This volume of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), Part 2 of Volume 2, embodies landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court on the vesting of private forests, safety of pedestrians, confidential professional communication, and more.
Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (29 of 1975) — Vesting of private forests — Validity: Mere issuance of notice under the Forest Act, 1927, held, would not vest private forest land in State Government under the 1975 Maharashtra Act — Law clarified on mandatory requirements that must be met for such vesting — Forest Act, 1927, Ss. 3(1), 2(f)(iii) and 5 r/w Ss. 35(3) and 35(1), [Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 2 SCC 182]
Constitution of India — Arts. 21 and 32 — Road safety — Safety of pedestrians, pavements and pedestrian crossings: Directions issued to Central/State Governments/municipal authorities/NHAI re safety of pedestrians, pavements and pedestrian crossings, [S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, (2026) 2 SCC 207]
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Ss. 132 to 134 — Summoning of an Advocate by IO to coerce disclosure of confidential professional communication — Professional communication — Protective privilege — Nature of: S. 132 confers privilege on a client, obliging his Advocate not to disclose any professional confidential communication. IO/SHO, held, cannot issue summons to Advocate representing an accused to know details of case, unless covered under any of the exceptions of S. 132. Summons issued to Advocate under any of the exceptions to explicitly specify facts on which exception is sought to be relied upon and must be with consent of superior officer not below rank of SP, who shall record his satisfaction before summons is issued, [Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion Or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases & Related Issues, In re, (2026) 2 SCC 233]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 7, 5(7), 5(8)(f), 3(11), 3(12) and 3(37): Insolvency proceedings by holder of redeemable preference shares on failure of Company to pay the redemption amount is not maintainable, when the company does not make profit i.e. in the absence of a default. Redeemable preference shareholder not financial creditor under IBC, [EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., (2026) 2 SCC 272]
Environment Law — Forests, Wildlife and Zoos — Mining and Industry in Forest Area — Aravalli Hills & Ranges: Recommendations made by the Committee for preventing illegal mining and permitting only sustainable mining in the Aravalli Hills & Ranges, held, appreciable. However, considering all relevant aspects, before permitting further sustainable mining activities, the same held required to be preceded by preparation of an MPSM. The MPSM will provide adequate data on the basis of geo-referenced ecological assessment and identify the areas which have wildlife and other high eco-sensitive areas, which are required to be conserved. Further, the MPSM, held, will also provide data as to how sustainable mining is to be conducted. Hence, directions issued accordingly, [Aravalli Hills & Ranges Definition, In re, (2026) 2 SCC 299]