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. [
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 114A, Rules 17, 27, 28 of West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004 — Competency of Gram Panchayat to grant building permission — Not competent if area governed by Act of 1979 and development plan exists — Panchayat Samiti is the competent authority.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S AARSUDAY PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD Vs. JOGEN CHOWDHURY AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters
Service

University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 — Clause 3(c) defining “Caste-based Discrimination” — Incorporation argued as restrictive and exclusionary — Claim that it renders individuals from non-reserved/general classes remediless against caste-based discrimination or institutional bias — Allegation that regulations proceed on unfounded presumption that caste-based discrimination only affects reserved categories.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRITUNJAY TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Surya Kant, C.J. and Joymalya Bagchi, J. ) Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 101/2026 with…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 439 — Bail — Cancellation of bail — Supreme Court’s power to interfere with High Court’s bail order — Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere with High Court orders granting bail, but will intervene if discretion was exercised without due application of mind or contrary to law — Factors to consider include prima facie view of guilt, nature/gravity of offence, and likelihood of obstruction/evasion of justice — Grant of bail balances public interest in justice with individual liberty.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 98 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH USMAN ALI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Equality before law — Arbitrariness — State as a model employer is obligated to act with fairness and cannot exploit employees or take advantage of their unequal bargaining power — Prolonged contractual engagement on sanctioned posts, followed by abrupt discontinuation without cogent reasons, is arbitrary and violates Article 14.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 99 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHOLA NATH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Constitution Education

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 — Section 26(1)(e) and (g) — UGC Regulations, 2018 — Regulation 7.3 — Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019, SECTION 14(5) — Vice-Chancellor Appointment — Search-cum-Selection Committee — The UGC Regulations, framed under Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution, prescribe mandatory standards for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. State legislation must conform to these regulations. A deviation, such as the exclusion of a UGC nominee from the Search-cum-Selection Committee or the inclusion of a conflicted member, renders the appointment invalid.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 100 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. S. MOHAN Vs. THE SECRETARY TO THE CHANCELLOR, PUDUCHERRY TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, PUDUCHERRY AND OTHERS ETC ( Before : Vikram Nath…

Environment

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — Sections 15, 20 — Environmental compensation — Quantification — Project cost — NGT has discretion to mould relief based on polluter pays principle, scale of offending activity, and capacity of violator — Project turnover or cost can be relevant yardstick for determining compensation — Large scale operations indicate bigger environmental footprint and greater responsibility — Compensation must be rational, proportionate, and reasoned — Mechanical application of turnover or project cost is impermissible. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 46.2)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 102 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. RHYTHM COUNTY Vs. SATISH SANJAY HEGDE AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Appeal against order under Section 34 — Scope of interference by appellate court — Appellate court under Section 37 should only determine if the court under Section 34 exercised its jurisdiction properly and without exceeding its scope — Re-working and re-calculating reasonable compensation by the Division Bench when the Single Judge had already determined it based on the agreement, was beyond the scope of Section 37. (Para 18)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 103 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SAISUDHIR ENERGY LTD. Vs. M/S NTPC VIDYUT VYAPAR NIGAM LTD. ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar,…

Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) — Sections 8, 20, 23 — Recovery of contraband — Search and seizure — Procedural safeguards — Failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the Act concerning search and seizure, including informing the accused of their rights to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, vitiates the entire process and raises reasonable doubt. (Paras 8, 9, 13)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 95 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DONIYAR VILDANOV Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of…

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