Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: July 06 – July 10, 2026
1) Direct information from child victim amounts to "knowledge" u/s 19 POCSO Act; persons receiving it can’t conduct own verification before reporting
The Court held that direct information received from a child victim about the commission of a POCSO offence amounts to “knowledge” under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, and that a person receiving such information cannot conduct their own verification exercise before reporting the incident to the police or the Special Juvenile Police Unit.
The Court partly allowed an appeal filed by the minor victim’s mother and set aside the discharge of a school headmistress from prosecution under Section 21 of the POCSO Act and Section 176 of the IPC, while refusing to interfere with the discharge of other school staff members.
Cause Title- AAA v. Linda Sema & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 675)
Date of Judgment- July 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
2) RBI-IBA caution list cannot be used to blacklist advocates for alleged negligence: Supreme Court directs BCI to audit disciplinary mechanism
The Court held that the RBI-IBA Caution List mechanism, meant to alert banks against fraudulent third-party entities, cannot be used to blacklist advocates for alleged negligence in rendering legal opinions, while directing the Bar Council of India to undertake a performance audit of its disciplinary mechanism to ensure that complaints of professional misconduct are dealt with promptly, fairly and effectively.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by an advocate whose name had been included in the Indian Banks’ Association Caution List after a bank alleged that his title verification opinion exposed it to financial risk. The High Court had declined to entertain his writ petition on the ground that the IBA was not “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Cause Title- Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 670)
Date of Judgment- July 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
3) Assessment committee not bound to average APR/PMS marks with "work report" score to determine promotion eligibility
The Court held that where a service circular requires an Assessment Committee to consider both the Annual Performance Reports/Performance Mapping Score (APR/PMS) and a candidate's "Work Report" while determining fitness for promotion, this does not mandate that the Committee mathematically average the two scores to arrive at a final percentage, holding that reading such a formula into the provision amounts to impermissibly adding words that are simply not there.
The Court further held that in the absence of an express rule prescribing the weightage to be assigned to each parameter, the extent of discretion in awarding marks based on a candidate's Work Report must be left to the Assessment Committee, which comprises domain experts, since the nature and complexity of a scientist's work can vary considerably and only such experts are equipped to judge whether the delivered output reflects genuine merit warranting promotion.
Cause Title- The Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research & Ors. v. Anil Earnest (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 677)
Date of Judgment- July 10, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan
4) RBI bank merger scheme cannot override section 14(1)(b) DRC Act: Supreme Court restores eviction decree against PNB
The Court held that an RBI bank merger scheme framed under Section 45(4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, cannot be treated as a statutory enactment capable of overriding Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, while restoring an eviction decree against Punjab National Bank.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the British Motor Car Company challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had set aside the eviction decree passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal in proceedings arising out of an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) read with Section 14(1)(j) of the DRC Act.
Cause Title- British Motor Car Company (1939) Ltd. v. M/s Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. Since Has Been Merged Into Punjab National Bank & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 671)
Date of Judgment- July 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
5) Recalcitrant defaulters cannot seek same instalment facility as auction purchaser: Supreme Court upholds BSFC auction sale
The Court held that borrowers who are recalcitrant defaulters and have repeatedly failed to discharge their liabilities cannot seek the same instalment facility that a financial corporation extends to an auction purchaser while recovering its dues.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by Bihar State Financial Corporation and the auction purchaser against the judgment of the Patna High Court affirming the Trial Court decree, which had set aside the auction sale of mortgaged property conducted by the Corporation under Sections 29 and 30 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951.
Cause Title- Bihar State Financial Corporation & Anr. v. Bhushan Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 673)
Date of Judgment- July 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
6) Disposition in favour of distant relatives while disinheriting widow unnatural and raises suspicion over will
The Court held that the disposition of property in favour of distant non-relatives to the complete exclusion of a surviving widow is inherently unnatural and casts a grave suspicion on the genuineness of a will. It was observed that a widow is a natural Class I legal heir, and depriving her of her late husband's estate without any plausible or justified reason demands high circumspection from courts.
The Bench emphasized that under such suspicious circumstances, a heavy burden of proof lies upon the propounders to satisfy the judicial conscience of the court that the testamentary instrument was executed by the testator with free will and a full understanding of its contents.
Consequently, when the final court of fact refuses to validate a will due to genuine and germane suspicious elements—such as the complete disinheritance of a widow, the testator's illiteracy, and material uninitialed alterations on the registration page—no substantial question of law arises to justify an intervention in a second appeal.
Cause Title- Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass and Ors. (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 669)
Date of Judgment- July 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan
7) One who alleges a custom must prove it; uncle-in-law cannot adopt niece's husband as "ghardamad" under oraon tribal custom
The Court held that a party asserting a customary right must affirmatively establish both the existence of the custom and that the parties are governed by it, reiterating that "he who alleges the custom must prove it", and that mere absence of evidence disproving a customary bar cannot substitute for proof of the custom itself.
The Court set aside concurrent findings of three courts below that had accepted a partition deed executed in favour of a claimed "ghardamad" (adopted son-in-law) whose adoption, on the record, had been carried out not by the father-in-law but by an uncle-in-law, a relationship the Court found had no established basis in the customary law of the Oraon tribal community.
The Court further ruled that where a substantial question of law is framed under Section 100 CPC, the High Court is obligated to answer it on merits rather than dispose of it merely by invoking the concurrent nature of findings below, holding that framing a question and then declining to decide it defeats the very purpose of formulating it.
Cause Title- Bejla Oraon v. Kali Das Oraon & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 672)
Date of Judgment- July 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
8) Commercial Courts Act is meant for expediency in deciding commercial disputes; voluminous evidence can’t water down rigours of statute
While upholding an order dismissing a Company’s application seeking to place on record additional documents, the Court held that the underlying intention of the Commercial Courts Act is expediency in deciding commercial disputes.
The Apex Court further held that evidence, however voluminous, cannot water down the statutory intent and the rigours of the statute. The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by a company involved in a long commercial dispute.
Cause Title- M/S. Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd v. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 674)
Date of Judgment- July 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh