Author: Anvita Dwivedi

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the Uttar Pradesh Government’s decision to debar a medical aspirant from participating in the admission process of the succeeding academic session after he vacated a medical seat that had already been allotted to him. A Division Bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh dismissed the challenge to the Government Order dated June 26, 2024, holding that the rights of a candidate who leaves an allotted medical seat cannot be considered in isolation from the rights of other aspirants who were denied that seat in the first place. The ruling in Rohan…

The Supreme Court has delivered an important ruling on the relationship between university recruitment advertisements, statutory academic regulations and the service rights of teachers, holding that a university cannot casually depart from the applicable regulatory framework governing pay scales after inviting candidates to apply on a particular basis. In Dr. Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors., a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision and held that the appellant, appointed as an Associate Professor at Uttarakhand Sanskrit University, was entitled to the prescribed revised pay scale from…

The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an interim order of the Jharkhand High Court permitting the NGO Energy Watchdog to participate in proceedings initiated by Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) against two companies over alleged unauthorised supply and use of electricity. The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, while disposing of the challenge in M/s Amalgam Steels and Power Ltd. & Anr. v. Energy Watchdog & Ors., made it clear that its decision was confined to the peculiar facts of the case and should not be understood as conclusively determining the wider question…

The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a man in a kidnapping-for-ransom and murder case, holding that the prosecution had failed to place before the Court any reliable and legally admissible evidence connecting him with either the deceased or the premises in which the body was recovered. A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, in Kondapaka Sridhar @ Shekar @ Madhu @ Gopi @ Chinna v. State of Telangana, allowed the criminal appeal on September 3, 2026 and directed the release of the appellant. The judgment is a significant reminder that the seriousness of…

The Allahabad High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition seeking registration of an FIR against Jagadguru Rambhadracharya over allegedly objectionable remarks concerning the Upadhyay community and certain revered religious figures, holding that a person complaining of police inaction must ordinarily first pursue the statutory remedies provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Division Bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena dismissed the petition filed by advocate Ramesh Upadhyay, while leaving him free to pursue an appropriate remedy…

The Supreme Court has laid down an important framework governing the custody, disposal and confiscation of vehicles seized in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that a Drug Disposal Committee cannot independently dispose of a seized vehicle without an order from the competent criminal court. The Court has further clarified that the statutory power of confiscation belongs to the court trying the NDPS offence and that, where a vehicle is proposed to be sent for disposal because its owner has not sought interim custody, the owner must first receive notice and an opportunity of hearing.…

The Supreme Court has upheld the Reserve Bank of India’s authority to supersede the Board of Directors of a multi-State co-operative bank beyond the six-month period ordinarily contemplated under Article 243ZL of the Constitution, placing the protection of depositors and the stability of the banking system at the centre of its interpretation. The judgment in Sandeep S. Ghandat & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors., delivered on September 3, 2026 by a Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, settles an important intersection between constitutional protection of democratic co-operative governance and the specialised regulatory powers…

The Supreme Court of India has emerged as the host of an important international judicial dialogue as Chief Justice of India Surya Kant began bilateral engagements with senior judicial leaders from BRICS member states and partner countries in New Delhi. The BRICS Chief Justices’ Forum, being hosted by the Supreme Court from September 4 to 6, 2026, brings together heads of superior courts from a diverse group of jurisdictions to deliberate upon contemporary challenges concerning justice delivery, international commercial disputes, technological transformation and sustainable development. What makes the initiative legally significant is that the engagement goes beyond ceremonial judicial diplomacy.…

The Supreme Court of India has emerged as the host of an important international judicial dialogue as Chief Justice of India Surya Kant began bilateral engagements with senior judicial leaders from BRICS member states and partner countries in New Delhi. The BRICS Chief Justices’ Forum, being hosted by the Supreme Court from September 4 to 6, 2026, brings together heads of superior courts from a diverse group of jurisdictions to deliberate upon contemporary challenges concerning justice delivery, international commercial disputes, technological transformation and sustainable development. What makes the initiative legally significant is that the engagement goes beyond ceremonial judicial diplomacy.…

In a significant ruling at the intersection of insolvency law, real-estate regulation and homebuyer protection, the Supreme Court has held that homebuyers attempting to rescue an incomplete housing project cannot be compelled to bear financial penalties arising from the defaults of the original developer. Setting aside the treatment of NOIDA’s time-extension charges as Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process costs, the Court reasoned that a penalty designed to discipline a defaulting developer loses its justification when the developer has already exited the project and the burden is effectively transferred to homebuyers and the Successful Resolution Applicant attempting to complete it. The judgment…