Latest Supreme Court Updates
NEHA LAL vs. ABHISHEK KUMAR
T.P. (Crl.) No. 338/2025, Diary No. 18841/2025, Date: 20 January 2026 (2026 INSC 73)
Application under Article 142 of the Constitution of India seeking dissolution of the marriage – filed by
petitioner-wife: The parties have indulged in filing more than forty cases against each other. Warring spouses cannot be permitted to settle personal scores by converting courts into a battlefield and thereby choking the judicial system. In the absence of compatibility, established mechanisms exist for early resolution of disputes. Mediation is one such process that can be explored at the pre-litigation stage and even after the commencement of proceedings. Once parties embark upon adversarial litigation, particularly on the criminal side, the prospects of reconciliation become remote, though they cannot be entirely ruled out. We find this to
be a fit case for exercise of our discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage between the parties.
UNION OF INDIA vs. HEAVY ELECTRICALS FACTORY EMPLOYEES’ UNION
Civil Appeal Nos. 5185–5192 of 2016, Diary No. 9613/2012, Date: 20 January 2026 (2026 INSC 74)
Further, no answer was forthcoming to the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that the same statutory provision is being interpreted differently by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India, wherein all allowances are included within the expression “ordinary rate of wages” for the purpose of calculating overtime wages. Different Ministries of the Government of India cannot assign divergent meanings to a provision contained in an Act of Parliament, particularly when the legislative intent is manifest from a plain reading of Section 59(2) of the 1948 Act.
RAJ SINGH GEHLOT vs. AMITABHA SEN
Civil Appeal No. 385/2026, Diary No. 20041/2020, Date: 20 January 2026 (2026 INSC 77)
The dispute concerning alleged non-adherence to the sanctioned building plans, particularly with respect to open and green spaces, was intrinsically connected and interlinked with the issues already under adjudication before the High Court. The appellant, Ambience Developers, had specifically contended before the High Court that there was no deviation from the sanctioned layout plan insofar as the residential colony was concerned. While deciding the connected appeals, we have accepted the aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of Ambience Developers. Consequently, the issue of the environment did not arise as a substantial question warranting the assumption of jurisdiction by the NGT in the present matter. Rather, the dispute involved contested claims between the parties relating to alleged irregularities in the utilisation of land belonging to Ambience Developers for the development of the residential colony.
PRAKASH ATLANTA JV vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 4513/2025, Diary No. 17730/2013, Date: 20 January 2026 (2026 INSC 76)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Where the view taken by an arbitral tribunal is a possible and plausible one, it cannot be substituted merely because an alternative view is also available. The construction and interpretation of a contract and its terms lie squarely within the domain of the arbitral tribunal. Unless the interpretation adopted is such that no fair-minded or reasonable person could have arrived at it, judicial interference is unwarranted. Where two plausible interpretations of a contractual provision exist, no infirmity can be found if the arbitrator chooses one over the other. For an award to be held in conflict with the public policy of India, it must be shown to contravene the fundamental policy of Indian law, a ground which is narrowly construed.
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs. GNANESHWARY DUSHYANTKUMAR SHAH
Civil Appeal No. 344/2026, Diary No. 54046/2025, Date: 19 January 2026 (2026 INSC 70)
The criteria for the interview and the qualifying marks were expressly notified. The candidate applied pursuant thereto, participated in the selection process, and took her chance. It was only after being declared unsuccessful that she sought to invoke an entirely different regulatory framework. It is a settled principle of law that a candidate who participates in a selection process without demur cannot, upon being unsuccessful, turn around and challenge the rules governing that process. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, erred in holding that the candidate was not precluded from questioning the selection process.
Read also
Supreme Court Daily Digest (19th Jan 2026)
