New Supreme Court rulings of 20 and 21 October 2026, written up for CLAT PG. These four decisions came after the 25 judgments in our CLAT PG 2027 Judgment Passage Pack, which covers January to September 2026. Read each note, then try the questions before opening the answers.
The notes are our own summaries, prepared from the reported decisions. Please read the full judgment for any pinpoint you plan to quote.
1. Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan
2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1070 | Bhatti and Anjaria JJ | Reported 20 October 2026
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: section 17A
A Rajasthan police constable was charged under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding a bribe of Rs 1.5 lakh. He argued that no investigation could begin without prior approval under section 17A.
The Court held that section 17A applies only where the alleged offence is relatable to a decision taken or a recommendation made by the public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. A demand for illegal gratification is a criminal act unconnected with those functions, so prior approval was not needed.
The Court followed CBI v. Santosh Karnani (2023) and its recent decision in Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan (2026). It said the pending reference on the validity of section 17A to a larger Bench did not stop it from deciding the case, because the section was not attracted on these facts in the first place. It also held that sanction under section 19 had been obtained before cognizance, so no irregularity vitiated the proceedings.
Q1. Which condition must be met before section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act can apply?
- The accused must be a gazetted officer
- There must be a decision or recommendation by the public servant in discharge of official functions or duties
- The offence must involve more than Rs 1 lakh
- A magistrate must first direct an inquiry
Show answer
Answer: B. There must be a decision or recommendation by the public servant in discharge of official functions or duties
Section 17A is confined to offences relatable to a recommendation made or a decision taken in discharge of official duties.
Q2. Why was prior approval under section 17A held unnecessary in this case?
- Because sanction under section 19 was already given
- Because the accused was below the rank of an officer
- Because the demand of a bribe is a criminal act unconnected with official duties
- Because the larger Bench had struck down section 17A
Show answer
Answer: C. Because the demand of a bribe is a criminal act unconnected with official duties
The Court called the demand of a bribe a pure criminal act not linked to any decision or recommendation of the appellant.
Q3. The validity of section 17A was pending before a larger Bench. How did the Court deal with this?
- It adjourned the appeal until the reference was decided
- It struck down section 17A
- It held the reference did not prevent it from deciding, since section 17A was not attracted on the facts
- It referred this appeal to the larger Bench as well
Show answer
Answer: C. It held the reference did not prevent it from deciding, since section 17A was not attracted on the facts
The Court said it could decide the appeal because the ingredients of section 17A were absent on the facts.
2. Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv K M Shajahan
SLP (Crl) No. 20437 of 2026 | Bagchi and V Mohana JJ | 21 October 2026
BNSS section 175(4) and judicial direction to register an FIR
A Kerala High Court Single Judge had directed registration of an FIR, and commencement of an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, against a former Chief Minister and others in the CMRL-Exalogic case. The petitioners were refused leave to appeal by a Division Bench.
The Supreme Court set aside that refusal, allowed the petitioners to pursue their appeals and stayed the investigation for seven days so that they could seek interim relief from the High Court.
In explaining the scheme, the Court said section 175(4) of the BNSS expands the safeguards for a public servant. Before a Magistrate orders an investigation on a complaint about acts in the course of official duties, the Magistrate must receive a report from the officer superior to the public servant and consider the public servant’s assertions. Section 156(3) of the CrPC had no such requirement. The Court stressed that it referred to section 175(4) only to explain the new scheme and not to decide whether it applied to the allegations in this case.
Q4. Which provision of the CrPC corresponds to section 175 of the BNSS on the power to investigate cognizable cases?
- Section 154
- Section 156
- Section 173
- Section 190
Show answer
Answer: B. Section 156
Section 175 of the BNSS is the counterpart of section 156 of the CrPC. Section 156(3) CrPC allowed a Magistrate to order an investigation.
Q5. Under section 175(4) BNSS, what must a Magistrate do before ordering an investigation on a complaint against a public servant for acts in the course of official duties?
- Obtain the High Court’s permission
- Receive a report from the superior officer and consider the public servant’s assertions
- Order a preliminary inquiry by the Lokpal
- Hear the complainant on oath only
Show answer
Answer: B. Receive a report from the superior officer and consider the public servant’s assertions
The provision requires a report on the incident from the superior officer and consideration of what the public servant says about the situation.
Q6. Did the Supreme Court decide that section 175(4) BNSS applied to the allegations against the petitioners?
- Yes, and quashed the FIR
- Yes, but only for some allegations
- No, it referred to the provision only to explain the new scheme
- No, because the section does not cover public servants
Show answer
Answer: C. No, it referred to the provision only to explain the new scheme
The Court said it referred to section 175(4) to explain the expanded safeguards and nothing more.
3. Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party v. State of Andhra Pradesh
2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1075 | Bagchi and V Mohana JJ | 21 October 2026 (interim order)
Free and fair elections and the limits of judicial restraint
The principal opposition party in Andhra Pradesh said that violence prevented nearly two-thirds of its candidates from filing nominations for urban local body elections. The High Court declined relief, and the party came to the Supreme Court.
The Court said free and fair elections are a basic structure of the Constitution and that the right to file nominations is a facet of that process. It noted that the State Election Commission has a constitutional duty under Article 243ZA to conduct and supervise municipal elections in a free and fair manner.
The Court accepted that courts ordinarily defer to the Election Commission, but held that deference does not wholly exclude judicial review when widespread violence threatens the fairness of the process. It relied on Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (2024) and Bharatiya Janata Party, West Bengal v. State of West Bengal (2018). As interim relief it asked the State Election Commission to consider extending the nomination deadline and directed that the final list of candidates not be published until 23 October. It stressed that it was not directly intervening in the election process.
Q7. Under which Article is the State Election Commission responsible for conducting and supervising municipal elections?
- Article 243K
- Article 243ZA
- Article 324
- Article 329
Show answer
Answer: B. Article 243ZA
The Court referred to the constitutional duty of the State Election Commission under Article 243ZA for municipal elections.
Q8. What interim direction did the Supreme Court give?
- It stayed the elections for the whole State
- It cancelled all nominations already filed
- It asked the State Election Commission to consider extending the nomination deadline and deferred publication of the final list to 23 October
- It transferred the election to the Election Commission of India
Show answer
Answer: C. It asked the State Election Commission to consider extending the nomination deadline and deferred publication of the final list to 23 October
The Court did not itself extend the deadline. It left that decision to the State Election Commission and deferred the final list.
Q9. Which statement best reflects the Court’s reasoning on judicial restraint in election matters?
- Courts can never interfere once an election is notified
- Courts ordinarily defer, but are not powerless when free and fair elections are threatened by illegal means such as muscle power
- Courts must always supervise nominations
- Only election petitions after the process can ever be heard
Show answer
Answer: B. Courts ordinarily defer, but are not powerless when free and fair elections are threatened by illegal means such as muscle power
The Court called constitutional courts the custodians of constitutional values and held that review cannot be wholly muted in such cases.
4. Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1073 | Bhatti and Anjaria JJ | 21 October 2026
Motor accident compensation: medical versus functional disability
A pillion rider suffered severe head injuries in a 2016 accident in Kerala. The Medical Board assessed his permanent disability at 75.5 per cent. He needed an attendant for life.
The Court held that a person who remains dependent on another and needs an attendant throughout life can be treated as suffering 100 per cent functional disability, even if the Medical Board certifies a lower medical percentage. Disability must be assessed by its functional effect on the claimant’s life and earning capacity, and not only by the medical figure.
It followed Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Compensation was raised from Rs 36.22 lakh to Rs 77,84,394, with interest of 6.5 per cent per annum on the additional amount. In a connected appeal the Court treated a medical disability of 62 per cent as 80 per cent functional disability and raised that claimant’s compensation to Rs 69,60,880.
Q10. A Medical Board certifies 75.5 per cent permanent disability, but the victim needs an attendant for life. How should functional disability be assessed?
- At 75.5 per cent, as certified
- At 50 per cent, as a compromise
- At 100 per cent, because lifelong dependence shows the functional effect
- It cannot be assessed without a second Medical Board
Show answer
Answer: C. At 100 per cent, because lifelong dependence shows the functional effect
The Court held that one who needs an attendant throughout life can be treated as 100 per cent functionally disabled.
Q11. The distinction on which this ruling rests is between:
- Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages
- Medical disability and functional disability
- Multiplier and multiplicand
- Own damage and third party cover
Show answer
Answer: B. Medical disability and functional disability
The Court reiterated that permanent disability is judged by its functional impact, not only by the medical percentage.
Q12. In the connected appeal, the claimant’s medical disability was 62 per cent. What functional disability did the Court assess?
- 62 per cent
- 70 per cent
- 80 per cent
- 100 per cent
Show answer
Answer: C. 80 per cent
The Court assessed that claimant’s functional disability at 80 per cent and enhanced the compensation.
Practise on more 2026 rulings
The CLAT PG 2027 Judgment Passage Pack turns 25 important 2026 Supreme Court judgments into CLAT PG style passages with 125 questions and explained answers. For complete timed papers, see the CLAT PG Complete Pack or all CLAT UG and PG packs.