District Magistrate and District Election Officer and Collector, Gwalior, M.P. vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors.: 2026 INSC 279------------------------------------------------------ Facts of the Case

• A school-owned bus was requisitioned by election authorities under Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 for election duty.
• During this period, the bus caused a fatal accident.
• The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially fastened liability on the insurer.
• The High Court shifted liability to the State authority.
• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view, confirming that liability rests with the authority in control of the vehicle during requisition.

Key Legal Principles

1. Transfer of Control = Transfer of Liability
   • When a vehicle is requisitioned, the State assumes control and responsibility.
   • The insurer’s liability is suspended during the requisition period.
2. Public Duty Context
   • Vehicles requisitioned for elections, disaster relief, or other public purposes fall under this principle.
   • Victims of accidents must claim compensation from the State authority, not the insurer.
3. Precedent Strengthened
   • This ruling aligns with earlier judgments emphasizing that liability follows control, not ownership.

Broader Implications

• For Insurance Companies: Clarifies that insurers are not liable for accidents when vehicles are under government requisition.
• For Vehicle Owners: Once requisitioned, responsibility shifts to the State; owners are shielded from liability during that period.
• For Victims: Compensation claims must be directed against the State authority controlling the vehicle.

  The State of Bihar v. Sudha Singh: 2026 INSC 272----------------------------------------- Key Legal Issues

1. Confiscation vs. Criminal Trial
   • The Court clarified that confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Special Courts Act are civil in nature and independent of criminal prosecution.
   • Death of the accused does not terminate these proceedings, unlike criminal trials which abate.
2. Purpose of Confiscation
   • The Act aims to recover ill-gotten assets acquired through corruption.
   • Allowing abatement would unjustly benefit heirs and defeat the legislative intent.
3. Outcome
   • The Supreme Court restored confiscation proceedings against Sudha Singh, holding that heirs cannot claim immunity from attachment of disproportionate assets.

  V. Ganesan v. State: 2026 INSC 265-----------------------------------------------------   Key Legal Issues

1. Reliability of Witness Testimony
   • The Court reiterated that conviction cannot be sustained on shaky or uncorroborated evidence.
   • Independent corroboration is necessary when prosecution witnesses are inconsistent or unreliable.
2. Burden of Proof
   • The judgment reinforced that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
   • Any lingering doubt must benefit the accused, in line with established criminal jurisprudence.
3. Appellate Scrutiny
   • The Supreme Court highlighted the duty of appellate courts to carefully re-examine evidence when conviction is challenged.
   • It cautioned against mechanical affirmation of lower court findings.

In Subramani v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 249),-------------------------------- Key Legal Issues

1. Section 50 NDPS Act – Right of Search
   • The Court reiterated that informing the accused of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer is mandatory.
   • Any deviation, such as offering alternative or unclear options, invalidates the search.
2. Evidentiary Standards
   • Conviction must rest on reliable, corroborated evidence.
   • Procedural lapses undermine the credibility of recovery and seizure.
3. Outcome
   • The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish compliance with mandatory safeguards.

  The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surat Singh--------------------------------------- Key Legal Issues

1. Section 50 NDPS Act – Right of Search
   • Law requires that an accused be informed of the right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.
   • In this case, police offered a third option (search before a police officer), which is not permitted under law.
2. Effect of Procedural Violation
   • The Supreme Court held that this violation vitiated the entire search and recovery process, making the conviction unsustainable.
   • Procedural safeguards under NDPS Act are mandatory, not directory.
3. Outcome
   • The Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal of Surat Singh.
   • It reinforced that strict compliance with Section 50 is essential in NDPS prosecutions.

Muddam Raju Yadav Versus B. Raja Shanker (D) Through Lrs. & Ors.:Civil Appeal No. 3255 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6453 of 2024------------------------- Key Legal Issues

1. Specific Performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963
   • The Court emphasized that specific performance is the rule, not the exception, when a valid contract exists, unless inequitable circumstances justify refusal.
   • The registered nature of the agreement and clear terms weighed heavily in favor of enforcement.
2. Equitable Discretion
   • The Court clarified that discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act must be exercised judicially, not arbitrarily.
   • The High Court’s reversal was found unsustainable because it ignored the binding nature of the registered agreement.
3. Possession & Readiness/Willingness
   • The plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
   • The defendants’ objections were insufficient to defeat the claim.

  Broader Implications

• Property Transactions: Reinforces the enforceability of registered sale agreements, discouraging parties from reneging after execution.
• Judicial Approach: Limits appellate interference in trial court decrees unless findings are perverse or legally untenable.
• Equity vs. Law: Balances equitable discretion with the principle that contracts must be honored when validly executed.

  Risks & Considerations

• For Buyers: Ensure agreements are registered and maintain evidence of readiness/willingness to perform.
• For Sellers: Once a registered agreement is executed, courts are likely to enforce it unless strong equitable grounds exist.
• For Lawyers: Draft agreements with clarity and advise clients on the binding nature of registered contracts.

Gobind Singh and Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors.:2026 LiveLaw (SC) 221------------------------------- Key Legal Issues

1. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Additional Evidence
   • The appellants sought to introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.
   • The Court reiterated that additional evidence can only be allowed if:
     • The trial court wrongly excluded evidence.
     • The appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment.
     • The party could not produce it earlier despite due diligence.
2. Precedents Applied
   • Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148
   • State of Karnataka v. K.C. Subramanya (2014) 13 SCC 468
   • These cases emphasize that appellate courts are not forums for re-trial. 2
3. Outcome
   • The Supreme Court dismissed the appellants’ plea for additional evidence.
   • It upheld the High Court’s decision, reinforcing that appellate jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to fill gaps in evidence.

  Broader Implications

• Civil Procedure: Strengthens discipline in appellate practice, preventing misuse of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.
• Litigation Strategy: Parties must present all material evidence at the trial stage; appellate courts will not entertain new evidence unless exceptional circumstances exist.
• Judicial Efficiency: Reduces delays and repetitive litigation by curbing attempts to reopen factual disputes.

  Risks & Considerations

• For Litigants: Failure to produce evidence at trial may permanently weaken the case.
• For Lawyers: Must ensure diligence in collecting and presenting evidence early; reliance on appellate courts to admit new material is risky.
• For Courts: This judgment reinforces consistency and predictability in appellate procedure.

Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey& Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.: 2026 INSC 212-------------------------------- Key Legal Issues

1. Fairness in Disciplinary Proceedings
   • The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must comply with principles of natural justice.
   • Any punishment imposed without proper inquiry or evidence is unsustainable.
2. Proportionality of Punishment
   • The Court reiterated that punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct proved.
   • Excessive or arbitrary penalties undermine fairness and can be set aside.
3. Outcome
   • The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the disproportionate punishment.
   • It directed reconsideration of disciplinary measures in line with fairness and proportionality.