Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 25/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: February 2026

Corporate

Telecommunication Act, 2023 — Spectrum Allocation — Supreme Court’s order dated 15.02.2013 directing licensees to pay reserve price — Liability commences from 02.02.2012 for those continuing operations — End date is determined by the issuance of Letter of Intent (LoI) or cessation of operations.

Feb 22, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 174 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA Vs. SISTEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process.

Feb 10, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 139 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH J. MUTHURAJAN AND ANOTHER Vs. S. VAIKUNDARAJAN AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil…

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 83 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABHIJIT PANDEY Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. )…

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 87 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S PREMIUM TRANSMISSION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 88 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH XXX Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 4629 of…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 164 — Recording of confession — Duty of Magistrate — Magistrate must inform the accused of their right to legal assistance before recording confession — Failure to do so can render the confession suspect — In this case, Magistrate failed to inform the accused of their right to a lawyer, contributing to the unreliability of the confession.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 85 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BERNARD LYNGDOH PHAWA Vs. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition — Setting aside of award — Grounds for — Excessive compensation, unjust enrichment, collusion with officials — Impact on entire acquisition — Held, setting aside an award for excessive compensation due to unjust enrichment and collusion does not automatically invalidate the entire acquisition award concerning all landowners.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 86 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NIRAJ JAIN Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY-CUM-ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, JAGDALPUR AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil…

Waqf

Wakf Act, 1995 — Jurisdiction of Tribunal — Sections 6, 7, 83, 85 — Declaration of a property as waqf or not — Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to properties specified in the “list of Auqaf” (published under Section 5(2) or registered under Section 37) — Civil suits for injunction simpliciter regarding properties not in the list are not maintainable before the Tribunal.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 90 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HABIB ALLADIN AND OTHERS Vs. MOHAMMED AHMED ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No….of…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 29A(4) — Application for extension of time to make arbitral award — Where an arbitral tribunal is constituted by the High Court under Section 11(6), any application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) would lie with the High Court. Where an arbitral tribunal is constituted by the parties themselves under Section 11(2), the application under Section 29A(4) would lie before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, which also includes the High Court in its ordinary original jurisdiction.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 92 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGDEEP CHOWGULE Vs. SHEELA CHOWGULE AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s).Of…

You missed

Bail Declined

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439(2) — Bail — Cancellation of Bail — Appeal against High Court order granting bail — Supreme Court can interfere if bail order is based on extraneous considerations or ignores relevant material, distinct from cancellation for misuse of bail.

Feb 25, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 14, Section 238 — Telecom laws — Spectrum — Nature of — Can spectrum, even if treated as an asset in corporate debtor’s books, be subjected to proceedings under IBC? — Held, No. Spectrum is a natural resource, the right to use which is granted by the Government under a licence, not ownership. The IBC cannot override the specific statutory regime governing telecommunications law.

Feb 22, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

. Cricket Association Rules — Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments — A district cricket association’s rules and bye-laws are not necessarily required to be identical to those of the national cricket governing body (BCCI) based on previous Supreme Court judgments, as the specific rulings in those cases did not mandate such precise conformity for district associations.

Feb 22, 2026 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Regularisation of Services — Casual Workers — Supreme Court held that casual workers who were similarly situated to those whose services had been regularised in previous judgments, should also have their services regularised. The Court noted that the work performed was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the department, and that excluding these workers amounted to discrimination.

Feb 22, 2026 sclaw