Supreme Court's Important Judgments of April 2026

 *Supreme Court's Important Judgments of April 2026*

1. Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash [2026] GCtR 285 (SC)
2. Samarendra Nath Kundu v. Sadhana Das [2026] GCtR 287 (SC)
3. Jai Prakash Saini v MD, UP Cooperative Federation Ltd [2026] GCtR 289 (SC)
4. Deepesh Maheswari v. Renu Maheswari [2026] GCtR 288 (SC)
5. Satinder Singh Bhasin v. GNCTD [2026] GCtR 298 (SC)
6. J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director [2026] GCtR 299 (SC)
7. Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Rai [2026] GCtR 300 (SC)
8. A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt Ltd v. State of Jharkhand [2026] GCtR 301 (SC)
9. Punjab & Sind Bank v. Raj Kumar  [2026] GCtR 302 (SC)
10. Commissioner Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar [2026] GCtR 304 (SC)
11. Sajal Bose v. State of WB [2026] GCtR 305 (SC)
12. Madan Singh v. State of Haryana [2026] GCtR 332 (SC)
13. Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh v. Natawarlal Shamji Gada [2026] GCtR 338 (SC) : "No doubt, the principle that the rights of the parties have to be adjudicated keeping in mind the rights existing at the commencement of the lis. Where however subsequent events having a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief occur, the Court is not precluded from taking cognizance of the same and moulding the relief in accordance with law." 
14. Home Care Retail Marts Pvt Ltd v. Haresh N. Sanghavi [2026] GCtR 339 (SC) : "The principle of contextual or purposive interpretation cannot be invoked where the statutory language is unambiguous and admits of only one meaning. It is trite law that where the expressions employed in a statute are clear, categorical, and leave no room for doubt, the Court must refrain from resorting to contextual or purposive construction. If Courts were to resort to contextual or purposive interpretation so as to arrive at a meaning contrary to the plain language of the statute, it would not only do violence to the statute but at a jurisprudential level would constitute a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers."
15. State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora [2026] GCtR 340 (SC) : "It is well-settled that in matters involving recovery of contraband in commercial quantity, the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985 are mandatory and entail no relaxation merely on the ground that the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration during the pendency of trial. The provision casts upon the Court a duty to record, before enlarging an accused on bail, its satisfaction on two cumulative conditions, first, that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged; and second, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."

*To obtain full text PDF Copies of Decisions with synopsis Free of cost directly on your email address, please take the following steps* : 

1. Click on "Follow" option to become the Follower of this blog.

2. Mention your Email address in the "Comments" of this blog post.

Property, Flats and The Impact of RERA After 2016

Property, Flats and The Impact of RERA After 2016 

In case of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd v. Union of India [2017] GCtR 6261 (Bombay) the law related to properties was explained.  It was held that the promoter is liable to pay interest on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 or for any other reason. it cannot be said that Section 18(1)(b) is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. It also cannot be said to be a penal provision. Section 18 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is compensatory in nature and not penal. It is not unreasonable to require the promoter to pay interest to the allottees whose money it is when the project is delayed beyond the contractual agreed period.

EWS Reservation and Constitutional Validity

EWS Reservation and Constitutional Validity 

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India [2022] GCtR 1568 (SC) has answered the issue. Janhit Abhiyan is relevant for those appearing for AOR Examination schedule in the month of June 2025. 

The issue was about Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 which provided for reservation for EWS. Through this Amendment, Article 15 was amended and A.15 (6) was added. A.16 was also amended ; previously, Article 16 contained only 5 clauses and by this Amendment Act, 2019, A.16 (6) was added. 

4 separate judgments were given. 

It was a 5-Judges' Bench Decision. 

Hon'ble J. Bela Trivedi wrote the opinion.

