Supreme Court

Compulsory retirement is not punitive, does not imply misconduct: SC

The Supreme Court has held that an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic in character and does not cast any aspersion on the conduct of an employee, nor does it imply any finding of misconduct. A bench of Justices Manmohan and Shree Chandrashekhar, which upheld the Chhattisgarh government's order of compulsory retirement to five of its 14 employees, said it was based on subjective satisfaction of the competent authority that the employee's continued retention in service is no longer conducive to public interest. "...an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic in character. Such an order does not cast any aspersion upon the conduct of the employee nor does it imply any finding of misconduct," it said. "The ultimate assessment as to whether an officer has become dead wood or whether his continuance would be detrimental to administrative efficiency falls within the domain of the executive. However, such satisfaction cannot be found upo

SC says OBC creamy layer ruling will apply to CSE 2025 service allocation

The Supreme Court clarified that its March 11 OBC creamy layer ruling would apply to pending cases and CSE 2025 service allocation but not reopen completed appointments

Cyber criminals have no place in society, says SC while denying bail plea

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a cyber fraud accused's bail plea, taking a stern view of such offences amid efforts to strengthen action against digital arrest scams

UPI merchant charges: Can NPCI legally impose fees on businesses?

NPCI says merchant charges are important to sustain UPI, but the Supreme Court will analyse the legal basis of the levy, its validity and its impact on businesses

SC issues notice to Kerala Congress office bearers over post targeting CJI

Observing that independence of the judiciary is not a matter of "political convenience", the Supreme Court on Friday issued a contempt notice to all office bearers of the Keralam unit of the Congress over a social media post targeting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi said the Constitution is supreme and no individual or political organisation stands above it. "Judgements are always open to criticism. Freedom of expression can't be a shield of intimidation to interfere with the administration of justice. Howsoever high position a person occupies, any attempt to undermine the authority of the court needs to be dealt with an iron hand. "Authority of the court doesn't require political endorsement; it rests on the rule of law. Where administration of justice is established, the law must take its course," the bench said. Independence of judiciary is not a matter of political convenience, the court said, adding that judicial restra

Poor don't generate pollution, but suffer due to big cars, vehicles: SC

The Supreme Court said the poor are among the worst affected by pollution despite not contributing to it, flagging vehicular emissions as a major cause of Delhi-NCR's worsening air quality

Green crackers, hazy reality: Allowing these may have only marginal impact

Green crackers and restricted timings may do little to ease pollution in the National Capital Region

May form panel to review UGC equity rules: Centre to Supreme Court

Centre tells Supreme Court it is considering a committee to review UGC's 2026 equity regulations amid concerns over grievance redressal rights for general-category students

24-hour deadline to produce accused starts from detention, not arrest: SC

Supreme Court says the 24-hour deadline to produce an accused before a magistrate begins from detention, not formal arrest, and any custody beyond the limit is illegal

SC sales tax ruling: What it means for businesses with old tax disputes

The ruling clarifies states' powers under pre-GST tax laws and its implications for pending tax demands and refund claims

Setting up panel to re-examine UGC's 2026 equity regulations: Govt tells SC

UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, led to massive protests in the national capital

24-hour arrest deadline starts from detention, not formal arrest: SC

The Supreme Court ruled that the 24-hour period for producing an accused before a magistrate begins from the time of detention, not when the investigating agency formally records the arrest

SC rules 24-hour arrest deadline begins from detention, not formal arrest

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the 24-hour constitutional deadline for producing an arrested person before a magistrate begins from the moment he is detained, and not from the time the police formally makes the arrest. Holding that there can be no artificial distinction between 'arrest' and 'detention' for the purpose of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said any interpretation allowing the police to exclude the period of pre-arrest detention would be contrary to the constitutional mandate. "The view that 24 hours begin only from the formal arrest is contrary to the constitutional mandate of Article 22(2) and Section 56 of the BNSS," the bench observed. The verdict that the only period that can be excluded while computing the 24-hour deadline is the time reasonably required to travel from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court. The time spent on inquiry, investigation, search or seizure before formal arrest ..

From bans to green crackers: How Supreme Court's Diwali rulings evolved

From imposing restrictions on firecracker sales to allowing green crackers for limited periods, here's how the Supreme Court has revised its stand on fireworks over the years

SC upholds ARCs' right to replace banks in pending cheque bounce cases

The Supreme Court has upheld a Bombay High Court ruling allowing ARCs to replace banks in pending cheque dishonour cases after acquiring loans and related securities under the SARFAESI Act.

Supreme Court upholds states' power to levy additional sales tax

The seven-judge Bench ruled that additional sales tax was within states' powers under the erstwhile tax regime, but said the 2017 introduction of GST had made the reference largely academic.

Delhi SIR: SC to hear plea over EC's Form 6 clarification on Nov 19

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would hear on November 19 concerns raised over the Election Commission's recent clarification allowing voters, whose names were omitted from the draft electoral rolls, to seek fresh enrolment through Form 6 during the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Delhi. Observing that people need not be apprehensive as the court was hearing the matter, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked petitioners Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri to file an appropriate application placing the EC's November 3 clarification on record. The bench said the matter would be taken up for hearing on November 19. The CJI also indicated that the bench could consider asking the EC to extend the deadline, if necessary. The issue was brought to the court's notice by advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners. He said that the EC's November 3 clarification appeared to be contrary to the Supreme Court's ...

What is Form 6? EC clarifies its use for voters excluded from SIR rolls

The Election Commission said previously enrolled voters whose names are missing from draft SIR rolls can use Form 6 to seek inclusion in the final electoral roll without facing automatic prosecution

SC upholds states' power to levy additional sales tax under 1974 ruling

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that a 1974 Constitution Bench ruling upholding states' power to impose additional sales tax or surcharge calculated as a percentage of the existing sales tax continues to hold the field, saying a reference on the issue had become academic. A seven-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant unanimously held that the legal question referred to it nearly 27 years ago no longer required adjudication, as the statutory provisions under challenge had since been replaced or amended and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law had come into force. "The question referred to is of no practical significance and now academic. Consequently, the question referred to does not survive for adjudication by a seven-judge Bench, and the reference has to be answered accordingly," the CJI, who wrote the judgment on behalf of himself and five other judges, said. The bench also comprised Justices K V Viswanathan, S V N Bhatti, Joymalya Bagchi, N V .

Laws penalising having more than 2 children have lost relevance: SC

Supreme Court referred the validity of a two-child disqualification provision under Maharashtra law to a larger bench, saying such laws raise concerns over reproductive autonomy under Article 21