SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 8 | Issue 4

Volume 8 Issue 4 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here!

The Supreme Court delivered 28 reportable and non-reportable judgements between 17 August to 21 August 2026. In this issue, we have identified five of the most important judgements published by the Court during this period. They include judgements on:

• Nationwide guidelines on election-related offences,
• Hanging as a mode of execution,
• “Offence” under the U.P. Gangster Act, 1986,
• Maintenance obligations of a husband when he is not the primary care-giver of children
• Eligibility criteria for Civil Judge (Junior Division)

As always, the judgements are available on our SCO.LR page with concise summaries, clean and readable judgements with citation features and a mindmap.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 8 | Issue 4

17 – 21 August 2026

**********

Nationwide Guidelines on Election-related Offences

State of Karnataka v Prathik Parasrampuria

17 August 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 868 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(4)[16]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court framed nationwide guidelines to prevent the use of black money in the election process. It held that monetary gratification in the electoral process undermines democracy.

The case stems from the 2014 Lok Sabha Bye-Election. The Election Commission of India’s flying squad raided the respondent’s premises and seized large amounts of counterfeit currency, alleged to be used to bribe voters. The respondent’s plea to quash the FIR against him was granted by the Karnataka High Court. The Karnataka government moved the Supreme Court, and suggested that guidelines should be made to prevent the use of black money in the election process.

The Supreme Court framed a seven-point directive for search and seizure of counterfeit currency and/or other assets which are likely to be used to induce electors. The Court placed timelines on reporting seized materials, completion of investigation and directed that seizures exceeding Rs. 10 Lacs must be reported to Income Tax authorities.

Key words/phrases: 2014 Lok Sabha Bye-Election—Counterfeit currency and black money—Flying squad—Election Commission of India—First Information Report—High Court quashed FIR—Special Leave Petition—Seven-point directive—Guidelines for search and seizure

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Hanging as the Mode of Execution

Rishi Malhotra v Union of India

18 August 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 873 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(4)[17]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of execution by hanging under Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Bench held that alternative execution methods like lethal injection lack sufficient scientific proof of being less painful.

In 2017, Rishi Malhotra filed a public interest petition challenging Section 354(5) of the CrPC, now corresponding to Section 393(5) of the BNSS. He argued that execution by hanging violated Articles 14 and 21, as it is barbaric and inhumane causing severe physical and mental agony. The petition sought alternate methods such as lethal injection or shooting.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition based on binding precedents such as Deena v Union of India (1983), which upheld the constitutional validity of hanging as a mode of execution. The Court held that a smaller bench cannot depart from a binding judgement delivered by a larger bench. It declined to refer Deena to a larger Bench. The Court observed that statutory execution methods will remain open to future judicial scrutiny and expert evaluation.

Key words/phrases: Execution—Section 354(5)—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 393(5)—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.—Deena v Union of India (1983) —No compelling scientific or empirical evidence for reconsideration—Lethal injection not shown to be more humane—Reference to larger Bench declined

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

“Offence” under the U.P. Gangster Act, 1986 

Shiv Pratap Singh Alias Chinu v State of U.P. 

20 August 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 894 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(4)[18]

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

The Supreme Court held that the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is a stillborn statute as it metes out punishment without first creating an offence.

Two advocates challenged the validity of proceedings initiated against them for offences under Section 2 of the U.P. Act, on the basis of Gang Charts prepared under the corresponding Rules, 2021. The advocates argued that Section 2 merely defines “gang” and lists offences already penalised under other criminal law. The Rules provide for gang charts to be prepared by administrative officers, while the Act stipulates special procedures such as summary trials and special courts, overriding safeguards provided under ordinary criminal law.

The Supreme Court quashed all proceedings under the Act. It held that the determination of a person’s status through a gang chart empowers the Executive in an “unbridled and unfettered” manner, violating Article 20 and running the risk of double jeopardy. Addressing the likelihood of unsubstantiated preventive detention, it held that any trial under the Act would be a foregone conclusion.

Key words/phrases: Section 2—U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and Rules, 2021—FIRs against two advocates—Special Leave Petition challenging absence of offence—Supreme Court quashed proceedings—No punishment without an offence in law—Article 20—Risk of double jeopardy and preventive detention—Offences to be dealt under their respective statutes.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Non-monetary Contributions in Maintenance Calculation

Sujata Kumari v Rahul Kumar 

20 August 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 896 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(4)[19]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court held that a mother’s independent income cannot automatically justify halving the father’s financial obligation to maintain his minor children. The Court observed that daily caretaking by the residing parent constitutes a real and significant non-monetary contribution.

The appellant-wife (a gynaecologist earning ₹1,50,000 per month) filed a petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband (a pediatrician earning ₹2,00,000 per month). The Family Court denied interim maintenance to the wife but ordered the husband to pay ₹30,000 per month to each of their two minor daughters (aged 9 and 8). On revision, the Allahabad High Court reduced the interim maintenance to ₹15,000 per month per child, reasoning that the employed wife must share the maintenance burden. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgement and restored the Family Court’s maintenance order. It stated that the obligation to maintain the children cannot be divided by arithmetic alone.

Key words/phrases: Section 125—maintenance—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Family court—₹30,000 maintenance per month for each daughter—Maintenance halved by Allahabad High Court—Employed wife must share burden—Supreme Court—Restores Family Court Order—High Court judgement set aside

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Eligibility Criteria for Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Bhumika Trust v Union of India

21 August 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 904 |  2026 SCO.LR 8(4)[20]

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices A.G. Masih and K.V. Chandran

The Supreme Court modified its 2025 Judgement by reducing the mandatory eligibility requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) from three years’ of Bar practice to one year of actual practice. The Court held that while prior exposure is essential for entry into the judicial service, practical experience can be combined with structured institutional training and supervised clerkship.

Bhumika Trust, an NGO representing several persons with disabilities, approached the Supreme Court with a review petition seeking a recall of the 2025 judgement which mandated three years of practice as an eligibility requirement. The Court sought the views and suggestions of all High Courts, Law Universities and National Law Schools before considering the challenge.

The Court established a transitional scheme for recruitments notified up to 31 March 2027, deeming candidates to have completed one year of practice upon selection, followed by one year of intensive training at a State Judicial Academy and a one-year Law Clerkship divided between the District Judiciary and the High Court. For recruitments notified on or after 1 April 2027, candidates must possess one year of actual practice in the District Courts before undergoing the identical two-year training and clerkship structure. The scheme will operate for five years and will be revisited based on empirical performance data. Justice K.V. Chandran dissented, finding no ground for review and holding that Bar experience remained indispensable.

Key words/phrases: Civil Judge (Junior Division)—Supreme Court mandates three years’ practice at the Bar (2025)—Review Petitions—Supreme Court—One year of actual practice—Practical exposure to the working of courts—State Judicial Academy—Intensive training—Law Clerkship—Judgment under Review modified—Five-year scheme—Empirical material—Dissent.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP