Supreme Court of India Judgements

June 17, 2026 6:06 am

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

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

POCSO

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.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

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.

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.

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.

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. [

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 324 – Voluntary causing hurt – Involvement of accused – Injury specifically attributed to accused – Not supported by medical evidence – Accused acquitted.

Acquittal Corruption

Illegal Gratification–In the absence of proof of demand, the question raising the presumption would not arose. Sanction–Sanctioning authority did not apply their mind to entire material on record–Sanction is vitiated in law.

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.

Land Acquisition

Acquisition of Land–Interest of solatium–No separate claim necessary before High Court–Could be claimed even in state appeal. Acquisition of Land–Interest on solatium–When conditions are satisfied; the award of interest is consequential and involved only arithmetical calculation and not application of judicial mind.

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.

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.

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.

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. [

G S T

Goods and Services Tax (GST) — Exemption Notification — Notification No. 9/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 — Entry 13 — Exemption on services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence — Renting residential property as hostel to students/working professionals — Conditions for exemption: renting service, residential dwelling, and use as residence — The term “residential dwelling” is not defined under GST laws but refers to any residential accommodation for long-term stay, excluding commercial places, hotels, guesthouses for temporary stay — Property comprising 42 rooms rented out and sub-leased for use as hostel accommodation is considered a “residential dwelling” as its nature and use remain residential, not commercial accommodation like a hotel. (Paras 36, 46, 47, 50)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1380 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER Vs. TAGHAR VASUDEVA AMBRISH AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(a) and (b) — Power of Arbitral Tribunal to grant interest — Party Autonomy — Pre-award (pendente lite) interest — Section 31(7)(a) mandates that the Arbitral Tribunal’s discretion to award interest on the sum awarded (from date cause of action arose till date of award) is subject to the agreement between the parties (“unless otherwise agreed by the parties”) — When parties specify a contractual rate of interest in the agreement, subject to no legal bar, this stipulation takes precedence over the Arbitrator’s discretion to deem a rate “reasonable” — Arbitral Tribunal is bound by the contractual terms regarding interest once agreed upon, and the borrower cannot later challenge the rate as unconscionable or against public policy, especially in commercial transactions between parties of equal bargaining power — Post-award interest is governed by Section 31(7)(b) (Paras 51, 53, 56, 64, 65, 70).

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1380 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BPL LIMITED Vs. MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 319 — Summoning of Additional Accused — Nature and Scope of Power — The power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and discretionary, intended to be exercised sparingly, but it is an enabling provision aimed at ensuring that no guilty person escapes the process of law — The prerequisite for its exercise is that it must appear from the evidence adduced during inquiry or trial that a person not already arraigned as an accused has committed an offence — The object is to ensure a fair and complete trial and give effect to the maxim ‘judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur’ (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted). (Paras 6, 7)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1386 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Arbitral Award — Excepted or Prohibited Claims — Contractual clauses barring certain claims (e.g., for idle labour, idle machinery, business loss) — Judicial review of awards involving prohibited claims — Applicability of such clauses primarily depends on the agreement between the parties, guided by the principle of party autonomy — Arbitral Tribunal and Courts must rely on the contract as the foundation of the legal relationship — High Court setting aside Civil Court order (under Section 34) and restoring award (under Section 37) solely based on precedent (Bharat Drilling) without independent contractual analysis is flawed — Reinstating claims (underutilised overheads, loss due to underutilised tools/machinery, loss of profit) barred by specific contractual provisions (Clauses 4.20.2, 4.20.4) is incorrect if based only on flawed precedent. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 8, 9)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1388 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. THE INDIAN BUILDERS JAMSHEDPUR ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

Stamp Act

Stamp Act, 1899 — Section 9A (inserted by Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1988) — Exemption of Stamp Duty — Cooperative Societies — Transfer of Premises to Members — Jharkhand Self-Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996 — Section 5(7) — Conclusive Evidence — Mandating recommendation from Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, as a prerequisite for granting stamp duty exemption under Section 9A is illegal and ultra vires because the certificate of registration issued under Section 5(7) of the 1996 Act is conclusive proof of the society’s existence, rendering the additional requirement superfluous, unnecessary, and based on irrelevant consideration. (Paras 2.2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1389 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ADARSH SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SWAWLAMBI SOCIETY LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…

Service

General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules, 1960 — Rules 5(5), 5(6), 33 and Note 2 to Rule 476(V) of Official Manual (Part V) — Interpretation — While Rules 5(5) and 5(6) read together do not automatically cancel a nomination where the subscriber fails to send a notice of cancellation and a fresh nomination — The express condition in the original nomination form stating it invalidates upon the subscriber acquiring a family renders the nomination void the moment the condition (marriage) occurs, triggering distribution under Rule 33(i)(b) to all family members in equal shares. (Paras 5, 7, 8)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1391 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. BOLLA MALATHI Vs. B. SUGUNA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Divorce — Cruelty — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Parties living separately for more than thirteen years (since 2012) without any meaningful effort at reconciliation — Relationship deeply embittered and acrimonious — High Court confirmed dissolution of marriage considering the welfare of the parties and their child — Supreme Court affirmed the decree of divorce, holding that perpetuating a legal bond long ceased to have substance would only prolong hostility and impede ability to move forward with dignity, confirming dissolution is in the interest of justice and welfare of all concerned. (Paras 4, 6, 7, 13)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1390 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SONIA VIRK Vs. ROHIT VATS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 14856 of 2024…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 21 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Substantive Equality and Inclusion — Scope and Spirit — The measure of a just society demands the removal of barriers for all citizens to realize their potential, transforming formal equality into substantive inclusion — Constitutional vision requires every person, regardless of physical or sensory limitation, to participate with dignity — Rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are expressions of the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, not acts of benevolence. (Paras 1, 12, 13)

Dec 4, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1376 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MISSION ACCESSIBILITY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Writ Petition (C)…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)

Dec 4, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1378 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAL KUMAR PATEL @ RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable obligation upon the Court and is not a mere formality; it is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice (audi alterum partem) — The statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction and is neither substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. (Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1371 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDAN PASI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF THE BIHAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

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