SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 7 | Issue 4

Volume 7 Issue 4 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCOLR) is here! In this issue, we shortlist five important judgements delivered by the Supreme Court from last week. 

As always, SCO.LR issues come with well formatted judgements with linking and citation features alongside assistive mindmaps for easy research. Click here to access the entire database of SCO.LR judgements.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 7 | Issue 4

20 July – 24 July 2026

**********

Proportionality in Sentencing for Gang Rape

Ehsaan v State of National Capital Territory of Delhi

20 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 720 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(4)[16]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and A.G. Masih 

The Supreme Court held that a Court must impose an appropriate sentence within the statutory range under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 after balancing the gravity of the offence, the interests of the victim and society with the offender’s age, antecedents, conduct and prospects of reformation.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, convicted an autorickshaw driver for  gang rape under Section 376D and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, along with a fine of ₹25,000. On 1 November 2017, the Delhi High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellant-convict approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court declined to reopen the conviction question and confined itself to the quantum of sentence. It found that the convict, who was 25 years old when the offence was committed, had no criminal antecedents and had maintained good conduct in prison. The State had also placed no material on record to establish that he was incapable of reformation. The Court modified the sentence from imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life to 20 years’ imprisonment, with the benefit of remission, if available.

Key words/phrases: Gang rape—conviction under Section 376D Indian Penal Code, 1860—convicted with life imprisonment—Supreme Court appeal—proportionality in sentencing—gravity of offence—victim and societal interests—absence of criminal antecedents—possibility of reformation—good prison conduct—sentence modified to 20 years with remission

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Service Tax on CNG Sales through Oil Company Outlets

Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai v Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd

20 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 723 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(4)[17]

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria

The Supreme Court held that the substance and cumulative effect of a commercial agreement determines whether the relationship between the parties is one of sale or agency.

Mahanagar Gas Ltd. (MGL) supplied compressed natural gas through outlets belonging to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL). While MGL installed and owned the equipment, the oil companies provided the sites, infrastructure, utilities and trained personnel required to dispense CNG to vehicle owners. The Service Tax Department treated the corporations as commission agents providing Business Auxiliary Services under Section 65(19) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994, and raised service tax demands for the period between April 2005 and March 2011. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands. On 4 June 2014, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the orders, holding that the transactions were sales on a principal-to-principal basis and that the amount retained by the corporations was a profit margin rather than commission.

The Supreme Court held that ownership of CNG never passed to BPCL or HPCL as required for a sale under Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. MGL fixed the retail price, owned and controlled the dispensing equipment,  and retained authority over unsold stock, while the corporations received commission according to the quantity sold. The Court concluded that BPCL and HPCL acted as agents facilitating MGL’s sales and that their activities were taxable as Business Auxiliary Services. It allowed the appeals, set aside the CESTAT order and restored the service tax demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority.

Key words/phrases: Compressed natural gas—MGL supply through BPCL and HPCL outlets—Service tax demand—sale or agency—ownership and title retained by MGL—retail price fixed by MGL—commission based on quantity sold—principal-agent relationship—Business Auxiliary Service—service tax demand upheld

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Preliminary Assessment under the Juvenile Justice Act

X v State of Bihar

21 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 728 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(4)[18]

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court held that murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a “heinous offence” under Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as life imprisonment is the implied minimum punishment.

The appellant, aged 16 years at the time of the alleged offence, was accused of slitting the throat of another boy. The Juvenile Justice Board conducted a preliminary assessment and, by a majority opinion, decided that he lacked the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and should be tried by the Board. The Presiding Magistrate dissented and found that the appellant was capable of understanding his conduct. On an appeal by the deceased’s mother, the Additional District and Sessions Judge set aside the Board’s order and directed that the appellant be tried as an adult. The Patna High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision petition. The appellant approached the Supreme Court arguing that murder was a “serious offence” rather than a “heinous offence” and that the appellate court could not reverse the Board’s decision without obtaining fresh assistance from psychologists and medical specialists.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgement. It held that life imprisonment is the lowest punishment available for murder and that it falls within the definition of a “heinous offence”. The Court found that the Board had relied solely on an expert opinion without considering the Social Investigation Report and Social Background Report. It directed Boards to independently evaluate the child’s mental capacity, physical capacity, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances of its commission, together with the expert report, social reports, witness statements and other relevant material.

Key words/phrases: Juvenile accused of murder—appellant aged 16 years—life imprisonment is the implied minimum punishment for murder—murder classified as a heinous offence—Board must independently consider all relevant material—expert report is not conclusive—decision to try juvenile as an adult upheld. 

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP

**********

Legal Representation in a Capital Trial

Dr. Abdul Hameed v State of Rajasthan

21 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 734 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(4)[19]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court held that a criminal trial involving the death penalty is vitiated if the accused is denied effective legal representation and has not consciously waived the right to counsel. It held that a doubtful or retracted confession cannot sustain a conviction without strong independent corroboration. 

On 22 May 1996, an explosion inside a Rajasthan Roadways bus near Samleti village killed 14 passengers and injured 37 others. In 2014, the Trial Court convicted Dr. Abdul Hameed and several co-accused for murder, attempt to murder, conspiracy and offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Hameed was sentenced to death. He had remained unrepresented during the trial and had personally cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. In 2019, the Rajasthan High Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence and acquitted six co-accused for want of reliable evidence. The accused and the State of Rajasthan approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court set aside Hameed’s conviction and death sentence and ordered a de novo trial before a Special Court at Jaipur. It directed that he be provided competent legal representation and a fresh opportunity to cross-examine all prosecution witnesses, while permitting him to seek bail before the Special Court. It also dismissed the State’s appeals and affirmed the acquittal of the six co-accused.

Key words/phrases: Capital trial conducted without legal representation— no conscious waiver of right to counsel—conviction and death sentence set aside—de novo trial before Special Court—fresh cross-examination directed

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP

**********

TRAI’s power to Enforce Telecom Regulations

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v Polimer Cable Network

24 July 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 742 | 2026 SCO.LR 7(4)[20]

Bench: Justices S.V. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria

The Supreme Court held that Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) may issue directions to ensure compliance with regulations while contractual disputes must be decided by Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

Four local cable operators in Tamil Nadu complained that Polimer Cable Network had disconnected their television signals. The Madras High Court directed TRAI to consider their complaints after hearing both sides. TRAI found a possible breach of the Interconnection Regulations and directed Polimer to restore the signals. After receiving a police report suggesting non-compliance, TRAI issued a show-cause notice asking why a criminal complaint should not be filed. Polimer challenged the direction and notice before the TDSAT. The TDSAT quashed both, holding that TRAI had acted beyond its powers.

The Supreme Court set aside TDSAT’s judgement. It held that TRAI had only sought compliance with its regulations. The show-cause notice also imposed no penalty and decided no final rights.

Key words/phrases: TRAI Act, 1997—Enforcement of interconnection regulations—Direction to restore cable signals—Preliminary finding of non-compliance—Show-cause notice before prosecution—TRAI cannot impose penalties—TDSAT decides disputes between service providers

Read the Judgement here. 

MINDMAP