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 21 — Right to dignified life — Includes reproductive autonomy and the right to foster a family through adoption — Restricting maternity benefit based on the age of an adopted child infringes upon this right by denying adoptive mothers the opportunity to bond and integrate with their child, compromising both maternal and child welfare.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 246 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HAMSAANANDINI NANDURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Writ Petition (C)…

Contract Act Corporate

Contract Act, 1872 — Section 126 — Guarantee — Corporate Guarantee — Defendant No.1 executed a written undertaking (Corporate Guarantee) to pay a sum of USD 100,000 — This constituted a valid guarantee, not just a freight payment arrangement — Liability of surety is co-extensive with principal debtor.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 247 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH CANARA BANK OVERSEAS BRANCH REP. BY SENIOR MANAGER Vs. ARCHEAN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 498A — Appeal against conviction for murder and cruelty — Court considered evidence of eyewitness daughter, post-mortem report, and dying declaration of the deceased — High Court reversed acquittal by Trial Court and convicted the appellant — Trial Court acquitted on grounds of inconsistent witness testimonies, unreliable dying declaration due to victim’s serious injuries and sedation, and improbability of incident occurring in a small bathroom — Supreme Court found eyewitness testimony credible, post-mortem report confirmed cause of death, and dying declaration reliable despite victim’s severe burns, supported by medical opinion that she was conscious and fit to make a statement — Recovery of kerosene tin, matchbox, and burnt cloth pieces from the scene further corroborated the prosecution’s case — Supreme Court held that the evidence unequivocally proved the appellant’s responsibility for the offences.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 249 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SUBRAMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2432 of 2010…

Constitution

Coal Allocation and Supply — Dispute regarding supply of coal and compensation for wrongfully suspended supply — Supreme Court clarified that Union of India and SECL were obligated to supply coal at the current price/prevalent policy as of either April 9, 2014, or May 17, 2019, and gave the choice to the Respondent/PIL to select one of these dates for the purpose of determining the current price and prevalent policy for the proposed Fuel Supply Agreement for the suspended period — The Fuel Supply Agreement was to be entered into within four weeks of the Respondent’s choice, with coal supply being on a normal coal linkage basis, not tapering.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 250 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Miscellaneous Application…

Cr P C

. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — High Court quashed FIR during investigation based on speculation and without awaiting forensic report on alleged forged documents — Such action is unjustified and premature, especially when allegations of forgery and fraud are made and expert examination is underway.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 252 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SHARLA BAZLIEL Vs. BALDEV THAKUR AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s)….of 2026…

Additional Accused Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 319 — Summoning additional accused — Trial Court rejected application to summon additional accused — High Court set aside order and directed summoning — Supreme Court found Trial Court applied stricter standard than necessary — Trial Court erred in isolating inconsistencies and not considering cumulative weight of evidence — Supreme Court held testimony of complainant and two other witnesses, despite inconsistencies, met strong and cogent evidence standard for summoning under Section 319 — Judgments of lower courts set aside and persons directed to be produced as additional accused.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw

  2026 INSC 251 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MOHAMMAD KALEEM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. )…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Essential conditions — If allegations in FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, quashing is justified — Vague and general allegations are insufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1168 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANJAY D. JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI., K. Vinod Chandran and…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional evidence in appeal — Appellate court can allow additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances as laid down in the rule, such as where the court needs it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause — Parties do not have a right to produce additional evidence and it cannot be introduced at their convenience — The provision is not meant to fill gaps in evidence or to pronounce judgment in a particular way — If the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment based on existing evidence, additional evidence is not required — The High Court rightly rejected the application for additional evidence as it was without merit and did not satisfy the conditions under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 211 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOBIND SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Manifest Arbitrariness — Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 — Held, the Act is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 as it involves complete vesting of property, dissolution of trust, absence of necessity or mismanagement, illusory compensation, and lack of guiding principles — State’s action was excessive, unreasoned and disproportionate to the stated object of better management and development.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 219 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANURAG KRISHNA SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

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