Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: June 01 – June 05, 2026
1) Limitation for application U/S.34 of Arbitration Act to be reckoned from date on which request U/S.33 is disposed of
While restoring an order condoning the delay in filing the applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court held that where a request under Section 33 has been made, the limitation for filing an application under Section 34 should be reckoned from the date on which such request is disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Karnataka High Court setting aside the order whereby the delay in filing the applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was condoned.
Cause Title- National Highway Authority of India v. T. Younis & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 616)
Date of Judgment- June 02, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
2) Prolonged separation can be treated as an indicator of mental cruelty to grant divorce under Hindu Marriage Act
The Court held that an Appellate Court may legitimately treat a prolonged period of separation as an indicator of mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly where spouses have remained estranged for several years without any genuine effort towards reconciliation or restoration of matrimonial life.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal arising out of a judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur allowing an appeal filed by the respondent-husband and setting aside the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Bharatpur, which had dismissed a divorce petition instituted under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
Cause Title- ST v. VS (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 620)
Date of Judgment- June 02, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
3) Property inherited U/S 8 HSA doesn't automatically assume coparcenary property character; inheritance is individual & statutory in nature
While dealing with a property dispute between a stepmother and her daughters, the Supreme Court has clarified that, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956, the question of kartaship ordinarily does not arise merely because the property has come from a paternal ancestor. The Apex Court also reiterated that property inherited under Section 8 does not automatically assume the character of coparcenary property. The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the original defendant challenging the final judgment of the Bombay High Court overturning the judgment in the First Appeal, which was directed against the judgment in the suit for partition and separate possession. The respondent was the fourth plaintiff, and the suit was decreed in terms of a judgment dated October 20, 1995.
Cause Title- Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 613)
Date of Judgment- June 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
4) Statutory amendment overrides contractual clause: Supreme Court upholds deduction of enhanced royalty from security deposit
The Court held that where royalty payable on minerals stands enhanced through statutory amendment before actual removal or transportation of minerals, the enhanced royalty becomes payable notwithstanding an earlier contractual arrangement fixing a lower rate.
The Court further held that a contractual provision limiting liability must give way to a subsequent statutory amendment.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal arising out of a judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court allowing a writ petition filed by M/s BMM Ispat Ltd., challenging the deduction of an additional 5% royalty amount from its security deposit in connection with iron ore purchased through an e-auction conducted pursuant to orders passed by the Supreme Court in proceedings concerning mining operations in Karnataka.
Cause Title- The Director of Mines and Geology v. M/s BMM Ispat Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 627)
Date of Judgment- June 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
5) Courts must independently safeguard minor’s welfare even where guardian consents to property alienation
The Court held that in cases involving alienation or development of a minor’s immovable property under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the Court’s duty extends beyond mere consent or convenience and requires an independent assessment of whether adequate safeguards exist to protect the minor’s interests and future rights.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal arising out of a judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, affirming the rejection of an application filed by the appellant-mother under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking permission to execute a development agreement in respect of property partly inherited by her minor son.
Cause Title- Shephali Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 621)
Date of Judgment- June 03, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
6) Marital status cannot constitute valid ground to deny welfare measures benefits to otherwise eligible daughter
The Court held that marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying the benefit of a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter and that a married daughter fulfilling dependency and local residence requirements would be entitled to consideration for allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent quota.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal arising out of a judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, whereby the claim of the appellant, a married daughter of a deceased fair price shop dealer, seeking compassionate allotment of the dealership had been rejected on the ground that she stood excluded from the definition of “family” under the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Control Order, 2016 and the Government Order governing appointment of fair price shop dealers in rural areas.
Cause Title- Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 617)
Date of Judgment- June 02, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
7) Long serving temporary status casual labourers entitled to pension even without regularisation: Supreme Court grants relief to former Postal Dept. employees
The Court held that long-serving temporary status casual labourers are entitled to pensionary benefits upon superannuation even in the absence of formal regularisation. The Court observed that employees who had been conferred temporary status and extended benefits akin to temporary Group ‘D’ employees could not be denied social security and pensionary benefits merely on account of nomenclature or administrative inaction.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by former casual labourers and legal representatives of deceased employees working under the Department of Posts, challenging judgments of the Patna High Court which had denied pensionary benefits on the ground that the employees were never formally regularised as Group ‘D’ employees.
Cause Title- Bhikhani Devi & Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 612)
Date of Judgment- June 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
8) Constitutional courts can't remain mute spectators: SC seeks action against officer for two-decade delay in criminal investigation
While dealing with a case where there was a delay of nearly two decades in the investigation of a criminal complaint, and it was alleged that the case records were lost during an active investigation, the Court ordered an expedited investigation and also asked the State to file an affidavit on the specific action taken against the erring Officer involved.
The Apex Court was considering a matter where there had been an inordinate delay of nearly two decades in the investigation of a criminal complaint.
Cause Title- Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri v. Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 626)
Date of Judgment- June 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
9) Right to travel abroad not absolute: Supreme Court sets aside order allowing accused to travel to USA despite availability of medical facilities in India
The Court set aside a Telangana High Court order permitting an accused facing trial for abetment of suicide to travel to the United States for medical treatment, holding that the High Court was "indulgent" rather than judicially restrained in granting such permission despite the availability of comparable medical facilities in India.
The Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad under Article 21 of Constitution of India is not absolute and must be balanced against the complainant's right to a speedy trial and the broader societal interest in effective administration of criminal justice. The Court further noted that an accused who files successive petitions, obtains interim protection, and then withdraws those petitions before final adjudication, while simultaneously leaving the country on a suspended Look Out Circular without seeking leave of the Court, cannot claim that conditions restricting foreign travel amount to an infringement of fundamental rights.
Cause Title- Seesa Santosh v. The State of Telangana and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 628)
Date of Judgment- June 04, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
10) Consideration of twin conditions U/S 37 NDPS Act in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotics mandatory
The Court set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting bail to an accused booked under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 after noting that no reference was made to the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby the respondent came to be released on regular bail in connection with an FIR registered under Section 21(c),29,61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Cause Title- State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 618)
Date of Judgment- June 02, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh