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. [
Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) — Sections 7 and 13(2) — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court regarding the guilt of the appellant based on ocular evidence and corroboration from independent witnesses — No error found in appreciating the evidence or in rejecting the defence submissions regarding motive, contradictions, and the trustworthiness of witnesses — Appeal dismissed concerning conviction.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2013…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 and 37 – Challenge to arbitral award – Improper constitution of arbitral tribunal – Interpretation of Clause 8.3(b) of the agreement – Co-arbitrators’ power to appoint the presiding arbitrator after 30 days – High Court’s upholding of arbitral tribunal’s decision – Appeals dismissed.

Mar 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 228 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI Vs. M/S R.V. ANDERSON ASSOCIATES LIMITED ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Police Recruitment — Criminal Antecedents — Suitability for Appointment — A candidate with criminal antecedents, even if acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, can be deemed unsuitable for police service by the screening committee, as the employer has the right to assess character and integrity for a disciplined force.

Mar 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 225 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. RAJKUMAR YADAV ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters
Service

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967 — Regulations 10(9), 87, and 97 — Seniority of direct recruits — Determination of date of appointment — A person is considered on ‘duty’ when performing duties of a post or undergoing probation or training — Appointed to a class of service when discharging duties or commencing probation or training — Seniority is determined by rank in the approved list; probation starts from joining duty — Training is part of service, not a reason to exclude it from seniority calculation. — Division Bench misinterpreted Regulations by stating seniority commences from probation start date — Appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside.

Mar 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 229 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. THANIGIVELU AND OTHERS Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. )…

Companies Act I B C

Companies Act, 2013 — Sections 241, 242, 244, 59 — Oppression and mismanagement — Interim protection — Supreme Court’s role is to preserve the subject matter of the dispute until the competent forum adjudicates the matter — Interim measures should ensure that the subject matter remains protected while allowing the statutory forum to proceed with adjudication.

Mar 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 226 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MONIVEDA CONSULTANTS LLP AND ANOTHER Vs. SHAJAS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,…

I P C

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302/149 — Murder — Conviction and sentence for life imprisonment — Unlawful assembly and common object — Accused alighting from a bus together, armed with firearms, establishes unlawful assembly with a common object — Vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC applies to all members of the unlawful assembly — Presence in the assembly is sufficient for conviction even without overt acts by each individual.

Mar 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 224 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DABLU ETC. AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Acquittal Dying Declaration

Criminal Law — Investigation — Overzealous or lethargic investigation can be fatal to prosecution — A proper investigation requires drawing up a scene mahazar, forensic examination, independent witnesses, and thorough examination of the cause of fire — The failure to do so, coupled with contradictory statements from the investigating officer and undue haste in recording statements, can render the investigation a sham and prejudice the accused — Acquittal upheld by the Supreme Court due to flawed investigation and lack of credible evidence.

Mar 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 223 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal…

Service Matters
Constitution Service

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Disability — Mental Illness and Specific Learning Disability — Post of Auditor in CAG — Identified as not suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities suffering from mental illness, but later identified as suitable for Group C posts of Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II through Notification dated 4th January, 2021 — Court directs accommodation in suitable Group C posts.

Mar 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 232 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHANSHU KARDAM Vs. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Constitution Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 311(2) second proviso (b) — Dismissal from service without departmental inquiry — Requirement of reasonable practicability — Mere presumption or belief by disciplinary authority not sufficient — Must be based on objective facts and material on record. Article 311(2) second proviso (b) — Dispensing with departmental inquiry — Decision of disciplinary authority not binding on courts; subject to judicial review — Reasons for dispensing must be plausible and based on definite material.

Mar 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 234 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOHAR LAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Artificial Intelligence Constitution

Artificial Intelligence (AI) — Use in Legal Proceedings — Reliance on AI-generated judgments by a court is a serious matter concerning the integrity of the judicial process — Such judgments, if non-existent or fake, amount to misconduct rather than a simple error of judgment — Supreme Court orders examination of consequences and accountability for such practices — Notice issued to the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Bar Council of India to address this institutional concern.

Mar 4, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUMMADI USHA RANI AND ANOTHER Vs. SURE MALLIKARJUNA RAO AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Petition(s) for…

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