Month: March 2026

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Manifest Arbitrariness — Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 — Held, the Act is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 as it involves complete vesting of property, dissolution of trust, absence of necessity or mismanagement, illusory compensation, and lack of guiding principles — State’s action was excessive, unreasoned and disproportionate to the stated object of better management and development.

2026 INSC 219 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANURAG KRISHNA SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7 — Demand and acceptance of bribe — Complainant’s testimony regarding demand by accused (A2) on a specific date was clear and corroborated by other witnesses — Pre-trap proceedings were also established — Recovery of marked notes from A2’s person and hand wash turning pink confirmed the trap — Despite inconsistencies in complainant’s testimony regarding earlier demands, the demand on the crucial date was credible — Independent witnesses corroborated the trap, with one identifying A2 and the other recovering the bribe money — Acquittal of A2 set aside, conviction under Section 7 of PC Act restored with modified sentence and fine.

2026 INSC 221 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. BALJEET SINGH ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No………of…

”Euthanasia ” Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to life — Includes right to die with dignity — Passive euthanasia and Advance Medical Directives (AMD) are permissible under Article 21 — Active euthanasia is not permissible — Withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment is a constitutional right derived from the dignity, liberty, privacy, and self-determination of an individual — This right extends to incompetent patients as well.

2026 INSC 222 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARISH RANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Miscellaneous Application No.…

Reservation Policy — Other Backward Classes (OBC) — Creamy Layer Exclusion — Interpretation of Office Memorandum (OM) dated 08.09.1993 and Clarificatory Letter dated 14.10.2004 — Salary income exclusion — Hostile discrimination — Held, the clarificatory letter dated 14.10.2004, particularly paragraph 9 thereof, should not be interpreted in isolation or in a manner that overrides the substantive scheme of the 1993 OM — Overemphasis on the 2004 letter making income alone determinative without considering parental status and category of service would defeat the framework of exclusion under the 1993 OM — Determination of creamy layer status solely on income brackets without reference to posts and status parameters in the 1993 OM is unsustainable — Hostile discrimination arises when similarly placed individuals are treated differently without a constitutionally sustainable basis, thereby attracting provisions of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution — Appeals dismissed

2026 INSC 230 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. ROHITH NATHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )…

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ Petition — Delay and Laches — Doctrine of laches is a flexible rule of practice, not a rigid rule of law, to be applied on case-to-case basis based on judicial discretion — It requires balancing the equity of not allowing stale claims against the constitutional duty to enforce fundamental rights — Key considerations include inordinate delay, explanation for delay, and prejudice to third-party rights or settled matters — Unexplained delay is critical; delay attributable to the State’s conduct cannot be used against the petitioner — Claims affecting the public at large or challenging the vires of a statute might warrant a less strict application of laches, especially when addressing historical injustices or transformative constitutionalism — The Court must weigh the need for finality against the need to rectify injustice and has the power to mould relief to minimize disruption while enforcing fundamental rights.

2026 INSC 236 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MIZO CHIEF COUNCIL MIZORAM, THR. PRESIDENT SHRI L. CHINZAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

Debts Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993 — Auction Sale — Revaluation of Property — High Court’s direction to reconsider valuation after confirmation of auction sale is permissible if there are credible issues regarding adequacy of valuation or fairness of process for fixing reserve price, to ensure best possible value is realised for the secured asset.

2026 INSC 237 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OM SAKTHI SEKAR Vs. V. SUKUMAR AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 — Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix — Delay in lodging FIR — Lack of corroborative evidence — Court held that conviction can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix only if it inspires confidence — In this case, the prosecutrix’s version did not inspire confidence due to unexplained delay and lack of disclosure to family, inconsistencies in statements, and absence of medical or other corroborative evidence — Defence of prior enmity also not properly considered — Conviction set aside.

2026 INSC 238 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.(s)…

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) — Sections 7 and 13(2) — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court regarding the guilt of the appellant based on ocular evidence and corroboration from independent witnesses — No error found in appreciating the evidence or in rejecting the defence submissions regarding motive, contradictions, and the trustworthiness of witnesses — Appeal dismissed concerning conviction.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2013…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 and 37 – Challenge to arbitral award – Improper constitution of arbitral tribunal – Interpretation of Clause 8.3(b) of the agreement – Co-arbitrators’ power to appoint the presiding arbitrator after 30 days – High Court’s upholding of arbitral tribunal’s decision – Appeals dismissed.

2026 INSC 228 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI Vs. M/S R.V. ANDERSON ASSOCIATES LIMITED ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…

You missed