Category: Constitution

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Registration of FIR — Mandatory upon disclosure of cognizable offence (Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.) — No preliminary inquiry generally permissible — Remedies for non — registration under Section 154(3) and 156(3) are efficacious.- Magistrate’s power to direct FIR registration and investigation is pre-cognizance — Sanction under Sections 196 & 197 CrPC operates at cognizance stage, not investigation stage.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 943…

Protracted Government Inaction and Third — Party Rights — Despite an initial timeline of two months for an inquiry and subsequent hopes for completion within six months, the government showed significant delay, stretching over six years without a final decision — During this period, extensive third — party rights were created through land sales and construction of villas and flats by innocent purchasers — The Court observed that it’s inappropriate for a welfare state to attempt to undo decades — old transactions, especially when innocent citizens have invested their hard — earned money, and basic amenities should not be denied to occupants of constructed properties.

2026 INSC 407 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, AND OTHERS ETC. Vs. S. RAJA AND OTHERS ETC ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and…

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 vs. Government Grants Act, 1895 — Relationship Governed by Grant — A lease originating from a Government grant, as governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895, is not subject to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — The incidence and enforceability of such a grant are governed solely by its tenor — The legal character of the grant does not derive from conventional landlord — tenant relationships but from the sovereign grant and its embedded conditions — Therefore, eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act are not maintainable for holdings originating from a Government grant.

2026 INSC 406 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA Vs. SIR SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PVT. LTD ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Prisoners with Disabilities — This case concerns the rights and conditions of prisoners with disabilities, focusing on the effective implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and non-discrimination within prison systems.

2026 INSC 397 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATHYAN NARAVOOR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Writ Petition (Civil)…

Subsidy Withdrawal — Authorities cannot withdraw an already granted subsidy or demand its refund without providing specific reasons or demonstrating non-compliance with scheme conditions. Merely finding a facility ‘in closed condition’ during an inspection, without further inquiry or evidence of failure to operate, is insufficient justification for withdrawal.

2026 INSC 385 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, DEESA Vs. NATIONAL HORTICULTURE BOARD AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ.…

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Translation and Transmission of Records for Legal Aid Appeals and Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) — The Supreme Court has approved and directed implementation of an SOP to streamline the process of translation, digitization, and filing of records in legal aid cases, with specific timelines and responsibilities for various stakeholders to ensure timely access to justice.

2026 INSC 369 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. ….of…

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 22(3)(b) — Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) — Sections 3(1), 8(c), 8(e) — Right to legal representation before Advisory Board — A detenu does not have a right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board — This right only arises if the detaining authority or government uses a legal practitioner, in which case the detenu must also be allowed legal representation — Mere assistance by officials in producing records does not grant this right

2026 INSC 371 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRIYANKA SARKARIYA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) — Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Repeal of SICA and Abatement of Proceedings – Companies whose proceedings were pending before BIFR/AAIFR could approach NCLT within 180 days of IBC enactment – Failure to do so results in abatement and revival of earlier orders, like winding up recommendation.

2026 INSC 364 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARTIYA MAZDOOR SANGH, U.P. AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.…

Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 — Section 64(d) — Investment of funds by Multi-State Co-operative Society (MSCS) — Permitted investments are in subsidiary institutions or institutions in the same line of business — Amendment aimed at preventing misuse of funds and ensuring financial discipline — “Same line of business” requires substantial or predominant sameness in core business activities, determined by MSCS’s bye-laws — Not to be construed expansively.

2026 INSC 338 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S NIRMAL UJJWAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs. RAVI SETHIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.…

Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 — Section 32, Section 8 read with Schedule B — Bye-laws framed by District Milk Producers’ Co-operative Unions — Validity — Election to Management Committee — Eligibility criteria — Held, bye-laws are valid as they operate within the statutory scheme and are traceable to the enabling power under Section 8 read with Schedule B — Provisions of bye-laws regulate eligibility and representation in a manner consistent with the object and scheme of the Act — They neither curtail any fundamental or statutory right nor introduce disqualifications dehors the statute — High Court erred in striking down the bye-laws.

2026 INSC 347 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM CHANDRA CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS Vs. ROOP NAGAR DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and…

You missed