Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: June 29 – July 03, 2026
1) Non-filing of additional copies of charge-sheet is no ground for default bail if final report is filed within timeline
The Court held that the non-filing of additional copies of the charge-sheet under Section 193(8) would not vitiate the charge-sheet/police report itself, and therefore is no ground for default bail.
The Court said that once the chargesheet is filed, in compliance with the form prescribed under Section 193(3) BNSS, within the aforesaid period, the right to default bail ceases.
Cause Title- Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 666)
Date of Judgment- July 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh
2) Bench strength determines binding precedent over numerical majority: Supreme Court explains doctrine of per incuriam
The Court reiterated the principles governing the doctrine of per incuriam. While setting aside a decision of the High Court, the Court observed that it is not the numerical strength of judges taking a particular view that is relevant, but it is instead the strength of the Bench, which is the determinative factor of the binding nature of a particular view.
Clarifying the rare circumstances under which a prior ruling loses its binding character, the apex court underscored that a coordinate Bench cannot bypass or rewrite established jurisprudential mandates of a larger Bench, noting that any such judicial departure directly invites the application of the per incuriam doctrine. The Court also held that the 2002 Remission Policy stood framed under the Constitution, and such power is to be exercised by the Governor himself, and the subsequent Policy of 2008 cannot deter the effect of the former and the observation that it supersedes the 2002 Policy is untenable in law.
Cause Title- Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 667)
Date of Judgment- July 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh
3) Statutory policy cannot supersede constitutional power: Supreme Court holds 2008 Haryana guidelines untenable against 2002 remission policy
The Court held that the 2002 Remission Policy stood framed under the Constitution, and such power is to be exercised by the Governor himself, and the subsequent Policy of 2008 cannot deter the effect of the former and the observation that it supersedes the 2002 Policy is untenable in law.
The Court allowed an appeal preferred by a life convict, holding that his application for premature release must be governed by the more liberal "Policy Regarding Release of Life Convicts 2002" instead of the stricter subsequent 2008 statutory policy. The Bench observed that policy instructions directing files to the Governor for invoking Article 161 of the Constitution carry an independent constitutional mandate.
Cause Title- Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 667)
Date of Judgment- July 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh
4) ‘Voluntary’ aspect mandated by Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC not established: Supreme Court upholds setting aside of compromise decree after 25 years
The Court upheld an order setting aside a compromise decree where the counsel acted without seeking a clear approval from the client. The Apex Court held that the ‘voluntary’ aspect mandated by Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is essential for a compromise decree, could not be established.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the Appellants (legal heirs of the original plaintiffs and other co-sharers) who were aggrieved by the dismissal of the civil revision, which was directed against the order whereby the petition for setting aside the decree on the basis of a compromise was allowed.
Cause Title- Krishna Kumar Ojha Jitendra Chaudhary & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 662)
Date of Judgment- July 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
5) Apex Court quashes COVID-era vendor relaxations; orders swift rehabilitation & CCTV installation in Chandigarh vending zones
The Court quashed a COVID-19 pandemic-era notification that had diluted the classification of "Essential Service Providers" in Chandigarh, while issuing a comprehensive set of mandatory directives to ensure the welfare, safety, and structured rehabilitation of genuine street vendors.
The Court emphasized that administrative actions must maintain an adequate sense of fairness and minimize economic disruption, ordering the immediate operationalization of designated vending zones, the integration of smart identification cards with local law enforcement, and the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras within six months to safeguard both vendors and consumers.
Cause Title- Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of UT of Chandigarh and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 6630
Date of Judgment- July 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh
6) Magistrate need not record evidence u/s 244 CrPC before committing case exclusively triable by Sessions Court
The Court held that a Magistrate is not required to record evidence under Section 244 CrPC when the offence alleged is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Court held that the legislature had consciously dispensed with the pre-committal inquiry under the new CrPC, constricting the Magistrate's role at the committal stage to what has been described as a "narrow inspection hole", and that directing witnesses to depose about the same facts twice serves no useful purpose and is not a mandate of law.
While setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order remanding a complaint-based murder case to the Magistrate with a direction to record pre-committal evidence under Section 244 CrPC, the Court held that Section 244 applies only to offences triable by Magistrates and has no application where the offence, as here, under Section 302 IPC, is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, in which case Section 209 CrPC mandates direct commitment without any pre-committal inquiry.
Cause Title- Neeraj Gupta v. Pardeep Kumar Bansal and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 660)
Date of Judgment- July 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
7) Last ITR sufficient for salaried; average of up to 3 ITRs for self-employed: Supreme Court settles deceased's income computation formula for motor accident compensation
The Court settled the formula for computing annual income of a deceased person for the purpose of motor accident compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, holding that a bifurcation must be made between salaried individuals and self-employed individuals. For salaried individuals, only the Income Tax Return of the immediately preceding year is sufficient to establish annual income, since promotions significantly impact earnings and may be reflected only in that year's ITR.
Further, for self-employed individuals or those carrying on their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point for assessing annual income, with surrounding business circumstances also being relevant. The Court further held that ITRs filed after the deceased's death must be viewed with caution and ordinarily be supported by financial statements, noting the possibility of posthumous income inflation. For self-employed persons, it identified five relevant factors for income assessment: the nature and location of the business, its growth pattern and the impact of the death, future growth potential (particularly in capital-intensive businesses), initial years of negative income, and any other relevant business circumstance.
Cause Title- Rashmirekha Tripathy and Another v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 661)
Date of Judgment- July 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
8) Litigant who has remained silent for decades can't file suit as afterthought: Supreme Court on specific performance suit filed with 38 years delay
While calling a specific performance suit filed by the respondents after a delay of 38 years an abuse of process, the Court observed that a litigant who has remained silent for decades cannot be permitted to file a suit as an afterthought, in ignorance of the laws of limitation.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the impugned order passed in a Civil Revision by the Bombay High Court affirming the order of the Civil Judge whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, filed by the appellants came to be rejected.
Cause Title- Shobha Vasant Bhoir & Ors. v. Soni @ Vandana Gurumukhdas Jagiasi (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 664)
Date of Judgment- July 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
9) Zero-tolerance for using AI-generated precedents without verification: Supreme Court sets aside NCLT, NCLAT orders citing fake judgments
While setting aside the orders passed by the NCLT and NCLAT where the Tribunals had relied upon non-existent, fake and hallucinated material, generated through Artificial Intelligence (AI), as if it were a precedent in support of their judgments, the Court asked the Courts to adopt a zero-tolerance mode for producing, citing or using AI-generated precedents without verification.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the order of the NCLAT involving an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Cause Title- Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 668)
Date of Judgment- July 02, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
10) Gujarat Municipalities Act| Election affidavits must disclose spouse's self-owned properties
The Court held that a candidate contesting a municipal election under Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 is required to disclose properties owned solely by her spouse in the affidavit filed before the Election Officer, and that the word "of" in the affidavit format's requirement under the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 to disclose "details of the assets of myself, my spouse and dependents" applies collectively to all three categories, the candidate, her spouse and her dependents, without any distinction or exclusion.
The Court held that the comma after "myself" is merely a listing comma used grammatically to separate items in a series and does not create any separate meaning, distinction or exclusion so as to limit the disclosure obligation to jointly owned properties alone. The Court further held that taking cognizance under a wrong section of law is a curable defect under Section 465 CrPC, so long as the Court that took cognizance had the power to take cognizance of the applicable provisions and no failure of justice was occasioned. The Court observed that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of people, and that a false affidavit filed in the electoral process is an offence against society at large and must be investigated.
Cause Title- Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 665) Appellant: Namit Saxena, AOR.
Date of Judgment- July 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe