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. [

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.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Investigation and Chargesheet Filing — Interim order restraining police from filing chargesheet is unsustainable if based on misinterpretation of law regarding High Court’s power under Article 226 and Section 528 of BNSS — Investigation may continue, but further steps depend on legal applicability of quashing provisions.

2026 INSC 482 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRIKANT OJHA Vs. STATE OF UP AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 — Order 12 Rule 3 — Correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors from accidental slip or omission — Application seeking clarification and correction regarding variance between dictated order and signed order — Held, Apex Court dismissed the application as not maintainable in law and on merits — Digitally signed order uploaded on the website is the final order — Miscellaneous applications in disposed of matters are maintainable only for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors or when the order is executory and impossible to implement due to subsequent events.

2026 INSC 483 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FAKIR MAMAD SULEMAN SAMEJA AND OTHERS Vs. ADANI PORTS AND SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 161 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 157 and 145 — Hostile Witness — Evidence of a hostile witness remains admissible and can be accepted to the extent that their version is found dependable on careful scrutiny, and can be used to acquit the accused if it inspires credibility when read with other evidence — Such evidence can be employed to discredit the prosecution case.

2026 INSC 486 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TALARI NARESH Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of…

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction — High Court’s power under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary, subject to self-imposed restrictions — Ordinarily, it should not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person, such as pursuing remedies under statutory frameworks like the CrPC or BNSS, unless specific exceptions apply.

2026 INSC 442 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUJAL VISHWAS ATTAVAR AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih,…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Applicability of Order 22 of CPC to death of parties — Section 13(7) made Order 22 of CPC applicable to death of complainant or opposite party, allowing substitution of legal heirs if the right to sue survives — This procedural rule must be harmoniously construed with substantive law like Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, which governs survivability of causes of action

2026 INSC 443 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUMUD LALL Vs. SURESH CHANDRA ROY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…

Service Matters

Service Law — Recruitment Rules — Eligibility Criteria — Date of Possession of Qualification — For recruitment to the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer, the essential educational qualification must be possessed by the candidate on the date of submission of the application, not at a later stage like the interview or examination date.

2026 INSC 444 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. LAVANSHU SANKHLA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters

Public Administration and Service Rules — Interpretation of merger of departments and promotion rules — The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment that questioned a government order (G.O.) granting a notional promotion to an employee — The Court found that the original G.O — was issued in compliance with prior High Court orders and a merger policy that was not challenged by any party, thus validating the promotion and subsequent advancements.

2026 INSC 446 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER Vs. R. SASIPRIYA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…

Companies Act, 1956 — Sections 397, 398, 41 and 2(27) — Member of a company — Locus standi to file petition for oppression and mismanagement — Essential requirement is not just formal entry in register of members, but also equitable consideration of proprietary interest and conduct of the company treating the person as a member

2026 INSC 447 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. BAIS SURGICAL AND MEDICAL INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. DHANANJAY PANDE ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok…

You missed