Saturday, 25 July 2026

Article 32 of the Constitution is the constitutional conduit through which this Court may issue ‘appropriate’ writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III. The right to approach this Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right and has been aptly described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution.

For your practice. Practitioners must now demonstrate a clear violation of fundamental rights or exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the High Court under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC when seeking quashing of FIRs.

The order. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner failed to establish any infringement of fundamental rights or exceptional circumstances warranting direct intervention under Article 32. The Court also held that the subject FIRs related to separate transactions disclosing distinct offences and could not be clubbed. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to seek reliefs as he may be entitled to in law.

Article 32, Constitution of India

Case

Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare vs The State Of Maharashtra

Citation

Supreme Court of India · Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 127 of 2026 · 2026 INSC 740 · 24.07.2026

Bench

Justice Sanjay Karol

Failure of the Selection Committee/SoUP to follow the 2014 Rules to the tee, more particularly excluding the appellants by fixing an arbitrary qualifying or cut-off marks in the guise of screening eligible candidates though the vacancies advertised out-numbered candidates prima facie found eligible, cannot be validated merely on the ground that the appellants participated in the selection process.

For your practice. Recruitment rules must be followed strictly. Arbitrary cut-off marks cannot be superimposed. Candidates can challenge process despite participation if illegality is writ large. State action must be fair and transparent.

The order. Supreme Court allowed appeals, set aside High Court judgment dated 04.01.2023. Directed State of Uttar Pradesh to consider appellants for recruitment against 5,507 current vacancies in relevant disciplines within four months of approach. Appointments with prospective effect, subject to verification of qualifications and antecedents. Appellants entitled to service benefits (excluding back wages, seniority, promotion) and pension/gratuity if qualified.

Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014

Case

Arvind Kumar & ors. v. State of U.P. & ors.

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-008257-008259 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 741 · 24.07.2026

Bench

Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih

The direction issued by TRAI must be referable to, and confined to, securing compliance with a subsisting regulation, licence condition or other matter falling within Section 11(1)(b); it cannot travel beyond the regulatory field into the resolution of the parties’ contractual claims.

For your practice. Practitioners must distinguish between TRAI's regulatory enforcement powers and TDSAT's exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction to avoid jurisdictional challenges in telecom disputes.

The order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the TDSAT's order dated 10.03.2010, and held that TRAI had jurisdiction to issue directions under Section 13 for regulatory compliance. No order as to costs.

Section 13, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997

Case

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. M/s Polimer Cable Network & ors.

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-004359-004359 - 2010 · 2026 INSC 742 · 24.07.2026

Bench

Justice S.V.N. Bhatt, Justice N.V. Anjaria,

Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade.

For your practice. Practitioners must now ensure seniority claims are based on substantive appointment dates under Regulation 3(1)(b) U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Invalid seniority lists based on initial appointment dates cannot override statutory mandate.

The order. The Division Bench allowed the Special Appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 13.08.2021, upheld the order dated 25.03.2017, and directed consequential benefits to the appellant within 15 days of certified copy production. The Court held that seniority for service benefits must be determined based on substantive appointment dates under Regulation 3(1)(b) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

Regulation 3(1)(b), U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921

Case

Jai Ram vs Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra & ors.

Citation

Allahabad High Court · SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 288 of 2021 at Lucknow · 24.07.2026

Bench

Justice Alok Mathur,J. and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.

From the tenor and tone of Section 97 of the Code, 2020, it is evident that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly excluded in respect of matters to which the provisions of the Code apply

For your practice. Employers must now approach Industrial Tribunals for limited relief to enforce strike prohibitions during conciliation, rather than filing writ petitions against unions. Tribunals can pass protective orders but cannot adjudicate substantive disputes.

The order. Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty reserved to approach Industrial Tribunal for enforcement of Section 62(1)(d) prohibition during conciliation. Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to enforcing the prohibition and ceases upon expiry of the statutory period. Interim order period excluded from statutory limitation.

Section 62(1)(d), Industrial Relations Code, 2020

Case

Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & ors.

Citation

Karnataka High Court · WP/8044/2026 · 24.07.2026

Bench

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde

To attract the offence of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement by the accused, and such acts must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide.

For your practice. Prosecutors must now establish a direct and immediate link between the accused’s conduct and the suicide to secure a conviction under Section 306 IPC. Generalized allegations are insufficient.

The order. The appellant was acquitted of offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The Court set aside the trial court’s judgment dated 19.05.2016, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant.

Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Case

Hanamant @ Appu s/o Ramanna Waddar v. State of Karnataka

Citation

Karnataka High Court · CRL.A/100200/2016 · 2026:KHC-D:10535 · 24.07.2026

Bench

Justice Rajeshwari N. Hegde

The respondents have not filed any appeal before the Division Bench hence, the order has attained finality. The respondents have not even bothered to file a recall application after examination of case of petitioner as mentioned by them in their order dated 08.01.2024.

For your practice. Lawyers must advise clients that contempt jurisdiction is a coercive tool; non-compliance with regularization orders can lead to imprisonment and salary attachment of officials.

The order. The Court directed the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur, Director, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur, and Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Banswara to appear in person on 28.07.2026 at 02:00 P.M. to show cause why they should not be punished with imprisonment and why their salaries should not be attached until compliance with the order dated 18.01.2023.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Case

Amra vs Dr. Samit Sharma (Secretary)

Citation

High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur) · S.B. Writ Contempt Petition No. 183/2024 · 24.07.2026

Bench

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain

The impugned order does not reflect that if the petitioner was given opportunity to make his submission. Having regard to the above, the impugned proceedings are set aside.

For your practice. Administrative authorities must now ensure reasoned disposal of objections and afford fair hearing before rejecting them. Cryptic orders are liable to be set aside, reinforcing natural justice in election-related disputes.

The order. The Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's objections dated 17.07.2026. The matter is remanded to the Election Officer for passing a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The final voters' list must be prepared strictly in accordance with the audited membership records for the year 2024-25 and Proceedings Rc.No.2670924/C/2025 dated 07.04.2026.

Article 226, Constitution of India

Case

Bommidi Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation

Andhra Pradesh High Court · WP/20338/2026 · 24.07.2026

Bench

Smt. Justice Kiranmayee Mandava

The sale deed Exhibit D-25 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as already noted above, is only a sham transaction just to frustrate the agreement in question and to manipulate and leverage defendant No.1 in executing sale date in favour of defendant No.2 at less than half the guidelines/circle rates.

For your practice. Handwriting expert reports are unreliable without corroboration and courts must compare signatures with admitted documents executed on the same date. Sham transactions at undervalue to defeat rights are void and will be set aside.

The order. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment and decree dated 31.12.2021, and decreed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance. The Court directed the defendants to execute a sale deed for their 83.34% share in favor of the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of the judgment, failing which the plaintiff would be at liberty to get the decree executed as per law. The Court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

Specific Performance, Indian Contract Act, 1872

Case

Surendra Yadav vs Atul Sehgal

Citation

Madhya Pradesh High Court · First Appeal No. 302 of 2022 · 23.07.2026

Bench

Justice Vivek Jain

Every non-payment/non-levy of tax doesn't attract extended period. There must be some positive action which betrays negative intention of wilful default.

For your practice. Revenue must now adduce concrete evidence of fraud or suppression to invoke extended limitation periods in service tax disputes, not merely rely on third-party data discrepancies.

The order. The CESTAT allowed the appeal on limitation grounds, quashing the demand of Rs. 9,22,761 and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2024. No penalties or interest were imposed due to the dismissal of the demand.

Section 73(1), Finance Act, 1994

Case

M/S Cheema Constructions vs Chandigarh-I

Citation

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal · Service Tax Appeal No. 60401 of 2024 · 24.07.2026

Bench

Hon'ble Mr. S. S. Garg

Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

For your practice. Practitioners must now advise clients that disputes relating to admission fees in educational institutions cannot be pursued before consumer fora, as education is not a commodity and educational institutions do not fall within the ambit of 'service providers'.

The order. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the District Commission's order dated 02.06.2017, and held the complaint not maintainable. No costs awarded. Statutory amount, if any, to be returned to appellants.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Case

District Education And Training ... vs Shiv Raj Singh

Citation

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand · SC/5/A/110/2017 · 23.07.2026

Bench

Ms. Kumkum Rani, Mr. C.M. Singh