Category: Constitution

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 32(2) and 36-A — Trial of offences — Section 32(2) mandates that no court inferior to the Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under Chapter IV — Section 36-A provides for summary trial by Judicial Magistrate First Class for offences not exceeding three years, but specifically excludes offences triable by Special Court or Court of Sessions — Therefore, Section 36-A is not applicable to offences triable by Court of Session, and commitment of case to Sessions Court by JMFC is not illegal.

2026 INSC 171 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SBS BIOTECH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.…

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.

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…

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.

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…

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)

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. )…

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.

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 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)

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…

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.

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…

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)

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…

You missed