LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 670Decided 7 Jul 2026
Civil Appeal (arising out of Diary No. 10787/2024)
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Alok Aradhe

Background

Ajay Vijh, an advocate empanelled with Canara Bank, gave a legal opinion in 2015 on a property offered as loan collateral. The Bank later claimed the opinion was negligent because it missed an earlier partial sale of the property, removed him from its panel, and, without giving him notice or a hearing, got his name entered in the "Caution List," a blacklist-type mechanism maintained by the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) under RBI guidelines, with a remark accusing him of giving a wrong legal opinion. This listing damaged his professional standing broadly, causing other banks to end his empanelment too. When he challenged the listing in a writ petition, the Allahabad High Court dismissed it as not maintainable, reasoning that the IBA is not "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 regardless of whether IBA qualifies as "State" under Article 12, because Article 226's protection extends more broadly to any person or authority performing public functions when fundamental rights are at stake: here, the appellant's right to practise his profession under Article 19(1)(g). On the merits, the Court declared his inclusion in the Caution List "impermissible and without jurisdiction" and ordered his name removed immediately, holding that allegations of professional negligence or misconduct against an advocate fall within the Bar Council's exclusive disciplinary domain under the Advocates Act, not a bank-run blacklist created without any hearing. The Court went further, directing the Bar Council of India to conduct a performance audit of its own disciplinary mechanisms and proposing the creation of a "National Legal Academy" for structured continuing legal education for lawyers, and kept the matter listed for further directions on those points.

Lesson Learnt

Being placed on a bank or industry-body blacklist without notice or a hearing can be challenged in the High Courts under Article 226 even if the body isn't formally part of "the State," whenever a fundamental right like the right to practise a profession is affected; and complaints about a lawyer's professional competence must go through the Bar Council's disciplinary process, not informal blacklisting by third parties.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

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