Hon'ble J. Dinesh Maheshwari wrote the opinion and wrote that reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India. Reservation for economically weaker sections of citizens up to ten per cent. in addition to the existing reservations does not result in violation of any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India on account of breach of the ceiling limit of fifty per cent. because, that ceiling limit itself is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisaged by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. He wrote "even if it be assumed that the existing provisions concerning reservation are correlated with ‘representation’, such a correlation would only remain confined to the classes availing benefit under Article 16(4); and it cannot be said that for any other deserving section or class reservation could be provided only for the purpose of representation. As repeatedly noticed, the real and substantive equality takes myriad shapes, depending on the requirements." 

"Parliament, whilst enacting amendments to the Constitution, exercises constituent power, as distinguished from ordinary legislative power. Same as that the Parliament is not at liberty to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court is also not at liberty to declare constitutional amendments void because of their perceived injustice or impolicy or where they appear to the Court to be violating fundamental principles of governance, unless such principles are placed beyond legislative encroachment by the Constitution itself. 

Hon'ble J. J.B. Pardiwala held the Amendment Act to be valid. 

Hon'ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat wrote for himself and Hon'ble J. U.U. Lalit that "introducing the economic basis for reservation – as a new criterion, is permissible. Yet, the “othering” of socially and educationally disadvantaged classes – including SCs/ STs/ OBCs by excluding them from this new reservation on the ground that they enjoy pre-existing benefits, is to heap fresh injustice based on past disability." "Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 which inserted clause (6) in Article 15 and clause (6) in Article 16, respectively, are unconstitutional and void on the ground that they are violative of the basic structure of the Constitution." 

Writ Jurisdiction and Efficacious Remedy : The Legal Aspects

Writ Jurisdiction and Efficacious Remedy : The Legal Aspects

A.226 (1) of Constitution of India says that notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

In Glochem Industries Ltd. v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. & Ors. [2009] GCtR 5165 (Bombay) , the Bombay High Court had rejected the contention that the petitioner had an equally efficacious remedy against rejection of its pre-grant opposition in the given facts of that case in context of Patents Act, 1970. Hon'ble J. Khanwilkar [who later on became Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court] observed as under: 

"Having considered the rival submissions, we would deal with the last objection first. Although the Petitioners may have remedy of post grant opposition or of seeking suo moto revocation as well as filing of a counter claim as is suggested by the Respondents that by itself can be no basis to non-suit the Petitioners, if the Petitioners were right in their grievance that the authority has committed manifest or jurisdictional error while considering the representation by way of opposition or for that matter decided the objections on palpable misreading and misapplication of the relevant provisions of law. This is so because the law provides for remedy of pre-grant opposition by virtue of Section 25(1) of the Act. If such a remedy is provided, the authority is obliged to consider the representation by way of pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) keeping in mind the parameters of law by observing principles of natural justice. It is not necessary for us to examine the argument of the Petitioners that the remedy of pre-grant opposition is qualitatively different than the remedy of post-grant opposition. According to the Petitioners, in the pre-grant opposition, the onus is on the patent applicant to show that the alleged invention would result in enhancement of the known efficacy of the stated substance; whereas in the post-grant opposition, the onus will be on the objector to show that the alleged invention does not result in enhancement of the known efficacy of the stated substance. Suffice it to observe that the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent No.1 does not mean that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the decision of the authority on the opposition under Section 25(1) of the Act. It is a matter of prudence and discretion as to whether the Court should entertain the writ petition or not. In the facts of the present case, we think that it would not be proper to non-suit the Petitioners at the threshold on this count."

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship. 

Supreme Court Explains Scope of A.14 of Constitution of India & Equality

Supreme Court Explains Scope of A.14 of Constitution of India & Equality

Various judgments deal with A.14 of Constitution of India.

In NALSA v Union of India [2014] GCtR 4221 (SC) it was held thus : - 

"Article 14 of the Constitution of India states that the State shall not deny to “any person” equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedom. Right to equality has been declared as the basic feature of the Constitution and treatment of equals as unequals or unequals as equals will be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. Article 14 of the Constitution also ensures equal protection and hence a positive obligation on the State to ensure equal protection of laws by bringing in necessary social and economic changes, so that everyone including TGs may enjoy equal protection of laws and nobody is denied such protection. Article 14 does not restrict the word ‘person’ and its application only to male or female. Hijras/transgender persons who are neither male/female fall within the expression ‘person’ and, hence, entitled to legal protection of laws in all spheres of State activity, including employment, healthcare, education as well as equal civil and citizenship rights, as enjoyed by any other citizen of this country. Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation or gender identity, therefore, impairs equality before law and equal protection of law and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India." 

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.   

Whether HC can entertain delayed petitions under A.226 ? Supreme Court Answers The Question

 Whether HC can entertain delayed petitions under A.226 ? Supreme Court Answers The Question

Article 226 of Constitution of India is important.

In an important case [citation : Delhi Administration v Kaushilya Thakur [2012] GCtR 4216 (SC)] it has been reiterated that "in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot entertain belated claims unless the petitioner offers tangible explanation".

This proposition can be utilised in cases of compassionate appointment so that appointments are based on merit and not on basis of family relations.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.  

Reservation in Promotion : Some Legal Issues

 Reservation in Promotion : Some Legal Issues

Constitution (77th) Amendment Act, 1995 added a clause 16 (4A) to Constitution of India. The clause does not confers any fundamental right ; it is only a power given to State. 

Later on, in 2002, Constitution (85th) Amendment Act, 2001 came. It was deemed to have come into force on 17 June 1995. It again amended Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution by adding concept of consequential seniority. 

Therefore, A.16 (4A) affects the unreserved category candidates that too with retrospective effect. At that point, one needs to keep in mind the aspects of retrospectivity and the limits of retrospectivity. 

Union of India v Virpal Singh Chauhan [1995] GCtR 2716 (SC) was very clear. It carried effect of Article 141 of Constitution of India. The law was clearly pointed out there thus : "providing reservation in promotion is not warranted by Article 16(4)". The principle is also clear that reserved category candidates can also be treated as general category candidates. Shri Altaf Ahmed was then ASG ; he made certain submissions. The other argument made was "giving accelerated seniority in addition to accelerated promotion amounts to conferring double benefit upon the members of reserved category and is violative of rule of equality in Article 16(1)" and "accelerated promotion-cum-accelerated seniority is destructive of the efficiency of administration inasmuch as by this means the higher echelons of administration come to be occupied almost entirely by members of reserved categories". It was also argued that "a candidate belonging to reserved category appointed/promoted on the basis of rule of reservation should not be held entitled to compete for a general vacancy in the roster. The law was then clarified : "the candidate promoted earlier by virtue of rule of reservation/roster shall not be entitled to seniority over his senior in the feeder category and that as and when a general candidate who was senior to him in the feeder category is promoted, such general candidate will regain his seniority over the reserved candidate notwithstanding that he is promoted subsequent to the reserved candidate."

Also useful is National Federation of S.B.I. v Union of India [1995] GCtR 2717 (SC). The retrospective benefits were rightly denied there. The statement of Ministry was noted. In my view, Ministry's statement clearly indicated that there is no reservation for SCs/STs in promotion. The counsel's argument regarding reservation in promotion were clearly disagreed with. It was noted that the directive does not provide for reservation in promotion. The incorrectness of granting reservation in promotion was made very clear. The law was rightly enunciated : "There can be no roster in the absence of rule of reservation.If the rule of reservation is not made applicable to a particular appointment or promotion, there can be no question of following the forty-point roster therefore."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost from the official website at the link https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments - Then entering the date of Judgment.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.  

"When a person is preventively detained, it is A. 21 & 22 that are attracted and not A.19" : Supreme Court

There is a recent judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 

It has been held that "When a person is preventively detained, it is Article 21 and 22 that are attracted and not Article 19" of Constitution of India.

Refer para 17 of  BANKA SNEHA SHEELA v State of Telangana : Cr.A. 733/2021 in SLP(Criminal) 4729/2021 : Judgment dt. 2 August 2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Judgment was authored by Hon'ble J. R.F. Nariman. [Source : GCtR]

Written by

Vishal

Guwahati, Assam 

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/thesis/law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made.