1. Supreme Court clarifies principles for interim custody of seized vehicles
The Supreme Court held that interim custody of a vehicle seized during a criminal investigation cannot be decided solely on the basis of the registration certificate. It observed that while the registration certificate is an important document, courts must also examine the surrounding facts, competing claims, and the overall circumstances of the case before granting custody. The judgment emphasises that ownership documents alone cannot be treated as conclusive for deciding interim possession. The ruling provides clarity on the approach courts should adopt while balancing the interests of all parties involved during the pendency of criminal proceedings.
2. Supreme Court restricts unauthorised use of courtroom recordings
The Supreme Court directed that videos of court proceedings cannot be uploaded, shared, or monetised on social media or other digital platforms without prior permission. The Court clarified that the restriction will not affect fair and accurate reporting of proceedings by recognised news organisations. It observed that while live streaming promotes transparency, unrestricted circulation of court recordings could lead to misuse and commercial exploitation. The order seeks to strike a balance between open access to judicial proceedings and preserving the dignity and sanctity of the judicial process.
3. Supreme Court protects peaceful protestors from coercive action
While hearing matters arising out of the recent CJP protests, the Supreme Court directed all States not to take coercive action against peaceful protestors and ordered the immediate release of detained minors. However, the Court clarified that this protection would not extend to persons with criminal antecedents. Stressing the constitutional importance of peaceful protest, the Court sought to ensure that law enforcement acts fairly and proportionately. The order reflects the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding civil liberties while allowing authorities to proceed against individuals involved in criminal activities.
4. Supreme Court refuses to interfere with NEET-UG answer key
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the correctness of six answers in the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination. The petitioner argued that certain answers were inconsistent with the NCERT syllabus and sought revision of the answer key along with preparation of a fresh merit list. The Court declined to interfere with the examination process, allowing the existing results to stand. The decision reinforces the principle that courts should exercise restraint in matters involving academic evaluation unless a clear case of arbitrariness or illegality is established.
5. Supreme Court condemns excessive police action during protests
The Supreme Court observed that the constitutional right to peaceful protest cannot be curtailed through excessive police action. While hearing issues relating to the CJP protests, the Court remarked that the mere existence of an agitation does not justify the use of force such as lathi charges. It emphasised that law enforcement authorities must act with restraint and ensure that measures adopted are proportionate to the situation. The observations reaffirm the balance between maintaining public order and protecting citizens' fundamental rights under the Constitution.
6. Supreme Court questions independence of Election Commission selection process
During the hearing on the appointment process for Election Commissioners, the Supreme Court questioned whether the present selection mechanism ensures institutional independence. The Court observed that the committee responsible for making appointments consists of two members representing the government and only one member from the opposition, raising concerns over neutrality. It remarked that appointments to constitutional bodies must inspire public confidence and remain free from executive dominance. The matter remains under consideration as the Court examines the constitutional validity of the present framework.
7. Supreme Court limits powers of National Commission for Scheduled Castes
The Supreme Court held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot issue binding directions in service-related matters and is empowered only to make recommendations. Setting aside a Bombay High Court judgment, the Court clarified that the constitutional role of the Commission is advisory in nature and does not extend to passing enforceable orders. The ruling draws a clear distinction between the Commission's recommendatory powers and the authority of statutory or judicial bodies responsible for adjudicating service disputes.
8. Supreme Court clarifies law on interim maintenance in adultery cases
The Supreme Court held that a wife may be denied interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the husband can clearly establish that she is living in adultery. The Court observed that such a finding must be supported by credible evidence before maintenance can be refused. While deciding the matter, it also expressed concern over the absence of any legal framework regulating private investigators in India. The judgment clarifies the legal position on maintenance while highlighting the need for regulation of private investigation practices.
9. Supreme Court strikes down discriminatory Bihar policy
The Supreme Court held that the Bihar government's policy restricting compassionate appointments only to divorced or deserted daughters is legally unsustainable. It observed that a married daughter cannot be denied consideration solely because of her marital status and directed the State to reconsider the petitioner's claim within eight weeks. The judgment reinforces the constitutional principle of equality and ensures that welfare benefits cannot be denied on arbitrary classifications that discriminate against married daughters.
10. Supreme Court declines to restore CCI penalty on Grasim
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's decision setting aside the ?301 crore penalty imposed on Grasim Industries by the Competition Commission of India. The Court upheld the order remanding the matter to the CCI for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The decision does not determine the merits of the allegations but ensures that the competition regulator re-examines the matter after following the appropriate legal process.
