6th Feb 2026 Legal Updates

1. Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere in Gujarat HC Verdict on BAMS/BHMS Conditional Admissions

The Supreme Court of India recently upheld a Gujarat High Court judgment denying relief to students who had secured conditional admissions to Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery (BAMS) and Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery (BHMS) programs in certain private colleges in Gujarat.

Background of the Case

• A group of students, who appeared in NEET-UG 2019–20, failed to obtain the minimum qualifying percentile prescribed under the AYUSH Regulations, 2018 (which require a 50 % cutoff in the unreserved category for entry into BAMS/BHMS).

• Despite this, six Ayurveda and Homeopathy colleges in Gujarat granted conditional admissions on the assumption that the central government or counselling authority might later revise the cutoff, as had happened in some prior instances.

Procedural History

• The matter was first considered by a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, who held that since students did not challenge the AYUSH Regulations themselves, the conditional admissions could not be validated merely on sympathetic grounds.

• The High Court’s intra-court appeal also affirmed that meeting the minimum NEET percentile is mandatory and that the discretion to reduce cut-off, if any, lies only with the competent authority and cannot be presumed by institutions unilaterally.

Supreme Court’s Decision

• A bench led by Justices P.S. Narasimha and Vijay Bishnoi refused to interfere with the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing that illegal admissions impact not only the individual students but also the integrity of professional courses.

• The Supreme Court noted that misplaced sympathy cannot be a substitute for statutory eligibility criteria and that future admissions must adhere strictly to regulatory mandates.

Further Directions by the Apex Court

In addition to refusing relief, the Supreme Court ordered a detailed inquiry into the conduct of the six colleges that granted these admissions:

• Notices have been issued to the institutions to explain how ineligible students continued through multiple years of the courses without meeting eligibility criteria.

• A Joint Committee has been directed to be constituted by the Gujarat Ayurved University and the Central Council of Indian Medicine to investigate and report on the matter.

2. Supreme Court Upholds Telangana HC Order Quashing Free Land Allotment to IAMC

In a significant judgment affecting public land allocation policy, the Supreme Court of India upheld a Telangana High Court order that had set aside the State Government’s decision to allot approximately 3.70 acres of prime land in Hyderabad to the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC) free of cost.

Institution Involved — IAMC

The International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC) in Hyderabad was established in December 2021 with the objective of promoting alternative dispute resolution (ADR), particularly institutional arbitration and mediation, in India. It was inaugurated with support from senior legal functionaries, including former Chief Justice of India Justice N.V. Ramana and the then Telangana Chief Minister.

High Court’s Rationale

• The Telangana High Court, in June 2025, examined Public Interest Litigations challenging the State’s multiple government orders, including one that allotted land to IAMC without charging market value.

• It found that the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules, 1975 prohibits free allotment of state land to private bodies unless it is for a recognised public purpose and compliance with statutory requirements including payment of market value.

• The High Court ruled that the allotment of valuable land without compensation or competitive process violated mandatory policy norms, and could not stand merely based on the asserted public objectives.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

• A two-judge bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S.V.N. Bhatti refused to interfere with the High Court’s order, stating they were “not inclined to interfere” with the reasoning that scrapped the free land allocation.

• Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by IAMC were dismissed and the High Court judgment quashing the land allotment has now attained finality.

Scope of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s order confirms that:

• Governments, as custodians of public resources, cannot alienate state land without clear statutory authority and due procedural compliance.

• Even well-intentioned institutional projects must adhere to transparent and lawful processes when public assets are involved.

However, the High Court did not invalidate other executive decisions like providing financial assistance of ₹3 crore or directives to refer high-value disputes to IAMC, considering these to be policy decisions.

3. Supreme Court Orders West Bengal Government to Clear Pending Dearness Allowance (DA) Dues

In a major relief for state employees, the Supreme Court of India has issued a detailed judgment in the long-running legal battle over Dearness Allowance (DA) arrears owed by the West Bengal government. The ruling arose from appeals against previous judgments on DA for state government employees dating back to 2008.

Rights of Employees Confirmed

• The Court affirmed that Dearness Allowance is a statutory right under the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 2009, and is designed to cushion the effects of inflation on wages.

• It held that the DA accrued in favour of nearly 20 lakh serving and retired state government employees for the period from 2008 to 2019 must be paid in accordance with the statutory formula that ties DA to the All India Consumer Price Index (AICPI).

Payment Directions

• The Supreme Court has directed the West Bengal government to immediately release at least 25 % of the outstanding DA arrears by March 6, 2026.

• A special committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra, along with other judicial and auditing experts, has been constituted to calculate the total dues and formulate a payment schedule.

• The committee’s report and compliance with the payment timeline are due by March 31, with further compliance verification by April 15.

Court’s Reasoning on Financial Constraints

The bench emphasized that financial difficulties cannot justify depriving employees of their legal entitlements and reiterated that governments must act as “model employers” in honouring statutory dues.

Context of the Dispute

• The dispute originated after West Bengal government employees challenged unequal DA rates compared to central government employees, where central DA reached 55 % while West Bengal’s rate lagged significantly.

• The issue had seen extensive litigation, including before the Calcutta High Court and the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, before reaching the Supreme Court