Apex Digest

Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik (M.A. Diary No. 13992/2023 arising out of C.A. Nos. 3401-3402/2003)

Whether the eligibility criteria for voting and contesting elections in the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) require revision to reflect the paradigm shift brought about by COVID-19, including the adoption of virtual hearings, and to ensure that the SCBA Rules are aligned with the judicial directions issued by the Supreme Court over the years, while also addressing issues of reservation for women and disabled members, disqualification for inducement, tenure of the Executive Committee, and other electoral reforms.

Tikka Shatrujit Singh v. Sukjit Singh

(2026) INSC 571

Whether the private properties declared by the erstwhile ruler of Kapurthala under the covenant of merger with the Dominion of India would devolve upon his successors by the rule of male lineal primogeniture (as applicable to the Gaddi/throne) or in accordance with the personal law (Hindu Law/Hindu Succession Act), and whether the properties purchased from the sale proceeds of such declared private properties and held in joint names are liable to partition.

M/S Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore-II

(2026) INSC 582

(i) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to decide the issue of excisability of aluminum composite panels, or whether such issue falls within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 35L as a question relating to rate of duty. (ii) Whether the process of cutting, grooving and routing aluminum composite panels amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Association For Democratic Reforms & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors.

(2026) INSC 564

(i) Whether the Election Commission of India has the power under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to direct a statewide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. (ii) Whether the Impugned Special Intensive Revision is founded on a legitimate purpose and whether the measures adopted are proportionate. (iii) Whether the procedure adopted violates Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 or the presumption of validity attached to existing entries. (iv) Whether the Commission is empowered to scrutinise citizenship for electoral roll purposes.

Mehtab v. State of Uttarakhand

(2026) INSC 578

Whether the prosecution has established a complete chain of incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellants for offences under Sections 302 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, where the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence including (i) the appellants being seen enquiring about the deceased and proceeding towards the forest (last seen together), (ii) recovery of a torn shirt pocket matching the appellant's shirt, (iii) recovery of the deceased's salwar and ornaments at the instance of another appellant, and (iv) forensic evidence, but where there were serious infirmities including failure to conduct Test Identification Parade, non-examination of material witnesses, doubtful recoveries, and lack of chain of custody.

Small Scale Entrepreneurs Association & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

(2026) INSC 570

(i) Whether the Trans Thane Creek (TTC) MIDC Industrial Area falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC). (ii) Whether NMMC alone has jurisdiction to levy property tax on unit/plot holders in the TTC MIDC area when MIDC provides all amenities and charges fee/service charges. (iii) Whether the unit/plot holders within TTC MIDC are exempt from payment of property tax to NMMC under Clause 7(1) of the First Schedule of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966.

Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Competition Commission of India & Ors

(2026) INSC 576

Whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) was justified in initiating proceedings under Sections 43A, 44 and 45 of the Competition Act, 2002 against Amazon for alleged non-disclosure and misrepresentation in its combination notice, and in keeping the approval under Section 31(1) in abeyance while directing a fresh Form II filing, when the notice was filed, reviewed and approved, and when the one-year limitation period under the proviso to Section 20(1) had expired.

M/s Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd. v. M. Lalitha

(2026) INSC 542

Whether the High Court was justified in quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against office bearers of a Society (Vice President, Treasurer, Executive Member, and Manager) where the complaint contained general averments that they were responsible for the conduct of the Society's affairs, but some of them had also signed antecedent financial documents (promissory notes, Memorandum of Understanding) related to the underlying transaction.

Saurabh Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh

(2026) INSC 548

Whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail to an accused charged with cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy in a property transaction involving Rs. 4.30 crores, where the accused had criminal antecedents of a similar nature, the Sessions Court had rejected bail, and the High Court had earlier dismissed the quashing petition noting the prima facie case and antecedents, but the anticipatory bail order failed to consider these material factors.

Raj Kumar Das (Dead) Through LRs v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

(2026) INSC 541

Whether a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be dismissed on the ground that the occurrence of the accident was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, when the claimant's testimony, FIR, chargesheet, and medical evidence establish the accident on a preponderance of probabilities, despite minor discrepancies in the medical history (recording 'fall from lorry'), delay in lodging FIR, and variation in vehicle registration number in oral testimony.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. M/S Kundlas Loh Udyog

(2026) INSC 534

Whether Clause 16(a) of the Himachal Pradesh Industrial Policy, 2019, which provided that 'eligible enterprises' would receive a 15% discount on energy charges for 3 years, was intended to apply to existing industrial enterprises undertaking substantial expansion or only to new industrial enterprises, and whether the amendment notification dated 29.04.2022 substituting 'eligible' with 'new' was clarificatory and retrospective or substantive and prospective.

Arti Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh

(2026) INSC 533

Whether criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be quashed against the husband's relatives when the allegations against them are omnibus, generalised, and lack specific overt acts, while the husband faces specific allegations of cruelty and harassment.

Gour Acharjee v. State of Tripura

(2026) INSC 535

Whether the conviction of the husband under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his wife is sustainable when the medical evidence establishes that the death was caused by head injury from a blunt weapon (hammer) and the body was subsequently hanged to simulate suicide, and when the husband failed to offer any explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the injuries sustained by the deceased inside the matrimonial home.

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. M/s Reliance Industries Limited

(2026) INSC 536

Whether the imported product 'n-Hexane' (also known as Exxsol Hexane) should be classified under Chapter 27 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1962 (Heading 2710.00) as a petroleum oil/motor spirit, or under Chapter 29 (Heading 2901.10) as a separate chemically defined organic compound (saturated acyclic hydrocarbon), considering its chemical composition, distillation range (63-70°C), flash point (below 25°C), and the presence of impurities.

Mohseen v. State of Uttar Pradesh

(2026) INSC 526

Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to an accused charged with offences under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, where the accused had earlier been granted bail and that bail was cancelled by the Supreme Court, the accused absconded for 42 days after the cancellation order, CCTV footage showed him brandishing a pistol and gunshots were heard, a pistol and cartridge were recovered at his instance, and the co-accused whose bail was cited for parity had a materially different role.

Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana

(2026) INSC 524

Whether the appellants, who inflicted lathi blows on the victim's head resulting in fractures and prolonged hospitalization, can be convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (attempt to murder) when the assault arose spontaneously without premeditation, and whether the conviction should be altered to Section 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) in the absence of proven intention to cause death.

Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu

(2026) INSC 525

Whether the threat to upload a video of a woman taken while bathing constitutes criminal intimidation under Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by imputing unchastity, even when the video is not recovered; and whether the acquittal of the accused for rape and related charges automatically entitles him to acquittal for criminal intimidation arising from the same relationship.

Bhagat Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

(2026) INSC 527

Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to an accused charged with murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where the accused was specifically named in the FIR with a direct overt act of firing, the post-mortem report confirmed firearm injuries, the murder weapon was recovered at his instance, and witness statements supported the prosecution, solely on the ground that the informant and another Panch witness did not name the accused during the inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Papan Sarkar @ Pranab v. State of West Bengal

(2026) INSC 528

Whether the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on circumstantial evidence — including last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of weapons — is sustainable when the time gap between the last sighting and death is not proximate, the extra-judicial confession was made under duress and is inconsistent among witnesses, and the recoveries do not satisfy the requirements of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Mallika v. R. Nallathambi

(2026) INSC 529

Whether registered General Powers of Attorney executed by the appellant in favour of the respondents, allegedly as security for loans, were misused to execute sale deeds in favour of relatives, and whether the burden of proving that the GPAs were only security arrangements rests on the appellant, especially when the appellant failed to enter the witness box, failed to prove loan repayment, and instituted the suit nearly ten years after the impugned transactions.

Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy

(2026) INSC 521

Whether the Will executed by the testator bequeathing all his properties to his only sister, excluding his wife and children, is valid and duly proved under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and whether the exclusion of natural heirs alone constitutes a suspicious circumstance sufficient to vitiate the Will.

Vice Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University v. Jitendra Singh

(2026) INSC 520

Whether the Visitor of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University (the President of India) has the authority to approve the termination of services of the First Registrar appointed under the transitional provisions of Section 46(b) of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013, or whether disciplinary action against such employee must be taken by the Executive Council under Statute No. 28.

Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam

(2026) INSC 523

Whether Muster Roll and Work Charged workers engaged prior to 1st April 1993, who were left out of the State's Cabinet decision dated 22nd July 2005 due to administrative lapses and clerical errors, are entitled to regularization and consequential benefits under Article 14 of the Constitution, despite not being appointed against sanctioned posts, given that nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers were regularized pursuant to that Cabinet decision.

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Talwandi Sabo Power Limited

(2026) INSC 515

Whether the failure of a generating station to demonstrate its declared capacity (DC) when asked by the State Load Despatch Centre (SLDC) under Regulation 11.3.13 of the Punjab State Grid Code, 2013 constitutes a strict liability inviting penalty without proof of mens rea or illegal enrichment, and whether such demonstration must be achieved within the fourth time block from receipt of the notice under Regulation 11.5(xi).