#judicial review

The Court held that legislative validation cannot cure a recruitment process vitiated by systemic corruption and nepotism once a constitutional court has annulled it, as this would violate separation of powers. The 2022 Karnataka Act attempting to revive the 2011 Gazetted Probationers recruitment was struck down, with directions for fresh recruitment granting age relaxation to untainted candidates.

The Bombay High Court ruled that an arrest under PMLA Section 19 is impermissible when Section 50 proceedings have already been initiated on the same material, quashing three remand orders and directing the petitioner's immediate release. The decision reinforces procedural safeguards against parallel coercive actions by the Enforcement Directorate.

The court invalidated Rule 3(7) for granting unguided discretion to the State in engaging law officers, violating Article 162 read with the void-for-vagueness doctrine. While the ₹20,000 monthly retainer for Law Research Officers was upheld, the State must reassess its adequacy within three months, impacting contractual legal appointments across Jharkhand.

By rejecting the NIOS certificate as equivalent to the 10th standard under 10+2 requirement, the SC upheld Goa's 2006 Recruitment Rules for the Vocational Instructor (Plumber) post and restored the original selection based on strict eligibility.

The Telangana High Court held that an MLA who fights LS polls on another party’s ticket is deemed to have given up membership under the Tenth Schedule, resulting in disqualification from the date of nomination, impacting legislators.

Delay in an arbitral award alone does not vitiate it under Section 34 unless the delay is unexplained and adversely affects the findings. Thus, an award cannot be set aside just for delay; parties must prove unexplained delay affecting the findings.

The Supreme Court held that a writ court directing an arbitral tribunal to adjudicate claims 'strictly in accordance with the contract' impermissibly fetters the tribunal's Section 16 kompetenz-kompetenz over excepted matters. The ruling reinforces that tribunals retain exclusive initial jurisdiction to rule on their own jurisdiction, including disputes over contract termination validity, free from judicial pre-direction. This protects party autonomy in arbitration, particularly in government infrastructure contracts with standard general conditions.

Delhi HC quashed a Single Judge’s order that nullified an arbitral award, reiterating that courts may intervene only under Sections 34/37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and cannot re-appraise evidence or reinterpret the contract. The ruling preserves award finality and curtails judicial overreach for parties challenging awards.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the Haryana PSC’s post-shortlisting interview cut-off, finding that mid-process changes to recruitment criteria breach constitutional equality and reservation guarantees. It ordered a fresh evaluation of candidates strictly per the original advertisement’s minimum qualifying marks, protecting all aspirants affected by the arbitrary change.

Delhi High Court dismisses appeal, upholding arbitral award and confirming narrow scope of judicial review under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act.

Punjab & Haryana HC dismisses NEET UG 2026 answer key challenges, upholds expert panel's 'most appropriate answer' standard and OMR marking rules.

Delhi High Court ruled Section 34 challenges to international commercial arbitral awards are limited to patent illegality, rejecting waiver-of-timeline arguments. The decision narrows judicial interference, reinforcing finality of cross-border awards. Parties must rely on these narrow grounds.

The Delhi High Court upheld a Look Out Circular restraining a garment exporter, holding that review is confined to the circular's legality and a reasonable belief of economic loss, not the adequacy of the underlying material. This narrows judicial scrutiny of LOCs, impacting exporters and others subject to travel bans under the economic-interest clause.

The Manipur High Court ruled that a CISF constable cannot be summarily dismissed under Article 311(2) unless the authority’s satisfaction is supported by objective evidence, not merely subjective belief. This safeguards service members from arbitrary termination and mandates a proper departmental enquiry.

The Calcutta High Court quashed a magistrate’s summons order, holding it was issued without the required judicial mind and in breach of Sections 202 and 204 CrPC. The ruling makes clear that any process must be based on a reasoned judicial assessment, otherwise the proceeding is void. It protects accused persons from arbitrary issuance of process.