LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Hemant Kumar Verma & Ors. vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2022 INSC 744Decided 22 Jul 2022
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 444 of 2022
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud · A.S. Bopanna

Background

The petitioners were junior resident doctors who had completed their MBBS/BDS degrees at medical colleges run by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), under a bond requiring them to serve ESIC for a period after graduation. Separately, ESIC recruits permanent doctors called Insurance Medical Officers Grade-II (IMO-II) through a formal selection process, and these IMO-II doctors get a 50% "in-service" reservation quota for postgraduate medical seats in ESIC's own institutions. The junior resident petitioners argued they did the same work as IMO-II doctors and should also get this in-service reservation benefit, and approached the Supreme Court directly after ESIC did not respond to their representations.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that junior residents and IMO-II doctors are legally distinct categories despite some similarity in duties: IMO-II doctors are recruited through a formal selection process to permanent posts and are governed by separate service regulations, whereas junior residents are contractual employees serving out a bond who are not obligated to continue working for ESIC after finishing their studies. The Court reaffirmed that "institutional preference" reservation in postgraduate medical admissions is constitutionally permissible per earlier precedents, but that whether to extend or design such a reservation scheme is a policy decision for the authority (ESIC) to make, not something a court can direct through a mandamus. Finding no legal parity between the two categories that could support the writ petitioners' claim, the Court dismissed the petition.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not order a government or public body to extend a reservation or benefit scheme to a new category of persons just because their day-to-day duties resemble those of a beneficiary category; if the two groups differ in legal status (e.g., contractual bond-service versus permanent recruitment), extending such benefits remains a policy choice for the authority, not a matter a court can direct.

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