Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
An Administrative-cum-Finance Officer of MAKAIAS challenged his compulsory retirement, alleging that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by bias on the part of the Director who acted as the disciplinary authority.
From a fake AI-generated precedent that voided an insolvency order to a stray bull attack that reshaped animal-welfare law, July 2026 was one of the Supreme Court’s most consequential months. Explore 30+ rulings spanning constitutional law, criminal justice, technology, and human rights, plus the appointments, transfers, and numbers behind the month’s docket.
The Court stated that National Commission for Scheduled Castes has powers to requisition documents and receive evidence, but it does not have the power to make an order in furtherance of that evidence.
The Court held that the absence of blood and urine tests does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings and that the Drunkenness Certificate issued by the Medical Officer along with the Judicial Magistrate’s observations was sufficient to establish misconduct inside the Court hall.
The Court stated that since all anticipated vacancies up to 1 December 2025 had already been included in the earlier recruitment process, the respondents were under no obligation to conduct a separate examination in 2025.
The Tripura High Court quashed the Inspector General of Prisons’ communication and directed reconsideration within three months.
Explore the latest Cases reported in SCC’s High Court Cases (HCC) shaping Service and Labour Laws which covers pension recovery, withholding of pension, abandonment of service, pay fixation, employees’ compensation, voluntary retirement, recruitment of persons with disabilities.
Bringing together the month’s significant service law developments from Supreme Court and High Court decisions on appointment, recruitment, eligibility, jurisdiction, employment regulation, and resignation.
Armed Forces Tribunal refused to grant interim relief permitting the petitioners, SSC Medical Officers, to apply for and appear in the NEET PG Examination, 2026 on a priority basis.
The Court held that the candidates included in the revised list of 226 candidates acquired no vested right and must participate in the fresh selection process.
Supreme Court clarified that compassionate appointment and compassionate financial assistance are distinct benefits under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2019, and held that Rule 23(1) cannot be invoked to defer a claim for compassionate appointment during the pendency of criminal proceedings.
Reiterating the distinction between territorial jurisdiction and forum convenience, the Supreme Court held that once jurisdiction is validly attracted under Article 226(1) by the presence of necessary respondent authorities within a High Court’s territorial limits, the doctrine of forum non conveniens cannot be routinely invoked to decline adjudication.
The Court was considering a case where the appellant’s provisional selection to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable was cancelled on ground of criminal antecedents resulting from moral turpitude.
The Court held that Rule 111, Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 grants the benefit of child care leave to an employee of a recognised private school, whether aided or unaided, at par with such employees working in a corresponding status in a government school.
May 2026 was a landmark month for Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court upheld electoral integrity, extended protection to trafficking survivors, reformed bail jurisprudence, advanced gender equality in matrimonial law, and settled long-contested questions in arbitration, IBC, and property law
“If individuals entrusted with enforcing the law themselves secure entry into service through deception and fabricated credentials, it would seriously erode the Rule of Law.”
The Court held that path from the proved fact of transfer of Rs 75,000 to the conclusion of bribery remains unexplained.
The terms of the recruitment rules and the advertisement form the basis of the selection process and are binding on both, the candidates as well as the recruiting agencies.
The criteria prescribed was not in any manner watered down or deviated from the criteria required to be satisfied while seeking regular appointment.
Initiation of administrative proceedings for disciplinary action against the appellant, we unhesitatingly hold, was bad in law and non est.