Supreme Court Daily Digest [15 January 2026]
Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yati Jain ; 2026 INSC 64 - Waiting List - Writ Appeal -LPA
Service Law - Waiting List - The key aspects of a waiting list, in relation to service law disputes: (i) a waiting list is normally prepared after the select/merit list is drawn; (ii) it would include candidates who have qualified the recruitment examination but are not so meritorious such that they can be immediately appointed on the number of vacancies advertised; (iii) such list would operate like a merit-based queue for vacancies that remain unfilled after offers of appointment given to the candidates in the select/merit list are not accepted; (iv) a waiting list has a limited validity period; (v) validity period of a waiting list depends on the recruitment rules and should no such period be mentioned, it can bona fide be operated till the next advertisement is issued without, however, violating provisions in such rules, if any, requiring recruitment process to be initiated either semi-annually or annually; and (vi) an opportunity to a candidate in the waiting list for securing appointment arises only when vacancies remain unfilled after the process of appointing candidates from the select/merit list is over and hence, it is regarded as a procedural outcome which is part of a structured process rather than a fortuitous circumstance- A wait-listed candidate has no right of appointment, much less an indefeasible right, except when the governing recruitment rules permit a small window authorizing appointments therefrom in the specified exceptional circumstances and the appointing authority, for no good reason, denies or refuses an appointment or the reason assigned therefor is found to be arbitrary and/or discriminatory and that too, when the waiting list has not expired. (Para 86-90)
Constitution of India - Article 226 -Intra Court Jurisdiction - Letters patent appeal - A letters patent appeal, as permitted under the Letters Patent, is normally an intra-court appeal whereunder the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a “Court of Correction”, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench: Exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction could be called for if the judgment/order under challenge is palpably erroneous or suffers from perversity; but, it may not be exercised when two views are possible on a given set of facts and one of two views has been taken which is a plausible view. (Para 50-51) “Person aggrieved”: A writ appeal is a continuation of the original writ petition - anyone who may file a writ petition would have the locus standi to file a writ appeal albeit with some caveats: A person aggrieved having locus standi to prefer an appeal would be one who is directly affected or impacted by a judgment, order or decision even though the same does not directly require him to do something, or, one, who being a party to a suit, is adversely affected by the decree. To file an appeal, such a person typically needs to show affectation of a legal right or interest, or that he is likely to suffer a legal wrong as a result of its impact. A mere interest or concern in the subject matter decided by the original court would not be enough - the conditions that need to be satisfied before a person is entitled to maintain an appeal. These are: 1) that the appealing party has been a party in the proceedings from which the appeal has arisen; 2) that the definitive and conclusive ruling of the High Court on the rights of the parties in dispute is the subject of the appeal; and 3) that he is a ‘person aggrieved’, that is, a party who has been adversely affected by the determination. Condition (1) supra may, however, stand relaxed in given cases (Para 50- 67)
Appeal -An appeal is always a creature of statute - The right of appeal is the right of reaching out to a superior court, invoking its authority to have a relook at the facts vis-àvis the law applicable and to rectify the errors committed by a court inferior in the hierarchy. It is a very valuable right. Therefore, when the statute confers such a right of appeal, it is open to the person aggrieved to seek correction of the errors committed by the inferior court. (Para 45-46)
Public Service Commission - Although the recommendations made by a Public Service Commission are not binding and hence, may or may not be accepted by the Government of the State, one thing is clear: the latter has no authority to appoint anyone not recommended by the former. (Para 73)
Executive instructions - executive instructions may supplement, but not supplant, statutory rules and should be subservient to statutory provisions.
Constitution of India - Article 14,226 - Perpetuation of illegality ought to be shunned by any Court of law. This forms the basis for denying the plea of negative equality -The illegality in recommending some of the candidates figuring in the reserve list could not have been made the basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus citing Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 101-102)
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Disputes - A substantial number of service-related disputes pending across the country are aggravated by protracted and recurring litigation, resulting in a state of perpetual flux for many candidates across the country. The judiciary would do well to remain circumspect of these practical realities, and interpret service rules in a manner that furthers the very object of a selection process, that is, the selection of the most suitable candidates from suitable candidates for appointment in a timely manner. (Para 123)
Summary: Appeal by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission against High Court orders that had directed the appointment of candidates from a reserve list after several originally selected individuals failed to join their posts - Allowing appeal, SC held that the Commission had the locus standi to appeal as a constitutional body ; wait-listed candidates possess no indefeasible right to appointment, particularly once the statutory validity period of the list has lapsed; the six-month validity of a reserve list under the relevant rules must be strictly calculated from the date the original list was forwarded rather than from the date a vacancy later arose due to non-joining
Amit Kumar v. Union of India 2026 INSC 62 - Higher Educational Institutions - Student Suicides - Directions Issued
Higher Educational Institutions - Student Suicides - The Supreme Court, acknowledging a surge in student suicides, reviewed an interim report from a National Task Force that identified systemic stressors in Higher Educational Institutions—ranging from inadequate support systems, ragging, academic pressure, financial delays, and poor mental health services—to fragmented implementation of existing policies. Exercising Article 142, the Court issued directions including mandatory police reporting of any student suicide or unnatural death, annual reporting to regulators, filling faculty and leadership vacancies within four months, clearing scholarship backlogs promptly, ensuring round-the-clock medical access, and strict compliance with UGC regulations on equity, anti‑ragging, sexual harassment, and grievance redressal. The Court also asked the Task Force to develop model SOPs for wellbeing audits, faculty training, and campus mental health services, aiming for a unified, enforceable student well‑being framework.
