In a significant ruling balancing the rights of an accused with the needs of an effective criminal investigation, the Supreme Court has held that courts cannot impose conditions on police custody that make custodial interrogation ineffective or "illusory." Setting aside several restrictive conditions imposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the trial court, the Court ruled that while constitutional safeguards must be protected, the investigating agency must also be allowed to conduct a meaningful investigation.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju (2026 INSC 744).
The Supreme Court has dismissed CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat's review petition against its April 29 judgment, which had ruled that no cognisable offence was made out against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over their speeches during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election campaign.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected the review petition in chambers, saying there was no error in its earlier judgment that required reconsideration.
Recently, the Supreme Court judge Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the rapid spread of misinformation on social media, media trials and algorithm-driven public opinion have emerged as some of the biggest threats to judicial independence.
Speaking at the fifth Justice HR Khanna Memorial National Symposium, Justice Bagchi described social media as a "hydra-headed" phenomenon, warning that false narratives now travel much faster than the truth.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that State governments cannot oppose the proposal to increase the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years merely by citing financial burden or the fact that government employees retire at a lower age.
Calling both reasons "untenable," a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohan directed all States that had opposed the proposal to reconsider the issue independently and take a fresh decision within two weeks.
The Supreme Court has clarified that its earlier interim order regulating the use of audio and video recordings of court proceedings does not impose any blanket ban on reporting by recognised news organisations. The Court stated that accredited media outlets are free to continue reporting court proceedings and informing the public about important legal developments, provided they do not use audio or video clips of courtroom proceedings in their coverage.
The clarification came in an order dated July 31, passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana.
The Supreme Court has issued a series of significant directions to strengthen compliance with the statutory requirement of motor vehicle insurance, including automatic e-challans for uninsured vehicles, real-time insurance verification by State Police and an extended mandatory third-party insurance period for newly purchased vehicles.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra issued the directions while deciding National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Thungala Dhana Laxmi & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 14369 of 2025. The judgment was pronounced on August 4, 2026.
The Court was examining, among other issues, the widespread non-compliance with Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates insurance coverage against third-party risks, and whether there should be a uniform structure for covering occupants of motor vehicles.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy