The Supreme Court held that effective implementation of the 25% admission mandate under Section 12 of the RTE Act, 2009 can advance fraternity, equality and social justice through common schooling.

The ruling arose from an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order that denied admission under the RTE quota, where individual relief had become infructuous due to the passage of time.

Examining the broader issue, the Court observed that the RTE framework envisages children from all classes, castes, and economic backgrounds studying together in neighbourhood schools. 

The Court issued directions for strict implementation of Section 12(1)(c), which it will continue to monitor.

[Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order under the PITNDPS Act, holding that although it had territorial jurisdiction, it was not the appropriate forum to hear the matter.

The Court noted that the criminal cases forming the basis of the detention were pending in West Bengal and relevant records were located there.

Applying the doctrine of forum conveniens, the Court observed that Article 226(2) does not mandate a High Court to exercise jurisdiction merely because a part of the cause of action arose within its territory.

Liberty was granted to approach the appropriate forum.

[Gautam Mondal Through His Wife Ashima Mukherjee Mondal v. UOI& Ors.]

The Delhi High Court observed that the PM Cares Fund, even if managed or controlled by the government, retains the right to privacy under the RTI Act.

The Court clarified that this pertains to third-party privacy under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which bars disclosure of personal information, and is distinct from constitutional privacy under Article 21.

The Bench emphasised that public or private status does not affect a trust’s privacy rights, and information cannot be disclosed without notice to the entity.

The matter was listed for further hearing on February 10.

[Girish Mittal v. CPIO Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax]

The Supreme Court issued notice in a PIL by Lok Prahari challenging Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which grants lifelong immunity to the CEC and Election Commissioners from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done in their official capacity.

The petition contends that the provision exceeds constitutional limits under Article 324 and was added at the last stage of the bill.

While refusing to stay the provision, the Court will examine whether such immunity aligns with India’s constitutional framework.

[Lok Prahari v. UOI]

The Supreme Court has issued notice in a writ petition by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay challenging the non-exclusion of the creamy layer from SC/ST reservations.

The petition argues that granting quotas to the creamy layer violates Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 38, 41, 46, 51-A(j), and 335, and undermines the purpose of reservations for socio-economic justice.

The Court will examine whether reservations should be limited to underprivileged members within SC/ST categories, following the principles highlighted in State of Punjab v Davinder Singh.

The plea has been tagged with another pending matter, Ramashankar Prajapati v Union of India.

[Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI]

The Supreme Court held that it will examine whether gangster Abu Salem has completed the 25-year imprisonment period assured during his extradition from Portugal.

The Court observed that the key issue is whether Salem’s undertrial custody, post-conviction imprisonment, and earned remission under Maharashtra prison rules cumulatively satisfy the 25-year cap.

It noted that conflicting interpretations by prison authorities and courts have raised arguable legal questions.

Directing Salem to place relevant prison remission rules on record, the Court clarified that the determination of remission entitlement would be crucial in deciding the legality of his continued detention.

[Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra & Ors]

The Supreme Court held that it will examine a plea seeking to read down provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, to protect AYUSH practitioners from prosecution for medical advertisements.

The Court observed that the challenge raises important questions on whether the Act, enacted in the 1950s, has become constitutionally obsolete. 

It noted the contention that Sections 2(cc) and 3(d) arbitrarily exclude AYUSH doctors from the definition of “registered medical practitioners,” despite statutory recognition.

Issuing notice to the Union and concerned ministries, the Court will examine alleged violations of Articles 14, 19, and 21.

[Nitin Upadhyay v. UOI]

The Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra Government has failed to discharge its constitutional obligations in curbing the illegal sale and use of banned nylon manjha.

The Court observed that the State’s response has been “episodic, reactive and ritualistic,” surfacing only after public outrage or court scrutiny. 

It noted that such inaction directly impacts the right to life under Article 21 and violates environmental duties under Articles 48A and 51A(g).

Finding enforcement against petty vendors inadequate, the Court directed the constitution of a Special Task Force and ordered sustained, intelligence-driven action targeting the entire illegal supply chain. 

[The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. State of Maharashtra]

The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a PIL seeking the removal of portraits of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar from the Parliament of India and other public spaces, calling it a waste of judicial time.

The Bench warned the petitioner, a retired IRS officer, of exemplary costs for filing a frivolous plea.

The petition also sought directions barring the State from honouring persons chargesheeted for heinous offences.

After sharp observations and a warning of costs, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the PIL, which was accordingly closed.

[Balasundaram Balamurugan v. UOI & Ors.]

The Kerala High Court held that the State was liable to compensate an NRI man and his family for illegal arrest and wrongful detention based on false charges.

The Court observed that the petitioner, V.K. Thajudheen, suffered grave violations of his fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 due to arbitrary police action.

It noted that he was detained for 54 days without credible evidence, leading to loss of employment, reputational harm, and mental trauma to his family.

Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court awarded ₹14 lakh compensation, emphasising State accountability and the rule of law.

[V.K. Thajudheen & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court held that a student’s right to pursue higher or professional education casts an affirmative obligation upon the State and cannot be curtailed on unjustifiable grounds.

The Court observed that cancellation of an MBBS admission merely on the basis of a CBI summons, without any prima facie finding of wrongdoing, was arbitrary. 

It noted that the petitioner had acquired a valuable right by clearing NEET-UG, which deserved protection. 

Emphasising that the petitioner was only a witness and not an accused, the Court directed reinstatement, holding that disruption of academic progress violated principles of fairness and proportionality.

The Supreme Court heard a habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act.

The Court observed that personal liberty cases cannot be delayed and proceeded with the hearing despite the Union seeking time. 

It was argued that Wangchuk was not present in the videos relied upon for his detention and that crucial material was never supplied to him. The Court held that the non-supply of relied documents strikes at the detenue’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22.

It observed that reliance on irrelevant or stale material renders preventive detention legally unsustainable.

The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to a Madras High Court order staying the release of Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan over censor clearance.

The dispute arose after the CBFC, despite an examining committee recommending a U/A 16+ certificate and the filmmakers agreeing to cuts, referred the film to a revising committee following a complaint alleging hurt religious sentiments and depiction of defence forces.

A Single Judge had directed CBFC to clear the film, holding that such referral was impermissible after compliance.

The Division Bench stayed this order, citing lack of time for the Union’s response, prompting the present appeal.

The Supreme Court has quashed a preventive detention order passed under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, observing that such powers cannot be misused to override or nullify bail granted by courts.

A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar held that merely branding a person as a “habitual drug offender” or pointing to registration of multiple criminal cases is not enough to justify preventive detention.

The Court said there must be clear and cogent material to show that the person’s activities pose a real and immediate threat to public order, not just a law and order issue.

Finding the detention unjustified, the Court set aside the order and granted relief to the detenue.

[Roshini Devi v. State of Telengana & Ors.]