Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Just Compensation — Award of compensation for prosthetic limb — No fixed guidelines for compensation amount — Courts can deviate from governmental notifications if they are too low — Emphasis on “restitutio in integrum” principle to restore the claimant as close as possible to their pre-injury state — Claimants are entitled to choose private centres for prosthetic limbs and renewal costs should be considered — Compensation can be awarded for periodic replacement and maintenance of prosthetic limbs.
2026 INSC 396 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAHLAD SAHAI Vs. HARYANA ROADWAYS AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.4642…
Dispute over cadre change versus mere transfer — A transfer is a change of posting within the same service without altering seniority or substantive status, differing from a cadre change which involves a structural shift between services with significant implications for seniority and promotional avenues, requiring specific authority.
2026 INSC 404 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA SINGH BORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil…
Evidence Act, 1872 — Eyewitness testimony vs. Medical evidence — In case of conflict, eyewitness testimony, especially of an injured witness who is found to be reliable and has withstood cross — examination, is generally superior to expert medical opinion formed by an expert witness — Lack of independent witnesses does not automatically compromise the prosecution case, especially when societal realities suggest potential fear or hesitation
2026 INSC 403 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ADALAT YADAV ETC. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Protracted Government Inaction and Third — Party Rights — Despite an initial timeline of two months for an inquiry and subsequent hopes for completion within six months, the government showed significant delay, stretching over six years without a final decision — During this period, extensive third — party rights were created through land sales and construction of villas and flats by innocent purchasers — The Court observed that it’s inappropriate for a welfare state to attempt to undo decades — old transactions, especially when innocent citizens have invested their hard — earned money, and basic amenities should not be denied to occupants of constructed properties.
2026 INSC 407 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, AND OTHERS ETC. Vs. S. RAJA AND OTHERS ETC ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and…
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 vs. Government Grants Act, 1895 — Relationship Governed by Grant — A lease originating from a Government grant, as governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895, is not subject to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — The incidence and enforceability of such a grant are governed solely by its tenor — The legal character of the grant does not derive from conventional landlord — tenant relationships but from the sovereign grant and its embedded conditions — Therefore, eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act are not maintainable for holdings originating from a Government grant.
2026 INSC 406 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA Vs. SIR SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PVT. LTD ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…
Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Challenge to Municipal Limits — Matters concerning the specification and alteration of municipal limits under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, are legislative in nature and cannot ordinarily be adjudicated by a Civil Court through a suit seeking declarations and injunctions — The High Court correctly held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the Corporation’s assertion of jurisdiction over certain lands based on its interpretation of Section 3 of the MMC Act.
2026 INSC 405 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNCHGAON VILLAGE PANCHAYAT Vs. KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil…
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), Section 13 — Default in repayment of financial assistance — Secured creditor entitled to take possession and auction secured asset (School premises) — Petitioners repeatedly failed to honour commitments and undertakings to repay debt, even after High Court and Supreme Court orders — Conduct amounted to disobedience of court orders and disregard for rule of law.
2026 INSC 408 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAITANYA BAHUUDDESHIYA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND OTHERS Vs. AUXILO FINSERVE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish…
Judicial Review and Public Interest Litigation — Court’s Directions for Wildlife Conservation — The Supreme Court issued detailed directions based on the CEC’s report, including the acceptance of all recommendations, time-bound relocation of deer under CEC supervision, and adherence to stringent translocation protocols — The court also directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to examine and implement comprehensive guidelines for future wildlife translocations.
2026 INSC 419 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW DELHI NATURE SOCIETY THROUGH VERHAEN KHANNA Vs. DIRECTOR HORTICULTURE DDA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,…
Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Burden of Proof — Reasonable Doubt — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that leaves no reasonable ground for doubt, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, with the sole remaining incriminating circumstance being the “last seen together” theory, which was deemed insufficient for conviction as an accomplice.
2026 INSC 417 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANAND JAKKAPPA PUJARI @GADDADAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Anticipatory Bail — Power of Court to Direct Surrender — When an anticipatory bail application is rejected, the court does not have the jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to surrender — The rejection of anticipatory bail means that an application for pre-arrest bail has been denied, and the subsequent steps regarding arrest and regular bail should follow the normal procedure as per law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OM PRAKASH CHHAWNIKA @ OM PRAKASH CHABNIKA @ OM PRAKASH CHAWNIKA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…