This volume of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), Part 1 of Volume 5, embodies landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court on the right to freedom of speech and expression, stray dogs menace, admissibility of electronic evidence, and more.
Constitution of India — Art. 19(1)(a) and Arts. 12, 21, 51-A(a), 32 and 226 — Fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression: It is the duty of police to honour and uphold such right. Police, held, must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. Liberty of thought and expression held, one of the ideals of our Constitution, [Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, (2026) 1 SCC 721]
Constitution of India — Arts. 21, 14, 19(1)(d), 47, 48, 48-A and 51-A(g) — Protection against the menace of stray dogs: Animal welfare vis-à-vis public safety, public health, freedom of movement, interest of tourism, protection of foreign nationals, national interest, image of country in the global perspective and protection of public in institutional areas, explained. Report submitted by Amicus Curiae highlighted several grave deficiencies and shortcomings by the States and UTs in complying with earlier directions of the Court. The report highlighted areas where directions issued by the Court were either not effected or compliance remained incomplete. Further directions issued, [City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, In re, (2026) 1 SCC 774]
Customs Act, 1962 — Ss. 138-C(4) and 108 — Electronic evidence seized by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) — Admissibility: Such evidence is admissible even without a certificate under S. 138-C(4), if assessees have acknowledged these documents in devices in their statements under S. 108, [Revenue Intelligence Directorate v. Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex (P) Ltd., (2026) 1 SCC 756]
Energy, Power and Electricity — Electricity — Generation and Transmission/Supply/Distribution of electricity — Power Projects/Supply Obligations/Contract/Licence for Supply of Power/SEZ/Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)/Dispute Resolution — Terms of Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — Bindingness of: Contractual rights and remedies must be asserted within the framework of the agreement, not dehors it. Regulatory or adjudicatory fora cannot, under the guise of equity or fairness, rewrite the contractual framework or superimpose obligations alien to the agreement. The PPA, being the product of a competitive bidding process and having received regulatory approval, must be construed and enforced strictly in accordance with its express stipulations and to permit otherwise would be to allow the State Commission or APTEL to override the parties own allocation of risk under the contract, [Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Saisudhir Energy (Chitradurga) (P) Ltd., (2026) 1 SCC 799]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Ss. 138 and 142 — Dishonour of cheque — Amendment in complaint: Law re-clarified relating to amendment of complaint, Whether permissible, when summons issued to the accused, chief examination of the complainant concluded and cross-examination awaited, [Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food (P) Ltd., (2026) 1 SCC 712]