SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 3 | Issue 3

Volume 3, Issue 3 of Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here!

In this Issue, we bring you five important judgements from 9 March to 13 March 2026. This includes decisions on;

• Valuation report for reduction of share capital,
• Conduct of parties in suits for specific performance,
• Compensation for adverse events following Covid-19 vaccination, 
• Assisted nutrition as “medical treatment” in passive euthanasia, and
• Determination of creamy layer for PSU employees.

Access the concise summaries of the judgements along with assistive mindmaps on our SCO.LR page. The full text of each decision is available in HTML and PDF format. Our special feature allows you to hyperlink specific paragraphs of the verdict.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 3 | Issue 3

9 March – 13 March 2026

**********

 Valuation Report for Reduction of Share Capital 

Pannalal Bhansali v Bharti Telecom Limited

10 March 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 213 | 2026 SCO.LR 3(3)[11]

Bench: P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Chandran

The Supreme Court held that a valuation report is not mandatory for reduction of share capital under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013. 

The respondent, Bharti Telecom, decided to reduce its share capital under Section 66 of the Companies Act by cancelling equity shares held by its minority shareholders. The minority shareholders approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) arguing that the reduction in the value per share was mala fide since the valuation of the company was conducted by an internal auditor–an interested party. Further, they alleged that the company failed to disclose the valuation report to the shareholders. The appellants approached the Supreme Court after the NCLAT dismissed the plea. 

The Supreme Court rejected the appeals. It held that a valuation report under Section 66 is not a statutory requirement and that reduction of share capital can be achieved through a special resolution approved by shareholders and confirmed by the tribunal. The Court further observed that non-disclosure or mis-disclosure of a valuation report does not invalidate the reduction process under Section 66 of the Act. 

Keywords/phrases: Reduction of share capital–Section 66 of Companies Act 2013—Special Resolution—Sanction by NCLT–Appeal by minority shareholders–NCLAT—Mala fide valuation—Non-disclosure of valuation report—Valuation report under Section 66 not statutory required. 

Read the Judgement here. 

MIND MAP

**********

Conduct of Parties in Suit for Specific Performance

 Muddam Raju Yadav v B. Raja Shanker

 10 March 2026 

 Citations: 2026 INSC 214 | 2026 SCO.LR 3(3)[12]

 Bench: Justices P.K. Mishra and P.B. Varale

The Supreme Court held that the conduct of parties is significant in determining their bona fide intent at the time of executing an agreement in a suit for specific performance. It observed that “even a slight doubt” regarding the plaintiff’s manner or possibility of material facts being withheld could result in denial of equitable and discretionary relief.

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 4 June 2002 for a total sale consideration of ₹13 lakhs. The defendants received ₹6 lakhs as advance and as per the agreement, the remaining amount was to be paid within 11 months. The defendants contended that the advance was in fact a hand loan with the agreement of sale executed as security. They relied on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 4 June 2002 which stated that upon return of the advance amount within 12 months, the plaintiff would cancel the registered agreement and return the original title deeds. When the Trial Court decreed the suit in the plaintiff’s favour, the defendants appealed to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the suit and held that the agreement of sale appeared to be a sham and nominal document.

The Supreme Court noted that the MoU was executed on the same day as the agreement of sale. It found that both the MoU and the No Objection letter from the defendant’s son were executed on non-judicial stamp paper purchased from the same stamp vendor on the same date. The witnesses to both the documents were also the same. The Court observed that these circumstances made out a very strong case that the agreement of sale was a nominal document executed as security for a loan transaction. Holding that the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands, it dismissed the appeal.

Keywords/phrases: Specific performance—Agreement of sale–Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)—Loan transaction—Agreement executed as security for loan—Sham and nominal document—Conduct of parties—Suppression of material facts—Plaintiff approaching court with unclean hands—Equitable and discretionary relief—Denial of specific performance.

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Compensation for Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination

Rachana Gangu v Union of India

10 March 2026

 Citations: 2026 INSC 218 | 2026 SCO.LR 3(3)[13]

 Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court held that the State has an obligation under Article 21 to ensure a mechanism of redressal for affected families when a grave harm is alleged to have occurred in the course of a State-led public health intervention. It observed that the absence of a structured framework to address adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) raises constitutional concerns.

A writ petition was instituted before the Supreme Court by parents of young individuals who had received COVID-19 vaccination and are stated to have died thereafter. The petition sought constitution of an independent expert medical board to inquire into such deaths, formulation of protocols for early detection and treatment of AEFI, and grant of compensation. The petition was taken as the lead case along with appeals against the Kerala High Court’s interim directions for formulation of a policy on AEFI cases by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Disaster Management Authority.

The Court held that Article 21 is not limited to protection against unlawful deprivation of life but includes a wide range of rights, including the right to health and bodily integrity. Asserting that the State bears a positive obligation to safeguard the health of its people, it clarified that questions of causality between vaccination and deaths involve complex scientific assessment and are best left to domain experts. The Court directed the Union of India, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to expeditiously formulate and place in the public domain an appropriate no-fault compensation framework for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.

Keywords/phrases: Article 21 – Right to health – Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) – COVID-19 vaccination – State-led public health intervention – No-fault compensation framework – Public health policy

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Assisted Nutrition as “Medical Treatment” in Passive Euthanasia 

Harish Rana v Union of India 

11 March 2026 

Citations: 2026 INSC 222 | 2026 SCO.LR 3(3)[14] 

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan

The Supreme Court held that Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) is a “medical treatment” as opposed to primary care. Doctors may exercise clinical judgement to determine if CANH treatment can be withheld for the purpose of passive euthanasia. 

A fall had left Harish Rana in a permanent vegetative state for 13 years. His plea for passive euthanasia was dismissed by the Delhi High Court in 2024. The same year, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision that withholding CANH treatment through PEG tubes would result in Rana starving to death. In a miscellaneous application, filed in 2025, Rana’s parents sought a declaration that CANH should be classified as “medical treatment” for the purpose of passive euthanasia. 

The Court permitted Rana’s plea for passive euthanasia, holding that it would be in his “best interest” to withhold or withdraw CANH. It held that administering CANH requires clinical judgement and routine checks from medical professionals. It is not on the same level as spoon or oral feeding. The Court observed that Rana’s medical condition was irreversible and that continued CANH treatment was not improving it. 

Keywords/phrases: Right to die—Article 21—passive euthanasia—2018 euthanasia guidelines—Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration—classified as “medical treatment”—Court permits withdrawal of CANH—plea for passive euthanasia upheld 

Read the Judgement here. 

MIND MAP

**********

Determination of Creamy Layer for PSU Employees

Union of India v Rohith Nathan

11 March 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 230 | 2026 SCO.LR 3(3)[15]

Bench: Justices P.S.Narasimha and R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court held that excluding the creamy layer from Other Backward Classes is a constitutional imperative to ensure that reservation benefits reach the genuinely backward sections. It further held that creating artificial distinctions between similarly placed government and Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) employees for this determination violates the equality mandate under Article 14.

Several candidates who cleared the Civil Services Examination were denied OBC reservation benefits because their parents were PSU employees. The government relied on a 2004 letter, which counted salary income of PSU employees when determining whether their posts were equivalent to government posts. This position contradicted the 1993 Office Memorandum, which explicitly excluded salary from the income test for determining creamy layer status. The candidates secured favourable rulings from various High Courts, prompting the Union’s appeals.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the 2004 letter cannot override the substantive framework laid down in the 1993 Office Memorandum. It directed authorities to reassess the candidates’ eligibility and create additional posts in excess of sanctioned strength to accommodate them.

Keyphrases: Article 16(4) of the Constitution—Reservation for Other Backward Classes—Exclusion of Creamy Layer—Application of Income and Wealth Test—1993 Office Memorandum—Schedule Category II and VI—Exclusion of salary income–-Determination of equivalence of posts for PSU employees—2004 Clarificatory Letter—Inclusion of salary income pending equivalence—Hostile discrimination—Violation of Article 14 equality mandate—Civil Services Examination—Denial of OBC Non-Creamy Layer status–-Dismissal of Union appeals 

Read the Judgement here. 

MIND MAP