Today’s briefing is led by the Supreme Court’s limited window for certified green crackers in Delhi-NCR this Diwali. The Supreme Court also opened the door to remission for prisoners transferred from the UK and clarified that government teachers cannot demand inter-district transfers as of right. From the Allahabad High Court come two rulings on IVF complaints and accident claims, along with a Delhi High Court order that keeps the winter ban on older out-of-state vehicles in place.
Supreme Court Allows Certified Green Crackers in Delhi-NCR on 7 and 8 November
In the long-running case of Arjun Gopal v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 728/2015), a bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has relaxed the year-round firecracker ban in Delhi-NCR for a short Diwali window.
What the court held: Only green crackers approved by CSIR-NEERI may be made, sold and burst. Bursting is permitted from 6 AM to 8 PM on 7 November and from 7 AM to 10 PM on 8 November. Traders whose licences had been cancelled get them back temporarily to sell from 4 to 6 November, only at spots fixed by the District Collector or Commissioner with the police. Manufacturing is limited to CSIR-NEERI certified units holding PESO licences, between 2 and 6 November. Every box must be fully sealed and carry a product-specific, non-transferable QR code. Online sales, ladis (crackers joined in a series), garlands and crackers containing barium stay banned, as does bursting within 300 metres of hospitals, nursing homes, health centres, old-age homes, silence zones and educational institutions. The full ban returns on 9 November 2026.
What it means for you: Families in Delhi, Noida, Gurugram, Ghaziabad and Faridabad should buy only sealed boxes with a working QR code, and only from designated sale points, not online. Bursting outside the permitted hours or near a hospital or school can still invite police action. Traders and manufacturers must deposit monetary security that can be forfeited for violations, so they should keep their licence, NEERI registration and stock records in order.
Related practice area: Civil Litigation
Prisoners Transferred From the UK Can Seek Remission in India
In Gurmej Singh v. Union of India, the same bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale decided the case of a man convicted of murder in the UK in 2012 and given life imprisonment with a minimum term of 35 years. He was transferred to India in May 2015 under the Indo-UK Agreement on Transfer of Sentenced Persons and has been serving his sentence in Punjab. After 14 years in custody, his request for premature release was rejected by the Union Government, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld that rejection.
What the court held: Article 10(2) of the Agreement lets either country grant pardon, amnesty or commutation under its Constitution or “other laws”. The Supreme Court read “other laws” to include the laws governing remission, noting that remission only shortens the sentence and does not touch the conviction. It set aside the High Court’s order and directed the Union Government to reconsider the case under the applicable remission policy within eight weeks.
What it means for you: For families of Indians serving foreign sentences, this matters when deciding whether to seek a transfer home. A prisoner brought back under such a treaty is not automatically shut out of Indian remission policies. Each case will still be judged on the policy that applies, so a well-documented application covering conduct in custody and time served remains essential.
Related practice area: Criminal Defense & Criminal Law
No Right to Inter-District Transfer for UP Basic Education Teachers
In Pratap Singh Baghel v. Akanksha Shukla, decided by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (order dated 5 October 2026), a woman teacher posted in Bahraich sought a transfer to Lucknow under Rule 8(2)(d) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008, which offers a relaxation for women teachers. The High Court had directed that her request be considered and later took up contempt against the Board’s Secretary for not complying.
What the court held: The Supreme Court set aside the finding that the Secretary was prima facie guilty of contempt. It held that an inter-district transfer, which here also meant a change of cadre, cannot be claimed as a right merely because the employee lives away from family. The relaxation for women teachers cannot be applied in a way that leaves a school short of teachers and harms the student-teacher ratio required under the RTE Act, 2009. The court stressed that the education system exists mainly for students.
What it means for you: Government employees, especially teachers in Uttar Pradesh, should treat transfer rules as a discretionary benefit rather than an entitlement. A request has a better chance when it shows that the receiving and the losing posts can absorb the move without affecting staffing. Contempt proceedings are unlikely to help where a court has only directed that a request be “considered”.
Related practice area: Labour & Employment Law
Allahabad High Court: A Failed IVF Cycle Is Not Cheating
In Dr. Sarita Teotia v. State of U.P. and Another, Justice Chawan Prakash of the Allahabad High Court examined a complaint by a husband who alleged that a fertility doctor in Bulandshahr took ₹3.5 lakh for IVF, gave a receipt for only ₹1.6 lakh and refused a refund when the treatment failed. A magistrate had summoned the doctor under Section 420 IPC.
What the court held: The High Court quashed the summoning order, the revisional order and the complaint proceedings. Cheating needs dishonest intent at the very start of the transaction, and an unsuccessful medical result does not show that. IVF carries known failure rates, so offering it is not a promise of pregnancy. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, the court said treatment failure alone does not prove negligence or a crime. It also criticised the magistrate for summoning the doctor in a casual and mechanical manner.
What it means for you: Couples unhappy with fertility treatment should know that a criminal case is rarely the right route when the only complaint is that treatment did not work. Disputes over fees, receipts or refunds are usually better pursued as civil or consumer claims, backed by written consent forms and payment records. Doctors and clinics, in turn, benefit from clear written disclosure of success rates and full receipts for every payment.
Related practice area: Consumer Protection
Accident Claims Tribunals Cannot Skip Issues Just Because Counsel Says “Not Pressed”
In U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam v. Basant Lal and four others, Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi of the Allahabad High Court heard an appeal arising from a 2001 accident in which a pedestrian was hit from behind by a bus and later died. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Barabanki had answered several framed issues against the transport corporation only because its counsel said they were not being pressed.
What the court held: A tribunal must give a reasoned decision on every framed issue, and a bare note that an issue was “not pressed” is not enough. Waiver by a party is a question of fact that must be pleaded. The duty under Section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 207 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, to issue notice to the insurer is mandatory and serves the public interest, so it cannot be given up by a party. The findings on the disputed issues were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision with the insurer kept as a party, and amounts already released will be adjusted against the fresh award.
What it means for you: Accident victims and their families should make sure the insurer is properly joined and that the tribunal records a decision on each issue, since shortcuts can lead to a remand and years of further delay. Transport operators and vehicle owners should not assume that a concession made in court will close a question for good.
Related practice area: Civil Litigation
Delhi High Court Refuses to Stay Winter Ban on Older Out-of-State Vehicles
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma of the Delhi High Court has refused to stay a ban on vehicles registered outside Delhi that fall below BS-VI emission standards. The ban runs from 1 November to 31 January every year under paragraph 4 of a 23 June 2026 notification issued by the Delhi government’s Department of Environment and Forests under the Environment (Protection) Act. The challenge was brought by a Faridabad lawyer who owns a BS-IV petrol car registered in Haryana.
What changed: Nothing yet, and that is the point. The petitioner argued that the ban discriminates by place of registration rather than actual emissions, applies regardless of daily air quality and conflicts with the staged approach of the revised Graded Response Action Plan, citing Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(g). The court declined interim relief and listed the case for hearing on 27 November.
What it means for you: Anyone driving a pre-BS-VI vehicle registered in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh or another state should plan on that vehicle not entering Delhi until 31 January, at least until the High Court rules. Businesses that rely on such vehicles for deliveries or commuting into the capital should arrange alternatives for the season.
Related practice area: High Court & Appellate Litigation
Need advice on any of these updates?
If you would like to understand how any of these developments affects your situation, you can request a consultation through our online consultation page.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.