The Supreme Court quashed fresh proceedings against a man acquitted in 2007 of waging war against India under Sections 121-123 IPC, an acquittal the High Court upheld in 2019. Uttar Pradesh had obtained sanction under Section 196 CrPC in 2020 and restarted the case, treating the first trial as void. The Court held the acquittal final and the new prosecution barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution (paras 2-5, 9-12).
The Supreme Court set aside a Gauhati High Court order that had directed registration of an FIR against the appellant under Section 173(4) of the BNSS, reversing a trial court's refusal. The High Court neither found fault with the trial court's reasoning nor gave cogent reasons of its own, and the Supreme Court held the order could not be sustained on that score alone, without going into the merits (paras 3-5).
The Allahabad High Court took 38 years to decide a 1988 criminal appeal arising from a 1983 kidnapping. The appellant, on bail all those decades, went to jail only after the appeal was dismissed in May 2026. Recording the delay and particularly noting his age and ill-health, the Supreme Court reduced his three-year sentence under Section 364 read with Section 149 IPC to ten months and raised the fine from ₹1,000 to ₹10,000 (paras 5-8).
Hearing a wife's petition to transfer her husband's divorce case from Jamui, Bihar to Ranchi, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the couple to mediation and, on their settlement, dissolved the marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 read with Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband paid Rs 33 lakh, and the dowry FIR, domestic violence, maintenance and other cases were quashed or withdrawn (paras 1-10).
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court refused to count a District Judiciary bench clerk's years of service towards the one year of practice now required to sit the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. The requirement, as modified in Bhumika Trust, is strictly practice at the Bar, and a bench clerk's largely ministerial duties cannot be equated with a Law Clerk's work with Judges (paras 11-16).
The Supreme Court held that daily-wage skilled workers of Gujarat's Irrigation Department, treated as permanent under a 1988 Government Resolution, cannot be denied the increment falling due on 1 July after they retire on 30 June merely because they began as daily wagers (para 7). Their arrears follow modified clause (d) of the Court's order of 20.02.2025 in M. Siddaraj: three years before the writ petition, payable within 30 days, failing which 6% interest runs (paras 11-12).
The Supreme Court held that a recruitment rule requiring candidates to have ‘passed 10th standard under 10+2 system of education’ is not met by a Secondary School Certificate from the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) when the rules contain no equivalence clause. General recognition of NIOS cannot enlarge a specific eligibility condition, and higher marks cannot cure ineligibility (paras 13-14, 20-22). The appellant's selection as Vocational Instructor (Plumber) in Goa was restored (para 26).
A three-judge Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Indira Banerjee as sole arbitrator in the disputes between HPCL Rajasthan Refinery and Dubai-based Chemie Tech DMCC over three terminated tender contracts for the Barmer refinery project. The disputes go to the same arbitrator because the parties are common, but each contract must be decided as an independent arbitral reference (paras 1, 6, 8).
In its missing-persons and trafficking case, the Supreme Court called it 'absolutely unacceptable' that many police stations are not digitally connected and gave States one last chance: within one month every police station must be connected and every FIR uploaded to CCTNS. It issued contempt notice to Chief Secretaries who failed to appear, criticised Gurugram police over an unidentified body cremated without its details being uploaded, and ordered an SOP for unidentified dead persons (paras 2-5, 19, 23, 28).
The Supreme Court restored a Single Judge's order granting Samman Nidhi to the widow of a Maihar Praja Mandal activist jailed in 1946, holding that the freedom fighter's pension is a constitutional debt of gratitude, not a bounty. Such claims cannot be defeated merely by delay, are judged on probabilities, and, given her age, the State must comply within four weeks (paras 10-19).
The Supreme Court held that ambiguity or vagueness in an eligibility criterion in a recruitment advertisement must be construed in favour of a candidate who prima facie holds the qualifications, and that the High Court wrongly decided for itself whether experience gained while studying counted. The Tribunal's direction to offer the appellant the post of Librarian was restored, but without back seniority and pay fixation (paras 3, 8-9).
In its suo motu case on recent rape incidents in Delhi NCR, the Supreme Court issued further interim directions on preventive policing: enhanced beat patrolling near educational institutions, verified and visibly identified drivers of buses, cabs and auto-rickshaws, SOS awareness, removal of habitually parked heavy vehicles and action against unlicensed liquor outlets. The Chief Secretary and the Police Commissioner will be personally answerable; the matter returns on 16.11.2026 (paras 16, 24, 30).