Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR)

The Supreme Court held that the word “can” in an arbitration clause indicates a possibility of arbitration and does not disclose a determination and obligation to refer disputes to arbitration.

The appellant entered into a contract with the respondent for transportation of goods for a total consideration of Rs. 2,23,550/-. A dispute arose when the respondent delivered the consignment without production of the original bill of lading, resulting in financial loss to the appellant. The bill of lading contained a clause that provided that any dispute “can be settled by arbitration”. The appellant invoked arbitration and filed an application before the Bombay High Court for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The High Court dismissed the application holding that the clause did not make it imperative for the parties to be referred to arbitration. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that arbitration is based on consent and the parties must mutually intend to refer their differences to arbitration. It held that the word “can” indicates a possibility and not a mandate. A clause which requires a further agreement between the parties does not constitute an arbitration agreement. The Court held that the impugned clause indicated merely a future possibility of referring disputes to arbitration and dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the regularisation of contractual or ad hoc employees without public advertisement and interview is arbitrary and illegal.

In June 2014, the General Administration Department of the Government of Haryana, through two notifications, regularised the services of the appellants—contractual and ad hoc employees on the ground that they were deprived of the benefit of a 1996 regularisation policy. A similar notification was issued in July 2014. The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside all three notifications after writ petitions challenged that the regularisations were done without any public advertisements and interviews. Therefore, they violated Articles 14 and 16.

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court verdict in part. It held that regularisation under the June notifications was not illegal, considering that it intended to regularise employees left out in 1996. Further, the notification from July 2014 was set aside since it permitted recruitment without public advertisement. The Court used its powers under Article 142 to enable continuation of services of the employees.

The Supreme Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution includes fair legal procedures and access to legal representation.

A death-sentence appeal from 2017 demonstrated how inordinate delay afflicted legal aid filings before the Supreme Court. Over several years, deliberations took place among the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCSLC), NALSA, High Court Legal Services Committees and jail authorities. The SCLSC submitted data on pendency and delay in response to the Court’s queries. It launched a “Mission Mode” campaign in January 2025 to identify convicts who had not yet filed appeals and to expedite their legal aid applications.

The Court adopted a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the translation, transmission and monitoring of case records in legal aid matters. It set binding timelines and held that timely access to justice is part of the constitutional obligation guaranteed under Articles 21 and 39A. It directed the National Informatics Centre to create a unified digital platform within two months and designated NALSA’s Member Secretary as nodal officer for implementation.

The Supreme Court held that the term “release” includes release from payment of fines under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It held that the Act seeks to rehabilitate offenders as reformed citizens and operates on the principle that man becomes a criminal on account of his circum

Four persons were convicted for voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were accused of harassment of a 17 year old and assault upon her father. The Bombay High Court upheld their conviction and sentence of 15-30 days of imprisonment and payment of fines. The convicts approached the Supreme Court in a criminal appeal seeking benefit of release after admonition and good conduct under Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act.

The Supreme Court granted the benefit of release for all appellants, subject to a year-long bond for three. It held that Section 3 could only be invoked for specific offences. Further, the appellants were directed to deposit the prescribed fines to be treated as compensation to the victim.

The Supreme Court held that an organised system which enables the Court to deal with each issue in-depth, while having a comprehensive and holistic view is the need of the hour.

M.C. Mehta’s petition, filed in 1985, targeted polluting industries in and around the National Capital Region (NCR). Orders since the mid-1990s curbed vehicular pollution and introduced Bharat Stage emission standards. The Court facilitated the Commission for Air Quality Management, statutorily entrenched in 2021 to administer the Graded Response Action Plan. By order dated 23 February 2026, the Court flagged formal closure of the matter.

The Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the Registry to register five fresh suo moto writ petitions. The Court held that the oversight of air pollution in the NCR is better served by closing the parent petition. They will cover regulatory governance, vehicular emissions, green cover, industrial and construction pollution, and solid waste with crop-residue burning.

The Supreme Court held that the refusal to relax qualification requirements for promotions while granting it to other similarly situated employees is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The appellant, an employee of a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, was recommended for promotion to the post of Society Manager by the Board of Directors with relaxation in educational qualification on the basis of experience, competence and seniority. The General Body approved the recommendation. The Registrar rejected the proposal without assigning reasons. While the Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition, the Division Bench reversed the decision holding that relaxation could not be granted. The appellant approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the Division Bench. The Court held that the governing legislation permitted relaxation in educational qualification. It observed that the Registrar’s rejection of the proposal was cryptic and without reasons and noted that denial of relaxation to other employees of the same homogeneous class amounted to discrimination.

The Supreme Court held that borrowers do not have a right to a personal hearing before their account is classified as fraud.

The State Bank of India (SBI) classified Amit Iron’s account as “fraud” in March 2024 after issuing a show cause notice and a reasoned order. SBI did not provide an opportunity for an oral hearing or supply the forensic audit report. A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, relying on State Bank of India v Rajesh Agarwal (2023) directed that the borrower must be given a personal hearing and supplied with the Forensic Audit Report (FAR). A Division Bench upheld the decision and a parallel Delhi matter involving Bank of India and Liliput Kidswear produced similar relief. The banks, backed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), appealed, contending that Rajesh Agarwal only mandated notice, reply and a reasoned order.

The Supreme Court clarified that Rajesh Agarwal did not mandate a personal hearing. It held that the RBI’s 2024 Master Directions correctly incorporate principles of natural justice. While it set asid

The Supreme Court held that land allotted at a subsidised rate must serve public objectives, such as employment and economic developments. Non-utilisation of the land can result in the cancellation of an industrial lease.

The appellant acquired lease rights for a 33-acre plot in 2001. The lease deed of the company was forfeited by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) due to non-utilisation and failure to complete the construction of a factory building within a stipulated time period. A writ petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court and the matter progressed in appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld UPSIDA’s decision to cancel the lease. It held that the appellant failed to demonstrate its bona fide intent to establish a manufacturing unit. Further, the company did not have an approved layout plan for the said factory and had utilised only 7.68 per cent of the area.

The Supreme Court held that arbitrariness and favouritism in the award and execution of public work contracts violates Article 14.

The petitioner—a civil society organisation—alleged that contracts for projects and public works in the State of Arunachal Pradesh were being illegally and arbitrarily awarded to firms and individuals closely connected to the current Chief Minister. Approaching the top court under Article 32, they demanded an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and/or Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), arguing that awards were executed without call for tenders.

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the award of public works is subject to principles of equality and non-arbitrariness guaranteed under Article 14. Further, it held that missing comparative statements are prima facie indication of arbitriness by the State which deems independent investigation.

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor holding that medical professionals are placed on a different pedestal from ordinary citizens.

A boy’s father filed an FIR against a doctor alleging that the practitioner had forged his consent for an orchidectomy procedure, and claimed that consent was only given for orchidopexy. The Madras High Court rejected the doctor’s prayer for quashing the proceedings and allowed the father’s petition, directing the constitution of a three-member Medical Board. The investigation continued even after the Board opined in his favour. The doctor filed again for quashing the entire proceeding. Upon dismissal by the High Court, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that continuance of criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of law. It relied on Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab and reiterated the importance of Medical Board reports. Finding no material on record to suggest forgery of consent, it held that courts must be loath to examine questions of fact and evidence in summary proceedings.