Siddhartha Reddy v. Gudipalli, 1998. The Court in the case of State C.B.I. (Ruled in February 2026 by the Supreme Court of India) (Judges: Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan) considered the questions of liability based upon a suicide pact. It was a case of Homicide of actress Pratyusha after taking pesticide with her boyfriend, Siddhartha Reddy, who survived. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Central Forensic Science Laboratory and Centre of DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics forensic reports showed that death was due to poisoning and that the death was not due to homicide. The Court did state that a suicide pact is a mutual abetment since each participant supports the other. The accused made the pesticide available and helped in the consumption of the said pesticide, which constituted intentional aid under the Indian Penal Code sections 107 and 306. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act also formed an adverse inference against the accused since the accused provided false responses in his Section 313 CrPC statement even concerning facts he was aware of. The Court condemned the autopsy surgeon heavily in connection to the publicity which publicly alleged rape and murder and found this unethical and harmful to the justice. The Supreme Court maintained the conviction on the basis of 306 and 309 IPC and ordered the accused to turn himself to serve out his sentence.
In State of Gujarat v. Vishalkumar Somchandra Shah & Ors., the High Court of Gujarat examined whether a conviction for dacoity could stand when fewer than five accused were proven to have participated. The Bench of Ilesh J. Vora and R. T. Vachhani found insufficient evidence against the woman accused in a honey-trap extortion scheme and acquitted her. With her acquittal, the number of participants dropped below five, which is the minimum requirement for dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the Court modified the conviction of the remaining accused to robbery under Section 392 IPC. Their sentence was reduced from five years to two years’ rigorous imprisonment, while the six-month sentence under Section 170 IPC (impersonating a public servant) was maintained. The Court also refused probation, stressing the seriousness of crimes involving impersonation of police officers.
In Hemlata Eknath Pise v. Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna & Ors., the Supreme Court of India held that courts should ideally decide all issues raised by the parties, rather than disposing of a case on a single decisive point. The Bench of Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma found that the Bombay High Court erred by remanding the dispute to the Tribunal based only on a technical issue regarding the Secretary’s authority, while ignoring allegations of violation of natural justice during the disciplinary inquiry. The Court emphasized that addressing every substantive issue ensures clarity, fairness, and assists appellate review. Since the appellant had already reached superannuation, the dispute now mainly concerned back wages and retiral benefits. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and remanded the writ petition for fresh adjudication on all merits within four months.
In the case, Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Trump, President of the United States, et al., the Supreme Court of the United States held that the President has no power to approve tariffs on the basis of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The opinion of the majority (John Roberts), was that only under Article I of the Constitution, the jurisdiction was vested in the Congress to impose taxes and duties. The case emerged following the implementation of tariffs on imports on Canada, Mexico and China among other countries by Donald Trump who declared a national emergency concerning drug trafficking and trade deficit. The tariffs were fought by businesses which claimed that IEEPA gives the President the power to regulate imports but not to tax. The Court concurred by saying that the power to tax without express congressional authorization was not conferred in the power to regulate commerce. Using the Major Questions Doctrine, the Court ruled that such a far reaching economic measure must be clearly approved by Congress. The court upheld the judgment of the Federal Circuit and stated that the tariffs provided under IEEPA were illegal. An objection made by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito maintained that tariffs are traditionally a means of controlling imports.
Social Science Textbook for Grade-8 (Part 2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of a Class-8 Social Science textbook published by National Council of Educational Research and Training that contained a chapter discussing “corruption in the judiciary.” The Bench led by Surya Kant, with Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, observed that the chapter appeared to misrepresent judicial statements and could scandalize the institution of the judiciary. The Court held that educational materials must not undermine constitutional institutions, particularly when aimed at impressionable students. Finding the explanation of the NCERT Director inadequate, the Court issued show-cause notices for criminal contempt to the NCERT Director and a Ministry of Education official under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court also banned publication and circulation of the textbook, directed the removal of digital copies, and ordered authorities to seize existing physical copies. NCERT was further asked to disclose the individuals responsible for drafting and approving the disputed chapter.
In Shashikanta Majhi v. State of Odisha and others, the High Court of Orissa examined whether a writ of habeas corpus could be used to resolve a child custody dispute. The Bench comprising Harish Tandon and Murahari Sri Raman held that writ courts should not ordinarily decide custody disputes unless the child is in illegal detention. The petitioner-father sought custody of his five-year-old child from the maternal aunt and uncle after the mother’s death, alleging that they had taken the child to Odisha without consent. However, the Court noted that the custody had already been recognized by the Child Welfare Committee, and the Supreme Court of India had also passed interim directions allowing interaction with the father. Relying on precedents like Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, the Court reiterated that the welfare of the child is paramount. Since the custody was not unlawful, the habeas corpus petition was dismissed, and the father was directed to approach the competent civil or family court for guardianship and custody determination.
The Supreme Court recently expressed serious concern after discovering that a trial court had cited AI-generated fake judgments while deciding a case. The bench observed that relying on non-existent or fabricated precedents amounts to judicial misconduct and raises significant institutional concerns for the justice system. The Court emphasised that judgments must be based on verified legal authorities and authentic precedents, as inaccurate citations can mislead courts and undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The issue came to light when the Supreme Court noticed that certain cases relied upon by the trial court could not be traced in any official law reports or legal databases. Upon examination, it appeared that the citations were likely generated using artificial intelligence tools, which sometimes produce incorrect or completely fictitious case references. The Court cautioned that while technology and AI may assist legal research, they cannot replace careful verification by judges and lawyers. The bench stressed that judicial officers have a duty to ensure the authenticity of every authority cited in their orders. Failure to verify sources before relying on them can compromise the integrity of judicial decisions. The Court also warned that uncritical use of AI tools in legal proceedings could create serious risks if outputs are accepted without independent scrutiny. Highlighting the broader institutional implications, the Supreme Court stated that courts must remain vigilant about technological misuse in the justice delivery system. It urged greater awareness and caution among judicial officers and legal practitioners when using AI-based research tools, reaffirming that accuracy, accountability, and verification remain fundamental to the rule of law.
In Ashish Dave v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered against the former Zee Rajasthan Channel Head for alleged extortion. The Court found that the FIR contained vague and omnibus allegations and failed to name any specific victim or disclose the essential ingredients of extortion. Criticising the police for acting in “hot haste,” the bench remarked that it appeared to be a “James Bond style—shoot first, think later” approach. The Court reiterated that an FIR must clearly disclose a cognizable offence and cannot rely on vague accusations. It also held that subsequent investigation cannot cure a defective FIR. Setting aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order, the Court quashed the FIR but allowed authorities to register a fresh case if genuine victims come forward with specific allegations.
In State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, the Supreme Court held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right but depends on the Court’s discretion. The State had challenged a High Court order after significant delay and sought condonation citing administrative approvals and procedural formalities. The Court found the explanation unsatisfactory and criticised the State for its “lethargic and indolent” approach. It reiterated that routine bureaucratic delays cannot justify ignoring limitation periods. Government authorities are not entitled to special privilege under limitation law. Finding no sufficient cause for the delay, the Court refused to condone it and dismissed the State’s Special Leave Petition as time-barred.
In Ghanshyam Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that non-recovery of the murder weapon does not automatically weaken the prosecution case. The case arose from a daylight attack following a dispute over grazing crops, where the accused allegedly dragged the deceased out of their house and assaulted them with sharp-edged weapons and firearms. Four eyewitnesses, who were relatives of the deceased, consistently testified about the incident. The appellants argued that since the alleged weapons were not recovered during investigation, the prosecution case was doubtful. However, the Court observed that recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction if the prosecution establishes guilt through reliable evidence. The Bench noted that the eyewitness testimonies were consistent, trustworthy, and supported by medical evidence regarding the injuries suffered by the deceased. The Court further reiterated that lapses or defects in investigation cannot by themselves result in acquittal if the overall evidence proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Since both the Trial Court and the High Court had carefully evaluated the evidence and found the eyewitness accounts credible, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the conviction.
In Kartik & Anr v. In the case of State of NCT of Delhi and Ors, the Delhi high court under Justice Saurabh Banerjee confirmed that protection of life and liberty should be afforded to consenting adults in a live-in relationship. The couple sought the protection of the police against threats of the father of the woman against their relationship. The Court determined that the choice of a partner whether in marriage or in a live-in relationship was part of personal autonomy that had to be guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It also noted that, although live-in relationships do not possess the same legal status as marriage, they are still legal and they should not attract harassment and meddling of relatives. The Court stressed the importance of dignity and choice of people and stated that the right of parental authority could not prevail over the basic rights. The order was given to go to the local police authorities and the couple was directed to seek their help in case required to ensure their safety and freedom.
In Supriya Gaurav Devare v. The Bombay High Court overturned an ex-parte divorce decree that was granted after claims of mental cruelty in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court had been largely based on the WhatsApp messages and SMS conversations claiming of abusive behavior and marital coercion. The Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande were of the opinion that electronic communications are electronic evidence and they have to be demonstrated in accordance to Indian Evidence Act, 1872 before they can rely on them. The Court highlighted the natural justice principles in that the wife had no chance to dispute authenticity or to cross-examine evidence. It decided that unproven WhatsApp conversations do not suffice to prove cruelty when it comes to matrimonial law. The divorce order was therefore overturned and the case was sent back to the Family Court to be retried again with both parties allowed to provide evidence and challenge digital records in the appropriate way.
In Bhopal Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Subhash C. Pandey & Ors., the Supreme Court of India issued nationwide directions to enforce the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, effective from April 1, 2026, while hearing an appeal against environmental compensation imposed by the National Green Tribunal. The Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti highlighted widespread failures in waste segregation, processing, and management, relying on Central Pollution Control Board data showing large quantities of untreated municipal waste. Reaffirming that a clean environment forms part of Article 21, the Court directed elected representatives, State Governments, and District Collectors to ensure strict compliance. Mandatory four-category waste segregation, technological monitoring, penalties for bulk waste generators, infrastructure audits, school awareness programs, and mobile environmental courts were ordered. A multi-tier monitoring framework with accountability affidavits was introduced to ensure nationwide implementation and prevent environmental inequality caused by uncontrolled dumping.
In Ghanshyam Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that non-recovery of the murder weapon does not automatically weaken the prosecution case. The case arose from a daylight attack following a dispute over grazing crops, where the accused allegedly dragged the deceased out of their house and assaulted them with sharp-edged weapons and firearms. Four eyewitnesses, who were relatives of the deceased, consistently testified about the incident. The appellants argued that since the alleged weapons were not recovered during investigation, the prosecution case was doubtful. However, the Court observed that recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction if the prosecution establishes guilt through reliable evidence. The Bench noted that the eyewitness testimonies were consistent, trustworthy, and supported by medical evidence regarding the injuries suffered by the deceased. The Court further reiterated that lapses or defects in investigation cannot by themselves result in acquittal if the overall evidence proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Since both the Trial Court and the High Court had carefully evaluated the evidence and found the eyewitness accounts credible, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the conviction.