20 January 2026 Legal Updates

High Courts Must Decide Plea To Vacate Interim Orders Within Two Weeks Under Article 226(3): Supreme Court

(a) Case Title:

• Giriraj and Others v. Mohd. Amir and Others

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• January 16, 2026

(d) Bench:

• Justice Aravind Kumar & Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose when the Allahabad High Court passed an ex parte interim order directing status quo in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The aggrieved party filed an application seeking vacation of the interim order in January 2025, but the High Court failed to decide the application for several months. This prolonged continuation of the interim order prompted the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

The petitioners contended that such delay violated Article 226(3) of the Constitution, which mandates a time-bound disposal of applications seeking vacation of interim orders.

Issues Raised

• Whether a High Court is constitutionally bound to dispose of an application filed under Article 226(3) within two weeks?
• Whether failure to decide such an application defeats the purpose of Article 226(3)?
• Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the merits of the interim order in such cases?

Contentions of the Petitioner

• The petitioners argued that Article 226(3) imposes a mandatory constitutional obligation on High Courts to decide applications seeking vacation of interim orders within two weeks.
• They contended that keeping the application pending for months amounts to abuse of writ jurisdiction.
• It was submitted that prolonged interim protection causes serious prejudice and defeats the constitutional safeguard introduced by the 44th Constitutional Amendment.

Contentions of the Respondent

• The respondents did not seriously dispute the constitutional mandate.
• It was pointed out that the matter was already listed before the High Court on a near date, and therefore no interference by the Supreme Court was necessary.
• The respondents urged that the Supreme Court should not examine the merits of the interim order.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Interpretation of Article 226(3):

• The Court emphasised that Article 226(3) uses mandatory language.
• Once an application seeking vacation of an interim order is filed, the High Court must dispose of it within two weeks.

2. Constitutional Discipline:

• The Bench observed that Article 226(3) was inserted to prevent misuse of ex parte interim orders.
• Allowing such applications to remain undecided defeats the constitutional balance between judicial discretion and fairness.

3. Limited Scope of Supreme Court’s Interference:

• The Court clarified that it was not examining the merits of the dispute or the interim order.
• The intervention was limited to ensuring compliance with constitutional procedure.

Final Verdict

•  The Special Leave Petition was disposed of.
•  The Supreme Court requested the Allahabad High Court to:
  - Take up the application seeking vacation of the interim order
  - Decide it expeditiously and on its own merits
• No opinion was expressed on the substantive rights of the parties . 

Legal Principles Established

1. Mandatory Nature of Article 226(3):

• High Courts are constitutionally bound to decide applications seeking vacation of ex parte interim orders within two weeks.

2. Automatic Vacation of Interim Orders:

• If the application is not decided within two weeks, the interim order stands vacated by operation of law.

3. Purpose of Article 226(3):

Inserted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978 to:

• Prevent abuse of writ jurisdiction
• Ensure fairness to the affected party
• Avoid indefinite continuation of interim reliefs

4. Interim Orders Are Not Final Relief:

• Ex parte interim orders are temporary and conditional
• They cannot continue indefinitely without judicial scrutiny

5. Supreme Court’s Supervisory Role:

• The Supreme Court can intervene to enforce constitutional discipline, even without examining merits.

Supreme Court Extends 30% Women Reservation To Punjab & Haryana Bar Council Elections To Ensure Gender Representation

(a) Case Title:

• Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• 17th January 2026

(d) Bench:

• Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Facts of the Case

The case arose out of a writ petition filed by Advocate Yogamaya, seeking directions to ensure adequate representation of women advocates in State Bar Council elections across India.

Earlier, by an order dated 8 December 2025, the Supreme Court had directed that 30% representation for women advocates must be ensured in State Bar Councils where elections had not yet been notified. However, elections in Punjab & Haryana Bar Council were exempted on the assumption that the election process had already begun.

Subsequently, it was brought to the Court’s notice that in Punjab & Haryana, only the voter list had been finalised and the actual election process had not commenced. On this basis, the petitioner sought extension of the 30% women reservation rule to Punjab & Haryana as well.

Issues Raised

• Whether the Supreme Court can extend its earlier direction on 30% women reservation to Punjab & Haryana Bar Council elections?
• Whether gender representation in Bar Councils is a constitutional necessity?
• Whether such directions fall within the permissible limits of judicial power under Articles 142 and 21?

Contentions of the Petitioner

• Women advocates remain grossly under-represented in Bar Council leadership despite increasing numbers.
• Ensuring women’s participation is essential to constitutional equality under Articles 14 and 15.
• Since elections in Punjab & Haryana had not formally commenced, the exemption granted earlier should be withdrawn.
• Bar Councils are statutory bodies performing public functions, hence constitutional values must apply.

Contentions of the Respondents

• The Bar Council of India (BCI) and some State Bar Councils expressed concerns regarding:
  - Judicial overreach into policy matters
  - Possible disturbance of the election process
• It was argued that changes in reservation norms should ideally come through legislative or regulatory frameworks, not judicial mandates.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Interpretation of Constitutional Equality

The Court held that gender representation in professional bodies is directly linked to:

• Article 14 (Equality before law)
• Article 15 (Non-discrimination)
• Article 21 (Dignity and meaningful participation)

2. Applicability to Punjab & Haryana

• Since only the voter list was finalised, the election process had not begun.
• Therefore, the earlier exemption granted to Punjab & Haryana was factually incorrect and liable to be withdrawn.

3. Judicial Restraint under Article 142

• The CJI cautioned that Article 142 should not be used for blanket policy-making.
• However, limited intervention was justified to enforce constitutional values, not to redesign institutional structures.

4. Method of Reservation

• For the present election year:
  - 20% seats through election
  - 10% seats through co-option
• This mechanism balances democratic process with affirmative action.

Final Verdict

• The application was allowed.
• The Supreme Court:
  - Extended 30% women reservation to Punjab & Haryana Bar Council elections.
  - Directed that the reservation framework apply mutatis mutandis.
• The issue of increasing Bar Council strength was kept open for further consideration with assistance from the Attorney General of India.

Legal Principles Established

 1. Gender Representation as a Constitutional Mandate

• Meaningful participation of women in professional governance flows from Articles 14, 15 & 21.

2. Bar Councils Perform Public Functions

• Though elected bodies, Bar Councils are statutory authorities under the Advocates Act and must comply with constitutional norms.

 3. Judicial Restraint under Article 142

• Article 142 is not a tool for policy creation, but may be used to bridge constitutional gaps temporarily.