SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 6 | Issue 3

Volume 6 Issue 3 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here! In this issue, we shortlist five important judgements delivered last week by the Supreme Court. 

They are: 

• Writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court in BSF matters
• Role of a referee judge in split judgements
• Compensation for homemaker’s death under Motor Vehicles Act
• Sex determination of child under Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
• Psychological evaluation of child

As always, the judgements are available in clean, reader-friendly HTML format with a special paragraph citation feature to aid your research!

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 6 | Issue 3

8 June – 12 June 2026

**********

Delhi High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction in BSF Matters

Baksish Ahmad v Union of India

9 June 2026 

Citations: 2026 INSC 630 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(3)[11]

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma

The Supreme Court held that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain writ petitions from Central Armed Police Forces.

Baksish Ahmad, an enrolled member of the Border Security Forces (BSF), was dismissed from service without pensionary benefits after an Inquiry found he had entered a second marriage without permission from the Central Government, thereby violating Rules 7 of the BSF Rules, 1969. His petition for reinstatement was rejected by the Inspector General, BSF, Jammu. Ahmad challenged his dismissal by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The petition was dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens, holding that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and that the appropriate forums were the High Courts of Calcutta or Jammu & Kashmir. Ahmad approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court and revived the appellant’s writ petition. It ruled that because the head offices of the necessary respondents are situated in New Delhi, the Delhi High Court cannot refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. The Court directed the respondents to file their counter-affidavit within two months to facilitate an early disposal on the merits.

Key words/phrases: Article 226(1)—Border Security Force—Dismissal from Service Without Pensionary Benefits—Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Marriage—Staff Court of Inquiry—Reinstatement petition dismissed—Territorial Jurisdiction of High Courts—Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens—Office of Director General and Ministry of Home Affairs—High Court judgement set aside

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP

**********

Scope of Referee Judge under Cr.P.C. 1973

Dr Rakesh Kumar Gupta v State of U.P.

9 June 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 632 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(3)[12]

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma

The Supreme Court questioned the correctness of the 1999 judgement in Sajjan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh and referred to a larger issue of whether a third-referee judge is bound by the unanimous opinions of a Division Bench under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 

In 2001, three siblings were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow for unlawful assembly and murder. They moved an appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench was unable to reach an unanimous verdict insofar as the conviction of one of the three siblings was concerned. The matter was placed before a referee-judge under Section 392 of the Cr.P.C. 1973. The referee-judge acquitted all three of them after examining the whole case independently, in line with the precedent in Sajjan Singh. The State and the complainant moved the Supreme Court contending that the referee-judge cannot examine the whole case independently and must only limit himself to the extent of difference in opinion of the Division Bench. 

The Supreme Court noted that the statutory obligation under Section 392 of the CrPC 1973 binds a referee-judge to the unanimous opinion of the Division Bench. Further, it was observed that accepting the reasoning in Sajjan Singh blindly could yield undesirable results.

Key words/phrases: Conviction of three accused—Appeal against conviction—Division Bench—High Court—Difference in opinion—Opinion of third-judge—Section 392—Code of Criminal Procedure 1973—All three acquitted—Special Leave Petition—Third-judge bound to unanimous acquittal—Appeal limited to difference in opinion—Sajjan Singh v State of M.P. referred to a larger bench. 

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Compensation for Homemaker’s Death

Shishu Pal v Surjeet

11 June 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 634 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(3)[13]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that compensation for the death of a homemaker must include a new head of ‘loss of domestic care’, fixed at ₹30,000 per month and revisable by ten percent every three years. Where the homemaker has no proven income, this sum stands in as notional monthly income.

The claimant’s wife, a homemaker, died on 25 November 2001 in a road accident while travelling from Sirsa to Fatehabad. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, awarded ₹2,42,000 in December 2003. The claimants’ appeal remained pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for twenty years, the case file having been destroyed in a 2011 fire. In December 2024, a Single Judge enhanced the compensation to ₹8,43,400 with 7.5 percent interest.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and awarded ₹62,77,900, computed by taking ₹30,000 as the deceased’s notional monthly income, and directed High Courts to prioritise appeals pending beyond four years.

Key words/phrases: Road accident death of homemaker—Tribunal award of ₹2,42,000 in 2003—High Court records destroyed in 2011 fire—Appeal decided after twenty years—Compensation enhanced to ₹8,43,400 in 2024—‘Loss of domestic care’ recognised as new head—₹30,000 monthly with ten percent triennial revision

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP

**********

Deficiencies under PCPNDT Act, 1994

Dr. Ramesh v State of Maharashtra

11 June 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 635 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(3)[14]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and P.K. Mishra 

The Supreme Court held that deficiencies or blanks in Form F, prescribed under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, are not trivial clerical errors. Incomplete records amount to contravention of Sections 5 and 6 unless the contrary is proved.

An Appropriate Authority searched the appellant’s sonography centre, seized the machine and issued notice under Section 20(1). An Advisory Committee found prima facie violations. The centre’s registration was thereafter suspended in March 2016. On a complaint, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur, Nanded, Maharashtra took cognisance on 9 June 2016 and issued process under Section 23. His revision failed, and the Bombay High Court rejected his challenge to the Civil Surgeon’s authority and his plea that the Form F errors were inadvertent.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and reiterated that complete Form F contents are mandatory.

Key words/phrases: Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994—Search and seizure of sonography machine—Notice under Section 20(1)—Suspension of sonography centre—Cognisance by Magistrate—Deficiencies in Form F—Appeal dismissed. 

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP

**********

Psychological Evaluation of Child

Sheetal Vasant Thakur v Chirag Arora

11 June 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 638 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(3)[15]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that psychological evaluation of a child victim cannot be ordered routinely in custody or visitation disputes. Courts must record reasons demonstrating necessity and ordinarily appoint a single independent expert rather than a panel.

In 2019, the appellant returned to India from the USA with her minor daughter, alleging domestic violence and sexual abuse of the child by the respondent-father. FIRs were registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Pune and Faridabad. The father sought expert evaluation of the child to re-establish contact. The Family Court, Pune rejected the plea. The Bombay High Court initially directed an independent expert, then substituted a four-member panel that included experts suggested by the father, one based in the USA.

The Supreme Court modified the orders, directed psychological assessment of both parents first and remitted the matter to the Family Court.

Key words/phrases: Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012—Custody and visitation dispute—Allegation of sexual abuse by father—Family Court refuses expert evaluation of child—High Court constitutes four-member expert panel—Principle of minimum intrusion—Psychological assessment of both parents directed—High Court orders modified.

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP