SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 2 | Issue 1

Volume 2 Issue 1 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here!

In this edition, we have picked five judgements relating to environmental compensation, menstrual health and the right to education, application for extension of time for arbitral award, regulatory framework for stem cell research and action against public servants under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Our mindmaps provide a quick summary of the judgements, alongside well-formatted, reader-friendly rendition of the judgements. Visit our SCO.LR page to access all previous issues.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 2 | Issue 1

26 – 31 January 2026

**********

Scope of Section 175(4) under BNSS, 2023

XXX v State of Kerala 

27 January 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 88 | 2026 SCO.LR 2(1)[1]

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan

The Supreme Court held that Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which deals with complaints against public servants, is not a stand-alone provision and must be read in conjunction with Section 175(3). A Magistrate receiving a complaint under Section 175(4) must ensure it is supported by a written affidavit, as mandated under Section 175(3). In the absence of such an affidavit, a complainant cannot approach a Magistrate.

The appellant alleged sexual assault by three police officers on separate occasions during the course of a property dispute investigation at her residence. She filed a complaint under Section 175(4) of the BNSS, which obligates a Magistrate to order an investigation against a public servant for acts committed during the discharge of official duties. This is hinged upon receipt of  a report detailing the facts and circumstances of the incident from a superior officer. She subsequently approached the Kerala High Court, arguing that the procedural requirements of Section 175(4) were inapplicable as the police officers were not acting in the discharge of their official duties. A Single Judge agreed, observing that the offence of rape could not be committed by a public servant in the discharge of official duties. However, a Division Bench set aside this order, ruling that the Single Judge should not have intervened when a complaint was already pending before a Magistrate under Section 175(4). Aggrieved, the appellant moved the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s judgement, holding that the Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction since the Magistrate had already initiated the process. The Court directed the Magistrate to ensure the complainant’s application is supported by the statutorily mandatory affidavit before proceeding with any further inquiry.

Keywords/phrases: Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—discharge of official duties—scope of Section 175(4)—requirement of an affidavit by complainant in complaints against public servants—High Court cannot intervene once JMFC has begun process under Section 175(4)

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Power of High Courts in Granting Extension under Arbitration Act

Jagdeep Chowgule v Seema Chowgule

29 January 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 92 | 2026 SCO.LR 2(1)[2]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court held that an application for extension of time for making an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed before the “Court” as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. The mere fact that an arbitrator was appointed by a High Court does not confer jurisdiction on it to entertain applications under Section 29A.

Arbitration proceedings were invoked in a family dispute between Jagdeep Chowgule and Sheela Chowgule. An application seeking extension of time was filed before the Commercial Court. Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act. The parties challenged the order of the Commercial Court which extended the mandate of the tribunal. The Bombay High Court held that only the High Court may grant extensions since the arbitrator was appointed by them.

The Supreme Court set aside the Judgement of the High Court. The Court held that the High Court becomes functus officio after appointing an arbitrator. Matters relating to the continuation of the arbitral proceedings, including extension of time under Section 29A, fall within the jurisdiction of the “Court” as defined under Section 2(1)(e). The Court restored the Order of the Commercial Court and observed that it had original jurisdiction to entertain the Section 29A application.

Keywords/phrases: Section 29A Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—extension of time—arbitral award—Section 2(1)(e) definition of Court—Section 11—appointment of arbitrator—High Court—functus officio after appointment—Commercial Court has original jurisdiction—High Court order set aside

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Regulatory Framework for Stem Cell Research      

Yash Charitable Trust v Union of India 

30 January 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 96 | 2026 SCO.LR(2)(1)[3]

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

The Supreme Court held that a voluntary option to undergo a medical procedure does not constitute a valid consent if it is based on inadequate information. It held that offering unproven therapy fails the standard of care owed by medical professionals.

The Supreme Court heard a writ petition challenging the administration of stem cell therapy for treating Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Petitioners argued that the therapy has an experimental status and allegedly violates the regulatory framework—the New Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules, 2019 promulgated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940  and the National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research, 2017. The Union and the National Medical Commission relied on expert recommendations concluding that the therapy lacked proven efficacy and should not be offered as standard treatment. Clinics argued that stem cell therapy does not fall within the definition of “drug” as it involves autologous procedures—performed using the patients’ own cells.

The Court held that stem cell therapy for ASD cannot continue as a commercial endeavour. One would have the liberty to participate in an approved and regulated research/clinical trial. The Court suggested a Pan-Indian Authority for regulating stem cell therapy research and enacting legislation. The Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was directed to re-route patients already undergoing therapy to clinical trials within four weeks.

Keywords/phrases: Public interest litigation against stem cell therapy for ASD—Stem cell use outside clinical trials held unethical—Stem cells fall within the purview of “drugs” as ‘substances’ under Section 3(b)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940—Violation of New Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules, 2019 and National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research, 2017—Union urged to enact legislation and establish a dedicated authority. 

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Menstrual Health as a Facet of Right to Life

Dr. Jaya Thakur v Government of India

30 January 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 97 | 2026 SCO.LR (2)[1][4]

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

The Supreme Court held that menstrual health is an aspect of right to life and the right to free and compulsory education under Article 21 and 21A respectively.

Dr. Jaya Thakur filed a writ petition under Article 32 requesting the Court to direct all states and union territories to provide free sanitary pads and separate toilet facilities for girls studying from 6th to 12th standards. Other demands concerned sensitization programs on menstrual health. The petition cited staggering drop-out rates and absenteeism among menstruating school girls.

The Supreme Court held that although the right to education is a non-derogable right, it loses its spirit due to lack of affirmative action to “barrier-free” access for menstruating girls. Further, the Court issued directions, in a continuing mandamus, for all States and Union Territories to ensure availability of toilets and menstrual absorbents while directing strict compliance within a period of three months.

Keywords/Phrases: Article 32—Menstruation as barrier to education—Drop-out and absenteeism—Lack of affirmative action—Menstrual hygiene and health—Substantive equality—Menstrual hygiene as right under Article 21 and 21A—Prayer granted. 

Read the judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Turnover as a Metric for Environmental Compensation

Rhythm County v Satish Sanjay Hegde

30 January 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 102 | 2026 SCO.LR 2(1)[5]

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi

The Supreme Court held that project cost and turnover can be taken as a metric for determination of environmental compensation. It emphasised that powers conferred upon the National Green Tribunal (NGT) are wide, flexible and principle-oriented by legislative design.

The appeals arose from disposal of two original applications by the NGT, Pune. In both cases, local residents alleged that the appellant companies had exceeded the bounds of environmental clearance (EC) that was granted to them. Joint Committees were constituted to determine facts, and in both cases established the alleged violations. Acting upon the Committees’ recommendations, the NGT quantified compensation in a manner commensurate to the scale and impact of the projects in question.

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals and upheld the compensation imposed by the NGT. It noted that the compensation barely extended to 1.49 per cent of the project cost, reminding that Goel Ganga Developers v Union of India had laid down that the outer limit of damages could extend up to 5 per cent. Additionally, the Court observed that linking scale to impact sends a crucial message to bigger players. It clarified that turnover is not a universal and inflexible metric but rather one permissible indicium and may be applied depending on the facts of the case.

Keywords/phrases: National Green Tribunal—Calculation of Environmental Compensation—Metric of turnover challenged—Polluter pays principle—Goel Ganga Developers v Union of India—NGT wide and flexible powers by legislative design—appeals dismissed.

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP