Legal News for August 2026

Can’t stop pvt med colleges charging more than govt’s: SC

Supreme Court said that private medical colleges cannot be prevented from charging higher fees than govt ones and forcing them to do so would result in their closure and harm to medical education.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi while hearing a plea by an EWS student who was allotted a general category seat in a private medical college where he would be required to pay nearly Rs 19 lakh as annual tuition fee, noted private medical colleges are barred from taking capitation fees and are self-financing. “Annual tuition fee can’t be the same in a private college and a govt one,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Justice Nagarathna said, “The annual tuition fee can’t be the same in a private medical college and a govt one. In self-financing private colleges, every expense is to be borne by the colleges whereas govt subsidies the expenses in the colleges under it.”

“Private colleges are also contributing to the field of higher education, including in the medical stream. If they are asked to take fees at govt rate, then they will close down and the medical education would suffer.

If other states have implemented the EWS quota and if Rajasthan has not done it, courts cannot direct private colleges to reduce fees,” she further said.

The petitioner, whose parents in Rajasthan have an annual income of less than Rs 8 lakh, cleared NEET-UG 2025, said he was “arbitrarily” allotted a general category seat in a private medical college and Rs 19 lakh being demanded of him was way beyond his means.

His counsel Rishabh Sancheti informed the bench that students in EWS category, who scored less marks than him, were allotted EWS quota seats where candidates pay fee for MBBS courses at govt fixed rate which is less than the general category seats in private colleges.

The counsel further said the HC failed to appreciate that non-provisioning of 10% seats for EWS category students in MBBS courses by Rajasthan govt breached the constitutional mandate and permitted extortion of Rs 19 to 25 lakh annual tuition fee from poor families. The petitioner also challenged the arbitrary allotment of a general category seat instead of an EWS quota seat.

SC: Homebuyers can seek relief for delay after possession of flat

 Taking possession of a flat would not bar homebuyers from raising complaints against real estate companies for deficiency in services. Supreme Court has held that homebuyers can approach consumer forums against developers to seek compensation for delayed possession even after taking custody of the flat.

The SC set aside an order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had held that ahomebuyer ceases to be a consumer after taking possession of the flat and could not seek compensation for delay. SC also held that the arbitration clause in homebuyer-real estate company agreement would not block the former from approaching the consumer forum to raise grievances.

Twenty-two years after a homebuyer got possession of his flat housing project in Dwarka in NCR, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and V Mohana allowed his plea to seek compensation for delay in handing over the flat. It said the NCDRC’s reasoning “cannot be sustained”.

“The appellant’s complaint was not for delivery of possession simpliciter. His grievance was that there had been delay in handing over possession of the flat and that he was entitled to compensation for such delay. A claim for compensation for delayed possession necessarily arises from the period prior to the actual delivery of possession.

The subsequent receipt of possession cannot, by itself, extinguish the right of the allottee to seek adjudication of a claim for compensation for the alleged delay,“ the bench said.

SC: Settlement talks can’t stall insolvency once default is found

The Supreme Court ruled that once debt and default are established, mere settlement negotiations cannot stall admission into the insolvency process.

In its order upholding the revival of the insolvency proceedings against real estate company Parsvnath Developers, a partial court working days Bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe declined to interfere with the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had affirmed the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT) decision to revive the insolvency process.

The appeal had been filed by the suspended directors of the company.

The dispute arose from loan facilities extended to Parsvnath Developers by Sammaan Capital from 2018 onwards. The outstanding debt was subsequently assigned to Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (ARCIL).

While the total debt was stated to be about Rs 942 crore, the insolvency proceedings relate to a default of around Rs 452 crore.

In February 2025, the NCLT permitted withdrawal of the financial creditor’s petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code after Parsvnath deposited Rs 75 crore.

The tribunal, however, made it clear that the creditor would be entitled to seek revival of the petition if the repayment schedule was not honoured.

ARCIL later abandoned the settlement, saying it was no longer commercially viable, and sought restoration of the insolvency proceedings.

The NCLT revived the petition in August 2025 and subsequently admitted Parsvnath Developers as well as its corporate guarantor into the insolvency process. The NCLAT upheld that decision, prompting the suspended directors to approach the Supreme Court.

Before the apex court, the appellants argued that the company’s attempts to negotiate a settlement after the revival order should not be treated as an acknowledgement of default. They contended that these efforts were made only to resolve the dispute and could not justify revival of the insolvency proceedings.

SC ruling highlights gap between right to walk and reality of footpaths

The Supreme Court’s recent judgment declaring access to well-maintained footpaths a fundamental right has brought renewed attention to India’s pedestrian infrastructure.

In its June 19 ruling, the Court held that the freedom to walk on demarcated footpaths forms part of the right to life under Article 21 and should take priority over movement by motorised vehicles.

Yet data from Indian cities suggest that the reality on the ground remains far removed from that vision.

Data from the Council for Active Mobility show that only 9-20 per cent of footpaths in major Indian cities comply with official standards. Delhi, despite having the country’s largest footpath network at 4,200 km, has only 18 per cent compliant footpaths. Mumbai fares worse at 12 per cent, while Kanpur records the lowest compliance at 9 per cent.

The findings are particularly striking because walking remains a major mode of transport. Around 34 per cent of all trips in Kolkata are made on foot, followed by Chennai at 33 per cent, and Mumbai and Indore at 31 per cent each.

Road safety data paint an equally concerning picture. Pedestrians and cyclists account for more than half of all road fatalities across the cities analysed, ranging from 56 per cent in Kanpur to 64 per cent in Chennai and Indore.

Nationally, pedestrian deaths have risen sharply over the past decade. According to data cited in India’s Road Safety Roadmap whitepaper by Road Safety Network, fatalities among pedestrians increased from 15,746 in 2016 to 35,221 in 2023, a rise of 124 per cent.

Experts say the poor state of footpaths reflects decades of prioritising vehicles over pedestrians.

“Everybody is looking at their own convenience- corporations, authorities, and road users. The broader issue of pedestrian safety is ignored,” said Dr Kumar Rakshe, Trustee, UnM Foundation (India…Walk Right).

He argues that pedestrian space is often sacrificed for motor vehicles. “The way vehicles are increasing on the roads, corporations are removing footpaths so that people can park. People think roads belong to them because they pay for them,” he said.