SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 10 | Issue 4

Volume 10 Issue 4 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) covers five bonus judgements delivered by the Supreme Court in September and October 2026.

The Bonus Judgements were identified in light of the Court’s week-long Dussehra break during which no judgements were delivered. 

The five verdicts include: 

1. Constitutional courts power to direct reinvestigation of cases
2. POCSO allegations in matrimonial disputes
3. Severance charges under Land Acquisition Act
4. Refund of amount in a tripartite agreement
5. Private complaints under the Representation of Peoples Act

As always, the judgements are available to read in a clean format on our SCO.LR page. Find assistive mindmaps and citing features that will help your research.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 10 | Issue 4

Bonus Judgements from September – October 2026 

**********

Power to Direct Reinvestigation 

Kusumavati Gowda v The Government of Karnataka

Citation: 2026 INSC 1030 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(4)[16]

21 September 2026

Bench: Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva 

The Supreme Court reiterated that constitutional courts i.e. High Courts and the Supreme Court have power to direct a reinvestigation as a dynamic component of judicial review, a basic feature of the Constitution.

The original petitioner’s daughter was discovered dead a day after he filed a missing persons complaint. The post-mortem report revealed rape and murder. The petitioner accused three boys in the locality as the culprits. One of the boys handed over Santosh Rao to the local police. Rao was arrested and was identified as the perpetrator by both the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioner maintained that Rao was innocent and in 2023 he was acquitted by a Session Court. The petitioner filed applications for reinvestigation in the Karnataka High Court under Article 226 and 227 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court dismissed the petition while acknowledging the need for reinvestigation, and held that critical evidence was not collected during the “golden hour”. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s dismissal and directed de novo investigation by a state constituted Special Investigation Team as potential witnesses were identified and DNA analysis was still possible. It emphasised the right to a fair trial under Article 21, particularly in cases where the investigation has been conducted in a manner to “help someone escape the clutches of the law.” 

Key words/phrases: Rape and murder in Dharmasthala, Karnataka—Petitioners allege false implication of the accused in order to conceal three real perpetrators—CID and CBI investigations found the accused guilty—Sessions Court acquits accused—Plea for reinvestigation—Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India—Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Karnataka High Court—Petition for reinvestigation dismissed—Supreme Court appeal—Supreme Court directs de novo investigation by SIT.

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

**********

Expert Evaluation of Child in Matrimonial Disputes involving POCSO allegations

‘R’ v ‘E’ 

24 September 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1049 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(4)[17]

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

The Supreme Court directed that an independent psychiatric evaluation of the child must be considered while arresting and summoning a parent or family member accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) during a matrimonial dispute.

The Bengaluru Family Court granted custody of a daughter to her father in 2022. The Karnataka High Court upheld this decision and granted the mother visitation rights. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal. When the father challenged her visitation rights, she lodged a FIR alleging that he sexually assaulted their daughter and that she was mistreated by his family. The Supreme Court transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), who found the allegations unsubstantiated after an inquiry which included an expert evaluation of the child.

The Supreme Court accepted the CBI’s findings and quashed the FIR. It directed that the father have legal custody. The Court made its safeguards applicable to investigations underway on the judgement date and to private complaints under Section 33 of the POCSO Act in which summons had yet to be issued. It permitted exceptions where the material is palpable and reasons are recorded in writing, and held that custody courts must assess the material supporting the allegations case by case.

Key words/Phrases: Matrimonial dispute—POCSO allegations against parent or family member living with child—Independent psychiatric evaluation—Arrest and summoning safeguards—Child welfare—FIR quashed—Legal custody with father—Supervised physical reintegration

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Severance Charges for Unacquired Land under Land Acquisition Act

Surinder Ahuja v State of Punjab 

29 September 2026 

Citations: 2026 INSC 1068 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(4)[18] 

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu

The Supreme Court held that severance compensation for land acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be calculated as a percentage of the market value of the remaining, unacquired land and not the acquired strip. 

The Punjab government had issued notifications under Section 4 of the Act to acquire 18.42 km of land across six villages for construction of the Aspal Extension Drain. The project split agricultural holdings, rendering the remaining, unacquired land on the other side of the canal inaccessible. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) awarded a uniform rate of ₹2.25 lakhs per acre for irrigated land across all villages but granted nil compensation for severance charges. The Reference Court under Section 18 enhanced the market value up to ₹5 lakhs per acre and granted 50 per cent severance charges calculated on the value of the remaining unacquired land. The Punjab and Haryana High Court reduced the severance charges to 40 per cent of the acquired land. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s holding and restored the 50 per cent severance charge on the unacquired land. It held that severance charges under Section 23(1) are statutorily designed to compensate for the diminution in value of the remaining, unacquired land rendered inaccessible due to a physical barrier. 

Key words/phrases: Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984—Notification to acquire land for a project—No severance charges granted for unused land—Reference Court—Section 18 of Act—50 per cent severance charge on unacquired land rendered unusable—Punjab and Haryana High Court—40 per cent severance charge on acquired land—Supreme Court appeal—Severance charges under Section 23—applicable on unacquired land left unused due to physical barrier—Reference Court Order restored—High Court judgement set aside

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Bank’s Entitlement to Refund in a Tripartite Agreement 

Madhu Kudapa v Lodha Healthy Constructions and Developer 

15 October 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1131 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(4)[19]

Bench: Justices P.S.Narasimha and Alok Aradhe 

The Supreme Court held that a borrower (buyer) in a tripartite agreement between the lender (bank) and the builder is not entitled to the refund amount except which he had paid out of his own pocket. 

The appellant paid for the apartment using both his own funds and a bank loan disbursed to the builder. The builder failed to hand over the possession of the apartment for more than one year. In the meantime, the bank started debiting pre-EMI interest on the amount disbursed by it. On a consumer complaint, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ordered the builder to refund the entire amount, including the amount paid by the Bank, to the borrower. The Bank’s review petition before the Commission was dismissed. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court referred to the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment and held that payment of the entire amount to the borrower would place in his hands a sum which he never paid. Therefore, the borrower is only entitled to the sum he paid himself. 

Key words/phrases: Tripartite agreement between the lender, borrower and the builder in which disbursal of amount to the builder is deemed to be disbursal of amount to the borrower—Failure to hand over possession of apartment—Complaint before Consumer Commission—Builder ordered to refund the entire amount including the amount paid by the Bank—Supreme Court appeal—Refund only the amount paid by the borrower to the builder—Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment 

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

**********

Private Complaints under Section 125-A of the Representation of Peoples Act

Rajkumar Madki v Shailendra Beldale

16 October 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 1138 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(4)[20]

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu

The Supreme Court held that a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 is maintainable and is not subject to the bar under Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

The appellant lodged a complaint against the respondent, a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, under Section 200 of the CrPC for making a false disclosure in an affidavit accompanying his nomination paper. The Karnataka High Court quashed the complaint in the respondent’s petition after noting that a voter cannot file a private complaint against an elected representative. It held that such a complaint is barred under Section 195 of the CrPC. The appellant moved the Supreme Court arguing that the bar on cognisance under Section 195 is restricted to Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and does not extend to a complaint under Section 125-A of RoPA. 

The Supreme Court, while upholding the quashing of the complaint, held that omission of Section 125-A of the RoPA under Section 195 of the CrPC is deliberate and thus, the bar would not be applicable to complaints lodged by a private person. 

Key words/phrases: Complaint under Section 200—Code of Criminal Procedure—False disclosure—Member of Legislative Assembly—Section 125-A—Representation of Peoples Act—High Court quashed—Private complaint barred—Section 195 of Cr.P.C.—Supreme Court—Section 195 does not bar private complaints. 

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

**********