Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)
2026 INSC 51 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANSAL CROWN HEIGHTS FLAT BUYERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) Vs. M/S ANSAL CROWN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65)
2026 INSC 52 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALKA SHRIRANG CHAVAN AND ANOTHER Vs. HEMCHANDRA RAJARAM BHONSALE AND OTHERS ( Before : Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…
Administrative Law — Competence of authorities — State Governments lack legislative competence to prescribe additional experience as an essential qualification for Drug Inspectors when the Central Government has already occupied the field.
2026 INSC 63 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) — Section 12 — Constitutional Mandate — Free and Compulsory Education — Admission of children from weaker and disadvantaged sections — Obligation of “neighbourhood school” to admit twenty-five percent of class strength from weaker and disadvantaged sections (Section 12(1)(c)) is transformative, securing the preambular objective of ‘equality of status’ and the constitutional right under Article 21A, requiring effective implementation. (Para 1)
2026 INSC 56 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…
Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act but held that it must operate with mandatory independent screening by the Lokpal or Lokayukta, whose recommendation would be binding on the Government, in order to cure the defects identified in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy and to balance protection of honest public servants with the rule of law, whereas Justice B.V. Nagarathna, in dissent, held that Section 17A is unconstitutional in its entirety as it effectively protects only higher-level decision-making public servants, creates an impermissible classification under Article 14, revives the invalidated Single Directive and Section 6A of the DSPE Act, forecloses even preliminary inquiry, and cannot be salvaged by reading the Lokpal into the statute without engaging in impermissible judicial legislation. Having regard to the divergent opinions expressed by Hon’ able Judges, direct the Registry to place this matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench to consider the issues which arise in this matter afresh.
2026 INSC 55 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Writ Petition…
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Sections 2(y), 2(ze) — Appointment under reserved quota — Management Trainee recruitment by Coal India Limited (CIL) — Denial of appointment based on initial finding of unfitness and recruitment process expiry — Appellant suffering from disability above the benchmark (57%) based on subsequent AIIMS medical report — Expiry of recruitment panel cannot nullify appellant’s right to employment when initial denial was wrongful and due to the employer’s failure to account for “multiple disability” in the notification — Held, appellant is eligible for appointment; appropriate relief moulded using extraordinary powers. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 23, 29, 30, 31, 37)
2026 INSC 53 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUJATA BORA Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B.Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 120…
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — Sections 21(vii) and 22 — Maintenance of Dependents — Widow of Son — Legal entitlement to claim maintenance from the estate of the deceased father-in-law — Interpretation of “any widow of his son” under Section 21(vii) — The phrase “any widow of his son” is clear and unambiguous, applying to a son’s widow irrespective of whether the son died before or after the father-in-law’s demise — The word “predeceased” cannot be added to or inferred before “son” in Section 21(vii) — A daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law is a ‘dependant’ upon his estate and entitled to claim maintenance under Section 22. (Paras 3, 7, 10, 15, 16, 22, 29)
2026 INSC 54 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANCHANA RAI Vs. GEETA SHARMA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos…..of 2026…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Dying declaration — Admissibility and weight — A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is voluntary, truthful, and reliable, even without corroboration. The court must scrutinize it carefully for tutoring or manipulation and consider the declarant’s opportunity to observe and identify the assailant and their fitness to make the statement.
2026 INSC 57 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. CHAMAN LAL ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 430…
Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act — Schedule I-A, Article 47A, Explanation I — Agreement to Sell — Deemed Conveyance — For an agreement to sell to be deemed a conveyance under Explanation I, the delivery of possession must be linked to the agreement to sell, either following it or evidenced by it. If possession existed prior to the agreement and was not surrendered or changed because of the agreement, it does not fall under this Explanation.
2026 INSC 59 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VAYYAETI SRINIVASARAO Vs. GAINEEDI JAGAJYOTHI ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos…..of 2026 (Arising Out…
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 41(h) — Injunction when refused — Equally efficacious remedy — A suit for mandatory injunction for removal of a wall is barred if the plaintiff has not claimed possession, and possession is disputed, as a suit for possession would be a more efficacious remedy.
2026 INSC 61 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY PALIWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ( Before : Aravind Kumar and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…