Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.
2026 INSC 645 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. SENTHIL KUMARAN BOSE Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar,…
Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.
2026 INSC 644 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT Vs. KAMTA PRASAD MISHRA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Criminal…
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…