LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Vijay Kumar Rajpoot alias Vijju v. State of Chhattisgarh

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 926Decided 31 Aug 2026
Criminal Appeal No. 4083 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12330 of 2026)
Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Sheel Nagu

Background

In 2019, police in Raigarh, Chhattisgarh recommended externing (banishing) Vijay Kumar Rajpoot from the district based on his alleged involvement in several old criminal cases. That case was closed in October 2025 after the authorities found he had since been acquitted in those cases, and he was let off with a warning. Weeks later, after two fresh FIRs were registered against him (one for an allegedly offensive social media video, and an earlier one for unauthorised construction), the same authority reopened the closed case without any notice to Rajpoot, who was in custody at the time, and passed an ex parte order externing him from the district for a year. The High Court declined to examine the order on merits and told him to pursue a statutory appeal instead.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court quashed both the High Court's judgment and the externment order itself, holding that the law governing externment (the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990) mandates that a person be given notice and a hearing before such an order is passed, except in narrow circumstances not present here. The Court found the externing authority had no power to reopen its own previously closed case without a valid legal basis, since administrative authorities generally cannot review their own orders unless a statute expressly permits it. The Court further held that the order also failed on its own merits: the offences relied upon did not involve "force or violence" as required by the relevant clause of the law, and the order lacked the objective reasoning necessary to justify such a serious restriction on a citizen's freedom of movement.

Lesson Learnt

An order that takes away a person's fundamental right to live and move freely, such as externment, cannot be passed behind their back; the law requires the authority to give notice and a genuine opportunity to respond before deciding, and courts will strike down such orders even where multiple criminal cases exist against a person, if the strict statutory safeguards are not followed.

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

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case