The Supreme Court has kept up a brisk pace over the past week, delivering rulings that touch election law, civil procedure, inheritance disputes, and — in one closely watched case — the judiciary’s stance on artificial intelligence. Here’s a roundup of the most significant judgments.

Municipal Poll Candidates Can’t Be Prosecuted Under Election Law for False Affidavits

The Court clarified an important gap in how false-affidavit cases are handled in local body elections. It ruled that the penal provisions found in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 — the law that governs parliamentary and state assembly elections — do not extend to municipal elections. Candidates in local body polls who are accused of submitting false affidavits will instead face prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, but only in situations where the relevant municipal election law itself doesn’t already provide for a penalty. The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol, drew a clear line between the two election frameworks.

Court Sets Zero-Tolerance Standard for AI-Generated Legal Precedents

In one of the week’s most striking rulings, the Supreme Court dealt firmly with a case where lower tribunals had cited fabricated case law generated by artificial intelligence. The dispute arose from an insolvency appeal under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, where the National Company Law Tribunal and its appellate body had relied on precedents that turned out to be entirely fictitious — hallucinated by an AI tool rather than pulled from any real judicial record.

The Court set aside both tribunal orders and issued a pointed warning to courts and tribunals everywhere: unverified AI-generated case citations must be treated with zero tolerance. In unusually vivid language, the bench compared the practice to a toxic industrial disaster, warning that letting fabricated AI precedents seep into the justice system could be as damaging as a chemical leak. The case is Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.

Suspicious Wills Require More Than Just Witness Testimony

Ruling on an inheritance dispute out of Himachal Pradesh, the Court held that when a Will is executed under circumstances that raise suspicion, simply producing an attesting witness to vouch for it isn’t enough to establish its validity. In such cases, the party seeking to enforce the Will carries an added burden: they must actively dispel the doubts surrounding its execution and satisfy the court that the document genuinely reflects the deceased person’s free and informed intentions. The ruling overturned a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision, with the bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra.

When Can a Precedent Be Ignored? Court Revisits the Per Incuriam Doctrine

The Court used a separate case to sharpen the boundaries of per incuriam — the legal principle that allows a ruling to be disregarded if it was decided incorrectly or in ignorance of binding law. The bench held that this doctrine can only be invoked in narrow situations: when a judgment’s core reasoning directly conflicts with an earlier ruling from a bench of equal or greater strength, or when the earlier decision failed to account for a relevant statute or precedent. Importantly, the Court stressed that what matters is the size of the bench that decided a case, not how many judges over time have agreed with a particular view. A smaller or coordinate bench, the Court noted, cannot sidestep or effectively rewrite the settled position of a larger one.

No Pre-Charge Evidence Needed Before Committing Certain Criminal Cases

In a criminal procedure ruling delivered on July 1, the Court held that magistrates are not obligated to record evidence before committal under Section 244 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when dealing with complaint cases involving offences that can only be tried by a Sessions Court. The decision set aside a contrary ruling from the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

New Guidelines for Calculating Compensation in Motor Accident Cases

Aiming to bring uniformity to how courts compute compensation in fatal motor accident claims, the Court laid out detailed guidelines for estimating a deceased victim’s annual income. The framework draws a clear distinction between methods used for salaried employees versus self-employed individuals, addressing a long-standing source of inconsistency across tribunals. The bench included Justice Sanjay Karol.

Haryana’s Older Remission Policy Prevails Over Later Guidelines

In a case concerning premature release of a life convict, the Court held that Haryana’s 2002 Remission Policy was framed under constitutional authority — meaning the power to act on it rests with the Governor personally. Because of this constitutional footing, a subsequent 2008 policy could not be read as overriding or superseding it. The Court ruled that the convict’s application for early release should instead be evaluated under the more liberal terms of the original 2002 policy.

This summary is based on rulings reported between June 29 and July 8, 2026, and is intended for general informational purposes. For the full text of any judgment, refer to the Supreme Court of India’s official website at sci.gov.in.