SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 10 | Issue 2

Volume 10 Issue 2 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here! In this issue, we have identified five of the most important judgements, including decisions on:

• Nature of Goods at Time of Taxable Event
• Personal Presentation of Election Petitions
• Regulation of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices
• Inter se Seniority of Public Service Employees
• “Personal law” under Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954

As always, SCO.LR judgements come with concise and accurate summaries, clean and well-formatted judgements with linking features for better readability and ease of research.

********** 

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 10 | Issue 2 

5 October – 9 October 2026 

**********

Nature of Goods at Time of Taxable Event

Addl. Commr. Commercial Tax v Cadila Health care

5 October 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1078 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(2)[6]

Bench: Justices Manmohan and Arun Palli

The Supreme Court held that the nature of a good is determined by its form at the time of taxable event and sale, and not by the manner in which it may later be consumed.

The respondents had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against a commercial tax order which classified “GRD Powder” and “GRD Mix” as “Non-Alcoholic Drinks and Beverages” under Entry 20(ii), Part IV, Schedule II of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994, attracting a 10 per cent tax. When the High Court held that the goods fall under the residuary entry and attract an eight per cent tax, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court decision and dismissed the appeal. It held that since the goods existed in the form of powder and biscuit at the time of taxable event, they cannot be considered ‘beverages’. It reiterated the principle of strict interpretation for taxing statutes and applied the rule of ejusdem generis to hold that beverages must be in liquid form.

Key words/phrases: ‘GRD powder’ and ‘GRD Mix’ classified as “beverages” under the MP commercial tax Act, 1994—Tax Commissioner’s order challenged before High Court of Madhya Pradesh—High Court classified goods under residuary entry—SLP filed before the Supreme Court—Rule of Strict Interpretation applied—Nature of goods to be determined at time of taxable event not consumption—Rule of Ejusdem Generis applied—Beverages must be in liquid form—Special Leave Petition dismissed. 

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Personal Presentation of Election Petitions

Pon. Paneerselvam v S. Regupathy

7 October 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1092 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(2)[7]

Bench: Justices P.K. Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar

The Supreme Court reiterated that an election petitioner must personally present the petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Non-compliance is incurable and mandates dismissal at the threshold.

Pon. Paneerselvam challenged S. Regupathy’s election from Tamil Nadu’s Thirumayam Assembly constituency in 2026, alleging that Regupathy had concealed his spouse’s assets. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was presented by his counsel. It relied on Rule 7 of the Madras High Court Election Petitions Rules, 1967, which requires personal presentation. Paneerselvam filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, claiming personal presentation on the basis of his entry pass and CCTV footage.

Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court found that the evidence only established Paneerselvam’s presence on the premises, not his personal presentation of the petition. It held that the High Court is empowered to authorise an officer to receive election petitions.

Key words/phrases: Election petition—Alleged concealment of spouse’s assets—Petition presented by counsel—Dismissed by Madras High Court for failure to present personally—SLP filed before the Supreme Court—Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951—Personal presentation required—High Court empowered to regulate receipt of election petitions—Rule 7 of the Madras High Court Election Petitions Rules, 1967 upheld—Non-compliance attracted mandatory dismissal

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Regulation of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices

Federation of Medical and Sales Representative Association v Union of India

8 October 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 1097 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(2)[8]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court directed the constitution of a three-member Committee to examine existing regulations on pharmaceutical marketing and their adequacy for curbing unethical practices. 

In 2021, the petitioner trade union approached the Supreme Court through Article 32 petition, seeking a binding statutory framework to curb unethical marketing and promotional practices adopted by pharmaceutical companies to influence the prescriptions of drugs. Referring to the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2015, the petitioners argued that the existing framework is in the nature of guidelines which lack binding statutory and regulatory mechanisms. In 2022, a High-Level Committee dismissed the need for a new statutory framework and recommended strengthening the existing code, which was then formulated as the UCPMP 2024. In 2026, the Union proposed the constitution of a three-member committee. 

The Supreme Court noted that while the matter falls in the legislative and executive domain, the Court cannot remain indifferent to a public health concern. Exercising its powers under Article 142, it directed that the Committee be constituted within two weeks and submit its final recommendation within two months of its meeting. 

Key words/phrases: Article 32—Statutory guidelines—Unethical marketing and promotional practices—Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)—Constitution of three-member committee—Time-bound Order—Article 142 to address a public health concern. 

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Inter se Seniority of Public Service Employees

M. Prema v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 INSC 1105 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(2)[9]

9 October 2026 

Bench: Justices S.V. Bhatti and Shree Chandrashekhar

The Supreme Court held that Government employees appointed in accordance with due procedure must rank senior to those who were appointed on a temporary or exceptional basis. Among the latter, seniority must be based on their date of regularisation.

Three different categories of recruits to the Tamil Nadu public services challenged the rules determining their inter se seniority. Direct Recruits contended that candidates selected through competitive examinations cannot rank below “back-door appointees”, particularly when their appointments were delayed due to occupation of posts by those hired on a temporary basis. Special appointees challenged the Special Absorption Rules, 1987 to seek recognition of their service pre-regularisation. Compassionate appointees relied on a 1984 executive order to be placed among Direct Recruits on the basis of their date of joining. The Madras High Court held that date of appointment may form the basis for determining seniority of Compassionate appointees but will not be considered for Special appointees who rank below other employees irrespective of their date of joining. 

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court decision regarding Special appointees but set aside the holding on Compassionate appointees as they form a separate class of exception to Articles 14 and 16. It found that delay in appointment of Direct Recruits was adequately explained and affirmed that the employer has a right to frame rules on seniority which cannot then be challenged merely to be framed differently. 

Key words/phrases: Dispute over seniority of public service employees—Special appointees hired on temporary basis—Direct Recruits appointed delayed due to occupation of posts—Madras High Court—Special appointees junior to Direct Recruits irrespective of date of appointment—Seniority between Compassionate appointees and Direct Recruits to be determined on the basis of date of appointment—Supreme Court upholds decision on Special appointees, sets aside decision on Compassionate appointees 

Read the Judgement here.

**********

“Personal law” under Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 

Sultan Singh v The Financial Commissioner Government of NCT of Delhi 

9 October 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 1107 | 2026 SCO.LR 10(2)[10]

Bench: Justices S.V. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria

The Supreme Court held that the expression “personal law applicable to her” in  the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 refers to the law in force on the date of the female Bhumidhar’s death (when succession opens). It does not refer to the law in force when the 1954 Act became operative or when the interest was originally inherited.

The Reversioners are male descendants from the family of a woman’s first marriage. She inherited a limited life estate when her first husband and son died. When the 1954 Act came into force, she was declared Bhumidhar and after enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 her limited interest was transformed into absolute ownership. Following her death in 1973, male descendants from her second marriage were granted mutation of the revenue records in their favour. The petitioners challenged the mutation, contending that the property reverted to the last male proprietor’s heir as per Section 50 of the 1954 Act. A single judge of the High Court ruled in their favour but this was set aside by the Division Bench which restored the mutation. The Reversioners appealed to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Division Bench decision. It held that while the acquisition of interest under the 1954 Act is in the past tense, the trigger point “dies” is in the simple present tense. Thus, the nature of the female Bhumidhar’s right must be evaluated under the personal law applicable on the exact date of her death.

Key words/phrases: Section 51—Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954—Inheritance of estate—Absolute ownership under Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Death of owner—Mutation of revenue records—Mutation challenged by male heirs of previous marriage—Property reverted to last male proprietor’s heir as per Delhi Land Reforms Act—Single judge rules in favour of male heirs—Division Bench set aside Single Judge judgement—Supreme Court appeal—“Personal law” in force at time of death—Division Bench judgement upheld

Read the Judgement here.