SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 5 | Issue 4

Volume 5 Issue 4 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here. In this Issue, we shortlist five judgements of the Supreme Court from last week covering:

• Grounds of bail under UAPA
• Public safety and animal welfare
• Re-enactment of crime under Article 20
• Cognisance of complaint under PMLA 
• Arbitrariness in regularisation of contract workers 

Find more well-formatted judgements with summaries, assistive mindmaps and citation features on our SCO.LR landing page.

********** 

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 5 | Issue 4 

17 May –  22 May 2026 

********

Prolonged Incarceration as Grounds for Bail under UAPA

Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v National Investigation Agency, Jammu

18 May 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 503 | 2026 SCO.LR 5(4)[16]

Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court held that the statutory embargo restricting bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) must be subject to liberty granted under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution.  “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception” is applicable under UAPA too. Bail can be denied based on the facts of the case.

Andrabi, a government servant at Kupwara, was arrested in June 2020 after heroin and cash was discovered in an intercepted vehicle bound to Handwara. The NIA alleged narco-terror links with operatives across the border and registered a chargesheeted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, UAPA and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. His bail plea was rejected by a Special NIA Court in August 2024 and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in August 2025. By then he had spent over five years and eleven months in custody.

The Supreme Court granted bail to Andrabi. It held that the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench decision in Union of India v K.A. Najeeb (2021) “will apply with full force” and bail under UAPA can be granted on grounds of prolonged incarceration, gross delay in conclusion of trial, and the absence of any realistic possibility of the trial concluding in the near future. 

Key words/phrases: Prolonged custody of UAPA accused—Special NIA Court rejected bail—Bail rejected by High Court—Narco-terror links—Supreme Court grants bail—Five years 11 month long custody—Union of India v K.A. Najeeb (2021)—prolonged incarceration as grounds of bail under UAPA—Article 21

Read the Judgement here. 

Mindmap

**********

Balancing Public Safety and Animal Welfare

In re: “City hounded by strays kid pay price” 

19 May 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 506 | 2026 SCO.LR 5(4)[17]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V Anjaria 

The Supreme Court held that the State’s obligation to protect life and safety under Article 21 prevails over ordinary statutory animal welfare regulations. It held that the balance must tilt in favour of preserving human life and safety.

On 28 July 2025, the Court took suo motu cognisance following media reports highlighting a rise in dog-bite incidents across the country.  On 11 August 2025, the Court issued interim directions concerning the management of stray animals in public and sensitive spaces. Animal welfare groups challenged the directions, particularly concerning relocation and a restriction on re-releasing dogs after sterilisation. The matter was placed before a new Bench which considered the scope and implementation of its earlier directions.

The Supreme Court held that the State bears an “affirmative, non-negotiable and continuing duty” to protect citizens from preventable threats to life and safety. The Bench held that stray dogs in institutional areas such as schools, hospitals and transport hubs cannot be re-released after sterilisation.

Key words/phrases: Suo Motu Cognisance—Rising Stray Dog Attacks—Dog-Bite Incidents—Administrative Inaction— Interim Relocation Directions — Challenges by Animal Welfare Groups — Right to Life and Safety — Article 21 — Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023

Read the Judgement here. 

Mindmap

*********

Re-enactment of Crime under Article 20 

State of Tamil Nadu v Ponnusamy 

19 May 2026 

Citations: 2026 INSC 507 | 2026 SCO.LR 5(4)[18]

Bench: Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.C. Sharma

The Supreme Court held that a broad re-enactment of a crime scene by an accused does not per se amount to testimonial compulsion or self incrimination under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 

The respondents were accused of the murder of a doctor working in Chennai owing to disputes over ownership of a land parcel. Consequently, the accused were charged under Sections 120-B, 109, 341, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The accused were convicted by the Trial Court. The Madras High Court set aside the conviction based on a re-enactment of the occurrence by the accused to the investigative agency. The Court held that this was inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and against the right to self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The State approached the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court held that re-enactment of occurrences is not invalid since it is not based on personal testimony and is merely used for the purpose of identification of the accused. Further, the Court held that re-enactment does not constitute direct form of evidence and only has corroborative value. 

Key words/phrases: Conspiracy—Murder—Trial Court convicted—Conviction based on re-enactment of evidents—Self-incrimination—Article 20(3)—Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act—High Court set aside—Criminal appeal—Re-enactment not personal testimony—Not direct evidence—Only corroborative value. 

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

 

***********

Cognisance of Complaint under PMLA

Parvinder Singh v Directorate of Enforcement

19 May 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 519 | 2026 SCO.LR 5 (4)[19]

Bench: Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that cognisance under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot be taken without hearing the accused under the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). An order taking cognisance without complying with the proviso would be void ab initio.

An Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered against the appellant in July 2023. He was arrested in April 2024. A prosecution complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA was filed before the Special Court on 24 June 2024. The Special Court registered the complaint as a miscellaneous case and took cognisance on 2 July 2024 after the BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024. The appellant challenged the cognisance order contending that he was not heard before cognizance was taken under Section 223(1) of the BNSS. The Special Court dismissed the application. The High Court of Uttarakhand upheld the cognisance order holding that proceedings initiated before commencement of the BNSS would continue under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) under Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS. The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the High Court and the cognisance order passed by the Special Court. It held that Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS apply to proceedings under the PMLA and that mere registration of the complaint before commencement of the BNSS would not amount to an “inquiry” under Section 2(1)(k). Since cognisance was taken after the BNSS came into force, the Court observed that the appellant was entitled to a hearing before the Special Court.

Keywords/phrases: Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023—Special Court—Cognisance—Complaint under Section 44—Opportunity of hearing before cognizance—Section 223(1) BNSS—Fair trial—Article 21—Inquiry under Section 2(1)(k)—Cognisance order set aside

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

 

***********

Arbitrariness in Regularisation of Contract Workers

Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v State of Assam

21 May 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 523 | 2026 SCO.LR 5(4)[20]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

 

The Supreme Court held that denial of regularisation benefits to contract workers who are situated identically to regular employees violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 

In 1995, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam issued an Office Memorandum (OM), regularising muster roll workers engaged in service prior to 1 April 1993. In 2005, the State Cabinet issued an Order in compliance, creating over 30,000 posts for regularisation. A large number of muster roll workers were left out due to clerical lapses and omissions. Subsequently, vide OM dated 12 June 2012, it was decided that no further regularisation would be undertaken. The appellants challenged the validity of the 2012 OM before the Gauhati High Court, where the Single Judge quashed the OM and allowed regularisation. The respondent challenged the Order before a Division Bench. Consequently, in 2017, the Division Bench set aside the Order. The appellants moved the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court set aside the Order of the Division Bench, holding that once a benefit is conferred upon a particular class, the State cannot arbitrarily deny the benefit to similarly placed but left out workers since this would treat equals unequally under Article 14. 

Keywords/phrases: Muster roll workers—Office Memorandum (OM)—Regularisation of workers—30,000 posts—Clarical errors—Workers left out—2012 OM—No further regularisation—Challenge before Single Bench—OM set aside—Appeal—Division Bench—Single Judge Order set aside—Civil appeal—Division Bench Order set aside—OM violates Article 14. 

Read the Judgement here. 

Mindmap