Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Service

Service Matters
Service

University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 — Clause 3(c) defining “Caste-based Discrimination” — Incorporation argued as restrictive and exclusionary — Claim that it renders individuals from non-reserved/general classes remediless against caste-based discrimination or institutional bias — Allegation that regulations proceed on unfounded presumption that caste-based discrimination only affects reserved categories.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRITUNJAY TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Surya Kant, C.J. and Joymalya Bagchi, J. ) Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 101/2026 with…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 49 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Vs. DINESH KUMAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters
Service

Public Service Commission — Recruitment — Waiting List — Validity — A waiting list has a limited validity period, usually determined by recruitment rules or a reasonable period until the next advertisement. Candidates on a waiting list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment, but can be considered if vacancies arise within the validity period and the appointing authority acts arbitrarily.

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 64 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER Vs. YATI JAIN AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended in 2024) — Rule 6(1) and Note in Appendix-I — Constitutional validity — Fixation of minimum qualification for recruitment of Pharmacist — Held valid — “Note” providing Bachelor’s/Master’s degree holders are eligible subject to possession of Diploma is not arbitrary or exclusionary — Supreme Court upheld the validity of the amended Cadre Rules, finding no infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion of the High Court. (Paras 2, 16, 41, 65)

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 68 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MD. FIROZ MANSURI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra…

Service Matters
Service

Reservation in Public Employment — Migration of Reserved Category Candidates — Reserved category candidates who score higher marks than the cut-off for General Category candidates must be treated as qualified against an open/unreserved post, provided they did not avail of any concession or relaxation. Their appointment on merit in the general category does not count against the reserved category quota. (Para 33)

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SHAM KRISHNA B AND OTHERS ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — Appointment — Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course — Right to Appointment — Candidates admitted to the course in a Government institution do not acquire an automatic right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse upon completion of training, especially when there is a significant change in Government policy and the number of candidates available due to the grant of permission to private institutions to impart the training; earlier appointments were made because of fewer candidates (20 seats) and higher demand, a situation that drastically changed with the increased number of pass-outs. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 26, 27)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 38 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. BHAWANA MISHRA ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — High Court Staff — Regularization — Discrimination — Appellants (Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks) appointed by Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 — High Court refused regularization of Appellants while regularizing numerous similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel — Justification based on whether initial appointment was labelled ‘ad-hoc’ or whether appointment letter stipulated an examination — Held, distinction based solely on stipulations in appointment letters, when the channel of appointment and nature of work are identical, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and superficial — Such differential treatment violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as equals must be treated equally without rational differentia. (Paras 3, 4, 17, 23-28)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1477 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATNANK MISHRA AND OTHERS Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules, 2001 — Rule 18(b) — Recruitment: Disqualification — Second Marriage — Rule 18(b) disqualifies a person who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with another person from appointment to the Force — Respondent, a CISF Constable, was dismissed from service for marrying a second time while his first marriage subsisted, violating Rule 18(b) — Held, the rule is a service condition intended to maintain discipline, public confidence, and integrity in the Force, and is not a moral censure — The rule is clear and mandatory, and the maxim “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law) applies — The statutory rule prescribing penal consequences must be strictly construed — Dismissal upheld. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 9)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1479 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. PRANAB KUMAR NATH ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw