Supreme Court Monthly Digest | January 2026
A comprehensive roundup of key Supreme Court rulings delivered in January, 2026 across criminal, constitutional, civil, service, arbitration and regulatory law
Key Supreme Court judgments from January 2026 distilled across criminal, civil, service and regulatory law
1. Supreme Court Refers Issue of Applying Escalation in Motor Accident Compensation to Larger Bench
[Hasina Yasmin & Ors Vs National Insurance Co Ltd & Anr]
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Future Prospects - Escalation - Reference to Larger Bench - Judicial Consistency - The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the issue of whether escalation for future prospects can be applied while computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court noted divergent judicial approaches on whether escalation should be confined to salaried persons or extended to other categories of victims. Observing that the question has wide ramifications for motor accident claims across the country, the Court held that authoritative clarity is required to ensure uniformity and predictability in compensation awards.
2. Supreme Court Orders Uniform Format for Criminal Judgments; Trial Courts to Append Witness and Evidence Charts
[Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs State of Gujarat]
Criminal Procedure - Trial Courts - Judgment Writing - Witness Appreciation - Evidence Analysis - Judicial Reforms - The Supreme Court directed trial courts across the country to adopt a uniform format for criminal judgments, mandating the inclusion of structured charts detailing witnesses examined and evidence relied upon. The Court observed that inconsistent and unstructured judgments often hamper appellate scrutiny and affect the quality of criminal adjudication. Emphasising transparency and clarity, it held that such formatting would aid both appellate courts and litigants in understanding how evidence has been assessed.
3. ‘POCSO Is a Beneficial Law’: Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Minor Gang Rape Case
[X Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another]
Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Bail - Sexual Offences Against Children - Beneficial Legislation - Victim Centric Approach - The Supreme Court cancelled bail granted to the accused in a minor gang rape case, reiterating that the POCSO Act is a beneficial and protective statute that must be applied with sensitivity. The Court held that while granting bail, courts must carefully consider the vulnerability of child victims and the seriousness of the offence. It cautioned against a casual or mechanical approach, stressing that the interests of justice and child protection must prevail over misplaced leniency.
4. Supreme Court Urges Advocates Not to Take Up POCSO Cases Filed Out of Vengeance
[State of UP v. Anurudh & Anr.]
Professional Ethics - POCSO Act - Abuse of Criminal Process - Role of Advocates - Access to Justice - The Supreme Court expressed concern over the misuse of the POCSO Act to settle personal scores and urged members of the Bar to exercise ethical restraint in taking up cases filed with ulterior motives. While reaffirming the importance of legal representation, the Court observed that advocates also have a duty to the justice system and must not become instruments in vindictive litigation. It underlined that abuse of protective laws ultimately weakens genuine cases and undermines public confidence.
5. High Court Took ‘Undue Pains’ to Quash FIRs: Supreme Court Restores Andhra Pradesh Corruption Probes
[The Joint Director (Rayalseema), Anti-Corruption Bureau, AP & Anr Etc Vs Dayam Peda Ranga Rao Etc.]
Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Quashing of FIRs - Judicial Restraint - Investigative Process - The Supreme Court restored multiple corruption FIRs in Andhra Pradesh after holding that the High Court had taken “undue pains” to quash them at the threshold. The Court reiterated that at the stage of investigation, courts should not embark upon a detailed evaluation of evidence or assess the likelihood of conviction. It emphasised that premature judicial interference in corruption cases can derail lawful investigations and erode accountability.
6. Suppression of Arrest Alone Cannot Lead to Dismissal from Service: Supreme Court Converts Penalty to Compulsory Retirement
[Sahab Singh (D) Through LRs Vs Director General RPF, Rail Bhawan & Others]
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Suppression of Facts - Proportionality of Punishment - Natural Justice - The Supreme Court held that mere suppression of the fact of arrest cannot automatically justify dismissal from service. Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the Court converted the penalty of dismissal into compulsory retirement, observing that disciplinary punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. It clarified that while suppression may warrant action, it cannot be treated as a standalone ground for the harshest penalty in every case.
