The Bombay High Court sought a response from the Central government on a PIL requesting inclusion of Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE) under the National Policy for Rare Diseases, 2021.

The petition highlighted the absence of financial and medical support for patients suffering from this fatal neurological disorder, which is currently excluded from the policy.

The Court noted that while the policy provides financial assistance for certain rare diseases, SSPE has been left out due to the lack of definitive treatment.

It directed the Centre to clarify its stand, while also considering concerns around patients’ right to healthcare and the heavy financial burden on families.

[Mahadu Lahanu Belkar v. UOI]

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) directed registration of an FIR against Rahul Gandhi over allegations that he concealed British citizenship.

The Court set aside a Lucknow court order that had earlier refused to direct an FIR and held that a prima facie case exists warranting investigation.

The plea, filed by a BJP worker, claimed that Gandhi had declared himself a British national while incorporating a UK-based company in 2003 and in subsequent filings. 

The Court directed authorities to investigate the allegations under relevant laws, leaving the matter open for further inquiry and possible action based on findings.

The Lok Sabha rejected the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, which proposed increasing the House’s strength to 850 seats, as it failed to secure the required two-thirds majority.

While 298 members supported the Bill, 230 opposed it, leading to its defeat.

The amendment aimed to enable delimitation based on the 2011 Census and implement women’s reservation without waiting for the next census.

Following the failure, the Centre withdrew the Delimitation Bill, 2026, and related legislation. Opposition parties had raised concerns over potential imbalance in state representation and timing of the proposed delimitation exercise.

The Supreme Court held that employees appointed without following due process, such as public advertisement, competitive selection, or interviews cannot claim regularisation of service.

It reiterated that such “backdoor entries” violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which mandate equality and fair opportunity in public employment. The Court emphasised that regularisation cannot be used to legitimise illegal or irregular appointments made outside the prescribed recruitment framework.

Even long years of service do not create a legal right to be absorbed if the initial appointment itself was not made in accordance with law.

The ruling reinforces the principle of transparency and fairness in public hiring.

[Madan Singh v. State of Haryana]

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the acquittal of police officers in the Udayakumar custodial death case.

The appeal contests a Kerala High Court judgment that had set aside the conviction and death sentences awarded by a CBI trial court. The case relates to the 2005 death of Udayakumar, who allegedly suffered custodial torture.

The Court has sought responses from the accused officers and listed the matter for further hearing.

The outcome will determine whether the acquittal stands or requires reconsideration by the apex court.

[Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jitha Kumar K & Ors.]

The Supreme Court held that the right to safe passage on roads is a fundamental part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Bench observed that preventable highway deaths represent a failure of the State's constitutional duty.

The Court issued extensive nationwide directions, including a ban on highway parking, a 60-day deadline to remove unauthorized encroachments like dhabas, and the identification of accident blackspots within 45 days.

The ruling emphasizes that financial constraints cannot justify compromising public safety and mandates 24/7 patrolling and emergency response teams every 75 kilometers.

[In Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors.]

The Telangana High Court stayed criminal proceedings against BJP leader Madhavi Latha in a case involving alleged interference with the electoral process during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

Justice J Sreenivas Rao suspended the proceedings pending before a magistrate court, noting that the matter required a detailed legal examination.

Latha was originally booked after a video showed her asking burqa-clad voters to reveal their faces to verify their identities at a Hyderabad polling booth.

Her counsel argued that raising an identity objection does not constitute an offense and noted that the police allegedly failed to follow proper judicial procedures before investigating.

[K. Madhavi Latha v. State of Telangana]

The Central Government has brought the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023, into force effective April 16, 2026.

The law mandates 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. While the Act received presidential assent in 2023, its implementation was deferred pending a notification.

This move coincides with the introduction of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, which seeks to increase Lok Sabha seats to 850 and delink the reservation from the post-census delimitation requirement.

By modifying these conditions, the government aims to enable the immediate implementation of the quota following a fresh delimitation exercise. The Parliament continues to debate these amendments.

CJI Surya Kant remarked that the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a "constitutional ambition" that remains distinct from religious considerations.

The Bench made these observations while hearing a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Muslim personal law provisions regarding inheritance, which allegedly discriminate against women.

The Court issued notice to the Centre, seeking its response on the matter. While advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that a gender-neutral framework is necessary to ensure equality, Justice Bagchi noted that such social reforms should ideally emerge from within the faith.

The Court emphasized that a rational and humanistic temper is essential for such developments.

[Poulomi Pavini Shukla v. UOI]

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Central government on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937.

The plea argues that current inheritance rules discriminate against women by granting them smaller shares compared to men, violating equality guarantees under Articles 14 and 15.

While acknowledging the public interest, the bench emphasized the limits of judicial intervention and directed the petitioners to implead aggrieved Muslim women directly affected by these laws.

The Court further remarked that social reforms in religious personal laws should ideally emerge from within the faith itself.

[Poulomi Pavini Shukla v. UOI]

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took suo motu cognizance of a media report about several girls falling ill after consuming food at a hostel in Memnagar, Ahmedabad.

Around 57 students reported symptoms like vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal pain, with nearly 18 requiring hospitalisation.

The Commission observed that if the report is accurate, it raises serious concerns of human rights violations related to health and safety.

It issued notices to the Gujarat Chief Secretary and Ahmedabad Police Commissioner, seeking a detailed report within two weeks, including the health status of the victims and progress of the investigation.

The Supreme Court declined to examine a PIL challenging the sale of liquor in tetra packs under the Uttar Pradesh excise policy, citing lack of relevant policy material on record.

It observed that without the actual policy, it would not be appropriate to adjudicate the issue.

Addressing concerns about accessibility, the Court remarked that consumption is driven by individual choice, stating that “whosoever wants to buy, they will buy.”

The Court disposed of the plea, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate administrative authority for consideration of the concerns raised.