SC Lets the NEET-UG Re-Test Proceed for 22 Lakh Candidates

Welcome to this week’s issue of the Indian Legal Brief (ILB). Here are the judgments, orders, regulatory changes, and developments that matter to your practice — without the noise.

The Supreme Court is in its partial-working-days regime until July 13, so the week again ran on vacation benches — and the headline news came from outside the courtroom as much as inside it. The NTA’s rescheduled NEET-UG exam went ahead on Sunday for some 22 lakh candidates after the Supreme Court declined to halt it, while the Delhi High Court upheld a temporary block on Telegram tied to the same leak. Off the exam beat, the regulators were busy: SEBI rewrote the rules on winding up alternative investment funds and on trading ETFs, and the RBI lifted deposit-rate caps to court NRI dollars. Add a clutch of vacation-bench orders, a Bombay High Court ruling that a shared auto-rickshaw is not a “workplace”, and Preity Zinta’s leave to sue Google over AI deepfakes, and there is plenty to get through. Here’s what happened.

Supreme Court Highlights

NEET-UG Re-Test Goes Ahead for 22 Lakh Candidates as SC Declines to Halt It

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant’s vacation bench — June 17, 2026

The week’s defining legal story unfolded partly in the Supreme Court and partly across thousands of examination centres. After the National Testing Agency cancelled the May 3 NEET-UG 2026 over a question-paper leak and ordered a fresh test, a writ petition by Dr. Mangala Kohli — a former Assistant Director General of Health Services — asked the Court to restrain the agency from holding the re-exam until her challenge was decided. On June 17, a vacation bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant declined to grant an urgent hearing or a stay, noting that the cluster of NEET-UG 2026 petitions is already before a bench led by Justice P.S. Narasimha, and directing that this plea be listed there once the Court resumes regular sittings on July 13.

With the legal path clear, the re-test went ahead on Sunday, June 21, for roughly 22 lakh registered candidates in a single afternoon shift across more than 5,000 centres — organised in a little over a month — under unusually heavy security: Aadhaar-based biometric and facial authentication, signal jammers, and large-scale CCTV monitoring. The NTA said it received no leak complaints. The Madras High Court, separately, declined a parallel plea on June 18 seeking a standard operating procedure for the re-exam, holding that it should not intervene while the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court.

Why it matters: The re-exam stands, but the legal challenges to how the NTA ran 2026 — the cancellation, the leak-batch identification, and the demand to move NEET to a computer-based test — survive to be heard by Justice Narasimha’s bench after July 13. Candidates, coaching institutes and counsel tracking exam-integrity litigation should treat the re-test as final for now while watching the July hearings, where the mode and conduct of the exam stay live.

West Bengal Voter-Roll Revision: SC Says a Struck-Off 50-Year Advocate “Ought to Be Included”

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana — June 19, 2026

The fallout from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls reached the Supreme Court in an individual case on June 19. A Murshidabad advocate who has practised since 1977 and voted for five decades found his name deleted from the West Bengal roll in the revision. Hearing his plea, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana observed that he “appeared to be entitled” to inclusion and ought to be on the list — but declined to pass a binding inclusion order itself, instead directing the SIR appellate authority to decide his appeal expeditiously, preferably within two months.

The Court’s reluctance to order inclusion directly — routing even a seemingly clear case back to the statutory appellate mechanism — is the practically important part, coming weeks after it upheld the legality of the SIR exercise in ADR v. ECI on May 27. Reporting around the hearing flagged the scale of the grievance: against several lakh inclusion applications, the final roll had added far fewer names.

Why it matters: For election-law practitioners handling SIR deletion cases — in West Bengal and the other revision states — the message is that the Supreme Court will channel individual exclusion grievances through the SIR appellate tribunal rather than adjudicate inclusions on the judicial side, even where the petitioner looks plainly genuine. Expect the appellate route, with a roughly two-month outer limit, to become the main battleground.

