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.
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Eyewitness testimony vs. Medical evidence — In case of conflict, eyewitness testimony, especially of an injured witness who is found to be reliable and has withstood cross — examination, is generally superior to expert medical opinion formed by an expert witness — Lack of independent witnesses does not automatically compromise the prosecution case, especially when societal realities suggest potential fear or hesitation

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 403 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ADALAT YADAV ETC. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Constitution

Protracted Government Inaction and Third — Party Rights — Despite an initial timeline of two months for an inquiry and subsequent hopes for completion within six months, the government showed significant delay, stretching over six years without a final decision — During this period, extensive third — party rights were created through land sales and construction of villas and flats by innocent purchasers — The Court observed that it’s inappropriate for a welfare state to attempt to undo decades — old transactions, especially when innocent citizens have invested their hard — earned money, and basic amenities should not be denied to occupants of constructed properties.

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 407 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, AND OTHERS ETC. Vs. S. RAJA AND OTHERS ETC ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and…

Constitution Rent

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 vs. Government Grants Act, 1895 — Relationship Governed by Grant — A lease originating from a Government grant, as governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895, is not subject to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — The incidence and enforceability of such a grant are governed solely by its tenor — The legal character of the grant does not derive from conventional landlord — tenant relationships but from the sovereign grant and its embedded conditions — Therefore, eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act are not maintainable for holdings originating from a Government grant.

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 406 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA Vs. SIR SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PVT. LTD ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

Municipal Laws

Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Challenge to Municipal Limits — Matters concerning the specification and alteration of municipal limits under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, are legislative in nature and cannot ordinarily be adjudicated by a Civil Court through a suit seeking declarations and injunctions — The High Court correctly held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the Corporation’s assertion of jurisdiction over certain lands based on its interpretation of Section 3 of the MMC Act.

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 405 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNCHGAON VILLAGE PANCHAYAT Vs. KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil…

SARFAESI

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), Section 13 — Default in repayment of financial assistance — Secured creditor entitled to take possession and auction secured asset (School premises) — Petitioners repeatedly failed to honour commitments and undertakings to repay debt, even after High Court and Supreme Court orders — Conduct amounted to disobedience of court orders and disregard for rule of law.

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 408 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAITANYA BAHUUDDESHIYA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND OTHERS Vs. AUXILO FINSERVE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish…

Environment

Judicial Review and Public Interest Litigation — Court’s Directions for Wildlife Conservation — The Supreme Court issued detailed directions based on the CEC’s report, including the acceptance of all recommendations, time-bound relocation of deer under CEC supervision, and adherence to stringent translocation protocols — The court also directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to examine and implement comprehensive guidelines for future wildlife translocations.

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 419 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW DELHI NATURE SOCIETY THROUGH VERHAEN KHANNA Vs. DIRECTOR HORTICULTURE DDA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,…

Acquittal

Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Burden of Proof — Reasonable Doubt — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that leaves no reasonable ground for doubt, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, with the sole remaining incriminating circumstance being the “last seen together” theory, which was deemed insufficient for conviction as an accomplice.

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 417 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANAND JAKKAPPA PUJARI @GADDADAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal…

Anticipatory Bail Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Anticipatory Bail — Power of Court to Direct Surrender — When an anticipatory bail application is rejected, the court does not have the jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to surrender — The rejection of anticipatory bail means that an application for pre-arrest bail has been denied, and the subsequent steps regarding arrest and regular bail should follow the normal procedure as per law.

Apr 27, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OM PRAKASH CHHAWNIKA @ OM PRAKASH CHABNIKA @ OM PRAKASH CHAWNIKA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Sections 7, 3(10), 5(7), 5(8) — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Admission of petition — Appeal against NCLAT order setting aside NCLT order and directing admission of Section 7 petition — Held, IBC is not a debt recovery legislation but for reorganisation and insolvency resolution — Initiation of CIRP as a substitute for execution of a civil court decree is an abuse of process.

Apr 27, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 410 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LTD. Vs. SHUBH GAUTAM ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 8247…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Petition under Section 9 at post-award stage by unsuccessful party — Maintainability — Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Karnataka High Courts held such petitions not maintainable — Telangana, Gujarat and Punjab & Haryana High Courts held such petitions maintainable — Supreme Court held that any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party, can invoke Section 9 at the post-award stage, overruling the former judgments.

Apr 27, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 415 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HOME CARE RETAIL MARTS PVT. LTD. Vs. HARESH N. SANGHAVI ( Before : Manoj Misra and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

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