Issue circular on duties of doctors acting as witnesses: HC

Issue circular on duties of doctors acting as witnesses: HC

The medical professionals appearing as expert witnesses must exercise a high degree of care, said the court.

The Hindu Bureau

MADURAI. 20.08.2026

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday directed the Health Secretary and the Director of Medical Education and Research to issue a circular/guidelines comprehensively dealing with duties and responsibilities of government medical professionals while acting as expert witnesses before courts.

Justice B. Pugalendhi said the privilege of assisting the court carried with it a corresponding responsibility to provide objective, accurate and consistent testimony. Even an inadvertent lapse by the medical expert while testifying created confusion, prolonged judicial proceedings and affected the rights of either the victim or the accused.

Therefore, the medical professionals appearing before courts as expert witnesses must exercise a high degree of care. Equally important was the duty to carefully read and verify the deposition before affixing their signature, the court said.

The duty to assist the court was an integral part of their professional obligations. It was not a matter of discretion or favour, but a statutory and professional duty, it said.

The court directed that the comprehensive circular/guidelines be issued to all government medical colleges, government hospitals, district headquarters hospitals, primary health centres and other government health care institutions.

It said the instructions should include the ethical standards expected of every expert witness.

It was necessary to ensure that Accident Registers, Wound Certificates, Medico-Legal Reports and all other medico-legal records accurately recorded the clinical findings and professional opinion formed at the time of examination in a legible and unambiguous manner.

Such records might be generated in a typed or computer-generated format for easy comprehension by investigating agencies, prosecutors, defence counsel and courts.

There was a necessity to prepare revised proforma for Medico-Legal Examination of Survivors/ Victims of Sexual Violence, issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in cases involving sexual violence, including POCSO Act cases. The medical professionals should familiarise themselves with relevant medical records before entering witness box and depose.

The court stressed the need to understand every question during examination and cross-examination; to seek clarification before answering if there was ambiguity; to carefully read and verify the deposition before signing it; and to immediately bring to the notice of the court any omission or inadvertent error noticed therein.

The efficacy of the justice delivery system depended, to a considerable extent, upon the credibility of expert evidence. It was, therefore, imperative that every medical professional entrusted with this responsibility discharged it with the highest standards of competence, objectivity and professional integrity, the court said.

Can BCI halt enrolment of an entire graduating batch?

Can BCI halt enrolment of an entire graduating batch?

Manan Kumar Mishra

Rizmi Lia M.

Chennai. 15.08.2026

On Thursday, Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, in a letter, directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any 2026 batch graduate of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) until further orders.

The direction came amid an inquiry into a campaign by some students opposing Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s participation in the NALSAR’s convocation. The BCI chairman sought a factual report from the NALSAR identifying those who initiated, organised, coordinated or mobilised the campaign.

Hours later, the BCI Council modified the direction and said all NALSAR graduates of the 2026 batch could enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice.

This raises questions about the statutory powers of the BCI, the authority of its chairman and whether an entire graduating batch can be subjected to an enrolment restriction over the alleged conduct of some students.

What powers does the BCI have over State Bar Councils?

The Advocates Act, 1961, gives the BCI general supervision and control over State Bar Councils under Section 7(1)(g). Section 48B further permits the BCI, in exercise of this power, to give directions to State Bar Councils or any committee thereof as may appear to it to be necessary. Rule 15 of the BCI Rules provides that, subject to resolutions of the BCI, the chairman exercises general control and supervision over the affairs of the BCI. Rule 18 allows the chairman to pass interim orders in revisional and other matters arising from the BCI’s supervisory jurisdiction.

“The blanket direction stopping the entire 2026 NALSAR batch from enrolling has no statutory basis. Enrolment is primarily the statutory function of the State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, and there appears to be no specific provision empowering the BCI chairman, acting individually, to suspend the enrolment of an entire batch,” said advocate Manoj Kumar N., a member of the BCI and Bar Council of Kerala.

What does the law say about enrolment?

Section 6(1)(a) entrusts State Bar Councils with admitting persons as advocates on their rolls. Section 24 sets out qualifications for enrolment, while Section 24A provides for certain disqualifications. Sections 25 and 26 deal with the authority and procedure for admission.

“No blanket restrictions can be imposed by the BCI. Every application has to be dealt with independently and if they meet the statutory requirements, they are entitled to be enrolled,” said advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, member of the Bar Council of Kerala.

Mr. Kumar said the BCI may inquire into individual conduct, but collective punishment cannot ordinarily be imposed on an entire batch for the alleged acts of a few. Pre-enrolment conduct, he said, may become relevant when it attracts a statutory disqualification or affects eligibility but mere expression of an opinion or peaceful protest cannot by itself justify denial of enrolment.

What have courts said?

In Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995), the Supreme Court struck down a BCI rule barring persons above 45 from enrolment. It held that the BCI could not use its rule-making power under Section 49 to create an additional disqualification not provided for by the Advocates Act.

The court held that substantive questions of enrolment fall within the domain of State Bar Councils, observing that it was “within the exclusive domain of the State Bar Councils” to admit persons to their rolls or remove their names.

What happens now?

The BCI subsequently withdrew the blanket restriction and allowed the NALSAR’s 2026 graduates to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice. “With the blanket restriction now withdrawn, NALSAR’s 2026 graduates are presently entitled to seek enrolment in the ordinary course,” Mr. Kumar said. He added that any disqualification would have to be based on the Advocates Act and the rules governing enrolment.

Short On Attendance, Full Degree: BCI Opens Door To Legal Practice

Short On Attendance, Full Degree: BCI Opens Door To Legal Practice 

Offers Relaxation For 2025-26 Batch Of Law Grads Covered By SC’s Order

Sugandha.Jha1@timesofindia.com 

New Delhi: A cohort of law graduates across the country from the 2025-26 academic session, caught in an attendance limbo that prevented them from becoming advocates despite having a law degree in hand, can now cross the hurdle, as Bar Council of India (BCI) has created an alternative route for them to complete their enrolment as advocates. 

So far, in order to enrol, the graduates were required to submit an attendance-cum-character certificate. But having been allowed to complete their courses as a one-time measure despite falling short of the prescribed attendance, the students could not be issued certificates by their colleges stating they had fulfilled the attendance requirement. In effect, even though the students had a law degree, they lacked the document needed to enter the profession. This left many educational institutes in a peculiar bind: issuing a certificate showing the required attendance would mean certifying something that was not true. 

Following representations, including from Delhi University’s Law Centre-I Students’ Union, BCI issued a notice on Aug 12 directing all universities imparting law education and state bar councils to issue alternative attendance-cum-character certificates to the affected students without modifying their actual attendance records. 

“Historical attendance records shall not be altered, rewritten or deemed regular,” the notice stated. The certificate will only certify that the student falls within the protected category, as per Supreme Court’s order, and has lawfully completed the course. The alternative certification is intended only “to identify the candidate as falling within the protected class and to confirm lawful completion of the recognised LLB programme,” it read. 

The issue stems from Delhi High Court’s Nov 3, 2025 judgment in the Sushant Rohilla case, which directed that students should not be stopped from taking examinations or progressing solely because of attendance shortage. SC subsequently stayed the relevant direction prospectively on May 26, 2026 and, on July 21, granted one-time protection to students whose academic sessions were underway when the HC judgment was delivered. This meant that students who had fallen short of attendance during this period were allowed to appear for and complete their examinations, but after obtaining their degrees, these students faced a fresh hurdle as they could not produce the mandatory attendance certificate required for enrolment as advocates. BCI said the one-time protection “cannot reasonably be divided into two inconsistent stages” — where the attendance shortage is disregarded for completion of the law degree but revived immediately thereafter to deny entry into the profession. 

It said state bar councils may process applications of eligible candidates “without insisting upon an attendance certificate certifying the ordinarily prescribed percentage of attendance”, where the deficiency relates to the protected academic session. The arrangement is strictly one-time and will apply uniformly to similarly situated candidates across India. It will not constitute a relaxation of attendance requirements for future batches, BCI’s notice stated.

Can’t alter patta sans valid title, officials duty bound to rectify anomalies, says Madras HC

 Can’t alter patta sans valid title, officials duty bound to rectify anomalies, says Madras HC

10.08.2026

The petitioner contended that his father inherited 1.83 acres of land in Kannamangalam village by a partition deed in 1971. Since then, the property has been in the possession and enjoyment of his father.

Madras High Court (Photo | Express)

Express News Service

Updated on:

07 Aug 2026, 8:52 am

CHENNAI: When a patta is altered or mutated based on an error, misrepresentation, or without a valid source of title, the revenue official is duty bound, under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, to rectify the anomaly and restore the entries to their original undisputed position, said the Madras High Court.

The observation was made by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy while issuing orders on a petition filed by S Vasudevan of Vellore to remove the names of three of his relatives from the patta for his inherited land since such names were entered without valid title rights.

The petitioner contended that his father inherited 1.83 acres of land in Kannamangalam village by a partition deed in 1971. Since then, the property has been in the possession and enjoyment of his father. The property was settled to him and his siblings, and he later settled his share to his children by a deed in 2012.

When he came to know that his relatives K Gunasekaran, K Rajan and K Kannan, of Kannamangalam village in Arni taluk, obtained patta without a valid title over the property in 2018, he approached the Arni tahsildar for removing their names from the patta. The tahsildar disposed of his representation by asking him to approach the civil court. Aggrieved over this, he approached the high court.

Referring to the claim of these three people that they inherited the land in question through an oral partition deed, the judge said the parties claiming a right outside the registered deed must approach the civil court to prove their title.

He ordered cancellation of the patta issued to the three and to restore the original patta in the name of the petitioner. However, the aggrieved are free to seek remedy before the civil court, the order added.

Retired Employee Can't Claim Pay Arrears Beyond 3 Years, But Entitled To Notional Pay Fixation For Pension:

Retired Employee Can't Claim Pay Arrears Beyond 3 Years, But Entitled To Notional Pay Fixation For Pension: 

MP High Court Jayanti Pahwa 

3 Aug 2026 5:45 PM 

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a retired employee cannot claim monetary arrears beyond the preceding three years, and in the case of a retired employee, the doctrine of recurring cause of action cannot be invoked to claim past salary benefits indefinitely. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 309] 

The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed that such an employee would be at best entitled to notional pay fixation for the purposes of recalculating pensionary benefits. 

Also Read - Punishment Of Dismissal From Service Can Be Imposed After Retirement If Departmental Enquiry Began Before Superannuation: 

MP High Court "From a bare reading of the provision of law, it is clear that an employee is entitled to seek monetary benefits only for the preceding three years and not beyond that. The analogy of a recurring cause of action will come into play only when the petitioner is to be benefited by the grant of such monetary benefits in present and future. 

Since the petitioner has already retired, he is not entitled to arrears on the basis of the pay scale that has accrued to him on the basis of identical matters. At the most, the petitioner can be granted the benefit of notional fixation for the purpose of pensionary benefits". 

Also Read - LiveLaw Madhya Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: July 27 to August 2, 2026 

The petitioner was appointed as Timekeeper in the Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment under the Water Resources Department and rendered service of 40 years before retiring on August 31, 2013. During his service, he was granted the applicable pay scales. Subsequently, the High Court in AL Thakur v State of Madhya Pradesh [Writ Petition No.16054/2003] had directed the State to extend the higher revised pay scales to similarly situated employees. The respondents implemented that judgment in respect of several eligible employees. 

MP High Court Claiming parity with those employees, the petitioner sought the same benefit. However, his claim was rejected by the authorities. The petitioner then approached the High Court by order of March 6, 2017, directing the respondents to examine his claim and grant benefit if his case was fully covered by AL Thakur. When no decision was taken despite the Court's order, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings. The contempt petition was eventually disposed of after the State informed the Court that the earlier order was complied with. 

 Since his grievance remained unresolved, the petitioner again approached the High Court through a writ petition pursuant to which the respondents were directed to pass a reasoned order. Thereafter, by order of March 19, 2019, the respondents once again rejected his claim for parity with similarly situated employees. Challenging this order, the petitioner contended that it was arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the Court's order in AL Thakur. The counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner had filed the petition seeking monetary benefits in 2019 after five years of retirement on August 31, 2013. Referring to the case of State of Orissa v Mamata Mohanty [2011 (3) SCC 436], the court noted that people cannot seek advantage after sitting on the fence while the matter is being pursued before the courts, and after receiving a favourable order, approach the court seeking similar benefits. The bench also relied on Article 7 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, which prescribed that the period of limitation for recovery of money or salary is three years from the date when it became due. 

However, the court also noted that no period of limitation is provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the bench directed, "Therefore, the petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 19.03.2019 (Annexure-P/5) is hereby quashed. Insofar as the arrears of the monetary benefits of the pay scale, which could have been granted or were denied during the petitioner's service prior to his retirement, are concerned, the petitioner shall be entitled only to notional fixation for the purpose of pension". Case Title: Ashok Kumar Saxena v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-14178-2019 Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 309 For Petitioner: Advocate Rahul Patel For State: Advocate Shraddha Tiwari

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-retired-employee-cannot-seek-arrears-beyond-the-period-of-three-years-limitation-act-544126

Govt. should explain surrender of 151 super speciality seats: Stalin

Govt. should explain surrender of 151 super speciality seats: Stalin

M.K. Stalin

The Hindu Bureau

CHENNAI. 30.07.2026

DMK president M.K. Stalin on Wednesday demanded that the TVK-led government explain why it had failed to retain 151 super speciality medical seats in the State, resulting in their transfer to the all-India quota.

“It is a vital issue for Tamil Nadu. We have lost 151 super speciality seats, which would have otherwise produced doctors to serve the State,” he said in a social media post.

Mr. Stalin also questioned why the government had not adopted a resolution in the Assembly, opposing the transfer of the super speciality seats to the all-India quota. “Why did the government fail to file an appeal against the Supreme Court’s order dated May 29, 2026,” he asked.

He further questioned why the advocates appointed by the State government had failed to appear in the case, and why there had been a delay in engaging a senior advocate. “Why has there been such a lackadaisical approach to this issue from the very beginning,” he asked.

Mr. Stalin also wondered why the State government had “surrendered” despite the case being in Tamil Nadu’s favour.

Minister responds

Responding to Mr. Stalin’s criticism, Health Minister K.G. Arunraj said that unlike in previous years, when unfilled super speciality seats were lost after being surrendered to the all-India quota, the TVK government had ensured that if the qualifying cut-off is reduced, 50% of the remaining vacant super speciality seats will be reverted to Tamil Nadu.

In a statement on X, the Minister said that previously, after the completion of the super speciality counselling, all unfilled seats reserved for service candidates were surrendered to the all-India quota. The Union government later reduced the minimum qualifying cut-off marks and filled those seats through the all-India merit list. As a result, government doctors from Tamil Nadu were severely affected, he said.

This year, though 151 seats remained vacant, the State government refused to surrender them immediately. It took a firm stand that these seats would be surrendered only if there is an assurance that the qualifying cut-off would not be reduced. Accordingly, the State pursued a legal battle and secured a “historic” judgment from the Supreme Court, he added.

M.G.R. medical varsity challenges UGC regulations on according ‘deemed university’ status to private colleges

M.G.R. medical varsity challenges UGC regulations on according ‘deemed university’ status to private colleges

The university said the UGC regulations should be interpreted only as a directory and not a mandatory provision.

The Hindu Bureau

CHENNAI. 30.07.2026

The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University has moved the Madras High Court, challenging the validity of the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations that permit the grant of deemed-to-be-university status to private medical colleges without the express consent of the State university.

The university has also challenged the grant of such status to the Pudukottai-based Karpaga Vinayaga Educational Trust on May 20, 2026.

Court orders notice

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan on Wednesday ordered notices to the Union Ministry of Education, the UGC, the Tamil Nadu government, and the private trust, seeking their response to the two writ petitions filed by the State medical university.

The petitioner university contended that the UGC regulations, which require a State university to respond within 60 days to an application filed by a medical college for being accorded the deemed university status, failing which it would be considered that there was no objection for the conferment of such status, should be interpreted only as a directory and not a mandatory provision.

The university said the UGC regulations should be interpreted only as a directory and not a mandatory provision.

SC verdict on super speciality seats ‘historic’, says Minister

SC verdict on super speciality seats ‘historic’, says Minister

He attributes the verdict to the timely filing of writ petition by T.N. government; a section of govt. doctors is sceptical, saying important seats will be filled in the All India second-round counselling

Health Minister K.G. Arunraj presenting the award for Professional Excellence in the field of Medicine to Thara Rangaswamy during the Tamil Nadu Medical Council Awards 2026 held in the city on Tuesday.

B. Jothi Ramalingam

The Hindu Bureau

CHENNAI. 29.07.2026

Tamil Nadu will surrender the unfilled super speciality medical seats for the second round of the All India Quota (AIQ) counselling. If the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) decides to reduce the percentile after the counselling, 50% of the vacant seats should be reverted to the State, Health Minister K.G. Arunraj said, quoting the Supreme Court (SC) verdict.

T.N. reserves 50% of its DM/MCh super speciality seats for in-service candidates. This year, 151 super speciality seats remained unfilled in the State. In its order, the apex court directed the State to revert the unfilled 151 superspeciality seats to the DGHS by Wednesday (July 29). The DGHS should complete the process of the second round of counselling expeditiously.

The court also directed that the counselling should be conducted on the same percentile, and if, after the second round of counselling, a decision is to be taken to reduce the percentile, then 50% of such seats should be reverted to T.N., and the remaining 50% seats should be filled through subsequent counselling by the DGHS as per the renewed percentile, the order said.

Dr. Arunraj called the verdict “historic”, attributing it to the timely writ petition filed by the State government and appropriate arguments in the apex court. Seats reserved for in-service candidates that fall vacant had to be surrendered to the AIQ.

In the past, no proper measures were taken, and no proper cases were filed in the court, creating a situation in which doctors of Tamil Nadu could not secure the seats, he said.

With Tuesday’s verdict, if seats remain vacant after the second round of counselling, DGHS cannot reduce the percentile and fill the vacant seats on its own. If they decide to reduce the cut-off, 50% of the unfilled seats should be reverted to the State pool, he told reporters during the sidelines of an event organised by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council (TNMC).

Doctors’ concern

However, a section of government doctors is sceptical, as all important seats such as Cardiology, Surgical Gastroenterology, Vascular Surgery and Nephrology will be filled in the All India second round counselling. If seats remain vacant and the percentile is reduced, service candidates may get seats such as in Cardiothoracic Surgery and Paediatric Surgery. In fact, some seats in these specialities have remained vacant for the past few years. “The number of service doctors appearing for NEET super speciality examination has dropped, and those opting for difficult super speciality branches have also reduced due to lack of promotional opportunities, reduced super speciality posts and absence of financial increments,” a senior doctor noted.

TNMC awards

At the TNMC awards function, the Minister presented awards to 20 doctors.

Addressing the gathering, he listed the various initiatives taken by the present government. This included reforms at the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation.

Noting that some persons held posts for 10 to 15 years, he said that no extensions were given, and deputations/special postings were withdrawn.

Noting that Tamil Nadu aims to grow into a $1.5 trillion economy, Health Secretary Darez Ahamed said that the health sector has to contribute significantly. He requested doctors to create new products, take up more research and create intellectual property in the State. TNMC’s Ad-hoc committee members A. Muruganathan, convenor, S. Sivaram Kannan, R. Prabhakaran and G. Srinivas, and registrar A. Senthil Vadivu were present.

HC asks Ishari K. Ganesh to produce order closing bribery case against him, ex-Minister

HC asks Ishari K. Ganesh to produce order closing bribery case against him, ex-Minister

The issue relates to a 2022 suo motu First Information Report of the DVAC regarding the corruption in issuing ‘essentiality certificate’ to Vels Medical College, which was under construction then. It also accused former Minister C. Vijayabaskar of inducing an inspection team to submit a false report

The court was also told that the DVAC had recommended only departmental action against the four government doctors who were part of the inspection team.

Mohamed Imranullah S.

CHENNAI. 06.07.2026

The Madras High Court has granted a final opportunity, till July 13, to educationist, film producer and actor Ishari K. Ganesh to produce an order passed either by the State government or the Vigilance Commission in 2024 accepting the decision of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to close a corruption case registered against him and former AIADMK Minister C. Vijayabaskar (now in the TVK) in 2022.

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan made it clear that Mr. Ganesh should produce within a week either the executive order accepting the DVAC’s closure report or a judicial order quashing the 2022 First Information Report (FIR) registered against him, failing which his present plea to quash an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) shall be dismissed.

P. Sidharthan, Special Public Prosecutor for the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), brought it to the notice of the court that the DVAC had registered the FIR against Dr. Vijayabaskar; Mr. Ganesh; the Dean of Vels Medical College and Hospital in Tiruvallur district, K. Srinivasaraja; and four government doctors, R. Balajinathan, T.M. Manohar, J. Sujatha, and J.A. Vasanthakumar, on September 12, 2022.

The FIR was booked suo motu on the basis of intelligence collected by the DVAC that Mr. Ganesh of Vels Institute of Science, Technology and Advanced Studies (VISTAS), a deemed-to-be university, had in 2020 allegedly bribed the then Health Minister, Dr. Vijayabaskar, to obtain ‘essentiality certificate’ for the newly constructed Vels Medical College so that it could begin admitting 150 students to the MBBS course.

Under the Minimum Requirements for Annual M.B.B.S Admissions Regulations, 2020, the ‘essentiality certificate’ could be issued only if a private hospital had been in existence for a minimum of two years and was capable of being developed into a teaching hospital with a fully functional capacity of 300 beds. However, Vels Medical College was issued an ‘essentiality certificate’ even when its buildings were under construction, the FIR read.

It also accused Dr. Vijayabaskar of having induced the inspection team, comprising four doctors from the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, to submit a false report. “The field verification report of the Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning, Tiruvallur, dated June 11, 2020, for building approval clearly proves that the buildings were under construction during the said period,” the FIR added.

However, when one of the accused, Dr. Balajinathan, filed a petition in the High Court in 2025 to quash the FIR only with respect to the charges levelled against him, the DVAC filed a counter-affidavit stating that it had closed the case against Dr. Vijayabaskar, Mr. Ganesh and Dr. Srinivasaraja since no incriminating evidence could be collected against the three individuals during the course of investigation.

DVAC report

The counter-affidavit also stated that the Vigilance Commission had accepted the report submitted by the DVAC to drop action against all the accused and forwarded it to the Public Department for passing orders. Further, the Vigilance Commission itself had issued an order on June 25, 2024, dropping action against Mr. Ganesh and Dr. Srinivasaraja since they were private individuals and not public servants.

The court was also told that the DVAC had recommended only departmental action against the four government doctors for the alleged lapses on their part during the inspection of the medical college. After recording the submissions, Justice Shamim Ahmed had on January 30, 2025 quashed all further proceedings initiated pursuant to the registration of the FIR against Dr. Balajinathan.

Relying upon that order, Mr. Ganesh had filed the present writ petition for quashing the ECIR registered against him by the ED, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002, on March 23, 2023. The ECIR had been booked based on the FIR registered by the DVAC under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since the FIR had been closed, the ECIR should also be declared illegal, he contended.

However, when the Chief Justice’s Bench insisted upon production of either an executive order or a judicial order on the closure of the predicate offence, the petitioner had been seeking time periodically since March 18, 2026. Hence, the judges on Friday granted him a final opportunity and warned that his plea to quash the ECIR would be dismissed if no such order was produced by July 13.

State can’t undo 33-year-old appointment: Gujarat High Court

State can’t undo 33-year-old appointment: Gujarat High Court

July 5, 2026, 01.02 AM IST

Ahmedabad: 05.07.2026

The Gujarat HighCourt has quashed a state govt order cancelling an appointment of a teacher 33 years after he was given the job and some 17 years after his death, and stopping the pension being given to his widow.

In this case, Harshad Bhavsar, along with five others, was appointed as a teacher in its school by Sugyan Education Trust in 1988. After ascertaining he got requisite qualification for the post, his appointment was regularised by the district education officer in 1989. After serving for 16 years, Bhavsar died in 2004. The education department began paying family pension to Bhavsar’s widow, Manorama.

In 2021, the director of schools cancelled the appointment of six teachers and a librarian of the school, including that of Bhavsar, withdrew grant benefits, cancelled employee numbers and stopped salary payments under the Direct Salary Scheme.

The govt action was initiated following a complaint made in 2015 by the husband of then school principal, alleging that the appointments had been made in violation of recruitment rules. The govt cancelled the appointments on the grounds that they were based on forged documents, made without obtaining a no-objection certificate, without publishing advertisements and without seeking names from the employment exchange, causing a financial loss of over Rs 6 crore to the exchequer.

The school trust and the affected employees, including Bhavsar’s widow, challenged the order before HC in 2021. A single-judge bench quashed the govt’s s decision, ruling that appointments could not be cancelled after more than three decades.

However, the state govt appealed appealed against the order regarding the revocation of Bhavsar’s appointment.

Dismissing the appeal, a division bench of N S Sanjay Gowda and Justice J L Odedra said, “If an appointment was made in the year 1988, was regularised in 1989, the same cannot be subjected to a challenge or could be doubted by the state nearly 33 years after the appointment was made.”

The bench further said, “The state, after granting a family pension to the widow of the employee, is now doubting the very appointment itself, which its own officials had regularised. The learned single judge, in our view, has rightly quashed the order of cancellation and held that the state could not exercise its powers to cancel the appointment at such a belated stage.”

Supreme Court dismisses plea raising concerns that EWS candidates can't afford private medical college fees

Supreme Court dismisses plea raising concerns that EWS candidates can't afford private medical college fees

The Court refused to interfere with a Rajasthan High Court ruling that EWS reservation applies only at the stage of admission and does not entitle candidates to subsidised fees in private medical colleges.

Supreme Court

 

Debayan Roy

Published on:

24 Jun 2026, 1:37 pm

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea questioning how the ₹8 lakh income ceiling for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) candidates could be reconciled with the high fees demanded by private medical colleges, which could run up to ₹25 lakh annually [Harshvardhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors].

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld a Rajasthan High Court ruling, which had found the fee structure fixed by the State Fee Regulatory Committee to be legally valid.

During the hearing today, Justice Nagarathna also observed that private colleges cannot be expected to offer its courses at subsidised fees like government colleges.

“You cannot say private educational institutions shall charge the same as government institution. That cannot be. One person cannot come and say that private is exorbitant, so make it like government. These are self-financing institutes. For government ones...they get grant (subsidies) from the State. There is a vital difference,” the judge observed.

 

Justice BV Nagarathna & Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Referring to established precedent, Justice Nagarathna added,

“Please see TMA Pai (caselaw). Capitation fee is banned...but that does not mean general college fees cannot be taken.”

The Court also cautioned against undermining the role of private institutions in medical education.

“Assistance of private medical colleges to the State in the field of medical education will stop then...We need doctors,” said Justice Nagarathna.

On the issue of affordability when it comes to private college fee structures, she remarked,

“If you are unable to pay...get scholarship...subvention...”

The plea had been filed by an EWS candidate who submitted that tuition fees in private medical colleges in Rajasthan range between ₹18.9 lakh and ₹25 lakh per year. This, he argued, effectively renders the EWS quota ineffective in practice, as candidates within the ₹8 lakh income bracket cannot realistically afford such education.

The Rajasthan High Court had rejected this contention, noting that the fee structure had been fixed by the State Fee Regulatory Committee in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka.

It had held that EWS reservation applies only at the stage of admission and does not create any entitlement to subsidised or differential fees in private colleges.

The High Court had further observed that the absence of any statutory provision mandating fee concessions meant that high fees, by themselves, could not be treated as a denial of EWS reservation, even if they limited practical access for eligible candidates.

Today the Supreme Court refused to interfere with this ruling.

“We don't find reason to intervene with the High Court order. Dismissed. Question of law, if any, is kept open," the top court said.

We need doctors in this country’: SC dismisses plea seeking cap on private medical college fees

We need doctors in this country’: SC dismisses plea seeking cap on private medical college fees

Court upholds Rajasthan HC order, refuses directions on fee regulation despite concerns over affordability for EWS candidates.

Petitioner argued annual fees of up to ₹25 lakh undermine EWS reservation benefits; court says issue falls within regulators’ domain.(File Photo | ANI)

Suchitra Kalyan Mohanty

Updated on:

25 Jun 2026, 7:56 am

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the fee structure of the private medical colleges in Rajasthan, observing that “we need doctors in this country” while dismissing a petition that called the charges exorbitant.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi heard a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Rajasthan High Court order. The HC had earlier rejected a plea by a medical aspirant claiming annual tuition fees in private colleges range from `18.90 lakh to `25 lakh, which, he said, was inconsistent with the `8 lakh income cap for EWS reservation.

“We need doctors in this country,” said the top court while refusing to entertain a plea which alleged that the fee structure in private medical colleges in Rajasthan was exorbitant.

The counsel argued that high fees made MBBS unaffordable for EWS candidates despite quotas and urged the court to direct the state and Centre to cap fees at affordable levels.

The bench, however, declined to step in and refused to pass any order on the plea. “Medical education requires infrastructure, faculty, and equipment. Fee fixation is a policy decision for regulators,” it said while dismissing the plea.

Noting that fee regulation falls within the domain of the state authorities and bodies like the Medical Council, the SC clarified that judicial interference is warranted only if there is manifest illegality or arbitrariness, which was not shown here in this present case. “One person cannot say that it is exorbitant in private institutions and make it on par with government institutions,” the bench observed.

The bench observed that one has the option to avail a scholarship. “We need doctors in this country,” it said. “We don’t find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the high court. The special leave petition is dismissed. Question of law, if any, is kept open,” the bench said.

With this, the SC upheld the High Court’s order. No directions were issued to the Centre, Rajasthan government, or MCI/NMC on fee caps.

The petitioner is a general category candidate, who possesses an EWS certificate. He felt aggrieved that the counseling board allocated him a seat in a private college despite he giving preference for 73 colleges.

He argued that EWS students were charged the same fee as other general category students, thus making medical education unaffordable to the EWS students. He also relied on a National Medical Commission notice, which stated that 50 per cent of seats in private colleges should be at par with government colleges.

EWS student allotted general MBBS seat, college demands ₹19L annual fee

EWS student allotted general MBBS seat, college demands ₹19L annual fee

 Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 25.06.2026

New Delhi : Supreme Court on Wednesday said that private medical colleges can not be prevented from charging higher fees than govt ones and forcing them to do so would result in their closure and harm to medical education. 

The bench while hearing a plea by an EWS student who was allotted a general category seat in a private medical college where he would be required to pay nearly ₹19 lakh as annual tuition fee, noted that the private medical colleges are barred from taking capitation fees and are selffinancing. 

“The annual tuition fee cannot be the same in a private medical college and a govt one. In the self-financing private colleges, every expense is to be borne by the colleges whereas the govt subsidies the expenses in the colleges under it”, said Justice Nagarathna. 

“The private colleges are also contributing in the field of higher education, including in the medical stream. If they are asked to take fees at govt rate, then they will close down and the medical education would suffer. If other states have implemented the EWS quota and if Rajasthan has not done it, the courts cannot direct private colleges to reduce fees”, she said. 

The petitioner whose parents have an annual income of less than ₹8 lakh, cleared NEET-UG 2025, said that he was “arbitrarily” allotted a general category seat in a private medical college and that ₹19 lakh being demanded of him was way beyond his means. His counsel said, “Non implementation of the mandatory 10% EWS reservation by providing only 12 EWS seats in the college having 150 seats diluting the constitutional mandate and prejudicing the Petitioner who was given admission in unreserved category despite having validly applied in EWS category.

Dismissal from service should be reserved for grave misconduct: SC

Dismissal from service should be reserved for grave misconduct: SC

The Supreme Court ruled that dismissal from service should be imposed only in cases of grave misconduct, stressing its severe impact on employees and their families. 

The court set aside a woman's dismissal as disproportionate and directed authorities to consider a lesser penalty

BY PTI PUBLISHED DATE - 11 JUNE 2026, 08:52 PM

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said a disciplinary authority must be very careful before imposing the severest form of punishment of dismissal from service as it has a devastating effect not only on the dismissed employee but also on their dependant family members.

The apex court said dismissal from service must remain reserved for cases where the misconduct is of the most serious nature where elements of synthetic consideration would be undesirable and inappropriate.

Powered By VidCrunch

The observations came from a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh which delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by a woman, who was employed with the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and was dismissed from service.

“Dismissal is ordinarily justified where the misconduct is of such gravity that continuance of the employee would be wholly incompatible with discipline, trust or institutional functioning,” the bench said.

The top court said cases involving corruption, illegal gratification, moral turpitude, misappropriation, acts causing substantial loss to the employer or conduct showing complete unfitness for continued service stand on a different footing.

It observed where the misconduct does not involve corruption, moral turpitude, financial misappropriation or proved loss to the employer, and where there is long service without much blemish, the disciplinary authority must carefully examine whether any lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice.

Dealing with the case, it said, “With respect to the punishment of dismissal which we consider wholly disproportionate to the charges proved, the competent authority shall consider any punishment other than the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service, after considering the appellant’s long service, past record, age, nature of misconduct, absence or presence of financial loss, and other relevant circumstances”.

The apex court set aside the dismissal order of July 2017 as “wholly disproportionate”, while leaving the finding of misconduct undisturbed.

It noted that the appellant had joined the service in April 1985 and in September 2006, she was placed under suspension pending enquiry.

It further noted that the suspension order alleged acts of indiscipline, insubordination, disobedience of superior officers, tampering with official documents and negligence.

The bench said period of suspension continued for nearly 11 years and the authority passed the order in July 2017 dismissing her from service.

The top court was dealing with her appeal challenging an April 2024 verdict of the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench which had upheld the order of dismissal.

“Dismissal from service is the severest form of penalty which can be inflicted on a delinquent employee in service jurisprudence. It brings the relationship of employer and employee to an end permanently, and ordinarily deprives the employee of the incidents of past service, including retiral benefits,” the bench said.

It said dismissal from service does not lead merely to the loss of existing source of income for the employee but also for the dependent family members.

“Thus, it will have a devastating effect not only on the dismissed employee but also on all those who are dependant on the employee,” the bench said.

“Because of the severity of its impact not only on the employee but also to his dependents, the disciplinary authority must be very careful in seeking to impose the severest form of punishment of dismissal,” it said.

The bench said it was not minimizing the importance of discipline in an office establishment. It said in this case, the allegations substantially appear to arise out of internal office functioning and service-related conflict and did not play out in the public domain.

While partly allowing the appeal, the bench also held that imposition of the second punishment of treating the suspension undergone as punishment was not permissible.

Besides other directions, it said the competent authority shall decide the service and monetary consequences of the suspension period in accordance with the regulations, including payment of subsistence allowance in terms of the court’s observations.

The bench said the authority shall within four weeks from the date of receipt of its judgment issue a proper show-cause notice to the appellant as regards the penalty proposed to be imposed other than dismissal, having regard to the gravity of the misconduct.

It directed the authority to pass a reasoned order on penalty within eight weeks. The bench noted that since the appellant has already crossed the age of superannuation, no direction for reinstatement can be issued at this stage.

“The monetary and retiral consequences, if any, shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by the competent authority in terms of this judgment and the applicable regulations,” it said.

HC: RTI can’t be used for obtaining personal info

HC: RTI can’t be used for obtaining personal info

 TIMES NEWS NETWORK 13.06.2026

Bengaluru : The Right to Information (RTI) Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information merely for advancing a private claim, the high court has ruled. Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observation in a recent judgment while dismissing a petition filed by Bengaluru resident S Savithramma. 

She moved Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) for details of the assets and liabilities of SP Jayapal, who worked as deputy controller at the central KSRTC office during 1990-2002, saying he fraudulently obtained a sale deed from her, and she required the documents for pending civil suits. 

On May 6, 2025, KIC rejected her application, citing the information sought by her fell under personal category and could not be disclosed as it was exempted under RTI Act.

 Challenging the order, Savithramma approached high court, arguing that Jayapal is a public servant and, therefore, any immovable property acquired by him, together with the corresponding disclosure of assets and liabilities, should be revealed. 

Justice Govindaraj, however, rejected the argument. “The right to privacy is now recognised as a constitutionally protected right. Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act represents a statutory manifestation of that protection in the context of access to information. Therefore, before directing disclosure of personal information, the authority must be satisfied that public interest sought to be served is of such magnitude as to outweigh privacy interests of the individual. No such circumstances have been shown in the case,” he noted.