The Supreme Court set aside a mid-process change in recruitment criteria for BPSC Assistant Engineers, reiterating that rules cannot be altered after the selection process has begun.

The State had retrospectively amended rules to add weightage for contractual experience after the written exam and provisional merit list.

Overturning the Patna High Court ruling, the Court held such changes to be impermissible and directed recruitment to be finalized strictly under the unamended 2019 Rules, based solely on written exam marks.

[Abhay Kumar Patel & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors]

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ appeal where borrowers claimed the benefit of a One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme.

The borrowers had availed three loans from Vazhoor Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., secured by equitable mortgage over their property, and later defaulted in repayment, leading to arbitration under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and ex parte awards.

The Court held that OTS benefits are discretionary, not enforceable rights, and cannot be claimed by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

It found that asking the bank to extend further OTS concessions would amount to rewriting contractual terms. The appeal was dismissed.

[Raju Abraham & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

IIM-Ahmedabad appealed in the Gujarat High Court against an order by a single judge that quashed the expulsion of three students from the Doctoral Programme in Management (DPM). 

The students were asked to leave in the first year after the institute withdrew their candidature for failing promotion during the Coursework stage.

The institute relied on Clause 6.1.b of the programme manual, which requires exit when promotion fails from one stage to the subsequent stage.

The High Court questioned whether the manual allows students to be asked to leave within the first year and listed the appeal for 13 January 2026.

[Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad & Ors. v. Atul Kumar Kameshwar Prasad Gupta & Batch]

The Delhi Assembly amended the Court Fees Act, 1870, to enable a 100% refund of court fees for out-of-court settlements.

Earlier, mutual settlements received only a 50% refund, unlike court-referred settlements, which got a full refund. The amendment ensures a full refund for both mutual and court-referred settlements.

A 2022 PIL, Praveen Kumar Aggarwal v. Government of NCT of Delhi, had challenged the Court Fees Act, 1870, as discriminatory.

The law department formed a prima facie view that an amendment was needed to remove discrimination and ensure equal treatment. 

[Praveen Kumar Aggarwal v. Government of NCT of Delhi]

The Kerala High Court held that denying emergency leave to a convict to attend the marriage of his brother’s son is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

The Court examined Rule 400(1)(ii) of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, and found that prison authorities were wrongly interpreting the terms “direct nephew” and “direct niece” to include only a sister’s children.

The Court said there cannot be discrimination between a convict’s brothers’ and sisters’ children while granting emergency leave.

It allowed the plea and directed circulation of the judgment to all jail superintendents in the State.

[Shaduli P.M. v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Madras High Court stayed the release, circulation, and sale of a book allegedly targeting Justice G.R. Swaminathan, citing serious concerns over the dignity and institutional authority of the judiciary.

The Court observed that the book’s title, cover design, and caricature were prima facie abusive and scandalous, amounting to personal attacks on a sitting judge rather than permissible criticism.

Observing that such publications could erode public confidence in the judiciary, the Court initiated contempt proceedings against the publisher.

It also directed seizure of all copies of the book, including those displayed at the Chennai Book Fair, until further orders.

[Naveen Prasad v. State of Tamil Nadu]

The Supreme Court has suggested mediation to resolve the inter-state dispute between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh over alleged expansion works linked to the Polavaram irrigation project. 

Hearing Telangana’s plea to halt works allegedly carried out without statutory approvals, the Bench declined interim relief and questioned the petition’s maintainability.

The Court noted that no additions to the Central project can be made without Centre’s approval and advised the State to approach the expert committee.

The Madras High Court upheld a single-judge order permitting the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon atop Thiruparankundram hill, rejecting the State’s law-and-order objections as imaginary.

The Court held that no evidence showed Agama Shastras prohibit the practice and criticised the Waqf Board’s “mischievous” claim over the stone pillar.

Directing the temple to light the lamp under ASI supervision, the Court emphasised peaceful coexistence and freedom of religion without state-sponsored mistrust.

[Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Temple v. Rama Ravikumar]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that expressing a desire to end hostilities between India and Pakistan does not amount to sedition.

Granting bail, the Court ruled that criticism of war or advocacy of peace cannot attract Section 152 BNS in the absence of incitement or disaffection against the Government.

It further clarified that mere posting of slogans like “Khalistan Zindabad” on social media, without evidence of provocation or impact, does not prima facie constitute an offence.

[Abhishek v. State of Himachal Pradesh]

The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of a Madhya Pradesh judicial officer, holding that disciplinary action cannot be based solely on bail orders unless there is proof of corruption, bias, or lack of good faith.

The Court ruled that mere failure to cite a statutory provision while granting bail does not amount to misconduct.

Emphasising judicial independence, it reinstated the judge with full back wages, interest, and service benefits, and directed circulation of the judgment to all High Courts.

[Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.]

The Karnataka High Court has held that refusal to restore an advocate’s registration amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on the fundamental right to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g).

Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the plea of an advocate who had surrendered his sanad during the COVID-19 pandemic and later sought re-registration.

The Court ruled that statutory silence cannot be treated as a prohibition, especially when it leads to permanent exclusion from the legal profession.

The State Bar Council was directed to restore his registration, subject to refund of welfare benefits received.

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking 100% pension parity with the Indian Army for Special Frontier Force personnel who retired before January 1, 2009.

The Court held that such retirees are only entitled to restoration of 45% of the commuted value of the pension, in line with earlier directions. 

It clarified that its 2016 judgment had struck down the cut-off date as arbitrary but did not grant full pension parity.

The Court observed that granting full parity would create inequality between pre-2009 retirees, who had already received lump-sum commutation benefits, and post-2009 retirees who did not receive such payments.

[Ex-Servicemen Welfare Union v. UOI & Ors.]

Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien has approached the Supreme Court seeking an extension of the deadline for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

He alleged procedural irregularities by the Election Commission of India, including the use of mapping software, WhatsApp-based instructions, and large-scale deletion of names from the electoral rolls.

The petition contends that the ongoing SIR exercise lacks transparency and could disenfranchise voters if conducted without adequate safeguards.

The Supreme Court is expected to examine the legality and fairness of the process and consider whether the timeline requires modification to ensure free and fair elections.

[Derek O’Brien v. Election Commission of India]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to clean drinking water while hearing a PIL over a severe public health emergency in Indore’s Bhagirathpura area caused by contaminated water supply.

The Court noted deaths and widespread illness due to unsafe water and directed authorities to stop water supply from contaminated sources and ensure immediate provision of safe drinking water at government cost.

It also ordered comprehensive testing, medical treatment for affected residents, and long-term corrective measures, and asked the Chief Secretary to appear via video conference.

[Ritesh Inani v. State of Madhya Pradesh]