The Supreme Court in Gaurav Mehla v. State of Haryana (2026) ruled that non-compliance with Rule 3 of the Service Rules during the final appointment stage was a curable procedural irregularity and not a fatal illegality. The Court restored fairness by directing reconsideration of appointments instead of cancelling the entire recruitment process after more than a decade of service.
Courtroom Chronicles
DELHI HIGH COURT JURISDICTION, ARTICLE 226 & FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN CAPF SERVICE MATTERS
The Supreme Court in Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India (2026) held that the Delhi High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) in service disputes involving CAPF personnel because the Union of India and the Director General of the force are situated in Delhi. The Court clarified that the doctrine of forum non conveniens should rarely be invoked to decline writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
SUPREME COURT HOLDS MARRIED DAUGHTERS ELIGIBLE FOR FAIR PRICE SHOP COMPASSIONATE ALLOTMENT
The Supreme Court ruled that married daughters are entitled to equal consideration under compassionate allotment schemes and cannot be excluded solely on the basis of marriage, reaffirming constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.
SUPREME COURT ON PASSPORT RETURN, FOREIGN TRAVEL RIGHTS AND SPEEDY TRIAL UNDER ARTICLE 21
The Supreme Court in Seesa Santosh v. State of Telangana & Anr. (2026) examined whether an accused facing serious criminal charges could be permitted to travel abroad. The Court balanced the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 against the victim’s right to a speedy trial and the broader interests of criminal justice, ultimately restricting foreign travel without prior court permission.
SUPREME COURT REBUKES 19-YEAR DELAY IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
The Supreme Court condemned a nearly two-decade delay in a criminal investigation involving forged property documents and reaffirmed that speedy investigation is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
SUPREME COURT ON MINOR’S PROPERTY, GUARDIANSHIP AND SECTION 8 HMGA
The Supreme Court held that courts must evaluate whether a proposed transaction involving a minor’s immovable property provides an evident advantage to the minor. Granting permission for a development agreement, the Court emphasized welfare, practical benefit, and judicial oversight under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.