Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Constitution

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Equality before law — Arbitrariness — State as a model employer is obligated to act with fairness and cannot exploit employees or take advantage of their unequal bargaining power — Prolonged contractual engagement on sanctioned posts, followed by abrupt discontinuation without cogent reasons, is arbitrary and violates Article 14.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 99 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHOLA NATH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Constitution Education

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 — Section 26(1)(e) and (g) — UGC Regulations, 2018 — Regulation 7.3 — Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019, SECTION 14(5) — Vice-Chancellor Appointment — Search-cum-Selection Committee — The UGC Regulations, framed under Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution, prescribe mandatory standards for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. State legislation must conform to these regulations. A deviation, such as the exclusion of a UGC nominee from the Search-cum-Selection Committee or the inclusion of a conflicted member, renders the appointment invalid.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 100 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. S. MOHAN Vs. THE SECRETARY TO THE CHANCELLOR, PUDUCHERRY TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, PUDUCHERRY AND OTHERS ETC ( Before : Vikram Nath…

Constitution Corporate

Expression ‘date of this Notification’ means date of publication in Official Gazette – Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 — Section 3 — Notification — Publication in Official Gazette — Essential requirement for enforceability — Delegated legislation requires publication for accessibility, notice, accountability and solemnity — Not an empty formality but transforms executive decision into law — Strict compliance with publication requirement is a condition precedent — Law must be promulgated or published in a recognisable way. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19)

Jan 22, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 80 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIRAJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. )…

Constitution Labour Cases

Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 — Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 — Applicability — Cess could not be levied or collected before the constitution of Welfare Boards, as their constitution is a condition precedent for the implementation of these Acts.

Jan 21, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 76 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH ATLANTA (JV) Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Constitution Matrimonial

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Dissolution of marriage — Irretrievable breakdown — Supreme Court can dissolve marriage in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 142 when marriage has irretrievably broken down, even if one party opposes it, to do complete justice. Factors to consider include period of cohabitation, separation, nature of allegations, attempts at reconciliation, and economic/social status. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 11.1, 11.2, 13, 15, 20, 26)

Jan 21, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 73 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEHA LAL Vs. ABHISHEK KUMAR ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.338 of 2025 with…

Constitution

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.

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

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…

Constitution

Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 — Section 3(2), First Proviso — Constitution of Joint Committee — Proviso applies only when notices of motion given on the same day in both Houses are admitted by both Houses — Does not mandate a Joint Committee if the motion is admitted in one House and rejected in the other — Presiding Officer of the House where motion is admitted can independently proceed to constitute a Committee. (Paras 12.2, 12.4, 14)

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 65 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH X Vs. O/O SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF PEOPLE & ORS. . RESPONDENTS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra…

Constitution

Passports Act, 1967 — Sections 5, 6(2)(f), 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22 — Refusal to issue or re-issue a passport due to pending criminal proceedings — Exemption under Section 22 via Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — Section 6(2)(f) bars issuance if criminal proceedings are pending, but this is subject to “other provisions of this Act,” including Section 22 — GSR 570(E) exempts persons facing criminal proceedings if they obtain permission from the concerned criminal court — This exemption is structured, tying validity and use to the court’s order; it permits issuing a passport where the criminal court allows renewal and retains judicial supervision over foreign travel. (Paras 7.2, 7.6, 7.8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25)

Dec 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1476 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

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
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
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
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