SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 3 | Issue 5

Volume 3 Issue 5 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports is here!

In this Issue, we have shortlisted five unmissable judgements from 23 March to 27 March regarding; 

• consideration of reserved category candidates in general category merit list, 
• permanent commission for women officers in the armed forces,
• Scheduled Caste status for persons who converted to Christianity,
• value of fiscal liability as a ground for denying compensation, and
• need for fresh trial in case of technical defect

Access the full text of the judgements on our SCO.LR page, with assistive mindmaps and citation features.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 3 | Issue 5

23 March –  27 March 2026

*********

Consideration of Reserved Category Candidates under General Category

Chaya v State of Maharashtra 

23 March 2026 

Citations: 2026 INSC 277 | 2026 SCO.LR 3(5)[21]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

The Supreme Court held that relaxation granted to reserved category candidates in a qualifying examination merely creates a level playing field where no concession or relaxation is granted in the ultimate selection. 

The appellants were candidates from the reserved category. They wrote the Teacher’s Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT) and scored higher in merit than the highest scoring general category candidate. Their name was excluded from the final merit list on the grounds that they had applied for relaxation in the qualifying marks in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). The TET enables the candidates to participate in the main examination i.e. the TAIT. A writ petition against the merit list was dismissed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The appellants approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the High Court and directed that the appellant candidates be included in the merit list. It stated that there was no express prohibition in the Recruitment Rules. Further, the relaxation in the qualifying criteria only affects eligibility and such relaxation was not made available in the TAIT examination, where the merit was evaluated at par with the general category. 

Key words/phrases: Reserved category candidates—Teacher’s Eligibility Test—Qualifying criteria relaxed—No relaxation in Teacher’s Aptitude and Intelligence Test—Relaxation in qualifying criteria only to create level playing field—No concession in ultimate selection criteria—High Court judgement dismissed

Read the Judgement here. 

MIND MAP

*********

Permanent Commission for Women Officers in Armed Forces

Sucheta EDN v Union of India

24 March 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 280 | 2026 SCO.LR 3(5)[22]

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that women serving as Short Service Commission (SSC) officers cannot be denied Permanent Commission (PC) after qualifying eligibility. 

The appellants, women SSC officers in the armed forces, approached the Principle Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) at New Delhi, arguing that they were denied PC even after the Selection Board declared them eligible. Relying on the Ministry of Defence v Babita Puniya (2020), they argued that they should be appointed to the PC “on the same terms and criteria as their male counterparts”. The AFT dismissed their application. It held that the officers had lower comparative merit and that their evaluation was conducted without any bias. The appellants challenged the orders of the AFT in the Supreme Court.  

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the AFT. It noted that the inclusion of SSC women officers as PC is not a matter of discretion but of constitutional obligation. The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to grant PC to the appellants alongside pension and all consequential benefits, as a one-time measure, to officers who completed 20 years of service. 

Key words/phrases: Women officers—Armed Forces—Short Service Commission—Demand—Permanent Commission—Ministry of Defence v Babita Puniya—Plea dismissed by Armed Forces Tribunal—Supreme Court Civil Appeal—Challenging lower comparative merit—PC matter of constitutional obligation—AFT order set aside. 

Read the Judgement here. 

MIND MAP

**********

Scheduled Caste Status of Persons Professing Christianity

Chinthada Anand v State of Andhra Pradesh

24 March 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 283 | 2026 SCO.LR 3(5)[23]

Bench: Justices P.K. Mishra and Manmohan

The Supreme Court held that persons who convert to religions other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism lose their Scheduled Caste status under Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. 

The appellant, a Christian Pastor, originally from the Madiga community in Andhra Pradesh, alleged caste-based abuse, assault and criminal intimidation by upper-caste persons. An FIR was registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was quashed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court after the accused contended that the appellant could not invoke the SC/ST Act while professing Christianity.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgement. It held that the appellant lost his Scheduled Caste status upon conversion and could not claim protection under the SC/ST Act. It upheld the quashing of IPC charges, finding that witness statements did not corroborate the allegations of assault, restraint or intimidation.

Key words/phrases: Clause 3 of the  Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950—Scheduled Caste status only for persons professing Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism—No protection under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989–Conversion to Christianity results in immediate loss of Scheduled Caste status—High Court judgement upheld

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Value of Fiscal Liability as Ground for Denying Compensation 

National Highways Authority of India v Tarsem Singh 

25 March 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 291 | 2026 SCO.LR 3(5)[24]

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court held that fiscal implications of compensation cannot override the substantive entitlement of persons whose land was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India.

A 1997 amendment to the National Highways Act, 1956 denied compensation for the land acquired by the NHAI. In 2015, a notification extended the applicability of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 to the NHAI acquisitions. The Court in Tarsem Singh-I declared the 1997 amendment unconstitutional and directed the payment of solatium and interest for acquisitions made between 1997 to 2015. The NHAI filed a plea seeking a clarification on the prospective application of the judgement stating that the liability amounted to Rs. 100 crores. This was dismissed by the Court. NHAI then sought a review of the judgement stating that the estimated liability was not Rs. 100 crores but was in fact Rs. 29,000 crore. They justified the reconsideration stating that this was an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court dismissed the review. It held that the value of the fiscal liability is not a valid ground for review. It added that the constitutional right for just compensation cannot be contingent on the magnitude of the financial burden. 

Key words/phrases: National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)—1997 amendment denied compensation to land owners—Tarsem Singh I declared amendment unconstitutional—Clarification seeking prospective application dismissed—Review petition by NHAI—High financial liability—Not a ground for review 

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Fresh Trial in Case of Technical Defect

Sandeep Yadav v Satish 

25 March 2026 

Citation: 2026 INSC 301 | 2026 SCO.LR 3(5)[25]

Bench: Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court held that a mere technical defect in the formal framing and signing of charges does not vitiate a trial. It emphasised the importance of substantial compliance with the requirements of law over slavish adherence to technical formalities. 

In March 2009, a trial court recorded that a chargesheet was “typed” in a case where nine people were accused of shooting the appellant’s father. The chargesheet lacked the signature of one accused person. After recording the charges in presence of all accused, the trial court proceeded with the examination of the accused persons. 14 years later, the Court framed a fresh chargesheet with all the signatures and continued the trial. The Allahabad High Court quashed the order and directed a fresh trial to be conducted de novo from the framing of charge stage. The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order. It directed the trial to proceed from the stage of examination of the accused. It held that the defect was merely a procedural irregularity and not a fatal illegality which required a fresh trial.  

Key words/phrases: Allegation of murder—formal charge—sheet typed and read but not signed by all—trial proceeds—14 years later a fresh charge-sheet is framed to cure the defect—High Court directs for de novo trial—Supreme Court restores trial—defect merely procedural not substantive.

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP