The last day and a half brought a busy set of rulings. The Supreme Court narrowed the practical impact of its March 2026 judgment on the OBC creamy layer, and drew a firm line between civil carelessness and criminal negligence. In Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court clarified when suits against NOIDA need prior notice and how sanction rules apply to retired officials, while the Bombay High Court delivered notable rulings on voter roll revision and surrogacy age limits.
Supreme Court Says OBC Creamy Layer Ruling Will Not Reopen Past Appointments
On 6 November 2026, a Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan heard an application filed by the Union of India in Union of India v. Rohith Nathan, seeking clarification of the Court’s 11 March 2026 judgment. That judgment held that an OBC candidate’s creamy layer status cannot be decided only on the basis of the parents’ salary, and that the category of post held by the parents must also be looked at.
What the court clarified: The March judgment will apply to the parties before the Court. Seniority and promotions already granted will not be reopened. Pending cases elsewhere will be decided by the respective courts on their own merits, and the time for complying with the judgment has been extended by eight weeks. The full text of the order is still awaited, so finer details may follow.
What it means for you: Government employees who secured posts or promotions under the older method of computing creamy layer status can take comfort that their seniority is not being reopened by this ruling. Candidates who believe the new test favours them, or who have pending disputes over OBC certificates, will need to pursue their own cases, as the benefit is not automatic. Related guidance: Labour & Employment Law.
School Officials Cleared in Pillar Collapse Case: Carelessness Is Not Always a Crime
In Matin Shankarrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan quashed criminal proceedings against the President and Superintendent of a school after a 12-year-old student died when a pillar under construction collapsed on school premises. The construction work had been given to a contractor.
What the court held: For a conviction under Section 304A IPC (causing death by negligence), the death must be the direct and proximate result of the accused person’s own rash or negligent act. Failing to meet a legal standard of care is not by itself a criminal offence. Here, the contractor’s conduct intervened and broke the chain of causation, so the school officials could not be prosecuted.
What it means for you: Heads of schools, housing societies, businesses and building owners who hire contractors are not automatically criminally liable when an accident occurs, though civil claims for compensation may still be available to victims. For families of victims, the ruling signals that criminal cases should focus on the person whose act directly caused harm, while compensation can be pursued separately. Related guidance: Criminal Defense & Criminal Law.
Allahabad High Court: No Prior Notice Needed to Sue NOIDA
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court allowed a writ petition in Omveer v. Parul Tomar, after a civil court in Gautam Buddh Nagar refused to register a property suit because the plaintiffs had not served a notice on NOIDA under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
What the court held: NOIDA, created under the UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, but it is neither the State Government nor the Central Government. It is only under the supervisory control of the State Government. Since Section 80 notice is required only for suits against the Government or public officers, it does not apply to NOIDA. The trial court’s order of 18 August 2026 was set aside, and it was directed to register the suit at once and decide the injunction application within one month.
What it means for you: Plot holders, home buyers and landowners in Noida and Greater Noida who need urgent relief against the authority, such as an injunction against demolition or dispossession, need not wait out the two-month Section 80 notice period. Related guidance: Property, Real Estate & Waqf Law.
Allahabad High Court: Retired Official Needs No Sanction If FIR Predates 2018 Amendment
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi dismissed a petition by a former official associated with the U.P. Small Industries Corporation who sought to quash a CBI charge-sheet arising out of the alleged misuse of MGNREGA funds in seven UP districts between 2007 and 2010. He had retired in 2009, the FIR was lodged in 2014 and the charge-sheet was filed in September 2018.
What the court held: Whether prior sanction is needed under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 depends on the law in force when the offence was committed and the FIR lodged, not when the court takes cognizance. Before the 2018 amendment, the sanction requirement protected only serving public servants. Since the petitioner had retired well before the FIR, no sanction was required.
What it means for you: Retired government and PSU officers facing older corruption cases cannot rely on the lack of sanction where the FIR was registered before the 2018 amendment. Their defence will need to rest on the facts and evidence. Related guidance: Criminal Defense & Criminal Law.
Bombay High Court: Shifted Voters Must Use Form 8, Names Restored
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa, comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar, decided Paresh Salgaonkar v. State of Goa. Six members of a family who had moved within the Santacruz constituency were dropped from the roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, after officials rejected their Form 8 and insisted they file Form 6.
What the court held: A voter who has shifted residence can only file Form 8. Form 6 requires a declaration that the person is applying for the first time and is not on any roll, and the pre-filled enumeration form requires a declaration that the voter still lives at the old address. For a voter who has already moved, both would be false declarations exposing them to prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Election Commission was directed to restore the family’s names.
What it means for you: If you have moved house and your name has been dropped during the ongoing roll revision, do not sign a form whose declaration is untrue just to get back on the list. Form 8 is the correct route for a change of residence, and this ruling can be cited if officials insist otherwise. Related guidance: High Court & Appellate Litigation.
Bombay High Court: Wife Over 50 Does Not Bar Couple From Surrogacy
In X-1 v. Union of India, a Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S. Chavan quashed an order of the Nashik Municipal Corporation that had refused an eligibility certificate under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 to a couple aged 54 (wife) and 53 (husband). After several unsuccessful IVF cycles, doctors had recommended gestational surrogacy. The authority relied on Section 4(iii)(c)(I), which requires the wife to be between 23 and 50 and the husband between 26 and 55.
What the court held: An intending couple acts as one unit, and one spouse crossing the age limit should not on its own defeat the couple’s claim when the other spouse is within the permitted bracket. The Court treated reproductive choice as part of personal dignity under Article 21 and favoured a progressive reading of the Act. It directed the authorities to issue the eligibility certificate and the district medical board to examine the couple.
What it means for you: Couples, including NRI couples seeking surrogacy in India, who were turned away only because the wife has crossed 50 may now have a basis to challenge a refusal, especially in Maharashtra. Other High Courts are not bound by this view, and the Union may seek further review, so individual advice is important. Related guidance: Family Law, Divorce & Matrimonial Disputes.
BCI Withdraws Age Limits for Law Admissions
On 6 November 2026, the Bar Council of India informed a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, hearing Rishabh Duggal v. Bar Council of India, that it had withdrawn the upper age limits for admission to law courses through a resolution passed on 5 November 2026.
What changed: The withdrawn limits had capped entry to the five-year integrated LLB at 20 years and the three-year LLB at 30 years for general category candidates, with relaxation for some reserved categories. The Supreme Court recorded the BCI’s statement and closed the challenge. The restriction has been withdrawn and revived before, so the exact wording of the new circular will matter.
What it means for you: Working professionals, homemakers and career changers who want to study law can now apply for LLB admission without being shut out by age. Prospective students should still check the admission rules of their chosen university and any entrance test, as eligibility conditions other than age continue to apply.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affects you, your family or your business, you can request a consultation through our online consultation page.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.