7. State Cannot Act Contrary to Its Own Policy Without Lawful Change: Supreme Court
[Bhika Ram & Anr Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.]
Administrative Law - State Policy - Legitimate Expectation - Arbitrariness - Rule of Law - The Supreme Court ruled that a State cannot act against its own declared policy unless the policy is lawfully amended or withdrawn. The Court held that arbitrary deviation from existing policy frameworks violates the principles of fairness and legitimate expectation. It emphasised that governmental actions must be predictable, transparent, and consistent with declared policies to uphold the rule of law and public trust.
8. Prior Approval Under PC Act to Probe Public Servants: Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict
[Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India]
Prevention of Corruption Act - Prior Sanction - Investigation of Public Servants - Constitutional Validity - Judicial Divergence -The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of requiring prior approval under the Prevention of Corruption Act to investigate public servants. While one judge upheld the safeguard as a measure to protect honest officials from frivolous prosecution, the other held that such prior approval could impede independent investigation into corruption. In view of the divergence, the issue has been referred for consideration by a larger Bench.
9. False Disclosure in Government Job Forms Is Serious Misconduct, Not a Mere Lapse: Supreme Court
[State of UP & Another Vs Dinesh Kumar]
Service Law - Public Employment - Suppression of Material Facts - Misconduct - Integrity in Recruitment - The Supreme Court held that making false disclosures or suppressing material information in government job application forms constitutes serious misconduct and cannot be treated as a trivial or technical lapse. The Court emphasised that integrity and transparency are foundational to public service, and deliberate misrepresentation at the entry stage strikes at the root of trust reposed in public servants.
10. Each Dishonoured Cheque Gives Rise to Separate Cause of Action, Even From Same Transaction: Supreme Court
[Sumit Bansal Vs M/s MGI Developers And Promoters And Another]
Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Cheque Dishonour - Cause of Action - Criminal Liability - The Supreme Court clarified that each dishonoured cheque gives rise to an independent cause of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, even if multiple cheques arise from the same underlying transaction. The Court held that liability attaches to each instance of dishonour, reinforcing the deterrent object of the provision.
11. Justice B.V. Nagarathna Urges Youth to Shun Wealth Acquired Through Corrupt Means
[Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India]
Judicial Ethics - Public Morality - Anti-Corruption - Role of Judiciary - Social Responsibility - Justice B.V. Nagarathna urged young citizens to reject wealth and privileges acquired by their parents through corrupt means, observing that normalising such benefits corrodes societal values. Stressing that corruption inflicts long-term harm on institutions and democracy, she called upon the youth to embrace integrity, fairness, and ethical responsibility.
12. Meritorious SC/ST/OBC Candidates Must Be Treated as Open Category for Unreserved Posts: Supreme Court
[Rajasthan High Court & Anr Vs Rajat Yadav & Ors]
Service Law - Reservation - Equality - Merit - SC/ST/OBC Candidates - Unreserved Vacancies - The Supreme Court reaffirmed that candidates belonging to SC, ST, or OBC categories who secure selection on merit must be treated as open category candidates for unreserved posts. The Court held that denying such treatment would amount to discrimination and distort the constitutional balance between merit and reservation.
13. Remand Directions Are Guiding, Not Absolute, If Law Evolves: Supreme Court
[Rattanindia Power Ltd Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd & Another]
Judicial Precedent - Remand Orders - Evolution of Law - Judicial Discretion - Appellate Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court held that remand directions issued by appellate courts are not inflexible mandates and may be revisited if there is a subsequent evolution in law. The Court clarified that judicial directions must be interpreted in light of prevailing legal principles and cannot be mechanically applied where the legal landscape has materially changed.
14. Compassionate Appointment Is a Welfare Measure, Not a Violation of Open Competition: Supreme Court
[Managing Director, MP State Agricultural Marketing Board And Ors Vs Harpal Singh And Ors]
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Welfare Policy - Public Employment - Equality Principles - The Supreme Court ruled that compassionate appointment schemes are welfare measures intended to provide immediate relief to families of deceased employees and do not violate the principle of open competition. The Court held that such appointments operate within a limited exception and must be interpreted purposively, without undermining their humanitarian objective.
15. Section 498A IPC: Naming In-Laws Without Specific Role Not Enough for Criminal Trial
[Maram Nirmala & Anr Vs The State of Telangana & Anr]
Criminal Law - Section 498A IPC - Matrimonial Offences - Abuse of Process - Specific Allegations - The Supreme Court held that merely naming in-laws in a Section 498A IPC complaint, without attributing specific roles or overt acts, is insufficient to subject them to criminal trial. The Court cautioned against roping in extended family members through vague allegations, reiterating the need for careful judicial scrutiny in matrimonial disputes.
16. Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Without Clear Finding of Rent Default: Supreme Court
[Chandra Prakash Gupta & Ors Vs Shanti Devi (Dead) Through LR]
Rent Control Law - Eviction Proceedings - Landlord Tenant Disputes - Findings of Fact - Due Process - The Supreme Court ruled that eviction of a tenant cannot be ordered in the absence of a clear and categorical finding of rent default. The Court emphasised that eviction has serious civil consequences and must be based on properly reasoned findings supported by evidence.
17. Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Dissolve Marriage, Closes 20 Cases Between Spouses
[Baburam Gautam & Ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another]
Family Law - Article 142 - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Complete Justice - Matrimonial Litigation - Invoking its powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court dissolved a marriage and brought closure to over 20 pending litigations between estranged spouses. Observing that the continuation of proceedings served no meaningful purpose, the Court exercised its constitutional power to do complete justice and end prolonged matrimonial discord.
18. Specific Performance Decree Does Not Fail Merely Due to Delay: Supreme Court Rejects Hyper-Technical Approach
[Dr Amit Arya Vs Kamlesh Kumari]
Contract Law - Specific Performance - Delay - Equity - Discretion of Courts - Substantive Justice - The Supreme Court held that a decree for specific performance cannot be set aside merely on the ground of delay if the plaintiff has otherwise acted bona fide. Rejecting a hyper-technical approach, the Court observed that equity must be applied contextually and not mechanically. It clarified that delay, by itself, is not fatal unless it causes demonstrable prejudice or reflects lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the claimant.
19. Right to Speedy Trial Not Overridden by Nature of Offence: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Amtek Auto’s Arvind Dham
[Arvind Dham Vs Directorate of Enforcement]
Criminal Law - Bail - Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 - Economic Offences - Prolonged Incarceration - The Supreme Court granted bail to industrialist Arvind Dham, holding that the constitutional right to a speedy trial cannot be eclipsed solely by the gravity or nature of the offence. The Court noted that prolonged incarceration without meaningful progress in trial violates Article 21. It reiterated that bail jurisprudence must balance societal interests with individual liberty, especially where delays are not attributable to the accused.
20. Industrial Dispute Raised After 16 Years: Supreme Court Substitutes Reinstatement with ₹25 Lakh Compensation
[State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Krishna Murari Sharma]
Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act - Delay and Laches - Reinstatement - Monetary Compensation - The Supreme Court held that where an industrial dispute is raised after an inordinate delay of 16 years, reinstatement may not be an appropriate remedy. Taking a pragmatic view, the Court substituted reinstatement with a lump-sum compensation of ₹25 lakh. It emphasised that labour remedies must be tailored to the facts and that stale claims cannot mechanically result in reinstatement.
21. Waiting List Candidates Have No Vested Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Clarifies
[Radhika T Vs Cochin University of Science And Technology & Ors]
Service Law - Recruitment - Waiting List - Legitimate Expectation - Right to Appointment - The Supreme Court clarified that candidates placed on a waiting list do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment unless the governing rules expressly provide otherwise. The Court held that a waiting list only serves as a contingency mechanism and does not create a vested right. It cautioned against equating mere inclusion in a waiting list with enforceable entitlement to public employment.
