9 Top Supreme Court Judgments : July 2026

Criminal Law & Bail Jurisprudence: State of Chhattisgarh v. Chaitanya Baghel (The Liquor Scam Bail Case)

• Chaitanya Baghel was an accused in the alleged Rs. 2,833 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam, a large-scale case involving allegations of a coordinated excise policy fraud.
• He had already been granted bail by the trial court.
• Dissatisfied with this, the State of Chhattisgarh approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, seeking cancellation of that bail.

• Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 to cancel a bail order that had already been granted?
• What standard should govern such interference with liberty already granted?
• Does the routine practice of states challenging bail orders at the apex court, rather than treating that route as exceptional, deserve judicial disapproval?

• The Supreme Court refused to cancel Baghel’s bail.
• It held that interference with a bail order under Article 136 is warranted only where the continued liberty of the accused is “so egregious that it undermines the administration of justice” – a deliberately high threshold.
• The Court expunged certain adverse remarks that had been made against the investigating agency but left all other questions of law open for the trial court to decide on merits.
• The bench criticised the growing tendency of prosecuting agencies to treat the Supreme Court as a default forum for challenging every bail order, observing that when a prosecutor invests all their energy in fighting interlocutory liberty battles, it dilutes their real responsibility of securing a conviction at trial.

Environmental Law: Vanashakti v. Union of India (The Post-Facto Clearance Reversal)

• In May 2025, an earlier bench of the Supreme Court had struck down a 2017 government notification and a related 2021 Office Memorandum that allowed industries to obtain environmental clearance after they had already begun construction commonly referred to as “post-facto” environmental clearance.
• That 2025 judgment had called the very concept of retrospective clearance “completely alien to environmental jurisprudence” and effectively shut the door on it.
• The Union Government filed a review petition against that 2025 ruling, arguing that if it remained in force, projects worth an estimated Rs. 20,000 crore including public infrastructure like hospitals and airports would face demolition, since many of them had proceeded on the strength of the very notification the Court had struck down.

• Whether a valid ground for review exists at all, given that review jurisdiction is narrower than appellate jurisdiction and cannot be used simply because a later bench disagrees with an earlier one?
• Whether the earlier judgment overlooked binding precedent, making it “per incuriam”?

• Recalled the May 2025 judgment.
• Held that the original ruling was per incuriam of coordinate-bench decisions that had earlier upheld the 2017 notification.
• Held that the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023 which decriminalises a range of regulatory violations supported the idea that the government could offer a conditional amnesty scheme for past environmental non-compliance rather than treating every violation as irreversible.

• Held that no valid ground for review had been made out.
• Pointed out that the Union’s own assurance to the Madras High Court that the scheme was a one-time measure was being dishonoured.
• Warned that recalling the judgment “demotes the law to a mere suggestion.”

Consumer Protection & Tort Law: OTIS Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. Rashmi Handa & Ors. (The Common Carrier Case)

• A Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) officer died after being crushed in a malfunctioning elevator at the agency’s own headquarters.
• OTIS Elevator Co. was not just the manufacturer of the lift, it also held the maintenance contract for it, giving it dual responsibility over both the machine’s design and its upkeep.
• The victim’s family brought a consumer and tort claim seeking compensation, and the question of apportioning liability among OTIS, the maintenance agency, and RAW itself reached the Supreme Court.

• Which party bore primary liability for the accident- the manufacturer, the maintenance contractor (in this case, the same entity), or the premises occupier?
• Should the standard of care applicable to elevators be elevated to match that owed by transport providers who carry the public?

• The Supreme Court held that “an elevator must be construed and deemed to be a common carrier,” extending the doctrine beyond its traditional transport context.
• Because OTIS was simultaneously the manufacturer and the maintenance contractor, the Court reasoned it possessed unique knowledge of and control over the safety systems involved, and therefore bore primary responsibility for the failure.
• Liability was apportioned as follows: OTIS 70%, the maintenance agency MES 25%, and RAW itself 5%.
• This judgment is now a leading authority on product liability claims against manufacturers who also provide ongoing maintenance services.

Constitutional Law & Fundamental Rights: In re: Student Protests Against NEET-UG 2026 Paper Leak

• Following the leak of the NEET-UG 2026 examination paper, students across several states organised protests.
• In responding to these protests, police in multiple states used lathi charges, pellet guns, and tear gas.
• Several minors were arrested during the crackdown.
• The matter reached the Supreme Court through petitions seeking protection for the protesting students and accountability for the police response.

• Did the police response to a peaceful protest amount to an excessive and disproportionate use of force?
• Are the minors arrested during the protests entitled to immediate release?
• What interim protections were necessary to prevent coercive action against students who had no prior criminal record?

• The Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of all minors who had been arrested during the protests.
• It restrained further coercive action against students without prior criminal antecedents.
• It directed that all CCTV, drone, and body-camera footage from the protests be preserved rather than allowed to lapse.
• The bench found a prima facie case of police excess serious enough to warrant an independent enquiry and issued notice to the Centre, Delhi, and seven states.
• CJI Surya Kant observed: the constitutional right to peaceful, lawful protest cannot be denied merely because a demonstration happens to be underway.

Constitutional Law & Anti-Defection: Shiv Sena (UBT) v. Lok Sabha Speaker (The MP Merger Challenge)

• Six Members of Parliament originally elected on the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena (UBT) ticket were recognised by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla as having merged with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena faction.
• This is the latest development in a conflict that began with the original Shiv Sena split in 2022, which had earlier produced a significant Constitution Bench ruling on defection and symbol allocation in 2023.
• The UBT faction challenged the Speaker’s recognition of this merger before the Supreme Court.

• Is the Speaker’s decision to recognise a party merger under the Tenth Schedule subject to judicial review?
• If so, on what grounds can a court examine that decision – procedural fairness, the adequacy of the Speaker’s reasoning, or something narrower?

• At this stage, the Supreme Court has only issued notice in the matter; there is no final ruling yet.
• The bench has flagged the case as raising fundamental questions about the Speaker’s authority under the Tenth Schedule and the scope of judicial review over parliamentary decisions on party mergers.
• Since the matter remains pending, CLAT PG aspirants should track this one for further developments rather than treating it as settled law but the issue itself, judicial review of a Speaker’s Tenth Schedule decisions, is worth understanding well regardless of the eventual outcome.

Anti-Corruption Law: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dev Kant Meena (The Sanction Finality Case)

• The competent sanctioning authority in Rajasthan had earlier declined to grant sanction to prosecute a public servant (a doctor) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The State Government subsequently sought to revisit that decision, essentially reviewing its own earlier refusal using the same set of materials that had already been considered the first time around.

• Can a decision refusing prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act be reviewed or reversed by the same government on identical materials, without any new facts or evidence coming to light?

• The Supreme Court held that once a sanctioning authority exercises its discretion to refuse prosecution sanction, that decision is final and cannot be reviewed on the same materials by the State Government.
• The bench imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on the State of Rajasthan, finding that the attempt to prosecute the doctor was politically motivated rather than grounded in genuine new evidence.

Administrative Law: Mumbai Port Authority v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes (The Advisory Powers Case)

• The National Commission for Scheduled Castes had passed an order in a service-related dispute involving the Mumbai Port Authority, purporting to bind the authority on a matter concerning an employee’s service conditions.
• The Mumbai Port Authority challenged the Commission’s power to issue such a binding order.

• Does the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, a body constituted under Article 338 of the Constitution, have the power to pass orders in service disputes that are binding and enforceable in the same manner as a judicial order?

• The Supreme Court held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot pass binding orders in service disputes, since its constitutional role under Article 338 is advisory in nature.
• The Commission’s recommendations are not enforceable as judicial orders and must yield to the statutory framework that actually governs service matters, such as the relevant service rules and the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals empowered to adjudicate such disputes.

Taxation Law: Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. M/s. Star Cruises (India) Pvt. Ltd. (The Presumptive Taxation Ruling)

• Star Cruises operated cruise ships offering passenger travel along with onboard hospitality and entertainment services.
• The company had been assessed for tax under Section 44B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides a presumptive taxation scheme for the business of operating ships.
• The Assessing Officer contended that because the cruises offered substantial onboard hospitality and entertainment, the business could no longer be characterised purely as “carriage” of passengers, and therefore should not qualify for the presumptive scheme.

• Does providing onboard hospitality and entertainment services alongside passenger transport change the fundamental character of a cruise operator’s business, such that it falls outside the scope of Section 44B ?

• The Supreme Court held that cruise operators remain eligible for presumptive taxation under Section 44B.
• It ruled that onboard hospitality and entertainment services are merely ancillary to the primary business of passenger carriage.
• It rejected the Revenue’s restrictive interpretation of “carriage” as requiring strict port-to-port transportation with nothing else attached.
• It affirmed the concurrent findings of the CIT(A), the ITAT, and the Bombay High Court, and dismissed the Revenue’s appeals.

Motor Vehicles Law: Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rishi Ranjan Mishra (The Reach Stacker Case)

• An accident occurred inside an enclosed, customs-bonded inland container depot involving a “Reach Stacker” – heavy machinery used to lift and move shipping containers within the depot.
• The injured party sought compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), treating the Reach Stacker as a “motor vehicle” for the purposes of claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

• Does a Reach Stacker, used exclusively within an enclosed depot and not on any public road, qualify as a “motor vehicle” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
• Could a victim injured by it seek compensation through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal?

• The Supreme Court held that a Reach Stacker used in an enclosed, customs-bonded inland container depot is not a “motor vehicle” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, because the statutory definition requires use on public roads or public places.
• As a result, the accident victim could not approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation.
• The victim would need to pursue other available remedies instead, such as a claim under industrial or employee compensation law.

How to Revise These Cases