SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 6 | Issue 5

In this Issue, we shortlist five bonus judgements from May and June 2026

Volume 6 Issue 5 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here!

With the Supreme Court on Partial Working Days this month, we bring you four bonus judgements from May and one notable decision from June. They include:

• Correction of sentences below statutory minimum,
• Cancellation of recruitment on grounds of moral turpitude,
• Estoppel on Resolution Plans,
• Condoning delay in statutory appeals, and
• Effect of contravention under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Click here for concise and comprehensive summaries of all five decisions, along with assistive mindmaps and the full text of the judgements in HTML format. 

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 6 | Issue 4

Bonus Judgements from May and June 2026

**********

Imposition of Sentence Below Statutory Minimum

Karan Chettri v State of Sikkim

20 May 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 659 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(5)[21]

Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court held that a sentence below the statutory minimum is illegal. Raising it to the prescribed minimum is not barred by Section 386(b)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even in the accused’s own appeal.

The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing gang rape. They were sentenced only for 12 years rigorous imprisonment despite the provision mandating a minimum 20-year sentence. On appeal, the High Court of Sikkim confirmed the conviction and, in suo motu revision, raised the sentence to 20 years.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court corrected a patent illegality rather than enhancing a lawful sentence. It added that an accused gains no vested right to retain a sentence the law forbids. The appeals were dismissed.

Key words/phrases: Section 376D IPC—gang rape conviction—sentence below statutory minimum—appeal by the accused—bar under Section 386(b)(iii) CrPC—suo motu revisional correction—sentence enhanced to 20 years—appeals dismissed

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

********

Cancellation of Recruitment on Grounds of Moral Turpitude

Gajula Thirupathi v Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board

21 May 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 493 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(5)[22]

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan

The Supreme Court held that the selection of an employee cannot be cancelled on grounds of moral turpitude if the prosecution has led no evidence.

Provisionally selected as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable, the appellant disclosed criminal antecedents involving charges of cheating and fraud. When asked to show cause, he submitted that the case was compounded before a Lok Adalat. He approached the Telangana High Court after his explanation was rejected and selection cancelled. A Single Judge set aside the cancellation. The cancellation was later restored by the Division Bench.

The Supreme Court found the cancellation arbitrary and restored the Single Judge’s order. It held that the parties had settled the matter as consenting adults without placing any material to prove commission of the alleged offence. It clarified that a compromise is not an admission of guilt.

Key words/phrases: Provisional selection as Police Constable—past case disclosed under Sections 417, 420, 506 IPC—offence compounded before Lok Adalat—selection cancelled for moral turpitude—compromise treated as admission of guilt—no material proving the offence—cancellation held arbitrary—appeal allowed.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

********

Estoppel on Resolution Plans

Sanjay Dave v Andhra Bank

27 May 2026

Citation:  2026 INSC 580 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(5)[23]

Bench:  Justices K.V. Viswanathan and  V.M. Pancholi

The Supreme Court held that a corporate insolvency resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is binding and irrevocable. The applicant cannot withdraw from the plan after consenting to it.

The CoC approved the applicant’s resolution plan by a 99.9 per cent majority and issued three successive Letters of Intent (LoI) subject to pending third-party applications for resolution. When the applicant refused to accept the LoIs, his one crore earnest money deposit was forfeited, and the creditors voted to liquidate the debtor. The National Company Law Tribunal and the appellate tribunal dismissed his appeals.

The Supreme Court upheld the tribunal decisions and found that the stipulations did not render the LoIs conditional. It applied the principle of estoppel and confirmed the validity of the forfeiture and liquidation.

Key words/phrases: CIRP of Oracle Home Textiles admitted—CoC approves applicant’s plan—three Letters of Intent subject to pending applications of prospective resolution applicants—applicant alleges conditional LoTs, refuses acceptance— one crore earnest money deposit forfeited—CoC resolves liquidation—NCLT and NCLAT dismiss challenges—Supreme Court affirms binding, irrevocable plan, dismisses appeals.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

********

Delay in Statutory Appeals

Jittu Yadav v State of Chhattisgarh

27 May 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 657 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(5)[24]

Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court upheld the power of courts to condone a late appeal due to sufficient cause, even beyond the deadline set by a special law. 

The appellant was externed from the Balodabazar-Bhatapara district for one year under the Chhattisgarh (Madhya Pradesh) Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. He challenged the order by way of a writ petition, alleging violation of Articles 19 and 21. The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal as it was filed around 20 days after the 30-day statutory limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963. 

The Supreme Court held that Section 9 of the Adhiniyam does not bar the application of Section 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act which permit condonation of delay. It restored the appeal to be decided on its own merits.

Key words/phrases: Externment order under Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990—appeal under Section 9—dismissed as time-barred—Section 29(2) Limitation Act—Section 5 condonation—no express or implied exclusion—delay condoned—High Court order set aside.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

********

Contravention under U.P. Abolition Act, 1950

Sarafat Ali v Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar

23 June 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 652 | 2026 SCO.LR 6(5)[25]

Bench: Justices P.K. Mishra and N.V. Anjaria

The Supreme Court held that land transfers restricted under Section 154 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 are voidable and not void ab initio i.e. void from the beginning. 

In 1991, the appellants were granted mutation of 15 bighas of land in Haridwar on the basis of a 1957 sale deed. The mutation was subsequently set aside by the Consolidating Officer after the seller-respondents raised objections. When their application for restoration was rejected, the appellants preferred a civil writ before the Allahabad High Court. The writ was rejected on the grounds that the sales deed was rendered void under Section 154. The appellant moved the Supreme Court, contending that provision merely renders the transfer voidable at the discretion of Gaon Sabha. The respondents claimed that the 1981 amendment to the Act rendered the transfer void ab initio. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgement and held that transfers restricted under Section 154 were not void but merely voidable. It denied retrospective operation of the 1981 amendment as it would create new disabilities and obligations. 

Key words/phrases: Transfer of land—Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Section 154—Amendment of 1981—Transfer in contravention of Section 154 void—Writ petition—Writ dismissed—Appeal to Supreme Court—Transfer in contravention to Section 154 not void—Merely voidable—Retrospective operation of procedural statutes invalid. 

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP