Corporate Veil — Lifting of — May be lifted where associated companies are inextricably connected, forming part of one concern, or to prevent evasion of obligations or protect public interest. In this case, subsidiary companies were found to be mere fronts for the holding company’s development activities, justifying lifting the corporate veil.
2026 INSC 449 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GNIDA) AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok…
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 2(c) — Criminal Contempt — Publication of scandalous matter or doing any act that scandalises or tends to scandalise, lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court, prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or obstructs justice — Appellant, President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association and a senior advocate, made unwarranted and disreputable allegations in a press conference against the High Court and its Registry, calling it a ‘gambling den’ and alleging preferential treatment — The High Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the Appellant. Judicial Magnanimity and Reform — The Supreme Court demonstrated exceptional magnanimity and a desire for reform by suspending the conviction and sentence, emphasizing that while accountability is paramount, it must be balanced with patience to guide and elevate, rather than resorting to punitive destruction.
2026 INSC 470 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YATIN NARENDRA OZA Vs. SUO MOTU, HIGH COURT OF GUJARATAND ANOTHER ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — “in any place within public view” — Both sections require the act of insult, intimidation, or abuse to occur in a place visible to the public — This is a mandatory condition for constituting the offence.
2026 INSC 468 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUNJAN @ GIRIJA KUMARI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V.…
Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 — Section 12C — Election Dispute — Candidate challenging election results — Prescribed Authority passed an order allowing the election petition and directing recounting of votes — Later, after recounting, the authority declared the appellant as the returned candidate — The High Court set aside this order — The Supreme Court held that once the Prescribed Authority passes a final order allowing the election petition, it becomes functus officio and loses jurisdiction to pass further orders — The initial order directing recounting was deemed final, not interim, as it allowed the petition and rejected the respondent’s statement, leaving no scope for further orders after recounting — The High Court was correct in quashing the subsequent proceedings and the declaration of the appellant as elected — Appeal dismissed.
2026 INSC 471 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH URMILA DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )…
Criminal Law — Dying Declarations — Legal position is that a truthful and voluntary dying declaration, if reliable, can be the sole basis for conviction — In this case, dying declarations were found reliable and corroborated by surrounding circumstances and other witnesses — Defence argument about deceased’s unconsciousness rejected.
2026 INSC 469 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MITESH @ T.V. VAGHELA Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT ( Before : Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal…
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 28(1) and 28(4) — Decree for specific performance — Executability — Non-deposit of balance sale consideration within stipulated time — Plaintiff’s failure to deposit balance sale consideration within three months as stipulated in the decree — No application for extension of time filed within the stipulated period — Contract deemed rescinded and decree rendered inexecutable
2026 INSC 451 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HABBAN SHAH Vs. SHERUDDIN ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S. V. N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of 2026 (Arising…
Medical Ethics — Declaration Forms — Doctors are required to disclose all previous faculty positions held in the same academic year to ensure transparency in MCI assessments — Mis-declaration or withholding such information amounts to serious misconduct.
2026 INSC 453 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. NIGAM PRAKASH NARAIN Vs. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166 and 173 — Compensation calculation — Notional income for a 14-year-old claimant with 100% permanent disability assessed at Rs. 35,800/- per month, leading to a total loss of income of Rs. 3,17,53,920/- after applying multiplier and future prospects.
2026 INSC 454 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HANSRAJ Vs. MUKESH NATH AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…. of…
Environmental Law — Environmental Clearance (EC) — Ex-post facto EC — The Supreme Court has held that the concept of ex-post facto Environmental Clearance is alien to Indian environmental jurisprudence and struck down notifications allowing it — However, in cases where industries were established based on Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) granted by Pollution Control Boards (PCBs) which were themselves unaware of the prior EC requirement, and the industries have subsequently applied for EC, the Court may allow them to operate while the EC process is pending, to avoid economic and livelihood impacts if no actual pollution is caused or norms are otherwise met.
2026 INSC 455 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEETU SOLVENTS Vs. VINEET NAGAR AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Land Revenue Records — Evidentiary Value for Title — Revenue records like Faisal Patti, Vasool Baqi, and Pahanies are primarily for fiscal purposes and do not confer title or ownership — Mutation entries do not create or extinguish title and have no presumptive value regarding ownership — Such records cannot be the sole basis for declaring title, especially when the primary document of title (patta) is not produced.
2026 INSC 450 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VADIYALA PRABHAKAR RAO AND OTHERS Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti,…