UAPA Undertrials Jailed Over 12 Years: SC Issues Notice on Their Bail Pleas

Bench: Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.M. Panchali — June 17, 2026

A vacation bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.M. Panchali issued notice on June 17 on the bail petitions of Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, two men arrested in March 2014 in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and now into their thirteenth year in custody with the trial far from over — the prosecution has cited several hundred witnesses. The Court did not grant bail; it sought the Delhi Police’s counter-affidavit by July 20 and listed the matter for July 28.

The order is a procedural step, not relief — but it adds to the running tension between the stringent bail bar in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and the Article 21 concern with prolonged pre-trial incarceration that the Court has flagged in several recent matters.

Why it matters: For defence counsel in long-running UAPA trials, the Court’s willingness to issue notice and fix a tight response timeline on a decade-plus detention is a useful data point on how the prolonged-incarceration argument is landing in 2026 — even where actual bail is deferred to a post-vacation hearing.

”RTI Activism Has Become a New Business”: SC Denies Anticipatory Bail

Bench: Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi — June 15, 2026

Refusing anticipatory bail to a self-described RTI activist accused of obstructing a centrally-funded road project in Punjab and intimidating officials, a vacation bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi was sharply critical of what it saw as activism shading into obstruction. The Court questioned the petitioner’s standing to “monitor” the project at all.

RTI activism has become a new business.

Justice Bishnoi pressed the point further: “Who are you to monitor the construction of these roads? Are you some superior authority? What authority do you have?”

Why it matters: These are oral observations on a bail plea, not a reasoned precedent on the Right to Information Act — but they are a pointed signal that courts will scrutinise the bona fides of “public-interest” actors where conduct crosses into obstruction of public works. Counsel advising activists, contractors or PSUs should note the Court’s readiness to deny pre-arrest protection in that scenario.

Other Notable SC Orders This Week

• Financier can’t claim insurance on a surrendered vehicle (June 20) — In K. Prakashchand v. Oriental Insurance Co. [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 634], a bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi held that a financier who takes back a surrendered vehicle has no privity with the owner’s insurer and cannot claim indemnity for its later theft; insurance is a personal contract, so financiers must arrange their own cover.
• ₹2 lakh costs on Chhattisgarh for a “frivolous” land-compensation appeal (June 20) — The same bench dismissed the State’s challenge to enhanced compensation for landowners whose property the PWD had occupied for road-building since the 1980s without acquisition, upheld the rate fixed by the High Court, and imposed ₹2 lakh costs for an “absolutely frivolous” appeal.

Regulatory Watch

SEBI Lets Funds Hold Back Money Past Their Life — and Creates an “Inoperative Fund” Status

June 16, 2026

SEBI issued a circular on June 16 reworking how alternative investment funds (AIFs) wind down. Two changes stand out. First, an AIF may now retain liquidation proceeds beyond its permissible fund life to meet pending or anticipated litigation, tax or regulatory demands and residual winding-up costs — instead of being forced either to distribute prematurely or to overstay its tenure while disputes drag on. Second, a fund that has substantially wound up but must still hold limited sums for such liabilities can apply for “Inoperative Fund” status: no new schemes, no management fees, retained money parked only in permitted liquid instruments, and relief from routine reporting, benchmarking and PPM-audit obligations, subject to an annual disclosure to SEBI and investors.

Why it matters: This fixes a structural headache for the PE/VC industry, where tail-end litigation or tax demands routinely outlast a fund’s life. Fund managers and their counsel should revisit winding-up timelines, LPA and PPM drafting, and whether existing tail vehicles should seek Inoperative Fund status rather than linger in limbo.

RBI Lifts Deposit-Rate Caps to Pull In NRI Dollars

Effective June 17, 2026

Building on the FCNR(B) forex-swap package it rolled out in early June, the Reserve Bank temporarily withdrew, with effect from June 17, the interest-rate ceiling on fresh FCNR(B) deposits of three-to-five-year tenor and removed the restriction tying three-year-plus NRE deposit rates to comparable domestic rupee rates. The relaxation covers fresh deposits and renewals (but not NRO-to-NRE conversions) and runs until September 30, 2026; the one-to-three-year FCNR(B) cap stays. Two days later, on June 19, the RBI told authorised-dealer banks to report — by 6 pm daily — all FCNR(B), external-commercial-borrowing and overseas-borrowing inflows mobilised under the swap window, with the first filing due June 22.

Why it matters: Banks can now both price NRI deposits above the old ceiling and hedge the currency risk through the RBI swap — a coordinated push to shore up forex inflows and the rupee, but on a hard September 30 sunset. Treasury and banking counsel should reprice three-to-five-year FCNR(B)/NRE products and stand up the daily-reporting compliance now.

Other Notable Regulatory Moves

• SEBI overhauls ETF trading (June 15) — A circular effective September 1 introduces a VWAP-based base price, dynamic 10%–20% price bands with a cooling-off, and a pre-open call auction for gold and silver ETFs, aimed at curbing ETF price dislocations.
• CCI clears TVS Group’s entry into asset management (June 16) — The Competition Commission approved TVS Emerald and TVS Venu’s acquisition of PGIM India’s asset-management and trustee businesses, marking the TVS Group’s move into the mutual-fund space.
• IRDAI floats M&A and rule-making consultations (June 16–17) — Draft frameworks would, among other things, permit the amalgamation of insurers with non-insurance companies and codify the regulator’s public-consultation process, with comment windows closing in early July.
• IBBI issues fresh IBC valuation guidelines (June 15) — New guidelines for registered valuers conducting fair-value and liquidation-value exercises, building on the International Valuation Standards adopted from April 1.

From the High Courts

Delhi HC Upholds a Temporary Block on Telegram, Tied to NEET Leak Prevention

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia — June 20, 2026

The Delhi High Court on June 20 declined to interfere with the government’s order under Section 69A of the IT Act temporarily blocking Telegram and disabling its message-edit feature — measures the Ministry of Electronics and IT had tied to preventing the circulation of leaked NEET-UG material around the re-exam. Justice Tejas Karia refused interim relief against the block, which was set to run until June 22 (with the edit-disable until June 30), and kept Telegram’s challenge alive for further hearing.

Why it matters: A live test of Section 69A’s reach over a messaging platform, and a marker of how readily courts will sustain time-boxed blocking orders framed around a concrete public-integrity harm. Platform and intermediary counsel should note the court’s willingness to let a §69A block stand at the interim stage rather than second-guess the executive’s necessity assessment.

A Shared Auto-Rickshaw Isn’t a “Workplace”: Bombay HC Quashes an SBI Harassment Finding

Bench: Justices Suman Shyam and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla — June 16, 2026

In Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India, the Bombay High Court set aside an order of SBI’s Internal Complaints Committee that had found an employee guilty of sexually harassing a colleague during a ride in a shared auto-rickshaw. A division bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that a shared mode of public transport not provided by the employer does not fall within the definition of “workplace” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, so the ICC had no jurisdiction over the complaint.

The Court was careful to add that it had not examined the merits of the allegation — only the ICC’s authority to adjudicate it — leaving the complainant free to pursue other remedies.

Why it matters: A significant jurisdictional line for POSH practice: employer-provided transport can be a “workplace”, but an employee’s own shared commute is not. HR teams, internal committees and employment counsel should map this to their harassment policies and jurisdiction objections — and note the Court’s reminder that quashing on jurisdiction says nothing about the truth of the underlying complaint.

Preity Zinta Gets Leave to Sue Google Over AI Deepfakes and Chatbot Personas

Bench: Justice Abhay Ahuja — June 16, 2026

The Bombay High Court granted actor Preity Zinta leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to sue Google and sixteen others over AI-generated deepfakes, manipulated images and chatbot “personas” using her name and likeness. Justice Abhay Ahuja’s order is procedural — it clears the jurisdictional hurdle to let the personality-rights suit proceed — but it adds to a fast-growing body of Indian litigation over the misuse of public figures’ identity by generative-AI tools.

Why it matters: Another data point in the rapidly developing law of personality and publicity rights in the AI era, following similar suits by other public figures. IP and media counsel should watch how the Court frames the substantive reliefs — takedown, disclosure and platform obligations — once the suit is heard on its merits.

”New Indian Express” Can’t Operate Beyond the South: Bombay HC Upholds a Trademark Limit

Bench: Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande — June 15, 2026

A division bench of the Bombay High Court affirmed an interim injunction restraining Express Publications (Madurai) from using the “Indian Express” mark for its “New Indian Express” title outside the southern states. The dispute traces to the 1995 settlement (supplemented in 2005) that divided the Express media group after Ramnath Goenka’s death: the bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande read that settlement as giving the Madurai company only a limited, geographically-bounded right of use — not ownership of the mark — and found no “perversity” in the single judge’s injunction.

Why it matters: A useful illustration of territorially-bounded concurrent trademark use and of how family or business settlement agreements continue to govern brand rights decades later — relevant to media-IP and trademark practitioners handling co-existence and split-brand disputes.

Other Notable High Court Orders

• Madras HC restrains the Telugu Drishyam 3 OTT release (June 17) — Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted an interim injunction stopping the OTT release of the Telugu-dubbed Drishyam 3, protecting a producer’s exclusive Telugu remake and exploitation rights [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 264].
• Karnataka HC dismisses a PIL against the D.K. Shivakumar cabinet with ₹50,000 costs (June 16) — Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha called the petition — which argued the Council of Ministers must be at least 12% of the Assembly — a “complete misreading” of Article 164(1A) and a “publicity stunt”.
• MP HC lifts the stay on a defamation arrest warrant against TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee (June 17) — Vacating a November 2025 stay after no one appeared for him, the High Court cleared the way for execution of a Bhopal court’s warrant in Akash Vijayvargiya’s defamation complaint.
• Delhi HC declines interim relief in Anjana Om Kashyap’s defamation suit against “Khan Sir” (June 17) — Justice Madhu Jain passed no interim injunction in the anchor’s and TV Today’s ₹2-crore suit against educator Faisal “Khan Sir” Khan over NEET-coaching remarks, posting the matter to July 2.
• Calcutta HC closes the Yoga Day participation plea (June 18) — Justice Amrita Sinha disposed of a state-employees’ challenge after West Bengal clarified that attendance at the June 21 International Yoga Day event was voluntary, with no consequence for staying away.

At the Bar

Karnataka HC Makes State Bar Council Poll Results Hinge on Malpractice Complaints

June 15, 2026

Hearing petitions by two contesting candidates, the Karnataka High Court directed the State Bar Council and its returning officer to place the remaining malpractice complaints from the March 2026 KSBC elections before the High-Powered Election Committee, and made the declared results subject to the outcome of that scrutiny. The petitioners had alleged irregularities in polling and counting and sought the underlying CCTV footage and ballot records.

Why it matters: Bar-governance disputes are increasingly being routed through the dedicated election-tribunal machinery the Supreme Court has pushed states to set up. For candidates and bar bodies, the ruling underlines that results can be held hostage to unresolved malpractice complaints — and that the HPEC, not a writ court, is where those fights will be decided.

Other Notable at the Bar

• Telangana HC advocates protest “outsider” elevations (June 17) — The Telangana High Court Advocates’ Association demanded that future High Court elevations be confined to advocates of Telangana origin, resolving to petition the CJI, the Collegium and the government — the latest flashpoint in the recurring “local versus outsider” debate over judicial appointments.

What We’re Watching Next Week

• SIR citizenship referrals — The four-week deadline from the May 27 ADR v. ECI judgment for the ECI’s first citizenship referrals falls around June 24; watch the first referral lists, compliance affidavits and any review petitions.
• NEET-UG before Justice Narasimha’s bench — The bundle of NEET-UG 2026 challenges — cancellation, leak-batch and the computer-based-test demand — is to be heard after the Court resumes regular sittings on July 13.
• Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam — Fresh trial-court bail pleas in the Delhi-riots conspiracy case are listed for July 4.
• Anil Ambani — An expected NCLAT appeal against the personal-insolvency admission, and the next steps in the Bombay HC Black Money Act challenge.
• Sabarimala and the parked references — The nine-judge Sabarimala verdict and the §138/IBC and §392 CrPC larger-bench references remain unlikely to move until regular sittings resume on July 13.

That’s all for this week. If a colleague would find this useful, forward them this page — or better yet, ask them to subscribe.