Adarsh Dinkar Sontakke (Minor) & Ors. v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 865Decided 30 Jul 2026
Civil Appeal Nos. 9820-9821 of 2026 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 24310-24311 of 2026), Diary No. 42235/2026
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

The child appellants had provisionally qualified for admission under the 75%-reserved Rural Category quota of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Selection Test 2026, but were later denied final admission because, for part of Classes III-V, they had studied in schools located within areas notified as "Nagar Panchayats": a "transitional area" under Article 243-Q(1)(a) of the Constitution, meaning an area transitioning from rural to urban. The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) held that such transitional areas should be treated as urban, disqualifying the children from the rural quota, departing from an earlier, contrary ruling of a co-equal bench of the same High Court in a case called Jiya Jitendra Nagrale.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held the High Court's later decision was rendered "per incuriam" (in disregard of binding precedent) because a bench of equal strength cannot simply overrule an earlier co-equal bench's view: the correct course would have been to refer the conflict to a larger bench. On the substantive question, the Court held that Article 243-Q deliberately uses different terms for "transitional area" (Nagar Panchayat), "smaller urban area," and "larger urban area," meaning a transitional area is not automatically urban; under the applicable state municipal law, a transitional area only becomes a smaller urban area once a further notification is issued, which had not happened here. It also held that new "UDISE" verification guidelines issued by the government after the selection process had already concluded could not retroactively be used to disqualify candidates who had relied on the original prospectus criteria. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed that the qualifying children be admitted to Class VI forthwith, with bridge classes if needed to help them catch up.

Lesson Learnt

For citizens navigating government scheme eligibility, an area officially notified as "transitional" (like a Nagar Panchayat) is not automatically treated as "urban" unless a further notification says so, and the rules governing an ongoing selection process cannot be changed retroactively to the disadvantage of candidates who already qualified under the original rules.

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case