Supreme Court June 2026: Key Verdicts & Legal Developments

June 2026 marked the partial working days of the Supreme Court, with regular functioning set to resume on 13 July 2026. During these partial court working days, the Court operated via specially constituted Benches to hear urgent matters. Despite operating on limited strength, several landmark verdicts were delivered by the Court, namely recognition of the fundamental right to walk, new compensatory head titled “loss of domestic care” towards the “homemaker’s contribution and tentative steps being taken towards integration of AI in Courts. This month also witnessed the appointment of 5 new Judges in the Supreme Court including second woman Judge to be elevated directly from the Bar (Justice V. Mohana).

This Supreme Court June 2026 Roundup highlights not only the month’s most important judgments and key legal developments, but it also features the latest judicial appointments, collegium recommendations and details on case pendency in the Supreme Court.

Do not miss out on the latest Supreme Court Judgments published in SCC Weekly and the Know Thy Judge series!

Top Stories of June 2026

Supreme Court Judges’ Working Strength inches closer to the Sanctioned Strength

On 1 June 2026, the President of India appointed five new Judges to the Supreme Court, namely, Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice Arun Palli and Justice V. Mohana (formerly Senior Advocate). The Judges took oath of office on 2 June 2026.

With the recent increase in the sanctioned strength of the Judges from 34 to 38, the induction of the aforementioned Judges has taken the Working Strength closer to the new sanctioned strength.

Also Read: Four More Judges for the Supreme Court: President’s Ordinance Responds to India’s Mounting Case Backlog

Draft AI Regulations

On 3 June 2026, the Supreme Court issued the draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026, proposing structured framework for integrating AI into the judicial system while safeguarding constitutional values, fairness, and judicial independence.

Right to Walk of Footpath

In Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1162, the death of a 5-year-old child who was fatally run over by a tanker while walking to school with his father, led the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., to not only enhanced the compensation payable to the bereaved father but also addressed the larger constitutional issue of pedestrian rights in India. Observing that the “primary right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) is the Fundamental Right to Walk”, the Court declared that the right to walk on safe and well-demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. Emphasising that pedestrian rights are primary and must receive priority over movement by motorised vehicles, the Court held that Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats bear an enforceable duty to provide and maintain footpaths. The Court further recognised that violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths entitles citizens to seek constitutional and legal remedies independent of those available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and underscored the need for a dedicated statutory framework and regulatory mechanism to protect and effectuate this right.

Justice for Human Trafficking Survivors

In Prajwala v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1053, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ., gave a comprehensive pronouncement on human trafficking and protection of victims of commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) in India, originating from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by petitioner, an anti-trafficking organisation, seeking enforcement of the assurances and undertakings given by the Union Government regarding the establishment of an Organised Crime Investigation Agency (OCIA) and the formulation of a comprehensive anti-trafficking law. The Court while recognising trafficking as a grave assault on human dignity, bodily autonomy and personal liberty, adopted a victim-centric approach and affirmed that rehabilitation is not merely a matter of governmental policy but an integral component of the constitutional guarantee of a life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court issued a comprehensive “Victim Protection Plan” governing the pre-rescue, rescue, post-rescue, rehabilitation, reintegration and prosecution stages, while simultaneously recommending several legislative and policy reforms aimed at strengthening India’s anti-trafficking framework.

Adequate Court Infrastructure for Women Lawyers

The Bench of Surya Kant, CJI and V. Mohana, J., in Sarika Tyagi v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1192, heard a PIL filed by a group of women advocates practising in different courts across India, seeking judicial intervention regarding lack of adequate facilities for women advocates in court complexes and the financial hardships faced by young advocates during the initial years of practice. The Court considering the significance of the issues and their implications for the legal profession, issued notice to all respondents and made tentative and illustrative observations intended to facilitate discussion among stakeholders.

