not permit the use of ‘unsatisfactory performance’ as a disguise to bypass formal disciplinary proceedings.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal directed against the impugned final judgment of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellant – Bank of Baroda against the order quashing the order of termination of the employee, noting that it was vitiated on account of irrelevant considerations.
Cause Title- General Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Ashok Kumar Singh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 589) Appearance
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
42) Victims of heinous crimes cannot be repeatedly subjected to trauma of cross-examination
The Court held that witnesses, especially survivors of heinous crimes like rape, cannot be expected to repeatedly face the ordeal of cross-examination in court due to subsequent changes in defence counsel or oversight.
The Court observed that while the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is expansive, it must be exercised sparingly and balanced against the psychological trauma inflicted upon the victim by prolonged trials.
Cause Title- The State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 584]
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
43) No deemed liability U/S 141 NI Act merely by virtue of office in company or society; designation alone insufficient
The Court held that criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be fastened on office-bearers of a society or company merely because they hold a particular designation. While upholding quashing against an executive member, the Court restored cheque dishonour proceedings against three other office-bearers after finding prima facie material linking them to the underlying borrowing transaction.
Reiterating that there is no deemed liability by virtue of office alone, the Court clarified that prosecution for cheque dishonour can proceed only where the complaint and accompanying material disclose a specific factual basis showing that the person sought to be prosecuted was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the entity’s affairs at the relevant time.
Cause Title- M/s Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd. v. M. Lalitha & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 547)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N. V. Anjaria
44) Shocks judicial conscience; leaves no room for misplaced sympathy: Supreme Court upholds conviction in 1983 Muzaffarpur mass violence case
While upholding the conviction of accused persons in a criminal case where five persons belonging to the same family lost their lives, the Court held that once the common object of unlawful assembly is established, every member becomes vicariously liable for the acts committed in prosecution of such object.
The Apex Court was considering the appeals challenging the final judgment passed by the Patna High Court in a Government Appeal affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court against the appellants in connection with a gruesome incident of mass violence which took place in 1983 in Village Jamalpur in the State of Bihar.
Cause Title- Mahendra Rai @ Harendra Narain Singh v. The State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 560)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
45) Shocks judicial conscience; leaves no room for misplaced sympathy: Supreme Court upholds conviction in 1983 Muzaffarpur mass violence case
While upholding the conviction of accused persons in a criminal case where five persons belonging to the same family lost their lives, the Court held that once the common object of unlawful assembly is established, every member becomes vicariously liable for the acts committed in prosecution of such object.
The Apex Court was considering the appeals challenging the final judgment passed by the Patna High Court in a Government Appeal affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court against the appellants in connection with a gruesome incident of mass violence which took place in 1983 in Village Jamalpur in the State of Bihar.
Cause Title- Mahendra Rai @ Harendra Narain Singh v. The State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 560)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
46) Doctrine of promissory estoppel can’t be invoked to create entitlement contrary to true scope & intent of state policy
The Court held that although the Government remains bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel where clear representations are made to induce industrial investment, it cannot be stretched to compel the State to grant fiscal incentives or concessions to industrial units falling outside the intended beneficiary class under the policy framework.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court directing the State to extend concessional electricity tariff benefits under the Himachal Pradesh Industrial Policy, 2019, to an existing industrial enterprise which had undertaken substantial expansion.
The dispute principally concerned the interpretation of Clause 16 of the Industrial Policy relating to concessional electricity charges and the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel to the respondent industrial unit.
Cause Title- State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 534)
Date of Judgment- May 25, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
47) Jurisdiction to decide cannot mean to decide in particular manner: Supreme Court says arbitral tribunal’s error on nature of agreement not exceptional case for writ interference
The Court held that orders passed by arbitral tribunals under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot ordinarily be challenged in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, reiterating that judicial interference during arbitral proceedings must remain minimal and confined to exceptional circumstances. It further held that even if the tribunal’s view on the nature of the agreement is erroneous, it does not make the case “exceptional” for interference, and judicial review cannot be based merely on disagreement with the merits of the arbitral decision.
Upholding a Division Bench judgment of the Orissa High Court, the Court set aside the view taken by a Single Judge who had interfered with an arbitral tribunal’s decision and directed impounding of agreements on the ground of insufficient stamping. Placing reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 and The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 2023 INSC 1066, the Court reaffirmed that objections relating to stamping fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and are curable in nature.
Cause Title- M/s Tarini Prasad Mohanty Appellant v. M/s Sunflag Iron And Steel Respondent Company Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 566)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
48) Question of paternity is directly in issue; no other evidence could provide categorical answer: Supreme Court upholds DNA test order in a suit for declaration
The Court upheld the orders directing a DNA test to be conducted in a paternity dispute matter after noting that the question of paternity was directly in issue in light of the civil suit filed by the son seeking a declaration.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order whereby he was asked to undergo a DNA test to determine the paternity of the first respondent.
Cause Title- CP v. AP (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 600)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
49) IBC| Successful resolution applicant prohibited from negotiating further once CoC approves resolution plan
While directing a liquidator to proceed with the remaining part of the liquidation in accordance with the CoC, the Court held that once the Committee of Creditors (CoC), after applying its commercial wisdom, has approved the resolution plan, the successful resolution applicant (SRA) is prohibited from negotiating further and is expected to act in a time bound manner to implement the plan.
The Apex Court was considering the appeals filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) challenging the correctness of the judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT) in a Company Appeal.
Cause Title- Sanjay Dave v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 580)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
50) TET qualification mandatory for all in-service teachers: Supreme Court refuses plea seeking review of its judgment
The Court reaffirmed that the Teacher Eligibility Test is a constitutional necessity, not a procedural formality, flowing directly from the right to quality education guaranteed under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. Holding that no exemption in subordinate legislation can override the unambiguous mandate of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Court dismissed a batch of over sixty-five review petitions filed by States, teachers' associations, and individual in-service teachers challenging its earlier direction making TET qualification mandatory for continuation in service.
Dismissing the review petitions on merits, the Court nonetheless exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to extend the compliance deadline for acquiring TET qualification by one year, to August 31, 2028, while making it categorically clear that no further extension shall be entertained.
Cause Title- State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 597)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
51) Bank cannot belatedly initiate criminal proceedings after approving loan settlement & withdrawing DRT proceedings: Supreme Court quashes criminal case against borrowers
The Court held that a bank cannot belatedly initiate criminal proceedings against borrowers after approving a compromise settlement, accepting the settlement amount in satisfaction of dues and withdrawing proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
The Court observed that where allegations of fraud were already suspected by the bank before the settlement, failure to initiate criminal action at that stage and subsequent prosecution after closure of the loan account depicts “lack of good faith” and amounts to abuse of the process of the court.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court refusing to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants under Sections 420 and 471 IPC following a complaint lodged by UCO Bank before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Cause Title- Vijay Kumar Kela & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 588)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
52) "Deliberate disregard": Supreme Court expresses displeasure over Jaipur civic officials not complying with de-sealing orders; accepts their apologies
While expressing displeasure and concern over the fact that the Jaipur Nagar Nigam Officials defied the orders of the Court directing the de-sealing of a certain property, the Supreme Court accepted their unconditional apologies and discharged the contempt notice.
The Apex Court was considering a contempt petition initiated against the contemnors, being the Deputy Commissioner, Vigilance, Nagar Nigam Heritage, Jaipur, Rajasthan; the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan; and the Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Heritage, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Cause Title- Bharat Kumar Badlani v. Seema Chaudhary (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 606)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
53) Peer specialist in expert medical panel absent: Supreme Court quashes criminal case against anaesthetist accused of medical negligence
The Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a senior anaesthetist accused of medical negligence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, holding that the expert panel constituted during the investigation suffered from a fundamental legal defect owing to the absence of a peer specialist capable of evaluating the technical aspects of epidural anaesthesia and catheter management.
The Court held that the continuation of criminal prosecution in such circumstances would violate the safeguards evolved by the Supreme Court to protect medical professionals from unwarranted criminal prosecution.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the judgment of the Kerala High Court refusing to quash criminal proceedings arising out of the death of a patient following piles surgery conducted at a private hospital in Kannur. The prosecution alleged that improper administration of the epidural Sencoraine injection after surgery led to the patient’s death and sought to prosecute the anaesthetist along with other medical personnel under Sections 304A and 34 IPC.
