Third Judge under S. 392 CrPC cannot disturb unanimous Division Bench findings; reference confined to disagreed accused only.–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 392 — Third Judge — Power to give independent opinion — Options available — When an appeal is heard by a Division Bench and the Judges are divided in opinion, the appeal is laid before a third Judge under S. 392 — The third Judge is not confined to choosing between the two views expressed by the Division Bench Judges — The third Judge may: (i) agree with either of the two opinions expressed; (ii) form an independent view at divergence with both opinions; or (iii) where warranted, receive additional evidence under S. 391 before forming an opinion — The opinion of the third Judge governs and the judgment follows therefrom.
2026 INSC 632 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226(1) — Territorial jurisdiction — Writ petition by CAPF personnel — Delhi High Court — Jurisdiction based on situs of respondent’s office —The Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Art. 226(1) of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition preferred by any enrolled member of the Border Security Force or any Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) who is aggrieved by an administrative order of termination of service, by reason of the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General of the concerned CAPF in New Delhi — and this jurisdictional competence subsists notwithstanding that the impugned order of termination was issued from a place outside the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court and that no part of the cause of action arose within such limits — The Union of India and the Director General, BSF are necessary parties to such a writ petition by virtue of Ss. 4 and 5 of the BSF Act and the requirement under R. 22(4) of the BSF Rules that every order of dismissal/removal be reported to the Director General; there is, moreover, a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed.
2026 INSC 630 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAKSISH AHMAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Compensation — Death of homemaker — New head of ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ — Basis and quantum — The conventional method of computing compensation upon the death of a homemaker suffers from an inherent disadvantage — Notional income, as assigned by earlier decisions, fails to capture the economic, emotional and managerial contributions that a homemaker makes to the household and to nation-building at large — In recognition of the multifarious yet unquantified roles of a homemaker — (i) contribution towards smooth functioning of the household; (ii) loss of maternal support to children; and (iii) loss of spousal/parental support — a composite sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month shall be added under the head ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ — This sum shall serve as the stand-in monthly income where the homemaker has no conventional monetary income — It shall be revised cumulatively by 10% every three years — Where the homemaker is part of the paid workforce, this head shall be in addition to the proved monthly income.
2026 INSC 634 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHISHU PAL @ SHISH RAM AND OTHERS Vs. SURJEET AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 8(3) — Unauthorized alienation of minor’s property — Such alienation is voidable, not void ab initio, and can be challenged by the minor upon attaining majority or by someone claiming under the minor.
2026 INSC 621 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHEPHALI CHAKRABORTY Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Criminal Procedure — Delay in Investigation and Filing of Charge Sheet — Speedy Trial — Right to Speedy Trial and Timely Completion of Investigation are integral parts of Article 21 of the Constitution — Statutory recognition in CrPC for prompt investigation — Investigations should be completed within a reasonable time, not endlessly — Lack of strict timelines in CrPC does not permit indefinite investigations — Inordinate delay without adequate justification warrants intervention by Courts.
2026 INSC 626 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAHIL ABDULSATTAR MANSURI AND OTHERS Vs. SAFIMAHAMAD FAFIRBHAI MANSURI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ.…
Contract Law — Statutory Amendment — Impact on existing contracts — Where a statutory amendment alters a fundamental aspect like royalty rates, a pre-existing contract cannot prevent the application of the amended law, especially when the payment of royalty is linked to the removal or consumption of minerals — [MMDR Act] Applicability of S.9 — Scope — Section 9 applies broadly to all entities engaged in removal/dispatch of minerals, not only direct mining lessees.
2026 INSC 627 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY Vs. M/S BMM ISPAT LTD AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…
Criminal Procedure — Passport — Return/Surrender of Passport — Accused facing serious criminal charges — Right to travel abroad vis-à-vis right to speedy trial — Balance between individual liberty and societal interest — Accused charged with abetment of suicide and criminal conspiracy since 2014, trial still at stage of committal despite lapse of over ten years — Accused, a US citizen, had misused interim protection in prior proceedings to leave the country without Court’s leave — Whether High Court justified in permitting accused to travel abroad on grounds of medical treatment — Held, not justified — High Court indulgent rather than judicially restrained — Medical facilities in India comparable to those abroad — High Court’s revisional order set aside — Accused restrained from travelling abroad without express permission of Sessions Court — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 442 — Constitution of India, Art. 21
2026 INSC 628 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEESA SANTOSH Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Criminal…
Service Law — Promotion — Entitlement to promotion to Chief Medical Director (Higher Administrative Grade) in Indian Railway Medical Service — Appellant was denied promotion despite being eligible, with a junior officer being promoted instead — Appellant’s case was rejected by the Tribunal and High Court based on her grading in Annual Confidential Reports
2026 INSC 553 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. INDIRA SARANATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J. K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 29A — Mandate of Arbitrator — Extension of mandate — In the absence of specific statutory provisions, party autonomy and minimal judicial intervention are guiding principles — If a party participates in proceedings and does not object to the extension of mandate, they may be estopped from challenging the award on that ground after it is passed.
2026 INSC 552 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD Vs. SARYU PLASTICS PVT. LTD ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) — Section 33 and Section 34(3) — Limitation for filing application to set aside arbitral award — Exclusion of time spent in disposal of applications under Section 33 — Court held that period spent in disposal of Section 33 applications by Arbitral Tribunal must be excluded for computing limitation under Section 34(3) of the Act, regardless of whether the Section 33 applications were ultimately allowed or dismissed.
2026 INSC 616 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. T. YOUNIS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. )…