Search cases

State vs Unknown — Death Threats and Communal Remarks Against Judge

Judge Tabassum Khan received death threats and communal abuse following her 12 June 2026 sentencing of 14 men to life imprisonment in a mob lynching case. The Madhya Pradesh Police registered FIRs against unidentified individuals following alerts from the Union Home Ministry's cyber-crime unit on 28 June 2026. As of 4 July 2026, the investigation into the intimidation of the judiciary is ongoing, with support from the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court lawyers.

State vs Unnamed Accused — Quashing of FIR after 23-year delay

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR that was lodged 23 years after a civil suit involving the same allegations. The Court noted that the unexplained delay suggested the criminal law was being invoked as a pressure tactic.

Enforcement Directorate vs. TASMAC

The Enforcement Directorate is investigating alleged financial irregularities and money laundering within the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation. While the Supreme Court dismissed a plea from businessman PR Rajesh Kumar challenging the legality of the searches on 19 June 2026, the state government decided to withdraw its own appeal against the agency's actions as reported on 27 June 2026.

Jacqueline Fernandez vs. Directorate of Enforcement — Money Laundering Case

Actor Jacqueline Fernandez is accused by the Enforcement Directorate of receiving luxury gifts worth approximately ₹7 crore from alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, who is accused of posing as a government official to defraud a businesswoman of ₹200 crore. Fernandez withdrew her Supreme Court plea against trial proceedings on June 25, 2026. Charges have been framed against her under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja

This case involves a dispute regarding a woman's right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. While the Supreme Court previously ruled in October 2020 that a woman cannot be evicted from a house not owned by her husband, the Delhi High Court held on 19 June 2026 that a daughter-in-law cannot occupy a relative's property once the license granted to her husband has expired.

Investigation into Haryana Public Service Commission recruitment scam

The investigation into the Haryana Public Service Commission recruitment scam involves allegations of examination rigging, including the 2022 arrest of HCS officer Anil Nagar. As of 17 June 2026, the Supreme Court is reviewing a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that quashed a chargesheet against eight officers. The matter is currently before the Supreme Court, which deferred a hearing until 21 July 2026 following the unavailability of the Haryana Advocate General.

Gujarat Pollution Control Board vs. Property Owner — Environmental violations by unlicensed dye manufacturing tenant

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, upholding a November 2025 National Green Tribunal order that absolved a property owner of liability for environmental violations committed by a tenant. The tenant had operated an unlicensed dye manufacturing facility that discharged harmful effluents. The Supreme Court concluded on 8 June 2026 that a landlord cannot be held accountable for a tenant's environmental breaches.

Gunjan Girija Kumari and Others v. State of NCT of Delhi — Caste-based abuse and SC/ST Act

In an appeal by Gunjan Girija Kumari and others, the Supreme Court ruled on 11 May 2026 that casteist abuses uttered inside a private residential house, away from public view, do not constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Following this determination, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings that had been previously dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 22 August 2024.

Encroachment Clearance in Agasthyamalai Landscape

In the case of A. John Kennedy vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court issued a judgment on 29 May 2026 regarding the Agasthyamalai ecological landscape. The court ordered the time-bound removal of all encroachments from protected areas, including the Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, and mandated the closure of resorts within the region.

State of Tamil Nadu vs Daswant — 2017 Mugalivakkam minor rape and murder case

Dashwanth was previously sentenced to death for the 2017 rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl in Mugalivakkam. The Supreme Court of India set aside his conviction and acquitted him on 8 October 2025. As reported on 28 May 2026, the Tamil Nadu government stated its intention to file a curative petition against this acquittal.

Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Retail Limited

Amazon challenged a deal between Future Group and Reliance Retail, leading the Supreme Court to uphold an emergency arbitrator's award halting the transaction on 6 August 2021. As reported on 27 May 2026, the Supreme Court subsequently set aside a Competition Commission of India order that had revoked deal approval and imposed a 202 crore rupee penalty on Amazon.

State vs Unnamed Accused — Criminal Intimidation via Intimate Video

In the case of Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of an individual for criminal intimidation based on threats to circulate a woman's intimate video. As reported on 23 May 2026, the Court ruled that the offense is established even if the device or the recording itself is not recovered.

State of Tamil Nadu vs Accused — Dr. SD Subbiah murder case

The sessions court initially sentenced seven individuals to death and two to life imprisonment for the murder of neurologist Dr. SD Subbiah. Following an acquittal of all accused by the Madras High Court in June 2024, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittals on 19 May 2026. The Supreme Court restored the convictions of the seven individuals while modifying their sentencing to life imprisonment, with two others permitted to seek pardon.

Sabarimala temple entry — Supreme Court review proceedings

A Supreme Court Constitution Bench considered the challenge to the Sabarimala temple's ban on women of menstruating age, addressing issues of judicial review and the authority to define essential religious practices. The Court concluded its 18-day hearing and reserved its verdict on 15 May 2026. The proceedings also involved a critique of the initial 2006 public interest litigation as an abuse of process, as noted on 5 May 2026.

Gautam Navlakha vs National Investigation Agency

This case involves the interpretation of custody under Section 167 of the CrPC regarding the legality of house arrest versus transit remand. As reported on 14 May 2026, Gautam Navlakha is out on bail, having been released from custody two years prior to that report in the Bhima Koregaon case.

Enforcement Directorate vs Alamgir Alam — Money laundering case

Former Jharkhand Minister Alamgir Alam was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on 15 May 2024 for alleged financial irregularities and a tender scam under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Following the Supreme Court's order granting bail, he was released from Birsa Munda Central Jail on 14 May 2026.

State of Uttar Pradesh vs Kailash Chandra Kapri

The Supreme Court quashed a 35-year-old criminal case, citing the enormous delay in trial and judicial apathy. The court expressed concern over the systemic failure to conclude long-pending criminal trials.

Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala — Sabarimala review case

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is hearing a reference arising from the 2018 Sabarimala verdict to examine broader questions of religious freedom, the Essential Religious Practices test, and the maintainability of Public Interest Litigation. As of 12 May 2026, the court has questioned the locus standi of the original petitioners and expanded the scope of the reference to include issues such as Parsi excommunications.

State of Jharkhand vs Ranjan Kumar

The Supreme Court of India upheld the dismissal of police constable Ranjan Kumar, who held simultaneous employment in the Jharkhand and Bihar police forces by using different identities. Ruling that public employment obtained through fraudulent means cannot be sustained, the Court ordered that criminal action be considered against him as reported on 12 May 2026.

State vs Accused — Gurugram minor rape case

The Supreme Court is monitoring the investigation into the rape of a minor in Gurugram, following criticisms of the initial police conduct and the dilution of charges. A three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the court on 7 April 2026 and has since completed its probe. As of 11 May 2026, the court is set to examine broader issues concerning hospital negligence, potential complicity, and victim compensation.