Sanjay Paliwal v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.; 2026 INSC 61 - Mandatory Injunction - Cloud Over Possession
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 41 - When there is a cloud over possession of the disputed property, the suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable - The appropriate and efficacious remedy available is to institute a suit for possession along with a consequential relief of injunction, and not a suit for injunction simpliciter - When there is no cloud over title or possession, or where the defendant’s occupation flows from a licence or permissive arrangement, a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable as the most efficacious remedy - The expression “equally efficacious remedy” denotes a remedy which would place the Plaintiffs in the same position in which he would have been had the relief of injunction not been sought. (Para 16-23)
Vayyaeti Srinivasarao v. Gaineedi Jagajyothi; 2026 INSC 59 - Transfer of Property Act - Stamp Act
Transfer of Property Act 1882- Section 54 - A contract for sale (agreement to sell) would not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53A of the Act). Thus, an agreement to sell or a contract for sale with or without possession is not a conveyance deed. Therefore, a sale of immovable property can only be made by a registered instrument and that an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter. (Para 5.10)
Transfer of Property Act 1882- Section 53A- Section 53A applies to a person who contracts to transfer immovable property in writing. If the proposed transferee in the agreement has taken possession of the property or he continues in possession thereof being already in possession in part 26 performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract and transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, the transferor shall be debarred from enforcing any right in respect of the property- In a case where a person claims benefit of part performance, evidence that he was inducted into possession for the first time subsequent to the contract, would be a strong piece of evidence regarding the contract and of possession changing hands pursuant to the contract. Continuous possession of a tenant in the suit property even after entering into the sale agreements would not by itself amount to a part-performance, putting the tenant in possession of the suit properties pursuant to the sale agreements. (Para 5.12-13)
Transfer of Property Act 1882- Section 111 - Distinction between an express and implied surrender - While express surrender is a matter of intention of the parties, implied surrender is by implication of the law. An implied surrender is the act of the law and takes place independently of and in some cases even in spite of the intention of the parties. (Para 5.7)
Elegna Co-Op Housing & Commercial Society Ltd v. Edelweiss ARC Ltd, 2026 INSC 58. - S.7 IBC - Homebuyer Society Locus
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 7- The right to initiate or participate in insolvency proceedings is statutory, not equitable - A society or Resident Welfare Association, not being a creditor in its own right and not recognised as an authorised representative of allottees under the IBC, has no locus standi to intervene in proceedings arising out a Section 7 petition (Para 13.22)- Proceedings under Section 7 are essentially bipartite at the admission stage, involving only the financial creditor and the corporate debtor. Unrelated third parties including other creditors, have no independent right of audience at this stage.(Para 13.11) At the pre-admission stage, proceedings under Section 7 remain in personam, and neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Appellate Authority is required to hear other creditors, much less unrelated third parties. When proceedings are in personam, no right of audience inheres in persons who are strangers to the debt and default forming the basis of the application. (Para 13.5)
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 30- If the CoC approves a resolution plan in derogation of the objectives, scheme, and ethos of the Code, the NCLT is not rendered powerless at the stage of approval (Para 12.17)- While the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is paramount and is not ordinarily amenable to judicial review, the width of powers vested in the CoC carries with it a corresponding duty of responsibility. Any extraordinary or non-routine decision taken by the CoC must be supported by cogent reasons duly recorded in writing. (Para 15.1)
State of Himachal Pradesh vs Chaman Lal; 2026 INSC 57 - Evidence Act - Dying Declaration - Appeal Against Acquittal - Hostile Witness - Motive
Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 32 - A dying declaration need not be made in expectation of immediate death; that a conviction under Section 302 IPC can rest solely on a dying declaration if it is found to be voluntary, truthful and reliable; and that corroboration is not a rule of law but one of prudence. (Para 16) - The law does not prescribe any rigid form for recording a dying declaration. So long as the Court is satisfied that the declaration is voluntary, truthful and reliable, hyper-technical objections cannot form the basis for its rejection. (Para 18.3) No absolute proposition that a dying declaration must invariably be discarded in the absence of corroboration. Each case must necessarily turn on its own facts. (Para 25)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378,386- Where a judgment of acquittal is found to be manifestly erroneous, perverse, or founded on a misreading of evidence or incorrect application of law, this Court would be justified to set aside the acquittal and record a conviction, albeit exercising such power with circumspection and in exceptional circumstances. (Para 13)
Criminal Trial - Hostile Witness -The testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon only to the extent it is corroborated by other reliable evidence. (Para 20)
Motive- Motive assumes significance, primarily in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Where there is direct evidence in the form of a credible and trustworthy dying declaration, the absence of strong proof of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case. (Para 23)
Anwar Hussain v. State of Madhya Pradesh - Criminal Trial - Stock Witnesses Practice
Criminal Trial - Stock witnesses - Repeated use of the same witnesses in support of the police versions of alleged crimes- This practice goes to the very root of fairness and impartiality of investigation and could be termed anathema to a country governed by the rule of law.
Pradip @ Monu Arunkumar Chhotelal Tiwari v. State of Gujarat - SLP - Failure To Disclose All Material Facts
Constitution of India - Article 136 -When a petitioner approaches this Court for grant of relief, he/she/it is expected to do so with clean hands, disclosing all material facts. Failure to do so, would amount to an abuse of the process of this Court. [Context: In this case, SC noted that petitioner, who seeks bail, failed to disclose the past case dating back to the year 2020 - SLP dismissed]