SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 8 | Issue 5

Volume 8 Issue 5 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here!

The Supreme Court delivered 4 reportable judgements between 24 to 28 August 2026 that centred on;

• Dismissal of an election petition,
• Revival of relinquished maintenance claims,
• Liability of custodians under the Customs Act, and
• Extended limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act

In this Issue, we summarised these decisions along with one bonus judgement on the polluter pays principle. As always, the judgements are available on our SCO.LR page with concise summaries, clean and readable judgements with citation features and a mindmap.

As always, the judgements are available on our SCO.LR page with concise summaries, clean and readable judgements with citation features and a mindmap.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 8 | Issue 5

24 – 28 August 2026

**********

Environmental Liability Under Polluter Pays Principle

Vyakti Vikas Kendra India v Manoj Misra (Dead)

22 August 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 910 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(5)[21]

Bench: Justices S.C. Sharma and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that liability under the polluter-pays principle requires proof of actual environmental damage and a causal link between the activity and the degradation.

Vyakti Vikas Kendra India, the Indian legal entity through which the Art of Living operates, organised the World Culture Festival from 11 to 13 March 2016 on 25 hectares of the Yamuna floodplain after obtaining permission from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and other authorities. Manoj Misra approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT), alleging that preparations for the event had damaged the floodplain. On 9 March 2016, the NGT permitted the event but imposed ₹5 crore as interim environmental compensation. In its final judgement of 7 December 2017, relying on expert reports, the NGT held the organiser responsible for damage and directed DDA to restore the allotted portion of the floodplain, with additional restoration costs. 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NGT judgement. It found that contemporaneous material showed that the site was already damaged before it was handed over to the appellant and that the evidence did not establish additional environmental damage attributable to the event. The Court also held that the NGT had wrongly treated its interim findings as conclusive and had equated restoration with the wider concept of rehabilitation. It directed DDA to refund ₹5 crore within four weeks, while leaving DDA’s responsibility for rehabilitation of the Yamuna floodplain unchanged. 

Key words/phrases: World Culture Festival—Yamuna floodplain—₹5 crore environmental compensation—Expert reports on environmental damage—Section 15 NGT Act—Restoration distinct from rehabilitation—Section 17(3)—No-fault liability limited to accidents—Polluter-pays principle—Causal link not established—NGT judgement set aside—₹5 crore refund—DDA rehabilitation duties continued.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Dismissal of Election Petition

Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v Kripanath Mallah 

24 August 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 915 | 2026  SCO.LR 8(5)[22]

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Chandran

The Supreme Court held that an unattested copy of a Form-25 affidavit served to an election candidate for corrupt practices is not a ground to dismiss an election petition under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, provided the original affidavit before the Court is properly attested. 

The appellant approached the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court dismissed his election petition against the 2024 Lok Sabha Election of Kripanath Mallah. The High Court had held that the copies served to the candidate had improperly attested rubber stamps and that the Form-25 copies were unattested. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgement and restored the election petition. It held that varying rubber stamps on served petition copies were sufficient and directed the High Court to examine the original court files. If the original affidavit was duly affirmed by the Commissioner of Affidavits, the High Court must hear the full petition on merits. 

Key words/phrases: Form 25—Corrupt practices—Election petition under Section 86—Election petition dismissed—Form 25 served to returning candidate—Not attested—Gauhati High Court dismissed petition—Supreme Court appeal—No ground to dismiss if original affidavit before Court was attested—Election petition to be heard on merits if original affidavit is affirmed.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Revival of Relinquished Maintenance Claims

Reji Baby v Subi Mary 

24 August 2026 

Citations: 2026 INSC 918 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(5)[23]

Bench: Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan

The Supreme Court held that once the wife has voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, in a mutual-consent divorce, revival of such claims during subsequent proceedings cannot be permitted.

The parties obtained a mutual divorce decree after executing a settlement agreement in which the wife agreed not to make any monetary or maintenance claims. Subsequently, the wife initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent sought to quash her claims as extinguished by the agreement. The wife submitted that the agreement was executed under duress and was void as it contained a waiver of statutory rights. The High Court of Kerala dismissed his appeal and he approached the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and quashed proceedings under the DV Act. It held that proceedings must first be initiated to invalidate the settlement or set aside the divorce decree. As the daughter was not a party to the agreement, the Court clarified that she is at liberty to file fresh proceedings for monetary relief. 

Key words/phrases: Wife waived monetary claims in a settlement agreement—Mutual divorce decree obtained—Proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Claims revived—High Court of Kerala dismisses husband’s appeal to quash proceedings—set aside by Supreme Court—Supreme Court quashed proceedings as an abuse of process—Claims cannot be revived without first challenging validity of the settlement or the divorce decree—Daughter at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings.

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Liability of Custodians under the Customs Act, 1962

Union of India v The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay

25 August 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 919 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(5)[24]

Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manmohan

The Supreme Court held that the Customs Act, 1962 confers absolute and independent statutory liability upon the appointed “custodian”, in the absence of any other law pertaining to the recovery of duty leviable on pilfered goods. 

In October 2000, the Commissioner of Customs (CoC) appointed the respondent as “custodian” under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, rendering it liable to recover duty leviable on goods pilfered from its custody between 1996 and 2000. The respondents challenged the CoC’s power of appointment as it was already covered by the Major Ports Trusts Act, 1963 and thus protected by the saving clause under Section 45(1). When the CoC (Appeals) rejected its challenge against this appointment, the respondent moved the Bombay High Court in a Writ Petition. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition. Aggrieved, the Union of India moved the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court held that the Major Port Act protects against the general destruction and deterioration of goods but does not apply to pilferage. It cannot be considered “a law in force for the time being” under Sections 45(1). 

Key words/phrases: Custodian—Customs Act, 1962—Notification—Commissioner of Customs—Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay appointed custodian—Duty on pilfered goods—Challenge before Commissioner of Customs (Appeal)—Dismissed—Bombay High Court—Set aside Notification—Appeal to Supreme Court—Customs Act applicable—No other Act levies duty on pilferage. 

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP

**********

Limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act

Tata Steel Limited v Union of India through the Secretary Minister of Finance

25 August 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 920 | 2026 SCO.LR 8(5)[25]

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Chandran

The Supreme Court held that the five-year limitation to pass an assessment order by tax authorities under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) can only be invoked when allegations concern fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The Court held that the foundational facts supporting such an allegation must be evident from the show cause notice and cannot be established by merely reciting the statutory words.

Tata Steel challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act for three financial years, 2018-2019 to 2020-2021, pursuant to an audit objection raised by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Tata Steel argued that the three-year limitation under Section 73 had expired and that there was no allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to invoke the extended five-year limitation under Section 74. It further submitted that the Assessing Officer was not convinced by the audit objection and had placed the matter in the “call book” (kept in abeyance), before issuing the notice. The Department argued that the proceedings indicated suppression of material facts and wilful misrepresentation. Tata Steel approached the Supreme Court challenging the show cause notice.

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 can be initiated only after the Assessing Officer records satisfaction. It found that the Department’s decision to contest the audit objection before the Public Accounts Committee itself indicated that there was no such satisfaction. It noted that the show cause notice contained no foundational facts supporting the allegation of suppression and could not sustain the extended limitation under Section 74. The Court set aside the show cause notice. It granted the Department the liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 74, with foundational facts, with an order to be passed before 28 February 2027.

Key words/phrases: Section 73—Three-year limitation—Section 74—Five-year limitation—Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017—Fraud—Wilful misrepresentation—Suppression of facts—Assessing Officer’s satisfaction—Audit objection—Input tax credit—Show cause notice—Supreme Court—No Foundational facts supporting allegations—Show cause notice set aside

Read the Judgement here.

MINDMAP