SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 7 | Issue 1

In this issue, we shortlist judgements from July with bonus judgements from June.

Volume 7 Issue 1 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here! 

We bring you five judgements delivered by the Supreme Court during its partial court working days, covering: 

• Compensation for functional disability
• Computation of income for motor accident victims
• Disclosure obligation while filing election affidavit
• Eligibility for default bail
• Governor’s power over remission

Like always, the judgements come with concise and comprehensive summaries, assistive mindmaps and citation features for easy access. 

Click on our SCO.LR landing page to access a host of other judgements. 

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 7 | Issue 1

Five Judgements from 29 June to 3 July 

with bonus judgements from June 

**********

Compensation for Functional Disability

Shankar Dutt v United India Insurance

24 June 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 656 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(1)[1]

Bench: Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N.V. Anjaria

The Supreme Court held that compensation granted to a disabled accident victim should be determined on the basis of functional disability and not the medically certified figure. The Court must gauge the injury’s effect on the victim’s occupation and earning capacity.

The appellant, a carpenter, had his right leg amputated above the knee after he got into an accident with a jeep in November 2004. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,77,823/- as compensation. This was enhanced to Rs. 11,51,423/- by the Uttarakhand High Court, fixing monthly income at Rs. 5000/- and disability at 70 percent. He sought further enhancement under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Supreme Court held that an amputee carpenter, unable to sit or stand to work, suffers 100 percent functional disability. It raised notional monthly income to Rs. 9000/- and enhanced his total compensation to Rs. 35,95,923/-. It further awarded the appellant Rs. 10,00,000 for the prosthetic leg and its lifelong replacement.

Key words/phrases: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Motor accident, leg amputation—Carpenter—Notional income reassessed—Functional versus medical disability—Functional disability at 100%—Compensation for prosthetic limb—Compensation enhanced

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

********

Computation of Income for Motor Accident Victims

Rashmirekha Tripathy v The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance

 1 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 661 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(1)[2]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court laid down a standard methodology under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for assessing an injured or deceased claimant’s annual income based on income tax returns. It distinguished salaried claimants from the self-employed for the purpose of computing “just and fair compensation” under Section 166 of the Act.

Manoranjan Pandey, a 39-year-old construction contractor, was granted a compensation of Rs. 2,27,00,064/- based on his income and most recent tax returns. He died after a truck struck his vehicle near Behrampur, Odisha, in May 2018. Pandey had his own construction business with an annual income of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The Orissa High Court averaged two returns and reduced the award to Rs. 1,87,75,150/- after an appeal was filed by the insurance company. 

The Supreme Court held that a salaried claimant’s income should be assessed from the immediately preceding year’s return alone, while a self-employed claimant’s income should be averaged over up to three preceding years, weighed against business nature, growth pattern and any negative-income years. Applying this, it fixed the deceased’s annual income at Rs. 14,00,000/- and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,97,81,505/-.

Key words/phrases: Road accident victim—MACT awarded Rs. 2,27,00,064 based on latest Income Tax Return (ITR)— Compensation reduced by Orissa High Court —Average of two ITRs—Supreme Court appeal—distinguished salaried and self-employed claimants for income assessmentCompensation enhanced to Rs. 1,97,81,505/-.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

********

Disclosure Obligation while Filing Election Affidavit

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v State of Gujarat

1 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 665 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(1)[3]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that a candidate’s election affidavit disclosing assets must include property owned solely by the spouse.

The appellant, a Councillor candidate in Gujarat’s 2015 municipal elections, was accused of omitting her husband’s landed properties from her nomination affidavit under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. A Magistrate issued a summons under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), based on a private complaint. She approached the Gujarat High Court seeking that the summons order be quashed, arguing that the disclosure rules did not cover the spouse’s own property. The High Court declined to quash the proceedings.

The Supreme Court held the disclosure obligation extended to the spouse’s separate properties. It noted that declarants were mandated “to give details of the property held by them, their spouse and their dependents, including what is held by them jointly”.

Key words/phrases: Municipal election affidavit filed—Alleged non-disclosure of spouse’s property—Private complaint before Magistrate—Cognizance taken under RPA 1951—Quashing sought before High Court

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

********

Eligibility for Default Bail

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation

1 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 666 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(1)[4]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that non-filing of additional chargesheet copies under Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 does not entitle an accused to default bail. The right ceases once a compliant chargesheet is filed within the statutory period.

The appellant was arrested in a cyber-fraud investigation involving mule bank accounts used to launder proceeds of digital-arrest and phishing frauds. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a chargesheet within 90 days but did not supply accompanying document copies, as was required under Section 193(8) of the BNSS. He sought default bail, contending that supply of copies was mandatory. The Special Judge, CBI and the Bombay High Court rejected the plea.

The Supreme Court upheld the rejection, holding Section 193(8) to be directory rather than mandatory. It clarified that the appellant’s separate application for regular bail remained open for consideration on its own merits.

Key words/phrases: Registration of First Information Report (FIR)—Arrest and police custody—Chargesheet filed under Section 193(3) BNSS—Copies under Section 193(8) not supplied—Application for default bail—Rejection by Special Court and Bombay High Court—Non-filing of copies does not entitle default bail

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

********

Governor’s Power Over Remission

Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Chauhan v State of Haryana

1 July 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 667 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(1)[5]

Judges: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that a remission policy issued under the Governor’s power in exercise of Article 161 of the Constitution cannot be superseded by a subsequent statutory policy.

The appellant, convicted of murder in 2009, sought premature release under Haryana’s 2002 remission policy, after completing 14 years of imprisonment. His representation was rejected based on a 2008 policy, requiring 20 years of imprisonment. He approached the High Court arguing that the 2002 Policy had been brought in exercise of Article 161 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed his writ petition, relying on State of Haryana v Raj Kumar, which held that both the 2002 Policy and the 2008 Policy were in exercise of power traceable to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that Raj Kumar conflicted with the earlier ruling in State of Haryana v Jagdish, which held that the Governor’s powers under Article 161 are untrammeled and unaffected by the provisions of the CrPC.

The Court held Raj Kumar per incuriam. It ruled that the constitutional origin of the 2002 policy was like its predecessor—the 1993 policy, which was brought in exercise of Article 161. It directed the Haryana government to decide the appellant’s remission application under that policy within four weeks.

Key words/phrases: Conviction under Section 302 IPC—Premature release under 2002 Policy—Rejection citing 2008 Policy—Writ petition dismissed relying on Raj Kumar—Challenge before Supreme Court—Raj Kumar held per incuriam—2002 Policy held constitutional in origin

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP