Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the need for institutionalization of the process of solid waste management; formulation of principles for determination of environmental compensation. Headnotes† Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 – rr.18(1)-(3), 17(2) – Determination and imposition of – Principles formulated – Central Implementation Committee constituted vide Office Memorandum dtd.09.03.2026 – Under sub-rule 17(2), the Central Implementation Committee is mandated to prepare guidelines for imposition and collection of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the acceptance of resignation of respondent- Assistant Registrar, by an officer holding additional charge of Vice-Chancellor and admittedly not the competent authority u/s.23(2)(ix) of the 2009 Act, stood validated by the subsequent ratification of the and whether the Division Bench of the High Court justified in upholding the acceptance of resignation of the respondent and the rejection of his request for withdrawal thereof. Headnotes† Delhi Technological University Act, 2009 – s.23(2)(ix) – Right of an employee to withdraw a
Issue for Consideration Whether a decision of a Court or adjudicating authority based on material which is fake and hallucinated is a valid decision or it amounts to subversion of the rule of law. Headnotes† Artificial Intelligence – Artificial Intelligence Hallucination – AI of adjudication – Tribunal relied on non-existent, fake and hallucinated material, generated through Artificial Intelligence (AI), as if it were a precedent in support of its judgment – Correctness: Held: Respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit indicating that the alleged judgments
Issue for Consideration Whether the right to walk is a Fundamental Right; whether the High Court erred in reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(d) r/w Arts.19(1)(a), (b), (c) and Art.21 on demarcated footpaths alongside motorised roads, a fundamental right: Held: The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution – It is integral to the right to movement guaranteed u/Art.19(1)(d), r/w Art.19(1)(a), Art.19(1) (b), Art.19(1) (c) and Art.21 –
Issue for Consideration Whether the limitation u/s.34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would commence from the date of the original award or from the date on which the application u/s.33 came to be disposed of. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.33, Act, 1956 – ss.3A(1), 3G(1) – Acquisition of land by the Central Government – The Competent Authority determined the compensation – Appellant invoked Arbitration u/s.3G(1) – The Arbitrator passed an Award on 03.2.2022 by granting the benefit of ss.23(1- A), 23(2),
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the denial of allotment of the fair price shop to the appellant-married daughter in her capacity as a dependent, since the appellant is a married daughter and not covered within the definition of ‘family’ as defined under Clause 2(p) of (IV)10 of the G.O. Headnotes† Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – s.3 – Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 – Clause 7(2)(i) – Appointment of fair price shop under dependent quota after death of dealer
509 : 2026 INSC 520 Vice Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University v. Jitendra Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8054 of 2026) 21 May 2026 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,* JJ] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the exercise of power by the Visitor-President Act, 2013 – s.46(b) – Transitional provisions – Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University, First Statute, 2016 – Statute No.28(1) – Removal of employees of University – President of India, being the Visitor of the University approved the appointment of the
584 : 2026 INSC 481 Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2461-2462 of 2026) 12 May 2026 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court both of whom are in a separate territorial jurisdiction than the Magistrate; and whether the allegations contained in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of a criminal offence. Headnotes† West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation & Transparency)
Issue for Consideration Whether the depreciation under the applicable tariff regulations must necessarily be allowed over the entire technical useful life of an asset irrespective of the period during which the asset is actually utilised for supply of electricity; 2011 Regulations confers an absolute right upon the generating utility to recover entire capital cost over the useful life of the asset, even where the asset ceases to supply electricity to the consumer; whether the APTEL erred in law in disregarding the regulatory framework and approval
Issue for Consideration Whether, in the absence of a formal entry of the respondent no.1’s name in the register of members, he could nonetheless be regarded as a “member” of the appellant-company so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board u/ss.397 and 398 Act, 1956. Headnotes† Companies Act, 1956 – ss.2(27), 41, 397, 398, 399 – “member” – High Court and the Company Law Board upheld respondent no.1 as a deemed member of the company, entitled to maintain a petition u/ss.397 and 398 – Whether the
Issue for Consideration Issue pertains whether, despite an express designation of Srinagar as seat of arbitration, the conduct of proceedings and rendering of the award at New Delhi would confer jurisdiction upon courts at New Delhi; and the distinction between the seat and consequent determination of supervisory jurisdiction of the courts. Headnotes† Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 – s.34 – Juridical seat of arbitration – Appellant engaged respondent- contractor for execution of road projects –
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it reversed the acquittal of A-1 and A-2 for the offence punishable u/s.294(b) IPC and convicted them for the said offence; conviction of A1 u/s. 324 IPC affirmed and also convicted whereas conviction of A-2 for the offence u/s.325 altered to one u/s. 304 Part II, and both were sentenced accordingly. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 323, 324 and 302 rw s.34 – Culpable homicide – Use of the word ‘bastard’, if obscene –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was right in not quashing the proceedings against the appellant surgeon who performed Orchidectomy-removal of testicle on the one and a half year boy, without obtaining the consent by the father-de facto complainant, Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant-surgeon performed Orchidopexy-surgical procedure, on a one and a half year boy, for which doctors had obtained consent – Appellant also performed Orchidectomy-removal of testicle on the boy – Allegations by
Issue for Consideration Whether the black listing order, in the instant case, suffers from patent infirmities; whether the blacklisting, being stigmatic and exclusionary in nature, can be imposed mechanistically. Headnotes† Contract – Termination – Blacklisting – contractor with the Water and Sanitation Department was contracted for construction of an Elevated Service Reservoir (ESR) by issuance of a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) on 06.03.2023 – During the subsistence of the contract, on 01.06.2024, the top dome of the reservoir collapsed –
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether post-retirement of the appellant, punishment of reduction of three stages in the scale of pay, as imposed by the respondent, was permissible under the extant Service Regulations, or action under the Pension Regulations was the only way forward; (ii) Whether in the enquiry report and the order(s) passed by the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority. If yes, whether it could be raised as a ground when it was not pressed before the High Court. Headnotes† Punjab and Sind Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, 1982 –
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in declining to quash proceedings u/s.420 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.420 – Offence of cheating – Appellant- movie producer borrowed money from the complainant on assurance that it would in profits – Appellant issued two post-dated cheques towards return of the principal amount – Cheques dishonoured for insufficient funds in the account – Complaint for the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust – Petition for quashing of report and
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant, a body corporate, while availing services of the Bank to deposit its surplus funds in an interest bearing term deposit, such as a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), could be considered a consumer as defined in Protection Act, 1986; whether the nature of allegations made in the complaint were such that they took the claim outside the purview of proceedings under the 1986 Act. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – “consumer” – NCDRC dismissed the
Issue for Consideration Whether the clarificatory letter dated 14.10.2004 can have any overriding or superseding effect over the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993, which expressly lays down the criteria for exclusion from the benefit of reservation for Other Backward Classes the creamy layer namely, the socially advanced persons of sections among the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes; whether there can be hostile discrimination between employees of the Government and those working in Public or Private Sector Undertakings, when both occupy posts of the
Issue for Consideration Whether Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur, situated in Udham Singh Nagar, District of Uttarakhand could be treated as Multi-State Cooperative Societies by operation of s.103 of Multi-State despite their prior reorganisation and confinement of their area of operations to a single State, under the statutory framework governing State reorganisation. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 – ss.87, 93 – Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 –
Issue for Consideration Issue as regards the applicability of the judgments in S.Nithya to the cricket associations; applicability of BCCI Constitution to the Appellant-District Cricket Association. Headnotes† Sports – Cricket – Applicability of the judgments in S.Nithya to the cricket associations – Respondent no.2-ex-office bearer of the appellant-association filed writ petition seeking directions that the appellant should conduct a free and fair election after preparation of a fresh voters list and impugned the