A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, on the ground that they exclude general category students from the grievance redressal mechanism.

The petition argues that by limiting protection primarily to SC/ST, OBC, EWS, and other specified groups, the regulations create impermissible state discrimination and presume that caste-based discrimination can operate only in one direction.

Seeking restraint on the regulations in their present form, the plea contends that denial of grievance redressal based on caste identity violates equality principles and undermines the stated objective of promoting equity and inclusion in higher education institutions.

The Supreme Court pulled up the Bar Council of India (BCI) for failing to provide adequate honorarium and travel allowances to retired High Court judges appointed to monitor State Bar Council elections.

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant questioned how former Chief Justices and judges were expected to bear travel and accommodation costs themselves.

The Court also sought an explanation from BCI for constituting a separate committee for Rajasthan Bar Council elections without informing it.

Directing BCI to respond by the next day, the Bench cautioned against compelling judicial intervention.

The Supreme Court has dismissed JioStar’s plea seeking to stall a Competition Commission of India investigation into alleged abuse of dominant position in the Kerala cable television market.

The Court noted that the probe is still at a preliminary stage and declined to interfere at this juncture.

The case originates from a complaint by Asianet Digital Network alleging discriminatory pricing and denial of market access by JioStar through excessive discounts and sham marketing agreements.

The Court reaffirmed that allegations of abuse of dominance fall squarely within the CCI’s jurisdiction despite sectoral regulation by TRAI.

The Madras High Court set aside the termination of a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee employed with the State Bank of India, holding that nationality alone cannot justify removal from service.

The petitioner was appointed in 2008 as an Officer–Marketing and Recovery under an SBI recruitment notification, but was removed in 2013 after the bank found she was not an Indian citizen.

The Court held that registered refugees are entitled to protection against arbitrary State action under Article 14 and can approach the High Court under Article 226.

It found her residence lawful under the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025, and ruled that the termination violated the right to equality.

[Thirukalyanamalar v. State Bank of India]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside two lower court rulings that had denied a widow her right to deal with property inherited from her husband based on Meo community custom.

The dispute concerned 42 kanals and 19 marlas of land in Gurgaon district, which Rehmani sold through a registered deed in 1982. A relative challenged the sale, claiming a Meo widow had only a life interest in such property.

The Court held that any restriction based on gender or marital status violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

It ruled that the land was non-ancestral and that the sale was valid, and dismissed the suit against Rehmani.

[Mohd. Ashraf & Anr. v. Sadiq (Since Deceased) through his LRs & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to Himesh Foods Pvt Ltd, which operates the Mad Over Donuts chain, by staying a ₹57.29 crore GST demand and penalty.

The Court relied on a prior interim order passed in a similar classification dispute involving Hindustan Coca-Cola. 

The case concerns whether the over-the-counter sale of donuts should be taxed as restaurant services at 5 per cent GST or as the sale of goods at 18 per cent. 

The High Court stayed the impugned adjudication order and listed the matter for final hearing on February 26, 2026.

[Himesh Foods Pvt Ltd. v. UOI & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court held that a wife cannot seek maintenance if her own conduct has caused or contributed to the husband’s inability to earn.

Upholding the denial of interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, the Court noted that the husband, a homeopathic doctor, became permanently incapacitated after suffering a gunshot injury allegedly inflicted by the wife’s family members.

The injury left a pellet lodged in his spinal cord, making him unemployable.

The Court ruled that allowing maintenance in such circumstances would result in grave injustice and amount to taking advantage of one’s own wrongdoing.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed M3M Group Director Roop Bansal to withdraw his plea seeking quashing of an FIR in a trial judge bribery case, subject to payment of ₹1 lakh as costs.

The Court recorded that the petitioner voluntarily undertook not to challenge the FIR further and that the respondents did not strongly oppose the withdrawal.

The case relates to allegations that a trial court judge received illegal gratification to extend undue favours to M3M and IREO Group promoters, with parallel proceedings under the PMLA.

[Roop Bansal v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that transfer of judges is an internal matter of the judiciary and the government must have no role in it.

Speaking at ILS Law College, Pune, he said judicial transfers are meant solely for the better administration of justice.

He expressed concern over collegium resolutions noting transfers at the government’s request, calling it a troubling intrusion into judicial independence. 

Justice Bhuyan defended the collegium system as necessary to prevent political influence, despite its imperfections.

A Delhi court has acquitted social activist Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case filed by Vinai Kumar Saxena, presently the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.

The court held that the complainant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Patkar made the alleged defamatory statements during a televised programme in 2006.

It noted that the complete original video footage was not produced and no eyewitness to the alleged interview or press conference was examined. 

The court observed that reliance on a short, incomplete video clip was insufficient to establish defamation, leading to Patkar’s acquittal under Section 500 of the IPC.

The Karnataka High Court stayed criminal proceedings against a Lamborghini driver accused of rash and noisy driving in Bengaluru, noting that he had already paid a ₹8,500 fine before the FIR was registered.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the case was lodged nearly a month after the incident, allegedly after videos went viral on social media.

The Court also noted that the vehicle’s modified silencers had been removed as directed by the RTO. During the hearing, the driver expressed willingness to perform community service under the BNSS.

Granting interim relief, the Court stayed further investigation till the next hearing.

Trilegal and Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (SAM) advised Pixxel and IN-SPACe on India’s first public-private partnership to design, build, and operate a fully indigenous commercial Earth Observation satellite constellation valued at over ₹1,200 crore, with SAM acting for IIFCL Projects, IN-SPACe’s transaction adviser.

The project will be executed by a consortium comprising Pixxel, SatSure, PierSight and Dhruva Space, which will deploy a 12-satellite constellation over five years using optical, multispectral, hyperspectral and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) payloads.

The system will provide satellite imagery and analytics to commercial, government and strategic customers.