On 2 January 2025, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that where the State takes possession of land but pays no compensation for the better part of two decades, the prolonged deprivation violates Article 300A — and that although a Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot on his own shift the statutory date for fixing market value, a constitutional court under Articles 32, 226 or 142 may, in exceptional cases of inordinate State delay, direct that market value be reckoned as of a later date. On the facts, the Court fixed the value as on 22 April 2019. A digest of the holding and its place in the Article 300A line.
A branch falling from an old roadside tree onto a sheltering autorickshaw was an unforeseeable Act of God, and the injury did not arise from the vehicle's 'use' in the proximate sense Section 166 requires — yet the Supreme Court still enhanced compensation under Article 142.
On 8 April 2025 a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that a Governor has neither a pocket veto nor an absolute veto over bills passed by a State Legislature, read Article 200 through the aid-and-advice discipline of Article 163, and prescribed outer time-limits for the Governor's and the President's courses of action. Using Article 142, it deemed ten Tamil Nadu bills to have received assent. The correctness of that judgment — the timelines and the deemed-assent device especially — was then referred to a Constitution Bench under Article 143, whose advisory opinion of 20 November 2025 disapproved both. This piece reads the holding and the live doubt over its finality.
The Supreme Court restated the broad factors a court must weigh in fixing permanent alimony — status, the wife's reasonable needs, qualifications and employment, independent income, the marital standard of living, sacrifices for the family, litigation costs and the husband's capacity. Dissolving the marriage under Article 142, it fixed a one-time settlement of roughly ₹2 crore, holding that alimony must secure a decent life without being punitive.
A five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Supreme Court may, under Article 142, dissolve a marriage that has irretrievably broken down to do complete justice — even without one spouse's consent and bypassing the family-court reference — and that the six-month cooling-off period under section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is waivable in a fit case.
A five-judge Constitution Bench overruled the rule in Asian Resurfacing that interim stays lapse automatically after six months. A digest of the holding, the Article 142 limits the Court drew, and what it now means for litigants relying on a High Court stay.
On 12 May 2026, a two-judge bench expunged findings of cruelty and desertion against a dentist wife who had relocated from Kargil to Ahmedabad for tertiary medical care and to pursue her practice, holding that 'marriage does not eclipse her individuality' and retaining the divorce decree on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142.
On 13 April 2026, a two-judge bench held that the safety of commuters on national highways is an integral facet of the right to life with dignity under Article 21, and issued sweeping directions under Article 142 to NHAI, MoRTH, NHIDCL and State PWDs — including a ban on highway-shoulder parking and 75-day compliance reporting.
On 7 November 2024, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to order liquidation of Jet Airways after the Jalan-Kalrock resolution plan stalled for roughly five years.
On 5 May 2026 a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in Alpha Corp Development Pvt Ltd v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, authorised the lifting of the corporate veil during the CIRP of a holding company so that the land assets held by its SPV subsidiaries — which had been used by the group to shield real-estate landbanks from homebuyer claims — could be drawn into the resolution estate. Decided on the factual matrix of the Earth Infrastructures group and producing relief for over 4,200 homebuyers, the ruling is the first clear apex pronouncement that the corporate-separateness principle can be lifted in real-estate insolvencies where the multi-SPV structure has been used to defeat the substantive resolution objective. A close reading of the bench's reasoning, the Article 142 architecture, and what the ruling means for SPV-structured developers, homebuyer associations, and the 2026 RERA-IBC recalibration.
On 24 March 2026 a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court — Surya Kant CJ, Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Kotiswar Singh JJ — held that the denial of Permanent Commission to women Short Service Commission Officers across the Army, Navy and Air Force was the consequence of a structurally discriminatory evaluation framework, not of individual merit assessments. Invoking Article 142, the Court created a legal fiction of deemed completion of 20 years' qualifying service for SSCWOs released during the long litigation, preserved already-granted Permanent Commissions, and directed that serving SSCWOs meeting the 60% Selection Board cut-off be granted Permanent Commission subject to medical and disciplinary clearance. A digest of the holding, the structural-discrimination reasoning, and the Article 142 remedial architecture that closes the Babita Puniya / Annie Nagaraja / Nitisha line.
On 18 December 1997 a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice J.S. Verma, hearing the Jain hawala public interest litigation, issued a set of structural directions to insulate the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate from executive interference. The judgment fixed a two-year tenure for the CBI Director, gave the Central Vigilance Commission statutory status, struck down the 'Single Directive', and operationalised continuing mandamus as a tool of monitored investigation. It is the foundational case in modern Indian PIL practice.