SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 7 | Issue 3

Volume 7 Issue 3 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here! 

The issue shortlists five judgements pronounced by the Supreme Court from its first week back after the Partial Court Working Days, covering: 

• Employment of disabled persons in the CRPF
• Ex-parte opinions by Foreigners Tribunal
• Treating a child as an adult under the Juvenile Justice Act
• Jurisdictional challenges under the Arbitration Act
• Releasing elderly and terminally ill prisoners

As always, SCO.LR issues come with well formatted judgements with linking and citation features alongside assistive mindmaps for easy research. Click here to access the entire database of SCO.LR judgements. 

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 7 | Issue 3

13 July – 18 July 2026

**********

Reinstatement of Disabled Persons in CRPF

Union of India v Bali Ram

13 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 689 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(3)[11]

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih

The Supreme Court held that Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 imposes a positive obligation on the employer not to dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires disability during service. The employer must shift the employee to a suitable post on the same pay scale, or a supernumerary post until superannuation.

A Single Judge and Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court had ordered the reinstatement of Bali Ram after he was invalidated from the CRPF after a Medical Board found him permanently incapacitated in March 1998. Ram, a CRPF constable driver enrolled in 1985, lost sight in one eye and part of the other to an ophthalmic condition in 1996. Years after his removal, a notification exempted CRPF combatant personnel from Section 47 on 10 September 2002. The Union appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the notification exempted the application of Section 47, and that Ram had waived its protection by accepting pension.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held the invalidation ultra vires Section 47 read with Articles 14 and 21. It added that an exemption notification, being prospective, cannot efface a breach already committed. As he had reached superannuation age, the Court awarded Rs 1,25,00,000, inclusive of back wages, interest and costs, in place of reinstatement.

Key words/phrases: Persons with Disabilities Act 1995—Section 47—Employer’s obligation to shift persons with disability—medical invalidation of CRPF driver—exemption notification 2002—prospective operation—Union’s claim of waiver rejected—back wages awarded. 

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP

**********

Ex-Parte Declarations by Foreigners Tribunal

Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey v Union of India

13 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 694 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(3)[12]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court held that the Foreigners Tribunal, in an ex parte proceeding, must independently satisfy itself that notice was duly served, that the main grounds of the allegation were disclosed and that the material supports the conclusion before declaring a person a foreigner. 

The appellants were declared foreigners in ex parte or effectively ex parte references that arose from Foreigners Tribunals in Assam, and some erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals. The Gauhati High Court had affirmed the Tribunals orders. Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 places the burden of proving non-foreigner status on the proceedee, while Paragraph 3 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 requires service of the main grounds, a reasonable opportunity to represent and lead evidence, and a reasoned opinion. 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgements and the Tribunal’s opinions. The Court held that the statutory burden on the proceedee does not convert non-appearance into proof, and the guarantees of fair procedure under Articles 14 and 21 extend to every person, citizen or not. The Court remitted every matter for fresh adjudication as a single, time-bound final opportunity.

Key words/phrases: Foreigners Act 1946—Section 9 burden of proof—Foreigners (Tribunals) Order 1964—ex parte declaration of foreigner—Articles 14 and 21—fair procedure—remitted for fresh adjudication

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP

**********

Role of Children’s Court under the Juvenile Justice Act 

Sagar v State of Haryana

13 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 692 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(3)[13]

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale

The Supreme Court held that the Children’s Court under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is mandated to independently pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1), deciding whether the child should be tried as an adult. Its non-compliance vitiates the entire trial.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and six others intercepted and assaulted a man in October 2018, causing his death. The appellant was aged 16 at the time. The Juvenile Justice Board transferred the case to the Children’s Court, which tried him as an adult, convicted him of murder and sentenced him to 14 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Children’s Court did not pass an independent order under Section 19. The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the conviction.

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. It held that the absence of a Section 19(1) determination affected the jurisdiction, procedure and possible punishment applicable to the appellant. Since he was already 24 years old and had undergone more than six years’ incarceration, the Court found that remanding the matter for a fresh assessment would serve no useful purpose.

Key words/phrases: Juvenile Justice Act, 2015—Child accused of heinous offence—Independent reasoned order by Children’s Court under Section 19(1) mandatory—Trial as an adult without such order invalid—Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted. 

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP

**********

Invocation of Article 227 in Arbitral Proceedings

Manash Kamal Bezboruah v Bokahola Tea Company

 14 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 701 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(3)[14]

Bench: Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Vijay Bishnoi

The Supreme Court held that an Arbitral Tribunal’s rejection of jurisdiction challenges under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot ordinarily be challenged under Article 227. It clarified that such orders are ordinarily amenable to challenge only under Section 34 after the final arbitral award.

A Trial Court and the Gauhati High Court had refused to refer a case of alleged mismanagement and financial irregularities to arbitration noting that several defendants were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court in 2024 referred the dispute to arbitration with the consent of the parties. The respondents sought deletion from the proceedings on the ground that they were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. The Tribunal rejected the applications treating them as jurisdictional objections under Section 16. The respondents filed a revision petition under Article 227, which the Gauhati High Court held to be maintainable and stayed the notices issued by the Tribunal. The appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that Section 16 embodies the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz, empowering the arbitral tribunal to decide questions concerning its own jurisdiction, including whether non-signatories are bound by the arbitration agreement. The Court held that Article 227 jurisdiction may be invoked only where there is a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction and that High Courts should record a prima facie finding to that effect before entertaining such petitions. 

Key words/phrases: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 16—Article 227—Jurisdictional objection—Section 34—Kompetenz-kompetenz—Non-signatories—Minimal judicial intervention—Patent lack of inherent jurisdiction

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Compassionate Release of Elderly and Terminally ill Prisoners

National Legal Services Authority v Union of India

16 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 713 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(3)[15] 

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court held that continued incarceration of elderly and terminally ill prisoners without a structured, transparent and humane release mechanism violates the constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21.

The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) filed a writ petition under Article 32 after it conducted a nationwide Special Campaign for Old Prisoners & Terminally ill Prisoners between 10 December 2024 and 10 March 2025. It identified 5393 prisoners in vulnerable categories, including 1886 undertrial prisoners and 3507 convicts. NALSA argued that continued incarceration of such prisoners in medically inadequate prison conditions infringed Articles 14 and 21.

The Supreme Court held that advanced age and terminal illness are constitutionally relevant considerations in criminal justice and directed all States and Union Territories to formulate policies for early, premature or compassionate release within three months.

Key words/phrases: Elderly and terminally ill prisoners—Article 32—National Legal Services Authority—right to dignity under Article 21—advanced age and terminal illness as release considerations—compassionate release. 

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP