SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 5 | Issue 1

Volume 5 Issue 1 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here. 

In this first issue of May, we have shortlisted four unmissable judgements from the last week of April and a decision disposing the last pending M.C. Mehta v Union of India case. 

This issue has verdicts on: 

• Mitigating factors in death penalty cases
• Mandate for free and compulsory education under the RTE Act
• Protection against dismissal under Article 311
• Legislative functions and the doctrine of separation of powers

As always, complete copies of these decisions are available on the SCO.LR page in a clean and accessible format. 

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 5 | Issue 1

27 April – 1 May 2026

*********

Redistribution of PILs and Docket Management

M.C. Mehta v Union of India

11 March 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 382 | 2026 SCO.LR 5(1)[1]

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.M. Pancholi

The Supreme Court held that adjudicatory efficiency required formal closure of the 1984 M.C. Mehta petition. Pending issues will be split between fresh suo moto proceedings of this Court and the Delhi High Court under Article 226.

The 1984 petition arose from unauthorised heavy and noxious industries in the erstwhile Union Territory of Delhi. Early judgements of 15 May 1992 and 8 July 1996 barred stone crushers and closed 168 highly polluting units. A judgement of 16 February 2006 ordered sealing of misused residential premises. 433 interlocutory applications in the petition remain pending. 

The writ petition was formally disposed of. Two new suo moto writ petitions on hazardous industries and water resources were registered. IAs on the Delhi Master Plan, illegal construction and Monitoring Committee appeals were transferred to the Delhi High Court.

Key words/phrases: Hazardous industries in Delhi—Writ Petition of 1985 formally disposed of—Two new suo moto writ petitions registered—Monitoring Committee and Judicial Committee preserved—IAs on Delhi Master Plan transferred to Delhi High Court under Article 226—Earlier directions remain binding

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

**********

Mitigation Reports in Death Penalty References

Aman Singh v State of Bihar

27 April 2026 

Citation: 2026 INSC 424 | 2026 SCO.LR 5(1)[2]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi

The Supreme Court held that mitigation reports in death references must be considered at the earliest stage of proceedings. It directed all trial courts and high courts to call for mitigation reports and assign a dedicated legal team in all death reference matters. 

In January, the Patna High Court confirmed a death sentence granted to the two appellants. The appellants were sentenced under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of three women. The High Court had held that the aggravating factors leave no room for any mitigating factors to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment or a special sentence. 

The Supreme Court stayed the sentence pending disposal of appeal and directed the Bihar government and the Jail Superintendent to submit reports regarding the appellants conduct along with a psychological evaluation. 

The Court observed that despite directions issued in Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), trial and high courts often slip into a retributive approach and fail to consider mitigation circumstances. It directed the National Legal Services Authority to formulate guidelines for production of mitigation reports and conduct of fieldwork required to collect necessary information. 

Key words/phrases: Stay on death sentence—Directions for submission of a mitigation report—All trial and high courts to consider mitigating factors before determination of sentence—Legal teams to be assigned for adequate representation.

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

**********

 “Neighbourhood schools” Mandate Under RTE Act

Lucknow Public School, Eldico v State of Uttar Pradesh

28 April 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 422 | 2026 SCO.LR 5(1)[3]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

The Supreme Court held that free and compulsory education at a “neighbourhood school” under the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE) is a deliberate statutory conception to ensure equality of status and social integration during a child’s formative years. 

A student was selected for admission into pre-primary classes in a neighbourhood school by the Basic Education Department of the Uttar Pradesh government under the U.P. RTE Rules, 2011. The school did not permit her to attend classes on the ground that her eligibility was uncertain. The Allahabad High Court held that the school cannot sit in appeal over a decision taken by a state government and directed the school to grant admission to her. The school approached the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision. It affirmed that the fundamental right to education under Article 21A would be an “empty promise” if the RTE mandate is not worked out in letter and spirit. 

Key words/phrases: Article 21A—Fundamental Right to Education—Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009—Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011—State Government selects student for admission to “neighbourhood school”—School cannot sit in appeal over state government’s decision—Right to Education mandate followed in letter and spirit 

Read the Judgement here. 

Mindmap

**********

Applicability of Article 311 on ICAR Employees

Sadachari Singh Tomar v Union of India

28 April 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 427 | 2026 SCO.LR 5(1)[4]

Bench: Justices P.K. Mishra and V.M. Pancholi

The Supreme Court held that the protection against arbitrary removal of civil servants under Article 311 does not apply to the employees of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). 

The appellant, who is the Assistant Director General of the Agricultural Research Information System, alleged that he was removed from four committees under ICAR’s National Agricultural Technology Project (NATP) after whistleblowing irregularities in the award of contracts. He approached the Delhi High Court, claiming that he is protected against the arbitrariness of his removal and triggered retaliatory action under Article 311. The High Court disposed of the appeal and declined the review. The appellant approached the Supreme Court in a civil appeal. 

The Supreme Court held that the protection under Article 311 is not applicable to ICAR since it is an autonomous body under the Department of Agricultural Research and Education and is governed by the rules and by-laws of ICAR. Further, the Court mentioned that the allegations of mala fide must be supported by clean and cogent evidence and cannot be inferred from surrounding circumstances. 

Key words/phrases: Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)—Removal of employee—National Agricultural Technology Project (NATP)—Protection under Article 311—Delhi High Court dismissed—Review declined—Civil appeal—ICAR is autonomous—Protection not applicable—Appeal dismissed. 

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

********* 

Legislative Functions of Constitutional Courts

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India

29 April 2026

Citation:  2026 INSC 432 | 2026 SCO.LR 5(1)[5]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

 The Supreme Court held that a constitutional court cannot create or expand criminal offences if there is no legislative sanction. 

Thirteen writ petitions, two special leave petitions, and  eight contempt matters had accumulated since 2020 alleging rise in hate speech instances after the Covid -19 pandemic. Petitioners sought directions along the lines of introducing provisions to curb speeches as per the 267th Law Commission Report and the registration of suo moto FIRs for instances of hate speech.  

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitioners and appeals. It held that the doctrine of separation of powers does not permit the judiciary to create new offences. Further, the existing framework sufficiently covers provisions that deal with speeches that outrage religious sentiments or disturb public tranquillity. 

Key words/phrases: Hate Speech—267th Law Commission Report—Suo moto registration of FIRs—Doctrine of Separation of Powers—Courts cannot expand criminal offences without legislative action—Writ petition dismissed

Read the Judgement here.

 

Mindmap