Cause Title- Supriya Kumari MC v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 537)
Date of Judgment- May 25, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
54) Quashing U/S. 482 CrPC is not acquittal; double jeopardy doctrine will not bar later summoning U/S 319 CrPC
The Court held that quashing criminal proceedings against a spouse’s relatives under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of omnibus and unspecific allegations does not amount to an acquittal on merits, and therefore does not attract the constitutional or statutory bar of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India or Section 300 CrPC.
Quashing FIR and domestic violence proceedings against four members of the husband’s family, the Court held that broad allegations that relatives supported the husband, failed to intervene, or asked the complainant to adjust, without specific overt acts or clear factual particulars, cannot justify continuation of criminal prosecution in matrimonial disputes. At the same time, the Bench clarified that such quashing is confined to the allegations as they presently stand and does not permanently exonerate the relatives.
Cause Title- X & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 533)
Date of Judgment- May 25, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
55) Substantive compliance of audi alteram partem is non-negotiable: Supreme Court sets aside removal of Mathadhipati of Tirupathi's Hathiramji Mutt
The Court set aside the removal of Arjun Dass, the Mathadhipati of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi, holding that service of a charge memo by affixation on a residence already in the physical possession of the serving authority is a legal absurdity and no service in the eyes of law.
The Court further held that where a statutory enquiry body is composed entirely of State nominees and has by prior resolution pre-determined the course of action before any charge is framed, remand to a reconstituted version of that body would recreate the very conditions of structural taint. Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court appointed Retired District Judge Mr. Boddepalli Rama Rao as a one-man independent enquiry committee and a supervisory Administrative Committee, to conduct a de novo enquiry under Section 51(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, with a one-year deadline.
The Court further observed that any arrangement permanently bifurcating the religious functions of a Mathadhipati from secular administration, or vesting the latter indefinitely in a Fit Person while the lawful Mathadhipati continues in office, "would amount to a denial of the very concept of Mahantship".
Cause Title- Arjun Dass v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 592)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
56) Immaterial whether advantage is sought for another person or directly or through third party: Supreme Court restores corruption case against police officer
The Court set aside a judgment of the Karnataka High Court that had quashed an FIR against a Police Sub-Inspector under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for lack of direct demand and acceptance.
It was observed that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by conducting a premature mini-trial and evaluating evidentiary matters at the threshold stage of a quashing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court emphasized that under Explanation 2 to Section 7, a public servant can act as the main instrumentality in the background without receiving the bribe personally, holding that a veiled direction to "do something for those boys" constitutes a prima facie solicitation and an "attempt to obtain" an undue advantage for another person. Accordingly, the Bench revived the FIR and all consequential proceedings, directing the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.
Cause Title- The State by Lokayuktha Police v. K Rangayya & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 574)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
57) Readiness & willingness of plaintiff in specific performance suit can be gathered from prior & subsequent conduct of parties
While restoring an order of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for specific performance, the Court held that the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is to be gathered from the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, including the overall conduct of the parties prior to and subsequent to the filing of the suit.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal arising out of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Madras High Court, whereby the High Court partly allowed the Second Appeal preferred by the Plaintiff-Appellant, dismissed the suit qua the relief of specific performance but directed the Defendants/Respondents to return a sum of Rs 9,30,000 along with interest.
Cause Title- A. Shahul Hameed v. N. Malligarjuna (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 573)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
58) Advocates must not advise filing vexatious "matrimonial bouquet" and frivolous POCSO cases to secure settlements
The Court observed that legal practitioners must not advise estranged spouses to file false “matrimonial bouquet” cases or frivolous complaints under the POCSO Act as a means to harass the opposite party or secure favourable settlements in matrimonial and family disputes.
The Apex Court cautioned that misuse of criminal law through vague and omnibus allegations contributes to unnecessary harassment, abuse of process and mounting judicial burden on courts.
The Court was hearing an appeal arising from an Allahabad High Court judgment refusing to quash criminal proceedings initiated under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in the backdrop of prolonged matrimonial and family disputes between the parties.
Cause Title- Ishwar Chand Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 587)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
59) Retraction of earlier stand & introduction of contradictory stand in guise of filing additional written statement contrary to Order 6 Rule 7 CPC mandate
While dealing with a civil matter where the defendant wanted to completely change her stand with regard to her claim for being in possession of a property, the Supreme Court has observed that the retraction of the defendant’s earlier stand and introduction of a totally inconsistent stand in the guise of filing an additional written statement is contrary to the mandate of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal where the change of stand by the defendant, by way of an additional written statement filed at an advanced stage in the suit, was the cause for grievance.
Cause Title- Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 545)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
60) Demand of dowry not needed to attract offence U/S 498A IPC; any unlawful demand made by husband or his family sufficient
The Court observed that to attract Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, there need not be a demand of dowry, since any unlawful demand made by the husband or his family is covered under Explanation (b). The Apex Court also stated that Explanation (a) of Section 498-A also brings in any mindless action, willful in nature, driving the wife to commit suicide under ‘cruelty’.
The Apex Court was considering a matter where the husband and the in-laws were the accused charged with continuous torture and harassment on the demands of dowry.
Cause Title- A v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 544)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
61) Complainant seeking restitution of amount paid doesn’t make it civil dispute or efface allegations of cheating
While cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a case of cheating, the Court held that the mere fact that the complainant seeks restitution of the amount paid does not efface the allegations of cheating or fraud.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the order of the Allahabad High Court granting anticipatory bail to the second respondent (accused) in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the grant of such protection, the complainant had approached the Court.
Cause Title- Saurabh Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 548)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N. V. Anjaria
62) Supreme Court acquits bus driver in death by negligence case; applies dictum of common sense
The Court acquitted a bus driver in a case of death by negligence by observing that the driver discharged his duty to drive the bus and regulate the movement of the bus in accordance with the instructive signals from the conductor. The Bench further held that applying common sense, common wisdom and common understanding while appreciating day-to-day affairs and natural human activities in the walks of life helps one to judge the things nearer to the truth.
In this matter before the Apex Court, the appellant, who was serving as a driver in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, came to be tried and convicted by the Court for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC.
Cause Title- Mohammad Hanif Jainum Khalifa v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 565)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N. V. Anjaria
63) High Court can exercise supervisory power in exceptional circumstances in matters arising out of rent control legislation
The Court held that an application for enhancement of rent made under the proviso of Section 21(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is permissible and the High Court can exercise its supervisory power in exceptional circumstances in matters arising out of rent control legislation.
The Apex Court was considering a matter where the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to order enhancement of rent in a petition arising out of an order of the Rent Control Authority was in dispute.
Cause Title- State of U.P. & Ors. v. Srivastava & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 601)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
64) Self-claimed sanyasi has become chronic litigant: Supreme Court dismisses miscellaneous application filed in land dispute matter
While dismissing an application in a land dispute matter where the applicant was provided an alternate, bigger plot along with compensation, the Court held that the applicant, claiming to be a sanyasi, had become a chronic litigant.
The miscellaneous application before the Apex Court was filed against an order passed by the Registrar in a Special Leave Petition.
Cause Title- Satya Narayan Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 583)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
65) Supreme Court cancels anticipatory bail of railway police officials accused of extorting money from passengers carrying gold bar
While observing that citizens look askance and are left in a dilemma when law enforcers turn extortionists, the Court cancelled the anticipatory bail of three Railway Police Officers accused of misusing authority & extorting money from passengers carrying a gold bar.
The case before the Apex Court revolved around an incident where three police officials were accused of subjecting a man and his minor daughter to undue stress and allegedly extracting money.
Cause Title- The State of Maharashtra v. Rahul Datta Bhosale (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 596)
Date of Judgment- May 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
66) Limitation period for probate revocation begins from date of knowledge
The Court held that the Indian Succession Act does not provide any limitation for the grant of probate or to move an application for the revocation thereof, and recourse must be made to Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Apex Court further explained that the issue as to when “the right to apply” would accrue would depend on the date from which the party making the application had knowledge.
The Apex Court was dealing with a matter involving the issue of limitation with respect to an application filed under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act seeking revocation of probate.
Cause Title-Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 602)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi