Key Supreme Court and Delhi High Court Judgments – June 2026

Delhi High Court: custody, service law, and public law constraints

Custody and overnight access

In D v. G, the Court set aside a family court order granting a father overnight custody of his minor son, holding that the child requires more time to acclimatise before staying overnight with him. A Division Bench of Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain modified the interim arrangement to better reflect the child’s history and emotional needs, illustrating the preference for gradual transition in contested custody situations.^[2]

CAG audit and show‑cause notices to discoms

In BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr v. GNCTD, the Delhi High Court refused to quash a show‑cause notice proposing a CAG audit of BSES distribution companies. Justice Tejas Karia held that writ petitions challenging mere show‑cause notices are ordinarily not maintainable, reaffirming judicial self‑restraint at the notice stage and leaving substantive objections to be raised before the authority.^[2]

Debarment, natural justice, and public contracts

In Grew Energy Private Ltd. v. NTPC Renewable Energy Ltd., the Court set aside an order suspending a solar module manufacturer from future tenders, treating the suspension as akin to debarment. It held that such orders cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and complying with principles of natural justice, thereby strengthening procedural fairness in blacklisting‑type actions by public sector entities.^[2]

CAT jurisdiction and “forum conveniens”

In Maheshwar Narayan Sharma & Ors v. M V Babu Svaminath & Ors., the Delhi High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s refusal to transfer a service matter from its Ernakulam Bench to Delhi. The Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla held that the “forum conveniens” doctrine cannot override Rule 6(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, which gives primacy to the applicant’s place of posting or the situs of cause of action in determining jurisdiction.^[2]

Burdensome writs and tribunal adjournments

In National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT) & Ors. v. Raj Kumar Tripathi & Ors., the Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a CAT order that merely adjourned a matter while continuing interim protection. Terming such petitions a burden on its docket, the Division Bench emphasised that approaching the High Court against routine adjournments is unwarranted when the tribunal has already fixed a proximate hearing date with a directive against further adjournment.^[2]

Exam model answer keys and judicial review

In Bisen Anshul Kumar v. Union of India & Anr., involving the UPSC Forest Service Examination, the Delhi High Court held that a challenge to the correctness of an official answer key is maintainable and distinct from seeking re‑evaluation of answer sheets. It ruled that courts can interfere where suggested answers in the key are patently incorrect, setting aside a CAT order which had dismissed the aspirant’s challenge without examining the key on merits.^[2]

This article highlights how, in June 2026, the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court simultaneously deepened rights‑based jurisprudence (privacy, reproductive autonomy, pedestrian safety, trafficking rehabilitation) and tightened procedural discipline in areas ranging from bail and recruitment to audits, debarment and examination processes.^[4]^[2]^[5]