Judgments

Curable Irregularity In Final Appointment Process Cannot Invalidate Entire Recruitment : Supreme Court

Case: Gaurav Mehla & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 628

The Supreme Court has held that a procedural defect in the final stage of a recruitment process cannot automatically invalidate appointments where the recruitment itself was otherwise conducted fairly and transparently, and directed a Haryana cooperative society to reconsider the appointments of seven employees who had served for more than a decade.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Gaurav Mehla and others, setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment which had upheld the cancellation of their appointments as Clerk-cum-Salesmen and Peon-cum-Chowkidars in the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society, Kurukshetra.

The appointments, made in 2014, were challenged by members of the cooperative society on the ground that they violated Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003. The Rule requires the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager of HAFED in the meeting where appointment decisions are taken. The officials were admittedly absent from the Board of Directors' meeting held on August 13, 2014, which approved the appointments.

Lokayukta Special Police Not 'Intelligence & Security Organisation' Exempt From RTI Act : Supreme Court

Case: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 629

The Supreme Court upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction requiring the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukta Organisation to disclose information sought under the Right to Information Act, while striking down a 2011 State Government notification that exempted the SPE from the RTI regime.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the SPE, which investigates corruption-related offences involving public servants, cannot be classified as an "intelligence and security organisation" under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be granted blanket exemption from the Act.

The case arose from an RTI application filed by Kamta Prasad Mishra, a Town Inspector in Katni who was implicated in a corruption trap case registered by the SPE in 2017. After the State Government granted sanction for his prosecution in 2020, Mishra sought details regarding the decision-making process behind the sanction order and related communications. His request was rejected by the authorities and later by the State Information Commission, which relied on Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, exempting disclosure of information that could impede investigation or prosecution.

Why Supreme Court Urged Haryana To Amend Compassionate Appointment Rules In Cases Involving Alleged Murder Of Govt Employees

Case Title – Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 630

The Supreme Court urged the Haryana Government to examine and rectify a “significant anomaly” in the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, after noting that the scheme suspends compassionate financial assistance during criminal proceedings relating to the death of a government employee but contains no similar restriction on compassionate appointment.

Rule 23(1) of the 2019 Rules suspends compassionate financial assistance when a family member eligible to receive it is charged with murdering or abetting the murder of a government employee. However, there is no corresponding provision for compassionate appointment.

“The Rules of 2019 truly present an anomaly: the lesser form of compassionate relief, financial assistance, carries an express suspension clause under Rule 23(1) in cases of criminal proceedings for the murder of the deceased employee, while the substantially greater form of relief, compassionate appointment, with its lifelong service benefits, pension, and emoluments, carries no corresponding provision. It is strongly desirable that the Rule-making authority/State Government of Haryana address this legislative lacuna by introducing appropriate amendments to the Rules of 2019,” the Court said.

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Haryana Rule Deferring Compassionate Assistance For Kin Accused Of Murdering Govt Employee

Case Title – Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 630

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, which suspends compassionate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government employee when an eligible family member is accused of murdering or abetting the murder of the employee. However, the Court clarified that the provision does not apply to claims for compassionate appointment.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment while allowing an appeal filed by Atul Chauhan, whose claim for compassionate appointment had been kept in abeyance due to criminal proceedings against his mother, who was accused of conspiring in the murder of his father, a government school teacher in Haryana.

The Court held that Rule 23(1) is constitutionally valid because it serves a legitimate purpose of preventing compassionate financial assistance from being extended to a person who may be criminally responsible for the death that gives rise to the claim. The provision was described as “preventive and regulatory” rather than punitive and was found to have a rational nexus with its objective, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution.

'No Vested Right By Mere Inclusion In Revised Select List' : Supreme Court Upholds Fresh Selection Process For TN MV Inspectors

Case Details: S. SENTHIL KUMARAN BOSE v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NAlDU AND OTHERS|CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 631

The Supreme Court has held that candidates whose names figure in a select list cannot claim any vested right to appointment when a fresh selection process is ordered to remedy exclusion of other eligible candidates, observing that participation in a renewed recruitment exercise preserves fairness and equal opportunity.

"No vested right could be claimed merely by placement in the revised select list, especially when the right of participation in the fresh selection process was not being taken away," a Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed while upholding directions for a fresh selection exercise in the recruitment of 113 Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II posts in Tamil Nadu.

The Court upheld the Madras High Court's direction to conduct afresh the recruitment of Motor Vehicle Inspector-Grade II after it found that a class of candidates were deprived of proper participation in the selection process on technical grounds.

Pedestrians Have Fundamental Right To Have Footpath; Motorists Can't Negate Right To Walk : Supreme Court

Case Details: MANIYAR ILIYAZ SHAIK RIYAZ Vs P. AYYAPPAN|C.A. No. 4665-4666/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 632

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that the right to walk on a demarcated footpath is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, which includes the right to access safe and well-demarcated footpaths. This right shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles.

This has been held as a fundamental right considering that the right to walk has always been "inextricably" connected to our daily life.

The Court observed that the duty to demarcate, construct, maintain and safeguard footpaths and other pedestrian infrastructure rests with urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats.

Consumer Forum's Jurisdiction Not Ousted By Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause : Supreme Court

Cause Title: T.K.A. PADMANABHAN VERSUS ABHIYAN COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 633

The Supreme Court held that the mere existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement would not preclude the consumer forum from adjudicating the dispute on merit.

“…an arbitration clause does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V. Mohana, while setting aside the concurrent findings of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), State Commission and the District Forum order which had referred a dispute over delay in handing over the possession of the residential flat unit to arbitration.

The case relates to the Appellant's filing of a consumer complaint alleging 'deficiency in service' for the delayed handing over of possession of the flat. Since the flat purchase agreement contained an arbitration clause, the District Forum, despite admitting the complaint and issuing notice to the Respondent, referred the dispute to the arbitration. The District Forum's decision was affirmed by the State Commission, and thereafter by the National Commission, leading to an instant appeal before the Supreme Court.

Financier Can't Claim Insurance Over Theft Of Vehicle Surrendered By Insured Owner : Supreme Court

Cause Title: K. PRAKASHCHAND VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 634

The Supreme Court has held that a mere surrender of an insured vehicle by its owner to another person, who had financed the purchase of a vehicle, would not be sufficient for the financer to claim indemnification in the event of loss or theft of a vehicle.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi refused to interfere with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's findings, which had ruled in favour of the insurance companies, acknowledging that there was no privity of contract between the Appellant-vehicle financer and the Respondent-insurance company to fasten the liability upon the insurance company for loss of vehicle due to theft.

“It is a settled position of law that a contract of insurance is a personal contract only between the insured and the insurance company and no third party can raise any claims pursuant to the said contract. In the present case also, even if we assume that the Insured Person had surrendered the vehicle to the Appellant, then also the fact remains that the Appellant cannot be considered as the owner of the vehicle and hence, the Insurance Company could not be forced to indemnify the Appellant herein.”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Chhattisgarh For Challenging Compensation To Landowners After Decades Of Illegal Occupation

Cause Title: STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. VERSUS PARIKSHIT SINGH GUPTA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 635

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea filed by the State of Chhattisgarh challenging enhanced compensation and interest awarded to landowners whose land had been occupied by the Public Works Department (PWD) for nearly 25 years without acquisition proceedings. The Court termed the State's challenge "absolutely frivolous" and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh.

Dismissing the State's appeal, a patial court working days bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi upheld the High Court's decision to direct the Appellant-State to compute the land acquisition compensation towards the Respondents-landowners and grant them compensation @ Rs. 5,380/- per square metre.

The dispute arose from land in Durg district which the PWD had taken possession of in 1986 and used for road construction without formally acquiring it. The encroachment came to light during demarcation proceedings conducted on May 3, 2006, following which the landowners initiated proceedings seeking eviction of the department under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Stays HC Proceedings In Pleas Challenging Transgender Amendment Act 2026; Issues Notice On Centre's Transfer Petition

Case : UNION OF INDIA v. NAI BHOR SANSTHA AND ANR. | T.P.(C) No. 1686-1692/2026

The Supreme Court (June 15) issued notice on the petitions filed by the Central Government seeking to transfer the petitions filed in various High Courts challenging the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights (Amendment) Act 2026.

A partial working days bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana, while issuing notice to the respondents (petitioners in the High Courts), also ordered that the proceedings in the High Courts will remain stayed.

The bench indicated that it might transfer the petitions to the Supreme Court or consolidate them and assign them to any particular High Court.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Re-Appointment Of Bihar Minister Deepak Prakash Without Election As MLA

Case Details: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 746 of 2026.

The Supreme Court on Moday (June 15) issued notice on a writ petition challenging the re-appointment of Deepak Prakash as Bihar's Panchayati Raj Minister without getting elected as a member of the legislature.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana issued notice to the State of Bihar, Deepak Prakash and the Election Commission of India on the petition filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh.

