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.
Environment Mining

Environmental Law and Wildlife Protection — Illegal Sand Mining — Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Cognizance — The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of rampant illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary, recognizing its severe impact on wildlife habitats, including endangered Gharials. The Court issued notices to concerned states and authorities, highlighting that such destruction of habitats violates environmental protection laws like the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Apr 19, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 380 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH “IN RE: ILLEGAL SAND MINING IN THE NATIONAL CHAMBAL SANCTUARY AND THREAT TO ENDANGERED AQUATIC WILDLIFE.” ( Before : Vikram Nath…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Clause 25 of Bill of Lading — Interpretation of “can” — A clause stating that disputes “can be settled by arbitration” does not create a mandatory arbitration agreement — It implies a future possibility and requires further agreement between the parties to refer disputes to arbitration, as opposed to a definitive commitment.

Apr 19, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 384 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAGREEKA INDCON PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Vs. CARGOCARE LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…

Constitution

Subsidy Withdrawal — Authorities cannot withdraw an already granted subsidy or demand its refund without providing specific reasons or demonstrating non-compliance with scheme conditions. Merely finding a facility ‘in closed condition’ during an inspection, without further inquiry or evidence of failure to operate, is insufficient justification for withdrawal.

Apr 19, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 385 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, DEESA Vs. NATIONAL HORTICULTURE BOARD AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ.…

Maintenance Matrimonial

Matrimonial law — Maintenance — Deductions from husband’s salary — Voluntary deductions for asset creation (e.g., loan repayments) cannot dilute primary maintenance obligation — Husband’s duty to maintain spouse is primary and continuing, enabling wife to live with dignity.

Apr 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 370 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEEPA JOSHI Vs. GAURAV JOSHI ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. ….of 2026…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) and Order 2 Rule 2 — Rejection of Plaint — Bar by Law — Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not by itself constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is based on the suit being barred by law, where the bar is apparent from the plaint itself — A plea under Order 2 Rule 2 requires evidence to establish the bar, and therefore cannot typically be a basis for rejecting a plaint at the initial stage.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 372 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. VALLIAMMAI AND OTHERS Vs. S. RAMANATHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Constitution

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Translation and Transmission of Records for Legal Aid Appeals and Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) — The Supreme Court has approved and directed implementation of an SOP to streamline the process of translation, digitization, and filing of records in legal aid cases, with specific timelines and responsibilities for various stakeholders to ensure timely access to justice.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 369 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. ….of…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 22(3)(b) — Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) — Sections 3(1), 8(c), 8(e) — Right to legal representation before Advisory Board — A detenu does not have a right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board — This right only arises if the detaining authority or government uses a legal practitioner, in which case the detenu must also be allowed legal representation — Mere assistance by officials in producing records does not grant this right

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 371 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRIYANKA SARKARIYA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

Cr P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 306 — Abetment of Suicide — Essential Ingredients — For a charge under Section 306, the prosecution must prove that the accused contributed to the suicide through a direct or indirect act of instigation or incitement — This act must reveal a clear intention (mens rea) to abet suicide and leave the victim with no other option — The act of instigation must be in close proximity to the suicide and form a direct nexus, indicating the suicide was a direct result of the instigation.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 375 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALAJI JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF CHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER ( Before : K.V. Viswanathan and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Cr P C

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3 and Section 7(3) — Prosecution for ‘giving’ dowry — Protection to ‘person aggrieved’ — Wife and her family members made statements alleging ‘giving’ of dowry in a dowry harassment case against husband — Held, these statements, being made by ‘persons aggrieved’, cannot be the sole basis for prosecuting them for the offence of ‘giving’ dowry under Section 3 of the Act, due to the protection under Section 7(3) which states that their statements shall not subject them to prosecution.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 374 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAHUL GUPTA Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Special Leave…

Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

. Grant of Anticipatory Bail — Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, allowing the appeal and directing the release of the appellant on bail upon arrest, subject to furnishing security and cooperating with the investigation — The Court emphasized that observations made would not prejudice the trial proceedings.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 373 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VENU GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

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