Constitutional law

The Supreme Court (SC), in Canara Bank v Ajithkumar G K [2025 INSC 184], says indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground.

The service matters concerning recruitment and service conditions of state employees, including suspension review, fall within exclusive jurisdiction of administrative tribunal, which must be approached first before directly seeking high courts intervention in such matters, says the High Court of Kerala in Sadiq M M v State of Kerala [2025:KER:251].

Illegal promotions granted in the past cannot serve as a basis for continuing illegal promotions, says the Supreme Court ( SC) in Jyostnamayee Mishra v The State of Odisha & Others [2025 INSC 87].

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. A claim for compassionate appointment by the dependent of the deceased employee may not be entertained after a lapse of a considerable period since the death, says the Supreme Court (SC) in State of West Bengal v Debabrata Tiwari & Ors.

Eligibility criteria for the selection process notified at the commencement of the recruitment process cannot be changed midway during the recruitment process unless the extant rules so permit, says the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Others v Rajasthan High Court & Others [2024 INSC 847].

The Supreme Court (SC) says that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained against a private education society for adjudication of private service disputes, in Army welfare education society, New Delhi v Sunil Kumar Sharma & Others [2024 INSC 501].

The distinctions between Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been clearly spelt out in the three-member Bench judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) in Radhey Shyam v Chhabi Nath. The SC, based on some survey, found that the distinction between the two jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice.

The issue whether the Governor of a State can withhold a bill passed by the legislature without acting upon it is a serious matter being debated in governmental bodies, judiciary, and the public sphere, with no consensus in sight.

A fundamental right, under Article 19/21 of the Constitution, can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities. This is what the Supreme Court (SC) says in a 4:1 majority judgment in Kaushal Kishor v State of UP. Justice B V Nagarathna, the sole dissenting judge, issued a dissenting judgement.

India introduced the Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) Scheme by amending the Citizenship Act, 1955 in August 2005. The Scheme provides for registration as Overseas Citizen of India. A registered Overseas Citizen of India is granted multiple entry, multipurpose, life-long visa for visiting India.

The issue whether the UGC Regulations shall prevail over the State legislation/State Act has been answered emphatically by the Supreme Court (SC) once again in Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors. The SC categorically holds the appointment of Vice Chancellors in the state universities should be as per the prevailing UGC Regulations if the regulation is in conflict with the State’s University Act.

In State Bank of India and Another v Ajay Kumar Sood, the Supreme Court (SC) set aside the judgement of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in view of the language of the judgement was incomprehensible and therefore remitted it back to the High Court to rewrite it in an easy-to-understand style.