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.

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.

Prisoner Rights — Human Dignity and Rights — The strength of a constitutional democracy is tested not merely by the liberties it guarantees abstractly, but by the manner in which it treats those at its margins — Prisons, though instruments of lawful confinement, are not spaces where constitutional values cease to operate — The guarantee of life and personal dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India extends beyond prison gates, obliging the State to ensure that incarceration does not degenerate into inhumanity — Overcrowded prisons, bereft of humane living conditions and rehabilitative avenues, strike at the very core of this constitutional promise and call for sustained institutional response rather than sporadic remedial measures.

2026 INSC 198 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUHAS CHAKMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Writ Petition (C)…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 — Sections 7 and 60(2) — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Initiation against principal debtor and guarantor — Co-extensive liability — Creditor can initiate CIRP against both the principal debtor and guarantor simultaneously, and also file claims in the CIRP of both.

2026 INSC 201 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ICICI BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. ERA INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 468, 469, 473 — Limitation bars taking cognizance — Offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (Section 27(d) of Act) falls under Section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C. with limitation expiring after 3 years from the date the identity of the offender becomes known to the aggrieved party or police officer.

2026 INSC 200 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. PANACEA BIOTEC LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti,…

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 105 — Lease vs. License — Determining the nature of a document is based on the substance and intention of the parties, not just its wording — A lease transfers an interest in land, while a license merely permits use without transferring ownership or interest.

2026 INSC 199 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE GENERAL SECRETARY, VIVEKANANDA KENDRA Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWALLA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 — Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, Forgery, Using Forged Document — Joint Venture Agreement — Dispute arising from JVA — FIR quashed — Allegations primarily civil in nature, with a criminal cloak — Dishonest intention not evident from the inception — Delay in lodging FIR indicates civil dispute — Security deposit not refundable, adjustable against share in sale proceeds — No false representation regarding title or litigation in JVA — Allegation of forgery of a tracing document unsubstantiated — Recourse to civil remedies should be taken for contractual disputes.

2026 INSC 192 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VANDANA JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,…

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 123 — Regularisation of unauthorised occupation — Legal fiction created by Section 123(2) deems land settled with house owners in possession by a specific cut-off date, overriding Section 143 declaration — Regularisation is a socio-economic measure and is applicable even if houses were built forcefully or without consent.

2026 INSC 193 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM NARAIN (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and R.…

“Sharbat Rooh Afza” — Classification — Contains declared fruit juice and derives essential beverage identity from fruit-based constituents — Invert sugar syrup acts as carrier, sweetener, and preservative, not determinative of commercial identity — Fruit juice and allied distillates impart flavour and beverage character — Held to be classifiable as “fruit drink” under Entry 103.

2026 INSC 195 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S HAMDARD (WAKF) LABORATORIES Vs. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, U.P. COMMERCIAL ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439(2) — Bail — Cancellation of Bail — Appeal against High Court order granting bail — Supreme Court can interfere if bail order is based on extraneous considerations or ignores relevant material, distinct from cancellation for misuse of bail.

2026 INSC 181 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHOBHA NAMDEV SONAVANE Vs. SAMADHAN BAJIRAO SONVANE AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed