Supreme Court of India Judgements

47090 Judgements hosted as on 18/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Service

Service Matters
Service

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967 — Regulations 10(9), 87, and 97 — Seniority of direct recruits — Determination of date of appointment — A person is considered on ‘duty’ when performing duties of a post or undergoing probation or training — Appointed to a class of service when discharging duties or commencing probation or training — Seniority is determined by rank in the approved list; probation starts from joining duty — Training is part of service, not a reason to exclude it from seniority calculation. — Division Bench misinterpreted Regulations by stating seniority commences from probation start date — Appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside.

Mar 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 229 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. THANIGIVELU AND OTHERS Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Constitution Service

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Disability — Mental Illness and Specific Learning Disability — Post of Auditor in CAG — Identified as not suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities suffering from mental illness, but later identified as suitable for Group C posts of Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II through Notification dated 4th January, 2021 — Court directs accommodation in suitable Group C posts.

Mar 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 232 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHANSHU KARDAM Vs. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Constitution Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 311(2) second proviso (b) — Dismissal from service without departmental inquiry — Requirement of reasonable practicability — Mere presumption or belief by disciplinary authority not sufficient — Must be based on objective facts and material on record. Article 311(2) second proviso (b) — Dispensing with departmental inquiry — Decision of disciplinary authority not binding on courts; subject to judicial review — Reasons for dispensing must be plausible and based on definite material.

Mar 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 234 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOHAR LAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters
Service

Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2004 — Rule 6A — Exemption from PhD requirement — Rule 6A(i) and (ii) — Validity — Supreme Court judgment in Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala (2016) held appointments not contrary to AICTE qualifications and Special Rule 6-A(2) in tune with AICTE Notification dated 18-2-2003 — AICTE Regulations on qualifications are binding on State Rules to the extent of repugnancy — Rule 6A had no application after 05-03-2010 when AICTE issued new regulations mandating PhD for promotion to Professor, Associate Professor, and Principal posts.

Mar 4, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 207 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. JIJI K.S. AND OTHERS Vs. SHIBU K AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — Regularisation of Services — Casual Workers — Supreme Court held that casual workers who were similarly situated to those whose services had been regularised in previous judgments, should also have their services regularised. The Court noted that the work performed was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the department, and that excluding these workers amounted to discrimination.

Feb 22, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 156 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 — Clause 3(c) defining “Caste-based Discrimination” — Incorporation argued as restrictive and exclusionary — Claim that it renders individuals from non-reserved/general classes remediless against caste-based discrimination or institutional bias — Allegation that regulations proceed on unfounded presumption that caste-based discrimination only affects reserved categories.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRITUNJAY TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Surya Kant, C.J. and Joymalya Bagchi, J. ) Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 101/2026 with…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 49 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Vs. DINESH KUMAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters
Service

Public Service Commission — Recruitment — Waiting List — Validity — A waiting list has a limited validity period, usually determined by recruitment rules or a reasonable period until the next advertisement. Candidates on a waiting list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment, but can be considered if vacancies arise within the validity period and the appointing authority acts arbitrarily.

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 64 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER Vs. YATI JAIN AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. )…

You missed

Maintenance Matrimonial

Matrimonial law — Maintenance — Deductions from husband’s salary — Voluntary deductions for asset creation (e.g., loan repayments) cannot dilute primary maintenance obligation — Husband’s duty to maintain spouse is primary and continuing, enabling wife to live with dignity.

Apr 18, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) and Order 2 Rule 2 — Rejection of Plaint — Bar by Law — Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not by itself constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is based on the suit being barred by law, where the bar is apparent from the plaint itself — A plea under Order 2 Rule 2 requires evidence to establish the bar, and therefore cannot typically be a basis for rejecting a plaint at the initial stage.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

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.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

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

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw