MBBS students transferred after medical college derecognition cannot claim govt fee rates in private institutes: SC

MBBS students transferred after medical college derecognition cannot claim govt fee rates in private institutes: SC 

Written By : Barsha MisraPublished On 16 May 2026 6:00 PM | 

 Updated On 16 May 2026 6:00 PM

Supreme Court of India 

New Delhi: Denying relief to the students shifted from the defunct Sardar Rajas Medical College, Odisha, the Supreme Court recently observed that students transferred to private medical colleges, after the original institution lost recognition, cannot claim the benefit of paying only subsidised government medical college fees.

Accordingly, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the private medical institutes to recover the outstanding dues from the students at the fee rates applicable at Sardar Rajas Medical College and hospital (SRMCH).

"It is also borne out from the record that the transferee colleges had obtained undertakings from the transferred students at the time of issuance of course-completion documents/certificates, wherein the students acknowledged that the issue relating to fee liability was pending consideration before this Court and undertook to abide by the final directions passed herein. Thus, the passed-out students cannot be allowed the benefit of a windfall or a bonanza merely by dint of the interim orders passed by this Court, which was in form of an emergent measure in order to tide over the situation where the students faced imminent risk of losing their entire careers. Now that, by virtue of the orders passed by this Court, the students have completed the medical courses, it is the right time when they should be asked to make good their outstanding fee obligations," the bench ordered.

Further, it directed that approximately Rs 14 crore that was secured from the Selvam Educational and Charitable Trust, which managed SRMCH, be released to the three private medical colleges that accommodated the transferred students. This amount includes the bank guarantee of Rs 10 crore furnished to the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI), now National Medical Commission (NMC), and Rs 2 crore deposited before the Supreme Court, along with accrued interest.

"It is accordingly ordered that the amount of approximately Rs.10 crores covered by the bank guarantee furnished by the Trust with the MCI/NMC, shall be made available for distribution amongst the three transferee colleges in equal proportions. The MCI/NMC shall ensure that the said amount is released and paid to the three colleges in their respective bank accounts within a period of three months from today...The amount of Rs.2 crores deposited by the Trust with the Registry of this Court, along with accrued interest thereupon, shall also be divided into three equal portions and disbursed to the transferee colleges," ordered the top court bench.

Case Details:

The case stemmed from the collapse of the Sardar Rajas Medical College. Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that back in 2015, the erstwhile MCI had withdrawn the recognition and affiliation of the medical college after finding serious deficiencies in infrastructure, faculty etc. Following this, the future of the students at the medical college, who were admitted in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 academic year, was pushed into darkness.

Earlier, to prevent the students from losing an academic year, the Apex Court had ordered their transfer through a State-supervised counselling process. The affected students had been transferred to Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, IMS & SUM Hospital, and Hi-Tech Medical College in Odisha. Among the total of 124 students, who were affected due to the MCI's withdrawal of recognition, a total of 122 students were ultimately relocated to these three private medical institutes.

However, later, approaching the Supreme Court, these medical institutes claimed that despite providing education and stipends to these students for years, they only received nominal government-rate fees under the interim orders passed by the Court. According to the colleges, the government-rate fees were far below the actual fee structure of the private medical colleges.

The colleges also submitted that at the initial stage, they could not raise any protest regarding the shortfall of fees, as the students were transferred to their institutions based on the directions of the Apex Court.

The Court noted that based on the court's order dated 19.04.2016, the Selvam Trust, which used to run the SRMCH, had deposited Rs 2 crore to the Court's registry, which, along with accrued interest, now stands at Rs.3,58,69,331. Further, the Trust had also furnished a sum of approximately Rs 10 crore, with the MCI/NMC by way of bank guarantees as security in connection with regulatory requirements relating to the establishment and functioning of the institution.

Meanwhile, the students submitted that they were admitted to SRMCH through a valid admission process and were subsequently compelled to shift to private medical institutes for no fault of theirs. They submitted that they had already paid fees at Government rates in compliance with the Supreme Court's interim orders and have since completed their medical courses after facing great hardship and uncertainty. Therefore, they urged the Court not to burden them with any additional financial liability at such a belated stage.

The Selvam Trust submitted that the findings regarding the deficiencies in SRMCH were still under challenge before the competent forums. The Trust's counsel also submitted that the Trust was contesting the said findings by raising issues with the MCI/NMC and that the question of its liability could not be conclusively determined in these proceedings without due adjudication of such disputes.

Further, the counsel for the trust urged that the affected students have already derived the benefits of continued education in other recognised medical institutions, which would be either equivalent to or even better than the institution in which they were originally admitted i.e. SRMCH, and therefore, the entire financial burden ought not to be saddled upon the Trust.

Accordingly, the trust argued that no additional liability should be fastened on the Trust without determining its defaults, vis-à-vis the regulatory mechanism.

Meanwhile, the counsel for MCI, now NMC, argued that the fee structure is required to be determined in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory framework. It was submitted that the admission categories ought to be classified on a quota-based system, whereby students admitted under the Government quota would be liable to pay fees at Government rates, whereas those admitted under the management quota would be liable to pay higher fees as applicable to such category.

Supreme Court's Observations:

The Apex Court rejected the argument that the students should continue to benefit from the subsidised arrangement indefinitely.

"This, in our opinion, would amount to unjust enrichment of these transferee students while being conscious of the fact that they had to face a chaotic situation of being transferred to different medical colleges mid-session. However, all interests of these students were duly protected by this Court ensuring that they cleared the medical course without losing a single academic year. Thus, neither the students can be given undue advantage or bonanza nor can the defaulting institution, i.e., the SRMCH/Selvam Trust, be permitted to take benefit of its own follies," it observed. Even though the Court held that the students definitely faced difficult circumstances without any fault of their own, it also observed that they could not continue receiving the benefit of government-rate fees permanently.

"The situation at hand is well defined by the latin maxim Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet i.e., no one should derive a benefit from their own wrong. While the admitted students had undertaken to pay the prescribed fees to SRMCH, it is equally true that, upon payment of such fees, they were entitled to complete their course without any hitch or difficulty. However, what transpired subsequently, as noted in the preceding paragraphs, presents an entirely different picture. Owing to the deficiencies in SRMCH, its recognition was not renewed, resulting in the students being subjected to a very tumultuous and volatile situation, putting their future in grave risk," the bench observed.

While deciding the core question regarding the manner in which the resultant financial liability is to be apportioned between the parties while balancing the equities, the bench noted that since the students were transferred and admitted to these private colleges based on the Court's directions in exceptional circumstances, the primary brunt of liability must be fastened upon the Trust.

Accordingly, it ordered, "We, therefore, direct that the amount of approximately Rs.10 crores furnished by the Selvam Trust by way of bank guarantees with the MCI/NMC, along with the amount of Rs.2 crores deposited before this Court, together with accrued interest thereupon, shall be payable to the three transferee colleges."

Regarding the liability of the students, the bench observed that the students were transferred to the applicant colleges, where they continued their studies and completed the courses, albeit without loss of an academic year save for exceptions. Additionally, these students were paid stipends by transferee colleges as and where applicable.

After perusing the fee structure of the medical colleges, the bench noted, "The fee structure of the transferee colleges is slightly higher but the learned counsel representing the colleges fairly conceded on instructions that they would be satisfied by reimbursement of due fees at the rates being charged by SRMCH. Thus, in aggregate, the total amount payable to the three colleges would work out to approximately Rs.16.2 crores. This amount is significantly lower than the fee ordinarily chargeable by the transferee colleges from their own students at private rates and does not account for the interest which would have accrued in the intervening period. The total amount secured by way of bank guarantees furnished by the Trust, together with the amount deposited before this Court along with accrued interest, would aggregate to approximately Rs.14 crores. Even upon applying the fee standards of SRMCH, the transferee colleges would still face a shortfall in the recovery of their lawful dues."

The court noted that the students who passed out from the transferee colleges have virtually undertaken the full MBBS course by paying the fees at the Government rates, which would be only a pittance of what they would have paid to the SRMCH under normal circumstances.

It also observed that the facts were not clear on the aspect as to the number of students originally admitted in SRMCH under the government quota and those admitted under the private/management quota.

From the record, the court also observed that the transferee colleges had obtained undertakings from the transferred students at the time of issuance of course-completion documents/certificates, wherein the students acknowledged that the issue relating to fee liability was pending consideration before the Supreme Court and undertook to abide by the final directions passed by the court.

Accordingly, it held that the passed-out students cannot be allowed the benefit of a windfall or a bonanza merely by dint of the interim orders passed by the court.

Accordingly, it ordered,

"The present status of these passed out students is not available to the Court. Thus, looking to the piquant situation, we permit the transferee colleges to make representations to the MCI/NMC with details of the exact shortfall of the fee due from each student (applying SRMCH rates) for recovery of their remaining dues, if any. It is expected that, upon such representations being made, the NMC shall provide due redressal to the colleges for recovery of the deficit amount, if any, from these passed out students. Excess amount, if any, received from the students may be utilized to recoup the amount of bank guarantee (Rs. 10 Crores) which we have directed MCI/NMC to pay to the applicant colleges. Furthermore, at the time of evaluation, the MCI/NMC shall take into account and adjust the amount initially paid by these students at the time of admission to SRMCH. We further provide that observations made in this order shall not prejudice the claims/defences, if any, of the Selvam Trust or SRCMH in appropriate proceedings, if any." "For the sake of clarification and in view of the directions issued hereinabove, it is provided that the students who comply with the fee liability determined in terms of the present judgment shall be entitled to forthwith receive such academic and coursecompletion documents, certificates and other consequential records, which are ordinarily issued upon completion of the course and are required by the students, in accordance with the applicable rules/regulations," it added.

Include foster parents’ names in birth certificate, orders HC

Include foster parents’ names in birth certificate, orders HC

 K.Kaushik@timesofindia.com 14.05.2026

Madurai : Dignity and the right to construct one’s own identity with reference to gender, familial and societal contexts is part of the right to privacy, Madras high court observed while granting relief to a woman who sought to include the names of her foster parents in her birth certificate without removing the names of her biological parents. 

The court was hearing a petition filed by a woman from Madurai, who is pursuing a UG degree. The petitioner stated that she was born in 2005. After her father passed away in 2006, her mother also deserted her. Her paternal uncle and his wife (aunt) raised her as their own daughter. The petitioner stated that in all her identity-related documents, her uncle and aunt’s names are mentioned as parents’ names. However, in the birth certificate alone, the biological parents’ names are mentioned. 

This has affected her right to be known as the daughter of her uncle and aunt and it also leads to serious prejudice to her education and career as well. Therefore, the petitioner made an application to include the names of her uncle and.as her father and mother in the birth certificate. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner should be validly adopted as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 

Challenging the order, the petitioner moved court. The woman’s counsel submitted that she did not seek to remove the names of the biological parents, but to include the names of her uncle and aunt as well. Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed the petitioner is not praying for proprietary rights in the foster family. She wants to be known as their daughter. The same would be within her fundamental right. This apart, her identity itself will be disputed and her education and career will be jeopardised since the names of her parents in all other certificates and birth certificate are different. 

The judge observed that there is not only an obligation on the state to respect the child’s right to preserve her identity, but there is also an obligation to provide appropriate assistance. Hence, the judge directed the petitioner to file notarised affidavits of her uncle and aunt, consenting to their names being added to the birth certificate of the petitioner with the suffix ‘foster’. Upon filing such affidavits, the chief registrar of births and deaths, shall also include the names of the uncle and aunt in the appropriate columns, the judge directed

SC: Won’t interfere in CBI probe against Senthil

SC: Won’t interfere in CBI probe against Senthil 

12.05.2026. TIMES OF INDIA BENGALURU

New Delhi : Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with Madras high court’s order for a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in transformer tenders floated during the tenure of former Tamil Nadu electricity minister V Senthil Balaji between 2021-23. 

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed appeals filed against the HC order and asked the agency to conduct the investigation uninfluenced by the observations of Madras HC. One of the appeals has been filed by Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (Tangedco). Madras HC had directed a CBI probe on April 29 on a plea filed by NGO Arappor Iyakkam which alleged that 10 tenders issued for the procurement of transformers were manipulated to favour select bidders. TNN

SC: You want to stall everything in the name of environment

SC: You want to stall everything in the name of environment 

12.05.2026

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymlaya Bagchi said the environment impact assessment (EIA) report had found the apprehensions baseless and the National Green Tribunal also has since given a considered opinion green lighting the port expansion. 

When Shenoy continued to emphasise that NGT did not consider a series of deficiencies in the EIA report, SC said port development activities are required for the development of the country. “You want to stall everything in the name of the environment. How can the country develop without infrastructure? No doubt precautionary measures are essential. But tell us where else the depth of the sea permits big ports as in Gujarat,” it asked. 

“Do you want the port related economic activities to go to other countries,” the bench asked. While refusing to entertain the appeal against NGT order, it permitted the environmentalist to approach western zone NGT at Pune again pointing out the non consideration of his objections to the project. 

The counsel said 90% of fish landing off Saurashtra coast takes place at Pipavav port area and the expansion would be a death knell for the fisherfolk of the area. SC said economic activity is not a consideration while preparing the EIA report. Show us 1 development project not opposed by environmentalists: 

SC New Delhi : Refusing to entertain a plea against expansion of Pipavav port in Gujarat faulting the environmental clearance, 

Supreme Court on Monday said, “Show us a single project where these environmentalists have said we welcome this,” while emphasising that the country cannot develop without infrastructure, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra . 

Senior advocate Anitha Shenoy, for environmentalist Chetan Kumar Navintray Vyas, argued that  the project was stalled for more than a decade and the environmental clearance was given without considering the adverse impact on marine mammals, Olive Ridley turtles, avian species and mangroves

Deemed varsity engg degrees without AICTE nod invalid: HC

Deemed varsity engg degrees without AICTE nod invalid: HC 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK  06.05.2026

Chennai : Engineering degrees obtained from deemed-to-be universities during a period without AICTE approval are not valid, the Madras high court said. Approval is mandatory for technical courses, and benefits based on unapproved degrees cannot be sustained, the court added. 

A division bench of Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice K Surender passed the order on a review application moved by the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd seeking review of an order passed by the court dated June 25, 2025. The issue pertains to pleas moved by three employees of the corporation seeking to include their names in the seniority list of assistant engineers, taking into consideration their BE degree certificates. 

The court allowed the petitions, and an appeal moved by the corporation was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the corporation moved the present review and pointed out that the court failed to notice that recognition/approval of AICTE for technical courses is mandatory and, in the present case, the BE degrees obtained by the employees admittedly were not approved by AICTE during the academic years in which they completed the degree. 

The employees opposed the plea and contended that no such approval is required for degrees obtained through deemed-to-be universities. The university, through communication, admitted the fact that it did not obtain any approval from AICTE to conduct a BE (Mechanical) engineering course from the academic year 2002 onwards till 2017. Recording the submissions, the bench held that, therefore, the degrees obtained by the employees cannot be construed as valid degrees in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Odisha case, which deals with the issue, and allowed the review application

Poor academics no bar to jobs for high-rankers: HC

Poor academics no bar to jobs for high-rankers: HC 

18.04.2026

Cuttack : The Orissa high court observed that high ranking candidates in a recruitment exam cannot be disqualified on the basis of their poor academic records. The HC ruling came on Thursday while it was hearing a batch of 242 petitions challenging the Odisha Subordinate Staff Selection Commission’s (OSSSC) Oct 10, 2025 order, that denied candidates a place in the merit list for recruitment to the posts of livestock inspector, forester and forest guard, reports Lalmohan Patnaik . OSSSC had rejected the petitioners’ claim for appointment on grounds that they had adopted unfair means during the written exam. HC noted that the commission had not received report of illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the written exam from any of the 94 centres. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy directed OSSSC to recommend the 242 petitioners for appointment within three weeks. The state govt was to ensure timely appointments.

Employees hired without advertisement or interview cannot be regularised:

Employees hired without advertisement or interview cannot be regularised:

Supreme Court The claim of being engaged sans an advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as regards the manner of engagement, the Court said.

Supreme Court of India. 18.06.2026

Ritu Yadav Published on: 17 Apr 2026, 8:33 pm

The Supreme Court has ruled that government employees hired on a contractual or ad hoc basis without any public advertisement or interview cannot be made permanent under a State policy [Madan Singh v State of Haryana]

A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar passed the ruling on April 16 while striking down two notifications issued by Haryana government in 2014 to regularise services of a certain category of employees who had or were about to complete ten years’ of service.

The Court said that the Haryana government failed to justify why services of such ad hoc employees, who had not been engaged on the basis of any advertisement or interview, were sought to be regularised.

“The claim of being engaged sans an advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as regards the manner of engagement. Absence of any record whatsoever of the manner of engagement does not inspire any confidence in such a process,” the Bench said.

Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar However, at the same time, the Court acknowledged the practical reality that many of these employees had been working for years.

"A period of almost twelve years has elapsed since the issuance of these two Notifications. It is the specific stand of the State Government that even after excluding the ad hoc employees from Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’, who seek benefit of these two Notifications, none of the posts advertised would be aLected. Further, it is informed that such appointees have now gained sufficient experience and are likely to have settled in life with the passage of time," the Court noted.

It therefore invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and allowed the employees to continue in service. However, it directed that they would be placed at the lowest pay scale applicable to their posts.

In 2018, the High Court in 2018 had struck down a set of Haryana government notifications aimed at regularising Group B, C and D employees. The decision was then challenged before the top court, which ordered a status quo during the pendency of the matter.

In the judgment passed on April 16, the top court modified the High Court ruling. While it struck down two of the notifications issued in July 2014, it upheld the validity of two similar notifications issued in June 2014.

The policies notified in June 2014 were aimed at extending the benefit of an older 1996 regularisation scheme to employees who had been left out earlier, it noted.

The Court found that the criteria prescribed was very much in tune with the criteria that would have otherwise been prescribed for regular recruitment

"The criteria prescribed was not in any manner watered down or deviated from the criteria required to be satisfied while seeking regular appointment. What is most relevant, in our view, is that such engagement should have been initially made on a sanctioned post and such engagement on the sanctioned post ought to be continuing even on the date of regularisation of service. This would clearly indicate that when such engagement on ad hoc basis was initially made, sanctioned posts were available and this position continued for a number of years so as to enable regularisation of services of the incumbents holding such posts," it said.

After pronouncing the judgment, Justice Narasimha remarked that the issue may require consideration by a larger Bench.

“We have gone through your suggestions. We had a particular difficulty being a combination of a two-judge bench. It would have created yet another problem of two conflicting two-judge benches. We have kept everything ready. We will ask you to do a repeat performance at a time, perhaps when we get this matter taken up at a three-judge bench, which is necessary, and we are going to do that because we have seen that it cannot continue like this. You know.,” Justice Narasimha said.

The Court placed on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by amicus curiae Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta and advocates Japneet Kaur, Jhanvi Dubey, Ashok Mathur, Vriti Gujral, M Bikram Dwivedi and Jimut Mohopatra.

Can't have different DA hikes for staff and pensioners: Supreme Court

Can't have different DA hikes for staff and pensioners: Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court has ruled that differential dearness benefit increases for serving employees and pensioners are arbitrary. Inflation impacts both equally, making a 14% DA hike for serving staff and only 11% DR for retirees discriminatory. The court stated that while financial constraints can justify implementation delays, unequal benefit rates violate the right to equality.

Amit Anand ChoudharyTNN

Apr 11, 2026, 3:59 IST

NEW DELHI: Observing that inflationary pressures do not discriminate between a serving employee and a pensioner, hitting the two equally, Supreme Court Friday held that fixing differential rates of enhancement of inflation-linked dearness benefits for the two categories is arbitrary and cannot be allowed. 

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B Varale disapproved of Kerala govt's decision to raise dearness allowance (DA) by 14% for state road transport corporation employees when the dearness relief (DR) for its retired employees was raised by just 11%. "...The Govt Order in question increases the rate of DA by 14% and DR by 11% even though the increase is to serve a common object, which is to mitigate the hardship faced by the serving employees and pensioners on account of inflation.

 Indisputably, inflation hits both serving and retired employees with equal force... Differentiating the two qua the rate of increase of DA and DR, in our view, has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved," Justice Misra said, accepting the plea of senior advocates V Chitambaresh and Vipin Nair. The state had contended that serving and retired employees belonged to different categories and differential rates for them did not violate the right to equality. Financial reasons alone could justify the same, it said. The bench said, "No doubt a financial crunch might be a guiding factor to defer disbursement of certain benefits or may justify separate dates for implementation of beneficial schemes. 

But once a decision is taken to provide certain allowances, as also to increase them ...fixing a higher rate of increase for the ones who are serving than the ones who have retired, would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

Consider service period of regularised PG doctors for super-specialty admissions’: Madras HC

Consider service period of regularised PG doctors for super-specialty admissions’: Madras HC

Justice M Dhandapani issued the direction on a petition by Dr G Arulvel, who was appointed as assistant surgeon on a temporary basis in 2021.

Madras High Court.

Express News Service

Updated on:

15 Apr 2026, 8:46 am

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the Selection Committee of the state health department to consider the applications of those post-graduate doctors, who were appointed in regular posts on temporary basis and subsequently regularised, for admission to super-specialty courses in medicine under the in-service quota by considering their entire service period as qualifying service.

Justice M Dhandapani issued the direction on a petition by Dr G Arulvel, who was appointed as assistant surgeon on a temporary basis in 2021 in the regular sanctioned post and was regularised on March 6, 2026, after clearing the special qualifying examination for regularisation.

The petitioner approached the court seeking the issuance of directions to consider his application for the super-specialty course for the 2025-26 academic year as in-service candidate in the Round-II counselling.

“There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and the other similarly placed persons for admission to super-specialty courses for 2025-26 as in-service candidates by considering the period of service rendered by them in the temporary post, which is borne out of the cadre in the time scale of pay, as qualifying service for the purpose of fulfilment of the conditions laid down under clause 7 and 8 of the prospectus,” the judge in a recent order said.

The judge also directed the authorities to receive the applications from all the eligible temporary assistant surgeons who have been under temporary appointment on a post borne out of cadre, and process their application for selection to the super-specialty courses which are yet to be filled under the in-service quota and admit them on the basis of their inter se merit in the relevant courses for 2025-26.

Wife reneges on divorce by consent, SC invokes Art 142

Wife reneges on divorce by consent, SC invokes Art 142

 AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesofindia.com 14.04.2026

New Delhi : In a classic case of how court proceedings are misused in matrimonial disputes-a woman agreed for a divorce and signed a financial settlement agreement for separation but she not only reneged from the promise after getting a substantial part of the money from her husband, but she also filed a criminal case against him and his family members. 

The Supreme Court on Monday invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and also quashed the domestic violence case, brushing aside her opposition. The court dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay the final installment of Rs 70 lakh to her and also quashed all civil and criminal cases lodged by the couple against each other.

Judge breaks nib of pen after signing Sathankulam verdict

Judge breaks nib of pen after signing Sathankulam verdict 

TIMES OF INDIA  CHENNAI EDITION 07.04.2026

The convicts include the then inspector S Sridhar, sub-inspectors K Balakrishnan, P Raghu Ganesh, head constables S Murugan and A Samadurai, and four constables—M Muthuraja, S Chelladurai, X Thomas Francis and S Vailmuthu. 

A total fine of over ₹1 crore has been imposed on them. The 10th suspect, the then special sub-inspector Paldurai, who too had been arrested, died of Covid in Aug 2020. 

After signing judgment on Monday, judge Muthukumaran broke the nib of his pen. 

Jeyaraj and Beniks were taken to the Sathankulam police in Tuticorin district in south Tamil Nadu late in the evening of June 19, 2020, on charges of having kept their shop open beyond the deadline during the Covid-19 lockdown. They were brutally assaulted by the policemen at night and were lodged in Kovilpatti sub-jail the next day. 

Beniks died of injuries at the Kovilpatti govt hospital on June 22, 2020, while his father Jeyaraj died on June 23, 2020. Their deaths sent shock waves and triggered public outcry across the state, and Justice P N Prakash of Madras high court took note of the killings and ordered the transfer of probe to the CBI. 

Recalling the HC intervention, judge Muthukumaran said, “ If not for the HC, truth regarding the incident would have been buried along with mortal remains of the duo.” “It was an act of vengeance by the police. Jeyaraj was tortured since there was an altercation with the police and Beniks was tortured since he questioned the illegal detention of his father. 

The act was committed by the policemen with the deliberate intent to instill fear among the public as two traders had lost their lives,” the judge said. “Where there is power, there should be responsibility. The incident was an attack on human rights,” the judge observed and added that custodial death is a social evil. 

The judge observed that this is not the first case of custodial death and it is also not going to be the last case either. “Such incidents are occurring everywhere,” the judge said, referring to the George Floyd incident reported in the US and the recent incident where B Ajith Kumar, a temple security guard, died due to custodial torture in Thiruppuvanam in Sivaganga. 

“Those who should protect the public have misused their power. This was a case of fencing eating the crops,” he said. Earlier, the state govt asserted that custodial deaths could not be tolerated and the Centre stated that maximum punishment should be awarded to the convicts. 

All nine Sathankulam case convicts get death sentence 

Judge: This Is To Prevent More Such Incidents 

Madurai : All nine police personnel arrested in connection with the custodial deaths of P Jeyaraj and his son J Beniks who were tortured in Sathankulam police station in 2020, were sentenced to death on Monday. Mere life sentences would not be sufficient, as the policemen would have no fear and would, instead, get emboldened, said the first additional district and sessions court in Madurai, G Muthukumaran on Monday. 

“It would send a false message to society. The punishment imposed on the police personnel in this case should be stringent one in order to prevent the recurrence of such incidents in the future. All the nine convicted police personnel in the case were equally involved in the attack on the father-son duo which resulted in their death,” the judge said. “The justice we got today is justice for all common people,” Jeyaraj’s daughter, J Persis, told reporters. “No family should face the trauma we underwent. We believe judgment in this case will prevent such incidents of custodial deaths in the future.”

Pay Commission Benefits Can't Be Denied By Creating Additional Conditions:

Pay Commission Benefits Can't Be Denied By Creating Additional Conditions:

 Supreme Court Yash Mittal 3 Apr 2026 4:22 PM

The Supreme Court on April 1 observed that the Central Pay Commission's recommendation cannot be loosely construed to deny a benefit to an employee by creating an additional condition to deny the benefit of the pay commission.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti heard the matter concerning the respondents, who had initially joined the Border Roads Organisation in subordinate engineering cadres and were later redesignated as Junior Engineers following cadre merger. After completing 4 years of continuous service at Level 8 with Grade Pay of ₹4,800, they became eligible for Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Level 9 (Grade Pay ₹5,400) as per Seventh Central Pay Commission recommendation. 

However, the Government denied the benefit on the ground that only direct recruitees to Level 8 were entitled to NFU, despite the Pay Commission neither prescribing such a restriction nor mandating that the benefit be confined to direct recruits.

The Delhi High Court allowed the Respondents' plea and directed the extension of Level 9 benefit to them, leading to the Union's appeal before the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the Union's appeal, the judgment authored by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed that the Government had unjustifiably withheld the NFU benefit from the respondents by introducing an additional condition, namely, that only direct recruits to Level 8 would be eligible. The Court held that such a requirement finds no place in the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations and could not be imposed to deny the benefit.

“The denial of NFU on the ground that the Writ Petitioners have not joined the service with grade pay of Rs. 4,800/-, thus, introducing entry-level into the subject paragraphs of Seventh Central Pay Recommendations, may amount to adding additional conditions for extending the benefit of NFU.”, the court observed.

“The requirement appears to be from the plain reading that upon completion of four years of service in Level 8 and on the seniority-cumsuitability, a Junior Engineer is entitled to NFU. The insistence on the option with an entry-level Junior Grade at Rs. 4,800/- would deny a benefit recommended by the Seventh Central Pay Commission to the Writ Petitioners.”, the court added.

 “The denial is not for valid reasons. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the Order under appeal. The Civil Appeal stands dismissed.”, the court ordered.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VERSUS SUNIL KUMAR RAI & OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 323

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G.(argued by) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Ms. Ankita Choudhary Rathi, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.(argued by) Mr. Anas Tanwir, AOR Mr. Ganesh A Khemka, Adv. Mr. Shreenath A Khemka, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Chandratanay Chaube, Adv.

Tags

OBC quota based on birth, not marriage or migration: HC

OBC quota based on birth, not marriage or migration: HC 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 02.04.2026

Bhopal : Madhya Pradesh high court has said that OBC reservation benefits cannot be claimed in the state on the basis of a caste certificate issued elsewhere, and that such benefits are determined by birth, not by marriage or change of residence. 

Dismissing a petition, the court upheld the cancellation of a candidate’s candidature during verification.The court also ruled that a woman cannot claim reservation benefits on the basis of her husband’s caste after marriage. The case pertains to Archana Dangi, a native of Jalaun in Uttar Pradesh, who had cleared the Higher Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018. Her candidature was cancelled during document verification as her OBC certificate had been issued in Uttar Pradesh. She argued that the Dangi caste is listed under the OBC category in both Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. 

She also submitted that after marriage she became a resident of Madhya Pradesh and should be eligible for reservation benefits in the state. Opposing the plea, the state govt told the court that caste is determined by birth and not by marriage or change of residence. It also said that a caste certificate issued in another state is not valid for claiming reservation in Madhya Pradesh. 

The court further noted that while a woman may socially be part of her husband’s caste after marriage, reservation benefits are based on social and educational backwardness linked to birth, not marital status

HC: Daughter-in-law is not legally bound to maintain parents-in-law

 

HC: Daughter-in-law is not legally bound to maintain parents-in-law

Mar 29, 2026, 22:10 IST

Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has ruled that a daughter-in-law is not legally bound to maintain her parents-in-law under Section 125 of CrPC (now Section 144 of BNSS), stating that moral obligations do not translate to legal ones without statutory backing.

The court observed that the right to claim maintenance is a statutory right and is confined only to the categories of persons expressly mentioned therein. Parents-in-law do not fall within the ambit of this provision, Justice Madan Pal Singh said in his recent order.Dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by an elderly couple — Rakesh Kumar and his wife against their daughter-in-law, he observed, "The legislature, in its wisdom, has not included parents-in-law within the ambit of the said provision. 

In other words, it is not the scheme of the legislature to fasten liability of maintenance upon a daughter-in-law towards her parents-in-law under this provision."An elderly couple had challenged an Aug 2025 order passed by the principal judge, family court, Agra, which rejected their application seeking maintenance under Section 144 of BNSS. The parents submitted that they were old, illiterate, indigent and wholly dependent on their deceased son during his lifetime.They contended that their daughter-in-law, who is employed as a constable in the Uttar Pradesh police, has sufficient independent income and has also received all service benefits of their deceased son. 

They also contended that the daughter-in-law's moral obligation to maintain her aged parents-in-law should be treated as a legal obligation.The court, however, rejected this contention, noting that there was nothing on record to indicate that the daughter-in-law's police employment was secured on compassionate grounds.The court also clarified that submissions regarding succession to the deceased son's property do not fall for consideration in these maintenance proceedings.

Married Persons Cannot Enter Into Live-In Relationship Without Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad HC Refuses Protection

Married Persons Cannot Enter Into Live-In Relationship Without Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad HC Refuses Protection 

Sparsh Upadhyay 28 Mar 2026 12:25 PM

A single judge of the Allahabad High Court on March 20 observed that an individual who is already married and has a living spouse cannot legally be permitted to enter into a live-in relationship with a third person without seeking a divorce from the earlier spouse.

A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made this observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by a couple (both married to different partners) seeking mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful life and to provide protection.

Also Read - Section 144 BNSS | Daughter-In-Law Not Legally Obligated To Maintain Parents-In-Law : Allahabad High Court

It was the case of the petitioners that they were living together as husband and wife and had an apprehension of a life threat from the respondents.

The State, however, opposed the plea, as it was argued that both petitioners were already married and their act was illegal as they had not obtained a decree of divorce from a competent court.

Taking into account the facts of the case, the Court, at the outset, noted that in a marriage or live-in relationship, there must be two consenting adult human beings, and the concepts of gotra, caste, and religion are left behind. The Court observed that no one, not even parents, has the right to interfere in the personal liberty of two adults.

Justice Singh, however, explicitly clarified that the Right to Freedom or Right to Personal Liberty is not an absolute or unfettered right and that the freedom of one person ceases where another person's statutory right begins.

Importantly, the single judge stressed that a spouse has a statutory right to the company of their counterpart, and that right cannot be deprived for the sake of personal liberty. The HC added that the freedom of one person cannot encroach on or outweigh the legal right of another person.

Also Read - No Offence If Married Man Stays In Live-In Relationship With Adult Woman: Allahabad High Court 

"If the petitioners are already married and have their spouse alive, he/she cannot be legally permitted to enter into live-in relationship with a third person without seeking divorce from the earlier spouse. He/she first has to obtain the decree of divorce from the court of competent jurisdiction before solemnizing marriage or entering into living in a relationship out of their legal marriage," the bench further remarked. 

Ruling On the question of relief to the petitioners, the bench observed that a mandamus can be issued only if the petitioner has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought, and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition.

However, the Court opined that the petitioners have no legal right to protection on the facts of the present case inasmuch as the protection sought may amount to protection against the commission of an offence under Section 494/495 IPC.

"It is well settled law that writ of mandamus can not be issued contrary to law or to defeat a statutory provision including penal provision. The petitioners do not have legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus...this Court is not inclined to issue any writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for protection to the petitioners who are in a live-in relationship without obtaining decree of divorce from competent court as mentioned above" the bench noted. 

Thus, refusing to issue the writ, the Court disposed of the petition with the observation that if the petitioners are subjected to violence, they may approach the Superintendent of Police with a detailed application.

Significantly, a perusal of various orders passed by Justice Singh reveals a consistent approach. Relying on this exact legal reasoning, his bench has repeatedly denied police protection to live-in couples where either one or both partners are already married to someone else.

Interestingly, in stark contrast to this Single Judge order, a Division Bench of the High Court, just five days after passing of this particular order, observed that there is no offence if a married man lives with an adult in a live-in relationship with the other person's consent.

Stressing that morality and law must remain separate, the Division Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena stated that social opinions and moral views will not dictate the Court's actions when protecting citizens' rights.

This contrasting observation was made while the Division Bench was hearing a separate petition seeking protection for a live-in couple allegedly facing threats from the woman's family.

Finding that a prima facie case was made out, the Court admitted the petition and issued notices to the respondents. It granted the state counsel two weeks' time to file a counter-affidavit.

The bench also granted immediate relief to the couple (an 18-year-old woman and a married man) and directed that, until further orders, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the criminal case registered under Section 87 of the BNS at Police Station Jaitipur in Shahjahanpur district.

To ensure their absolute protection, the Division Bench restrained the informant and all members of the woman's family from causing any harm to the parties in life or limb.

The bench further directed that the family members shall not enter the parties' matrimonial home or contact them directly, through any electronic means of communication, or through the agency of others.

The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, shall be personally responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the petitioners, the bench added.

Read more about the division bench order here : No Offence If Married Man Stays In Live-In Relationship With Adult Woman: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Anju And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145

Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145

Madras HC rules against action on IOB staff beyond limitation period

Madras HC rules against action on IOB staff beyond limitation period

The petitions were filed b y N Sai Prasad seeking to set aside the charge memos served on him by the authorities concerned and confirmed by the appellate authorities.

Madras High Court(File photo | Express)

R Sivakumar

Updated on:

21 Mar 2026, 8:21 am

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that disciplinary action against an employee cannot be taken beyond the limitation period of four years as per the policy of the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB).

The ruling was given by Justice T Vinod Kumar on the petitions filed by an assistant general manager who was handed three charge memos and given punishment of reduction in scale and grade just before he was to retire. The petitions were filed by N Sai Prasad seeking to set aside the charge memos served on him by the authorities concerned and confirmed by the appellate authorities.

Advocate Balan Haridas, representing the petitioner, submitted that Prasad had worked in different branches of IOB in Hyderabad and Mumbai cities from 2007 to 2012. During his service in the aforesaid branches, he did not face any charges. However, charge memos were served on him before his retirement.On the eve of his retirement on January 31, 2020, he was handed the punishments and penalties on charges of recommending granting of loans to two firms without doing proper verification that resulted in the accounts turning into non-performing assets.

The judge, in a recent order, held the entire action and awarding of the punishment “are contrary to regulations and policy of the respondents and thus cannot be sustained”.

He said the embargo, on initiating disciplinary proceedings beyond the four-year limitation period, would stand attracted since the charge memos were issued to the lapses which did not occur within the four-year period.“… since ‘lapse’ for which the petitioner is issued with charge sheet/charge memos resulting in passing the impugned orders by which, he is visited with separate penalties relate to the period, the same are beyond the period of four years and is hit by the restriction imposed in clause 14 of the policy.”

Man gets 7-yr jail for holding two govt jobs Continued To Draw Pay From Health, Edu Depts

Man gets 7-yr jail for holding two govt jobs Continued To Draw Pay From Health, Edu Depts 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 11.03.2022

Lucknow : A local court in Barabanki sentenced a man to seven years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 for fraudulently securing and continuing two govt jobs simultaneously in the health and education departments using the same educational certificate. 

Delivering the verdict on Tuesday, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Sudha Singh held convict Jaiprakash Singh guilty under the charges of IPC sections 420 (cheating), 467 read with Section 471 (forgery of valuable security and using forged documents as genuine), and Section 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating). 

The court noted that Jaiprakash Singh deliberately concealed facts and continued to draw salaries from two govt departments for years. The court also observed that the state govt is free to recover the salary and allowances received by the accused from both posts, as he illegally benefited from public funds. 

According to prosecution officials, Jaiprakash, a resident of Narauli village in the Satrikh police station area, was initially appointed as an NMA (non-medical assistant) at the primary health centre (PHC), Sangipur in Pratapgarh district on Dec 26, 1979. Later, using the same educational marksheet and certificates, he secured another govt job as an assistant teacher under the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) in Barabanki on June 19, 1993. 

Despite holding the post in the health department, Jaiprakash allegedly continued working as teacher in Barabanki while simultaneously drawing salary from both the departments. The case revealed that he remained associated with the primary school at Narauli in Harkh block of Barabanki for nearly 16 years, even while his records in the health department showed him as an employee at the Sangipur PHC in Pratapgarh. Times of India ePaper lucknow - Read Today’s Eng

K’taka HC upholds mom’s right to give child her surname

K’taka HC upholds mom’s right to give child her surname

 Vasantha.Kumar@timesofindia.com  27.02.2026

Bengaluru : Karnataka HC has ruled that inclusion of the mother’s family name in the birth certificate of a child does not dilute or extinguish the substantive legal rights of any person, including that of the biological father. Granting relief to a nineyear-old girl and her mother, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “The biological and legal relationship between the child and the father, including the child’s rights of inheritance, succession, and maintenance, remains unaltered. The change sought by the mother was merely one of nome-nclature reflecting the real family environment in which the child is being raised.” 

The case arose from a livein relationship between two Nepalese nationals in Bengaluru. Their daughter was born in Feb 2017, and a birth certificate was issued in March 2017. The child’s father later ended the relationship and returned to Nepal. When the mother approached local authorities at Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to delete the father’s name and substitute it with her own, the request was rejected citing Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. She then moved the HC. After examining the statutory provisions, the court held that the registrar had the authority to carry out corrections and the refusal amounted to a failure to exercise statutory power. 

Invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the HC directed the issuance of a fresh birth certificate within four weeks. Stressing the “best interest of the child”, the judge noted that children abandoned by a parent were particularly vulnerable.