SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 1 | Issue 3

Volume 1 Issue 3 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here! 

In this edition, we’ve rounded up five key judgements delivered by the Supreme Court from last week. Our picks cover issues relating to corporate social responsibility, maintenance rights for widowed daughters-in-law, guidelines for suicide prevention, scope of the Judges (Inquiry) Act and service tax. 

Our mind maps offer a quick snapshot of the decision. Don’t miss reading our reader-friendly versions of the judgements. Find these and more on our SCO.LR page which now hosts over 250 decisions.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 1 | Issue 3

12 January– 17 January 2026

**********

Disability as Matter of Corporate Social Responsibility

Sujata Bora v Coal India

13 January 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 53 | 2026 SCO.LR 1(3)[11]

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

The Supreme Court held that the rights of persons with disability must be a facet of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to achieve “true” equality at the workplace. 

In 2019, the appellant was selected for an interview for the post of Management Trainee at Coal India Limited (CIL) under the “Visually Handicapped” category. The appellant approached the Calcutta High Court after she was declared unfit on grounds of suffering from multiple disabilities—visual disability and residuary partial hemiparesis. The recruitment process had concluded by then. A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed her to participate in the recruitment process. In an appeal by CIL, a Division Bench set aside the judgement on account that the petition was filed after the recruitment process had concluded. The appellant approached the Supreme Court.  

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgement. It held that it would be unfair to deny employment to the appellant merely because the recruitment process had concluded and the panel had expired. The Court held that persons with disabilities have to be reasonably accommodated and viewed from the prism of CSR. The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 and directed CIL to post the appellant at North Eastern Coalfields Coal India.  

Keywords/Phrases: Disability–Rights-Employment–Corporate Social Responsibility—CSR to include disability rights as a facet—Visually Handicapped Candidate–Multiple Disabilities–Rejected at Internal Examination–Supreme Court directs employment—Article 142

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Maintenance for Widowed Daughter-in-Law

Kanchana Rai v Geeta Sharma 

13 January 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 54 | 2026 SCO.LR 1(3)[12]

Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V. Bhatti

The Supreme Court held that denying maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law from the estate of her deceased father-in-law would offend her right to live with dignity. 

Geeta Sharma sought maintenance from Dr. Mahendra Prasad’s estate under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956 (HAMA). The South-East Delhi Family Court dismissed her petition, reasoning that she did not qualify as a dependant under Section 21(vii) of the HAMA as she became a widow after Prasad’s death. The Delhi High Court set aside that order, directing the Family Court to decide the claim on merits. Prasad’s family members approached the Supreme Court.  

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view. The Supreme Court held that the phrase “any widow of his son” used in Section 21(vii) includes a widowed daughter-in-law irrespective of the time she becomes a widow, so long as she does not re-marry. 

Key words/phrases: Maintenance under Section 22—Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—dependent under Section 21(vii)—”Any widow of his son” cannot be restricted to widow of his predeceased son—denial of maintenance violatesArticles 14 and 21—guaranteeing equality and dignity—Timing of widowhood is irrelevant to qualify as dependant

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Guidelines on Student Suicide Prevention

Amit Kumar v Union of India

15 January 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 62 | 2026 SCO.LR 1(3)[13]

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court issued directions to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to address high rates of student suicides across the country. The directions were based on recommendations made by a National Task Force (NTF) constituted by the Court last year.

In March 2025, the Supreme Court directed the Delhi Police to register FIRs in the deaths of two IIT Delhi students. Family members alleged caste-based discrimination by the faculty and staff. The Court had set up a NTF led by former Supreme Court Judge S. Ravindra Bhat after noting the “disturbing pattern” of student suicides.

The Supreme Court reiterated that HEIs must mandatorily report all student suicides or unnatural deaths to the police. It mandated disbursement of all pending scholarship dues within four months. It observed that these suicides are not solely a mental and public health concern but may occur due to social, economic and other factors. It remarked that a myopic focus on quantitative expansion of higher education in India has resulted in shortcomings in provision of qualitative support systems for students. 

Key words/phrases: Student suicides—guidelines for Higher Education Institutions—role of HEIs—national task force—registeration of FIR for investigating student suicides

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Joint Committee under Judges (Inquiry) Act 

X v Speaker of the House of the People 

16 January 2026 

Citations: 2026 INSC 65 | 2026 SCO.LR 1(3)[14] 

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma

The Supreme Court held that a Joint Committee of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha can be constituted only p if the motion for the removal of a judge, filed on the same day, is admitted by both houses under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

On 21 July 2025, members of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha filed motions for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, Allahabad High Court, after burnt currency notes were allegedly discovered in his official residence in Delhi. While the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejected the motion, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha admitted it and proceeded to set up a three-member committee. Justice Varma approached the Supreme Court, contending that the Speaker’s action was unlawful and that Section 3(2) mandates the constitution of a Joint Committee when a motion is filed on the same day. 

Rejecting the challenge, the Supreme Court held that the mere act of filing notices in both Houses on the same day does not mandate a Joint Committee if one House refuses to admit the motion. It further clarified that where one House admits the motion and the other rejects it, the Presiding Officer of the House that admitted the motion retains the independent authority to constitute a three-member Committee.

Key words/phrases: Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968—motion for removal of a judge filed on the same day—joint committee—only when admitted in both houses—Presiding officer can set up committee if one house rejects motion 

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Scope “Service” for Taxation Under Finance Act, 1994

HT Media v Principal Commissioner Delhi South Goods And Service Tax

 16 January 2026

 Citation: 2026 INSC 66| 2026 SCO.LR 1(3)[15]

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

The Supreme Court held that contracts for booking guest speakers for an event do not amount to “event management service” under the Finance Act, 1994. Further, laying down the modalities of their participation does not constitute planning, promotion, organisation or presentation of an event within the meaning of the statutory definition.

HT Media organised the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit and entered into contracts with overseas booking agencies to secure the participation of international speakers. Show cause notices were issued proposing levy of service tax by classifying the payments made to the booking agencies as event management service under Section 65(105)(zu) read with Sections 65 (40) and 65 (41) of the Finance Act, for the period from October 2009 to March 2012, by invoking the extended period of limitation on the allegation of suppression. The Commissioner confirmed the demand. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, set aside the invocation of the extended period of limitation but sustained the demand for the normal period.

The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s order. It held that the tenor of the contracts showed that the booking agents were engaged only to secure speakers for the event and not to manage the event itself. The Court noted that participation in an event cannot be equated with management of the event. It observed that taxing provisions must be construed strictly and the statutory definition of event management service could not be extended to cover contracts for booking speakers.

Keywords/phrases: Finance Act 1994–Section 65(40)–Section 65(41)–Section 65(105)(zu)–event management service–booking of speakers–contracts for securing participation–participation in event not management of event–service tax liability–strict interpretation of taxing statute–CESTAT order set aside-appeal allowed

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP