XXX v. State of Kerala: 2026 INSC 88- -------------------------------------------------------------------------It a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India regarding the procedural safeguards for complaints against public servants under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Key Rulings • Mandatory Affidavit: The Court held that an application filed before a Magistrate seeking an investigation against a public servant under Section 175(3) of the BNSS must be supported by an affidavit. • Interplay of Sections 175(3) and 175(4): The Court clarified that Section 175(4)—which allows a Magistrate to call for a report from a superior officer—is not a standalone provision. It serves as an adjunct or extra safeguard to Section 175(3) to prevent frivolous or motivated litigation against officials. • No Immunity for Personal Crimes: While procedural safeguards exist for acts done in the "discharge of official duties," the Court emphasized that these protections do not provide immunity for crimes unrelated to official functions, such as sexual assault. Case Background The appellant alleged she was sexually assaulted by three police officers on separate occasions while pursuing a property dispute complaint. She sought a direction for the registration of an FIR, leading to a legal dispute over whether the Magistrate must first follow the specific preliminary inquiry procedures mandated for public servants under the new BNSS framework.

Abhijit Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh: 2026 INSC 83-------------------------------------------------------- Key Legal Issues & Findings • Initial Charges vs. Later Allegations: The FIR was initially registered for abetment to suicide (Section 108 BNS). Charges of dowry death (Section 80 BNS) and violations of the Dowry Prohibition Act were added later in the charge-sheet based on subsequent witness statements. • Lack of Prima Facie Evidence: The Court observed that allegations of dowry demands were notably absent from the initial statements made by the deceased's family members. • Medical Evidence: The Court noted that injuries on the deceased's body could be attributed to medical procedures or were self-inflicted, consistent with an overdose rather than physical assault or murder. • Right to Liberty: Emphasizing that the appellant had been in custody since March 2025 and was not a "hardened criminal," the Court held that he was entitled to bail as the trial would take time. Decision The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order (dated October 6, 2025) that had denied him bail. The appellant was ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court, including full cooperation with the proceedings and a prohibition on influencing witnesses.

Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka: 2026 INSC 67-------------------------------------------------- Ratio Decidendi: It has been observed that the following principles have to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeals against an order of acquittal: (a) Whether the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) Whether the judgment is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence on record; (c) An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference.' (d) The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; (e) If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and (f) The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.

Sanjay Paliwal vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd: 2026 INSC 61-------------------------------------------------- Key Legal Principles • Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: The Court held that an injunction cannot be granted when an "equally efficacious relief" is available. Since the defendant (BHEL) seriously disputed the plaintiffs' title and possession, the proper remedy was a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. • Requirement for Possession: Reaffirming the landmark ruling in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, the Court stated that where the defendant’s actions amount to trespass or dispossession, the plaintiff must seek possession rather than just an injunction. • Lack of Evidence: The Court noted "fatal flaws" in identifying the exact location of the wall and the plaintiffs' parcel of land, making a decree for mandatory injunction unsustainable without conclusive proof. • Partnership Act: The Court repelled an objection regarding Section 69 of the Partnership Act, ruling that even if the plaintiffs' firm was unregistered, they could still maintain a common law action to protect property rights. Final Outcome The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, directing the parties to bear their own costs. The plaintiffs' only remaining remedy is to file a fresh suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession

Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto v. State of Bihar: Law Finder Doc Id # 2839603----------------------------------- The Supreme Court of India ruled that merely using abusive language against a person from a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) does not automatically constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act. Key Legal Findings • Caste-Based Intent: For Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act to apply, the prosecution must prove a clear intent to humiliate or intimidate the victim specifically based on their caste. • Mere Abuse Insufficient: The Court clarified that "mere abuse" or insults in a personal dispute, even if the victim's caste is known to the accused, do not trigger the Act unless they are denigrating toward the caste. • Element of Humiliation: The "element of humiliation" is essential. The Court noted that neither the FIR nor the chargesheet in this case alleged that the appellant used caste-based slurs or had the intention to humiliate the complainant on that basis. Case Outcome The Supreme Court set aside a 2025 Patna High Court order and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The Bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Alok Aradhe, found that the allegations, even if accepted entirely, did not prima facie satisfy the requirements of the SC/ST Act.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh: 2026 INSC 47------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of India addressed critical issues regarding the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and the limits of judicial intervention during bail proceedings. Key Rulings & Observations • Bail Jurisdiction Limits (Section 439 CrPC): The Court held that a High Court, while exercising its bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the CrPC, cannot issue broad systemic directions or mandate medical age-determination tests across all cases. • Age Determination is a Matter of Trial: Conclusive determination of a victim's age is a matter for the trial stage, not the bail stage. At the bail stage, courts should only take a prima facie view of available documents to avoid conducting impermissible "mini-trials". • Hierarchy of Age Proof: The Court reiterated that age determination must strictly follow the hierarchy established under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015, where medical tests are a last resort used only in the absence of valid documents like matriculation or birth certificates. • Proposal for "Romeo-Juliet Clause": Notably, the Supreme Court urged the Union Government to consider introducing a "Romeo-Juliet clause" in the POCSO Act. This exception would protect genuine consensual adolescent relationships and prevent the law from being misused to settle scores.

Golden Food Products India vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others: 2026 INSC 22------------------------------------------ Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed and held that once an auction is validly held and the highest bid exceeds the reserve price, it crystallises future rights and obligations between the parties. A state authority cannot cancel a valid highest bid merely because it expects to obtain a higher price in a future auction. Such expectation, without any established irregularity, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Even if no allotment letter was issued, a highest bidder acquires a legitimate expectation that a valid auction will be honoured if procedural norms are satisfied.

State (NCT) of Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja: 2026 INSC 25 ----------------------------------------------------- Key Rulings and Legal Principles • Transactional Unity: The Court held that the number of victims does not dictate the number of FIRs. If multiple acts of cheating arise from a "single overarching conspiracy" with a unity of purpose and design, they may be treated as the "same transaction" under Section 220(1) of the CrPC. • Procedural Efficiency: Registering a single FIR and treating subsequent complaints as statements under Section 161 CrPC prioritizes judicial efficiency and prevents the legal system from being overwhelmed by thousands of individual cases for the same scheme. • Victim Rights: To protect complainants who are treated as witnesses in a single FIR, the Court reaffirmed their right to file protest petitions if a closure report is filed or if the accused is discharged. • Sentencing: Concerns regarding the proportionality of punishment in mass-harm cases must be addressed through established sentencing frameworks (e.g., Section 71 IPC) rather than by mechanically multiplying FIRs. Case Background The case originated from a large-scale fraud where approximately 1,852 victims were induced to invest ₹46.40 crores based on false promises of tripling their money through "divine powers". The Delhi High Court had previously suggested that each deposit required a separate FIR; however, the Supreme Court set aside this view, emphasizing that the Magistrate should determine transactional unity at the stage of framing charges.

NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah & Ors.: SLP (C) Nos. 6024-6025 OF 2022 ---------------------------------------------- Case Summary & Key Findings • The Dispute: The case arose from a 2007 recovery suit filed by property owners (the respondents) for unpaid service charges against a firm (respondent no. 3). NAK Engineering sought to be impleaded as a defendant in 2018, claiming it was the legal successor-in-interest of the original firm. • Dominus Litis Principle: The Court reaffirmed that a plaintiff has the right to choose the defendants they wish to sue. A third party cannot force its inclusion if the plaintiff seeks no relief against them and their presence is not essential for a decree. • Failure to Prove Succession: The Court held that a mere certificate of incorporation does not automatically prove a company is a "successor-in-interest" to another entity. NAK Engineering failed to provide conclusive legal proof of such succession. • Inordinate Delay: The appellant waited nearly a decade after gaining knowledge of the suit before seeking impleadment, which the Court viewed as an attempt to delay proceedings. • the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to deny the impleadment. However, to protect the appellant’s future rights, it directed that any decree passed in the suit cannot be executed against NAK Engineering