SCO.LR 2026 | Volume 1 | Issue 4

Happy Republic Day! Volume 1 Issue 4 of SCO.LR is here!

In this Issue, we picked five important judgements from last week. They deal with recruitment rules, matrimonial litigation, compensatory allowances under the Factories Act, operation of delegated legislations and presumption of genuineness in registered sales deeds. 

Read them all on our dedicated SCO.LR page. Just click on the cause title and access our mind maps and HTML versions of our judgements.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 1 | Issue 4

19 – 24 January 2026

**********

Applicability of AICTE Regulations on State Rules

Gujarat Public Service Commission v Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah

19 January 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 70 | 2026 SCO.LR 1(4)[16]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

The Supreme Court held that a candidate having participated in the process of selection, without protest, cannot challenge the Rules after being declared unsuccessful.

A candidate had failed to meet the cut off criteria for the post of Professor (Plastic Engineer). She challenged the appointment process conducted under the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012 arguing that it was contrary to the All India Council for Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012 (AICTE Regulations). A Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition stating that the candidate had participated in the process without any protest. A Division Bench set aside the Order stating that the AICTE regulations govern direct recruitment and directed a fresh round for the candidate.

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgement. It held that the AICTE regulations are applicable for the advancement of incumbent teachers who are already embedded within the academic system. The Court held that AICTE Regulations and State Rules operate in a different field. AICTE Regulations do not apply to the process of direct recruitment under the State Rules. Therefore, the question of one superseding the other does not arise. The Court upheld the recruitment process.

Keywords/phrases: All India Council for Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012—Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012—State rules not contrary to AICTE Regulations—operate in a different field—candidate cannot challenge recruitment after declared unsuccessful

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Limits of Matrimonial Litigation

Neha Lal v Abhishek Kumar 

20 January  2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 73 | 2026 SCO.LR 1(4)[17]

Bench: Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan

The Supreme Court held that a marriage can be dissolved under Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown even without mutual consent to prevent prolonged and abusive matrimonial litigation from clogging the judicial system.

Parties to the proceeding were a married couple who shared residence for only 65 days after which they lived separately for over a decade. They filed more than 40 cases against each other in various courts, including maintenance applications, domestic violence charges, criminal complaints, execution petitions and perjury applications. The trial courts had disposed of several proceedings while many remained pending. A transfer petition before the Supreme Court triggered an application by the wife under Article 142 seeking dissolution of marriage. Mediation attempts failed and the husband opposed divorce, alleging harassment and perjury.

The Court dissolved the marriage despite lack of mutual consent. It terminated all pending matrimonial proceedings except perjury-related cases, and imposed ₹10000 as costs on each of the parties payable to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.

Keywords/phrases: Irretrievable breakdown of marriage—More than 40 cases filed—Application under Article 142—No consent from husband—Marriage dissolved in interest of complete justice—No alimony claimed by wife—All previous claims settled—Perjury proceedings to continue—All other pending cases disposed of—Costs imposed on both parties. 

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Compensatory Allowance in Calculation of Overtime Wage

Union of India v Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees’ Union

20 January 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 74 | 2026 SCO.LR 1(4)[18]

Bench: Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan

The Supreme Court held that compensatory allowances fall within the definition of “ordinary rate of wages” and must be included in calculation of overtime wage under Section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948. It clarified that government ministries have no power to read exclusions into the statutory provision and upheld a liberal interpretation of the beneficial legislation.

Through multiple letters and Office Memorandums, different government ministries had asserted that Section 59(2) should exclude compensatory allowance from the calculation of overtime wage. In 2010, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed applications that challenged this interpretation. In 2011, the Madras High Court ruled in favour of the petitioners with a plain and simple reading of the statute. The Union appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that calculations based on differing allowances would lead to disparity between employees. The petitioners argued that exclusion of allowances by some ministries is not permissible as it will lead to disparity of application of law in different establishments.

The Supreme Court held that government ministries had no power to issue clarifications on provisions. Further, an interpretation curtailing  benefits to workers must be avoided. It upheld the High Court decision and dismissed the appeals.

Keywords/phrases: Section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948—Calculation of overtime wage—Exclusion by different ministries—No power to determine interpretation of provision—plain reading of statute—inclusion of compensatory allowance in overtime wage—beneficial legislation.

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Date of Operation of Delegated Legislations

Viraj Impex v Union of India

21 January 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 80 | 2026 SCO.LR1(4)[19]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe 

The Supreme Court held that strict compliance with publication requirements is an indispensable condition precedent for the enforceability of delegated legislation. It emphasised that publication in the Official Gazette is not an empty formality but rather an act by which executive decisions are transformed into law. 

In 2018, the Delhi High Court had dismissed writ petitions challenging a Union notification which introduced Minimum Import Price (MIP) for specific steel products. The central issue pertained to when the notification would take effect. The appellants contended that it was 11 February 2016, the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. The Union argued that it was 5 February, the date on which it was uploaded on the ministry website.

The Supreme Court held that the appellants were exempt from the MIP for transactions that took place before 11 February. The Court held that for a law to be binding, it must first be known to the public in a manner specified by the legislature. On a plain reading of the parent statute, the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, it found that the mode of publication was not left to executive discretion.

Keyphrases/words: Date of notification—Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992—Publication in Official Gazette—date of operation of law—Dual purpose of accessibility and accountability—Natural justice principles—Exemption prior to date of publication.

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Presumption of Genuineness of Registered Sale Deed

 Hemlatha (D) by LRS. v Tukaram(D) by LRS

 22 January 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 82 | 2026 SCO.LR 1(4)[20]

 Bench: Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan

The Supreme Court held that a registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of validity and genuineness and cannot be casually disregarded as nominal or a sham. It clarified that registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act which imparts sanctity to the document and cannot be set aside in the absence of cogent pleadings and convincing evidence.

Tukaram had executed a registered sale deed in favour of Hemlatha for a consideration of Rs. 10,000, part of which was utilised to redeem an existing mortgage. On the same day, a registered rental agreement was executed under which Tukaram retained possession of the same property as a tenant. He paid rent for a period and admitted his liability to do so. However, after eviction proceedings were initiated, Tukaram instituted a suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed and rental agreement were nominal and a sham. He contended that the transaction was in substance a mortgage under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and  the First Appellate Court affirmed the decree. The Karnataka High Court reversed the concurrent findings and held that the transaction was not an outright sale.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgement and restored the decision of the First Appellate Court. It found that recitals in the registered sale deed clearly indicated an outright sale and did not embody any condition of reconveyance. The Court observed that dilution of the sanctity of registered documents encourages disputes founded on forgery and clever drafting. It recommended digitisation of registered documents and land records using secure and tamper-proof technologies such as blockchain, to prevent disputes relating to authenticity. The suit was dismissed and the registered sale deed was upheld as a genuine transaction.

Keywords/phrases: Registered sale deed—Presumption of validity and genuineness—Sham transaction—Sanctity of registration—Burden of proof—Section 58(c), Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Mortgage by conditional sale—Registered rental agreement—Payment of rent—Oral evidence—Section 92 of Evidence Act, 1872—Karnataka High Court—Digitisation of land records using tamper proof technology such as blockchain. 

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP