This Supreme Court April 2026 Roundup highlights the month’s most important judgments, key legal developments, and institutional updates, along with features on judicial appointments, collegium recommendations, and the popular Know Thy Judge series.
This edition brings you a curated round-up of the most notable decisions and key stories that made headlines during the month of April. Whether it is the recognition of commuter safety as part of Article 21, directions to curb illegal sand mining, clarifications on arbitration law and criminal liability, legal aid reforms, and women’s representation in Bar Associations, granting anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera, these rulings reflect the Supreme Court’s continued role in addressing pressing legal and governance challenges.
Don’t miss out on the latest Supreme Court judgments and important updates featured in SCC Weekly, capturing the evolving landscape of Indian jurisprudence.
Top Stories Springing in April!
Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera in FIR Lodged by Assam CM’s Wife
While considering this appeal filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera (appellant), challenging Gauhati High Court’s order dated 24 April 2026 whereby the Court had refused to grant him anticipatory bail in connection with alleged defamatory allegations against Riniki Bhuyan Sarma (complainant), the wife of the Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma; the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., deemed it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant albeit with conditions. [Pawan Khera v. State of Assam, SLP (Crl.) No. 7786 of 2026, order dated on 30-4-2026]
While granting bail to an officer accused of bribery and suspending the High Court’s conviction order in Aruna Kumari v. Economic Offences Unit, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 719, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., observed that the prosecution failed to produce the currency notes that were seized from the possession of the accused-petitioner on the ground that the envelope containing the seized money was destroyed by rats and rodents.
The petitioner, an advocate and social activist, approached the Court in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, against the Union of India, various State Governments, Union Territories, and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) seeking structural reforms in the Aadhaar framework, after he became aware of alleged systemic weaknesses in Aadhaar enrolment that allow infiltrators to secure Aadhaar and subsequently obtain other official documents, thereby projecting themselves as lawful residents.
While considering this matter concerning the rights and conditions of detention, and institutional safeguards available to prisoners with disabilities within prison systems across the country in Sathyan Naravoor v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 650, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., noted that the present matter necessitates closer scrutiny of the extent to which the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and the constitutional guarantees are being effectively realised in custodial settings or not.
Therefore, the Court opined that issues of the present proceedings can be more appropriately, effectively, and comprehensively addressed by the High-Powered Committee constituted by the Court in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 317, for reform and governance of open correctional institutions (OCIs). The Court explained that:
“Such an approach would, in our considered view, yield manifold benefits. It would facilitate a coordinated and uniform framework across all the States and Union Territories, guided by the institutional expertise of the High-Powered Committee and informed by ground-level realities.”
The Court also issued several new directions emphasising on the need for an effective, structured, and uniform mechanism to address the issues highlighted in the present matter.
In an application assailing non-compliance with the order dated 13 March 2026, pan-India 30 per cent women representation in Bar Associations mandate in Deeksha Amrutesh v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 472, the three-Judge Bench of Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., said,
“We also deem it necessary to issue a word of caution and a stern warning that wherever the Bar Associations have failed to comply with, or shall be found to have defied, the directions issued hereinabove, such Bar Associations shall be liable to be suspended through a judicial order and fresh elections shall be directed to be conducted.”
The Court further changed the nominating authority in cases where women members do not contest or where there is a shortfall in representation. [Deeksha Amrutesh v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 666]
In continuation of the suo motu cognizance of systemic negligence and catastrophic infrastructure failures, that led to tragic loss of 34 lives in road accidents in Rajasthan and Telangana in November 2025; the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., in Phalodi Accident, In re, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 646, recognised that safety of the commuter is an integral facet of the right to live with dignity as a constitutional obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely a guarantee against the unlawful taking of life, but a positive mandate upon the State to ensure a safe environment where human life is preserved and valued.”
With the recognition of commuter’s safety as an important component under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court therefore, issued certain interim directions aiming at addressing the root causes behind tragic accidents at National highways.
While deliberating over the applications which originated from the Court’s suo motu cognizance over rampant illegal sand mining within the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary, resulting in severe degradation of critical wildlife habitats, including that of the endangered Gharials, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., in Illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary and threat to endangered aquatic wildlife, In re, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 631, issued important directions for the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh for immediate compliance.
The Court further took grim notice of the fact that enforcement personnels are inadequately equipped to deal illegal sand mining activities and opined that the foremost step required to be undertaken is the strengthening of the surveillance and monitoring framework to effectively curb and deter illegal sand mining activities. A robust, coordinated, and technology—driven mechanism, ensuring real-time monitoring and prompt enforcement, is essential to prevent the continued perpetration of such unlawful activities and to restore the Rule of Law in the affected regions.
The directions also covered several key aspects which were highlighted before the Court, thereby bringing out the gravity of the unabated course of illegal activities, which not only undermined the Rule of Law but also posed serious and escalating threats to human life, public safety, and ecological integrity.
While considering the matter concerning Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in West Bengal in Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 638, the Division Bench of Surya Kant, CJI and Joymalya Bagchi, J., were hearing petitions and applications filed by individuals whose names have been deleted from the electoral roll and who have preferred appeals before the Appellate Tribunals. The Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) that wherever the Appellate Tribunals are able to decide the appeals by 21 April 2026 or 27 April 2026, as the case may be, such appellate orders shall be given effect to by issuing supplementary revised electoral roll, and all necessary consequences with respect to the right to vote shall follow.
The Court also clarified that mere pendency of appeals preferred by excluded persons before the Appellate Tribunals shall not entitle them to exercise their right to vote.
In Anosh Ekka v. CBI, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 589, a criminal appeal concerning suspension of sentence of ex- Jharkhand Minister in disproportionate assets case, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order refusing bail. The Court held that where two split charge-sheets arising from the same FIR led to overlapping allegations, and the sentence in a connected case had already been suspended, the appellant was entitled to similar relief.
Emphasizing the period of custody already undergone and the pendency of appeal, the Court directed release of the appellant on bail subject to conditions, while leaving the issue of maintainability of parallel prosecutions to be decided by the High Court.
In Jane Kaushik v. Lieutenant Governor, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 595, a special leave petition assailing Delhi High Court’s directions to the petitioner to approach the Advisory Committee, set up by the Supreme Court, for redressal of their grievances, based on the principle of avoidance of plurality of litigations, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., prima facie held that the Advisory Committee had no powers to adjudicate; allowed the transgender person to apply for the government vacancy irrespective of the gender it was notified for.
Favouritism Allegations Against Arunachal CM: Supreme Court directs CBI to investigate
In Save Mon Region Federation v. State of A.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 526, a petition alleging nepotism in the allotment of public works contracts to individuals close to the Arunachal CM, the three-Judge Bench of Vikram Nath*, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., held that in view of the lack of records substantiating the transparency in the allotment of tenders/contracts and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) report, the Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) would be the appropriate agency to investigate, without casting a doubt on fairness of the investigation. The Court emphasised that:
“In such circumstances, leaving the matter to be investigated by agencies that function under the administrative control of the State would raise a serious and reasonable apprehension, in the public mind, about institutional independence. The credibility of the process is as important as its eventual outcome.”
Supreme Court cancels businessman Satinder Singh Bhasin’s bail in Grand Venice scam case
In Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 521, filed by allottees of the ‘Grand Venice’ project, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner (Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (BIIPL)), in connection with FIRs alleging non-delivery of units, siphoning of funds collected from investors, and irregularities in allotment of land allegedly in collusion with public officials, on the ground of violations of certain bail conditions imposed upon him, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ., cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and instructed him to surrender within 1 week from the date of this judgment.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 635, a long-standing environmental litigation regarding enhancement of the Environment Compensation Charge (ECC) levied on commercial vehicles entering Delhi to curb vehicular pollution, the 3-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, CJ., Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., approved the proposed revised ECC rates and the recommendation for 5 per cent annual increase in ECC rates, with clarification that such enhancement shall take effect from 1 April 2026.
Notable Supreme Court Judgments in April
ARBITRATION AND ADR
In MCM Worldwide (P) Ltd. v. Construction Industry Development Council, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 717, an appeal concerning the maintainability of challenges to orders passed by an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act, 1996), a Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had entertained proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 A&C Act, 1996. The Court held that an order rejecting a plea of lack of jurisdiction under Section 16(2) is not amenable to challenge under Section 34 at an intermediate stage and can be assailed only after the final arbitral award is rendered.
Can Unsuccessful Party Invoke Section 9 A&C Act at Post-Award Stage? Supreme Court Answers
In Home Care Retail Marts (P) Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 670, a batch of appeals arising from different High Courts having conflicting views on a substantial question of law, i.e., whether a petition under Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), at the post-award stage, by a party that has lost in the arbitral proceedings and has no enforceable award in its favour, is maintainable in law, the Division Bench of Manmohan* and Manoj Misra, JJ., held that any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party in arbitration, may invoke Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act at the post-award stage. However, the Court cautioned the courts to exercise care, caution and circumspection while dealing with a Section 9 application filed by an unsuccessful party in arbitration.
Legal Representatives Must Challenge Arbitral Awards Under Section 34, Not Article 227 or Section 115 CPC: Supreme Court
In V.K. John v. S. Mukanchand Bothra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 640, an appeal arising from Madras High Court’s judgment dated 3 February 2023, dismissing a civil revision petition filed by the appellant challenging an arbitral award on the ground that appropriate remedy lays under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration and Conciliation Act) and not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., affirmed the impugned order, holding that the appropriate relief for a legal representative to challenge an arbitral award was under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act and not under Article 227 or Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The Court also reaffirmed that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code and that judicial interference outside its framework is permissible only in exceptional circumstances.
In NagreeKa Indcon Products (P) Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 630, an appeal raising short but significant issue as to whether use of the word “can” in an arbitration clause in the contract, necessitate the reference of all disputes to arbitration or recourse to other dispute resolution mechanisms, including that of the civil court, open for the parties, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ., dismissed the appeal, holding that use of expression “can” in Clause 25 of the arbitration agreement indicates merely the future possibility of referring disputes to arbitration and as such, it cannot be said to be a binding arbitration agreement. The Court further held that such an agreement can only come into existence when both parties agree to the same.
BAIL, PAROLE AND FURLOUGH
In Sharad Sehgal v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 740, an appeal arising from the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 28 January 2026, granting anticipatory bail to Respondent 2, against whom 22 FIRs were registered for different offences, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., set aside the impugned order holding that “criminal antecedents of Respondent 2 by itself were sufficient for the High Court to deny anticipatory bail”.
In Om Prakash Chhawnika v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676, a petition for special leave to appeal, assailing the Jharkhand High Court order, during an anticipatory bail hearing, directing the petitioner to surrender before the court and then seek a regular bail, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., held that the High Court order was “wholly without jurisdiction” and stated that,
“If the Court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so but the Court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender.”
BAR AND BENCH
In a significant development concerning the electoral framework of State Bar Councils, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Surya Kant, CJ., and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., in Shyam Lal Thakur v. Bar Council of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 667, approved the amended Chapter III of the Bar Council of India Uniform Rules and Mandatory Guidelines for Elections of Bar Councils, 2016.
CONSUMER PROTECTION
While considering this appeal by Canara Bank (the appellant) challenging the decision of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directing the appellant to pay 10 per cent of the loss incurred to the respondent due to delayed cheque presentation by the appellant for clearing or collection within the validity period; the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ., in Canara Bank v. Kavita Chowdhary, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 591, held that a bank receiving cheques for collection, acts as an agent of the customer and is under an obligation to exercise due diligence in presenting the instruments within the prescribed validity period. Failure to do so results in the instrument becoming stale and in the absence of any reasonable explanation, would result in negligence in the discharge of banking duties which would constitute deficiency in rendering service within the meaning of the consumer protection law.
CRIME AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN
While considering a matter of grave importance wherein the Court took suo motu cognizance of brutal assault on a woman advocate by her husband in BRUTAL ASSAULT ON A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL FRATERNITY AND NEED FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, In Re, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 739, the Division Bench of Surya Kant, CJI and Joymalya Bagchi, J., directed the petition to be registered and issued interim directions to ensure a fair and dispassionate investigation into the incident.
Can Complainant Wife and Her Family Be Prosecuted for ‘Giving Dowry’? Supreme Court Clarifies
In Rahul Gupta v. Station House Officer, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 604, a special leave petition (SLP) arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties, where petitioner-husband sought to initiate criminal proceedings against his wife and her family members on the ground that their own statements disclosed the offence of “giving dowry” under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Dowry Prohibition Act), thereby raising an important question as to whether such statements could form the sole basis for prosecuting the alleged “givers” of dowry, the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., dismissed the SLP, holding that a wife cannot be prosecuted for giving dowry solely on the basis of such statements. The Court explained that where the only material relied upon to allege the offence of “giving dowry” under Section 3, Dowry Prohibition Act is the complaint or statements made by the wife and her family members, they, being the “persons aggrieved”, would be fully covered by the shield of immunity raised under Section 7(3) and would not be liable to be prosecuted on the strength thereof.
CRIMINAL LAW
In Aman Singh v. State of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 720, a proceedings arising out of a death reference and connected criminal appeal, a 3-Judge Bench of Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., while staying the execution of the death sentence, issued comprehensive directions to streamline the process of sentencing in capital punishment cases. The Court expressed serious concern over the failure to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances at appropriate stages and the lack of effective legal representation, which undermines a balanced and constitutionally compliant sentencing exercise.
In S. Anand v. State of T.N., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 702, an appeal challenging to the Madras High Court’s order dated 11 August 2022, refusing to quash criminal proceedings against appeal, a bona fide purchaser, who had been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of having purchased the property through a registered sale deed, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., set aside the impugned order, holding that a bona fide purchaser for value cannot be held criminally liable for forged Will-linked property in absence of any proof of participation, knowledge, or fraudulent intent and the continuation of prosecution against such purchaser would be wholly unjustified and would amount to “gross abuse of the process of the Court”.
In S. Balagopal v. State of T.N., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 528, a criminal appeal concerning alleged unauthorised surgical intervention on a minor, a Division Bench of Manoj Misra* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., allowed the appeal and quashed proceedings against the operating surgeon. The Court held that the surgeon had obtained valid consent for surgery, and that Orchidectomy, performed as an alternative to Orchidopexy in cases of undescended testicle, was medically justified. The Court emphasised that mere interpolation of the alternative procedure in the consent form, without evidence of malice, does not constitute a criminal offence, and that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of process of law.
Mere use of abusive words not “obscenity” under S. 294(b) IPC: Supreme Court
In Sivakumar v. State, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 529, the criminal appeals arising out of a fatal incident triggered by a boundary dispute between close relatives, a Division Bench of Manoj Misra* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., partly allowed the appeals and examined the scope of offences under Sections 294(b), 304 Part II, and the applicability of Section 34 IPC. The Court held that mere use of abusive language during a heated altercation does not constitute “obscenity” under Section 294(b) IPC and set aside the conviction on that count.
Supreme Court restores criminal proceeding over unauthorised sale of CSI Church land
In State of A.P. v. B. Reddeppa Reddy, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 501, an appeal challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order (impugned order) quashing the criminal proceedings relating to alleged fraud and forgery in the sale of CSI Church land, particularly when the allegations disclosed serious discrepancies concerning authorisation, extent of land sold, and compliance with governing rules, the Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan, JJ., set aside the impugned order and restored the criminal proceedings, holding that the material on record disclosed prima facie allegations of fraud, forgery, and unauthorised alienation of trust property, i.e. CSI Church land, the High Court ought not had quash criminal proceedings at the threshold.
DE-RESERVATION OF LAND AND TITLE
In Pawan Garg v. South Delhi Municipal Corp., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 644, an appeal arising out of a dispute concerning incorporation of privately held land in a colony layout plan in Green Park Extension, New Delhi, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 24 April 2019 passed by the Delhi High Court in a letters patent appeal. The Court held that the High Court erred in travelling beyond the limited scope of adjudication in the de-reserved land layout plan dispute by entering into questions of title and public purpose, despite a final and binding civil court decree protecting the appellants’ possession. Emphasising that a mere entry in municipal records does not confer title and that de-reserved land cannot be retrospectively treated as earmarked for public purpose, the Court restored the order of the Single Judge directing the Municipal Corporation to consider the appellants’ application for incorporation of the plots in the layout plan within a stipulated period.
EDUCATION LAW
In Lucknow Public School v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 723, a special leave petition arising out of denial of admission to a student under the statutory framework of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, a Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ., dismissed the petition and upheld the judgment of the High Court directing grant of admission. The Court held that once a student is allotted to a school by the State authorities under the prescribed procedure, the school is bound to admit the student and cannot sit in appeal over such decision.
Emphasising that the right to education under Article 21-A of the Constitution must be implemented in its true letter and spirit, the Court reiterated that the statutory scheme, including Section 12 of the Act and the U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (U.P. RTE Rules, 2011) leaves only a limited scope for schools to raise objections, without delaying admission. Reaffirming the transformative objective of neighbourhood schooling and reliance on Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court underscored the corresponding duties of all stakeholders and held that immediacy in granting admission is essential to realise the constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory education.
EXECUTION OF DEGREE
Executing Court Bound to Execute Decree as Passed; Can’t Modify Its Terms: Supreme Court
In Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 554, an appeal arising out of a special leave petition and concerned the execution of a compromise decree dated 14 July 2017 where the controversy centered on whether the Executing Court could modify the terms of the decree while enforcing it, the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., set aside the impugned orders, holding that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree or vary its terms; it is bound to execute the decree as it stands, unless the decree is a nullity. The Court directed the Executing Court to execute the decree strictly “in its terms and tenor.”
FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAWS
In Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 587, a civil appeal arising out of matrimonial disputes, a Division Bench of Rajesh Bindal and *Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., exercised its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and quashed the domestic violence proceedings initiated by the wife. The Court held that while withdrawal of consent in mutual divorce is permissible, a party cannot resile from a duly executed settlement agreement except on limited grounds such as force, fraud, undue influence, or non-fulfilment of obligations.
Emphasising that vague and unsubstantiated allegations cannot sustain criminal prosecution under the Domestic Violence Act, the Court termed the proceedings as an abuse of process of law and an afterthought to prolong litigation. Noting prolonged separation, failure of settlement despite partial compliance, and multiplicity of proceedings, the Court concluded that the matrimonial bond had irretrievably broken down and granted divorce subject to compliance with the remaining settlement terms, while directing closure of all pending and future litigations between the parties.
In a long-drawn, bitter matrimonial strife, resulting into multiplicity of litigations instituted across various courts and forums, whereby the wife filed an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court’s order dismissing appellant-wife’s petition seeking expeditious disposal of execution proceedings for recovery of maintenance arrears, invoking Article 142, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ., in XXX v. YYY, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 544, quashed the 80+ vexatious and vindictive litigation including proceedings against wife, her relatives and even her advocates filed by the lawyer husband. The Court dissolved the marriage between the parties, granted custody of both children to the wife, with structured visitation rights to the father and awarded a consolidated sum of ₹5 crores to the wife towards permanent alimony, maintenance, child support, and litigation expenses, payable within one year. The Court further restrained the husband from initiating further litigation against the wife, her relatives, or her lawyers.
HATE SPEECH
While considering writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the Union of India to examine the existing legal framework governing “hate speech” and “rumour mongering”, and to take necessary steps to effectively address and regulate the same by way of a legislation, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 741, held that the creation of criminal offences and prescription of punishments lie within the legislative domain. The constitutional scheme founded upon the doctrine of separation of powers, does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand the contours of criminal liability through judicial directions.
As regards to issues of hate speech and rumour mongering, the Court held that existing framework of substantive criminal law and allied legislations, adequately addresses acts that promote enmity, outrage religious sentiments, or disturb public tranquillity. “The field is, therefore, not unoccupied.”
LABOUR AND SERVICE LAWS
In Chandni Prateek Sharma v. Gujarat High Court, SLP (C) No.28356 of 2024, an appeal arising out of a challenge to the initiation of a de novo departmental inquiry against a judicial officer, a Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ., allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 26 September 2024 passed by the Gujarat High Court. The Court held that the High Court erred in upholding the decision of the disciplinary authority directing a de novo inquiry, as the same was impermissible under Rule 10 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971.
Emphasising that the expression “further inquiry” under Rule 10 does not contemplate a fresh or de novo inquiry but only a continuation of the earlier proceedings, the Court held that the disciplinary authority could not order a de novo inquiry in the guise of further inquiry. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned judgment and directed reinstatement of the appellant with all consequential benefits.
In Himakshi v. Rahul Verma, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 642, an appeal arising out of a dispute concerning selection and appointment to the post of Computer Hardware Engineer under the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, a Division Bench of Atul S. Chandurkar and J.K. Maheshwari*, JJ., dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court setting aside the appointment of the selected candidate. The Court held that the requirement of minimum five years’ work experience, being an essential eligibility condition under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (R&P Rules) and the advertisement dated 21 July 2016, could not be diluted on the basis of higher academic qualification or merit.
It was further held that in absence of any conscious exercise of the power of relaxation supported by reasons on record, the selection of an ineligible candidate was unsustainable in law. Rejecting the plea for equitable protection on account of continued service and regularisation, the Court emphasised that equity cannot override statutory rules, and where the selection process itself stands vitiated, no direction for appointment of any candidate can be issued.
In Madan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 628, a batch of appeals arising out of the judgment dated 31 May 2018 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning regularisation of contractual, ad hoc and daily wage employees in Group “B”, “C” and “D” posts, a Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar*, JJ. partly allowed the appeals and modified the impugned judgment. The Court upheld the validity of the Notifications dated 16 June 2014 and 18 June 2014, holding that they were in continuation of an earlier valid policy and did not violate the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, while striking down the Notifications dated 7 July 2014 as arbitrary and illegal for seeking to regularise employees not appointed through any transparent process.
Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court, however, protected the continuance of employees covered under the invalidated notifications, directing that they be placed at the lowest pay scale of the posts held by them, and extended similar relief to other similarly situated employees, subject to verification.
In Ex. Sqn. Ldr. R. Sood v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 590, a batch of appeals arising out of dismissal from service of an Indian Air Force Officer in connection with a 1987 desert incident involving the alleged death of a General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) driver, a Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., allowed the appeal and set aside the order of dismissal. The Court held that once the competent authority had elected to proceed before a criminal court instead of a court martial and the accused had been discharged, initiation of subsequent administrative action on the same set of facts was legally impermissible and non est in law.
While setting aside the dismissal, the Court directed grant of consequential service benefits with 50 per cent back wages, notional promotion, pensionary benefits, and restoration of honour, emphasising that dignity of a defence personnel forms an integral part of justice.
In Commr., Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 523, an appeal assailing the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to allow the respondent to take the test with the next batch, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and observed that grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance in matters of public employment, if a fair level playing field is to be secured. The Court held that,
“We, thus, see no reason to hold that the omission, neglect or failure of the appellants to even respond to the respondent’s representations, assuming that they were received, conferred on him the enforceable right to seek a rescheduling of the examination date. Most certainly, non-communication of any decision on any of the representations, on facts and in the circumstances, did not clothe the Tribunal to make the order it did while disposing of the original application, throwing the process asunder.”
In Guruprosad Banerjee v. State of W.B., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 550, a special leave petition (SLP), arising out of Calcutta High Court’s judgment and order dated 6 May 2025, whereby the petitioners were denied appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Stamp and Revenue Department of the State of West Bengal, despite being within the merit range, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurka, JJ., requested the State Government to take action to meet out such discrimination by appointing the petitioners and extending notional benefits.
LEGAL AID AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE
In Shankar Mahto v. State of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 606, a case originated from a challenge to a conviction and sentence of death confirmed by the Patna High Court, however, during the course of proceedings, the Court’s attention was drawn to a recurring and deeply concerning issue — inordinate delay in filing appeals and special leave petitions (SLPs) in matters involving legal aid, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ., issued directions institutionalising reforms in the legal aid system, making timelines binding and directing structural changes to ensure timely filing of appeals and effective access to justice.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
In Unchgaon Village Panchayat v. Kolhapur Municipal Corpn., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 657, appeals arising from a dispute between the Unchgaon Village Panchayat (V) and the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation (Corporation) regarding jurisdiction over certain lands and the competence of a civil court to entertain a suit challenging the Corporation’s assertion that such lands fell within municipal limits, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., affirmed the High Court’s judgment, holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes challenging the determination or alteration of municipal limits made in exercise of statutory power under Section 3, Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (59 of 1949) (MMC Act) as such exercise of power had legislative character, not administrative.
While considering the appeal raising an important question regarding procedural obligations of a civil court while adjudicating a suit ex parte in Pramod Shroff v. Mohan Singh Chopra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 598, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih*, JJ., held that though the framing of issues in an ex parte suit is not mandatory by virtue of Order 14 Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), but the judgment must be in conformity with the provisions of the CPC. Thus, Order 20 Rule 4 CPC comes into picture.
The Court further added that if the omission to frame the issues causes prejudice to the parties, then the same can vitiate the trial. It was further held that the courts must determine “points for determination”, which are like issues, and answer them to resolve the matter of controversy between the parties.
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
While considering this appeal in Union of India v. Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 658, the Court had to determine whether the nature of Union of India’s (appellant) occupation of residential premises at Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi is governed by the provisions of Section 3, Government Grants Act, 1895 (GG Act) or whether the appellant became amenable to eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(a), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) for non-payment of rent.
The Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, JJ., pointed out that the legal character of such a grant made under GG Act does not derive its content from the ordinary incidents of a landlord-tenant relationship under the general law but instead flows from the sovereign grant and the conditions embodied therein. Whereas the DRC Act being a legislation intended to regulate conventional tenancies arising under the general law, does not extend to nor govern a holding originating in and regulated by a government grant.
Therefore, the Court held that the DRC Act will not apply over the present matter, hence the eviction orders issued against the appellant were set aside.
SECTION 138 NI ACT
In Abhaykumar Anandkumar Bhambore v. Ortho Relief Hospital and Research Centre, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 736, a special leave petition assailing the Bombay High Court order wherein Petitioner 1 was held liable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), even though the company was under liquidation, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., refused to interfere with the High Court order and dismissed the SLP.
SUCCESSION OF HEREDITARY OFFICE
In a long-standing dispute related to the succession to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah in Syed Mohd. Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohd. Adil Pasha Khadri, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 518, raising important questions regarding the nature of the office, the mode of succession, the evidentiary value of nomination, and the limits of judicial interference with concurrent findings of fact, whereby the Karnataka High Court declined interference on the ground that no substantial question of law arose, the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi,* JJ., affirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below and held that the respondent was validly nominated through Khilafatnama dated 26 February 1981 and the nomination was supported by credible oral and documentary evidence.
The Court held that the entire challenge in hand essentially sought for reappreciation of evidence and reconsideration of factual findings recorded by courts below, which while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136, not allowed unless such findings suffer from manifest illegality or result in grave miscarriage of justice.
Civil Court Can Decide Appointment of Sajjadanashin in Waqf Institutions: Supreme Court
In a long-standing dispute related to the succession to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah, (popularly known as the “Big Makan”) situated at Channapatna, Ramanagara District, where the Karnataka High Court by common judgment dated 16 December 2024 set aside concurrent findings of the trial court and First Appellate Court on the ground that civil courts lacked inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to the office of Sajjadanashin of a notified wakf institution as such jurisdiction was exclusively vested in the Wakf Board, the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi,* JJ., in Syed Mohd. Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohd. Adil Pasha Khadri, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 518, set aside the impugned judgment of High Court and restored the concurrent findings of the trial court and First Appellate Court, holding that civil court has jurisdiction to decide appointment of Sajjadanashin of Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah.
TAXATION
While considering the matter in Dinesh Kalway v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 675, wherein the appellant was aggrieved with rectification of Form No. SVLDRS-3 by the designated committee, thereby revising the amount payable as tax, which was done without any notice to the appellant; the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., found that the impugned enhancement in tax demand was made without issuance of any show-cause notice (SCN) and furthermore, the appellant was not heard in the matter. The Court thus held that this action by the designated committee was an instance of violation of principles of natural justice.
In State of Maharashtra v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 477, an appeal arising from a challenge to the validity of Notifications dated 1 April 2000 and 4 April 2001 issued under Section 5-A, Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958, where the core issue was whether the State, having once granted exemption from payment of electricity duty to captive power generators was legally precluded from withdrawing or modifying such exemption in the exercise of same statutory power, a Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,* JJ., upheld the electricity duty exemption withdrawal and set aside the High Court’s judgment, holding that the power to grant exemption from electricity duty under a fiscal statute includes the power to withdraw or modify such exemption in public interest, and therefore the beneficiary has no vested right. However, such withdrawal must operate prospectively with a reasonable notice period to satisfy fairness under Article 14.
UNAUTHORISED RE-CATEGORISATION OF PUBLIC UTILITY LAND
In Babu Singh v. Consolidation Officer, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 653, an appeal concerning with the validity of change in categorisation of certain land situated in District Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, the subsequent grant of pattas in favour of the appellant by Sub-Divisional Officer and the authority of consolidation authorities to correct revenue records where such pattas were found void, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., upheld the High Court’s judgment holding that change in categorisation of land illegal and grant of pattas in favour of the appellant void ab initio. The Court held that land falling under Section 132, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (1 of 1951) (Zamindari Abolition Act), being a public utility land, cannot be converted or recategorised by subordinate revenue authorities, and any pattas granted on such invalid re-categorisation are void ab initio and confers no bhumidhari rights.
Supreme Court Case Disposal and Pendency Status1
Pending Cases
|
Case Type |
Numbers |
|
Civil |
72359 |
|
Criminal |
20402 |
|
Total |
92761 |
Coram wise pending cases
|
Coram |
Pendency (incl. Civil & Criminal)2 |
|
3-Judges Bench |
1235 cases |
|
5-Judges Bench |
175 cases |
|
7-Judges Bench |
34 cases |
|
9-Judges Bench |
46 cases |
Disposal Status
|
Civil Cases |
Criminal Cases |
Total |
|
|
Cases disposed of in Last Month |
5,693 |
2,123 |
7,816 cases |
|
Cases disposed of in Current Year |
18048 |
7900 |
25948 cases |
Appointments, Recommendations, Transfers, Designations in April
7/10: Women Dominate High Court Appointments as SC Collegium Clears 10 Names
President appoints Justice Lisa Gill as Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court
SCC Weekly
2026 SCC Vol. 3 Part 1: Key Supreme Court Cases on Arbitration, Contract, & Customs
Know Thy Judge
Justice Rajesh Bindal bids adieu to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court of India: Justice A.S. Chandurkar
1. https://scdg.sci.gov.in/scnjdg/
2. Numbers inclusive of connected matters as well.