Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: September 28– October 01, 2026
1) Role of investigating officer is to collect evidence, not to create one: Supreme Court acquits murder accused
The Court reiterated that an investigating officer's role is limited to collecting evidence and does not extend to creating it. Where the police record a person's statement without disclosing what led them to that witness, the Court held, serious doubt arises that the witness has been set up, and the omission may dent the witness's credibility.
Applying this principle, the Court dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh's appeal and affirmed the High Court's acquittal of a woman accused of murdering her step-mother and minor step-brother. It discarded the taxi driver and the hotel worker, produced to corroborate the last-seen circumstance, as witnesses set up to create evidence. It accepted the forensic report matching the accused's DNA with dried blood on a trunk in the victim's house, but held that this shows only that she was present there "at some point in time," not on August 31, 2011. The Court noted that she was a regular visitor to the house.
Cause Title- The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anchla @ Chanchla (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1074)
Date of Judgment- October 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
2) Severance compensation in land acquisition must reflect loss of utility of remaining land
The Court held that where land acquisition destroys the functional integrity of the remaining property, severance compensation must reflect the actual loss of utility and diminution in value of the unacquired land. The Court consequently restored severance charges at 50% of the market value of the remaining unacquired land.
The Court was hearing 47 civil appeals challenging a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which modified compensation awarded by the Reference Courts for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for constructing the Aspal Extension Drain.
Cause Title- Surinder Ahuja & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1068)
Date of Judgment- September 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
3) Absence of forfeiture provision in IBBI liquidation regulations not decisive where e-auction terms provide for it: Supreme Court upholds forfeiture of EMD
The Court has held that the absence of an express forfeiture provision in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 is not decisive where the e-auction notice specifically permits forfeiture upon failure to pay the balance sale consideration.
The Court accordingly upheld the forfeiture of ₹6.39 crore, comprising the Earnest Money Deposit and part of the sale consideration voluntarily paid by the successful bidder.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the successful bidder against an NCLAT order that reversed the National Company Law Tribunal’s direction to refund the forfeited amount deposited towards the purchase of an immovable property sold during liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Cause Title- M/s ASJ Finsolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikram Bajaj (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1062)
Date of Judgment- September 28, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
4) "Marriage has reached a dead end": Supreme Court grants divorce invoking Article 142 powers; grants ₹35L alimony & quashes 18 cases between estranged couple
The Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent to an estranged couple, quash 18 pending civil and criminal proceedings across multiple states, and permanently bar fresh litigation between them.
Noting that the marriage has reached a dead end with no possibility of reconciliation, the Bench dissolved the marital ties after the husband handed over ₹35 lakh in permanent alimony to the wife. The Court reiterated the settled principles laid down in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) 14 SCC 231 and Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda (2025) 3 SCC 686.
Cause Title- S v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1060)
Date of Judgment- September 28, 2026
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
5) “Sanctity is the reward of legality”: Supreme Court invalidates IFCI’s SARFAESI auction of Ooty resort conducted in breach of rules
The Court invalidated IFCI Limited’s auction sale of an Ooty resort under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, holding that the sanctity and finality accorded to confirmed auction sales presuppose compliance with law and cannot protect a sale conducted in breach of mandatory procedure.
It consequently set aside the Madras High Court judgment which had declared the sale certificate valid and directed delivery of possession to the purchaser.
The Court also dismissed the purchaser’s challenge to the scheme amalgamating Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited with Thomas Cook (India) Limited. It clarified that the challenge did not survive after the purchaser’s claim arising from the auction failed in its entirety.
Cause Title- Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited v. M/s P.M. Associates & Ors. (2026 INSC 1071)
Date of Judgment- September 30, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
6) Separate corporate personality of erstwhile corporations not a ground to deny unpaid dues for decades: Supreme Court directs Bihar, Jharkhand to pay daily-wagers ₹1 Lakh each
The Court held that the separate juristic personality of erstwhile State-owned corporations cannot be allowed to defeat the lawful dues of their employees, which remained unpaid for decades. The Court accepted that the corporations were distinct entities whose liabilities do not automatically fall on the State. It added that Bihar and Jharkhand, as welfare States under whose domain the corporations functioned, must ensure that employees' entitlements are not rendered illusory.
Applying this, the Court directed both States to pay a one-time sum of Rs 1,00,000 to each daily-wage workman over and above the amounts already disbursed. It also directed simple interest at 12% per annum on delayed EPF dues and 6% per annum on delayed salary and other dues, from the date they fell due until actual payment.
Cause Title- Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karamchari Maha Sangh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1061)
Date of Judgment- September 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
7) Admission of petition u/s. 9 IBC induced by fraud/collusion can be recalled, but CIRP need not automatically end
The Court held that the Adjudicating Authority can recall the admission of a Section 9 petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where it was induced by fraud and collusion, but that such recall does not automatically end the corporate insolvency resolution process. The Court observed that those who invoke IBC proceedings are under a public law duty not to deceive or mislead, and that if jurisdiction is exercised on the basis of fraud or collusion, the Tribunal "can undoubtedly withdraw the proceedings at any point of time".
The Court, further held that, "jurisdictional facts affected by fraud or collusion cannot be the foundation for assuming jurisdiction". On continuation, it held that once a petition is admitted, the proceedings become in rem and the resolution process can continue even after a finding of collusive initiation. The original applicant is to be disallowed from participating. Before deciding whether the process should go on, the Adjudicating Authority must hear the Resolution Professional, elicit the view of the Committee of Creditors and hear other stakeholders.
Cause Title- Orris Infrastructure Private Limited v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1070)
Date of Judgment- September 30, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
8) Confessional statement to police alone cannot form basis for preventive detention under NSA: Supreme Court while quashing detention order in Sambhal communal violence case
The Court held that while detaining authorities may rely on other independent material, a confessional statement made to a police officer, without any substantive grounds or corroborative evidence, cannot be relied on as the sole ground for passing an order of detention.
The Court has set aside an order of preventive detention passed under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) against an accused in the Sambhal communal violence case.
The court also imposed exemplary costs of ₹10 lakh on the State of Uttar Pradesh. Reaffirming that protection against self-incrimination is a paramount fundamental right reflected in Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), the court observed that using preventive detention merely to defeat bail granted in underlying criminal cases turns the legal process into punishment.
Cause Title- Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1067)
Date of Judgment- September 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
9) Incomplete chain of circumstance: Supreme Court acquits man accused of rape and murder of minor girl
The Court acquitted a man accused of rape and murder of his minor niece, setting aside concurrent convictions of the Sessions Court and the Sikkim High Court.
It was observed that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances, highlighting critical gaps including unproven "last seen together" evidence, recovery from an accessible place, and a DNA report which revealed that the recovered bone extracts were of male origin, contrary to the female victim.
Cause Title- Santish Gurung v. State of Sikkim (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1073)
Date of Judgment- October 01, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar
10) Mere absence of documents can’t lead to presumption that cattle was transported for slaughter
While setting aside the conviction in a case registered under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, the Court held that the mere fact that the transport was not accompanied by any documents cannot lead to a presumption that the transport was for slaughter.
The appeal was filed by one of the six accused convicted under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 over the allegations of transport of cattle in violation of Section 6.
Cause Title- Saurabh Bajaj v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1076)
Date of Judgment- September 29, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K.Vinod Chandran
11) Pre-trial incarceration can’t masquerade as punitive detention when commencement & conclusion of trial are not imminent
While granting bail to two accused in a case of alleged financial irregularities within the Rajasthan Public Health Engineering Department, the Court reaffirmed that pre-trial incarceration cannot masquerade as punitive detention, particularly when the commencement and conclusion of the trial are not imminent.
The Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment dismissing the applications seeking regular bail by the Rajasthan High Court vide separate impugned orders.
Cause Title- Sanjay Badaya v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1065)
Date of Judgment- September 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
12) Assault or intimidation of doctors on duty cannot be tolerated: Supreme Court cancels bail of corporator, three co-accused
The Court held that any attempt to intimidate or assault medical professionals while they discharge duties in the interest of public health cannot be tolerated, particularly when the alleged conduct is attributed to a person holding elected office.
The Court cancelled the bail granted to a municipal Corporator and three co-accused in a case concerning the alleged assault and intimidation of doctors at a municipal hospital. It found that the High Court had failed to adequately consider the accused’s antecedents, alleged influence and the incident’s effect upon the medical fraternity.
The Bench was hearing the State of Maharashtra’s appeal against a Bombay High Court order restoring the Magistrate’s orders granting bail to the accused, subject to conditions, in suo motu proceedings arising from the alleged hospital incident.
Cause Title- State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1075)
Date of Judgment- September 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
13) Once notice is dispatched to accused's correct address, statutory requirement of "giving of notice" stands satisfied even if his mother received it: Supreme Court restores conviction u/s 138 NI Act
The Court held that once the notice is dispatched to the correct address of the accused, the statutory requirement of ‘giving of notice’ under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stands satisfied. The Apex Court further held that the presumption would remain unrebutted even when the accused’s mother received the notice and the accused failed to prove either that the address was incorrect or his relationship with his mother was inimical.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court whereby the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicting and sentencing the second respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were set aside on the ground of non-compliance with proviso (b) to Section 138 inasmuch as the statutory demand notice had not been served upon the second respondent, but was served upon the mother of the second respondent.
Cause Title- Sainaba v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1069)
Date of Judgment- September 30, 2026
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan
14) Delhi Rapes| Expressing solidarity is not solution to social evil: Apex Court issues time-bound directions for safety audits, strict patrolling & fast-track trials
While taking suo motu cognizance of rape cases in Delhi-NCR, the Supreme Court has passed a series of strict, time-bound directions to the Delhi Police, civil administration, and judiciary to address systemic security lapses across the National Capital Region.
The Court mandated immediate 4-week safety audits, district-wise vulnerability mapping, and the restoration of lighting and CCTV infrastructure in high-risk zones. The Court also asked the media outlets, journalists, and publishing platforms to remain deeply mindful of their solemn obligation to practice responsible, empathetic, and restrained journalism in such matters.
The Court also ordered a ground-level evaluation of existing national safety mechanisms and directed the expedited trial of recent cases within a one-year timeframe.
Cause Title- IN RE: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1063)
Date of Judgment- September 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
15) Disputed & unadjudicated claim for damages can’t be treated as debt presently due in cross contract recovery cases
While quashing a recovery order in a cross-contract case, the Supreme Court has held that until the alleged overpayment is established in accordance with law, it remains, a disputed and unadjudicated claim for damages and not a debt presently due.
The Apex Court was considering three appeals arising out of three orders whereby three writ petitions instituted by M/s Awadhesh Singh Gautam, a partnership firm (appellant), were dismissed.
Cause Title- M/S Awadhesh Singh Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1072)
Date of Judgment- September 30, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe