Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Appellant not named in FIR, no raid at his business premises, earlier cases ended in bail, cooperating with investigation, and no misuse of liberty granted — High Court wrongly refused anticipatory bail — Supreme Court sets aside High Court order and makes interim protection absolute.
2026 INSC 215 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ KUMAR MUTTA Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal…
Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 — Section 87 — Power to adapt laws — Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act allows for the adaptation and modification of existing laws in successor states for a period of two years to facilitate the application of laws — This provision ensures legislative continuity for local institutions, including Cooperative Societies, until replaced by fresh legislation — The transitional regime provided under Section 87 was relied upon for reconstitution of cooperative societies following the bifurcation of Uttar Pradesh.
2026 INSC 216 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH REGISTRAR CANE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS Vs. GURDEEP SINGH NARVAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to Life — Includes Right to Health — State has positive obligation to safeguard health and ensure conditions for meaningful life — Absence of uniform policy for compensation for death/injury after vaccination raises constitutional concerns warranting institutional response – COVID-19 Vaccination — Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) — Compensation — No-fault compensation framework necessary for serious adverse events arising from mass immunization programs to ensure fair and timely redressal and uphold Article 14.
2026 INSC 218 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RACHANA GANGU AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Writ…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302/34, 201 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 103(1)/3(5), 238 — Circumstantial evidence — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence must fulfill stringent conditions — Circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt, and form complete chain of evidence — Prosecution failed to prove incriminating circumstances against accused by cogent and admissible evidence — Conviction set aside.
2026 INSC 217 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH POORANMAL Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Manifest Arbitrariness — Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 — Held, the Act is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 as it involves complete vesting of property, dissolution of trust, absence of necessity or mismanagement, illusory compensation, and lack of guiding principles — State’s action was excessive, unreasoned and disproportionate to the stated object of better management and development.
2026 INSC 219 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANURAG KRISHNA SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7 — Demand and acceptance of bribe — Complainant’s testimony regarding demand by accused (A2) on a specific date was clear and corroborated by other witnesses — Pre-trap proceedings were also established — Recovery of marked notes from A2’s person and hand wash turning pink confirmed the trap — Despite inconsistencies in complainant’s testimony regarding earlier demands, the demand on the crucial date was credible — Independent witnesses corroborated the trap, with one identifying A2 and the other recovering the bribe money — Acquittal of A2 set aside, conviction under Section 7 of PC Act restored with modified sentence and fine.
2026 INSC 221 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. BALJEET SINGH ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No………of…
Right to life — Includes right to die with dignity — Passive euthanasia and Advance Medical Directives (AMD) are permissible under Article 21
2026 INSC 222 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARISH RANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Miscellaneous Application No.…
”Euthanasia ” Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to life — Includes right to die with dignity — Passive euthanasia and Advance Medical Directives (AMD) are permissible under Article 21 — Active euthanasia is not permissible — Withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment is a constitutional right derived from the dignity, liberty, privacy, and self-determination of an individual — This right extends to incompetent patients as well.
2026 INSC 222 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARISH RANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Miscellaneous Application No.…
Reservation Policy — Other Backward Classes (OBC) — Creamy Layer Exclusion — Interpretation of Office Memorandum (OM) dated 08.09.1993 and Clarificatory Letter dated 14.10.2004 — Salary income exclusion — Hostile discrimination — Held, the clarificatory letter dated 14.10.2004, particularly paragraph 9 thereof, should not be interpreted in isolation or in a manner that overrides the substantive scheme of the 1993 OM — Overemphasis on the 2004 letter making income alone determinative without considering parental status and category of service would defeat the framework of exclusion under the 1993 OM — Determination of creamy layer status solely on income brackets without reference to posts and status parameters in the 1993 OM is unsustainable — Hostile discrimination arises when similarly placed individuals are treated differently without a constitutionally sustainable basis, thereby attracting provisions of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution — Appeals dismissed
2026 INSC 230 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. ROHITH NATHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ Petition — Delay and Laches — Doctrine of laches is a flexible rule of practice, not a rigid rule of law, to be applied on case-to-case basis based on judicial discretion — It requires balancing the equity of not allowing stale claims against the constitutional duty to enforce fundamental rights — Key considerations include inordinate delay, explanation for delay, and prejudice to third-party rights or settled matters — Unexplained delay is critical; delay attributable to the State’s conduct cannot be used against the petitioner — Claims affecting the public at large or challenging the vires of a statute might warrant a less strict application of laches, especially when addressing historical injustices or transformative constitutionalism — The Court must weigh the need for finality against the need to rectify injustice and has the power to mould relief to minimize disruption while enforcing fundamental rights.
2026 INSC 236 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MIZO CHIEF COUNCIL MIZORAM, THR. PRESIDENT SHRI L. CHINZAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…