Legal Updates: Recent Judgments Across Our Practice Areas

Service Law

The Supreme Court has held that where the Union of India and the Director General of the Central Armed Police Force are necessary parties, the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a service matter under Article 226(1), even where the disciplinary proceedings or cause of action arose elsewhere. (Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India, SLP (Civil) Nos. 855–856 of 2026)

Following the landmark judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan (Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a recruitment process cannot be sustained where the eligibility criteria have been altered during the selection process, or where un-notified draft Recruitment Rules are invoked to modify a selection process in a manner inconsistent with the advertisement — reaffirming that the rules of the game cannot be changed midway. (W.P.(C) No. 628/2022, decided on 17.02.2026)

The Delhi High Court has held that failure to prove the core charge in disciplinary proceedings — in this case, corruption — vitiates the penalty order of removal from service passed by the department, and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service. (W.P.(C) No. 14348/2023, decided on 29.04.2026)

The Supreme Court has reiterated, in Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police, that a departmental inquiry cannot be dispensed with lightly by invoking Article 311(2)(b); the reasoning for dispensing with an inquiry must be relevant and recorded in writing. (Civil Appeal No. 13860/2024, decided on 12.03.2026)

Following Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7431/2008), the Supreme Court has reiterated that recording evidence in disciplinary proceedings involving a major penalty is mandatory, and that mere production of documents is not enough — the contents of documentary evidence must be proved by examining witnesses. (SLP (Civil) No. 29758 of 2018, decided on 18.11.2024)

Criminal Law

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has interpreted Section 480(3) of the BNSS — which mandates specific conditions on the grant of regular bail for serious non-bailable offences — and, adopting a strict interpretation, held that such stringent conditions can only be imposed by the Trial Courts and High Courts in offences punishable with seven years' imprisonment or more. (Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) No. 7011 of 2026)

In a series of judgments, the Supreme Court has held that bail conditions which violate an accused's fundamental rights — including Articles 14, 17, and 21 — are null and void. (Sachin Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3961–3962 of 2026; In Re: Conditions Imposed While Granting Bail, 2026)

The Supreme Court has laid down binding guidelines to address systemic delays in High Courts pronouncing reserved judgments, including a maximum period of three months from the date a judgment is reserved, and — in bail matters — same-day pronouncement and uploading wherever possible. (Pila Pahan v. State of Jharkhand, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 169/2025)

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a conviction cannot be based on the last-seen theory alone, without corroborating incriminating circumstances. (Munu Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 1615 of 2019, decided on 29.07.2026)

Family Law

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has held that a spouse can claim permanent alimony or interim maintenance under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even where the marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the Act. (Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2019)

Considering the parties' long period of separation, multiple pending litigations, and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and award permanent alimony, bringing an end to all litigation between the parties. (Salil Diwan v. Priyanshi Ghai, SLP (C) No. 971 of 2025)

The Supreme Court has held that an application for interim maintenance under Section 125(4) can only be denied at the interim stage where the respondent presents clear and cogent evidence that ex facie establishes adultery on the part of the claimant; the Court also flagged the need for rules governing private investigations commissioned by parties to obtain such evidence. (Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3171 of 2025)

Environmental Law

The Supreme Court has held that the National Green Tribunal has broad discretion to determine environmental compensation under Sections 15 and 20 of the NGT Act, 2010; in the absence of a legislative framework for quantification, the Tribunal may order enhanced compensation based on factors such as project cost and turnover, provided the amount remains proportionate to the scale of the project. (M/S Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7187 of 2022)

The Supreme Court has struck down ex-post-facto environmental clearances, quashing the 2017 notification and the 2021 office memorandum that permitted retrospective approval of projects, holding that the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 is a substantive legal framework that exists to prevent irretrievable harm to the environment. (Vanashakti v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1394/2023)

NDPS Law

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must both be satisfied before an accused can be considered for bail, relying on State (by Inspector of Police) v. B. Ramu (2024) and State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo (2024) — under Section 37(b)(ii), the court must be satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa, SLP (Crl.) No. 896 of 2026)

The Delhi High Court has held that conscious possession under the NDPS Act requires both knowledge and control, and that merely receiving a parcel — without material suggesting the accused was aware of its contents — cannot, prima facie, satisfy the legal threshold for possession. The accused in this case had received a DTDC parcel containing LSD. (Saneesh Soman v. NCB, Bail Appln. 591/2025 & Crl.M.A. 4214/2025, pronounced 21 July 2025)

The Supreme Court has held that once a psychotropic substance is listed under the NDPS Act, its possession and transportation is prohibited under Section 8(c), rejecting the defence that the substance was not separately listed in the NDPS Rules or was notified under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1319 of 2013)

Civil Law

The Delhi High Court has held that a tenant cannot resist eviction by relying on a plea of Pagri or perpetual tenancy; tenancy can be terminated even where a substantial premium was paid at inception, particularly where the agreement provides a mechanism for termination — the relationship, even under the Pagri system, remains that of landlord and tenant. (M/S Shyam Lal & Sons v. Mithlesh Devi, RSA 136/2018, decided on 16.06.2026)