Multi-Expert Panels for Psychological Evaluation of Child Victims in Custody Disputes

In Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1110, which was a civil appeal challenging the Bombay High Court’s orders dated 27 April 2023 and 7 December 2023 in terms of whether a minor girl child now about 10 years, who was the alleged victim in pending proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), could be subjected to psychological evaluation by a 4-member panel of experts, including professionals suggested by the father and experts situated outside Jalgaon and even outside India, constituted by the High Court at the instance of her father, who sought restoration of access and emotional reconnect with the child, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh*, JJ., held that the High Court had failed to adequately consider the welfare, emotional security and psychological well-being of the minor child while modifying its earlier direction for appointment of an independent expert and constituting a 4-member panel of experts. The Court held that while courts dealing with custody and visitation disputes are not barred from obtaining expert psychological assistance, such assistance must satisfy the requirements of demonstrable necessity, minimum intrusion, institutional neutrality, proportionality and the paramount consideration of the child’s welfare. The process should remain child-centric and welfare-oriented rather than assume the character of an adversarial inquiry intended to validate or discredit allegations made against either parent. Accordingly, the Court modified the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the Family Court to proceed in accordance with the directions and observations made by this Court.

The Court further framed non-exhaustive or flexible guidelines to be followed while dealing with cases involving psychological or psychiatric evaluation of minor children in proceedings arising out of custody, visitation or parental access disputes.

Valuation of Homemaker’s Unpaid Work

In a landmark decision rendered in Shishu Pal v. Surjeet, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1114, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., while considering the extraordinary delay of two-and-a-half decades in the adjudication of a compensation claim; and the proper valuation of the contribution made by a homemaker to her family and society, recognised Homemakers as “Nation Builders”, and introduced a new compensatory head titled “loss of domestic care” towards the “homemaker’s contribution towards smooth functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support for children and loss of spousal support/the support and care of their child who is an adult, for the parents of the deceased”, fixed at ₹30,000 per month subject to periodic enhancement payable at her death. The Court also issued comprehensive directions to be followed while deciding motor accident claims and enhanced the compensation in the instant case from ₹8,43,400 awarded by the High Court to ₹62,77,900, together with the same interest regime prescribed by the High Court.

Also Watch: Supreme Court Recognises Homemakers’ Unpaid Work; Creates ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ Compensation Head

Election Petition/Trial

In Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1133, arising out Returning Officer’s order dated 9 June 2026, which rejected the nomination of petitioner, a candidate of the Indian National Congress (INC), for a Rajya Sabha seat from the State of Madhya Pradesh in the biennial Rajya Sabha elections, ground that she had failed to disclose a pending criminal case in the affidavit filed along with her nomination papers in Form 26, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., refused to entertain the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, holding that:

Article 329(b) expressly bars judicial interference in electoral matters during the election process.
Rejection of a nomination paper forms part of the election process.
Any challenge to such rejection must be raised through an election petition after completion of the election.
The constitutional bar operates irrespective of the petitioner’s allegation that the rejection is manifestly illegal.

Other Notable Judgments of June 2026

Constitution of India: Speedy Investigation

In Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri v. Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1073, presenting a disturbing instance of prolonged investigative delay where a criminal complaint lodged in 2007 remained unresolved even after nearly 2 decades and challenging High Court’s order refusing to issue directions for filing of a charge-sheet despite repeated orders of the Magistrate and despite the complainant’s persistent efforts to secure completion of investigation, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ., reaffirmed that “the right to speedy trial is intrinsically linked to Article 21 of the Constitution” and held that the High Court erred in not taking the note of the inordinate delay in filing of the chargesheet and intervening in the matter.

Civil Procedure

In Rajat Kumar v. S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1161, arising from a long-standing property dispute involving alleged encroachment over a common open space and unauthorised construction on a residential wall, a Division Bench of S.V.N. Bhatti and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., examined whether the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), could substitute decrees of mandatory injunction with an award of monetary compensation in the absence of any such prayer by the plaintiff. The Court held that the High Court committed a manifest error in setting aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court on considerations extraneous to the reliefs sought in the suits. Emphasising that a court cannot compel a successful litigant to accept compensation in lieu of an injunction when no such relief was claimed or consented to, the Court found the impugned exercise legally unsustainable and contrary to the scheme of the CPC. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the second appeals for fresh consideration in accordance with Section 100 CPC.

In Makardhwaj Ram v. Jagdish Rai, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1112, arising out of a decades-long family property dispute concerning agricultural land and the applicability of the doctrine of constructive res judicata under Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), a Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ., held that the appellant’s suit seeking declaration of title and possession could not be barred by constructive res judicata merely because such relief had not been claimed in earlier proceedings challenging specific sale deeds executed by a general power-of-attorney holder. Observing that the appellant’s title under a 1960 transfer deed had remained undisputed until subsequent mutation proceedings threatened his rights, the Court held that there was no occasion for him to assert title over the larger parcel of land in the earlier suits. Emphasising that the application of constructive res judicata depends on the facts of each case and should not result in harsh or inequitable consequences, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and allowed the appeal.

Criminal Law and Criminal Trial/Procedure

In the appeals arising from a Calcutta High Court’s judgment dated 23 April 2026, reversing Sessions Court’s judgment of acquittal dated 24 April 2024, convicting the appellant, for offences under Sections 376 and 312, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and directing the trial court to hear the accused on sentence and impose punishment, the Division Bench of K.V. Viswanathan and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., in Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 938, set aside the part of para 108 of the impugned judgment by which the appellant was directed to surrender before the trial court and the trial court was directed to hear him on sentence and impose punishment, holding that where an appellate court reverses an acquittal and records a conviction for the first time, the appellate court is duty-bound to itself hear the convict on the question of sentence and impose punishment. The appellate court cannot remit the matter to the trial court solely for sentencing. Such a course is inconsistent with Section 386(a), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and established judicial precedents.

In Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Dr) v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1102, concerning the scope of judicial power exercisable by a third Judge under Section 392, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC, 1973), where a Division Bench hearing a criminal appeal delivers divergent opinions, the Division Bench comprising Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. examined whether the third Judge’s jurisdiction extends beyond the points of disagreement and permits reconsideration of findings unanimously reached by the original Bench. Finding that the issue raises substantial questions regarding the interpretation of Section 392 CrPC and the correctness of the decision in Sajjan Singh v. State of M.P., (1999) 1 SCC 315, the Court referred the matter to a larger Bench for authoritative determination.

In Rajni v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1050, arising from a common order granting regular bail to accused persons in a murder case involving an alleged armed mob attack, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., set aside the grant of bail to 3 accused, holding that the High Court had erred in enlarging all the respondent-accused on bail without individually adverting to their distinct roles and criminal antecedents. Observing that the offence was of an exceptionally grave nature, involving an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons which culminated in the death of the deceased and injuries to the complainant, the Court held that period of incarceration and delay in trial, though relevant considerations, could not constitute the sole or determinative basis for grant of bail in such circumstances. The Court emphasised that criminal antecedents are a material factor bearing directly on the likelihood of an accused abiding by bail conditions, refraining from repeating offences, or desisting from intimidating witnesses, and therefore must weigh heavily while considering bail. While cancelling the bail granted to Respondents 2, 3 and 5 in view of their active role in the occurrence and multiple antecedents involving serious offences, the Court declined to interfere with the bail granted to Respondent 4, noting the absence of any specific overt act attributed to him and the lack of criminal antecedents on record.

Consumer Protection: Arbitration

In T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1160, arising from a dispute concerning delayed delivery of a residential flat, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and V. Mohana, JJ. held that the existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement does not oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court reiterated that consumer remedies are statutory, additional, and independent of other remedies available under law. The Bench further held that once a consumer complaint has been admitted, it cannot be transferred to arbitration or any other forum by virtue of the proviso to Section 12(4), Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Clarifying the scope of the term “consumer”, the Court ruled that an allottee does not lose the right to seek compensation for delayed possession merely because possession of the flat has subsequently been delivered. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the consumer fora below and restored the complaint for adjudication on merits.

Company Law

In Shiva Shakti Security Services v. Official Liquidator, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1159, arising out of Calcutta High Court’s judgment dated 11 May 2026, wherein Company Court’s order transferring pending winding-up proceedings concerning Martina Bio Genics Pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation) from High Court to the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (NCLT) was upheld, the Division Bench of S.V.N. Bhatti and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., issue noticed to the respondents.

EWS Reservation

In Harshvardhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1219, concerning whether Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) candidates admitted to private medical colleges are entitled to fee concessions, in addition to reservation in admissions, to make the constitutional benefit of EWS reservation meaningful, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., declined to interfere with a Rajasthan High Court judgment rejecting such a plea. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition (SLP), the Court observed that it found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, it clarified that the larger question of law, if any, has been left open for consideration in an appropriate case.

Education Law: Services

In State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 998, which was a batch of review petitions filed by various States, teachers’ associations, organizations and individual teachers seeking review of a part of judgment rendered in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912, requiring in-service teachers, appointed prior to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) and having more than 5 years of service remaining, to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) within 2 years from 1 September 2025, failing which they would be ineligible to continue in service, the Bench of Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ., reaffirmed the correctness of its judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust, holding that Section 23, RTE Act always contemplated acquisition of prescribed qualifications by in-service teachers and that TET is a mandatory eligibility requirement rooted in the constitutional guarantee of quality education under Article 21-A of the Constitution.

Environment Law

In Illegal Sand Mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary & Threat to Endangered Aquatic Wildlife, In re, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 947, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., said that the protection of ecologically sensitive regions and wildlife habitats constitutes a continuing constitutional obligation of the State under Articles 21, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution, requiring proactive governance, effective enforcement, and timely implementation of environmental safeguards. The Court observed that illegal sand mining, enabled by inadequate surveillance, weak enforcement mechanisms, and the operation of unregistered and unidentified vehicles, cannot be effectively curbed through nominal penalties or isolated regulatory actions, and accordingly emphasised the need for a coordinated and deterrent enforcement framework involving robust surveillance systems, adequate field-level personnel, seizure and confiscation of offending vehicles, and prosecution of all persons involved in organised illegal mining networks.

Family and Personal Laws

In Dhiraj Dutta v. Anirban Sen, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 996, concerning the limitation applicable to proceedings for revocation of probate under Section 263, Succession Act, 1925, a Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., held that an application seeking revocation of probate is governed by Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 and must be filed within 3 years from the date on which the right to apply accrues. Rejecting the respondents’ plea that they acquired knowledge of the probate only in 2019, the Court held that the notice served upon them in mutation proceedings in 2013 constituted constructive notice, and their failure to inquire into the basis of the appellant’s claim amounted to wilful abstention. Observing that such conduct could not be attributed to a reasonably prudent person, the Court concluded that the application for revocation filed in 2022 was hopelessly time-barred. Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restored the Single Judge’s order dismissing the revocation application on the ground of limitation.

In Gopalakrishna Surapaneni v. Anuradha Surpaneni Maiden, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1056, assailing orders dismissing petition for divorce, the Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan, JJ., held that “the marriage between the parties being dead for all practical purposes has to be nullified”; granted a decree of divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

In Shephali Chakraborty v. State of W.B., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1064, challenging the concurrent decisions of the District Judge, Darjeeling and the Calcutta High Court, which had refused permission to the appellant-mother to dispose of minor’s inherited immovable property pursuant to a development agreement under Section 8, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (the Act), the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., allowed the appeal and granted the appellant the necessary permission to give effect to and realise the development agreement, holding that where a development agreement converts an undivided and comparatively unproductive interest in land into tangible residential accommodation and secure monetary benefits that are demonstrably beneficial to the child, permission ought to be granted subject to adequate safeguards. The Court further held that court exercising jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Act must independently determine whether a proposed transaction involving a minor’s immovable property is necessary or evidently advantageous to the minor. The guardian’s consent cannot substitute judicial scrutiny.

Government Grants

In Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1059, arising from the Allahabad High Court’s judgment which had denied the appellant’s claim for allotment of fair price shop under the dependent quota solely because she was a married daughter of the deceased fair price shop dealer, the Division Bench of Alok Aradhe* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., quashed the impugned orders of the High Court, the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, holding that “once dependency is accepted as the governing criterion, exclusion of a married daughter solely on account of her marital status becomes wholly irrational and self-defeating”. The Court held that exclusion of married daughters based upon gender stereotypes violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. The Court further held that the expression “daughter” in Clause 2(p), U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Control Order, 2016 (2016 Order) includes a married daughter who establishes dependency and fulfils all other eligibility conditions.

K. Raheja Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 945, challenged the common judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 20 November 2014 and 21 November 2014 and, preferred by appellant, the developer, employees working in the K. Raheja Group’s Mall and Hotel developed on the subject land, and the Retailers Association of India. The controversy before the Court was not confined to the legality of the original allotment of land by City and Industrial Development Corporation Limited (CIDCO), which had already been found to be irregular, but extended to a larger question of public interest, i.e., whether, after the passage of more than 2 decades and the creation of substantial economic and social interests, public interest would be better served by demolition of the development or by a supervised regularisation accompanied by complete financial restitution to the public authority. Setting aside the impugned judgments insofar as it pertains to restoration of the subject plot to its original condition and delivery of vacant possession to CIDCO, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe*, JJ., granted regularisation of illegal CIDCO allotment subject to payment of approximately ₹ 318.31 crores plus ₹ 1 crore towards the unfulfilled garden obligation, with adjustment of amounts already paid, holding that demolition of “a fully operational commercial complex after 17 years, ₹ 450 crores of investment, 8000 livelihoods, and ₹ 100 crores of annual tax revenue”, impermissible where financial loss to public authority is fully remediable through monetary recovery.

Limitation

In National Highway Authority of India v. T. Younis, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1060, assailing the order whereby delay in filing the applications under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), was condoned, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ., held that once proceedings under Section 33, Arbitration Act, are formally invoked and entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal, limitation for filing an application under Section 34 commences only from the date of disposal of such proceedings.

Motor Vehicle Accidents

The Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., in Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1193, revisited the principles governing the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) where the injured claimant suffers permanent disability resulting in loss of earning capacity. The Court enhanced the compensation to ₹35,95,923 with 6 per cent per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment, holding that the appellant’s amputation rendered him completely incapable of pursuing his vocation as a carpenter, therefore, his functional disability must be assessed as 100 per cent. The Court reiterated that “the purpose of fair compensation is to restore the injured to the position he was in prior to the accident as best as possible”.

In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalu Ram, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1187, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., held that, “The MV Act being a beneficial legislation, the duty of the Court is to ensure that just compensation is awarded, even if a legitimate conventional head has been omitted by the courts below.” The Court held that claimants shall be entitled to an additional amount of ₹80,000 towards filial consortium. Accordingly, the total compensation payable to the claimants was enhanced from ₹81,21,900 to ₹82,01,900 along with interest at the rate awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).

In M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1188, arising from Madras High Court’s judgment dated 29 November 2023, which had partly allowed the claimant’s appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) from ₹10,84,330 to ₹23,86,320 with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., enhanced the compensation to ₹40,29,730, holding that for determining compensation in motor accident claims involving permanent disability, the decisive factor is not the percentage of physical disability but the extent to which the disability impairs the claimant’s earning capacity. Thus, the Court held that considering the nature of claimant’s occupation, i.e., mason, such an injury would completely deprive him of the ability to pursue his vocation, therefore, the functional disability must be assessed at 100 per cent even though the certified physical disability is 70 per cent.

Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1111, raised an important question concerning the scope of compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) as to whether appellant, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), could be saddled with liability, for grievous injuries suffered by the claimant when a branch of a roadside tree fell upon an autorickshaw in which he was travelling; the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ., held that falling of a tree branch during heavy rain may constitute an unforeseen natural occurrence beyond the contemplation of authorities, however, it does not by itself, constitute an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” within the meaning of Sections 165 and 166 of the Act, especially when the vehicle plays no active or proximate role in causing the injury and its presence is merely incidental. Therefore, the Court held that, in such circumstances, fastening liability upon the appellant under the Act would be unfair. Nevertheless, taking note of the claimant’s life-altering injuries, including permanent paraplegia, and invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court enhanced the compensation to ₹ 25 lakhs and directed its payment in the interest of complete and humane justice.

Service Law

While considering Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1104, wherein the appellant challenged the cancellation of his provisional selection for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC) by the respondent on grounds of moral turpitude, the Division Bench of Manoj Misra* and Manmohan, JJ., allowed the appeal and held the respondent’s action to be arbitrary. The Court stated that merely because the appellant’s pre-marital relationship with his neighbour did not culminate in marriage, the same is not a ground to believe that the appellant had cheated and draw an adverse inference. The Court stated that pre-marital relationships are common today and physical relationship between 2 consenting unmarried adults cannot and should not by itself be a ground to draw an adverse impression about the character of the person in that relationship.

In S. Senthil Kumaran Bose v. State of T.N., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1135, arising out of a prolonged Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) motor vehicle inspector recruitment dispute, challenging the legality of the directions issued by the Madras High Court by judgment dated 22 December 2023, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., upheld the impugned directions, holding that these direction provided a level playing field to all the candidates so that they are placed at par with each other and a wider competition amongst eligible candidates. The Court held that:

Candidates whose workshop experience became valid after retrospective approval of workshops must be considered in the recruitment process.
The State Government’s exercise regarding retrospective renewal of workshop approvals was justified and necessary.
Candidates included in the revised list of 226 candidates acquired no vested right and must participate in the fresh selection process.
Certificates issued by Heads of Institutions were sufficient for claiming Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) benefits where the recruitment notification prescribed no further requirement.
Marks of candidates outside the zone of consideration could be disclosed individually in public interest, though answer sheets need not be furnished.

In Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1108, arising out of a dispute concerning claim for compassionate appointment under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2019, a Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ., examined the scope and interplay of Rule 23(1) and Rule 5(1)(f) and (g), particularly in the context of pending criminal proceedings arising out of the death of a government employee and the entitlement of dependents to compassionate benefits. The Court held that Rule 23(1), by its plain language, is confined to “compassionate financial assistance” and does not extend to claims for compassionate appointment, and that the sequential hierarchy under Rule 5(1)(f) cannot be imported into Rule 5(1)(g), which governs appointment and contains no “failing” clause. Emphasising that compassionate appointment, though not a vested right, must be considered strictly within the statutory framework, the Court set aside the High Court’s view that the claim could remain suspended during pendency of criminal proceedings, and directed consideration of the appellant’s claim on merits in accordance with the Rules of 2019.

In Gaurav Mehla v. State of Haryana, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1107, challenging the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which affirmed the Single Judge’s decision and declined to interfere with the administrative and quasi-judicial orders invalidating the appointments of 7 employees made by a Haryana Cooperative Society on account of procedural irregularities in the recruitment process, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. held that on compliance with Rule 3, Service Rules, 2003 relating to the presence and concurrence of specified officials in the Board of Directors (BOD) meeting approving appointments constitutes a curable procedural irregularity and not a substantive illegality. Where the advertisement and selection process are otherwise fair, transparent, and free from infirmity, such a defect does not render the entire recruitment process void ab initio. Further, the Court directed the Haryana Cooperative Society to reconsider the appointments of the employees through a duly constituted BOD, in compliance with the applicable statutory rules.

Tenancy and Land Laws

In Sarafat Ali v. Director of Consolidation, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1190, which was a civil appeal arising from consolidation proceedings concerning the validity of a registered sale deed executed in 1957 and the recording of revenue entries, a Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., set aside the concurrent judgments of the High Court and the consolidation authorities, holding that a transfer allegedly made in contravention of Section 154, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was not rendered void ipso facto under the statutory regime then in force.

In Gujarat Pollution Control Board v. Jagmohan Lachiram Jalan, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1106, which was an appeal preferred by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB), assailing the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order holding the landlord not accountable for the tenant’s environmental violations, the Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma and Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ., found no reason to entertain the appeal challenging the NGT order.

Writ Jurisdiction: High Courts

In Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1098, concerning the scope of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the applicability of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in service matters, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., held that the Delhi High Court erred in refusing to entertain a Border Security Force (BSF) personnel’s writ petition on the ground of forum non conveniens. The Court clarified that where the Union of India and the Director General of the Central Armed Police Force are necessary parties situated in Delhi, the Delhi High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1), irrespective of where the disciplinary proceedings or cause of action arose. The Court further observed that the doctrine of forum non conveniens must be applied sparingly in writ proceedings and cannot be invoked to defeat a constitutional remedy validly founded on the situs of the respondent authorities.

Supreme Court Case Disposal and Pendency Status¹

Pending Cases