1. ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy
Citation: 2026 INSC 135, Civil Appeal No. 3318 of 2023 (Supreme Court, 6 February 2026)
Facts: On 12 April 2018, Aashna Roy, a model, got a haircut at the salon of ITC Maurya Hotel, Delhi. She said her hair was cut much shorter than she asked for, causing job losses and mental trauma. The consumer commission (NCDRC) awarded her ₹2 crore. In 2023, the Supreme Court agreed the service was deficient but cancelled the amount for lack of proof of loss, and sent the matter back. The NCDRC again awarded ₹2 crore, so ITC appealed.
Issue: Can a huge compensation be awarded without proof of the actual loss suffered?
Conclusion/Held: No. The Court reduced the compensation to ₹25 lakh, the amount already paid to her.
Brief Analysis: Compensation cannot rest on guesses or the complainant’s own claim. When the sum runs into crores, reliable evidence of real loss is needed. Roy relied only on photocopied emails and certificates, and records showed she stayed in her job on the same pay. The ruling balances two ideas: the hotel was at fault, so some compensation was fair, but damages must match proven loss.
2. In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 of the Allahabad High Court
Citation: 2026 INSC 165, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2025 (Supreme Court, 10 February 2026)
Facts: An 11-year-old girl’s mother complained that two accused grabbed the girl’s breasts, and one broke her pyjama string and tried to drag her under a culvert. They stopped when passers-by arrived. The trial court summoned them for attempt to rape (Section 376 IPC, POCSO Act). The Allahabad High Court reduced this to a lesser offence, calling the acts only “preparation”. The Supreme Court took suo motu notice.
Issue: Were these acts an attempt to commit rape, or only preparation?
Conclusion/Held: An attempt. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s “patently erroneous” view and restored the trial court’s summons.
Brief Analysis: Preparation is getting ready; attempt begins when the plan is acted on. Here the accused acted on clear intent and stopped only because others intervened. Following State of M.P. v. Mahendra alias Golu (2022) 12 SCC 442, it found an attempt. This is only a prima facie view, not a finding of guilt. The Court also asked the National Judicial Academy to draft guidelines for sensitive handling of such cases.
3. Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2026 INSC 162, Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2026 (Supreme Court, 17 February 2026)
Facts: The accused was convicted of murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter. The police relied mainly on his statement that led them to the child’s bone remains, and on the claim that she was last seen with him. His statement was recorded at 10:30 am on 13 October 2018, but he was formally arrested only at 10:00 pm that day.
Issue: Can a statement made by an accused who was not in police custody be used as proof under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
Conclusion/Held: No. Section 27 applies only if the accused was in police custody while speaking. The Court acquitted him, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Brief Analysis: Custody need not mean formal arrest, but nothing showed he was under police control that morning. Leading police to the remains could still count as conduct under Section 8, but that is weak proof; it can support other evidence, not convict alone. The investigation was also poor: no clear time of death, and the family delayed reporting the child missing. The chain of evidence was incomplete.
THIS CASE SUMMARY IS WRITTEN BY ASHWINI PRAVIN PARDHI FROM DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR SCHOOL OF LAW, NAGPUR
