Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.
2026 INSC 636 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAKARDHWAJ RAM Vs. JAGDISH RAI (DEAD) TH. LRS. AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 and 166 — Liability for injuries sustained due to falling tree branch — Injuries caused by falling tree branch while vehicle was stationary under the tree during rain — Held, not an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” as the motor vehicle did not play an active role. [
2026 INSC 637 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE Vs. K.K.UMESH KUMAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 24, 33(5), 36, 39 — Child-sensitive judicial processes — Mandatory safeguards for child victims — Courts must ensure child-friendly procedures, minimum intrusion, and psychological safety, avoiding re-traumatisation and secondary victimisation in all proceedings concerning children, especially those involving allegations of sexual abuse.
2026 INSC 638 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHEETAL VASANT THAKUR Vs. CHIRAG ARORA ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos…..of 2026…
Disciplinary proceedings — Dismissal from service — Competence of authority — Employee appointed by Superintending Engineer, dismissed by Executive Engineer — Dismissal order held valid as Executive Engineer was competent under MSEDCL Service Regulations to punish an employee of Appellant’s pay grade — Article 311 of Constitution not applicable as Appellant did not hold a civil post under Union or State.
2026 INSC 639 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUREKHA DOMAJI BELE Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TESTING DIVISION, MSEDCL ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil…
Service Law — Compassionate appointment — Nature — Not a vested right — Compassionate appointment is not a condition of service; it is a humane response to sudden financial destitution caused by death-in-harness of the breadwinner — Claim is subject to fulfilment of all eligibility requirements under the applicable rules — However, the same principle that binds the claimant equally binds the State: refusal or deferment of a claim must be grounded in a provision actually applicable to the form of relief claimed, tested on the anvil of Art. 14.
2026 INSC 640 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ATUL CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Service Law — Public employment — Recruitment — Mandatory rule — Non-compliance — Whether fatal — Rule 3 of Service Rules, 2003 — Presence and concurrence of departmental supervisory officials at appointment meeting — Role of such officials is supervisory and meant to cross-check compliance with recruitment norms, not to confer eligibility on candidates — Their absence at third (appointment) stage of recruitment does not invalidate entire process where first two stages (advertisement and interview) are free from any fundamental defect — Infraction of Rule 3 is a curable irregularity, not a substantive illegality going to root of appointment.
2026 INSC 641 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GAURAV MEHLA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Arts. 32 and 329(b) — Representation of the People Act, 1951 — S. 100 — Writ petition challenging order of Returning Officer rejecting nomination paper for Rajya Sabha election — Maintainability — Held, not maintainable — Bar contained in Art. 329(b) is absolute and excludes jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 (and of the High Court under Art. 226) in respect of all matters connected with conduct of an election, including the scrutiny and rejection of nomination papers — Only remedy available to a candidate aggrieved by rejection of his/her nomination is to file an election petition after conclusion of the election, in the manner provided under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Plea of petitioner that she did not seek to obstruct the election but only its fair and transparent completion does not take the case outside the bar of Art. 329(b) — Writ petition accordingly dismissed.
2026 INSC 643 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MEENAKSHI NATARAJAN Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Auction Sale — Compliance with Rule 9 — Mandatory Nature — Payment of Balance 75% Beyond 15-Day Period — No Written Agreement for Extension — Sale Set Aside — Article 142 — Redemption Opportunity Granted to Legal Heirs of Deceased Guarantor.
2026 INSC 633 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. R. VASUMATHI Vs. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil…
Third Judge under S. 392 CrPC cannot disturb unanimous Division Bench findings; reference confined to disagreed accused only.–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 392 — Third Judge — Power to give independent opinion — Options available — When an appeal is heard by a Division Bench and the Judges are divided in opinion, the appeal is laid before a third Judge under S. 392 — The third Judge is not confined to choosing between the two views expressed by the Division Bench Judges — The third Judge may: (i) agree with either of the two opinions expressed; (ii) form an independent view at divergence with both opinions; or (iii) where warranted, receive additional evidence under S. 391 before forming an opinion — The opinion of the third Judge governs and the judgment follows therefrom.
2026 INSC 632 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226(1) — Territorial jurisdiction — Writ petition by CAPF personnel — Delhi High Court — Jurisdiction based on situs of respondent’s office —The Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Art. 226(1) of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition preferred by any enrolled member of the Border Security Force or any Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) who is aggrieved by an administrative order of termination of service, by reason of the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General of the concerned CAPF in New Delhi — and this jurisdictional competence subsists notwithstanding that the impugned order of termination was issued from a place outside the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court and that no part of the cause of action arose within such limits — The Union of India and the Director General, BSF are necessary parties to such a writ petition by virtue of Ss. 4 and 5 of the BSF Act and the requirement under R. 22(4) of the BSF Rules that every order of dismissal/removal be reported to the Director General; there is, moreover, a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed.
2026 INSC 630 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAKSISH AHMAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…