SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 9 | Issue 2

Volume 9 Issue 2 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here!

The Supreme Court delivered 21 reportable and non-reportable judgements last week. In this issue, we have identified five of the most important judgements published in this period, including decisions on:

• Legality of statutory guidelines not published in the Official Gazette
• Corporate criminal liability and mens rea
• Calculation of pension benefits for contractual workers
• Arbitrability of excepted matters under the Arbitration Act
• Sentence calculation under an extradition assurance

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

**********

Legality of Non-Gazetted Statutory Guidelines

Punahchakran v Indotech Waste Solution

7 September 2026 

Citation: 2026 INSC 956 | 2026 SCO.LR 9(2)[6]

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

The Supreme Court held that there is a narrow scope for statutory guidelines to be legally binding even in case of non-publication in the Official Gazette. It clarified the required status of land allotment varies from stage to stage in the process of obtaining environmental clearance. 

The National Green Tribunal set aside environmental clearances sought by the appellant to establish a Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) on two plots of land in Uttar Pradesh as the plot fell short of the size required under the Revised Guidelines for CBWTFs, 2016. The appellant then secured fresh clearances after seeking a relaxation of the land area requirement from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). These were also set aside by the NGT on the grounds that the relaxation was not granted in accordance with the RG, 2016 and that fresh clearance cannot be granted on the basis of the original terms of reference (ToR). The appellants approached the Supreme Court arguing that the RG, 2016 were not binding in nature as they were not gazetted.

The Supreme Court set aside the NGT decision and restored the fresh clearances. While emphasising that the RG, 2016 is binding in nature, it held that the relaxation was granted in compliance with the guidelines. Further, the quashing of the initial clearance did not invalidate the ToR leaving it intact as a basis for the fresh clearances. 

Key words/phrases: Revised Guidelines (RG) for Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility, 2016—Environmental clearances granted to appellants—Set aside twice by NGT for non-compliance with RG—Supreme Court appeal—Supreme Court upholds mandatory nature of RG—Clearance granted with due consideration of law—Narrow scope for legality despite non-publication in the Official Gazette—Terms of Reference not invalidated when clearances were quashed—Valid basis for fresh clearance—NGT decision set aside.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Corporate Criminal Liability and Mens Rea

Sanofi India v Central Bureau of Investigation

7 September 2026 

Citations: 2026 INSC 957 | 2026 SCO.LR 9(2)[7]

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

The Supreme Court held that a corporate entity without natural persons alongside it can be prosecuted for offences requiring mens rea, provided that elements of the offence are made out. 

Sanofi India was an accused in an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation for alleged criminal conspiracy under Section 120B and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Including Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the chargesheet further alleged that a public servant showed undue favours to Sanofi India by procuring tenders in lieu of illegal gratification. When the company’s plea to quash the charges was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court, it approached the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court held that the offences could not be quashed merely because no individual employee or director of Sanofi India was co-arraigned. However, it found that the chargesheet did not establish the foundational facts required to demonstrate an offence by the corporate entity. In the absence of a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy, it quashed the criminal proceedings. 

Key words/phrases: Corporate entity—Mens rea—Conspiracy—Section 120B of the IPC—Cheating—Section 420 of the IPC—High Court refuses to quash charges—Supreme Court appeal—Offences cannot be quashed merely because there is no individual co-arraigned alongside the corporate entity—No prima facie case on facts—Criminal charges quashed

Read the judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Calculation of Pension Benefits for Contractual Workers

Punjab School Education Board v Satnam Singh

8 September 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 965 | 2026 SCO.LR 9(2)[8]

Bench: Justices P.K. Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar

The Supreme Court held that services rendered by contract/ad hoc/daily wage employees prior to their regularisation as permanent staff must be factored in the calculation of pension benefits. 

Between 1993-1996, the appellant engaged the respondents on a contractual/ad-hoc basis. After the 2001 Punjab government notification to regularise contract/ad-hoc employees, the respondents moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking its implementation. The Court disposed of the petition, noting that appellant, being an autonomous body, is not bound by the notification. In 2004, the respondents were regularised by the appellants, following which they claimed pension based directly on qualifying service. The State government declined as the employees were not in continuous service. They then moved a petition before the Single-Judge Bench of the High Court which allowed the petitions. Aggrieved, the appellants engaged the Division Bench, which upheld the single-judge decision. The appellants moved the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court held that intermittent breaks and change in the ad-hoc nature of employment is either notional or administrative. The term of engagement must be treated as continuous service for the purpose of calculation of pension. It reiterated that the payment of pension is a deferred wage earned for services rendered in the past. 

Keywords/phrases: Respondents engaged on ad-hoc basis—State government notification for regularisation—Respondents approach Punjab and Haryana High Court for implementation—Autonomous body not bound by notification—Regularisation effected nonetheless—Employees claim pension based on qualifying service—State Government declines—Employees not in continuous service—Single judge and Division Bench of High Court affirm pension based on continuous service—Supreme Court upholds High Court decision—Notional or administrative breaks—Must be treated as continuous service. 

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Determination of “Excepted Matters” under the Arbitration Act

GVV Constructions v Union of India

8 September 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 976 | 2026 SCO.LR 9(2)[9]

Bench: Justices P. S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

The Supreme Court held that it is for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether a dispute falls outside its jurisdiction as an “excepted matter” under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that a writ appellate court cannot intervene before the matter is heard in the first instance.

The appellant’s contract with South Central Railway for doubling a railway track was terminated under the Indian Railways Standard General Conditions of Contract (GCC). The appellant challenged the termination before the Telangana High Court, alleging that it was contrary to GCC procedure. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and directed the appellants to raise the dispute before the tribunal while recording an irregularity in the termination. On appeal, the Division Bench set aside the finding and directed the tribunal to adjudicate the matter in strict accordance with the contract.

The Supreme Court held that the GCC does not exclude a court of law from determining whether a dispute is an “excepted matter” or not. It observed that the High Court should not have entered into merits, and clarified that the direction to the tribunal would not impinge upon its jurisdiction. 

Key words/phrases: Excepted matters—Section 16—Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Termination of contract—Indian Railways Standard General Conditions of Contract—Clause 63—Clause 64—Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction—Arbitrability—Article 226—Writ appellate jurisdiction—Judicial review—Scope of arbitration 

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Sentence Calculation under an Extradition Assurance

Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v State of Maharashtra

10 September 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 982 | 2026 SCO.LR 9(2)[10]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court held that jail-earned remission can only be applied to shorten the imposed life sentence and not the imprisonment period guaranteed at the time of extradition.

The appellant was extradited from Portugal on 12 October 2005 on an assurance from the Union Government that he would neither be subjected to the death penalty nor imprisonment exceeding 25 years. A Special Court at Mumbai under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 imposed concurrent life sentences on him in 2015 and 2017. The Supreme Court directed the Union to honour the assurance upon completion of 25 years, either by advising the President to commute the remaining sentence under Article 72 or by exercising its own powers under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In April 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant’s habeas corpus petition which factored remission (pre-mature release for good conduct) to claim completion of 25 years.

Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court found that the overlapping periods of the appellant’s custody had been counted twice and he had yet to complete 25 years. It upheld the High Court’s refusal to apply jail-earned remission to the period arising from the extradition assurance as the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Key words/phrases: Sovereign assurance on extradition—Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987—Concurrent life sentences—Article 72 or Sections 432, 433 CrPC—Double counting of custody—Jail-earned remission excluded from the 25-year computation—Habeas corpus refusal upheld—Appeal dismissed.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP