SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 4 | Issue 1

Volume 4 Issue 1 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports is here!

In this Issue we bring you five key judgements from last week. This includes concise summaries and mindmaps for decisions on;

• Public disclosure of a rape victim’s identity,
• Sanction to prosecute after cognisance of offence,
• Proof of documentary evidence in departmental enquiries,
• Violation of bail conditions, and
• Judicial review of blacklisting.

Visit our SCO.LR page to view the full-text of all judgements with a special feature that enables citation of specific paragraphs.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 4 | Issue 1

24 March –  4 April 2026

*********

Public Disclosure of a Rape Victim’s Identity

State of Himachal Pradesh v Hukum Chand Alias Monu

24 March 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 290 | 2026 SCO.LR 4(1)[1]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that a child’s testimony cannot be rendered unreliable due to minor inconsistencies and human lapses of memory that do not compromise the factum of the prosecution’s narrative.

A nine-year old girl from a Scheduled Caste family returned home from the shop with bloodstains on her clothes and informed her mother that she had been raped by their neighbour’s son. The boy was charged with Sections 376 (rape) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Trial Court convicted the boy on the basis of the victim’s testimony, corroborated by parents, the shopkeeper and medical evidence. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the boy citing inconsistencies in reporting timelines, prior quarrel between the families and late addition of the SC/ST Act charges. The victim’s family appealed to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgement and directed the accused to surrender and serve the Trial Court’s sentence. Disturbed by the public disclosure of the victim’s identity in this matter, the Bench directed that a copy of its judgement be sent to all High Courts mandating strict adherence to Section 228-A of the IPC which prohibits disclosure. 

Keywords/phrases: Sections 376 (rape) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code—Section 3(xii) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989—Convicted by Trial Court—High Court acquittal—Inconsistency in child victim’s testimony—Set aside by Supreme Court—Minor lapse does not affect factum of the case—Accused directed to serve Trial Court sentence—All High Courts directed to strictly avoid disclosure of victim’s identity. 

Read the Judgement here.

 MIND MAP

**********

Sanction to Prosecute After Cognisance of Offence

Samarendranath Nath Kundu v Sadhana Das

1 April 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 304 | 2026 SCO.LR 4(1)[2]

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

The Supreme Court held that a subsequent bar on sanction to prosecute a public servant under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C) does not invalidate cognisance already taken by the Court. 

The accused-appellant is a police officer who was implicated with others for the murder of the respondent’s husband during a lathi charge after violent clashes broke out on an election day. The Magistrate took cognisance and summoned the accused. One of the co-accused approached the Calcutta High Court contending that cognisance cannot be taken without sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that a charge of such gravity does not qualify for immunity under Section 197. When a criminal appeal by the co-accused was allowed in the Supreme Court, the respondent moved the High Court with a criminal revision petition. The High Court allowed the petition noting that the order of the Supreme Court applied only to one of the co-accused and not the accused-appellant in question. Consequently, the appellant moved the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the validity of the Court’s cognisance as it was taken on a date when there was no bar. It noted that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. which nullifies a valid cognizance order. 

Key words/phrases: Violent clashes on election day—Police officers lathi charge—Charged with murder of the respondent’s husband—Magistrate took cognisance—No sanction for prosecution—Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973—Supreme Court upholds validity of cognizance.

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Proof of Documentary Evidence in Departmental Enquiries

 Jai Prakash Saini v Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation

 1 April 2026

 Citations: 2026 INSC 305|2026 SCO.LR 4(1)[3]

 Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra

The Supreme Court held that a departmental inquiry stands vitiated if there is no leading evidence to justify the denial of charges.

The appellant, employed with the U.P. Cooperative Federation and posted as in-charge of a paddy procurement centre, was charge-sheeted for short delivery of paddy and embezzlement. He denied the charges. The enquiry proceeded on the basis of documentary material, but no witness was examined. When the enquiry resulted in his dismissal from service, the appellant challenged the dismissal and recovery on the ground that the enquiry violated the extant service rules and the principles of natural justice. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and recovery. It observed that a departmental charge-sheet is not a plaint and clarified that a witness would have to be examined to corroborate the documentary evidence. The employer was granted liberty to hold a de novo enquiry within six months, failing which the appellant would be entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and arrears of salary, subject to adjustment of suspension allowance.

Keywords/phrases: Departmental enquiry—Denial of charges—Burden to prove charges—Documentary evidence—Documents not admitted—Witness to prove documents—Cross-examination—Principles of natural justice—Vitiated enquiry—Dismissal and recovery set aside—De novo enquiry—Reinstatement with continuity in service.

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP

**********

Violation of Bail Conditions

Satinder Singh Bhasin v Government of NCT of Delhi

2 April 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 310 | 2026 SCO.LR 4(1)[4]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that the grant of bail is strictly contingent upon the bonafide and substantial fulfillment of bail conditions in both letter and spirit. It clarified that the unlawful sourcing of funds to satisfy a bail deposit constitutes a fundamental breach of trust and legal integrity.

Satinder Singh Bhasin, director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (BIIPL), faced approximately 190 FIRs alleging siphoning of funds and non-delivery of units in the ‘Grand Venice’ project. In 2019, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail under Article 32, on the condition that he deposit an amount of ₹50 crore to the Court Registry and make “genuine attempts” to settle investor claims. Allottees filed applications to cancel his bail, arguing that Bhasin used BIIPL’s money to pay for his deposit. This violated Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013 which mandates special resolution for such loans. 

The Supreme Court cancelled Bhasin’s bail and forfeited the entire deposit. It agreed with the respondents that the deposit of  ₹50 crore cannot be sustained without a special resolution. It noted that Bhasin’s conduct reflected no intention to settle pending investor claims as he had not provided any details on allottees and the project was not in a condition to be handed over. 

Key words/phrases: Bail—Real estate project—Siphoning of funds—Interim bail—Non-compliance with bail conditions—Unlawful sourcing of funds for bail deposit—Bail condition to be fulfilled in both letter and spirit .

Read the Judgement here. 

MIND MAP

**********

Judicial Review of Blacklisting

 A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v State of Jharkhand

2 April 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 312 | 2026 SCO.LR 4(1)[5]

Bench: P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe.

The Supreme Court held that distinct standards of legality, rationality, and proportionality must be applied when reviewing termination and blacklisting in government contracts. Blacklisting, being stigmatic and exclusionary, requires a specific show-cause notice and cannot follow mechanistically from termination.

The appellant, contracted by Jharkhand’s Drinking Water and Sanitation Department for construction of an Elevated Service Reservoir, faced action after the reservoir’s dome collapsed on 1 June 2024. Multi-level enquiries, drawing inputs from BIT Sindri and IITs, attributed the collapse to negligent construction. The Department issued a combined termination-cum-blacklisting order on 23 August 2024 under the Contractor Registration Rules 2012. The appellate authority and the Jharkhand High Court upheld the order.

The Supreme Court upheld the termination but set aside the blacklisting, holding that the show-cause notice failed to indicate the proposed blacklisting. Due to the passage of over 18 months, the Court moulded relief by directing that the blacklisting cease with immediate effect.

Key words/phrases: Contractor engaged by Jharkhand Drinking Water and Sanitation Department for ESR construction—Dome collapse on 1 June 2024—Enquiries confirm negligent construction—Termination-cum-blacklisting order—Appellate authority and Jharkhand High Court dismiss appeal—HC dismissed review—Supreme Court upheld termination—Blacklisting set aside for absence of specific show

Read the Judgement here.

MIND MAP