1. Rahul Gandhi v. S. Vignesh Shishir & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
- Brief Facts: The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had previously directed the CBI and ED to inquire into complaints alleging disproportionate assets against Member of Parliament Rahul Gandhi. The High Court had conducted in-chamber proceedings with sealed-cover submissions without giving notice or an opportunity to be heard to the petitioner.
- Legal Provision & Issue: Article 21 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India; principles of natural justice and locus standi.
- Issue: Whether a Constitutional Court can order investigative agencies (CBI/ED) to conduct a preliminary inquiry/investigation against a citizen based on a private complaint without affording the affected party an opportunity of being heard.
- Judicial Observations: The three-judge Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant halted all proceedings initiated by the High Court. The Court emphasized that when courts issue directions for inquiry or investigation, they must adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice. Roving inquiries conducted in-chamber with documents kept in sealed covers directly impair a person's civil rights and political reputation without due process.
2. In Re: Challenge to Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Law
Court: Supreme Court of India
- Brief Facts: Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act. Petitioners raised concerns regarding gender identity recognition and administrative ambiguity surrounding the validity of existing Transgender Identity (TGI) cards.
- Legal Provision & Issue: Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution; NALSA judgment principles; Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act.
- Issue: Whether existing TGI cards remain operationally valid during the pendency of a constitutional challenge to statutory amendments.
- Judicial Observations: Taking note of the Union's undertaking presented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Bench recorded that TGI cards issued prior to the 2026 amendment will remain fully valid subject to final outcomes. The Court refused to issue blanket orders for previously cancelled cards, holding that individual cases of administrative cancellation must be evaluated on specific factual grounds.
3. State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka (Cauvery Water Inter-State Dispute)
Court: Supreme Court of India
- Brief Facts: The State of Tamil Nadu approached the Apex Court seeking enforcement of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) directions requiring Karnataka to release a stipulated quantum of water to fulfill downstream agricultural requirements. Karnataka contended that severe basin distress constrained full compliance.
- Legal Provision & Issue: Article 131 and Article 262 of the Constitution of India; Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
- Issue: Enforcement of statutory orders passed by an Inter-State Water Management Authority during periods of distress.
- Judicial Observations: A Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath directed Karnataka to strictly ensure compliance with the CWMA directives. Observing that water was currently flowing, the Court adopted a "wait and watch" approach and deferred the matter to await updated status reports from the statutory authority regarding day-to-day release at the Biligundlu gauge station.
4. Raja Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
- Brief Facts: A PIL was mentioned seeking a protocol and regulatory mechanism to prevent the clipping, editing, and distortion of live-streamed judicial proceedings on social media platforms, which often misrepresent judges' oral queries as final findings.
- Legal Provision & Issue: Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(g), and Article 21 of the Constitution; High Court / Supreme Court Live-Streaming and Recording Rules.
- Issue: Balancing public access to courtroom proceedings against the risk of sensationalized distortion affecting judicial integrity.
- Judicial Observations: CJI Surya Kant remarked that judges "walk a very thin line". The Court recognized the functional distinction between oral exchanges, rhetorical queries, and final binding findings. While legitimate legal criticism of judgments is valid, circulating short, out-of-context clips creates a "constructed version of the judicial record," necessitating a structured access protocol.
5. ISKCON Mumbai v. ISKCON Bangalore (Review Application)
Court: Supreme Court of India
- Brief Facts: A decades-long property and administrative control dispute over the Hare Krishna Hill temple complex in Bengaluru saw a split verdict in review proceedings following an earlier decision declaring ISKCON Bangalore as the lawful owner. Counsel mentioned the matter for constituting a new Bench.
- Legal Provision & Issue: Article 137 of the Constitution; Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
- Issue: Procedure to be followed when a two-judge Bench delivers a split verdict on a review petition concerning major immovable trust assets.
- Judicial Observations: The CJI-led Bench agreed to consider setting up a fresh Bench to conclusively decide the split review verdict. The Court emphasized the need for administrative finality in protracted public trust and religious property litigation.
6. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Sangeeta Devdas Salvi & Ors.
Court: High Court of Bombay
- Brief Facts: MCGM challenged an order of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act requiring it to pay the differential between the statutory minimum wage and the nominal amount paid as an "honorarium" to Community Health Volunteers (CHVs) working 5-hour daily shifts.
- Legal Provision & Issue: Section 2(h) and Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
- Issue: Whether calling remuneration an "honorarium" or designating workers as "volunteers" exempts a local body from paying statutory minimum wages.
- Judicial Observations: Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that nomenclature cannot override reality. Every person hired to perform work for a fixed reward is an "employee" under Section 2(i) for the limited purpose of receiving dignified wages. Municipal corporations cannot invoke financial burden to justify paying less than minimum statutory wages for public health services.
7. Viresh Gangaram Joshi v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Court: High Court of Bombay
- Brief Facts: The former Chief Dealer of an asset management firm sought quashing of an FIR registered by state police alleging financial front-running offences.
- Legal Provision & Issue: Section 26 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act, 1992; Section 482 of CrPC / Section 528 of BNSS.
- Issue: Whether police authorities can register an FIR and investigate market offences when statutory law mandates prosecution solely on a complaint by SEBI.
- Judicial Observations: Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale quashed the FIR, reiterating that Section 26 of the SEBI Act creates an absolute statutory bar against taking cognizance of securities-market offences except on a formal complaint filed by SEBI itself. General criminal law provisions cannot bypass specialized statutory bars.
8. M/s Vossloh Cogifer Turnouts India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Brief Facts: A company that permanently surrendered its GST registration and closed operations had its sanctioned refund partially paid in cash and partially re-credited to its Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL).
- Legal Provision & Issue: Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
- Issue: Can tax authorities restrict a sanctioned refund to an Electronic Credit Ledger when the business has ceased operations and surrendered its registration?
- Judicial Observations: The Division Bench held that re-crediting sanctioned refund amounts to an ECL that is rendered non-functional due to business closure provides zero substantive benefit. The Court found no statutory prohibition under the Act against disbursing the balance in cash and ordered a direct cash transfer with applicable interest.
9. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
- Brief Facts: The CBI filed a revision petition challenging the trial court order discharging several accused in the Delhi Excise Policy case. Respondents filed maintainability applications arguing the agency appealed within hours without evaluating the trial court's full 500-page order.
- Legal Provision & Issue: Sections 397/401 of CrPC (Revisionary powers); procedural maintainability of criminal revision petitions.
- Issue: Standard of procedure required when challenging a detailed trial court discharge order, and rights of respondents to file comprehensive counter-arguments.
- Judicial Observations: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri's bench held that maintainability challenges and main revision grounds must be heard comprehensively rather than in a piecemeal fashion. The Court granted respondents a final opportunity to submit counter-replies to the agency's 103-page written submissions, setting the matter for full arguments.
10. Ex-Servicemen Cadre Association v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
- Brief Facts: Retired Armed Forces personnel who completed qualifying service and subsequently applied for re-employment in government establishments were denied "Ex-Serviceman" status benefits based on procedural timing.
- Legal Provision & Issue: Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution; Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules.
- Issue: Whether personnel completing qualifying military service can be denied Ex-Serviceman benefits upon re-employment application.
- Judicial Observations: The Division Bench ruled that military personnel who have completed their required qualifying service are entitled to Ex-Serviceman status for re-employment opportunities. Arbitrary administrative cut-offs that defeat the socio-economic re-integration purpose of statutory service rules are unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 16.