Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: June 15, 2026 To June 21, 2026

JudgmentsCurable Irregularity In Final Appointment Process Cannot Invalidate Entire Recruitment : Supreme CourtCase: Gaurav Mehla & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 628The Supreme Court has held that a procedural defect in the final stage of a recruitment process cannot automatically invalidate appointments where the recruitment itself was otherwise conducted fairly and transparently, and directed a Haryana cooperative society to reconsider the appointments of seven employees who had served for more than a decade.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Gaurav Mehla and others, setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment which had upheld the cancellation of their appointments as Clerk-cum-Salesmen and Peon-cum-Chowkidars in the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society, Kurukshetra.The appointments, made in 2014, were challenged by members of the cooperative society on the ground that they violated Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003. The Rule requires the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager of HAFED in the meeting where appointment decisions are taken. The officials were admittedly absent from the Board of Directors' meeting held on August 13, 2014, which approved the appointments.Lokayukta Special Police Not 'Intelligence & Security Organisation' Exempt From RTI Act : Supreme CourtCase: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 629The Supreme Court upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction requiring the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukta Organisation to disclose information sought under the Right to Information Act, while striking down a 2011 State Government notification that exempted the SPE from the RTI regime.A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the SPE, which investigates corruption-related offences involving public servants, cannot be classified as an "intelligence and security organisation" under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be granted blanket exemption from the Act.The case arose from an RTI application filed by Kamta Prasad Mishra, a Town Inspector in Katni who was implicated in a corruption trap case registered by the SPE in 2017. After the State Government granted sanction for his prosecution in 2020, Mishra sought details regarding the decision-making process behind the sanction order and related communications. His request was rejected by the authorities and later by the State Information Commission, which relied on Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, exempting disclosure of information that could impede investigation or prosecution.Why Supreme Court Urged Haryana To Amend Compassionate Appointment Rules In Cases Involving Alleged Murder Of Govt EmployeesCase Title – Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 630The Supreme Court urged the Haryana Government to examine and rectify a “significant anomaly” in the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, after noting that the scheme suspends compassionate financial assistance during criminal proceedings relating to the death of a government employee but contains no similar restriction on compassionate appointment.Rule 23(1) of the 2019 Rules suspends compassionate financial assistance when a family member eligible to receive it is charged with murdering or abetting the murder of a government employee. However, there is no corresponding provision for compassionate appointment.“The Rules of 2019 truly present an anomaly: the lesser form of compassionate relief, financial assistance, carries an express suspension clause under Rule 23(1) in cases of criminal proceedings for the murder of the deceased employee, while the substantially greater form of relief, compassionate appointment, with its lifelong service benefits, pension, and emoluments, carries no corresponding provision. It is strongly desirable that the Rule-making authority/State Government of Haryana address this legislative lacuna by introducing appropriate amendments to the Rules of 2019,” the Court said.Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Haryana Rule Deferring Compassionate Assistance For Kin Accused Of Murdering Govt EmployeeCase Title – Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 630The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, which suspends compassionate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government employee when an eligible family member is accused of murdering or abetting the murder of the employee. However, the Court clarified that the provision does not apply to...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: June 15, 2026 To June 21, 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: June 15, 2026 To June 21, 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers