Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on 18/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority. Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished. Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency. 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. 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. [
Service

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.

Jun 18, 2026 sclaw
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.
Service
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.
Service
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.
Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.
RTI
Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.
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.
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.
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 31 — First Appellate Court’s judgment — Compliance with mandatory requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC is substantial rather than technical, and the substance of the judgment and the manner of dealing with the controversy are more significant than the form of points framed. – -Power of Attorney Act, 1882 — General Power of Attorney (GPA) — Misuse of GPA for sale of property — Held, where GPA holder enters into sale deeds and subsequent transfers are within the family, and the original owner fails to prove loan transactions, repayment, or continued possession, the transactions are unlikely to be considered shams or fraudulent.

May 24, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 529 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALLIKA Vs. R. NALLATHAMBI AND OTHERS ( Before : Ujjal Bhuyan and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 9837…

Acquittal Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 223(1) first proviso — Applicability of — Proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) filed before commencement of BNSS — Cognizance taken after commencement of BNSS — Accused not given opportunity of hearing at cognizance stage — Provision mandates hearing of accused before taking cognizance — Non-compliance is an illegality vitiating cognizance order — High Court judgment set aside.

May 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 519 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVINDER SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……..of…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Extraordinary powers of Supreme Court — Directions issued by Supreme Court cannot supplant substantive law or disregard express statutory provisions unless necessary for complete justice, considering public policy and balancing equities. [Paras 50-54] – Stray Dog Management — Public Safety vs. Animal Welfare — Supreme Court must strike a balance between public safety under Article 21 and humane treatment of stray animals, prioritising human life and safety

May 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 506 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. )…

Acquittal

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Offences under Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv), and 38(1) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B — Poisons Act, 1919 — Section 6 — Foreigners Act, 1946 — Section 14(c) — Passport Act, 1967 — Section 3 read with Section 12(1)(a) — Conviction for charges including conspiracy to revive banned organization LTTE — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Supreme Court’s finding that appellant was falsely implicated due to mistaken identity — Reliance on oral testimony of two key witnesses who introduced crucial alias name “Ranjan” years after the alleged incident and only after appellant’s arrest — Inconsistencies and material improvements in their testimonies — Failure of prosecution to establish identity with reliable oral or documentary evidence — Absence of any contemporaneous description, documentary linkage, or independent corroboration connecting appellant to the alleged absconding accused “Sri” — Appellant residing openly and lawfully as a refugee, pursuing visa to Switzerland inconsistent with being an absconding accused — Conviction and sentence set aside — Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.

May 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 516 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Q BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM, TAMIL NADU ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta…

Land Acquisition Municipal Laws

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) — Section 126(1)(b) — Transferable Development Rights (TDR) — Compensation for land acquisition reserved for public purpose — Landowner entitled to TDR against land surrendered and ‘further’ TDR for development of amenity on the surrendered land — Corporation’s argument that agreements (LOI, Undertaking, Maintenance Agreement) waived landowner’s right to claim additional amenity TDR rejected — Held, statutory rights cannot be derogated from by executive circulars or agreements.

May 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 517 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS Vs. VIJAY NAGAR APARTMENTS AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…

Tenders & Contracts

Contract Law — Tender Documents — Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) — Interpretation of Tender Clauses — Mandatory vs — Optional Conditions — Clause 2.13(a)(xiii) and Clause 2.13(b) of the tender document specifying the form of EMD for out-of-state bidders used the word “may submit”, indicating an optional, not mandatory, requirement.

May 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 514 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RR CONSTRUCTIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. GAYATRI VENTURES AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran,…

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 — Punjab State Grid Code, 2013 — Misdeclaration of Declared Capacity — Penalties — Section 32 and Regulation 11.3.13 — Strict Liability — Failure to demonstrate declared capacity upon request by SLDC leads to penalty, irrespective of mens rea or motive to make money — Appellants’ argument that mens rea is required for misdeclaration was considered and found to be incorrect for failure to demonstrate declared capacity — The Supreme Court’s reasoning for setting aside the APTEL’s order — Appeals allowed.

May 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 515 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. TALWANDI SABO POWER LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran,…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 — Conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and High Court — Supreme Court’s power of interference under Article 136 of Constitution of India — Such power to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of justice, where there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice due to misreading or ignoring material evidence — Standard for conviction on circumstantial evidence — Circumstances must be fully established, consistent with hypothesis of guilt, of a conclusive nature, exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable doubt of innocence — Failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution case when facts are clear.

May 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 522 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHETAN DASHRATH GADE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Will — Validity and execution — Requirements — Attesting witnesses — Proof of execution — Suspicious circumstances — The court must consider if the Will was executed by the testator and if it was his last Will — It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy but requires satisfaction of a prudent mind — Section 63 of the Succession Act mandates signing or affixing a mark, attestation by two or more witnesses, with each witness seeing the testator’s signature or acknowledgment and signing in the testator’s presence — Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requires calling at least one attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence to prove execution — If there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder must remove them — The test of judicial conscience requires considering the testator’s awareness of the Will’s contents and consequences, his sound state of mind, and that he acted of his own free will.

May 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 521 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND OTHERS Vs. LAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : Ujjal Bhuyan and Vijay Bishnoi,…

Service Matters
Service

Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 — Section 46(b) — Appointment of First Registrar — Appointment of the first Registrar was made by the Visitor [President of India] on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor for a term of three years — The power to appoint necessarily includes the power to dismiss or terminate the services of the appointee — Therefore, the Visitor, who was the appointing authority, was competent to take disciplinary action against the First Registrar.

May 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 520 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VICE CHANCELLOR, RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL AVIATION UNIVERSITY Vs. JITENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,…

You missed

Service

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.

Jun 18, 2026 sclaw
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
RTI

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
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