SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 2 | Issue 3

Volume 2 Issue 3 of SCO.LR is here!

In this issue, we look at five key judgements from last week, on scope of appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Atrocities Act, disclosure of criminal history in bail applications, limitation on entitlement to disability pension, spectrum ownership rights and composition of district cricket association. 

As always, our user-friendly SCO.LR judgements come with mindmaps for easy understanding of key legal points. Click on the cause title for an easy access to the HTML version of all judgements. 

Visit our SCO.LR page to access all judgements from the past weeks.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 2 | Issue 3

9 – 13 February 2026

**********

Scope of Appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Atrocities Act

Dr. Anand Rai v State of Madhya Pradesh

10 February 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 141 | 2026 SCO.LR 2(3)[11]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act) is a statutory first appeal. Therefore, a High Court cannot act merely as a revisional or supervisory court; it is a court of both fact and law and is “obliged to independently evaluate the material on record” rather than providing a “mechanical affirmation” of the Trial Court’s order.

The dispute arose from an incident in November 2022 where members of the JAYS organisation allegedly intercepted government vehicles and engaged in a scuffle with district officials during the unveiling of a statue of Bhagwan Birsa Munda. The appellant was charged under the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. The Trial Court allowed the appellant’s discharge application only in part, framing charges under the Act despite recording that none of the witnesses or statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 specified the casteist slurs used by the accused. The High Court, in an appeal against the partial discharge, affirmed the order of the Trial Court.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and quashed the charges under the Atrocities Act. The Court observed that the High Court’s judgement did not reflect an independent application of mind. It clarified that since the prosecution material was silent on specific slurs the “prima facie” ingredients necessary to attract the Special Act were absent.

Keywords/phrases: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989—Appeal under Section 14-A—Statutory First Appeal—High Court to hear both on fact and the law—Independent Application of Mind—Appeal allowed in part.

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Disclosure of Criminal History in Bail Applications

Zeba Khan v State of U.P.

11 February 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 144 | 2026 SCO.LR 2(3)[12]

Bench: Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court held that an applicant seeking bail should make a fair, complete and candid disclosure of all material facts, including criminal antecedents and prior bail rejections. It observed that any suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of such facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice.

The respondent was charged in a large-scale organised scam involving the fabrication and circulation of forged legal and academic qualifications. This allowed individuals, including himself, to appear before various High Courts and the Supreme Court. He was charged with cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. His bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur. The High Court reversed this decision and granted him bail.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the bail granted to the respondent, directing him to surrender within two weeks. The Court observed that annulment of bail is warranted where the original order is “manifestly perverse” or founded on “suppressio veri, expressio falsi”. It noted that the High Court failed to take note of the fact that the respondent was a “history-sheeter” and had nine other FIRs registered against him in other states. The Court issued mandatory directions to all High Courts to incorporate rules requiring an exhaustive disclosure framework for bail applications to promote uniformity and transparency in criminal cases.

Keywords/phrases-Bail Cancellation—Criminal Antecedents—Suppression of Material Facts—History-Sheeter—Forged Degrees—Legal Profession Integrity—Supreme Court Guidelines—Full Disclosure

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Limitation for Entitlement to Disability Pension

Union of India v SGT Girish Kumar

12 February 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 149 | 2026 SCO.LR 2(3)[13]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

The Supreme Court held that disability pension claims of ex-servicemen are deferred compensation for past service and are neither dependent upon the grace of the State, nor barred by limitation. 

The respondent, an ex-military serviceman, was granted disability pension for life for suffering 20 per cent disability while in service. In 2016, the respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking broad banding of disability pension to 50 per cent alongside arrears on the date of discharge. The law regarding limitation on disability pension claims was not settled owing to conflicting orders passed by coordinate benches of the Tribunal. However, a year later, the Tribunal granted an order in favour of the respondent. Subsequently, a reference was made to a full bench of the Tribunal, which affirmed the Tribunal’s judgement. The Union of India filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court, relying on Union of India v Ram Avtar (2014), held that pension entitlements cannot be extinguished except for the authority of law. Further, the Supreme Court noted that the right to receive disability pension is a valuable right and the same cannot be restricted to a limitation period of three years. 

Keywords/phrases: Armed Forces Tribunal–Disability pension-Limitation period of three years–Union of India v Ram Avtar (2014)–Disability pension valuable right–Cannot be restricted by limitation.

Read the Judgement here. 

MIND MAP

**********

Spectrum Ownership Rights for Telecom Service Providers

State Bank of India v Union of India

13 February 2026

 Citation: 2026 INSC 153 | 2026 SCO.LR 2(3)[14]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra 

The Supreme Court held that sovereign control over natural resources including spectrum cannot become subservient to insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Court further observed that Telecom licensees possess only a conditional, revocable privilege to use spectrum, held by the Union as public trustee under Article 39(b) and Section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885.

Aircel Group entities holding telecom licences granted in 2006 secured loans exceeding Rs 13,729 crores from State Bank of India-led lenders. When the Department of Telecommunications sought to recover unpaid licence fees totalling Rs 9,894 crores, the companies initiated voluntary insolvency proceedings under Section 10 of the IBC in March 2018. The NCLT admitted the applications and approved a resolution plan in June 2020. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) challenged the approval before the NCLAT. The NCLAT affirmed that spectrum, being an intangible asset, can be subjected to insolvency proceedings. 

The Supreme Court allowed DoT’s appeal in part and held that spectrum allocated to telecom service providers cannot be subjected to proceedings under the IBC. It held that the IBC includes only those tangible or intangible assets on which the debtor has ownership rights. Mere recognition of spectrum licensing rights as an intangible asset is not conclusive. 

Keywords/phrases: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code—Insolvency resolution process—Aircel Group entities—Licensed spectrum as intangible asset—natrual resource—owned by Union governemnt—licensed to telecom service providers—only owned tangible or intangible assets in insolvency resolution process—spectrum excluded from assets

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Composition of District Cricket Associations

The Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association v Anna Nagar Cricket Club

13 February 2026 

Citation: 2026 INSC 154 | 2026 SCO.LR 2(3)[15]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

The Supreme Court held that district cricket associations are not bound by the mandate that 75 per cent of their members and all key office-bearer positions be held by eminent sports persons.

The appeal arose against a Madras High Court decision that directed the appellant District Association to amend its composition in line with reforms established in Secretary, Tamil Nadu Olympics Association v S. Nithya (2022). These reforms mandated that 75 per cent of members should be eminent sports persons. At the Supreme Court, the amicus curiae submitted that cricket was governed instead by BCCI v Cricket Assn. of Bihar (2014), which necessitated conformity of district associations with the BCCI’s constitution.

Ruling in favour of the appellants, the Supreme Court held that S. Nithya is inapplicable to cricket while, BCCI applies only to state associations, not district ones. Recognising the role of sports in embodying fraternity, it identified a constitutional duty to ensure that sports facilities flourish without being concentrated in the hands of the urban economic elite. In light of pending proceedings before the High Court, it chose not to issue directions for reforms. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order to the extent of applicability of S. Nithya, and directed that it dispose of pending appeals expeditiously.

Keywords/phases: Composition and membership of district cricket associations—High Court order for restructuring—Guidelines in Secretary, Tamil Nadu Olympics Association v S. Nithya—Restructuring to align with BCCI constitution—Supreme Court rejection of applicability of both cases—General observations on constitutional duty to ensure transparency and professionalism—Sports as integral to fraternity.

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP