Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on16/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: May 2026

Service Matters
Service

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (1987 Act) — Section 51(2) — Principles of Natural Justice — Failure to supply charge memo and supporting documents to the appellant — Enquiry conducted ex-parte — Order of removal vitiated — High Court erred in holding that opportunity at show cause stage cured the defects — Supreme Court set aside the removal order, confirmation order, and enquiry report.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

  2026 INSC 592 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARJUN DASS Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 12 Rule 6 — Judgment on Admissions — Scope and Exercise of Discretion — Provision allows for speedy relief where there is no substantial dispute requiring trial, but cannot deprive a party of adjudication if controversy involves disputed questions of fact and requires evidence — Admission must be categorical, unambiguous, unconditional, and unequivocal — Admissions should be clear and intentional, and discretion to pass judgment without trial should be used cautiously, only when admission is absolute, clear, categorical, and unconditional.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 603 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUSHPA AND OTHERS Vs. DAYAWATI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of…

Constitution Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to Livelihood and Dignity — Prolonged non-payment of salaries and retiral dues of employees of State-owned Corporations led to severe humanitarian consequences, including destitution and even suicides, impacting the right to livelihood and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 607 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STATE ARDH SARKARI ARAJPATI KARAMCHARI MAHA SANGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath…

Contempt

Contempt of Court — Wilful disobedience of Court orders — Non-compliance with Supreme Court’s direction to de-seal premises for nearly three months despite petitioner’s repeated representations and legal notices — Officials treated judicial orders with undue delay and inaction — Such conduct undermines rule of law and judiciary’s authority

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 606 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT KUMAR BADLANI Vs. SEEMA CHAUDHARY ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Contempt Petition (Civil) No …of…

Environment

Environmental Law — Forest Conservation — Encroachment — Supreme Court directs stringent measures for eviction of encroachers from Reserve Forests, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Tiger Reserves in Tamil Nadu, emphasizing constitutional obligation to protect ecologically sensitive regions and fragile ecosystems.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 605 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. JOHN KENNEDY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Quashing of proceedings — Abuse of process of law — Allegations of sexual offence against father and uncle of prosecutrix — Held, complaint lacked specific factual details and material evidence to establish a prima facie case — Wide-ranging matrimonial litigation between parties indicated a possibility of vexatious litigation and abuse of process — Mere bald allegations without supporting evidence, particularly lack of medical reports for allegations of rape and sexual assault, held insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution, especially where statements of prosecutrix and complainant were verbatim reproductions, suggesting tutoring — Court can quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC if no offence is made out or allegations are absurd/inherently improbable, or instituted with malafide intent for vengeance

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 587 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ISHWAR CHAND SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.…

Corporate SEBI

Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (SCRA) — Section 18A — Validity of derivative contracts — Breach of position limits under SEBI Circular 2001 does not render derivative contracts void — The Circular mandates disclosure of positions exceeding limits and imposes penalties for non-disclosure, not voiding of contracts — Therefore, breach of position limits does not invalidate trades under Section 18A.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 585 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,…

Direct Taxation Income Tax

the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer’s obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee’s income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. I

May 28, 2026 sclaw

CHECKMATE SERVICES P. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Anticipatory Bail Bail Declined

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Grant of — Grounds for — High Court granted anticipatory bail based on reasons that one co-owner was abroad during agreement execution, agreement was only notarized and not registered, part payment received, and complainant sought refund indicating civil dispute — Supreme Court found these reasons to be peripheral and not bearing direct nexus to parameters governing anticipatory bail — Seriousness of allegations, criminal antecedents, and requirements of investigation in economic offence were overlooked by High Court.

May 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 548 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAURABH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed

C P C

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.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
Accident

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. [

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
POCSO

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.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
Service

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.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw