News summary The news concerns a recent Supreme Court judgment in Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd v Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) &…
Judgment dated 21 November 2025, the Supreme Court of India resolved a pivotal question concerning the jurisdiction of Indian courts in appointing arbitrators for disputes explicitly…
News summary In its advisory opinion in In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, Special Reference No.…
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that High Courts should refrain from entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 in service recruitment disputes that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of State Administrative Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Deciding appeals related to teacher recruitment in Karnataka, the Court upheld a Division Bench order directing parties to approach the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT). It emphasized that no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing this remedy. The Court clarified that provisional select lists do not create vested rights and urged the KSAT to conclude the matter within six months.
The Supreme Court has asked the Union Government to explain how housing promised under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, can align with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which restricts permanent constructions in forest areas. Hearing Sugra Adiwasi & Ors. v. Pathranand & Ors., a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar directed the Ministries of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Tribal Affairs to consult and file an affidavit within four weeks outlining a framework that balances housing needs of forest dwellers with conservation laws. The case is reported as 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 995.
The Supreme Court ruled on 6 October 2025 that tender conditions requiring prior supply experience **within a specific state** are unconstitutional. In *Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh*, the Court struck down the rule for violating **Article 14** (equality) and **Article 19(1)(g)** (freedom of trade), stressing that public procurement must ensure fair competition and a “level playing field.” Geographical restrictions lacking rational justification were deemed arbitrary. The decision reinforces that tender rules must serve legitimate objectives, not create artificial barriers favoring local suppliers over qualified national bidders.
