Important SC Decisions : February 2026
1. Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa [2026] GCtR 80 (SC)
2. Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee [2026] GCtR 83 (SC)
3. Vinit Bahri v. MGF Developers Ltd [2026] GCtR 85 (SC)
4. Kanta v. Soma Devi [2026] GCtR 97 (SC)
5. REGINAMARY CHELLAMANI v. State [2026] GCtR 98 (SC)
6. Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col. Gautam Mullick [2026] GCtR 99 (SC)
7. Mohtashem Billah Malik v. Sana Aftab [2026] GCtR 100 (SC) has held that "there is no dispute with the proposition that in matters of custody, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the children but nonetheless there are a host of other factors which weigh before the court while passing the final order of custody."
8. P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani [2026] GCtR 101 (SC)
9. Pramod Kumar v. State of UP [2026] GCtR 102 (SC) has held that "power to direct further investigation in a case rests solely at the discretion of the Magistrate/Court concerned. In the event, the police/ investigating agency is of the opinion that further investigation is necessary in any particular case to cull out complete facts and truth in the case, it is binding upon them to file an appropriate application before the Magistrate/Court, without directing an order for further investigation by themselves".
10. ITC Ltd v. Aashna Roy [2026] GCtR 103 (SC) has held that the damages cannot be awarded merely on presumptions or whims and fancies of the complainant.
11. Union of India v. Girish Kumar [2026] GCtR 125 (SC) on disability pension and time limit.
12. Zeba Khan v. State of UP [2026] GCtR 123 (SC) on bail principles.
13. K. Rajaiah v. High Court for State of Telagnana [2026] GCtR 124 (SC) on legal principles of departmental action for unauthorized absence.
14. Dr. Anand Rai v. State of MP [2026] GCtR 126 (SC) has held that appellate power under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 must be exercised in harmony with the broader framework of criminal procedure.
15. Sumit v. State of UP [2026] GCtR 129 (SC) has dealt with issues of criminal law. It was held that there is no restriction in Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant anticipatory bail even when charge sheet has been filed and cognizance is taken.
16. State Bank of India v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 130 (SC) has held that "merely because spectrum can be treated as an “asset” on the basis of certain attributes, such as possession and usage, lease and assignment, claim and liability or credit and debt, the entirety of the telecom sector cannot be brought under the sweep of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016".
17. State Bank of India v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 134 (SC) has held that "it is well established that the decision in Uma Devi does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities."
18. Zubair. P v. State of Kerala [2026] GCtR 135 (SC) has dealt with issue of eligibility for appointment of teachers. It was held that interpretation must depend on the text and the context and that the statute must be read as a whole so as to advance its object and suppress the mischief. It was observed that a construction which leads to absurdity or defeats the purpose of the enactment must be avoided. A purposive and contextual reading of Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules compels the conclusion that the SET qualification must necessarily correspond to the subject of appointment, even if the Rule does not expressly reiterate the phrase “concerned subject” in clause (iii) of the said Rule.
19. B. Prashanth Hegde v. SBI [2026] GCtR 141 (SC) has held that "initiation of proceedings by a financial creditor under other statutes does not bar filing of an application under the provisions of IBC, 2016. Moreover, mere pendency of a counterclaim for damages against a financial creditor will not operate as a bar on the right of the financial creditor to invoke the provisions of IBC."
20. Harbinder Singh Sekhon v. State of Punjab [2026] GCtR 142 (SC) has held that "Judicial restraint in matters of regulatory policy remains a settled principle. However, restraint cannot extend to abdication. Where regulatory action results in a lowering of the constitutional minimum of protection guaranteed to citizens, particularly in matters affecting life and health, judicial intervention becomes a constitutional obligation."
21. Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh [2026] GCtR 151 (SC) while acquitting murder accused it is held that "even if there is no formal arrest made, if a person is within the ken of surveillance of the police, during which his movements are restricted, then it can be regarded as custodial surveillance. The evidence under S.8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself result in a conviction."
22. Parameshwari v. State of Tamil Nadu [2026] GCtR 150 (SC) has held that "the misplaced understanding of various courts in treating compensation as a substitute of sentence is both a matter of concern and a practice which should be condemned. Compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature, and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment."
23. Priyanka Kumari v. State of Bihar [2026] GCtR 149 (SC) was a case where the degree was obtained by librarian from a University and the Act under which said university was set up was declared invalid later on, it was held that the candidates who had obtained degrees cannot be deprived of the job under certain situations when the university was not bogus .
24. In Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd v. Amit Chaturvedi [2026] GCtR 161 (SC) after noting that S.391 of the Companies Act, 1956 speaks of a compromise or arrangement between a company and inter alia its creditors if a majority of the creditors representing 3/4th value of the debt, agree to such compromise or arrangement in a meeting of such creditors present and voting, either in person or through proxies; which meeting has to be directed by the Court on an application under sub-section (1) by the Company or any creditor, it was concluded that when scheme is defunct then there is no reason to stall the proceedings for initiation of the CIRP by resorting to the provisions of the IBC, 2016.
25. ICICI Bank v. Era Infrastructure Ltd [2026] GCtR 164 (SC) has held in context of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 that though the IBC primarily operates in the judicial and quasi-judicial arena, its effects are far reaching, often affecting banking, economy, and other sectors.
26. It was held in C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera [2026] GCtR 172 (SC) that an application under Section 29A(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator is *maintainable even after the expiry of the time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even after rendering of an arbitral award during that time*. Such an arbitral award is ineffective and unenforceable. But the power of the court to consider extension is not impaired by such an indiscretion of the arbitrator. While considering the application, the Court will examine if there is sufficient cause for extending the mandate, and in the process, it may impose such terms and conditions as the situation demands.
Anyone interested in receiving full text (PDF) Copies of all these decisions with synopsis directly on email address free of cost, please follow 2 steps : 1. Click on "Follow" option on right side of blog to become follower of this blog. 2. Mention your email address in "Comments" section of this blog post.