SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 11 | Issue 1

Volume 11 Issue 1 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here! The first Issue of November identifies five important judgements delivered by the Supreme Court last week. They include: 

1. Bank records under the purview of the Right to Information Act
2. Withdrawal of approval of Corporate Resolution Plan 
3. Default bail for foreigners under the UAPA
4. Grant of remission in multiple life sentences
5. Consent obtained by deceit

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 11 | Issue 1

26 October – 30 October 2026

**********

Disclosure of Co-operative Bank Records to Members Under RTI

The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank v The State Chief Information Commissioner

26 October 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1153 | 2026 SCO.LR 11(1)[1]

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

The Supreme Court held that a co-operative bank cannot deny a member access to its records on the ground that the information is personal to the society. Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 covers information relating to private bodies that a public authority is legally entitled to access.

A member of Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank sought two documents from the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies: the agreement for construction of a building between the bank and a Labour Co-operative Society, and the minutes of the bank’s last General Body Meeting. The request was rejected. This led to proceedings before the State Chief Information Commissioner and the Kerala High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the member’s right to information. The bank challenged that decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that it was not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

The Supreme Court rejected the bank’s argument. The Court held that neither the exemption for commercial confidence nor that for personal information justified withholding the documents from the bank’s member. It clarified that a request from an unrelated third party might warrant a different consideration. The Court directed the Joint Registrar to obtain both documents and provide them to the member within two weeks.

Key words/phrases: Right to Information Act, 2005—Section 2(f)—Co-operative bank records—Statutory access by Registrar—Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j)—Disclosure to member

Read the Judgement here.

*********

Withdrawal of Approval on Corporate Resolution Plan

Bank of India v S.M. Kamal Pasha

26 October 2026 

Citations: 2026 INSC 1154 | 2026 SCO.LR 11(1)[2]

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

The Supreme Court held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) cannot withdraw its approval of a resolution plan once it has approved it and submitted it under Section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). 

The appellants—members of the CoC—filed an application to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 12A of IBC to withdraw their approval of the Resolution Plan (RP) under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). They explained that there was a delay in the implementation of the CIRP during which the Corporate Debtor’s cash balance grew significantly. Resultantly, the respondent—the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) stands to gain unfairly. The NCLT approved the withdrawal. The respondent moved the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), arguing that once the CoC approves and submits its resolution to NCLT, it cannot be withdrawn due to changes in financial status of the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT set aside the Order of NCLT. The appellants moved the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court upheld the NCLAT order, noting that the CoC has no jurisdiction to withdraw from its approval. Further, the Court held that Regulation 30A of the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016 restricts withdrawal by the CoC and must be read with Section 12A of the IBC. 

Key words/phrases: Committee of Creditors—Resolution plan—Application for withdrawal—Section 12A—Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code—Successful Resolution Applicant opposed—National Company Law Tribunal—Approved withdrawal—Appeal—National Company Law Appellate Tribunal—Set aside—Supreme Court—CoC cannot withdraw after approval—Regulation 30A—Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016—To be read with Section 12A of IBC. 

Read the Judgement here.

*********

Default Bail for Foreign Nationals under UAPA

Union of India v Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas

27 October 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 1160 | 2026 SCO.LR 11(1)[3]

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi

The Supreme Court held that the restriction on granting bail to foreign nationals under Section 43D(7) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) does not apply to foreign nationals who entered legally but subsequently overstayed their visas. It does not override the statutory right to default bail when the prosecution fails to complete its investigation within the prescribed period.

Mohamed Rifas, accused of conspiring to commit terrorist acts in Tamil Nadu, was granted default bail by a Sessions Court in July 2018 under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the prosecution failed to file its chargesheet within the statutory period. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation in 2019 and discovered that Rifas was allegedly a Sri Lankan national who had overstayed his visa. In 2022, an NIA Special Court cancelled his bail, a decision the Madras High Court later reversed in 2023. The Union government appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s judgement. It held that the prosecution had failed to establish that Rifas entered India illegally, as the subsequent FIR itself indicated that he had entered on a valid visa. The Court clarified that Section 43D(7) overrides only subsections (5) and (6) of Section 43D, leaving the right to default bail under Section 43D(2) intact.

Key words/phrases: UAPA offences—Sri Lankan national accused of terrorist conspiracy—Default bail granted due to delay in filing chargesheet—Subsequent discovery of alleged foreign nationality—NIA Special Court cancelled bail—Madras High Court restored bail—Supreme Court held that legal entry followed by visa overstay does not attract Section 43D(7)—Statutory right to default bail preserved—Union government’s appeal dismissed.

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Remission and Concurrent Life Sentences

Raju Shantaram Koli v State of Maharashtra 

27 October 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1161 | 2026 SCO.LR 11(1)[4]

Bench: Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli

The Supreme Court reiterated that separate life sentences awarded for different offences in a single trial cannot be directed to run consecutively. Remission or commutation of one does not ipso facto extend to the other. 

The appellant was convicted by a trial court in 2013 for the rape and murder of a 12 year old. Two separate life sentences were awarded for each offence, and directed to run consecutively. In 2016, this decision was affirmed by the Bombay High Court. A Division Bench then dismissed the appellant’s writ petition for concurrent sentences on the ground that it cannot review the decision of a coordinate bench. The appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.

The Supreme Court set aside the direction for sentences to run consecutively. Pointing out the impossibility of being imprisoned for the remainder of life more than once, it interpreted Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to exclude life sentences. Given the distinct nature of offences, remission/commutation will nonetheless need to be independently secured for each sentence.

Key words/phrases: Rape and murder of a 12 year old—Two consecutive life sentences awarded for each offence—Affirmed by High Court of Bombay—Division Bench dismissed writ for concurrent sentences—Special Leave Petition filed—Supreme Court amends direction for the sentences to run concurrently—Correct legal position laid down in Muthuramalingam v State (2016)—Irrationality of consecutive life sentences—Section 31, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 interpreted to exclude sentences for life.

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Consent Obtained Through Alleged Deceit

Santhosh Kumar N.P. v State-Station House Officer, Kadirur Police, Tellicherry, Kannur District

30 October 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 1179 | 2026 SCO.LR 11(1)[5]

Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court held that if a woman voluntarily continues to cohabit with a man after learning of his prior marriage, she cannot claim that her consent was obtained by deceit or misconception.

The respondent was married to the appellant for seven years. Five years after their relationship ended, she filed a complaint against him under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The complaint was dismissed. During the proceedings, the appellant disclosed that he was already married with two children, a fact that his brother had informed the respondent nine months after their wedding. She then filed a private complaint accusing the appellant of repeated rape (Section 376), cheating (Section 420) and cohabitation caused by deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage (Section 493) under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court’s refusal to discharge the appellant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was upheld by the Kerala High Court which noted sufficient material on record to constitute a prima facie case against him. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and discharged the appellant from all charges. It noted that a voluntary live-in arrangement with knowledge of the appellant’s marital status does not constitute rape or deceit. Further, Trial Courts cannot be mere mouthpieces of the prosecution and must evaluate the broad probabilities of the case at the discharge stage. 

Key words/phrases: Section 376 (rape), 420 (cheating) and 493 (cohabitation caused by deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage) under the Indian Penal Code, 1860—First marriage of the appellant disclosed to respondent nine months after their wedding—Domestic violence case dismissed—Trial Court refuses to discharge appellant—High Court upholds Trial Courts Order—Sufficient material to show prima facie case—Supreme Court sets aside both orders—Voluntary cohabitation with knowledge of marital status—Appellant discharged

Read the Judgement here.