Supreme Court Daily Digest [20 January 2026]

Raj Singh Gehlot v. Amitabha Sen 2026 INSC 77 - Writ Petition - Burden Of Proof - S.14 NGT Act

Constitution of India - Article 226 - In a writ petition, which is decided on affidavits, the burden of establishing the existence of the facts asserted squarely lies upon the writ petitioner, and such burden can be discharged only by placing clear and unimpeachable material on record. (Para 66) Gross delay in approaching the High Court can constitute a material and decisive factor, which by itself can disentitled the writ petitioners to any sort of discretionary relief under Article 226. (Para 70)

National Green Tribunal Act - Section 14- Every question or dispute raised by an applicant before the Tribunal pertaining to the environment cannot be treated as a substantial question. It has to be a substantial question relating to environment as contemplated in Section 2(1)(m), and such substantial question must arise out of the implementation of any of the enactment/enactments specified in Schedule I. Though strict law of evidence may not be applicable to the cases filed before the Tribunal, the applicant has to raise the substantial question in his application specifically alleging the violation of a particular enactment specified in Schedule I. (Para 106)

Prakash Atlanta (JV) v. NHAI; 2026 INSC 76 - S.34 Arbitration Act - BOCW Act- Cess Act

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - If an arbitral tribunal’s view is found to be a possible and plausible one, it cannot be substituted merely because an alternate view is possible. Construction and interpretation of a contract and its terms is a matter for the arbitral tribunal to determine. Unless the same is found to be one that no fair-minded or reasonable person would arrive at, it cannot be interfered with. If there are two plausible interpretations of the terms of a contract, then no fault can be found if the arbitrator accepts one such interpretation as against the other. To be in conflict with the public policy of India, the award must contravene the fundamental policy of Indian law, which makes it narrower in its application. (Para 59)

Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 - Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 - Cess Act along with the Rules framed thereunder became operative in the whole of the NCT of Delhi from January, 2002 - The BOCW Act and the Cess Act were brought into force on the dates notified therein but could not have been given effect to till Welfare Boards were constituted under Section 18 of the BOCW Act. Notwithstanding the dates from which these two enactments were brought into force, the BOCW Act and the Cess Act remained dormant, in fact, owing to the failure of the appropriate Governments in taking necessary measures to bring the provisions thereof into actual effect -The Cess Act is complementary to the BOCW Act and was enacted for augmenting the resources of the Welfare Boards, constituted under Section 18 of the BOCW Act. Therefore, in the absence of such Welfare Boards, levy and collection of cess under the Cess Act did not arise, given the scheme and structure of the two Acts and the Rules - constitution of Welfare Boards was essential and was a condition precedent for levy and collection of the cess in relation to the BOCW Act and the Cess Act. The registration of workers or providing of welfare measures to them, however, are not pre-conditions for the levy and collection of such cess. (Para 59)

Pogadadabnda Revathi v. State of Telangana; 2026 INSC 75 -CrPC/BNSS- Remand - Accused On Bail

Bail - When an accused is enlarged on bail, police custody cannot be granted so long as the order of bail continues to operate - Where the investigating agency seeks police remand of an accused who has already been enlarged on bail, the proper and legally permissible course is to first seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law and only thereafter apply for police custody. The scheme of criminal procedure does not countenance the grant of police remand of an accused who continues to enjoy the protection of bail, as such a course would effectively defeat and nullify the order granting bail.  (Para 17-19)

Union of India v. Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees’ Union 2026 INSC 74 - Factories Act

Factories Act, 1948: Section 59(2); Chapter VI (Sections 64, 65); Chapter XI (Sections 112, 113)- These sections do not empower the Central Government to issue any clarification or direction with reference to any provisions of the 1948 Act. None of the sections empowers the central government to even frame rules. The entire power is vested with the State Governments. All that the Central Government can do is, issue directions to the State Governments - when the statute provides for only two specific exclusions: bonus and wages for overtime work, in the absence of any formal rules governing the exclusion of other entitlements, the Executive cannot, through a mere Office Memorandum, read additional exclusions into the Act that the Legislature did not contemplate. (Para 15)

Interpretation of Statutes - Legislature never wastes its words. (Para 15) Different Ministries of the Government of India cannot assign different meaning to a provision in the Act of Parliament. (Para 14.1)

Neha Lal vs Abhishek Kumar; 2026 INSC 73; - Matrimonial Matters - Mediation - Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage

Matrimonial Matters - Warring couples cannot be allowed to settle their scores by treating Courts as their battlefield and choke the system. If there is no compatibility, there are modes available for early resolution of disputes. Process of mediation is the mode which can be explored at the stage of pre-litigation and even after litigation starts. When the parties start litigating against each other, especially on criminal side, the chances of reunion are remote but should not be ruled out. (Para 21) First and the foremost, earnest effort should be made by the parties and to be guided by the advocates, whensoever consulted in the process, is to convince them for a pre-litigation mediation. Rather in some cases, their counselling may be required - Even if a case is filed in a Court on a trivial issue such as maintenance under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 125 of CrPC, 1973) or Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the first effort required to be made by the Court is to explore mediation instead of calling upon the parties for filing replies as allegations and counter allegations sometimes aggravate the dispute. Even when a complaint is sought to be registered with the police of simple matrimonial dispute, first and the foremost effort has to be for re-conciliation, that too, if possible, through the mediation centers in the Courts, instead of calling the parties to the police stations. This sometimes becomes a point of no return specially when any of the parties is arrested, may it be even for a day. (Para 24) It is the duty of all concerned including the family members of the parties to make their earnest effort to resolve the disputes before any civil or criminal proceedings are launched.(Para 25)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage -Under the, this is not a ground on which divorce can be sought or granted.(Para 10)

Constitution of India - Article 142 - Supreme Court can dissolve the marriage on account of irretrievable breakdown - Multiple court cases between the parties and repeated failure in mediation are testimony of marriage being broken down. (Para 11-13)

Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan 2026 INSC 72 - S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act - Investigation By ACB

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988- Anti-Corruption Bureau of the State of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to register the criminal case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act despite the fact that the accused is an employee of the Central Government- It is incorrect to say that it is only the CBI who could have instituted the prosecution. (Para 3)

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988- Section 17A - Cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification- Section 17-A talks about enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. (Para 7)

Nawal Kishore Meena v. State of Rajasthan; 2026 INSC 71 - S.17 Prevention Of Corruption Act - Investigation By State Agencies

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 17 - Section 17 does not exclude or prevents the State Police or a Special Agency of the State from registering a crime or investigating cases relating to bribery, corruption and misconduct against Central Government employes- The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) is also a wing of State Police- The offences under the PC Act are also cognizable and can, therefore, be investigated by the State Police or VACB - The only rider is that the investigation can be done only by a police officer of the rank specified in Section 17 of the PC Act. (Para 8)

Criminal Investigation - The relation between the CBI and the State Police is supplementary to each other and as per the CBI constitution and inter se arrangement between CBI and State police there are several areas where the CBI and the Police require inter se cooperation and support. (Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 156 -The existence of a special law by itself cannot be taken to exclude the operation of Cr.P.C. Unless the special law expressly or impliedly provides a separate provision for investigation, the general provision under Section 156 of Cr.P.C shall prevail. (Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 2(s)- The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) is also a wing of State Police. (Para 8)

Viney Kumar Sharma v. Improvement Trust - Public Auction - Disclosure Of Litigation

Public Auction - Authorities (such as banks, recovery officers, or state bodies) conducting public auctions are legally required to disclose all known encumbrances and litigation relating to the property, as failure to do so invalidates the sale. Suppressing such material facts renders the auction fraudulent or vitiated by material irregularity -Public auction is one of the modes of sale intending to get highest competitive price for the property. Public auction also ensures fairness in actions of the public authorities and their officers who should act fairly and objectively. Their actions should be legitimate. Their dealing should be free from suspicion. Nothing should be suggestive of bias, favouritism, nepotism or beset with suspicious features of underbidding detrimental to the legitimate interest of the stakeholders.

State of Kerala vs Alankar Elite Inns and Hotels (P) Ltd.- Foreign Liquor Rules

Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 - Rule 19 (iv) - The fee is leviable when permission is granted/ allowed- The law as it stands on the date when decision is taken to regularize/ permit/ allow a change, or reconstitution, would apply- No right accrued or crystallized in favour of the State to realize /impose fee on mere reconstitution of the Board- Fee become imposable only when reconstitution is permitted/ allowed. [Context: SC upheld Kerala High Court’s view that fees under the deleted second proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 could not be levied when regularization was granted after its omission. The Court held that the applicable law for fee imposition is the law in force on the date the change or reconstitution is allowed, not the date of the violation or board reconstitution. It left the interpretation of the Note appended to Rule 19 open for future cases and disposed of pending applications.]

Anubhuti Goel vs High Court of Uttarakhand - Judicial Service Exams

Judicial Service Exams -In this case, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission invited applications for Uttarakhand Civil Judge; petitioners applied, cleared prelim (30.04.2023), and sat mains (05–09.12.2023)- On 06.11.2023, Delhi High Court advertised DJS-2023; petitioners applied, got admit cards (12.12.2023), took prelim (17.12.2023), and later mains (13–14.04.2024) -On 06.05.2024, Uttarakhand results declared; petitioners selected. Govt notification issued (08.07.2024) approving appointments; High Court appointed them (11.07.2024) as Civil Judges with two-year probation -On 07.01.2025, DJS mains results published; petitioners shortlisted for viva scheduled 21.02.2025. They sought prior approval from Uttarakhand High Court on 05.02.2025- On 19.02.2025, Registrar General, Uttarakhand High Court rejected permission. The Supreme Court granted interim relief on 25.02.2025, enabling them to take the viva; they were successful- Now Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, directing cessation of their Uttarakhand service so they can join Delhi Judicial Service by 13.02.2026, and clarified seniority will follow merit, unaffected by joining delay.

Rambali Sahni v. State of Bihar - S.362 CrPC - Bail - Clerical Error

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 362 - Bail - High Court recalled an order granting bail on the premise that Court Master though had recorded as petition having been rejected in the operative portion had mistakenly written as “allowed” -SC restored the bail order and observed: Once the judgment or order is signed, no alternation or review of the same is permissible except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error- There being no clerical or arithmetical error which had crept in, yet the High Court recalled the earlier order granted bail by impugned order and it was not justified in undertaking to recall the order.

Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) - Consumer Protection Act - Complainant & Opposite Party Died

Consumer Protection Act 2019- A consumer complaint alleging medical negligence against a doctor was allowed by the District Forum, set aside by the State Commission, and was pending in revision before the National Commission when the doctor died; the complainant has also since died- Supreme Court to examine how the complaint should proceed under the newer Consumer Protection Act, including potential liability of the deceased doctor’s estate through legal heirs.?