The Supreme Court held that Tamil Nadu's 1983-batch direct recruits rank above both compassionate appointees and temporary appointees later regularised, settling a seniority dispute pending since 2006. Compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16, an executive order cannot override the service rules, and between compassionate and special appointees seniority runs from the date of regularisation (paras 14, 21-25).
The Supreme Court set aside a Gauhati High Court order that had quashed an FIR alleging that a resignation email was fraudulently sent in the name of a majority shareholder of an Arunachal Pradesh saw-mill company. Company-law remedies do not foreclose a criminal prosecution, and a delayed charge-sheet raises no presumption of no evidence. The investigation will continue, but the two accused will not be arrested if they cooperate (paras 9, 12, 15).
The Supreme Court allowed a US-based father's appeal against the Karnataka High Court's refusal of habeas corpus for his US-citizen daughter, whom the mother brought to India two weeks after a California court ordered joint custody. The child's welfare stays paramount, but a foreign order deserves proper weight and a parent should not profit from disobeying it; the mother is to take the child to the US by 31.12.2026 (paras 15-19, 26-27, 32-35, 39).
The Supreme Court acquitted a man serving life for a 1998 murder in Rohtak, holding that the sole eyewitness, who admitted the door was closed, could not be trusted, and that the forensic report never matched the blood on his clothes or the gandasa with the victim's. With nothing linking him to the death, and his wife already acquitted, he got the benefit of doubt (paras 14-22).
The Supreme Court quashed a departmental inquiry the Rajasthan High Court began against a Dholpur POCSO Special Judge who granted bail after the High Court had refused it, holding that counselling or an ACR entry would have sufficed. It let the High Court's adverse remarks stand, but ordered the retired officer's revised pay, pension and arrears released within three months (paras 10-14).
The Supreme Court held that an assessee who has not filed a revised return in time cannot raise a fresh claim before the Commissioner in revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. Reiterating Om Siddhakala Associates and Goetze (India), it said revision is for a new point of law on facts already before the Assessing Officer; otherwise assessments would never end (paras 8-13).
The Supreme Court granted bail to two men alleged to have run a medical store that supplied Tramadol-combination capsules (Proxyco SPAS) to co-accused caught with 878 capsules weighing 412.66 grams in a Rajasthan NDPS case. They were apprehended only on the co-accused's statement, whether they sold the contraband is a matter for trial, they had no criminal antecedents and the chargesheet had been filed, so continued custody was not warranted (paras 3-4).
The Supreme Court said that Jharkhand's 2025 regulations, which make an officer eligible for appointment as Director General of Police even with less than six months' service left before superannuation by crediting retrospective service, prima facie run 'directly in teeth of' Prakash Singh. Since annulling the rule would also unseat the serving DGP, Tadasha Mishra, the Court directed that she be served notice (paras 1-3).
In land acquisition proceedings dating back to 1987, the Supreme Court disposed of the Meerut Development Authority's petitions against interim orders of the Allahabad High Court. The Authority must deposit the entire enhanced compensation with the High Court, of which 8.33% is to be released to the landowners and the rest invested, matching an earlier order; the High Court was asked to decide the first appeals preferably within six months (paras 3, 7-11).
In a pending petition seeking binding rules against unethical marketing by drug companies, the Supreme Court found that the existing framework has not proved entirely effective. Leaving policy to the Union, it directed the Union to set up its proposed committee within two weeks, hear the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders, and report within two months of its first meeting; the case returns on 29.01.2027 (paras 17-25).
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court appointed a sole arbitrator for disputes between an Indian company and its Korean partner under their joint venture agreement and MoU, rejecting the plea that a Seoul arbitration clause in their earlier licence agreement governed. The agreements prima facie operate in different fields; any overlap with licence claims and whether a non-signatory subsidiary is bound were left to the arbitrator (paras 18-23).
The Supreme Court held that a successful resolution applicant may pursue a corporate debtor's pre-insolvency claims in arbitration against an operational creditor whose own claim was extinguished under the clean slate principle. But where the creditor's claim on the same contract was admitted and paid at only 0.72%, it may raise a counterclaim for set-off up to its full claim, without any recovery, following Ujaas Energy (paras 12-25).