SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 6 | Issue 2

Volume 6 Issue 2 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here! In this Issue, we shortlist five important judgements delivered last week, including bonus judgements from May 2026. 

They are: 

• Rehabilitation as a facet of Article 21
• Pension Rights of Temporary Status Workers
• Status of Individual Property under Section 8 of HSA
• Married Daughter as Dependent
• Minor’s Welfare under Section 8, HMGA

As always, the judgements are available in clean, reader-friendly format with no dense PDFs coming in the way of your research!

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 6 | Issue 2 

1 June – 5 June 2026

**********

Rehabilitation as a facet of Article 21

Prajwala v Union of India

29 May 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 609 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(2)[6]

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

The Supreme Court held that the victims of trafficking hold a fundamental right to rehabilitation under Articles 21 and 23. 

A Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) moved the Supreme Court in a writ petition highlighting the inadequacy of anti-trafficking laws in India. In 2015, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with directions in light of the Organised Crime Investigation Agency being set-up as a measure to frame anti-trafficking legislation. The appellants moved a miscellaneous application alleging non-compliance to 2015 directions. 

The Supreme Court acknowledged the scattered functions of the existing system and issued directions pertaining to Domestic Legal Framework on Human Trafficking and the Victim Protection Plan under Articles 32 and 142.

Keywords/Phrases: Writ petition—Human Trafficking—Directions issued—Petition disposed—Miscellaneous application—Right to rehabilitation—Articles 21 and 23—State measures held not reasonable—Victim Protection Plan framed under Articles 32 and 142.

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

**********

Pension Rights of Temporary Status Workers

Bhikani Devi v Union of India

1 June 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 612 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(2)[7]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and A.G. Masih 

The Supreme Court held that casual labourers granted temporary status cannot be denied pensionary benefits solely because they were never formally regularised. It held that pension is a constitutional right and a form of property protected under Article 300A.

The appellants were engaged as casual labourers and were granted temporary status under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991. A circular provided that employees who completed three years of service with temporary status would be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees. Despite having served for decades, the appellants were never formally regularised and were denied a pension upon retirement. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed their claims. The Patna High Court reversed the decision, holding that formal regularisation was a prerequisite for pension.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgement. It held that completion of three years of temporary status service entitled the appellants to the same pensionary benefits as temporary Group ‘D’ employees. This entitlement was not contingent on a formal regularisation order and could not be defeated by administrative inaction. The Court directed the release of all pensionary and family pension benefits.

Keywords/Phrases: Casual labourers — Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991—Temporary Status — Pension — Denial of Pension — Regularisation — Group ‘D’ Employees — Article 300A — Pension as Property 

Read the Judgement here. 

Mindmap

**********

Status of Individual Property under Section 8 of HSA

Darubai v Kamalabai

1 June 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 613 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(2)[8]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and A.G. Masih  

The Supreme Court held that when a Hindu male dies without a will, any property he owned will be divided among his own immediate heirs as personal or individual property, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It does not become a joint family property. 

Dajiba died intestate, leaving behind agricultural lands. He was survived by his four daughters, the respondents and his second wife, the appellant. Before a suit for partition was filed for the inherited property, Dajiba’s second wife sold part of the property to a third party. The appellant reasoned that the sale was necessitated by the marriage of one of the respondents and was executed in pursuance of her duties as the Karta of the family. A Civil Court ruled that the sale was invalid. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Civil Court. The Bombay High Court then upheld the Civil Court’s decree. The appellant approached the Supreme Court.  

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgement. It held that, since the disputed property was the intestate’s separate property, it devolved as the inheritors’ separate property and not as coparcenary property amenable to management by a Karta.  

Keywords/Phrases: Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Intestate succession—Karta—Intestate individual property not a coparcenary property—to be divided equally—High Court judgement upheld

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

**********

Married Daughter as Dependent

Kulsum Nisha v State of U.P.

2 June 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 617 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(2)[9]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

The Supreme Court held that married daughters cannot be excluded as beneficiaries to welfare schemes merely on the ground of their marital status. 

In 2024, the appellant filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amethi for the allotment of a fair-price shop, belonging to her deceased mother, in her capacity as a dependent.  The application was rejected on ground that the appellant is a married daughter, not a “dependent” under Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Order, 2016. The appellant challenged the decision in a writ petition at the Lucknow High Court, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant moved the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court decision, holding that exclusion of married daughters as dependents fails the test of reasonable classification, violating Articles 14 and 15(1). Further, the Court read “daughter” in the 2016 Order to include a married daughter who proves dependency and satisfies other conditions.

Keywords/Phrases: Essential Commodities Act 1955—Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Order, 2016—Application for allotment—Fair-price shop—Sub-Divisional Magistrate—Dependent quota—Married daughter excluded—Appeal at High Court—Dismissed—Civil appeal—Articles 14 and 15(1) violated—Exclusion overruled.

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

**********

Minor’s Welfare under Section 8, HMGA

Shephali Chakraborty v The State of West Bengal 

03 June 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 621 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(2)[10]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that judicial oversight under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 should be exercised with the welfare of the minor as a paramount consideration, as per the doctrine of parens patriae—the State takes care of those who cannot take care of themselves. 

Shephali Chakraborty sought permission under Section 8 of the HMGA to transfer her minor son’s property to a developer as per a Development Agreement. The District Court of Darjeeling denied the permission due to lack of “necessity”. The Calcutta High Court upheld the District Court’s decision. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court set aside the findings made by the District Court and the High Court. It granted the appellant permission to realise the Development Agreement.  It noted that a share in the built-up structure obtained under the Development Agreement would be in the best interests of the minor.  However, the Court clarified that its conclusion was not a proposition of law, and similar situations would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 

Keywords/Phrases: Parens Patriae — Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Development Agreement —Minors share to be transferred to Developer— Welfare of Minor — Best Interests of Minor

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap