LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Prashant Sudarshan Arkal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · CNR No. DLHC010494482026Decided 13 Oct 2026New Delhi Bench
W.P.(C) 15193/2026CNR: DLHC010494482026
Justice Amit Mahajan

Background

Five Indian para-cyclists were selected by India's official Selection Committee to represent the country at the 2026 Asian Para Games, but the government's final sanction order approved only one para-cyclist for funded participation, leaving the other five out despite available quota slots. The athletes argued they met India's own eligibility rules and offered to pay their own way to compete.

Decision Breakdown

The Court examined the government's detailed, objective selection criteria (based on international competition rankings and times) and found the Ministry had properly applied those benchmarks: the petitioners simply hadn't met the required performance cut-offs, even though empty slots existed. The Court held that an available quota slot is just a ceiling on how many athletes may go, not an automatic entitlement to a seat, and that courts will not second-guess a reasoned, expert eligibility assessment unless it is arbitrary. It also rejected the request to let them compete at their own expense, since the governing circular required funded Indian-contingent membership to go only to athletes cleared on merit.

Lesson Learnt

Government funding criteria and selection policies for public programs (like national sports contingents) will generally be upheld by courts as long as they are applied objectively and consistently: simply having an unused quota slot, or offering to self-fund, does not create a legal right to inclusion if you don't meet the stated eligibility benchmarks.

Search on eCourtsView Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M/s Dhanlaxmi Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. and connected matters

The Supreme Court held the cancellation unlawful and restored the original auction results. While a public authority can reject even the highest bid, that power must rest on reasons rational to the actual auction conducted. The auctions here were transparent, with multiple qualified bidders and no collusion, and bids exceeded the reserve price. Comparing the new bids to the companies' own surrendered earlier bids was legally insufficient, especially since the rule treating an old bid as a price floor for future auctions was only introduced later and could not apply retroactively.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Mohd. Asad Choudhary v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

The Supreme Court found the University's own counter-affidavit admitted the appellant was a genuine student who had cleared all semesters and been issued his degree. The only discrepancies (a missing name on an unrelated disclosure list, and a marks mismatch that didn't affect his passing either way) were the University's own admitted clerical errors, not the appellant's fault. The Court held such institutional lapses cannot penalize the student and that this was a straightforward administrative verification, not something requiring a fresh civil suit. It set aside the High Court's order, directed corrected certificates and verification within three weeks, and ordered all withheld salary released within four further weeks.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Hemnani Public School vs. Ipsa Gurnani & Anr. and connected matters

The High Court held that Hemnani Public School is indeed an unaided linguistic-minority educational institution, so the usual requirement of government pre-approval for termination did not apply to it, contrary to what the Tribunal had assumed. However, the Court did not simply reinstate the termination: it found the Tribunal never examined serious fairness objections Ms. Gurnani had raised (such as whether people who testified against her also sat in judgment on her case). The matter was sent back to the Tribunal to decide those fairness questions afresh, on a four-month priority timeline.

Decided 13 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Maharashtra v. Sudhir S/o Motiramji Hiwarkar & Ors.

The Supreme Court noted that by the time of this appeal, more than a decade had passed, the college itself no longer existed, and ordering Sudhir's reinstatement or recovery of full back wages would be impractical and could render him destitute in his old age, while the State itself had not raised a timely objection on the point it now argued. Rather than deciding the matter either way on technical grounds, the Court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to "mould the relief," setting aside the specific direction under appeal and ordering the State to pay Sudhir a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,00,000 within eight weeks in full and final settlement of all his claims, expressly stating this was not to be treated as a precedent.

Decided 13 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Hardev Construction Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that where payment of Bid Security is made through the authority's own e-payment gateway, demanding a physical "original" receipt is an impossible condition to satisfy, since the money had already reached the respondents' account and was fully within their control. Rigid, literal enforcement of a tender clause cannot be allowed where compliance in the literal sense is genuinely impossible. The Court set aside the rejection and the High Court's order, and directed that the contract be awarded to the appellant, with limited further steps for completing the Bid Security formality.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Union of India thr. its Secretary & Ors. v. SGT Girish Kumar & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that observations made in a judgment must be read in the context of the facts before the court at the time, and cannot be mechanically applied as if they were a statute. It clarified that its earlier common judgment does not mean every disability-pension claim with arrears must automatically succeed; each such claim must still be decided on its own facts and merits. With that clarification on record, the Miscellaneous Application was disposed of.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case