The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that whistleblowers or third parties do not have locus standi in service matters unless they are directly and substantially aggrieved.

The Court observed that service disputes are personal in nature and can only be challenged by individuals whose legal rights are affected.

It rejected a plea by a complainant seeking to be impleaded in proceedings arising from disciplinary action, noting that a whistleblower remains a stranger to the employer-employee dispute.

The Court clarified that such persons may assist as witnesses but cannot participate as litigants in service-related cases.

[Satbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. & connected cases]

The Madras High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a ban on IPL matches in Tamil Nadu during the election period.

The petitioner argued that hosting matches could violate the Model Code of Conduct and influence voters. However, the Court found no merit in the plea, observing that cricket matches are a form of entertainment and cannot be stopped on speculative grounds.

It emphasized that any actual violation of the Model Code would fall within the jurisdiction of the Election Commission, which is competent to take necessary action.

The Court ultimately remarked that people should be allowed to “enjoy the match.”

[T. Prabhakaran v. Chief Election Commissioner]

The Supreme Court has ordered a preliminary enquiry by the CBI into allegations of favoritism and nepotism against Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu regarding public work contracts.

The Bench held that even a single instance of awarding public work through a tainted process violates Article 14.

The Court rejected the State’s defense that the percentage of contested contracts was numerically small, stating that statistics do not dilute constitutional violations.

Relying on a CAG report citing missing procurement records and non-competitive bidding, the Court emphasized that the State must act as a transparent custodian of public interest.

[Save Mon Region Federation v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has ruled that a medical seat in a government institution is a "precious national resource" held in public trust, and allowing it to remain vacant due to administrative lethargy subverts the NEET-UG exam's purpose.

Dismissing the National Medical Commission’s appeal, the Court said authorities are duty-bound to offer seats vacated due to fraud to the next eligible candidate.

It noted that failure to do so defeats the purpose of the NEET-UG process.

Invoking Article 142, the Court ordered admission for the respondent in the 2026-27 session, noting that her career was stalled for three years due to the NMC's refusal to act after a previous candidate's forgery was discovered.

[The Secretary, National Medical Commission v, Sanjana Thakur & Ors]

The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition challenging the Union’s authority to collect toll tax on national highways.

The Court held that such charges are fees traceable to Entry 23 and Entry 96 of the Union List.

The Bench clarified that "tolls" fall under Entry 59 of the State List are confined to charges on roads other than national highways. The Bench affirmed the Madras High Court’s ruling, stating that once a road is declared a national highway, legislative competence shifts to Parliament. 

Consequently, Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee Rules, 2008, remains constitutionally valid.

[T S R Venkatramana v. UOI & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court pulled up the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for delaying release of compensation to a widow for several years, despite clear directions issued earlier.

The Tribunal had withheld the amount, citing a dispute between the claimant’s former and current lawyers.

The Court strongly disapproved of this approach, observing that a tribunal cannot involve itself in infighting between counsel or create procedural hurdles without a legal basis.

It termed the situation unacceptable and directed the MACT Presiding Officer to explain under what authority such an order was passed and why the compensation remained unpaid.

[Renoo Singh v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Distt. Sultanpur & Anr.]

The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of a bank manager involved in misappropriation of customer funds, holding that higher-ranking officials cannot claim parity in punishment with subordinates.

The case involved three employees: a manager, an officer, and a gunman, who were penalised differently based on their roles.

The Delhi High Court had reduced the manager’s punishment on grounds of equality, but the Supreme Court set aside this view. It emphasised that greater authority entails higher responsibility and accountability, justifying stricter punishment.

The Court also reiterated that judicial interference in disciplinary matters is limited unless the penalty is shockingly disproportionate.

The Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court order that allowed a candidate to reschedule a physical test for the Delhi Police Constable recruitment.

The Court held that in public employment matters, where competition is high, candidates must seize opportunities as they arise. Emphasizing that "grace, charity, or compassion" have no place in securing a level playing field.

The Bench noted that the candidate failed to report to the venue despite his illness not being debilitating.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that belonging to a reserved category does not entitle a candidate to discretionary exceptions.

[Commissioner, Delhi Police & Anr. v. Uttam Kumar]

The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of a plea regarding unauthorized land use to a pan-India level, addressing the rampant conversion of residential areas into commercial zones.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan observed that such illegal practices cause significant civic and environmental prejudice to bona fide residents.

The Court impleaded municipal authorities of all State and Union Territory capital cities, directing them to conduct comprehensive inquiries within their jurisdictions.

Commissioners must now file detailed affidavits identifying residential areas misused for non-residential purposes.

[Loganathan v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]

The Tripura High Court ruled that a daughter who obtains a divorce after the death of her pensioner-parent is ineligible for a family pension.

The Court held that under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017, eligibility must be established at the time of the pensioner's death. 

The petitioner was a "married daughter separated from her husband" when her father passed away in 2018, only obtaining a legal divorce in 2021.

The Court emphasized that while unmarried, widowed, or divorced daughters are protected, the rules do not extend to separated married daughters, and the judiciary cannot "rewrite" these statutory limits.

[Ujjala Rani Paul v. Agartala Municipal Corporation]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that employees of cooperative societies cannot claim retiral benefits as a matter of right under the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Service Rules, 1997, declaring these rules ultra vires and unenforceable.

The Court noted that the rules were framed by the Registrar without authority under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, and therefore lacked statutory force.

It further held that cooperative societies are independent entities governed by their own bye-laws and financial capacity, and cannot be compelled to provide benefits on par with government employees.

Consequently, writ petitions seeking enforcement of such benefits were held to be non-maintainable.

[Samarjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. & connected matters]

The Bombay High Court quashed a ₹7.5 lakh penalty imposed on a farmer for alleged illegal sand excavation, holding that mere presence of a JCB in his field and clay residue in its bucket is insufficient evidence.

The Court found that revenue authorities acted on assumptions without proper inquiry or proof.

It noted inconsistencies in official records and defects in the panchanama, including absence of date and lack of supporting material.

Emphasising principles of natural justice, the Court also observed that the farmer was not given a fair hearing. Calling the action arbitrary and harassing, the Court set aside all penalty orders.

[Gunaji Ramji Surnar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) stayed a single judge’s decision granting Old Pension Scheme (OPS) benefits to employees regularised after the New Pension Scheme (NPS) cut-off date of April 1, 2005.

The Division Bench held that a single judge cannot override binding precedents set by coordinate (division) benches.

The State argued that the earlier ruling ignored established law and relied on judgments that had already been set aside.

Observing prima facie legal errors and serious implications, the Court stayed the order, emphasising adherence to judicial discipline and consistency in pension jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court held that the government cannot deny Pay Commission benefits by introducing conditions that are not part of the rules or recommendations.

The case involved denial of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Junior Engineers despite fulfilling the prescribed criteria. Authorities attempted to restrict eligibility by imposing an additional requirement related to entry-level pay, which was not part of the scheme.

Rejecting this approach, the Court emphasised that such conditions amount to rewriting the rules.

It upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision, ruling that once the stipulated requirements are met, benefits cannot be arbitrarily withheld.

[UOI v. Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors.]