Topic
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or any other legal right against state authorities or public bodies.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a consent decree declaring title operates in rem and binds all parties, rendering limitation and non-execution defences unavailable. The Court directed the State to demarcate and record the balance lands in revenue records within six weeks, enforcing the decree's binding effect on government authorities.
Gujarat HC allows release of seized Eicher truck on interim custody pending trial, holding Section 98(2) Gujarat Prohibition Act not absolute embargo.
The Madras HC ruled that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot challenge an MSMED Council award under Section 18 after a failed Section 34 petition, as Section 37 appeal is the exclusive remedy. The court barred the party from approbating and reprobating on the award's nature.
The Madras HC upheld writ courts' review jurisdiction under Article 226 via HC Writ Rules, ruling that a proposed accused has no pre-FIR hearing right. It also held the State may withdraw a legally untenable review without breaching rule of law, bolstering prosecutorial discretion in PMLA and corruption matters.
The Allahabad HC held a writ under Article 226 for admitted dues maintainable despite state's plea, directing payment of Rs 18,79,197 at 6% interest within three months and affirming that financial constraints cannot override a settled legal obligation.
The Calcutta High Court directed police to ensure senior citizens’ entry into their self-acquired property within three days’ notice, providing assistance if obstructed, while preserving any ongoing matrimonial proceedings.
The court ruled that a contractual forum-selection clause cannot exclude the High Court's Article 226 writ jurisdiction, and that blacklisting a contractor as a 'Poor Performer' requires a show-cause notice specifying the exact grounds and proposed penalty, not merely an automatic consequence of contract termination. The two-year debarment order was set aside for violating natural justice.
A senior advocate’s claim for unpaid fees against the State of Madhya Pradesh was granted, with the Delhi High Court ordering payment of Rs 78.65 million plus 24% per annum interest. The bench clarified that a writ under Article 226 can be entertained even when the underlying facts are contested, widening the avenue for fee recovery from governments. The decision benefits senior advocates and other professionals seeking redress for outstanding fees from public authorities.
Demotion after maternity leave violates Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, the Delhi High Court found. It reinstated the employee as senior manager, awarded Rs 10 lakh for mental harassment, and directed the Union to issue guidelines for private employers. The ruling expands maternity protection to post-leave career progression for women workers.
The Gauhati HC ordered regularisation of Assam Rifles-occupied land and payment of rent arrears and compensation. The ruling benefits the petitioners and landowners, stating that military land occupations must be regularised and compensated.
By rejecting the writ, the Delhi High Court clarified that the proper forum for MCA investigations is the place where the substantive corporate dispute arises, reinforcing the nexus test for Article 226 jurisdiction. This guidance applies to companies facing regulatory probes across India.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a writ under Article 226 cannot disturb the factual determinations of a consumer forum, confirming the forum’s modified refund order with 12 % interest. This narrows supervisory review, impacting insurers and consumers under the CPA 2019.
The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation for an unlawful End-of-Life Vehicle seizure cannot be claimed via a writ petition under Article 226 and must be pursued in a civil suit. This narrows writ jurisdiction and directs vehicle owners to ordinary civil remedies under the Motor Vehicle (Registration and Functions of Vehicle Scrapping Facility) Rules, 2021.
A discharge voucher signed under protest does not extinguish the insurer’s duty to pay the remaining cargo loss. The Punjab & Haryana HC upheld the consumer forum’s jurisdiction, letting policyholders claim the balance despite partial settlement. This protects insureds from losing residual rights.
A three-year lapse and the use of detention to sidestep a Supreme Court bail order breach Article 21, prompting the High Court to set aside the preventive detention. The decision bars authorities from relying on stale evidence to prolong detention, safeguarding accused persons under the PITNDPS Act.