The Supreme Court held that injuries caused by a falling tree branch on a stationary autorickshaw do not automatically qualify as a motor vehicle accident. However, invoking Article 142, the Court enhanced compensation for the claimant, emphasizing that a proximate connection between the vehicle and accident is necessary.
The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution, holding that the relationship had irretrievably broken down and was “dead for all practical purposes.” The Court set aside decisions of the Family Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court while directing a comprehensive financial settlement.
The Supreme Court refused to review its 2025 judgment directing in-service teachers recruited before the RTE Act, 2009, to obtain TET qualifications. The requirement applies to teachers with over five years of service left, who must clear TET within two years from September 1, 2025.
The Supreme Court has kept in abeyance the Gujarat High Court’s order convicting GHCAA president Yatin Oza for allegedly making scandalous remarks against the state judiciary. The conviction and sentence remain paused while the matter receives further consideration.
During the heated Special Intensive Revision (SIR) hearing, CJI Surya Kant dismissed Kapil Sibal’s warning about possible law and order issues and allowed phased publication of voter rolls. The Supreme Court also rejected objections raised by Abhishek Manu Singhvi and backed the Election Commission.
The Supreme Court of India has stayed the UGC’s 2026 Regulations on caste-based discrimination, warning that vague provisions could be misused and divide society. The Court directed that the 2012 Regulations will continue until further orders, citing serious constitutional and social concerns.
Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court dissolved an irretrievably broken marriage, holding that its continuance would only prolong agony. The Court granted divorce despite trial and High Court findings, stressing complete justice over rigid statutory grounds of law.
The Supreme Court granted a mutual consent divorce while praising the woman for voluntarily waiving alimony and all financial claims. The Bench remarked, “We appreciate this kind gesture, which is very rare nowadays,” acknowledging her fairness in the settlement.
The Supreme Court ordered interim release of the accused after his surrender and apology, directing him to deposit Rs 1 lakh with the Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Welfare Fund. The Bench warned that failure to pay would lead to automatic cancellation of bail.
In a rare move under Article 142, the Supreme Court set aside a man’s POCSO conviction, noting the relationship was driven by “love, not lust.” The court observed the couple is now married with a child and living a peaceful life.
