Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: July 13, 2026 To July 19, 2026

JudgmentsSupreme Court Rejects Regularisation Claims Of 350+ West Bengal Madrasah Staff Appointed When State Law Was Struck DownCase Details: NAJMA KHATUN AND ORS.v THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 566/2024Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 667The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of 49 writ petitions filed by more than 350 teachers and non-teaching staff of aided madrasahs in West Bengal, holding that none of them could establish that their appointments were made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih upheld the findings of a three-member committee constituted by the Court in 2023 to verify the legality of appointments made during the period when provisions of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 had been struck down by the Calcutta High Court but before the Supreme Court restored its validity in 2020.The Court held that the committee had undertaken a detailed factual exercise and found that "not a single claim met the threshold of a valid appointment." Although the Court independently examined 13 cases projected by the petitioners as the strongest examples of injustice, it concluded that each appointment suffered from serious legal defectsWhen Can High Courts Grant Relief Under Article 226 Beyond Pleadings? Supreme Court ExplainsCause Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS BALI RAMCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 668The Supreme Court clarified that although High Courts are ordinarily expected to remain confined to the pleadings and reliefs sought by parties, the rule is flexible while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In exceptional cases, where the record clearly establishes a legal entitlement and denying relief on technical grounds would perpetuate injustice, High Courts may mould relief beyond the specific prayers in a writ petition.“…the rule that requires the parties to be strictly confined to the pleadings and the prayer clauses is not an inflexible rule insofar as exercise of writ jurisdiction is concerned…Ex facie, Article 226, which is couched in comprehensive phraseology, confers wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. Apart from writs, the High Courts may issue orders or directions in the nature of writs enabling them to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih.“Although in exercise of writ jurisdiction the high courts are guided by the principles flowing from the CPC, they are not bound by it.”, the Court added.Supreme Court Criticises CRPF For Removing Driver Who Developed Disability, Awards Him Rs 1.25 CroreCase Details: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. BALI RAM NO.850808321|CIVIL APPEAL No.13783/2015Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 668The Supreme Court(July 13) criticised the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) for medically invalidating a driver after he developed a visual disability during service instead of accommodating him in an alternative post as required by law.Holding that the force had failed in its duty as a "model employer", the Court awarded the former constable Rs. 1.25 crore as a composite amount towards back wages, interest and costs, modifying the High Court's direction for reinstatement since he has already attained the age of superannuation.A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the Union government's appeal against a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment which had held that the CRPF violated Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, by medically invalidating the respondent instead of retaining him in service. It found that the CRPF failed to grant him an alternative post, a duty cast on government establishments under Section 47(non-discrimination in government employment) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.'Mere Telephone Records Can't Prove Illicit Affair' : Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of Woman & 2 Men In Husband's Murder CaseCause Title: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS MONIKA KIRAN SURYAWANSHI & ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 669Mere production of telephone records cannot substitute substantive proof of an illicit affair leading to murder, the Supreme Court has held while upholding the acquittal of a woman accused of murdering her husband along with her alleged lover and another co-accused in 2007.The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances necessary to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The Court observed that the investigation suffered from "fatal lapses," including the failure to seal recovered articles.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra against a 2010 Bombay High Court...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: July 13, 2026 To July 19, 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: July 13, 2026 To July 19, 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers