![Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Extraordinary powers of Supreme Court — Directions issued by Supreme Court cannot supplant substantive law or disregard express statutory provisions unless necessary for complete justice, considering public policy and balancing equities. [Paras 50-54] – Stray Dog Management — Public Safety vs. Animal Welfare — Supreme Court must strike a balance between public safety under Article 21 and humane treatment of stray animals, prioritising human life and safety](https://i0.wp.com/sclaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Constitution-of-India.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 223(1) first proviso — Applicability of — Proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) filed before commencement of BNSS — Cognizance taken after commencement of BNSS — Accused not given opportunity of hearing at cognizance stage — Provision mandates hearing of accused before taking cognizance — Non-compliance is an illegality vitiating cognizance order — High Court judgment set aside.
2026 INSC 519 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVINDER SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……..of…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Extraordinary powers of Supreme Court — Directions issued by Supreme Court cannot supplant substantive law or disregard express statutory provisions unless necessary for complete justice, considering public policy and balancing equities. [Paras 50-54] – Stray Dog Management — Public Safety vs. Animal Welfare — Supreme Court must strike a balance between public safety under Article 21 and humane treatment of stray animals, prioritising human life and safety
2026 INSC 506 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. )…
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Offences under Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv), and 38(1) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B — Poisons Act, 1919 — Section 6 — Foreigners Act, 1946 — Section 14(c) — Passport Act, 1967 — Section 3 read with Section 12(1)(a) — Conviction for charges including conspiracy to revive banned organization LTTE — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Supreme Court’s finding that appellant was falsely implicated due to mistaken identity — Reliance on oral testimony of two key witnesses who introduced crucial alias name “Ranjan” years after the alleged incident and only after appellant’s arrest — Inconsistencies and material improvements in their testimonies — Failure of prosecution to establish identity with reliable oral or documentary evidence — Absence of any contemporaneous description, documentary linkage, or independent corroboration connecting appellant to the alleged absconding accused “Sri” — Appellant residing openly and lawfully as a refugee, pursuing visa to Switzerland inconsistent with being an absconding accused — Conviction and sentence set aside — Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.
2026 INSC 516 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Q BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM, TAMIL NADU ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta…
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) — Section 126(1)(b) — Transferable Development Rights (TDR) — Compensation for land acquisition reserved for public purpose — Landowner entitled to TDR against land surrendered and ‘further’ TDR for development of amenity on the surrendered land — Corporation’s argument that agreements (LOI, Undertaking, Maintenance Agreement) waived landowner’s right to claim additional amenity TDR rejected — Held, statutory rights cannot be derogated from by executive circulars or agreements.
2026 INSC 517 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS Vs. VIJAY NAGAR APARTMENTS AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…
Contract Law — Tender Documents — Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) — Interpretation of Tender Clauses — Mandatory vs — Optional Conditions — Clause 2.13(a)(xiii) and Clause 2.13(b) of the tender document specifying the form of EMD for out-of-state bidders used the word “may submit”, indicating an optional, not mandatory, requirement.
2026 INSC 514 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RR CONSTRUCTIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. GAYATRI VENTURES AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran,…
Electricity Act, 2003 — Punjab State Grid Code, 2013 — Misdeclaration of Declared Capacity — Penalties — Section 32 and Regulation 11.3.13 — Strict Liability — Failure to demonstrate declared capacity upon request by SLDC leads to penalty, irrespective of mens rea or motive to make money — Appellants’ argument that mens rea is required for misdeclaration was considered and found to be incorrect for failure to demonstrate declared capacity — The Supreme Court’s reasoning for setting aside the APTEL’s order — Appeals allowed.
2026 INSC 515 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. TALWANDI SABO POWER LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran,…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 — Conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and High Court — Supreme Court’s power of interference under Article 136 of Constitution of India — Such power to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of justice, where there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice due to misreading or ignoring material evidence — Standard for conviction on circumstantial evidence — Circumstances must be fully established, consistent with hypothesis of guilt, of a conclusive nature, exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable doubt of innocence — Failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution case when facts are clear.
2026 INSC 522 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHETAN DASHRATH GADE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Will — Validity and execution — Requirements — Attesting witnesses — Proof of execution — Suspicious circumstances — The court must consider if the Will was executed by the testator and if it was his last Will — It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy but requires satisfaction of a prudent mind — Section 63 of the Succession Act mandates signing or affixing a mark, attestation by two or more witnesses, with each witness seeing the testator’s signature or acknowledgment and signing in the testator’s presence — Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requires calling at least one attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence to prove execution — If there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder must remove them — The test of judicial conscience requires considering the testator’s awareness of the Will’s contents and consequences, his sound state of mind, and that he acted of his own free will.
2026 INSC 521 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND OTHERS Vs. LAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : Ujjal Bhuyan and Vijay Bishnoi,…
Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 — Section 46(b) — Appointment of First Registrar — Appointment of the first Registrar was made by the Visitor [President of India] on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor for a term of three years — The power to appoint necessarily includes the power to dismiss or terminate the services of the appointee — Therefore, the Visitor, who was the appointing authority, was competent to take disciplinary action against the First Registrar.
2026 INSC 520 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VICE CHANCELLOR, RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL AVIATION UNIVERSITY Vs. JITENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,…
Administrative Law — Fairness and Consistency in Public Employment — Courts examine executive action for conformity with constitutional standards, especially when the State has long relied on certain workers — Courts scrutinize the manner of discretion, not just the outcome, to ensure actions are reasoned, non-arbitrary, and constitutional.
2026 INSC 523 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUKHENDU BHATTACHARJEE AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. )…