Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: July 13 – July 17, 2026
1) FIR was a “post-investigation document”: Supreme Court acquits 3 accused in 1977 murder case
The Court acquitted three persons convicted of murder nearly forty-five years ago, holding that the First Information Report in the case was, in fact, a post-investigation document prepared after the incident had already been probed, rather than a spontaneous complaint recorded at the time alleged by the prosecution.
The Court reiterated that mere delay in transmitting an FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate does not, by itself, vitiate a prosecution case. However, where such delay is accompanied by other circumstances suggestive of fabrication, ante-timing or deliberation, it ceases to be a procedural irregularity and becomes a substantive factor casting doubt on the genesis of the prosecution story. The Bench was hearing a batch of criminal appeals arising from a 1981 judgment of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, and a 2011 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, affirming the conviction.
Cause Title- Deo Prasad and Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 707) Appearances:
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
2) A case of corpus delicti: Supreme Court upholds conviction in minor’s murder case despite non-recovery of her body
The Court upheld the life sentence of a man convicted in a minor girl’s murder case, holding that non-recovery of the dead body was not fatal where the prosecution had established reliable circumstances showing that the offence had been committed and that the accused was responsible.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a Gauhati High Court judgment which had affirmed the Trial Court’s conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Bench noted that the child, whom the accused’s mother had adopted, was living in the same house as the accused. After the accused’s mother left for medical treatment, the child went missing, and the accused failed to give any satisfactory explanation for her disappearance.
Cause Title- Debojit Pankika Charaideo Sonari v. The State of Assam (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 687)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
3) Part of offence u/s.4 of PMLA occurred by concealment of crime proceeds attached at Delhi: Supreme Court transfers real estate fraud case involving Lalu Yadav’s aide
While observing that the part of offence under Section 4 of the Prevention Of Money Laundering Act had occurred by way of concealment of ‘proceeds of crime’ attached at Delhi, the Supreme Court has transferred a real estate money laundering case involving Lalu Yadav’s aide Amit Katyal from Gurugram to Delhi. The petitioner had approached the Apex Court seeking quashing of a prosecution complaint pending before the Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, Haryana. The plea before the Apex Court was restricted to transferring the PMLA case from Gurugram to the Special Court under PMLA at Delhi.
Cause Title- Amit Katyal v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 702)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2026
Coram- Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
4) Could not remain silent till employee crossed 55 years, then rely on its own delay: Supreme Court orders insurance company to grant compassionate appointment
The Court held that a public sector insurance company, New India Assurance Company Limited in the present matter, could not sit on an employee's voluntary retirement application filed before he attained the age of 55 years, communicate the requirement of a Medical Board certificate only after the age threshold had lapsed, and then rely on that very consequence to deny his dependent's claim for compassionate appointment.
It held that the eligibility clause of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment could not be construed in a manner that allows the employer to control eligibility through delayed processing, and directed the insurance company to grant compassionate appointment to the appellant, with age relaxation where necessary, since the delay in finalising the claim could not operate to his prejudice.
Cause Title- Rahul S/o. Ramnarayan Madankar & Anr. v. The New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 710)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
5) Supreme Court upholds "no interest" clause on security deposits in mining contracts; interest payable only if state retains amount beyond contractual refund period
The Court upheld the validity of a contractual clause providing that a contractor's security deposit shall not carry interest, holding that writ courts cannot rewrite commercial contracts or invalidate mutually agreed terms merely because one party later considers them onerous.
However, the Court clarified that where the contract also requires the State to refund the security deposit within a specified period after termination, interest becomes payable if the amount is retained beyond that period.
The Bench partly allowed appeals filed by the State of Haryana against a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had declared Clause 19 of Form-L under the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964 to be unsustainable and directed payment of 9% interest on the contractor's security deposit from the date of its deposit.
Cause Title- State Of Haryana & Ors. v. M/S. Jai Durgaa Finvest P. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 678)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana
6) Mere telephone records do not prove illicit affair or motive for murder: Supreme Court upholds acquittal of wife, alleged lover in 2007 ICICI employee murder case
The Court held that mere production of telephone records does not constitute substantive proof of an alleged illicit affair or a motive for murder, while upholding the Bombay High Court's acquittal of three accused for murder in the 2007 murder of ICICI Bank employee Kiran Suryawanshi.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence necessary to sustain convictions for murder and criminal conspiracy.
The prosecution had alleged that Monika Suryawanshi, the deceased's wife, conspired with her neighbour Prakash Patil (her alleged lover) and his friend Dnyaneshwar Mahale to murder Kiran after allegedly administering sedatives and fatally assaulting him with a grinding stone. According to the prosecution, the body was being transported on a motorcycle for disposal when Prakash and Dnyaneshwar were intercepted by a police constable.
Cause Title- State Of Maharashtra v. Monika Kiran Suryawanshi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 Insc 685)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
7) Nominated members of municipalities cannot vote in legislative council elections
The Court held that nominated members of municipalities, who are barred by the Constitution from voting in municipal decision-making, cannot be allowed to vote in elections to the Legislative Council.
The Court was hearing appeals arising from the election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities Constituency, where 12 nominated councillors of Town Panchayats had been included in the electoral roll and had cast their votes in an election decided by a margin of six votes.
Cause Title- Pranesh M.K. v. A.V. Gayathri Shanthegowda and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 716)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2026
Coram- Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
8) Arbitral tribunal can rule on its own jurisdiction u/s 16 A&C Act; remedy against rejection lies u/s 34 after final award
The Court held that any grievance or challenge regarding an arbitral tribunal’s rejection of a jurisdictional application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be ventilated mid-proceedings through writ or supervisory jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the statutory architecture of the Act mandates minimal judicial intervention, requiring aggrieved parties to await the final arbitral award before seeking statutory recourse under Section 34 of the Act.
On the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz, the court noted that the tribunal possesses the exclusive jurisdiction to rule on its own competence, rendering interlocutory challenges before the High Court unwarranted. It said that the High Courts must exercise extreme circumspection and refrain from routinely entertaining revision petitions under Article 227 Constitution of India unless a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction is visibly manifest and explicitly recorded.
Cause Title- Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. M/s Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 701)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2026
Coram- Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
9) Photographs taken 12 hours after accident not accurate representation: Supreme Court grants compensation to kin of 3 deceased teachers
The Court granted compensation to the families of 3 deceased teachers who died due to the rash and negligent driving of a tanker. The Apex Court also held that the photographs taken nearly ten to twelve hours after the occurrence of the accident cannot be treated as an accurate representation of the position of the vehicles at the time of impact/accident.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court affirming the Awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petitions filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Cause Title- Manju Singh v. Avinash Singh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 696)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
10) Appellate courts should be friend, philosopher & guide: Supreme Court sets aside kerala high court’s direction to send sub judge for training
The Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s direction to send a Principal Sub Judge for training, holding that adverse remarks against judicial officers should not be passed lightly and must satisfy the principles governing judicial restraint.
The Court was hearing a civil appeal arising from a partition suit in which the Kerala High Court had reversed the Trial Court’s decree, dismissed the suit, and directed that its judgment be forwarded to the Kerala Judicial Academy for further action concerning the Principal Sub Judge.
Cause Title- Lakshmi v. Gopi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 709)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
11) Obscenity is not synonymous with vulgarity, abuse or profanity: Supreme Court sets aside conviction u/s. 294 IPC
The Court held that abusive, vulgar or uncivil words used during an altercation over a land dispute cannot by themselves constitute obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC unless they are shown to be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, tend to deprave and corrupt, and cause annoyance to others in or near a public place.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a Madras High Court judgment which had acquitted the appellant of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but confirmed his conviction under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC.
Cause Title- Mani @ Subramaniyam v. State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 719)
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
12) Can’t deny refund of premium for unutilized additional FSI in case of residential construction: Supreme Court while granting relief to landowners
While directing the authorities to refund the premium for residential construction to the litigants, the Court held that a distinction cannot be drawn between additional FSI for educational and medical institutions, institutional buildings and star category hotels as opposed to additional FSI for any other constructions, including residential.
The Apex Court was dealing with the issue of the denial of a refund of premium for residential construction to the appellants.
Cause Title- Prasad Pandurang Tapkir and another v. The Assistant Director of Town Planning, Pune District, Pune and others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 683)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
13) Railways not liable for short delivery of owner’s risk consignment unless consignor proves quantity and negligence
The Court held that Railways cannot be fastened with liability for alleged short delivery of goods booked at “owner’s risk” unless the consignor first discharges the burden under Section 65(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and proves negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or its employees.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the concurrent rejection of a claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, and the Gauhati High Court, arising from the alleged short delivery of bags of salt transported from Gujarat to Assam.
Cause Title- M/S Bajaj Trading Company v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 711)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
14) State’s statutory power to revise royalty under MMDR Act survives even in absence of express enhancement clause in mining lease
The Court dismissed a suit for specific performance, ruling that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to fulfil his obligations under the agreement to sell. The Court observed that financial documents generated years after the institution of the suit cannot be relied upon to prove the availability of funds during the relevant period for performance of the contract.
The Court reiterated that readiness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, relates to the financial capacity of the plaintiff, while willingness is reflected through his conduct. Both requirements, the Court held, must be continuously satisfied from the date of the agreement until adjudication of the suit.
Cause Title- State of Haryana & Ors. v. M/s Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals & Anr a/w State of Haryana & Ors. v. M/s Ganpati Enterprises Slate Mines (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 690)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
15) Children’s court cannot try child as adult without reasoned order u/s 19(1) Juvenile Justice Act
The Court held that a Children’s Court cannot proceed to try a child in conflict with law as an adult merely because the Juvenile Justice Board has transferred the case after a preliminary assessment, and that the Children’s Court must independently pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 before taking the matter further.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years.
The appellant was around sixteen-and-a-half years old at the time of the offence. Though the Juvenile Justice Board had conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act and transferred the matter to the Children’s Court under Section 18(3), the Children’s Court proceeded with the trial without first passing an order under Section 19(1).
Cause Title- Sagar v. The State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 692)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
16) Supreme Court issues guidelines for uniform premature release policy; directs states to fast-track release of terminally ill & elderly prisoners via e-prisons integration
The Court ordered all States and Union Territories to formulate and notify a comprehensive policy within three months for the early or premature release of elderly and terminally ill prisoners. It also directed the integration of a time-bound tracking system into the e-Prisons portal to fast-track compassionate release and preserve inmate dignity. The Court mandated institutional coordination with State Legal Services Authorities, the setting up of independent medical boards, and full integration with the digital e-Prisons portal to avoid procedural delays and ensure human dignity.
In May 2025, the Court issued notice in a petition filed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) seeking necessary directions to enable the release of terminally ill and elderly prisoners so they may be cared for by their families and reintegrated into society. The judgment was reserved on July 18, 2025.
Cause Title- National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(Crl.) No. 162/2025)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
17) Recovery certificate issued before 2016 amendment of RDB Act can't be basis for initiating insolvency proceedings under presidency towns Insolvency Act
The Court held that a recovery certificate issued prior to the 2016 amendment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) can not form the basis for initiating insolvency proceedings under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed at the instance of HDFC Bank raising the issue of whether an insolvency notice under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 can be issued based on a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Cause Title- H.D.F.C. Bank Limited v. Kishore K. Mehta (Dead) Thr. Lrs ( Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 688)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
18) No statutory requirement U/S 299 CrPC mandating formal order by magistrate recording compliance of conditions
The Court held that for statements of witnesses who are dead or otherwise incapable of being used in a trial after the arrest of the accused under Section 299 of the CrPC, it must be established before their deposition that the accused concerned is absconding and there is no prospect of their immediate arrest. The Apex Court clarified that there is no statutory requirement in the provision, mandating the formal passing of an order by the Magistrate concerned, recording that the above two facts have been complied with, before the witness has deposed.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal preferred by the State against the impugned judgment of the Calcutta High Court, wherein the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, came to be set aside.
Cause Title- The State of West Bengal v. Kader Khan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 718)
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
19) Rule prescribing minimum cut-off in interview is within state’s legislative competence: Supreme Court dismisses appeal of district judge aspirant
While dismissing an appeal filed by a District Judge aspirant, the Supreme Court has held that a rule prescribing a minimum cut-off in the interview was well within the legislative competence of the State and rationally connected to the objective of selecting capable judicial officers which was binding upon all candidates who willingly participated in the process.
The Apex Court was considering a civil appeal directed against the final judgment of the Rajasthan High Court involving the issue regarding the validity and constitutional vires of Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.
Cause Title- Manoj Goyal v. Rajasthan High Court (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 699)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
20) Right to apply for probate is continuous; limitation doesn't apply as long as object of will survives
While restoring a probate matter raising questions over a will, the Court held that the right to seek probate is a continuous right that can be exercised at any time so long as the object of the Will survives.
The Apex Court was considering a matter relating to the limited issue of whether the application for probate was barred by the law of limitation.
Cause Title- Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjay Bhardwaj v. Krishnadhan Khaware And Ors (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 708)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
21) Plaintiff must file written statement to counter-claim in commercial suit within 120 days
The Court held that a plaintiff in a commercial suit must file a written statement to a defendant’s counter-claim within the same mandatory outer limit of 120 days prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable through the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The Court was hearing appeals arising from a commercial recovery suit in which the plaintiffs sought leave to file their written statement in response to the defendants' counterclaim after 238 days. The Calcutta High Court had refused to take the belated written statement on record, and the Commercial Appellate Division had dismissed the appeal both on maintainability and merits.
Cause Title- A.K. Ghosh & Company and others v. Biman Bose and others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 684)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
22) Profit or loss to investors is immaterial in case of regulatory infraction: Supreme Court affirms SEBI penalties on Kotak AMC over unauthorized extension of scheme maturity
The Court dismissed the appeals preferred by Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company, Kotak Mahindra Trustee Company, and its senior executives, thereby upholding the monetary penalties imposed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
Firmly establishing that profit or loss to investors is immaterial in case of regulatory infraction, the Apex Court affirmed the SEBI penalties on Kotak AMC over the unauthorized extension of scheme maturity. The Court held that the regulatory framework governing close-ended mutual fund schemes is consequence-neutral and strictly mandates full redemption on the scheduled maturity date.
Cause Title- Nilesh Shah & Ors. v. SEBI & Anr. [Neutral Citaion:2026 INSC 681]
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
23) Withdrawing sales tax exemption from imported sugar retrospectively not unconstitutional but no penalty can be imposed for pre-amendment period
The Court has upheld an amendment brought by the Karnataka Act No. 5 of 2001 retrospectively withdrawing the sales tax exemption from imported sugar. However, the Apex Court made it clear that no penalty should be imposed or recovered from the assessees in respect of transactions effected prior to the said Act.
The appeals before the Apex Court raised the question concerning the true scope of an exemption granted to “sugar” under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the legal effect of a subsequent legislative amendment by which such exemption was confined to sugar “produced or manufactured in India” with retrospective effect.
Cause Title- Asia Sugar & Chemical Co., Devangere v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 693)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
24) Prior comprehensive survey not a condition precedent to notification u/s 4 Land Acquisition Act
The Court held that a land acquisition notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be invalidated merely because a prior comprehensive survey was not conducted.
The Court held that the statutory power to enter upon the land, survey it, take levels and assess suitability arises only after publication of the preliminary notification.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of land for the construction of a metro car depot as part of Phase II of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project. A Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court had quashed the acquisition proceedings, but the Division Bench reversed that decision and dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Alok Kotahwala & Ors. v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 682)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
25) Tribunal is not merely a forwarding authority but the primary adjudicatory forum: Supreme Court sets aside "mechanical" foreigner declarations
The Court that a Foreigners Tribunal is not merely a forwarding authority but is the primary adjudicatory forum tasked with deciding referred questions of nationality. Expanding upon this principle, the Court declared that because citizenship status carries grave, lifelong legal and constitutional consequences, any adjudication determining it must reflect genuine application of mind and a lawful, fair process rather than mechanical default decrees.
The Bench ultimately intervened by setting aside the impugned Gauhati High Court judgments along with the corresponding ex parte opinions of the various Foreigners Tribunals in Assam. Recognizing that the critical fact-finding task cannot be bypassed by an initial factual appreciation in writ proceedings, the Court remanded all 27 matters to their respective tribunals to permit the appellants to formally pitch their defence and documents on the merits.
Cause Title- Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 694)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
26) Later exemption notifications cannot retrospectively validate void ouster orders: Supreme Court dismisses appeal, grants ₹1.25 crore to CRPF Constable
The Court held that an exemption notification under a beneficial social legislation cannot operate retrospectively to validate an otherwise void action. Deciding a decades-old dispute, the Court clarified that when a statutory right crystallizes on the date of an employee’s ouster, subsequent exemptions from that statutory mandate cannot efface the breach already committed.
While dismissing the civil appeal by the Union of India and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Bench considered the fact that the CRPF Constable had already reached the age of superannuation during the decades of pending litigation, and therefore modified the operative directions.
Instead of actual physical reinstatement, the Court ordered the appellants to electronically transfer a consolidated lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- (Rupees one crore twenty-five lakh only) to the respondent's bank account within eight weeks, covering back wages, interest, and costs. Given the respondent’s visual impairment, the Member-Secretary of the State or District Legal Services Authority was directed to assist him in safely investing a portion of the receipt in a high-yielding fixed deposit.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram No. 850808321 (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 689)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
27) Supreme Court Earnest money refund clause in agreement to sell does not bar specific performance unless intended as substitute for sale
The Court held that an agreement to sell cannot be treated as unenforceable merely because it contains a clause for refund of earnest money if the sale deed is not executed, unless the contract shows that such payment was intended to give the defaulting vendor an option to avoid performance.
The Court was hearing appeals against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had set aside a decree for specific performance and restored the Trial Court’s decree for refund of earnest money. The High Court had held that the agreement did not contain an express clause enabling specific performance through the court and that the purchaser was therefore not entitled to such relief.
Cause Title- Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 700)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2026
Coram- Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe
28) Section 68 Evidence Act and its proviso inapplicable to registered sale deeds
The Court held that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not apply to a registered sale deed, since a sale deed is not a document that is required by law to be attested. Consequently, even if a registered sale deed bears the signatures of marginal or attesting witnesses, its execution need not be proved by examining an attesting witness under the same.
The Court clarified that the mere presence of marginal or attesting witnesses on a sale deed does not attract Section 68. Consequently, the proviso to Section 68, which applies where execution is specifically denied, also has no application to such documents.
It further held that a High Court cannot decide a Regular Second Appeal without first formulating a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC read with Order XLII Rule 2 CPC. Since the Kerala High Court had reversed the First Appellate Court's judgment without doing so, its judgment stood vitiated in law.
Cause Title- R. Veronica & Anr. v. Rudrayani Devaki (D) through LRs. S. Satha Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 703)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
29) Uncertain or unquantified claims cannot be permitted to resurface years after approval: Supreme Court on operational creditors' sub-judice claims against Tata Steel
The Court held that uncertain or unquantified claims of Operational Creditors cannot be permitted to resurface against a Successful Resolution Applicant years after approval of a Resolution Plan, setting aside Bombay High Court orders that had permitted a recovery suit against Tata Steel Limited to continue despite approval of its Resolution Plan for Bhushan Steel Limited.
The Court held that allowing such claims to linger and resurface would be "akin to a hydra-headed recurrence" and antithetical to the "clean slate" principle underlying the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, holding that only claims crystallised and quantified as on the date of Plan approval were payable, and directed dismissal of both a pending civil suit and connected arbitration proceedings initiated by two Operational Creditors.
Cause Title- M/s Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 717)
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan
30) Appointments “are a blot” on the system: Supreme Court dismisses West Bengal Madrasah staff pleas, terms post-march 2016 recruitments without judicial leave ex facie illegal
The Court rejected regularization bids by West Bengal madrasah staff, declaring their irregular appointments a blot on the system that must be erased. It noted that preserving the services of unqualified or illegally recruited candidates cannot compromise student futures. Noting that none of the petitioners established a legally compliant recruitment process, the bench dismissed all claims for salary approvals, service protection, and arrears, allowing the Madrasah Service Commission to fill vacancies through proper channels.
The Court held that any appointments made after March 14, 2016, the date the Supreme Court stayed the High Court's judgment invalidating the Commission Act, without express judicial permission are ex facie illegal. Clarifying that a stay order merely suspends operation without erasing the underlying judgment, the bench ruled that subsequent state-issued notifications became inoperative. Consequently, managing committees could not unilaterally make appointments during this interim vacuum.
Cause Title- Najma Khatun & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 691)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
31) Comparing coal & iron ore is like apples & oranges: Supreme Court upholds rule barring deduction of royalty, DMF, NMET payments
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Explanations appended to Rule 38 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45(8)(a) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017. It mandates that no deduction shall be made from the gross sale amount in respect of payments made towards Royalty, District Mineral Foundation (DMF) and National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) while computing sale value for iron ore, holding that the measure of tax is not a true test of the nature of tax.
It held that individual hardship cannot invalidate a levy aimed at preventing tax evasion, especially where evidence shows deliberate price manipulation to reduce royalty and premium payments.
The Court rejected the comparison with coal as akin to comparing apples and oranges, noting coal pricing relies on the National Coal Index derived from PSU notified/auction prices and import prices, whereas iron ore's ASP is entirely dependent on data self-reported by miners, making it far more susceptible to manipulation.
Cause Title- Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 679)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
32) Rectification deed cannot substitute subject matter of prior conveyance without original transferor’s participation
The Court held that a rectification deed cannot, under the guise of correcting an error, substitute the very subject matter of an earlier conveyance without the participation of the original transferor, particularly where the plaintiff fails to plead and prove that the property originally conveyed and the property later claimed are the same.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which had affirmed a first appellate decree declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the suit property. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership, possession, or identity between two different survey numbers.
Cause Title- Venkatesha and Anr. v. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 705)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
33) Mere absence of ticket doesn't defeat bona fide passenger claim: Supreme Court awards compensation to widow of man who fell from running train
The Court held that the mere absence of a train ticket on the person of a deceased passenger does not negate his status as a bona fide passenger, setting aside the concurrent findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had denied compensation to the widow of a man who fell from a running train. The Court also noted that overcrowding "is a regular occurrence and that is more often than not the reason for such unfortunate incidents", pointing to a string of recent tragedies.
The Court further flagged, as a separate observation, that the term "second class passenger" used across Railway manuals ought to be reconsidered, suggesting that class connotations be attached to the coach rather than the passenger, in view of India's history of social stratification and the offence such labelling causes to the spirit of the Constitution.
Cause Title- Lata v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 715)
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
34) High Court under Article 226 cannot act as court of appeal over findings of facts recorded by subordinate courts
The Court set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court, which proceeded to decide a writ petition pertaining to ownership and title issues, ex parte, after dispensing with service of notice. The Apex Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as a Court of appeal over findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Courts or Tribunals.
Cause Title- Basamma & Anr. v. Goparappa and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 712)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
35) Section 22 Hindu Succession Act applicable to agricultural land, distinguishable from punjab pre-emption act struck down in Atam Prakash
The Court held that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which confers a preferential right upon Class-I heirs to acquire the interest of a co-heir proposing to transfer his share in inherited property, applies with full force to agricultural land, rejecting the contention that the provision stands constitutionally infirm following the Constitution Bench's ruling in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana(1986) 2 SCC 249 striking down a similarly structured pre-emption provision under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.
The Court further ruled that the observations in Atam Prakash, which held Section 15 of the Punjab Act unconstitutional solely because its list of preferential claimants bore no rational relationship to the theory of agnatic succession, cannot be imported wholesale to strike down an entirely different, unconnected statutory provision that was never under challenge in that case, holding that "...if duly enacted legislation could be so easily struck down by importing observations made elsewhere, we would invite a situation of judicially created anarchy...".
Cause Title- Mahinder & Others v. Puran Singh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 698)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
36) Mere recovery of firearm without evidence to show conscious possession & dominion can’t support conviction under Arms Act
The Court upheld an order of acquittal in an Arms Act case after noting that the Trial Court was swayed away by the mere recovery of articles, particularly, the firearm ignoring the fact that there was no legal evidence to show that those articles were under conscious possession of the accused.
The Apex Court was considering a criminal appeal arising out of a judgement passed by Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court whereby the conviction rendered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court under the Arms Act, 1959 was set aside.
Cause Title- The State of Jharkhand v. Jagdish Lakra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 686)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
37) Police opinion in final report not binding on cognizance; court alone decides whether trial should be joint or separate
The Court held that the opinion of the investigating officer in a final report is not decisive of cognizance, since the Magistrate may accept the report, take cognizance on the material disclosed, or direct further investigation.
The Court further held that committal orders do not determine whether the trial should be single, separate or joint, which remains within the Court’s discretion under the CrPC, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a man convicted of dowry death and cruelty after two sessions of trials arising from two final reports filed on the same FIR. The High Court had remanded the matter to the trial court on the premise that the convicted accused was not present when some witnesses were examined in a connected case before the proceedings were clubbed.
Cause Title- Brajesh Kumar @ Birjesh Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 695)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
38) Mere existence of trees does not make land “forest” or “deemed forest” to invalidate acquisition for duly sanctioned projects
The Court dismissed a suit for specific performance, ruling that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to fulfil his obligations under the agreement to sell. The Court observed that financial documents generated years after the institution of the suit cannot be relied upon to prove the availability of funds during the relevant period for performance of the contract.
The Court reiterated that readiness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, relates to the financial capacity of the plaintiff, while willingness is reflected through his conduct. Both requirements, the Court held, must be continuously satisfied from the date of the agreement until adjudication of the suit.
Cause Title- Alok Kotahwala & Ors. v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 682)
Date of Judgment- July 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma