1.SHATRUGHN YADAV VS. FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD.
Citation: Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors., 2026 INSC 829 (Supreme Court of India, decided on 12 August 2026).
Case number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7197 of 20
FACTS : Appellant, employed as a technician, had declared that no criminal case was pending againsthim. During verification, an NCR registered under section 323 and 504 PC was discovered. He maintained that he had no knowledge of the NCR.His employment was nevertheless terminated for alleged suppression of criminal antecedents.
ISSUE : Whether non-disclosure of a criminal antecedent automatically justifies termination when the employee establishes that he was bona fide unaware of the case.
HELD: The supreme court held that termination is not automatic. The employer must first determine whether there was actual suppression, considering the employee’s knowledge, and secondly whether the nature of the antecedent and surrounding circumstances justified termination. The court order reinstatement with consequential benefits, restricting back wages to 50%.
BRIEF ANALYSIS: The judgement reiterates the two-stage approach in AVTAR SINGHV.UNION OF INDIA, 2016. It distinguishes genuine non-disclosure from deliberate suppression and requires the employer to apply its mind to the nature of the offence and circumstances before imposing the severe consequences of termination.
2.Rishi Malhotra & Anr. v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 873
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 18 August 2026
Case: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 145 of 2017
Bench: Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
FACTS: Rishi Malhotra filed a PIL under Article 32 challenging Section 354(5) CrPC, corresponding to Section 393(5) BNSS, which prescribes hanging by the neck until death as the method of executing a death sentence. He argued that hanging is cruel and inhuman and violates Articles 14 and 21, including the right to die with dignity.
1. ISSUES: Whether hanging as the sole statutory method of execution violates Articles 14 and 21.
2. Whether the Court should reconsider the earlier decision in Deena v. Union of India (1983) and refer the matter to a larger Bench.
3. Whether an alternative method, particularly lethal injection, could be considered constitutionally preferable.
HELD: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to refer Deena for reconsideration. The Court held that the existing precedent had not been displaced by compelling scientific or empirical evidence demonstrating that hanging was constitutionally impermissible or that another method was demonstrably more humane.
BRIEF ANALYSIS: The judgment primarily applies stare decisis: a two-Judge Bench could not unsettle an established larger-Bench precedent without sufficiently strong new evidence. The Court noted that earlier jurisprudence had considered various execution methods and that the Law Commission’s recommendations were advisory. However, the judgment leaves scope for future reconsideration if substantial new scientific evidence emerges. The Union Government may also examine alternative methods through an expert process. In essence: Malhotra reaffirmed the legal validity of hanging as the prescribed method of execution while leaving open the possibility of future constitutional scrutiny based on compelling new evidence.
3.Dr. Lokesh B.H & Ors. v. state of Karnataka&Anr.2026.
Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 INSC 784 (Supreme Court of India,decided on 3 August 2026).
Case number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2240 of 2026.
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
FACTS: The respondent alleged that she had married the appellant in 2010 and subsequently faced cruelty,dowery harassment and physical injury. Criminal proceedings under section-498 -A IPC and other provision were initiated. The appellant sought quashing under 482 CrPC, contending that section 498-A applies only to a legally recognised husband-wife relationship.
ISSUES: Whether section 498-AIPC can apply to a live-in relationship which qualifies as a ”relationship in the nature of marriage
HELD: The supreme court that section 498-A can apply to such live-in relationships where there is an intention to marry and the relationships bears the necessary characteristics of a marital union.However, the ruling was expressly confined to section 498 -A. The court also stressed safeguards against unnecessary arrest.
BRIEF ANALYSIS: The judgement adopts a purposive interpretation while retaining safeguardsrequired for a penal provision. It recognises protection against cruelty in certain marriage without treating every live-in relationship as falling within section 498A.
THIS CASE SUMMARY IS WRITTEN BY PALAK PADHA FROM UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU
