Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: November 2 – November 6, 2026
1) Mere cultivation without residence in forest does not confer forest dweller status under FRA
The Court held that persons who cultivate forest land while having only temporary residence in the forest, or while residing outside the forest boundary, cannot qualify as Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes or Other Traditional Forest Dwellers under Sections 2(c) and 2(o) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), on the basis of such cultivation alone. It further held, prima facie, that planned cultivation of a commercial crop such as silk cotton inside forest areas is not a right recognised under the FRA.
The Apex Court constituted a Special Committee headed by Justice B.R. Gavai, former Chief Justice of India, to scrutinise orders passed on FRA claims and supervise their disposal. Finding the State primarily responsible for the delay, it granted 30 days to constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas and five months thereafter to conclude adjudication.
Cause Title- A. John Kennedy & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1204)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
2) Freedom from bondage can't be secured by act of rescue alone: Supreme Court directs uniform SOP & 7-day financial assistance for rescued bonded labourers
The Court directed uniform implementation across the country of a revised Standard Operating Procedure for the identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers, observing that freedom from bondage cannot be secured by the act of rescue alone.
The Court laid down definite timelines, including verification of complaints and issuance of release certificates ordinarily within 24 hours, disbursement of immediate financial assistance within seven days of the release certificate, and preparation of an individual rehabilitation plan within 90 days of rescue. The Court kept the writ petitions pending to monitor compliance.
Cause Title- Surendra Manjhi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1185)
Date of Judgment- November 2, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
3) Handwriting expert's report cannot be relied upon to prove authorship of a document unless such expert is examined
The Court held that a handwriting expert must be examined before such an expert's report can be relied upon to attribute the authorship of a disputed document to a person.
The Apex Court clarified that since handwriting comparison is not a perfect science, the opinion must be tested through cross-examination and cannot be admitted under Section 293 CrPC, corresponding to Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Cause Title- Goverdhan v. The State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1190)
Date of Judgment- November 3, 2026
Coram- Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
4) Plaint can be rejected prior to its registration; such rejection ought to be duly recorded in register maintained as per Order IV Rule 2 of CPC
While restoring a plaint in a civil suit, the Court held that a plaint could be rejected even prior to its registration and whenever the Trial Court rejects a plaint in such manner in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code Of Civil Procedure (CPC), the fact that such plaint stands rejected must be duly recorded in a register maintained for such purpose.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the correctness of the order passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court rejecting the plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prior to registration of the civil suit.
Cause Title- G. Pazhanivel v. S. Thilagavathy (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1197)
Date of Judgment- November 5, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
5) Digestive timing cannot be sole basis to reject oral evidence of acceptable eyewitnesses
The Court held that where acceptable eyewitnesses speak clearly about the time of an incident, no conclusion can be based on probabilities of digestive timings, and such an inference cannot be the sole basis to reject oral evidence. Upholding the High Court judgment that reversed an acquittal, the Court affirmed the life sentences of the appellants for a double murder.
The Court further found that the Trial Court had misdirected itself on several fronts. It held that an eyewitness's name need not appear in the inquest report, that a witness is not interested merely because of a relationship with the deceased, and that the FIR was not tainted by delay. It added that the direct account of two widows was “natural and trustworthy”.
Cause Title- Shekappa And Ors. v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1189)
Date of Judgment- November 3, 2026
Coram- Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli
6) Govt. employee accepting post can't agitate in respect of service conditions: Supreme Court upholds Regulation 7(2) of Uttarakhand PSC Regulations
While upholding regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations, the Court observed that a Government servant or an employee who accepts the post cannot afterwards be permitted to resile from or to agitate in respect of the service conditions and the service regulations attached to the post which he accepted.
The Apex Court was considering the appeal filed by the State against the judgment upholding Regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations.
Cause Title- State of Uttarakhand v. M.C. Bhandari and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1194)
Date of Judgment- November 4, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
7) Supreme Court upholds husband's conviction for wife's murder; rejects defence theory of death due to epileptic fit during sexual act
The Court upheld a husband's conviction for murdering his wife inside their matrimonial home, holding that his false accidental-death defence provided an additional incriminating link completing the chain of circumstantial evidence.
The Court was hearing connected appeals against a Bombay High Court judgment that reversed the husband's acquittal for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court had also affirmed the convictions of the husband and two relatives under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC.
Cause Title- Ramkishan Digambar Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1187)
Date of Judgment- November 2, 2026
Coram- Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
8) Registration as society does not take body outside Article 12 Constitution if government control is pervasive: Supreme Court holds National Book Trust is “State”
The Court held that registration as a society does not take a body outside the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India where governmental control over it is pervasive. On whether a body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by the Government, with that control being particular to the body and pervasive, the Court held that the National Book Trust, India is an “other authority” and therefore “State”.
The Court also clarified that the declaration operates only for Part III of the Constitution, and that it does not convert the Trust into a department of the Government of India, nor make its employees civil servants entitled to protections under Part XIV. It dismissed the appeal against the Delhi High Court Full Bench judgment.
Cause Title- The Chairman, National Book Trust, India & Anr v. A.R. Abdul Gaffar & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1202)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih
9) Even if second marriage took place outside India, offence of bigamy u/s 494 IPC cannot be said to be diluted
The Court held that enquiry for the offence of bigamy cannot be confined to the place of second marriage but must necessarily take into account the subsisting matrimonial relationship. The Apex Court also held that legal consequences flowing from the subsisting marriage cannot be defeated by a subsequent change in the nationality of the husband.
The Apex Court was considering a matter of matrimonial forum shopping, wherein the husband after failing to get his first marriage dissolved under the Indian jurisdiction, approached the foreign court, procured a divorce decree under the foreign jurisdiction and thereafter solemnized a second marriage. The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the petitions filed by the parents and second wife of a man under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Cause Title- A v. The State of A.P. Through Secretary and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1191)
Date of Judgment- November 3, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
10) Rashness & negligence are not the same things: Supreme Court quashes criminal case against school management over pillar collapse death of student
The Court held that a mere failure to attain the standard of care prescribed by law, amounting to breach of duty, is not by itself a criminal act. Such a lapse, the Court said, cannot sustain a charge of culpable homicide under Section 304 of the IPC unless the accused had knowledge that the act would in all probability cause death.
The Court added that, for an offence under Section 304A of the IPC, the negligence alleged must be the direct, proximate and efficient cause of death, without the intervention of another’s negligence. Where the accused’s negligence is only a causa sine qua non, and the contractor undertaking the construction was the more proximate actor, the chain of causation stands broken.
Cause Title- Matin Shankarrao Bhosale & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1198)
Date of Judgment- November 2, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan
11) 24-hour timeline under Article 22(2) Constitution starts from detention, not formal arrest
The Court, taking its endeavour further to ensure that no custodial violence takes place during interrogation, held that the Constitution of India does not recognise any detention dehors arrest. The Court noted that the 24-hour period under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India for producing a person before a magistrate therefore begins when the person’s liberty is curtailed, not when the arrest is formally recorded. It said that any attempt to draw an artificial distinction between “arrest” and “detention” would dilute the fundamental protection.
The Bench disapproved High Court decisions that treated detention during search and seizure under the NDPS Act as distinct from arrest. It held that such decisions do not lay down the correct law, and that there is “no such thing called temporary disruption of liberty.” It set aside the Tripura High Court’s refusal of bail and directed the release of three accused.
Cause Title- Sujit Das & Ors. etc. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1195)
Date of Judgment- November 5, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
12) Calling wife ‘stupid’ and ‘useless’ not by itself cruelty or criminal intimidation; husband’s temperamental issue cannot be given criminal colour
The Court observed that calling a spouse “stupid” and “useless”, even if accepted at face value, cannot qualify as an offence of cruelty or criminal intimidation. The Court held that such conduct “at best, reflects on the temperament of the husband” and cannot be given a criminal colour so grave as to become the reason for the wife’s suicide. It added that a spouse’s temperamental issue cannot be equated with criminal intimidation or grievous hurt, particularly when material in support of the allegations is absent.
The Bench quashed an FIR against a man booked under Sections 304B, 323, 498A and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, after his wife died by suicide in Toronto on June 11, 2023. The Court held that the dowry allegations surfaced only after her death, were not mentioned in her suicide note, and were not shown to have any nexus with the death. It set aside the Bombay High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings against him.
Cause Title- P v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1183)
Date of Judgment- November 2, 2026
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan
13) Absence of plausible explanation by accused can count against him only after prosecution leads evidence capable of sustaining conviction
The Court held that, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the absence of a plausible explanation may count against an accused only after the prosecution discharges its initial burden by leading evidence which, if believed, would sustain a conviction.
The Court was hearing a woman’s appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment reversing her acquittal and convicting her under Section 302 IPC for allegedly setting her daughter-in-law on fire. The Sessions Court had acquitted all four accused, while the High Court convicted the appellant and sentenced her to life imprisonment.
Cause Title- Sau. Kamalbai Waman Patil v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1196)
Date of Judgment- November 5, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
14) Judicial officer should not be castigated for inadvertent typographical errors: Supreme Court expunges adverse remarks
The Court expunged adverse remarks and strictures passed by the Rajasthan High Court against a Judicial Officer over inadvertent typographical errors that did not affect the outcome of a case.
The Apex Court held that recording such remarks without first allowing the officer to explain the circumstances violated the principle of audi alteram partem.
Cause Title- In Re: XXX, A Judicial Officer in the District Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1188)
Date of Judgment- November 2, 2026
Coram- Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
15) Miscellaneous applications no tool to re-hear matters already decided: Supreme Court clarifies scope of judgment on parents’ salary & status for UPSC OBC claims
While clarifying the scope of its judgment, wherein it was held that the social status of parents must also be considered in UPSC OBC claims, the Court reaffirmed the view that the miscellaneous applications cannot be employed as a means to seek a rehearing of matters already decided or to reopen issues concluded by a judgment.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal seeking a direction to the applicants to proceed with the finalisation of service allocation to candidates recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in the Civil Services Examination, 2025 (CSE-2025) based on the principles for determination of OBC creamy-layer status applied by the applicants before March 11, 2026.
Cause Title- Union of India & Others v. Rohith Nathan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1201)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan
16) Balance sheets acknowledging debt give rise to fresh period of limitation: Supreme Court reiterates
While ordering the revival of a civil suit, the Court held that a written acknowledgement of a subsisting liability, such as a balance sheets acknowledging a debt, gives rise to a fresh period of limitation, commencing from the date on which the acknowledgement is made.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the Delhi High Court's judgment allowing the defendant-respondent's revision petition and rejecting the plaintiff-appellant's plaint as barred by limitation.
Cause Title- Yusuf v. Vigyapan Loke Delhi Advertising Cghs Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1207)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta
17) Laws penalising more than two children have lost relevance as fear of overpopulation has crumbled: Supreme Court refers issue to larger Bench
The Court observed that laws penalising persons for having more than two children have lost their relevance because demographic changes have eroded the fear of overpopulation that formed their foundation, and referred the precedent upholding such restrictions for reconsideration by a larger Bench.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the appellant’s disqualification as a Sarpanch under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, because she had more than two children. The constitutional validity of the Maharashtra provision was not under challenge before the Court.
Cause Title- Mangala Bhimrao Ingle v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1193)
Date of Judgment- November 4, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
18) Continued survival of reference depends upon continued existence of doubt which occasioned it: Supreme Court while closing 7-Judge Bench reference as infructuous
The Court held that a reference to a larger Bench survives only as long as the doubt which occasioned it continues to exist. Where that doubt has been authoritatively dispelled by a Bench of greater strength, the Court said, the referred Bench would be called upon only to restate what is already binding. Accordingly, a Seven-Judge Bench closed the reference on the validity of surcharges computed on sales tax payable, which had remained pending since 1998.
The Court noted that the Nine-Judge Bench in Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India & Anr (2024) 10 SCC 1 had held royalty is not a tax and overruled India Cement Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 12 to that extent. The Bench said this removed the very premise on which India Cement was seen as holding a levy on another levy to be a “tax on tax”. It also observed that Entry 54 of List II, in the form under which the surcharges were enacted, has been substituted by the Constitution (One Hundred and First) Amendment Act, 2016, and that the State sales tax laws were replaced first by VAT and then by GST. The question was therefore of no prospective significance for the States concerned, and S. Kodar v. State of Kerala (1974) 4 SCC 422 continues to hold the field.
Cause Title- Arjun Flour Mills v. State of Odisha Finance Department Secretary & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1192)
Date of Judgment- November 4, 2026
Coram- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice N.V. Anjaria, Justice Arun Palli, Justice V. Mohana and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
19) “Final quietus” to Bhakra-Beas power dispute: Supreme Court directs Punjab & Haryana to supply 11,973 MU energy arrears to Himachal Pradesh
The Court put a final quietus to the long-standing dispute concerning the Plaintiff-State’s share in the power generated from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Hydro-Electric Projects.
Treating the exercise as in the nature of execution proceedings, the Court accepted the computation framework proposed by the Attorney General for India and directed that the energy arrears of 13,066 million units be settled on a cashless basis.
Cause Title- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Union of India and others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1200)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2026
Coram- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
20) S. 8 Hindu Succession Act| Grandson has no birthright in property father got on partition among class I heirs
The Court held that where property of a Hindu male dying intestate devolves on his Class I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and is partitioned among them, the share falling to a son becomes his exclusive property in his individual capacity and cannot be treated as coparcenary property. It held that the son’s son cannot claim any right in such property on the premise of acquiring coparcenary rights by birth.
Referring to C.W.T. and others v. Chander Sen and others (1986) 3 SCC 567, the Court reiterated that a son’s son is not a Class I heir, and that property devolving under Section 8 is not HUF property in the son’s hands vis-à-vis his own son. It held that neither Section 6 of the Act nor Section 29-A inserted by the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 applied, since the appellant was not a surviving coparcener on his grandfather’s death.
Cause Title- J. Rajesh (Minor) Through His Mother And Natural Guardian J. Gomathi v. M. Kumaran (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1208)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2026
Coram- Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal