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. [
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Public power, allocation of public resources, award of public contracts, execution of public works — State bound to act transparently, fairly, and consistently with equality — Process must withstand objective scrutiny and be free from arbitrariness, favouritism, or undisclosed conflicts of interest — Public confidence in governance requires equality, integrity, and accountability.

Apr 7, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 320 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAVE MON REGION FEDERATION AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Four-step test for assessing prayer for quashing — The Supreme Court, in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, outlined a four-step test: (i) Is the material relied upon by the accused of sterling quality? (ii) Does it rule out the allegations in the complaint? (iii) Has it not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Would proceeding with the trial be an abuse of process and not serve the ends of justice? If all answers are affirmative, High Court should quash proceedings.

Apr 7, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 322 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAJAL BOSE Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N. V. Anjaria,…

Service Matters
Service

Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008; Seventh Central Pay Commission Recommendations — Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Level 9 — Recommendation 7.4.13 (iv) (b) — Eligibility criteria — Completion of four years in Level 8 on seniority-cum-suitability basis — Interpretation of — Held, denial of NFU on the ground that Junior Engineers did not enter service at Grade Pay of Rs — 4,800/- amounts to adding an additional condition not contemplated by the recommendation.

Apr 6, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 311 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SUNIL KUMAR RAI AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. )…

Constitution

Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) — Section 37A — Seizure of assets — Adjudication proceedings are independent of seizure proceedings — The order of the Competent Authority confirming seizure of equivalent assets continues until the disposal of adjudication proceedings — The Adjudicating Authority then passes appropriate directions regarding further action on the seizure — However, this does not apply to a situation where seizure has not been confirmed.

Apr 6, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 309 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH J. SRI NISHA Vs. THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of jurisdiction under Section 11 is confined to existence of an arbitration agreement — Issue of res judicata not considered at Section 11 stage — Principles of Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC apply to proceedings under Section 11 — A fresh application under Section 11 is not maintainable if the earlier application was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh one.

Apr 6, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 302 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJIV GADDH Vs. SUBODH PARKASH ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No….of 2026 (@…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 197(1) — Requirement of sanction for prosecution of public servants — Protection under Section 197(1) applies only to public servants who are not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the government — Subordinate police officers not falling under this category are not entitled to the benefit of this protection, even if the alleged offence was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.

Apr 5, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 304 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMARENDRA NATH KUNDU AND ANOTHER Vs. SADHANA DAS AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Criminal…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — Dismissal from Service — Disciplinary Proceedings — Violation of Natural Justice — Requirement of Oral Enquiry — Employer’s Burden of Proof — The Apex Court held that unless the charged employee clearly admits guilt, a disciplinary enquiry must be held — The employer must first present evidence and witnesses, allowing the employee to cross-examine — Only then should the employee be given an opportunity to present their defense — The Court emphasized that relying solely on documents without examining witnesses or making them available for cross-examination when charges are denied, vitiates the enquiry.

Apr 5, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 305 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAI PRAKASH SAINI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P. COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 13 — Setting aside an ex parte decree — A minor who was not properly represented in succession proceedings, despite being a legal heir and known to respondents, can file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC after attaining majority to challenge the ex parte proceedings.

Apr 5, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 306 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEEPESH MAHESWARI AND ANOTHER Vs. RENU MAHESWARI AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil…

Bail Declined Companies Act

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 185 — Loan to directors — Violation of Section 185 — Loan from company to director for securing bail without special resolution — Deposit of Rs. 50 Crores for bail sourced from company funds without proper approval — Held to be not sustainable in law.

Apr 3, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 310 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATINDER SINGH BHASIN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, 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