Daily Supreme Court reporting that explains what the Court held, why it matters, and where each judgment sits in Indian law.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya uphold the Bombay High Court reversal of a murder acquittal, holding that a false defence and the Section 106 burden completed the chain.
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh direct uniform rules for identification, release and immediate financial assistance across all States, and keep the writ petitions pending to monitor compliance.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh accept the unconditional apology of an IPS officer over a preventive detention order and expunge Madras High Court remarks, while leaving the quashing intact.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran restore the 2019 Appellate Tribunal order letting DVC recover its bond Sinking Fund through tariff, hold the 2024 review illegal and in breach of Article 141, and impose costs payable within a month.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran hold that the bar on appealing a consent decree binds only the parties to the compromise, uphold Gujarat High Court leave to HUF members and an 11-year condonation, and keep the injunction over the land.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the Kerala High Court and the trial court, hold that a consensual relationship cannot be recast as rape once it ends, and find no case under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 IPC.
Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismiss a batch of appeals against a 2003 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment, holding that a Nizam-era jagir conferred no title, the 1949 abolition vested Survey Nos. 100 and 101 in the State, and the pahani entries relied on were bogus.
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria dispose of a clarification plea, holding that the 26 May 2026 judgment did not examine the Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra money-lending Acts and that trial courts must decide any Section 13 bar themselves.
Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva uphold the Bombay High Court setting aside of a majority award that granted specific performance at six times the contract rate, but invoke Article 142 to make the Thanawalas return what the builder paid, with interest.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran hold the 2022 validation Act unconstitutional for nullifying judgments that upheld cancellation of a corruption-tainted selection, and order a fresh recruitment with one-time age relaxation for the untainted appointees and the six appellants.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran hold that a post-assessment investigation report on overvalued shares is tangible material for reopening, and that a bare acceptance of a return forms no opinion to change.
Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside a Rajasthan High Court order freeing a man accused of passing troop movements to Pakistani handlers, holding that a signed arrest memo and an unobjecting counsel met Section 47 BNSS.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar hold that only the court defined in Section 2(1)(e), not the High Court that appointed the arbitrator, can extend an arbitral mandate, while rejecting the bid by South Bihar Power Distribution Company to scrap the sole arbitrator for a three-member panel.
Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria send a Rs 15 lakh suit by Supremo India and a Rs 2 crore suit by Supreme Industries over the SUPREME mark to the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, a city neither side had chosen.
Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva dismiss the appeal of V. Gopalakrishnan, holding that once the prosecution proves disproportion the public servant must account for it, and order him to surrender.
Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva hold that Section 292BB cannot cure a notice that was never issued, and that a Section 142(1) letter during reassessment is no substitute for the mandatory Section 143(2) notice.
A three-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh holds that answering a certified question did not make the Court the supervisor of the Delhi High Court execution of a 2002 Iraqi Dinar award, and asks the Law Commission to study why awards take so long to realise.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismiss the Ministry of Defence appeal, read Category E(i) of the 2001 policy letter by its plain words, and tell the Government to state what each notified operation carries.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that quashed a rape and SC/ST Act case on a settlement, after speaking to the survivor by video and hearing that she was coerced.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran hold that Section 5(24) of the IBC asks less than the control test of Section 29A, treat ECL Finance and IDBI Trusteeship as related parties of Palm Developers, and reject a post-CIRP assignment as not bona fide.
Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N. V. Anjaria set aside a High Court order, holding that excise duty on uncleared closing stock that was never paid or claimed as an expense cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 145A.
Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli apply the Constitution Bench ruling in Muthuramalingam: two life sentences from a single trial are superimposed on each other, never served one after the other.
Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi hold that the Section 43D(7) UAPA bail bar needs an unauthorised entry into India, not a visa overstay, and cannot touch default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran read the Agra trial court acquittal they had ordered expedited, found no evidence against the accused, and directed compensation within a month with a copy to the DGP.
