Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on16/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

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. [ Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 24, 33(5), 36, 39 — Child-sensitive judicial processes — Mandatory safeguards for child victims — Courts must ensure child-friendly procedures, minimum intrusion, and psychological safety, avoiding re-traumatisation and secondary victimisation in all proceedings concerning children, especially those involving allegations of sexual abuse.
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
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.
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. [
Accident
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. [
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 105(1) — Challenge to interlocutory orders — Rejection of an application under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not preclude the party from raising that issue again in an appeal against the final decree, as per Section 105(1) CPC, unless a separate appellate remedy is expressly provided.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 343 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANNAPPA (D) THR. LRS. Vs. PARVATEWWA (D) THR. LRS. ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of Inquiry — Limited to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement — Questions like ‘accord and satisfaction’, limitation, dishonesty, frivolity and arbitrability of subject matter are to be left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16, reflecting the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 342 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (MSEDCL) AND OTHERS Vs. R Z MALPANI ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S.…

Constitution Cooperative Societies

Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 — Section 64(d) — Investment of funds by Multi-State Co-operative Society (MSCS) — Permitted investments are in subsidiary institutions or institutions in the same line of business — Amendment aimed at preventing misuse of funds and ensuring financial discipline — “Same line of business” requires substantial or predominant sameness in core business activities, determined by MSCS’s bye-laws — Not to be construed expansively.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 338 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S NIRMAL UJJWAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs. RAVI SETHIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 468, 469, 470, 472, 473 and 341 — Limitation for taking cognizance of offence — Relevant date for computation of period of limitation is date of filing of complaint or date of initiation of criminal proceedings, not date on which Magistrate takes cognizance — Constitution Bench decision in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases [(2014) 2 SCC 62] holds good law.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 336 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROMA AHUJA Vs. THE STATE AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos.…

Service Matters
Service

Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981 — Rule 4 — Sanction of Governor for award — Extraordinary pension award requires sanction of the Governor, who exercises administrative discretion based on the rules — The Supreme Court held that the authority on whom the power to take a decision is conferred should be the one to take it, especially when the rules enumerate the considerations — The Court would be slow to substitute its own decision unless the authority has refused to decide or the decision is arbitrary — In such cases, a direction to the authority to decide afresh would be more appropriate than the Court substituting its own decision.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 337 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. SARITA SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K.Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Constitution

Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 — Section 32, Section 8 read with Schedule B — Bye-laws framed by District Milk Producers’ Co-operative Unions — Validity — Election to Management Committee — Eligibility criteria — Held, bye-laws are valid as they operate within the statutory scheme and are traceable to the enabling power under Section 8 read with Schedule B — Provisions of bye-laws regulate eligibility and representation in a manner consistent with the object and scheme of the Act — They neither curtail any fundamental or statutory right nor introduce disqualifications dehors the statute — High Court erred in striking down the bye-laws.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 347 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM CHANDRA CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS Vs. ROOP NAGAR DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and…

Rent

Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 — Section 46 — Revisional jurisdiction of High Court — Scope — High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the trial court — Revisional power is supervisory and limited to examining legality, correctness, or propriety of an order, not to act as a court of first appeal — Interference is warranted only for perversity, lack of evidence, or manifest illegality

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 348 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRASA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS Vs. M/S. MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS AND OTHERS (…

Service Matters
Service

Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2020 — Advertisement dated 15.12.2021 for 9212 posts of Health Worker (Female) — Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation — Clause 8.3 of advertisement requiring candidates to submit EWS certificate issued till the last date of application or advertisement — Prescribed proforma requires certificate to be for the financial year preceding the year of application — Certificates submitted by appellants were not in respect of the correct financial year or were issued before the closure of the relevant financial year — Certificates thus invalid for claiming EWS reservation — High Court rightly dismissed the claim — Appeals dismissed.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 351 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH POONAM DWIVEDI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ( Before : Manoj Misra and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )…

Constitution Service

Contitution of India — Articles 14 & 16 — Equality in employment — Denial of promotion on discriminatory grounds — Appellant denied promotion despite long service, experience, and possessing a qualification that was accepted for similarly situated employees — High Court Division Bench erroneously set aside Single Judge’s order granting relief, creating contradiction in reasoning by first stating discretion lies with Board of Directors and then upholding Registrar’s refusal — Supreme Court allowed appeal, finding non-acceptance of promotion unsustainable and a violation of equality principles.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 353 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMAL PRASAD DUBEY Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.…

You missed

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
Accident

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. [

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw