Month: January 2026

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) — Section 12 — Constitutional Mandate — Free and Compulsory Education — Admission of children from weaker and disadvantaged sections — Obligation of “neighbourhood school” to admit twenty-five percent of class strength from weaker and disadvantaged sections (Section 12(1)(c)) is transformative, securing the preambular objective of ‘equality of status’ and the constitutional right under Article 21A, requiring effective implementation. (Para 1)

2026 INSC 56 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act but held that it must operate with mandatory independent screening by the Lokpal or Lokayukta, whose recommendation would be binding on the Government, in order to cure the defects identified in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy and to balance protection of honest public servants with the rule of law, whereas Justice B.V. Nagarathna, in dissent, held that Section 17A is unconstitutional in its entirety as it effectively protects only higher-level decision-making public servants, creates an impermissible classification under Article 14, revives the invalidated Single Directive and Section 6A of the DSPE Act, forecloses even preliminary inquiry, and cannot be salvaged by reading the Lokpal into the statute without engaging in impermissible judicial legislation. Having regard to the divergent opinions expressed by Hon’ able Judges, direct the Registry to place this matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench to consider the issues which arise in this matter afresh.

2026 INSC 55 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Sections 2(y), 2(ze) — Appointment under reserved quota — Management Trainee recruitment by Coal India Limited (CIL) — Denial of appointment based on initial finding of unfitness and recruitment process expiry — Appellant suffering from disability above the benchmark (57%) based on subsequent AIIMS medical report — Expiry of recruitment panel cannot nullify appellant’s right to employment when initial denial was wrongful and due to the employer’s failure to account for “multiple disability” in the notification — Held, appellant is eligible for appointment; appropriate relief moulded using extraordinary powers. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 23, 29, 30, 31, 37)

2026 INSC 53 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUJATA BORA Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B.Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 120…

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — Sections 21(vii) and 22 — Maintenance of Dependents — Widow of Son — Legal entitlement to claim maintenance from the estate of the deceased father-in-law — Interpretation of “any widow of his son” under Section 21(vii) — The phrase “any widow of his son” is clear and unambiguous, applying to a son’s widow irrespective of whether the son died before or after the father-in-law’s demise — The word “predeceased” cannot be added to or inferred before “son” in Section 21(vii) — A daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law is a ‘dependant’ upon his estate and entitled to claim maintenance under Section 22. (Paras 3, 7, 10, 15, 16, 22, 29)

2026 INSC 54 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANCHANA RAI Vs. GEETA SHARMA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos…..of 2026…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Dying declaration — Admissibility and weight — A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is voluntary, truthful, and reliable, even without corroboration. The court must scrutinize it carefully for tutoring or manipulation and consider the declarant’s opportunity to observe and identify the assailant and their fitness to make the statement.

2026 INSC 57 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. CHAMAN LAL ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 430…

Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act — Schedule I-A, Article 47A, Explanation I — Agreement to Sell — Deemed Conveyance — For an agreement to sell to be deemed a conveyance under Explanation I, the delivery of possession must be linked to the agreement to sell, either following it or evidenced by it. If possession existed prior to the agreement and was not surrendered or changed because of the agreement, it does not fall under this Explanation.

2026 INSC 59 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VAYYAETI SRINIVASARAO Vs. GAINEEDI JAGAJYOTHI ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos…..of 2026 (Arising Out…

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 41(h) — Injunction when refused — Equally efficacious remedy — A suit for mandatory injunction for removal of a wall is barred if the plaintiff has not claimed possession, and possession is disputed, as a suit for possession would be a more efficacious remedy.

2026 INSC 61 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY PALIWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ( Before : Aravind Kumar and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 197, 245Q, 245R(2)(iii) — Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Mauritius, Article 13(4) — Capital Gains Tax — Advance Ruling — Tax Avoidance — The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) rejected an application for an advance ruling on the grounds that the transaction (sale of shares of a Singapore company by a Mauritius company) was prima facie designed for tax avoidance — The High Court overturned this decision, holding the assessee was entitled to treaty benefits and that their income was not chargeable in India — The Supreme Court is examining whether the AAR was correct in rejecting the applications for advance ruling on maintainability grounds.

2026 INSC 60 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) AND OTHERS Vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Admission of CIRP — Adjudicating Authority’s power and duty — Legal position is well-settled that once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that a financial debt exists and a default has occurred, it must admit the application — Inquiry under Section 7(5)(a) is confined strictly to determination of debt and default, leaving no scope for equitable or discretionary considerations — Reliance on Vidarbha Industries is misconceived; it is a narrow exception confined to its peculiar facts — Admission under Section 7 remains mandatory once debt and default are established — Any alleged non-cooperation by the financial creditor occurred subsequent to the default and cannot absolve the corporate debtor of its admitted failure to comply with its payment obligations. (Paras 12.3, 12.6, 12.9, 12.10)

2026 INSC 58 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELEGNA CO-OP. HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL SOCIETY LTD. Vs. EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

You missed