The Rajasthan High Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Jaipur City Municipal Corporation’s failure to maintain city cleanliness, suggesting that fines be imposed on citizens who fail to ensure proper garbage disposal in their areas.

A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta was hearing a petition alleging that despite recruiting 8,000 sanitation workers, very few are performing ground-level cleaning.

The Court directed the Corporation to provide ward-wise details of workers actually engaged in cleaning versus those assigned to office duties. 

The Court further ordered the installation of large dumping boxes with a strict daily cleaning schedule.

[Vimal Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan]

The Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for 32-year-old Harish Rana, who has remained in a permanent vegetative state for over 12 years. 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan applied the 2018 Common Cause guidelines, marking the first time the Court has judicially authorized passive euthanasia.

The bench ruled that Clinically Administered Nutrition (CAN) constitutes medical treatment that can be withheld if there is no hope of recovery.

Following unanimous recommendations from primary and secondary medical boards, the Court directed AIIMS Delhi to admit Rana to its palliative care center to ensure the process is carried out with dignity.

[Harish Rana v. UOI]

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that study leave for higher education cannot be claimed as a matter of right by government employees.

The Court dismissed the appeal of a mathematics lecturer from a government polytechnic college whose request for study leave to pursue a PhD had been rejected by the authorities.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru upheld the earlier decision, observing that granting study leave depends on administrative discretion and institutional requirements.

Since the competent authority had validly rejected the request, the Court found no reason to interfere.

[Chitranjan Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh]

The Supreme Court sought a response from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on a plea to permit Urs and Namaz at the tomb of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus in Gwalior.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a challenge to a Madhya Pradesh High Court order upholding the ASI's refusal.

While the petitioner cited a 400-year-old tradition and pointed to recent music festivals held at the site, the ASI argued the monument is protected and not a designated place of worship.

The Court adjourned the matter, directing the Union and ASI to file a counter-affidavit.

[Sabla Hasan v. UOI]

The Madras High Court expressed concern over the "terrible rat race" in education, noting that parents often prioritize medical and engineering admissions over holistic learning.

The Court observed that students are frequently pressured to drop challenging subjects or mother tongues to focus exclusively on NEET preparation.

The Court was hearing a plea from a father seeking permission for his daughter to write Mathematics as an additional subject after she initially dropped it for Physical Education under NEET pressure.

Noting that the student had studied Mathematics in Class XI, the Court directed CBSE to allow her to appear for the supplementary examination.

[B Shajimon v. UOI & Ors.]

The Supreme Court directed the Union Health Ministry to formulate a no-fault compensation policy for individuals suffering serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.

The Bench clarified that the policy allows claims without proving negligence and does not imply an admission of liability by the Government.

The Court further directed that adverse event data must be periodically placed in the public domain. While the bench refused to appoint a separate expert body, it noted that the existing monitoring framework would continue.

The order ensures that affected persons can still pursue other legal remedies for vaccine-related injuries.

[Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court held that marks obtained in public recruitment examinations are not confidential information and can be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, without requiring third-party consent.

The Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed that marks secured in a public examination relate to a public activity and therefore cannot be treated as private information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The Court noted that when candidates participate in public recruitment processes, their marks ultimately become part of the merit list and public domain, and disclosing them does not violate privacy.

[UOI Thru G.M. Diesel Locomotive & Anr. v. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & Ors.]

The Rajasthan High Court held that a son's right to compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely because his parents were divorced or because his father's second wife was already employed.

The Bench rejected the State's argument that the son was not "dependent" as he lived with his mother post-divorce.

The Court clarified that divorce does not negate the legal status of a son under the 1996 Rules.

The Court further noted that the second wife's appointment under the widow quota was an independent recruitment and could not divest the son of his specific rights under compassionate grounds.

[State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ashish Saxena & Ors.]

The Madras High Court criticized the State's failure to remove encroachments from 507 acres of temple land, observing that a deity’s lack of voting rights should not leave it remediless.

A Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice B. Pugalendhi held that constitutional governance must not be subordinate to electoral expediency or organized resistance.

The Court noted that even after its 2018 directive, eviction was stalled by protests involving political leaders and legal professionals.

Invoking parens patriae jurisdiction, the Court ordered a comprehensive recovery report every three months and directed the disposal of related civil suits within six months.

[A. Radhakrishnan v. P. Madhusudhanreddy IAS & Ors.]

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court expressed serious concern over litigants using unauthorized photocopies of case documents instead of obtaining certified copies through legal procedures.

The Court observed that such practices indicate unfair means of procuring documents from trial court records. Directing the Registrar General to issue strict instructions to all presiding officers across the Union Territories to curb this trend.

The Court warned that if future petitions contain uncertified photocopies from court files, the court may seek formal explanations from both the concerned clerks and the presiding judges.

The order emphasizes maintaining the integrity of judicial records.

[Fayaz Ahmed Sheikh & Ors. v. Qamar Un Nisa & Anr.]

The Supreme Court has stayed a Delhi HC ruling that struck down the Indian Coast Guard's rank-based retirement policy.

The High Court had declared different retirement ages (57 for Commandants and below, vs. 60 for higher ranks) as unconstitutional. However, the Apex Court intervened, noting that such a change could disrupt the structure of other uniformed forces.

It has directed the Central Government to form an expert panel to re-examine the Coast Guard's recruitment and retirement framework.

For now, the existing age limits will continue until the next hearing in April 2026.

[UOI v. Cheeli J Ratnam]

The Delhi High Court has set aside a January 2026 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had quashed disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede.

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering at the stage of issuance of a charge memorandum and restraining the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) from proceeding further.

The proceedings arise from allegations examined by a Special Enquiry Team following Wankhede’s role in the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug case, which had also led to the arrest of Aryan Khan.

The High Court’s ruling allows the disciplinary process to continue.

The Kerala High Court directed that an investigation into 12 cheating cases filed by a Kuwait-based bank be transferred to the State Crime Branch.

The cases involve borrowers who allegedly obtained loans while working in Kuwait and defaulted after relocating to India or other countries.

The Court noted that the offences have international ramifications and several accused reside abroad.

Relying on a police circular requiring cases with cross-border links to be handled by the Crime Branch, the Court held that specialised investigation was necessary and ordered the probe to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.

[Al Ahli Bank KSCP Kuwait v. Director General of Police & Ors.]

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has directed authorities to fix accountability over the controversy surrounding an NCERT Class 8 Social Science chapter referring to “corruption” in the judiciary.

Government sources indicated that the Prime Minister has asked for a detailed review of the matter and for responsibility to be clearly determined. Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan stated that an inquiry will be conducted and appropriate action will be taken against officials found responsible. 

The Education Ministry has also written to the Information & Broadcasting Ministry and the Ministry of Electronics and IT to halt dissemination of the controversial content across digital platforms and media.

NCERT has issued a public apology, describing the material as an “error in judgement.”