News summary In a significant ruling in 2024, the Supreme Court of India clarified how review petitions should be handled in cases that were decided based…
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 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.
The Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu ended the misuse of “pocket veto” by Governors. It held that Article 200 doesn’t allow indefinite inaction and set clear timelines—one month for assent and three months for reconsideration—strengthening State legislatures’ authority and federal balance. By invoking Article 142 to deem delayed Bills as assented, the Court prevented democratic paralysis. While some critics call this judicial overreach, the ruling reinforces accountability and aligns with global democratic practices. It ensures Governors act constitutionally, not politically, safeguarding federalism and legislative primacy.
The Supreme Court will hear a Presidential Reference on July 22, 2025, to clarify the roles of Governors and the President in granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201. The case follows a Tamil Nadu ruling that set timelines for assent and raised debates on judicial power. Key questions include whether Governors and the President must follow ministerial advice, if their discretion is justiciable, and whether courts can set timelines. The outcome will shape federal relations, legislative processes, and the balance between executive and judicial powers.
