Supreme Court: Magistrate Cannot Direct Police to File Charge-Sheet; Cognizance & Trial Consolidation Rest with Court

Read Judgment 

Supreme Court: Magistrate Cannot Direct Police to File Charge-Sheet; Cognizance & Trial Consolidation Rest with Court

The Supreme Court reaffirmed key principles on criminal procedure regarding police reports and trial:

 1.  Magistrate’s Power on Closure Report  

 •  The decision on whether there is enough material to prosecute lies exclusively with the Investigating Officer. 

 •  If police file a closure report, a Magistrate cannot order them to file a charge-sheet.

 •  However, the Magistrate has 3 options: 

1.  Accept the closure report and close proceedings

2.  Order further investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC 

3.  Take cognizance of the offence himself if the facts disclose an offence, even if police concluded otherwise

 2.  Committal Orders & Joint Trials  

 •  A committal order only gives the Sessions Court jurisdiction. It does not decide if the trial should be joint, separate, or single.

 •  That decision rests with the trial Court under Sections 233-239 CrPC. Multiple committals can be consolidated if there is no prejudice to the accused.

 3.  Case Background  

   The ruling came in a 2000 dowry death case with 17 accused. The first charge-sheet was filed against 2 accused on SP’s directions. A second closure report cleared the other 15. The Court held that while the SP should not have directed further investigation, the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against all 17 because the first report did disclose an offence against them.

Core Takeaway:  

The police form the opinion on prosecution. The Magistrate can accept, reject, or take cognizance differently — but cannot force police to file a charge-sheet. The trial court, not the committal order, decides how trials are conducted.

Rajasthan HC Imposes 3-Year Social Media Ban as Bail Condition in POCSO Case

Read Judgment 

Rajasthan HC Imposes 3-Year Social Media Ban as Bail Condition in POCSO Case

Summary:  

In a recent bail order, the Rajasthan High Court, Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, granted bail to a youth accused of morphing images of a minor and uploading them on social media to defame her.

Case Background:  

An FIR was registered against the applicant under relevant provisions of the BNS, POCSO Act, and Information Technology Act. The applicant had been in custody since April 2026 and argued he was young, had a friendship with the victim, and was ready to give an undertaking to not use social media.

Court's Observation & Order:  

Justice Jain held that given the nature of the alleged offence, it was appropriate to impose a ban on social media use for at least 3 years so the applicant learns not to misuse online platforms.

Bail Condition:  

“The applicant-accused shall submit an affidavit/undertaking before the trial Court for not using social media platform including facebook, instagram, thread, snapchat etc. for a period of three years and if it is found that the applicant-accused is using any of the social media platform in his own name or any fictitious name then his bail order may be recalled by the trial Court itself.”

Takeaway: Courts can impose social media bans as a bail condition in cyber offences involving minors to prevent further misuse.

Jharkhand HC Acquits Man in NDPS Case: Bhang Not Covered Under NDPS Act, Distinguishes It From Ganja

Read Judgment 

In Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2026), the Jharkhand High Court, Single Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, acquitted an appellant convicted under Sections 20 & 22 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 7 years.

Key Findings:

 1.  Statutory Interpretation: Under Section 2(iii) NDPS Act, "ganja" means only flowering tops of cannabis. The Act specifically excludes leaves and seeds.  

 2.  Forensic Evidence: The FSL report identified the seized substance as bhang, not ganja. The Court observed bhang is not scientifically proven to be made from prohibited parts of cannabis.  

 3.  No State Notification: Bhang is not listed as a prohibited substance under the NDPS Act, and the State had not issued any notification to include it.

Final Order:  

Since bhang is legally distinct from and excluded from the definition of cannabis/hemp under the NDPS Act, the conviction was held illegal. The Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and allowed the appeal.

Takeaway: Possession of bhang does not attract punishment under the NDPS Act unless the State specifically prohibits it by notification.

"SC Strikes Down IBA Caution List for Lawyers" "Only Bar Council Can Take Disciplinary Action"

Read Judgment 

Headline:

SC Strikes Down IBA Caution List for Lawyers: Only Bar Council Can Take Disciplinary Action

3 Key Takeaways:

 •  No Blacklisting by Banks: IBA/RBI Caution List is only for fraudulent borrowers, not negligent lawyers. Banks can't publicly brand an advocate as "incompetent".

 •  Bar Council Has Exclusive Power: Disciplinary action against advocates for professional misconduct lies solely with Bar Council of India & State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act.

 •  SC Orders Reforms: BCI directed to set up a National Legal Academy and do a performance audit of its disciplinary system to ensure transparency and accountability.

Case: Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha & Alok Aradhe | Lawyer vs Syndicate Bank/Canara Bank

Supreme Court Distinguishes Salaried and Self-Employed Income for Motor Accident Compensation

Read Judgment 

The Supreme Court established standardized guidelines for determining a deceased person's annual income in motor accident claims, distinguishing between salaried and self-employed individuals. For salaried employees, the immediately preceding year's Income Tax Return (ITR) is generally used, while for the self-employed, an average of the previous three years' ITRs is utilized, considering surrounding business circumstances.

For bringing in a consistency in the mode of calculation of a deceased's annual income for determining the motor accident compensation claims, the Supreme Court has laid down comprehensive guidelines for assessing the annual income of victims in motor accident compensation cases, drawing a clear distinction between salaried employees and self-employed persons. 

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the Income Tax Return (ITR) of the immediately preceding assessment year should ordinarily be considered for salaried individuals, whereas for self-employed persons or business owners, tribunals should ordinarily take the average income reflected in the previous three years' ITRs, subject to the surrounding circumstances of each case. 

The main issue before the Court was about the method for determining the annual income of a deceased person where income tax returns were available. 

Since no uniform method could be applied for salaried and self-employed individuals, the Court agreed with the suggestion made by Sr. Adv. J.R. Midha and Adv. Salil Paul, who were appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter, to apply different considerations to salaried employees and self-employed persons. 

For salaried employees, the Court observed that the latest ITR generally reflects promotions, increments, and the prevailing salary immediately before the accident. Consequently, the ITR for the immediately preceding assessment year would ordinarily provide the most accurate picture of earning capacity. 

“There must be a bifurcation made between salaried individuals and self-employed individuals when it comes to assessment of annual income. In our view, for salaried individuals, only the ITR of the previous year will be sufficient for showcasing the annual income from salary. The reason for considering only the preceding year is that the financial impact of promotions is significant and may be reflected in the ITR for only that year. A situation may also arise whereby the deceased/claimant might not have completed a year in the promoted position before the accident or might not have filed ITR for such period. In such cases the Court concerned shall take reference to the promotion letter and other corroboratory financial statements.”, the Court observed. 

However, the Court held that such an approach may not be appropriate for self-employed persons, whose income often fluctuates because of market conditions, business cycles, and investment patterns. 

“When it comes to self-employed / individuals carrying out their own business, in our view, the average of the income specified in the ITRs of up to the previous three years is to be taken as a reference point for assessment of annual income from their business.”, the Court observed. 

Further, the Court pointed out that other surrounding circumstances may also be taken into consideration while computing income. 

“There may also be a scenario where only one or two ITRs have been filed. Given such scenarios and the fluctuation of income in these professions, surrounding circumstances are also to be taken into consideration. 

These would include: 

a) The nature of the business (including geographic location, category etc.); 

b) Growth pattern of the business and impact of death on the business; 

c) Potential growth of business (for instance certain businesses are capital intensive at the outset and are profitable at scale/in the future); 

d) Negative income (certain businesses may require losses in the initial years, which may not reflect the true financial standing); and 

e) Any other relevant factor relating to the business.”, the Court said.

Background 

The batch of appeals before the Supreme Court arose out of three separate motor accident compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the principal dispute was the proper method of assessing the annual income of deceased persons for computing compensation. 

In all three cases, the deceased were self-employed individuals whose income was reflected in Income Tax Returns (ITRs). However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and the respective High Courts adopted different methods for determining their annual income. While some relied on the latest ITR, others averaged two or more years' returns, leading to inconsistent compensation awards. 

Recognising the recurring nature of the issue and the divergent approaches adopted by tribunals across the country, the Supreme Court framed the following question for determination: 

“whether for assessing the annual income of a deceased person or claimant under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the ITRs for the previous year is appropriate or average of the past two/three years is to be taken into consideration?” 

Applying the method elaborated above, the Court modified the compensation in all three appeals.

Indian passport is "primarily a travel document" and should not be regarded as proof of citizenship.

 

The ministry of external affairs (MEA) that an Indian passport is "primarily a travel document" and should not be regarded as proof of citizenship. Speaking at an event marking the 14th Passport Seva Divas, a senior MEA official said that while a passport attests the nationality of Indians when they are abroad, citizenship is determined under separate legal provisions.

Centre issues clarification

The government issued clarification on the same on Thursday referencing Section 20 of the Passports Act, 1967, which provides for the issuance of passports to non-citizens."Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions relating to issue of a passport or travel document, the Central Government may issue, or cause to be issued, a passport or travel document to a person who is not a citizen of India if that Government is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do in the public interest," Section 20 of the Act states.Last September, the Supreme Court declined requests from political parties seeking a direction to the Election Commission (EC) to treat Aadhaar as a standalone document for establishing citizenship during the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The court observed that Aadhaar's legal status could not be expanded beyond what is provided under existing law and refused to mandate its acceptance as sole proof of citizenship for voter enrolment.

How can Indian citizenship be acquired?

According to a PIB Q&A on the National Register of Citizens (NRC), Indian citizenship can be acquired in five ways under the Citizenship Act, 1955:

• Citizenship by Birth
• Citizenship by Descent
• Citizenship by Registration
• Citizenship by Naturalisation
• Citizenship by Incorporation of Territory

Is there a single document that proves Indian citizenship?

No. India does not issue a single, universally held document that serves as definitive proof of citizenship for all citizens. Citizenship is established based on how it was acquired and the supporting records available under the Citizenship Act.

What is direct proof of Indian citizenship?

For people who became Indian citizens through registration or naturalisation, a citizenship certificate issued by the government serves as direct proof of citizenship.

Is a citizenship certificate issued to every Indian citizen?

No. Citizenship certificates are generally issued to people who acquire Indian citizenship through registration or naturalisation. Most Indians who are citizens by birth or descent do not possess a citizenship certificate.

What about Indians who acquired citizenship by birth or descent?

Most Indians acquire citizenship by birth or descent and may never possess a citizenship certificate. In such cases, citizenship is established through a combination of documents relating to date and place of birth, parentage and nationality.

Which documents can help establish citizenship?

Depending on the case, these may include:

• Birth certificates
• Citizenship certificates of parents
• Records showing a parent's Indian citizenship
• Indian passports of parents
• Other records relating to birth, parentage and nationality

Can an Indian passport be used in citizenship-related applications?

Yes. The ministry of home affairs' citizenship guidelines refer to Indian passports and citizenship certificates as proof of Indian citizenship in applications involving spouses, children or parents of Indian citizens.

Are Aadhaar, voter ID and driving licence proof of citizenship?

No. Aadhaar cards, voter IDs and driving licences primarily establish identity, residence or electoral registration. They are not considered conclusive proof of citizenship on their own.

Why don't identity documents automatically prove citizenship?

Documents such as Aadhaar, voter ID and driving licence are issued for specific purposes such as identity verification, electoral registration or driving privileges. They are not designed to determine citizenship status and therefore are not treated as conclusive proof of citizenship on their own.

Why did the MEA say a passport is not proof of citizenship?

The MEA clarified that a passport is primarily a travel document that attests the holder's nationality abroad. Legally, citizenship is determined under the Citizenship Act, while a passport is issued under the Passports Act and does not by itself constitute definitive proof of citizenship in all circumstances.

Can an OCI cardholder become an Indian citizen?

Yes. An Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder who has been registered as an OCI for at least five years and meets other eligibility requirements can apply for Indian citizenship by registration.

Does India allow dual citizenship?

No. India does not recognise dual citizenship. While the OCI scheme provides certain benefits to foreign nationals of Indian origin, OCI cardholders are not Indian citizens.

SC treats mason’s leg amputation as 100 pc functional disability, raises compensation to Rs 40.29 lakh

 

1 . Supreme Court Raises Compensation to ₹40.29 Lakh for Mason Who Lost Leg, Says Functional Disability 100%  

 2.  SC: Physical Disability 70% But Loss of Earning Capacity 100% for Mason, Enhances Payout  

 3.  Lost Leg, Lost Livelihood: Why SC Gave 100% Disability to Tamil Nadu Mason Despite 70% Physical Disability  

 4.  ₹29 Lakh to ₹40 Lakh: SC’s Key Ruling on ‘Functional Disability’ in Motor Accident Claims  

 5.  Functional Disability ≠ Physical Disability: SC Sets Precedent in M. Paramesh v. Insurance Case  

 6.  SC to Courts: Don’t Just Use % Disability. Check If They Can Still Earn  

The Supreme Court has enhanced compensation payable to a Tamil Nadu mason who lost his right leg in a road accident, holding that courts must assess “functional disability” and not merely the percentage of physical disability while determining loss of earning capacity in motor accident claims.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria increased the compensation awarded to claimant M. Paramesh from Rs 29.01 lakh, as fixed by the Madras High Court, to Rs 40.29 lakh, observing that the amputation of his right leg above the knee had effectively rendered him incapable of continuing his profession as a mason.

Allowing the appeal in part, the apex court held that although the claimant’s permanent physical disability had been assessed at 70 per cent, his functional disability for the purpose of earning a livelihood was 100 per cent. “The amputation of the right leg above the knee has not merely caused physical disability to the appellant but has rendered him incapable of effectively carrying on the manual and physical work which constituted his only source of livelihood,” the Justice Mishra-led Bench said.

“In such circumstances, restricting the loss of earning capacity to 70 per cent merely on the basis of physical disability would not be justified,” it added. The case arose from an accident that occurred on April 18, 2017, on the Namakkal–Salem National Highway in Tamil Nadu when a lorry hit the claimant’s bicycle from behind.

The accident caused grievous injuries to his head, jaw, eye and right leg, eventually leading to amputation of the right leg above the knee. The claimant, who was around 30 years old at the time and worked as a mason, had approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation of Rs 25 lakh, contending that he had lost his ability to continue his occupation due to the permanent disability suffered in the accident.

The MACT awarded compensation of Rs 10.84 lakh in 2019 by assessing his monthly income at Rs 6,000 and calculating loss of earning capacity on the basis of 70 per cent disability. On appeal, the Madras High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 23.86 lakh by increasing the monthly income to Rs 12,000 and granting a 40 per cent addition towards future prospects.

However, the Supreme Court found errors in the High Court’s computation and recorded that future prospects had been calculated on the basis of the MCAT’s assessment rather than on the enhanced income determined by the High Court itself. The apex court also observed that certain amounts awarded by the MCAT under the heads of nutrition, clothing and ornaments, and medical expenses were inadvertently omitted from the Madras High Court’s final computation despite not being disturbed. Referring to an earlier decision, the Justice Mishra-led Bench reiterated that compensation cannot be determined by mechanically equating physical disability with loss of earning capacity.

“The assessment of compensation in cases of permanent disability cannot be undertaken by mechanically applying the percentage of physical disability as the percentage of economic loss,” the judgment said. Observing that masonry is a physically demanding profession requiring continuous use and support of both legs, the apex court held that the claimant had effectively lost his capacity to continue his avocation.

“Having regard to the nature of avocation carried on by the appellant, the extent of injuries suffered by him and the principles laid down by this Court…, we are of the considered opinion that the functional disability suffered by the appellant is required to be assessed at 100 per cent,” the bench ruled.

It further enhanced compensation towards future medical expenses, including artificial limb replacement and rehabilitation, from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 2 lakh, observing that the claimant would require periodic replacement and maintenance of prosthetic limbs throughout his lifetime.

Recalculating compensation by treating the claimant’s functional disability as 100 per cent, retaining the monthly income at Rs 12,000, adding 40 per cent towards future prospects and applying a multiplier of 17, the Supreme Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs 40.29 lakh. It directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced compensation amount before the MCAT within six weeks. The enhanced amount will carry interest at the same rate fixed by the Madras High Court.

Kerala HC: Elected Reps Must Take Oath 'In Name of God' Only, No Names Allowed

Read Judgment 

Elected representatives cannot modify/expand the statutory oath by adding names of deities, political martyrs, organisations, or public figures. Oaths taken in names of deities/martyrs/movements are invalid.

Key Points:  

 1.  Statutory form must be followed: Section 152 Kerala Panchayat Raj Act + Section 143 Kerala Municipality Act + Article 188 Constitution prescribe oath "in the name of God" or "solemn affirmation" only. No expansion allowed. When statute prescribes a manner, it must be done that way alone.

 2.  Personal faith vs statutory duty: Citizens can believe in any deity/spiritual figure personally. But statutory oath is not for personal expression. “We need not expand God by name... God is one for all.”

 3.  Reasoning: If expansions allowed, there’s no stopping point. Court gave examples: parent, teacher, political leader, Veerappan, Oommen Chandy. Would let everyone rewrite oath per personal belief = limitless variations, destroys uniformity.

 4.  Precedent: Court preferred Haridasan Palayil 2003 over Madhu Parumala 2006. Even Muslim oath “in name of Allah” is okay because “Allah” = “God”, not expansion. But adding specific names like “Rama, Krishna, Jesus, political martyrs” = expansion.

 5.  Philosophy cited: Sree Narayana Guru’s “One Caste, One Religion, One God for Humankind” + Rig Veda “Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudha Vadanti” - Truth is one, wise call it by many names.

Outcome:  

Invalidated oaths. Directed State Election Commission to conduct fresh oath-taking within 4 weeks in prescribed form.

One-line takeaway: You can believe in any god, but the law’s “God” cannot be expanded with names.

Employee Who Didn't Inform Employer Of Address Change Can't Raise Plea Of Non- Receipt Of Show-Cause Notice : Supreme Court

Read Judgment 

Facts:  

Employee stayed absent ∼24 days without authorization. Employer sent show-cause notice to his permanent Bihar address, which he gave. Employee lived in Noida UP and said he never got it. He claimed absence was due to mother’s ill health and he verbally told his superior.

Issue:  

Labour Court + Allahabad HC ordered reinstatement with back wages. Employer appealed to SC.

SC Holding:  

 1.  Notice valid: Employer must send communication only to the address provided by employee. Duty to update residence/address lies with employee, not employer.  

 2.  Absence unjustified: No documentary proof of mother’s illness or leave request. 1 oral claim without any written intimation/leave application during 24 days is not enough.  

 3.  No relief: Employee produced no evidence of trying to rejoin duty either.

Outcome:  

SC set aside Labour Court + HC orders. Validated removal from service. Appeal allowed.

Core principle: “You can’t take advantage of your own omission” — if you don’t update your address or give leave proof, you bear the consequences.

The Supreme Court recently observed that dismissal from service is one of the harshest forms of punishment.

The Supreme Court recently observed that dismissal from service is one of the harshest forms of punishment; therefore, it must only be imposed by the disciplinary authority after duly considering relevant factors such as the nature and gravity of the misconduct, long service rendered, record, age, absence of financial

Disciplinary authorities must be very careful before imposing the severest form of punishment of dismissal from service as it has a devastating effect not only on the dismissed employee but also on their dependent family members, the Supreme Court has said.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh said dismissal from service must remain reserved for cases where the misconduct is of the most serious nature where elements of synthetic consideration would be undesirable and inappropriate.

The Bench set aside the Bombay high Court’s order that had upheld dismissal of Surekha Domaji Bele – an employee of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) – in 2017 on the basis of show-cause notice issued in 2008.

“Dismissal is ordinarily justified where the misconduct is of such gravity that continuance of the employee would be wholly incompatible with discipline, trust or institutional functioning. Cases involving corruption, illegal gratification, moral turpitude, misappropriation, acts causing substantial loss to the employer, or conduct showing complete unfitness for continued service stand on a different footing,” the Bench said in its June 11 verdict.

“However, where the misconduct does not involve corruption, moral turpitude, financial misappropriation or proved loss to the employer, and where there is long service without much blemish, the disciplinary authority must carefully examine whether any lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice,” it clarified in its verdict on Bele’s appeal

Describing dismissal from service as one of the harshest forms of punishment, the top court said it must only be imposed by the disciplinary authority after duly considering relevant factors such as the nature and gravity of the misconduct, long service rendered, record, age, absence of financial loss to the company, etc.It held that the period of suspension pending inquiry can’t be imposed as a second punishment over and above dismissal.

The top court directed the MSEDCL to issue a proper show-cause notice to appellant Bele on the penalty to be imposed other than dismissal and determine her claim for subsistence allowance in two parts.

From September 4, 2006, to March 3, 2006, the authority shall consider the original reporting condition if leave of absence was granted, etc. but for the remaining period, she shall be eligible for subsistence allowance irrespective of the punishment to be imposed, it said.

“In the absence of any order reviewing or validly continuing the suspension beyond six months being shown on record, the Appellant shall be treated as eligible for subsistence allowance for the period after 03.03.2007 till 12.07.2017,” it ordered.

RTI activism has become a new business. -SC

The Supreme Court today(May 15) denied anticipatory bail to an RTI activist accused of obstructing a public servant in connection with the construction of a road.

A bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi denied bail to RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl. It orally remarked that RTI activism has become a new business. 

Justice Mehta said: "RTI activists have become a new business. Central government has issued funds, it will take care of the construction of road. You are nobody. So-called RTI activist!. Yellow journalism. Dismissed."

Justice Bishnoi also questioned why Behl was monitoring the construction of the road. He remarked: "Who are you to monitor the construction all these road progress or all? Are you some superior authority?"

The petitioner assailed the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order denying him anticipatory bail. 

To briefly state, the petitioner, along with another accused allegedly obstructed the ongoing road construction work and also intimated the complainant under whose supervision the work was being executed and the labourers present at the site. The petitioner is also said to have inflicted blows on the complainant while another accused kicked him.

It is also alleged that they made caste-based derogatory remarks against the labourers and subsequently, FIR was registered under Sections 304(2), 132, 221, 121(1), 351(2), 351(3), of BNS, 2023 (Sections 3(5), 121(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in its order stated that the allegations levelled in the FIR discloses specific and direct involvement in obstructing the government work.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Police Summons To Law Firm, Stays Arrest

The Supreme Court declined to block police action against 'The Legal Attorneys and Barristers' regarding ₹6.8 crore in suspected diverted funds but granted advocate Hussain Moeen Farooq two weeks of protection from arrest. The Court refused to unfreeze the law firm's bank accounts, directing parties to seek relief from the High Court. 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with a police summons to a law firm in connection with an investigation, though it stayed the arrest of the advocate of the firm for two weeks. The firm has been directed to appear before the police and give their explanation.

They were also granted liberty to take steps to challenge the summons before the High Court.

The Court also refused to interfere with a Madras High Court order impleading the law firm in a contempt proceeding.

151 More Seats Opened for NEET-SS.

Read Judgment 

The Supreme Court of India directed the State of Tamil Nadu to report 151 unfilled super-speciality medical seats (DM and M.Ch) to the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) so they can be allocated via the All India merit list.

Core Ruling and Actions

• Seat Surrender: The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the ongoing NEET-SS 2025 counselling process.
• Precedent Followed: A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimhaand Justice Alok Aradhe based the decision on the previous N. Karthikeyan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu case.
• Allocation Process: Tamil Nadu first fills its reserved seats, and any remaining vacant seats are handed over to the Union Government for All India merit distribution.

Petitioner Demands & Counseling Terms

• Initial Request: Petitioners wanted unfilled state quota seats transferred to the All India Quota to be included in the second or an additional round of counselling.
• Counselling Cut-offs: Additional Solicitor General S.D. Sanjay confirmed that the existing counselling cut-off dates will be maintained unless changes become absolutely necessary.
• Case Limitations: The Supreme Court clarified that this specific order applies only to the unique circumstances of this case and will not serve as a legal precedent for future matters.