The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment concerning the delicate relationship between the judiciary and the legal fraternity, recently closed the contempt proceedings initiated against senior advocate Yatin Narendra Oza while simultaneously emphasizing the indispensable need for mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar. In YATIN NARENDRA OZA V. SUO MOTU, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANR., the Court observed that the judiciary and the legal profession are “two wheels of the chariot of justice,” and any friction between them has the potential to weaken public confidence in the justice delivery system itself.

MANJULA & ORS. V. D.A. SRINIVAS The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling in Manjula and Others versus D.A. Srinivas, reaffirmed the foundational legal principle that no individual can benefit from his own wrongdoing. Interpreting Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”), the Court held that a person accused of murdering the deceased cannot claim inheritance rights over the deceased’s property, even in cases of testamentary succession through a Will.

In a significant judgment impacting the electricity and infrastructure sectors, the Supreme Court of India, in INDIAN RAILWAYS V. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS., ruled that Indian Railways is a “consumer” under the Electricity Act, 2003, and not a “deemed distribution licensee.” Consequently, the Railways are liable to pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) and Additional Surcharge while procuring electricity through open access.

In a significant ruling strengthening procedural efficiency in commercial litigation, the Supreme Court of India has elaborated the scope and application of summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The judgment underscores that courts must not hesitate to dispose of commercial disputes at the threshold where claims or defences lack real substance. By doing so, the Court aims to curb unnecessary trials, reduce judicial backlog, and ensure timely resolution of commercial disputes.

Land ownership disputes in India often revolve around revenue records, mutation entries, pahanies, jamabandi records, and tax receipts. In a significant judgment delivered on May 6, 2026, the Supreme Court of India once again clarified an important legal principle: revenue records are merely fiscal documents and do not confer ownership or title over land.

The Supreme Court, in a significant judgment delivered on May 6, 2026, clarified the legal consequences of a decree-holder’s failure to comply with conditions imposed in a decree for specific performance under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In HABBBAN SHAH v. SHERUDDIN, the Court held that when a buyer fails to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated by the decree, the decree becomes inexecutable and the contract stands rescinded. Importantly, the Court further clarified that a separate application by the judgment-debtor seeking rescission is not mandatory. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti.

In a significant development for insolvency jurisprudence and real estate regulation, the Supreme Court of India, in ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED V. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, reaffirmed the doctrine that the corporate veil can be lifted in insolvency proceedings where group companies function as a single economic unit. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, addresses a long-standing tension between corporate separateness and economic reality, particularly in complex real estate insolvencies involving layered corporate structures.

In a significant development addressing the persistent menace of acid attacks in India, the Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns over the inadequacy of existing punishments under criminal law. The Court, while hearing a petition filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik, emphasized the urgent need for stronger deterrent measures, stricter regulation of acid sale, and broader victim protection mechanisms. A bench comprising Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi highlighted systemic gaps that continue to enable such brutal crimes despite legislative interventions.

In a significant reaffirmation of procedural safeguards in preventive detention jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India set aside a detention order passed under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA). The Court emphasized that a detenu’s representation must be considered at the earliest possible opportunity, failing which the detention becomes unconstitutional. This judgment strengthens the constitutional protections available under Articles 21 and 22, ensuring that executive power under preventive detention laws is exercised with strict adherence to due process.

In a significant development reinforcing reproductive rights in India, the Supreme Court in S (Mother of N) v. Punya Salila Srivastava has taken a firm stance against non-compliance of its order permitting the termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old minor. The Court’s strong warning threatening contempt proceedings against senior officials of the Union Government and All India Institute of Medical Sciences highlights not only the urgency of the matter but also underscores a larger constitutional principle: the primacy of a woman’s bodily autonomy, even in complex late-stage pregnancy cases.