The court ruled that state governments cannot accept gifts of temple property under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, as they act as custodians and regulators rather than owners of temple assets. It also emphasised that access to and use of the internet fall within the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, including for children, who cannot be completely denied this access regardless of their age.
In another important ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that the presence of an arbitration clause in an agreement does not automatically prevent criminal proceedings. Courts must first examine whether the allegations contain the essential ingredients of a criminal offence.
The court also upheld the Madras High Court's decision that a person who converts to Islam cannot claim backward-class reservation based on their pre-conversion status. Meanwhile, it restricted mid-course fee increases at self-financing higher educational institutions, clarified the limitation period for insolvency appeals, and addressed legal requirements governing arrests in alleged money laundering cases.
The week also saw the Supreme Court clarify the status of the Election Commission of India's new Form 6 declaration, rule on seniority for ad-hoc employees, and stress that lawyers, journalists and other professionals must not be prevented from performing their professional duties.
In the temple property case, a bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe overturned the Madras High Court's decision and declared a gift deed invalid. The deed had been executed by the temporary trustee of Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple in Tamil Nadu's Erode district, transferring one acre and 10 cents of temple land to the state government for the construction of a taluk office. The Supreme Court held that the government could not accept such a gift, even when the proposed transfer served a public purpose.
On internet rights, the Supreme Court stated that access to and use of the internet constitute fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court made clear that children are also entitled to these rights and cannot be completely deprived of internet access solely because of their age.
Addressing the relationship between arbitration and criminal law, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that an arbitration clause does not bar criminal proceedings. The remarks came during a hearing on an appeal against an order of the Gauhati High Court, which had refused to quash a cheating case against the CEO of a tea company. The dispute arose from a tea garden deal that had failed. The Supreme Court said courts must first determine whether the allegations satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.
On reservation eligibility following religious conversion, a bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sri Chandrashekhar dismissed the Tamil Nadu government's challenge to the Madras High Court's ruling. The court held that a person who converts to Islam does not automatically become a member of any of the seven backward social communities notified by the state. A person's former caste status cannot be transferred to the Muslim Backward Class category, nor can their religious body decide whether they qualify for that status.
The Supreme Court also ruled that self-financing higher educational institutions generally cannot increase fees for students enrolled in professional courses midway through their studies. Such increases may be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, such as a sudden and unforeseen rise in costs. A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe stressed that students and their families must have clarity about the fees they are required to pay. Families often spend a substantial portion of their income and savings on professional education or take out education loans to finance it.
In a recruitment-related case, the Supreme Court held that when eligibility or qualification requirements in a recruitment advertisement are ambiguous, the interpretation should favour a candidate who, on the face of it, possesses the required qualifications. The court set aside a judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, which had disqualified a candidate from appointment to the post of librarian despite ambiguity in the advertisement's experience requirement.
On Wednesday, October 14, the Supreme Court clarified the limitation period for appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It held that the period begins on the date the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) pronounces its order, rather than the date on which the appellant receives a certified copy. A bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria stated that the time spent applying for and obtaining a certified copy can be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the period during which the litigant takes no action before applying for the copy cannot be excluded.
In a ruling concerning arrests in alleged money laundering offences, the Supreme Court said that a delay in immediately forwarding the arrest order and related documents to the adjudicating authority would not automatically render an arrest illegal if there was a reasonable explanation for the delay. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that minor delays in complying with Section 19(2) would not be significant when the principal safeguards against arbitrary arrest had been followed. These safeguards include the authorised officer possessing evidence, recording the reasons for believing that an arrest is necessary in writing, informing the accused of the grounds of arrest, and producing the accused before a competent court within 24 hours.
On Monday, the Supreme Court clarified that it had neither approved nor rejected the new Form 6 declaration used for registering new voters. Its validity remains to be decided. The court orally observed that the Chief Justice of India's remarks the previous week were intended only to explain that the new Form 6 had not been examined in the May 2026 Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) judgment because the form did not exist at that time. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by Priya Mishra concerning the Election Commission of India.
The Supreme Court further ruled that employees appointed on a temporary or ad-hoc basis cannot claim parity with directly recruited employees when seniority is determined. Their seniority will generally be calculated from the date they are confirmed in service, rather than their initial appointment date. A bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Sri Chandrashekhar clarified that although ad-hoc service may be counted for pension purposes, it cannot be counted for determining seniority.
During the hearing of the CEC protest case, the Supreme Court also stressed that lawyers, journalists and other professionals must not be prevented from carrying out their professional duties. Following allegations that Delhi Police had obstructed lawyers and journalists from performing their work, a bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that these professionals should not face interference in the discharge of their duties.
Taken together, the rulings and observations delivered between October 12 and October 15, 2026, addressed a wide range of legal questions, from the ownership and protection of religious property to constitutional freedoms, criminal procedure, educational fees, public recruitment and electoral administration.
About The Author
Comment List