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 Life — Includes Right to Health — State has positive obligation to safeguard health and ensure conditions for meaningful life — Absence of uniform policy for compensation for death/injury after vaccination raises constitutional concerns warranting institutional response – COVID-19 Vaccination — Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) — Compensation — No-fault compensation framework necessary for serious adverse events arising from mass immunization programs to ensure fair and timely redressal and uphold Article 14.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 218 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RACHANA GANGU AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Writ…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302/34, 201 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 103(1)/3(5), 238 — Circumstantial evidence — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence must fulfill stringent conditions — Circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt, and form complete chain of evidence — Prosecution failed to prove incriminating circumstances against accused by cogent and admissible evidence — Conviction set aside.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 217 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH POORANMAL Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal…

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 15, 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…

Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7 — Demand and acceptance of bribe — Complainant’s testimony regarding demand by accused (A2) on a specific date was clear and corroborated by other witnesses — Pre-trap proceedings were also established — Recovery of marked notes from A2’s person and hand wash turning pink confirmed the trap — Despite inconsistencies in complainant’s testimony regarding earlier demands, the demand on the crucial date was credible — Independent witnesses corroborated the trap, with one identifying A2 and the other recovering the bribe money — Acquittal of A2 set aside, conviction under Section 7 of PC Act restored with modified sentence and fine.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 221 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. BALJEET SINGH ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No………of…

Constitution

”Euthanasia ” Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to life — Includes right to die with dignity — Passive euthanasia and Advance Medical Directives (AMD) are permissible under Article 21 — Active euthanasia is not permissible — Withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment is a constitutional right derived from the dignity, liberty, privacy, and self-determination of an individual — This right extends to incompetent patients as well.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 222 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARISH RANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Miscellaneous Application No.…

Constitution

Reservation Policy — Other Backward Classes (OBC) — Creamy Layer Exclusion — Interpretation of Office Memorandum (OM) dated 08.09.1993 and Clarificatory Letter dated 14.10.2004 — Salary income exclusion — Hostile discrimination — Held, the clarificatory letter dated 14.10.2004, particularly paragraph 9 thereof, should not be interpreted in isolation or in a manner that overrides the substantive scheme of the 1993 OM — Overemphasis on the 2004 letter making income alone determinative without considering parental status and category of service would defeat the framework of exclusion under the 1993 OM — Determination of creamy layer status solely on income brackets without reference to posts and status parameters in the 1993 OM is unsustainable — Hostile discrimination arises when similarly placed individuals are treated differently without a constitutionally sustainable basis, thereby attracting provisions of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution — Appeals dismissed

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 230 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. ROHITH NATHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ Petition — Delay and Laches — Doctrine of laches is a flexible rule of practice, not a rigid rule of law, to be applied on case-to-case basis based on judicial discretion — It requires balancing the equity of not allowing stale claims against the constitutional duty to enforce fundamental rights — Key considerations include inordinate delay, explanation for delay, and prejudice to third-party rights or settled matters — Unexplained delay is critical; delay attributable to the State’s conduct cannot be used against the petitioner — Claims affecting the public at large or challenging the vires of a statute might warrant a less strict application of laches, especially when addressing historical injustices or transformative constitutionalism — The Court must weigh the need for finality against the need to rectify injustice and has the power to mould relief to minimize disruption while enforcing fundamental rights.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 236 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MIZO CHIEF COUNCIL MIZORAM, THR. PRESIDENT SHRI L. CHINZAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

Banking Corporate

Debts Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993 — Auction Sale — Revaluation of Property — High Court’s direction to reconsider valuation after confirmation of auction sale is permissible if there are credible issues regarding adequacy of valuation or fairness of process for fixing reserve price, to ensure best possible value is realised for the secured asset.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 237 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OM SAKTHI SEKAR Vs. V. SUKUMAR AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 — Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix — Delay in lodging FIR — Lack of corroborative evidence — Court held that conviction can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix only if it inspires confidence — In this case, the prosecutrix’s version did not inspire confidence due to unexplained delay and lack of disclosure to family, inconsistencies in statements, and absence of medical or other corroborative evidence — Defence of prior enmity also not properly considered — Conviction set aside.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 238 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.(s)…

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