The Supreme Court held that after the 1993 amendment to Section 59(d) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the Commissioner became the disciplinary authority for municipal officers, and existing 1959 regulations could not override the amended statutory provision.
Courtroom Chronicles
SUPREME COURT ON CURABLE RECRUITMENT IRREGULARITIES IN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
The Supreme Court held that absence of mandatory officials during the final appointment decision under Rule 3 of the Service Rules constituted a curable procedural irregularity and did not invalidate the entire recruitment process where advertisement, selection, and candidate eligibility were otherwise valid.
SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN MP RTI EXEMPTION FOR LOKAYUKTA SPE
The Supreme Court ruled that the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment under the Lokayukta Organisation cannot claim RTI exemption under Section 24(4) because it is not an intelligence and security organisation. The Court consequently struck down the State notification granting such exemption.
SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS BAR ON JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE IN ONGOING ELECTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 329(B)
The Supreme Court dismissed Meenakshi Natarajan’s writ petition challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination, holding that Article 329(b) bars judicial interference in ongoing election processes and that the appropriate remedy is an election petition after completion of the election.
SUPREME COURT HOLDS CURABLE PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES SHOULD NOT INVALIDATE ENTIRE RECRUITMENT PROCESS
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.
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.