1. Constitutional, Remission and Public Law

a) Remission policy: Constitutional vs statutory

In Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that a remission policy framed under the Governor’s powers in Article 161 overrides a later remission policy framed under Sections 432–433 CrPC. Haryana’s liberal 2002 policy was held to continue despite the 2008 policy; the Court declared State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021) per incuriam for ignoring the earlier three‑judge view in State of Haryana v. Jagdish.[sci.gov]

Practical effect: Life convicts can rely on earlier, more beneficial Article 161‑based policies where later CrPC‑based policies are more stringent.[sci.gov]

b) Article 226: Relief beyond pleadings and limits of certiorari

In Union of India v. Bali Ram, the Court clarified that High Courts under Article 226 are not rigidly confined to the reliefs pleaded. Where the record clearly shows a legal entitlement and denying relief on pleading technicalities would perpetuate injustice, relief may be moulded beyond the prayer clause.[lawzone]

In Basamma v. Goparappa, the Court stressed the opposite boundary: in certiorari, the High Court cannot re‑appreciate evidence or act as an appellate court over a first appellate court’s factual findings, absent jurisdictional error.[lawzone]

c) Citizenship, foreigners and Assam tribunals

In Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v. Union of India and connected cases, the Court set aside ex parte Foreigners Tribunal opinions and Gauhati High Court orders which had upheld the declaration of 27 appellants as foreigners. The Court held that while Section 9 of the Foreigners Act places the burden of proving citizenship on the proceedee, tribunals must still follow a fair, lawful and reasoned process before declaring someone a foreigner.[lawzone]

d) Nominated local body members and MLC elections

In Pranesh M.K. v. A.V. Gayathri & Ors., the Court held that nominated Town Panchayat members in Karnataka cannot vote in Legislative Council elections from Local Authorities’ Constituencies. Their inclusion in the electoral roll was held contrary to the constitutional scheme.[lawzone]

2. Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure

a) Default bail, cognizance errors, and dowry deaths

In Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. CBI, the Court held that non‑supply of a copy of the charge sheet to an accused is not a ground for default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, so long as the charge‑sheet is filed in time.[sci.gov]

In Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that taking cognizance under a wrong section is a curable defect if the Magistrate otherwise has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the correct offence (Section 465 CrPC).[sci.gov]

In Brajesh Kumar @ Birjesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, the Court reaffirmed that, once a closure report is filed, the Magistrate cannot order the police to file a charge‑sheet; the options are to accept the report, reject it and take cognizance, or order further investigation. In the same matter, the Court acquitted the husband in a dowry death case and criticised the mechanical prosecution of 17 in‑laws as a “travesty of justice”.[lawzone]

b) Circumstantial evidence, Arms Act, and murder without a body

In State of Maharashtra v. Monika Kiran Suryawanshi, the Court upheld acquittal in a 2007 murder case, holding that “mere telephone records” cannot establish an illicit affair or complete the chain of circumstantial evidence needed to sustain conviction.[lawzone]

In State of Jharkhand v. Jagdish Lakra, the Court held that mere recovery of a weapon from a house is insufficient for conviction under the Arms Act unless conscious possession and dominion are proved.[lawzone]

In Debojit Pankika Charaideo Sonari v. State of Assam, the Court reiterated that non‑recovery of a dead body is not fatal to a murder prosecution if a complete chain of reliable circumstantial evidence establishes homicidal death and the accused’s role.[lawzone]

c) Children in conflict with law and delayed trials

In Sagar v. State of Haryana, the Court held that a Children’s Court cannot try a child as an adult without a prior, reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act; failure to do so vitiates the trial.[sci.gov]

In Liakat Ali v. State of J&K, the Court granted bail to an accused incarcerated for over nine years in a murder case, stressing that where an accused is in custody, both court and prosecution are constitutionally obliged to ensure an expeditious trial.[lawzone]

d) AI‑generated fake precedents and discipline in the legal profession

In Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr., the Court condemned the use of AI‑generated fake citations by tribunals, holding that citing such non‑existent precedents without verification amounts to professional misconduct for advocates and serious lapse for adjudicators. Judgments based on such fake precedents were held void. The Court asked the Bar Council of India to frame norms on AI usage in legal practice.[sci.gov]

In Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association, the Court directed the Bar Council of India to institutionalise Continuing Legal Education and to audit disciplinary mechanisms for advocates, emphasising that self‑regulation must be matched by transparency and effectiveness.[sci.gov]

3. Property, Contract, Mining and Succession

a) Security deposits, royalty and mining

In State of Haryana v. Jai Durgaa Finvest (P) Ltd., the Court held that a clause in a commercial contract denying interest on security deposit is not against public policy merely for that reason.[sci.gov]

In State of Haryana v. Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals, the Court held that silence in a mining lease deed on royalty revision does not remove the State’s statutory power under the MMDR Act to periodically revise royalty; royalty is a statutory levy and not frozen merely by contract.[lawzone]

In Kirloskar Ferrous Industries v. Union of India, the Court upheld rules including royalty and payments to DMF and NMET in computing average sale price for royalty, rejecting Article 14 and 19(1)(g) challenges.[sci.gov]

b) Heirs’ preferential rights, sale deeds, rectification and probate

In Mahinder v. Puran Singh, the Court held that the Class‑I heirs’ preferential right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act to purchase co‑heir property applies to agricultural land as well, since the provision is part of succession law within Parliament’s competence.[lawzone]

In R. Veronica v. Rudrayani Devaki, the Court held that the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act (about calling attesting witnesses) does not apply to registered sale deeds because law does not require sale deeds to be attested at all; thus proof of attestation is unnecessary unless execution is specifically denied.[lawzone]

In Venkatesha v. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa, the Court ruled that a rectification deed cannot, under the guise of correcting an error, substitute the very property conveyed by an earlier sale deed without the original transferor’s consent.[lawzone]

In a probate case reported at 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 683, the Court clarified that there is no automatic three‑year limitation from the testator’s death; the right to apply for probate arises when it becomes necessary (for example, when a hostile action challenges the Will).[lawzone]

c) Specific performance and IBC

In Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar, the Court held that a clause providing for refund of earnest money in case of non‑execution of sale deed does not, by itself, bar specific performance; it merely secures a minimum remedy for the purchaser, not an option for the seller to walk away.[lawzone]

In Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha, the Court reaffirmed that claims not provided for in an approved IBC resolution plan and crystallised prior to its approval are generally extinguished, but flagged policy concerns about the harsh impact on MSMEs and small operational creditors.[sci.gov]

In Bajaj Trading Co. v. Union of India, the Court held that for consignments booked at “owner’s risk”, Railways are not liable for short delivery unless they themselves counted or weighed the goods, thereby assuming responsibility for quantity.[lawzone]

4. Land Acquisition, Disability and Prison Policies

In Alok Kotahwala v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., landowners who failed to appear for a Section 5A LA Act hearing later alleged denial of hearing; the Court held they had effectively abandoned their right of hearing and upheld the acquisition.[lawzone]

In Union of India v. Bali Ram (CRPF driver case), the Court castigated CRPF for invalidating a driver who developed visual disability during service instead of accommodating him under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, and awarded ₹1.25 crore as composite compensation.[sci.gov]

In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, the Court directed all States/UTs to frame and notify within three months a policy for early release of elderly and terminally ill prisoners, emphasising Articles 14 and 21 and the need for a technology‑enabled framework to identify such cases.[lawzone]