22. Designation Not Decisive: Supreme Court Clarifies Who Qualifies as ‘Workman’ Under Industrial Disputes Act
[Srinibas Goradia Vs Arvind Kumar Sahu & Ors]
Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act - Definition of Workman - Nature of Duties - Substance Over Form - The Supreme Court ruled that job designation alone is not determinative of whether an employee qualifies as a “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court held that the true test lies in the nature of duties actually performed, rather than the title assigned by the employer. Emphasising substance over form, it reiterated that functional responsibilities must guide classification under labour law.
23. Section 103 of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act Not Automatic After State Reorganisation: Supreme Court
[The State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors Vs Milkiyat Singh & Ors Etc]
Cooperative Societies Law - State Reorganisation - Statutory Applicability - Federal Structure - Legislative Intent - The Supreme Court held that Section 103 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act does not automatically apply to cooperative societies following State reorganisation. The Court clarified that statutory transition cannot be presumed in the absence of express legislative intent or notification. It emphasised that cooperative structures are governed by the applicable legal framework in force and cannot be altered by implication alone.
24. Hindu Widowed Daughter-in-Law Entitled to Maintenance From Father-in-Law’s Estate: Supreme Court
[Kanchana Rai Vs Geeta Sharma & Ors and connected matter]
Family Law - Hindu Law - Maintenance - Widowed Daughter-in-Law - Joint Family Property - Social Welfare - The Supreme Court ruled that a Hindu widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from the estate of her deceased husband’s father, provided the estate has sufficient means. The Court reiterated that maintenance provisions must be interpreted liberally to protect vulnerable family members and ensure social justice within the Hindu joint family system.
25. Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Judgment of Coordinate Court: Supreme Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs
[United Voice for Education Forum Vs Union of India]
Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Judicial Discipline - Abuse of Process - Maintainability of Writs - The Supreme Court held that a writ petition cannot be filed to challenge a judgment passed by a coordinate constitutional court. Terming such practice an abuse of process, the Court imposed costs of ₹1 lakh and stressed the importance of judicial discipline and finality. It cautioned litigants against bypassing established appellate remedies.
26. Fire Insurance Claims: Cause of Fire Irrelevant Unless Insured Acted Deliberately, Says Supreme Court
[Cement Corporation of India Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited]
Insurance Law - Fire Insurance - Contractual Liability - Burden of Proof - Good Faith - The Supreme Court held that in fire insurance claims, the precise cause of fire is immaterial unless the insurer establishes that the insured deliberately caused the loss. The Court clarified that insurance contracts are governed by principles of good faith and indemnity, and claims cannot be denied on speculative grounds absent proof of intentional wrongdoing.
27. Bail Can Be Cancelled for Violating Victim’s Right to Be Heard: Supreme Court Explains SC/ST Act Safeguard
[Lakshman Vs State Through The Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors Etc]
Criminal Law - Bail - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Victim Rights - Section 15A(5) - The Supreme Court explained that bail may be cancelled if granted in violation of the victim’s statutory right to be heard under Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST Act. The Court emphasised that victim participation is a mandatory safeguard and courts must ensure compliance before passing bail orders in atrocity cases.
28. ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Change Midway’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab Sports Quota Change in MBBS/BDS Admissions
[Divjot Sekhon Vs State of Punjab And Others]
Education Law - Admissions - Sports Quota - Legitimate Expectation - Administrative Fairness - The Supreme Court quashed the Punjab government’s mid-stream change to sports quota criteria in MBBS and BDS admissions. Reiterating that “rules of the game” cannot be altered after the process has begun, the Court held that such changes violate fairness, transparency, and the legitimate expectations of candidates.
29. Cheque Dishonour Cases: Trial Court Must Condon Delay Before Taking Cognizance, Supreme Court Holds
[S Nagesh Vs Shobha S Aradhya]
Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Cognizance - The Supreme Court held that trial courts must first condone delay, where applicable, before taking cognizance of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court clarified that compliance with limitation requirements is a jurisdictional prerequisite and cannot be bypassed at the threshold.
30. AICTE Career Advancement Rules Cannot Override State Recruitment Norms: Supreme Court
[Gujarat Public Service Commission Vs Gnaneshwari Dushyantkumar Shah & Ors]
Service Law - Technical Education - Recruitment Rules - Centre-State Powers - Statutory Hierarchy - The Supreme Court ruled that AICTE’s Career Advancement Scheme cannot override State-prescribed recruitment norms. The Court held that while AICTE guidelines have persuasive value, appointments must conform to binding State rules unless expressly superseded by law.
31. Arbitral Award Unsupported by Any Evidence May Warrant Interference: Supreme Court Clarifies
[Ramesh Kumar Jain Vs Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (Balco)]
Arbitration Law - Judicial Review - Evidence - Perverse Findings - Section 34 - The Supreme Court clarified that an arbitral award wholly unsupported by evidence may invite judicial interference. While reiterating the principle of minimal intervention, the Court held that awards based on no evidence or patently perverse reasoning cannot be sustained under arbitration law.
32. Supreme Court Sets Aside Order on CBI Probe Into Gurugram’s Ambience Island Project
Criminal Law - CBI Investigation - Judicial Review - Threshold Interference - Economic Offences - The Supreme Court set aside an order directing a CBI probe into the Ambience Island real estate project in Gurugram. The Court held that investigative directions must be issued sparingly and only where a strong prima facie case is made out, cautioning against routine recourse to central agency probes.
33. ‘Tolerance Has Gone Down, Ego Has Risen’: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage That Lasted Only 65 Days
[Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar]
Family Law - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Article 142 - Matrimonial Disputes - Complete Justice - The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage under Article 142, noting that the couple had cohabited for merely 65 days and that prolonged litigation served no meaningful purpose. Observing a decline in tolerance and rise in ego among young couples, the Court held that forcing parties to remain legally bound despite total breakdown would only perpetuate bitterness. It emphasised that matrimonial law must respond pragmatically to lived realities rather than insist on futile continuance.
34. Rush to Criminal Cases Destroys Chance of Reunion: Supreme Court Stresses Pre-Litigation Mediation
[Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar]
Family Law - Matrimonial Disputes - Mediation - Criminalisation of Domestic Conflicts - Restorative Justice - The Supreme Court cautioned that the immediate resort to criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes often forecloses any possibility of reconciliation. Stressing the importance of pre-litigation mediation, the Court held that adversarial criminal action should be a last resort, not the first response. It underscored that early mediation can preserve relationships and reduce avoidable litigation.
35. Admissions to MBBS and BDS Must Be Strictly on NEET Merit: Supreme Court
[Siddhant Mahajan And Ors Vs The State of Rajasthan And Ors]
Education Law - Medical Admissions - NEET - Merit-Based Selection - Equality - The Supreme Court reaffirmed that admissions to MBBS and BDS courses must strictly adhere to merit as determined through NEET. The Court held that deviations through quotas or administrative discretion undermine fairness and equal opportunity. It reiterated that uniform entrance testing is central to maintaining transparency and academic standards in medical education.
36. Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere With Acquittal in 1996 Murder of Serving Army Captain
[Raj Pal Singh Vs Rajveer & Ors.]
Criminal Law - Acquittal - Appellate Interference - Evidence Appreciation - Presumption of Innocence - The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the acquittal of the uncle and cousin accused in the 1996 murder of a serving Army Captain. The Court held that once a trial court’s acquittal is based on a plausible appreciation of evidence, appellate courts must exercise restraint. It reiterated that mere suspicion or alternate views cannot justify reversal of acquittal.
37. In FIR-Quashing Pleas, High Courts Cannot Grant Indirect Protection to Accused: Supreme Court
[Practical Solutions Inc (Thru Authorised Representative)]
Criminal Procedure - FIR Quashing - Interim Protection - Abuse of Process - Judicial Discipline - The Supreme Court held that while hearing FIR-quashing petitions, High Courts cannot grant indirect protection to accused persons by restraining coercive steps without formally quashing proceedings. The Court cautioned that such interim shields distort criminal process and undermine investigative authority. It stressed that protection must flow from clear judicial orders, not implied indulgence.
38. Long Passage of Time Without Repeat Offence Can Justify Sentence Reduction: Supreme Court
[Amit Singla Vs Union Territory Chandigarh]
Criminal Law - Sentencing - Reformative Justice - Proportionality - Passage of Time - The Supreme Court held that a long lapse of time without any subsequent criminal conduct may be a relevant factor in reducing sentence. Emphasising reformative justice, the Court observed that punishment must remain proportionate not only to the offence but also to post-conviction conduct. It clarified that sentencing must balance deterrence with rehabilitation.
39. Gang Rape and Murder: Supreme Court Converts Remainder of Life Sentence to 25 Years
[Shaik Shabuddin Vs State of Telangana]
Criminal Law - Sentencing - Life Imprisonment - Remission - Proportional Punishment - The Supreme Court converted the remainder of a life sentence to a fixed term of 25 years in a gang rape and murder case. The Court held that while the crime warranted severe punishment, a structured sentence ensured clarity and proportionality. It reiterated that sentencing must be principled and not arbitrary, even in the gravest offences.
40. No Income Proof in Accident Cases: Supreme Court Explains How Tribunals Must Assess Earnings
[Sebati Nath & Ors Vs Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd]
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Income Assessment - Just Compensation - Evidentiary Standards - The Supreme Court clarified that absence of documentary proof of income cannot defeat a motor accident compensation claim. It directed tribunals to assess income based on surrounding circumstances, nature of work, and minimum wage benchmarks. The Court emphasised that compensation law must be welfare-oriented and not defeated by technicalities.
41. How Courts Must Fix Income of Daily Wage Workers: Supreme Court Enhances Accident Compensation
[Rajendra Chakrawarti Vs Dinesh Kumar Yadav & Anr]
Motor Vehicles Act - Daily Wage Workers - Notional Income - Compensation Calculation - The Supreme Court laid down guiding principles for fixing income of daily wage workers in accident compensation cases. Holding that rigid assumptions lead to under-compensation, the Court directed tribunals to adopt realistic assessments grounded in prevailing wages and economic conditions. It enhanced compensation, reinforcing the principle of “just compensation”.
42. Can Arbitral Tribunal Override Contractual Interest Clauses? Supreme Court Clarifies Section 31(7)(a)
[BPL Ltd Vs Morgan Securities And Credits Private Limited]
Arbitration Law - Interest on Awards - Contractual Clauses - Section 31(7)(a) - Party Autonomy - The Supreme Court clarified that arbitral tribunals cannot override contractual interest clauses unless the contract itself permits such deviation. Emphasising party autonomy, the Court held that Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration Act must be applied subject to the agreement between parties. It reiterated that arbitral discretion cannot supplant contractual intent.
43. Compromise May Reduce Sentence, Not Conviction: Supreme Court Clarifies in Criminal Appeal
[Venkatesh & Anr Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police]
Criminal Law - Compromise - Sentencing - Conviction - Scope of Appellate Powers - The Supreme Court clarified that a compromise between parties in a criminal case may be a relevant factor for reducing the sentence but cannot result in setting aside the conviction itself, unless the offence is legally compoundable. The Court emphasised that criminal liability flows from the offence against society and cannot be nullified by private settlements, though sentencing courts may take compromise into account to temper punishment.
44. When Can ESIC Invoke Section 45A to Determine Employer Contributions? Supreme Court Explains
[M/s Carborandum Universal Ltd Vs ESI Corporation]
Labour Law - Employees’ State Insurance Act - Section 45A - Determination of Contribution - Employer Default - The Supreme Court explained that the ESIC may invoke Section 45A of the ESI Act only where an employer fails to submit required records or obstructs inspection. The Court held that the provision cannot be used mechanically and must be preceded by due opportunity to the employer. It clarified that determination under Section 45A is a measure of last resort, not a routine tool.
45. Multiplier of 16 Applicable for Accident Victims Aged 30–35: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation to ₹20.55 Lakh
[Rani @ Raj Kumari And Others Vs Kamlakat Gupta And Others]
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Multiplier Method - Age-Based Assessment - Just Compensation - The Supreme Court enhanced motor accident compensation to ₹20.55 lakh by applying a multiplier of 16 for a victim aged between 30 and 35 years. The Court reiterated that uniform application of the multiplier method is essential to ensure consistency and fairness. It stressed that tribunals must adhere to settled principles to avoid arbitrary or inadequate awards.
46. Demolition Is an Extreme Measure, Reserved for Blatant Illegalities: Supreme Court
[M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure Projects (P) Ltd Vs Jogen Chowdhury & Ors]
Administrative Law - Urban Development - Demolition - Proportionality - Natural Justice - The Supreme Court held that demolition of structures is an extreme measure that must be resorted to only in cases of clear and blatant illegality. The Court emphasised that authorities must act proportionately and ensure due process, including notice and opportunity of hearing. It cautioned against punitive demolitions that disregard constitutional safeguards.
47. Illegal Termination Must Ordinarily Result in Back Wages: Supreme Court
[Uma Shankaran v. Union of India and Others]
Service Law - Illegal Termination - Back Wages - Reinstatement - Labour Justice - The Supreme Court ruled that where termination is found to be illegal, reinstatement with back wages should ordinarily follow. The Court clarified that denial of back wages must be justified by cogent reasons, such as employee misconduct or gainful employment. It reiterated that labour remedies must meaningfully restore the employee to the position they would have occupied but for the illegality.
48. Anticipatory Bail Is an Exceptional Relief, Not the Rule: Supreme Court
[Salochna Pardi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr]
Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Discretion - Personal Liberty - The Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The Court cautioned against routine or blanket grants, stressing that discretion must be exercised on well-established parameters. It emphasised the need to balance personal liberty with the interests of effective investigation.
49. Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Holding Advocate Guilty of Professional Misconduct
[Monty Goyal v. Navrang Singh]
Professional Ethics - Advocates Act - Disciplinary Proceedings - Natural Justice - Standard of Proof - The Supreme Court set aside an order holding an advocate guilty of professional misconduct, finding that the disciplinary process suffered from procedural infirmities. The Court emphasised that findings of misconduct must be supported by clear evidence and fair procedure. It reiterated that professional discipline cannot be imposed on conjecture or incomplete inquiry.
50. When Does Section 506 IPC Apply? Supreme Court Explains Criminal Intimidation Standard
[Beri Manoj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others]
Criminal Law - Section 506 IPC - Criminal Intimidation - Mens Rea - Threat Assessment - The Supreme Court clarified that for Section 506 IPC to apply, the threat must be of such a nature as to cause alarm to the victim. Mere use of harsh or abusive language, without intent to intimidate or cause fear, is insufficient. The Court stressed the need for careful judicial scrutiny to prevent over-criminalisation of routine disputes.
51. Temple’s Name in Land Records May Not Protect Its Property: Supreme Court Explains
[Panchavatige Mutt, Togarsi v. Gram Panchayathi Togarsi]
Property Law - Religious Endowments - Land Records - Title - Evidentiary Value - The Supreme Court held that mere entry of a temple’s name in land revenue records does not, by itself, establish ownership or protect property rights. The Court clarified that land records have limited evidentiary value and title must be proved through substantive legal documents. It cautioned against assuming ownership solely on the basis of revenue entries.
52. Supreme Court Stresses Men’s Role in Menstrual Hygiene Awareness
[Dr. Jaya Thakur vs. Government of India & Ors.]
Constitutional Law - Gender Justice - Public Health - Social Awareness - Equality - The Supreme Court emphasised the role of men in promoting menstrual hygiene awareness, observing that stigma around menstruation cannot be dismantled without inclusive social participation. The Court highlighted that menstrual health is a public health and equality issue, not a gender-exclusive concern. It urged greater sensitisation to ensure dignity, access, and awareness.