The plea states that Prakash is not a member of either House of the State legislature and therefore can't take any post in the State Government's ministry. It has been stated that, as per Article 164(4) of the Constitution, a non-legislator can remain a minister for six consecutive months, during which he must secure the membership of the State legislature. This exception is a one-time opportunity and cannot be revived with the change of government.

RTI Activism Has Become New Business, Says Supreme Court Denying Bail

Case Details: RAMESH KUMAR BEHL Vs STATE OF PUNJAB|SLP(Crl) No. 10257/2026 Diary No. 32358 / 2026

The Supreme Court today(May 15) denied anticipatory bail to an RTI activist accused of obstructing a public servant in connection with the construction of a road.

A bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi denied bail to RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl. It orally remarked that RTI activism has become a new business.

Justice Mehta said: "RTI activists have become a new business. Central government has issued funds, it will take care of the construction of road. You are nobody. So-called RTI activist!. Yellow journalism. Dismissed."

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Alleging Failure Of State Of Punjab To Implement RTE Act Provisions For EWS Admissions

Case Title – K.S. Raju Legal Trust v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition alleging that the State of Punjab has failed to implement key provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, particularly the mandate under Section 12(1)(c) requiring private unaided schools to reserve 25% seats at the entry level for children belonging to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and disadvantaged groups.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana asked the petitioner appearing in person to place concrete material before the Court to demonstrate how the law was not being implemented.

The Chief Justice suggested that the petitioner seek data via RTI on the number of recognised private schools in a district, whether they are affiliated to CBSE or the State Board, the total sanctioned seats, the number of students enrolled, and the number admitted from EWS and marginalised sections.

NEET- SS | Supreme Court Directs Tamil Nadu To Surrender 151 Vacant Super Speciality Medical Seats To All India Quota

Case Title – Tamilvani & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the State of Tamil Nadu to intimate the Director General of Health Services about 151 vacant super speciality medical seats that remained unfilled so that they could be filled through the All India merit list.

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking surrender of unfilled DM and M.Ch seats from the Tamil Nadu State Quota to the All India Quota in the ongoing NEET-SS 2025 counselling process.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the order after noting that all parties agreed that the matter could be disposed of in terms of the Court's earlier order in N. Karthikeyan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Police Summons To Law Firm, Stays Arrest

Case : THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS AND BARRISTERS Vs PHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD. | D No. 36138/2026

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with a police summons to a law firm in connection with an investigation, though it stayed the arrest of the advocate of the firm for two weeks. The firm has been directed to appear before the police and give their explanation.

They were also granted liberty to take steps to challenge the summons before the High Court.

The Court also refused to interfere with a Madras High Court order impleading the law firm in a contempt proceeding.

Supreme Court Directs To Conduct Tripura Village Committee Elections In Single Phase In September

Case Details: PRADYOT DEB BURMAN Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 786/2025

The Supreme Court today(June 16) directed elections to the Village Committees under the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) in a single phase on September 27 as proposed by the Tripura State Election Commission(TSEC).

The order was passed in a writ petition filed by Pradyot Deb Burman, who alleged failure of authorities to conduct elections. He sought directions to the Election Commission of India and Tripura Election Commission to immediately conduct overdue Village Committee elections under the Tripura Tribal Areas Automatic District Council Act, 1994.

A vacation bench comprising of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard Attorney General R Venkataramani(for Tripura Election Commission) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta(for Tripura State Government).

Supreme Court Seeks Centre, States' Response On Plea Against Using Aadhaar Card As Proof Of Citizenship, Domicile & Age

Case Title – Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking directions to restrict the use of Aadhaar as proof of citizenship, domicile, address and date of birth, and to ensure that it is used only as proof of identity.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana issued notice.

The petition, filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, contends that Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 expressly provides that an Aadhaar number does not confer any right of, or serve as proof of, citizenship or domicile. It also relies on a UIDAI notification dated August 22, 2023, which states that Aadhaar is proof of identity and not proof of citizenship, address or date of birth.

Bar Council Elections | 'BCI's Women Co-Option Formula Seems Fair', Says Supreme Court; Directs To Finalise Proposal

Case : M Vardhan v. Union of India | WP(c) 1319 OF 2023

The Supreme Court indicated that the Bar Council of India's (BCI) proposalto fill the 10% co-option component for women lawyers in State Bar Councils by inducting the highest-polling unsuccessful women candidates appeared to be a "fair suggestion", while directing the BCI to evolve a final mechanism after consulting stakeholders.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana was hearing matters relating to the implementation of its earlier directions aimed at ensuring 30% effective representation for women lawyers in State Bar Councils.

The bench was informed that elections in most State Bar Councils had already been completed and results declared, with the only unresolved issue being the manner in which the 10% co-option seats for women would be filled.

Supreme Court Acts Suo Motu For Welfare Of Visually Impaired Man & Mother Living In Poverty; Issues Directions To Odisha Govt

Case Title – In Re: Ensuring Basic Human Dignity And Social Security For Differently Abled Citizens Living In Extreme Poverty And Other Ancillary Issues

The Supreme Court directed the State of Odisha to ensure that all social security benefits and basic amenities are extended to a visually impaired man, Japa Bhue, and his 80-year-old mother, Radhika Bhue, who, according to media reports, have been living in extreme poverty.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana sought detailed compliance reports on the welfare measures provided to them and issued notice in a suo motu case registered yesterday titled, “In Re: Ensuring Basic Human Dignity And Social Security For Differently Abled Citizens Living In Extreme Poverty And Other Ancillary Issues”.

“We are, however, concerned about the sustenance and the dignified life of Jape Bhue and his mother Jape Bhue, who is blind by birth, and his mother Srimati Radhika Bhue…The State of Odisha and its authorities are directed to ensure that all basic amenities are made available to Shrimati Radhika Bhue and her son Japa Bhue till further orders”, the Court observed.

Won't Spare If Registry Has Misplaced Files : CJI Surya Kant Takes Serious View Of Lawyer's Complaint

The Chief Justice of India took a serious view of a complaint alleging that the Supreme Court Registry had misplaced a case file, preventing an urgent matter from being registered and listed before the Court.

The issue was raised by counsel Shubhi Shivani Jaideep, who informed the Bench that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed on June 8 had still not been registered.

“SLP was filed on 8th June, however it has not been registered by the Registry till date. We have written a representation to the Registrar. The case file appears to have been misplaced at the end of the Registry and because of this it has not been listed before the Court,” the counsel submitted.

Judicial Officer Moves Supreme Court Against HC Collegium Proposing Juniors' Elevation To Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case : ARVIND MALHOTRA v. HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH | Diary no. 36875/2026

A judicial officer from Himachal Pradesh has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the recommendation of the High Court Collegium for the appointment of judges to the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

The petition has been filed raising the grievance that junior officers have been recommended for elevation as HP High Court Judges.

Mentioning the matter for urgent hearing, a counsel submitted before the Chief Justice of India, "This pertains to appointment of judges to Himachal Pradesh HC. My right of consideration was violated. Collegium has recommended names of officers junior to me to the Union Government for elevation. I am seeking urgent listing."

'3-4 Senior Advocates In P&H HC Creating Havoc' : Supreme Court Asks HC Judges Not To Recuse From Ex-Judicial Officer's Plea

Case :AMRISH KUMAR JAIN Vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB | T.P.(C) No. 1641/2026

The Supreme Court expressed concern over repeated recusals by judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case concerning a former judicial officer's challenge to his dismissal from service, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarking that "three or four so-called senior advocates" in the State were "creating havoc."

The Court requested the Acting Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to constitute a Division Bench of two judges to hear the matter and specifically advised the judges not to recuse from the case, "irrespective of the situations that may be created by anyone."

During the hearing, the CJI expressed concern over what he described as attempts by certain members of the Bar to influence proceedings through repeated recusals.

NEET UG 2026 | Supreme Court Defers Hearing Of Plea Challenging NEET Retest To July

Case Title – Mangala Kohli v. Union of India

The Supreme Court deferred to July the hearing of a writ petition challenging the National Testing Agency's (NTA) decision to cancel and re-conduct NEET-UG 2026 for nearly 22 lakh candidates.

The petition sought an interim relief of stay on the decision to re-conduct NEET-UG 2026, and a direction restraining authorities from proceeding with the proposed re-examination which is scheduled on June 21st pending adjudication of the case.

The matter was listed before a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana. The bench did not hear the matter. It directed that the petition be listed before a bench led by Justice PS Narasimha, who is already hearing various cases pertaining to NEET exam. Justice Narasimha's bench will sit only after the Supreme Court resumes regular sittings on July 13,

Supreme Court Declines To Entertain Plea Challenging Income Tax Exemption For Scheduled Tribes In North East

Case Title – Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea seeking the introduction of a "creamy layer" mechanism in the income tax exemption available to Scheduled Tribes residing in specified areas and States under the Income Tax Act, 2025. The petitioner sought a direction to restrict the benefit to economically weaker tribals and exclude affluent beneficiaries.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana allowed petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay to withdraw the petition with the liberty to approach the Centre and the relevant Parliamentary Committee.

“It seems to us that the relief sought by the instant petition essentially involves formulation/revision/amendment of legislative/public policies. This court may not therefore be an appropriate platform for the aforesaid purpose at this stage. The petitioner may approach the Parliamentary Committee by way of a comprehensive petition. Similarly, the petition shall be at liberty to send the copy of the writ petition as a representation to all the respondents”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Seeks Delhi Police Response On Bail Pleas Of Two UAPA Accused Jailed For 12 Years

Case : MOHD. SAQUIB ANSARI v. STATE | SLP (Crl) 11369/2026

The Supreme Court (June 17) issued notice on the bail petitions of two undertrials who have been in custody for more than twelve years in connection with a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. M. Panchali directed the Delhi Police to file its counter affidavit by July 20 and listed the matter for hearing on July 28.

The petitioners, Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, were arrested in March 2014 and charged with alleged membership of and association with the banned Indian Mujahideen under Sections 18, 18A, 19, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The two remain in jail and are now in their thirteenth year of incarceration, awaiting the conclusion of a trial that is likely to take considerable time, as the prosecution has listed around 600 witnesses.

West Bengal Govt Moves Supreme Court Against HC Ordering Premature Release Of TADA Convict In 93 Bowbazar Blast Case

The State of West Bengal has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court direction allowing the premature release of a life-term convict in the 1993 Kolkata (Bowbazar) blast case.

The State's counsel mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. The counsel submitted that the State's Sentence Review Board had recommended against the release of the convict, Md Rashid Khan, who was convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Acts Prevention Act.

The bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana agreed to list the matter.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre, BCI Views On Plea Seeking National Registry For Advocates & Social Media Conduct Code

Case Title – Bar Association of India & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union, Bar Council of India, the State Bar Councils and the University Grants Commission on a writ petition filed by the Bar Association of India (BAI) seeking a national advocate verification mechanism in order to weed out fake lawyers, and a social media code of conduct for lawyers.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana heard the matter.

The petition seeks the creation of a National Digital Registry for the Legal Profession of India (NDRLP) to verify advocates and law degrees across the country, and also seeks formulation of a social media and digital conduct code for advocates.

Supreme Court Allows BCD Election Vote Counting To Continue But Says Result Cannot Be Declared Without Its Permission

Case Title – Rudra Vikram Singh v. Bar Council of Delhi

The Supreme Court allowed the completion of counting of votes in the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) elections, but ordered that the results shall not be notified without its prior permission.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana was hearing challenges to the Delhi High Court judgment which had declined to order a re-poll in the BCD elections over discovery of ballot tampering during counting. The Court had earlier stayed the counting process till the High Court decided finally the plea challenging the election.

CJI Kant also said that the Court would examine allegations relating to the suspension of 79 candidates during polling and the impact, if any, of those events on the election outcome. The Returning Officer had suspended 79 candidates on February 22 for alleged Model Code of Conduct violations, but withdrawn the suspension a day later.

NEET-UG : Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Pleas Concerning NEET-UG 2026 Ahead Of June 21 Retest

The Supreme Court refused to hear pleas seeking urgent hearing of issues arising out of the NEET re-test scheduled for June 21, observing that all matters concerning the examination are already listed before a Bench headed by Justice PS Narasimha.

The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by counsel appearing for NEET candidates.

When a plea relating to the NEET re-examination was mentioned for urgent listing, the CJI said:

'Casual Allegations' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into TVK's Trust Vote Win In Tamil Nadu

Case Details: KK RAMESH v UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 761/2026

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a court-monitored CBI investigation into allegations of horse-trading and corruption in connection with the trust vote won by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) government in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohan declined toentertain a writ petition filed by KK Ramesh, observing that it was founded on "casual allegations" unsupported by any reliable material.

The petition had sought a CBI probe into allegations that large sums of money were distributed to legislators of other parties and that government contracts were promised in exchange for support during the trust vote. It also sought the imposition of President's Rule in the State until the completion of the investigation.

Supreme Court Endorses Proposal For 'Young Lawyers' Professional Assistance Fund' To Support Junior Advocates

Case : SARIKA TYAGI Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 770/2026

The Supreme Court endorsed a proposal to create a "Young Lawyers' Professional Assistance Fund" to provide financial support to young advocates during the formative years of their legal careers, observing that financial hardships often drive talented lawyers away from litigation practice.

The proposal found favour with a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana while hearing a public interest petition filed by women advocates concerning infrastructural deficiencies in courts and the challenges faced by young members of the Bar. The Court said a dedicated fund could help address the steep economic barriers confronting first-generation lawyers and those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

"The absence of a steady stream of clients and the limited remuneration available during these years tends to create extreme financial hardship," the Court observed, noting that many junior advocates remain dependent on modest stipends from seniors while learning the craft of advocacy.

'No Ladies' Bar Rooms In Most Trial Courts': Supreme Court Says Basic Facilities For Women Advocates Integral To Dignity

Case : SARIKA TYAGI Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 770/2026

The Supreme Court observed that the availability of basic infrastructure for women advocates within court premises bears a direct nexus with the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, while hearing a petition highlighting the absence of ladies' bar rooms and other essential facilities in courts across the country.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana observed that when women advocates are required to spend substantial portions of their day within court premises, facilities necessary for their comfort, privacy, safety and professional functioning assume "utmost significance".

"The provision of such essential facilities prima facie bears a direct nexus with the fundamental guarantee of life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution," the bench observed in its order.

West Bengal SIR | Supreme Court Says Advocate Deleted From Roll Seemed To Be Genuine Citizen, Asks Appellate Tribunal To Decide

Case Title – Md. Yean Ali v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the appellate tribunal constituted to hear challenges arising out of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal to grant an out-of-turn hearing to a 75-year-old advocate's appeal against deletion of his name from the voter list.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana passed the order after remarking that the petitioner appeared to be a genuine citizen and resident of West Bengal.

Today, Advocate Shakil Sheikh stated that the petitioner's appeal has been pending since March 27, 2026, and had not been taken up for consideration.

Law Needed To Protect Right To Walk On Footpaths : Supreme Court Tells Centre

Case Details: MANIYAR ILIYAZ SHAIK RIYAZ Vs P. AYYAPPAN|C.A. No. 4665-4666/2025

The Supreme Court today(June 19) recognised the right of pedestrians to walk on the footpath as a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Indian Constitution, preceding the right of motorised vehicles. The Court held that there is a compelling need to lay down a statutory framework not only for the declaration of this right but also to recognise that the violation of this right would entitle one to restitutionary remedies.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar made these observations in a motor vehicle incident where a 5-year-old lost his life after he was hit by a tanker on his way to school with his father. His father sought compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 but it was reduced to Rs. 4,70,000. The bench enhanced it to Rs. 11,44,628 to be paid within 2 months.

In making these observations, the bench felt that there is a need for a statutory framework and therefore directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road Transport and Highways and has impleaded them as parties.

'Banks Sell Loans To ARCs For Peanuts': Supreme Court Flags Nexus Between Banks, Borrowers & Asset Reconstruction Companies

Case Title – Prateeksha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the manner in which public sector bank loans are assigned to Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs), observing that there is a need to examine the conduct of ARCs and the larger mechanism through which large loan liabilities are settled for a fraction of their value.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana was hearing a plea alleging irregularities in the settlement of loans extended to a company by a consortium led by State Bank of India. The petitioner has sought directions to the Centre to constitute a Judicial Commission or an Expert Committee including the Officers of RBI, SEBI, SFIO, ED and CBI to investigate alleged corporate and banking fraud facilitated by the ARCs.

“There is a dire need to look into the conduct and affairs of these ARCs also, frankly. And creation of this ARC is an issue probably that is required to be revisited, particularly in the context of public money. We are only concerned about public money. If they are private lender, we don't want to go into those transactions. But where taxpayers' money, public money, which should have been spent for the welfare of the people, if that has gone into private hands, mis-utilised, siphoned and ultimately they have the last laugh, that is what we are bothered. ARC are also hands in glove with banks. There is a very deep-rooted nexus between borrowers, ARC, and banks”, CJI Kant said.

Supreme Court Dismisses Tamil Nadu Businessman's Challenge To ED Search In TASMAC Money Laundering Case

Case title – P.R. Rajesh Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by businessman PR Rajesh Kumar challenging the legality of searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at his residence in May 2025 in connection with the alleged money laundering probe linked to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC).

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana upheld an order of the Madras High Court that had declined to examine the legality of the search as the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the attachment under Section 8 of the PMLA, and Rajesh Kumar had approached the Appellate Tribunal.

The petitioner sought quashing of search and seizure proceedings conducted by the ED at his Adyar residence on May 16, 17 and 18, 2025.