Indian High Courts Tackle Diverse Legal Challenges

In a series of compelling public interest litigations and disputes, India's High Courts are once again at the forefront of addressing pressing societal and economic issues. From challenges to relaxed admission criteria in medical education that could compromise public health, to petitions seeking bans on international sports teams amid geopolitical tensions, and corporate battles over competition penalties, the judiciary is navigating complex intersections of constitutional rights, public policy, and global commerce. Recent filings in the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts highlight the judiciary's role in safeguarding merit, equality, and fairness, while a profile of a key legal figure offers insights into evolving approaches to justice. These cases underscore the dynamic nature of Indian law, with potential ramifications for education, sports, technology, and family estates.

Challenge to NEET-PG Cut-Off Reduction in Allahabad High Court

A significant public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Allahabad High Court has ignited debate over the balance between affirmative action and merit-based selection in postgraduate medical education. Advocate Abhinav Gaur has petitioned under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging a decision by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to drastically lower the qualifying cut-off scores for the NEET-PG 2025 examination. The PIL, registered by the Allahabad bench registry but yet to be listed for hearing, contends that the revision undermines academic standards and poses risks to public health.

The controversy stems from a notice issued by NBEMS on January 13, 2026, which reduced the qualifying percentile cut-off in line with directions from the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Originally, the cut-off for general category candidates stood at 276 marks out of 800, equivalent to the 50th percentile, while for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidates, it was 235, aligning with the 40th percentile. Under the revised criteria, general candidates now need only 103 marks, and SC/ST/OBC candidates, including those with benchmark disabilities, face a cut-off of minus 40—a percentile reduction to zero. This change came after the results were declared on August 19, 2025, and following two rounds of counselling by the Medical Counselling Committee, which left over 18,000 postgraduate seats vacant due to insufficient qualifiers.

Gaur's plea argues that allowing candidates with zero or negative scores to qualify "strikes at the core purpose of NEET-PG as a merit-based screening test." The petition emphasizes the specialized nature of postgraduate training in fields like surgery, internal medicine, anaesthesia, and paediatrics, which directly impact the healthcare system. It alleges that the decision is arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 16 (equality in public employment), and 21 (right to life and health). While acknowledging affirmative action for backward classes, the petitioner asserts that it does not justify abandoning minimum eligibility standards in a profession tied to public safety.

The PIL further criticizes the timing of the revision—post-results and mid-counselling process—as defeating legitimate expectations of candidates who prepared under the original norms. It claims the move erodes public confidence in medical education and burdens institutions with underprepared trainees. Gaur has sought a stay on the January 13 notification and quashing of the Ministry's January 9 communication.

Legally, this case revives tensions between reservation policies and meritocracy, echoing Supreme Court precedents like Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which capped reservations at 50% while allowing exceptions for extraordinary circumstances. For general category candidates with disabilities, the cut-off dropped from 255 to 90, amplifying claims of excessive disparity. If the court entertains the PIL, it could set precedents on post-facto changes in examination rules, potentially affecting future entrance tests like NEET-UG. Legal professionals in education and constitutional law should monitor this closely, as a ruling could influence how ministries balance seat vacancies with quality assurance, especially amid India's ongoing healthcare workforce shortages.

Petition to Bar Bangladesh from International Cricket in Delhi High Court

Shifting from medical admissions to the realm of sports and international relations, a PIL filed in the Delhi High Court seeks to ban Bangladesh from participating in international cricket, citing violence against Hindus in the country. Filed by Devyani Singh through advocate Pulkit Prakash, the petition targets the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), International Cricket Council (ICC), Sri Lanka Cricket Board, and Bangladesh Cricket Board as respondents. It specifically urges barring the Bangladesh team from the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup, jointly hosted by India and Sri Lanka next month.

The plea grounds its argument in human rights concerns, alleging that ongoing communal violence in Bangladesh against minorities, particularly Hindus, disqualifies the nation from sporting engagements with India. This move raises questions about the judiciary's jurisdiction over foreign policy and sports governance, areas typically reserved for executive and international bodies. Under Article 226, the PIL invokes the High Court's writ powers to enforce fundamental rights, but critics may argue it encroaches on diplomatic prerogatives.

For legal experts, this case tests the boundaries of PILs in non-justiciable domains. Precedents like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) affirm broad PIL scope for public interest, but courts often defer to the executive in international affairs, as seen in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002). If admitted, the petition could prompt discussions on linking sports diplomacy to human rights enforcement, potentially affecting bilateral ties. Sports lawyers and human rights advocates will watch for implications on ICC regulations, which prioritize apolitical participation, and whether this influences future bans or boycotts in global events.

Apple's Rejoinder in Delhi High Court Against CCI Penalties

In the corporate arena, Apple Inc. has filed a strong rejoinder in the Delhi High Court, denying any intent to delay proceedings in its ongoing tussle with the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The tech giant challenges Section 27(b) of the Competition Act, 2002, along with the CCI's Determination of Turnover or Income Regulations, 2024, and Monetary Penalty Guidelines, 2024. These provisions empower the CCI to impose penalties up to 10% of an enterprise's average global turnover or income over three years for anti-competitive practices, such as abuse of dominance.

The case arises from CCI probes into Apple's App Store practices, accused of anti-competitive conduct. Apple's writ petition, triggered by a March 2025 CCI order demanding audited financials for 2022-2024, argues that global turnover-based penalties are illegal and disproportionate, violating principles of territoriality under competition law. In its rejoinder to a joint affidavit by the Centre and CCI—which questions the petition's maintainability and accuses Apple of obstructing the probe—the company insists it seeks preemptive clarity on the law's validity, not evasion.

This challenge invokes Article 14's equality clause, contending that penalizing global income for India-specific conduct exceeds legislative intent. Drawing from Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. CCI (2017), where the Supreme Court limited penalties to relevant turnover, Apple's position could reshape enforcement against multinational giants. For competition lawyers, success here might cap penalties at domestic levels, easing burdens on tech firms while critics warn it could weaken antitrust deterrence. As CCI cases against Big Tech proliferate, this ruling will guide penalty calculations, impacting mergers and app ecosystem regulations.

Mewar Royal Family Property Dispute Escalates in Delhi High Court

Adding a layer of historical intrigue, the Delhi High Court has issued notice in a long-standing property dispute involving the Mewar royal family. Lakshyaraj Singh's plea seeks control over family assets, prompting the court to call for replies from his sisters, including Padmaja Kumari. Justice Prasad indicated he might hear Padmaja's counter-plea post-decision on Lakshyaraj's case, despite Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam's push for joint hearings.

The dispute centers on the validity of a purported will, with Nigam arguing, "Onus is on them to establish the validity of the will in the proceedings that they have initiated now." Citing judgments on testamentary succession, the advocate stressed fairness in trying interconnected matters together. Rooted in Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Indian Succession Act, 1925, the case involves partition of vast estates, including palaces and trusts.

This saga highlights challenges in royal successions post-1947, blending customary law with statutes. Legal practitioners in family and property law face precedents on will probate, as seen in Clarence Pais v. Union of India (2001). A resolution could redistribute assets worth crores, influencing heritage conservation and taxation. For the bar, it underscores the need for expertise in historical titles amid modern litigation.

Insights from Dr. Manoj Kumar: Beyond the Courtroom

Amid these courtroom battles, a reflective profile of Dr. Manoj Kumar, Additional Secretary in the Union Ministry of Law & Justice, offers a broader perspective on legal practice. In an interview with Bithika Anand, Kumar shares life-defining moments, emphasizing solutions beyond litigation. "That experience opened up my entire thinking as a professional. I realised that if I have to impact the lives of people, I need to move beyond the courtroom and go to the relevant table," he recalls of a policy-driven resolution.

Kumar's passion for wildlife, particularly tigers, serves as a metaphor for leadership: "The jungle teaches balance. The tiger teaches grace. You may be the king of the jungle, but you do not make noise when you move." Influenced by his father, he views work as "about how you touch lives," not milestones. This aligns with his policy work, bridging law and societal impact.

For legal professionals, Kumar's insights highlight the shift toward preventive lawyering and interdisciplinary approaches, especially in public policy. As PILs proliferate, his views remind practitioners of the judiciary's role in holistic justice.

Legal Implications and Broader Impacts

These cases collectively illustrate the Indian High Courts' expansive role under Article 226, addressing everything from educational equity to global commerce. In the NEET-PG matter, implications for Article 21 could redefine health rights, compelling regulators to prioritize competence over quotas. The cricket PIL probes PIL limits in diplomacy, while Apple's challenge may harmonize competition law with international norms, potentially reducing penalties for foreign entities and fostering investment.

The Mewar dispute reinforces probate rigors, aiding estate planners. Overall, these developments signal a judiciary vigilant against arbitrary executive actions, yet cautious on overreach. For the legal community, they open avenues in emerging practices like edtech regulation, sports arbitration, and antitrust for MNCs. With over 18,000 medical seats at stake and global firms like Apple in the fray, outcomes could reshape policies, enhance transparency, and bolster public trust in institutions.

As hearings progress, the bar must prepare for nuanced arguments balancing rights with pragmatism. These cases not only resolve immediate disputes but also mold India's legal evolution, ensuring justice remains accessible and equitable.