Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on 23/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(d), Article 21 — Fundamental Right to Walk — The right to walk is a fundamental right integral to the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with other provisions of Article 19 and Article 21 — This fundamental right includes the right to demarcated footpaths, which must take precedence over the movement of motorised vehicles Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 — Execution proceedings — High Court’s directions for assessment of compensation in execution proceedings — Held, impermissible when original suit did not seek compensation and parties did not consent — Setting aside of trial court and first appellate court decrees, followed by direction to execute court to assess value of construction, is not supported by CPC 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.
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(d), Article 21 — Fundamental Right to Walk — The right to walk is a fundamental right integral to the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with other provisions of Article 19 and Article 21 — This fundamental right includes the right to demarcated footpaths, which must take precedence over the movement of motorised vehicles
Constitution
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(d), Article 21 — Fundamental Right to Walk — The right to walk is a fundamental right integral to the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with other provisions of Article 19 and Article 21 — This fundamental right includes the right to demarcated footpaths, which must take precedence over the movement of motorised vehicles
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 — Execution proceedings — High Court’s directions for assessment of compensation in execution proceedings — Held, impermissible when original suit did not seek compensation and parties did not consent — Setting aside of trial court and first appellate court decrees, followed by direction to execute court to assess value of construction, is not supported by CPC
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 — Execution proceedings — High Court’s directions for assessment of compensation in execution proceedings — Held, impermissible when original suit did not seek compensation and parties did not consent — Setting aside of trial court and first appellate court decrees, followed by direction to execute court to assess value of construction, is not supported by CPC
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.
Service Matters
Service

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

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw

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

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.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw

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

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.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw

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. )…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 15(1), 16, 39(a) & 39(c) — Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (2016 Order) — Clause 2(p) — Government Order (G.O.) No — 6 of 2019 — Paragraph IV(10) — Exclusion of married daughter from definition of ‘family’ for compassionate appointment as fair price shop dealer — Held, exclusion is based on gender stereotypes and lacks rational nexus with the object of the scheme, violating Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution — Marital status cannot be the sole criterion for dependency — Dependency is a question of fact.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 617 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KULSUM NISHA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Bail Declined Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 37 — Grant of bail — Twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) must be considered — High Court ignored twin conditions while granting bail in a case involving commercial quantity of narcotics — Impugned order granting bail cannot be sustained.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 618 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALRAJ SINGH @ BILLA ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage — When parties have been living separately for an extended period (e.g., over 15 years), all reconciliation efforts have failed, and there is no possibility of reunion due to strained relations, the marriage can be considered to have irretrievably broken down.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 620 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SONAL TALPADA Vs. VEERBHAN SINGH ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of 2026 (Arising…

Constitution

Allotment of Land — Irregularity — Public Interest Litigation — Demolition vs. Regularisation — The court must balance the wrong committed with the current reality and socio-economic consequences — Demolition of a fully operational commercial complex, involving significant investment, employment, and tax revenue, may not serve public interest if financial restitution is possible.

Jun 2, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 551 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. RAHEJA CORP. PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,…

Service Matters
Service

All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 — Rule 16(2A) — Voluntary Retirement — Acceptance by Central Government — Central Government has the ultimate authority to accept or reject a Voluntary Retirement (VRS) notice — It is not bound by the State Government’s recommendation and must apply its mind to all relevant facts and circumstances — This power is not unconstrained and is guided by DoPT Guidelines, requiring consideration of pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings that could lead to a major penalty — The Central Government can accept a VRS request even if a major penalty is possible, but this requires a conscious and well-informed decision — Appeals allowed, order of Central Government rejecting VRS set aside, and matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Jun 2, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 550 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABDUR RAHMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Environment

Environment Law — Illegal Sand Mining — Supreme Court’s directions for States to file compliance affidavits — Court expresses displeasure at Rajasthan’s lacklustre response and apathy in implementing directions affecting National Chambal Sanctuary — Rajasthan directed to ensure personal presence of senior officers with compliance reports — Court also directs Madhya Pradesh to address issue of unregistered vehicles.

Jun 2, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 549 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…

Labour Cases

Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 — Temporary status casual labourer — Entitlement to pensionary benefits — Held, entitled even in the absence of formal regularisation, provided eligibility criteria under Rule 10(1-B) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, are fulfilled.

Jun 2, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 612 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHIKHANI DEVI AND ETC. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. )…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(d), Article 21 — Fundamental Right to Walk — The right to walk is a fundamental right integral to the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with other provisions of Article 19 and Article 21 — This fundamental right includes the right to demarcated footpaths, which must take precedence over the movement of motorised vehicles

Jun 23, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 — Execution proceedings — High Court’s directions for assessment of compensation in execution proceedings — Held, impermissible when original suit did not seek compensation and parties did not consent — Setting aside of trial court and first appellate court decrees, followed by direction to execute court to assess value of construction, is not supported by CPC

Jun 23, 2026 sclaw
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