The Madhya Pradesh High Court has provided relief to students of 189 suitable nursing colleges linked to the fake recognition case. Colleges found using duplicate teaching faculty will have to pay a penalty before their students can appear in exams or get pending results.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued a significant order in cases related to alleged irregularities in nursing college recognition and operation, providing relief to students of 189 suitable nursing colleges.A division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice BP Sharma allowed eligible students to appear in examinations. The court also directed that results of students who had already appeared in exams should be released.The order came during the hearing of petitions, including a public interest litigation filed by Law Students Association president advocate Vishal Baghel.

₹3 lakh penalty for colleges with duplicate faculty

The High Court directed nursing colleges found having duplicate teaching faculty to deposit a penalty of ₹3 lakh per duplicate faculty member.Out of this amount, ₹2 lakh will be deposited with the Madhya Pradesh Nursing Registration Council (MPNRC), while ₹1 lakh will go to the Juvenile Justice Fund.The colleges will have to deposit the penalty amount within one month. Only after compliance will their students be considered eligible for examination-related relief.

CBI report highlighted faculty duplication

According to the CBI investigation report presented in the case, duplicate teaching faculty was found in several nursing colleges.The report mentioned that among colleges examined, cases of duplicate faculty were identified in both suitable and deficient categories.The High Court has made payment of the penalty a condition for such colleges to receive further relief for their students.

Students of BSc, MSc Nursing get relief

The order will benefit students enrolled in:

• BSc Nursing

• MSc Nursing

• Post Basic BSc Nursing

Students who had already appeared for examinations will now be able to receive their withheld results.For students whose examinations were pending due to the recognition-related dispute, the court order clears the way for conducting exams.

Colleges directed to plant 50 trees

Along with financial penalties, the High Court has also directed concerned colleges to plant 50 trees within their campus or nearby areas.The colleges will be responsible for maintaining the plants until they grow properly.Photographs of the plantation work will have to be uploaded on the Nisarg app as part of compliance.

Warning to MPNRC over recognition process

The court also issued directions to the Madhya Pradesh Nursing Registration Council (MPNRC) to exercise greater caution while granting recognition to new nursing colleges.The court said that officials responsible for inspections and ensuring compliance with prescribed standards could be held personally accountable for negligence.The court has also sought records of newly recognised nursing colleges.

Next hearing on September 24

The matter will be heard again on September 24, 2026.The court is expected to review compliance with its directions and further developments in the nursing college recognition case

The Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted relief to meritorious candidates involved in the 2018 teacher recruitment process, directing the state government to give eligible teachers another opportunity to fill their preferred school choices. The court has ordered that the process be completed within two months, after which postings will be made on the basis of merit.

The ruling came in a batch of 54 appeals filed by teachers, including Seoni middle-school teacher Sakshi Tamrakar, who challenged aspects of the posting process. The petitioners alleged that candidates with higher merit scores were denied the opportunity to select preferred schools, while some candidates with lower scores were allotted schools of their choice.

A division bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B P Sharma heard the matter and held that changes introduced after the recruitment process had begun could not adversely affect the rights of candidates. The court directed the state to provide meritorious candidates already posted under the Tribal Affairs Department an opportunity to participate in school choice filling under the School Education Department.

Dispute Linked to 2018 Recruitment

The matter dates back to the joint teacher recruitment process conducted in 2018 on the basis of the Teacher Eligibility Test for the School Education and Tribal Affairs departments.

According to the petitioners, several candidates from reserved categories had secured marks higher than candidates in the general category. Based on their merit, these candidates were appointed to schools under the Tribal Affairs Department.

However, subsequent directions issued in November and December 2022 reportedly prevented teachers who had already joined one department from participating in counselling and choice filling for available vacancies.

The petitioners argued that these later instructions altered the original recruitment process and deprived higher-merit candidates of an opportunity to choose schools according to their preferences.

Sakshi Tamrakar Case Highlighted

During the hearing, advocates Prashant Kumar Badarya, Anshuman Singh and Amit Kumar Chaturvedi represented the petitioners. The case of Sakshi Tamrakar was specifically highlighted before the court.

According to the petitioners, Tamrakar had completed document verification and her name had also appeared on the choice list. However, after she received an appointment letter from the Tribal Affairs Department, she was denied an opportunity to participate in the subsequent choice-filling process.

Two-Month Deadline for Choice Filling

The High Court has now directed the state government to provide the concerned meritorious candidates an opportunity to submit their school preferences within two months.

Their subsequent postings will be determined according to their merit and the applicable choice-filling policy.

The court also addressed the possible impact on teachers who are already working but may have lower merit. If such teachers are affected by the revised process, the state has been directed to accommodate them against available vacancies in the concerned department or another department.

The ruling is expected to provide relief to candidates involved in the long-running teacher recruitment dispute. It also reinforces the principle that the basic terms of a recruitment process and the rights flowing from them cannot be altered retrospectively in a manner that disadvantages candidates after the selection process has already commenced.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed all writ appeals challenging the decision to revisit the selection process for the Primary Teacher Selection Test 2025, paving the way for verification of RCI qualification claims and preparation of a fresh merit list.

A division bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma upheld the May 6, 2026 order of the single judge, which had directed the Madhya Pradesh Employees Selection Board to re-examine candidates who had claimed eligibility for 5% bonus marks on the basis of qualifications recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI).

The controversy affects the selection process for 13,089 primary teacher posts. According to the case details, a large number of candidates had received the additional marks after indicating in their online applications that they possessed the required RCI qualification. Subsequent verification raised questions over the eligibility of several candidates.

Bonus Marks Under Scrutiny

Under the recruitment rules, candidates holding an RCI-recognised special education diploma were eligible for an additional 5% bonus in the selection process.

The information provided in the case indicates that around 14,964 candidates claimed the RCI qualification and received the additional marks. However, RCI records reportedly showed that only about 5,271 candidates met the relevant qualification requirement.

The dispute arose because the online application system awarded the bonus marks when candidates selected “yes” against the RCI qualification field. The qualification documents were not verified at that stage.

Court Rejects ‘Mistake’ Argument

Some candidates approached the High Court arguing that they had mistakenly selected “yes” while filling out the application form. They sought removal of the bonus marks but requested that they should continue in the selection process on the basis of their actual examination scores.

The division bench, however, found no grounds to interfere with the earlier order. The court noted that candidates had been given opportunities to correct information submitted in their applications.

According to the court's reasoning as reported in the case, a candidate cannot seek to retain a benefit obtained from incorrect information after the result has been declared, particularly when opportunities had been available to rectify the information earlier.

Verification of RCI Certificates

Following the High Court's decision, the Employees Selection Board will have to undertake verification of the RCI certificates claimed by candidates who received the bonus marks.

Candidates whose claims are found to be unsupported by valid RCI-recognised qualifications will face cancellation of their applications or removal of the corresponding benefit, as directed under the recruitment process.

The verification exercise is expected to have a direct impact on the existing selection list because the removal of bonus marks can change candidates' relative positions in the merit order.

Fresh Merit List Expected

The earlier single-bench order had directed the selection authority to provide candidates claiming RCI eligibility an additional opportunity to submit the relevant qualification documents. After verification, candidates who fail to establish the required qualification are to be excluded from the applicable benefit.

A revised merit list will subsequently be prepared.

The process could therefore affect the appointments already linked to the 2025 primary teacher recruitment examination, particularly where candidates' positions depended on the disputed bonus marks.

Impact on Other Candidates

The High Court also considered the impact of retaining wrongly awarded bonus marks on candidates who had correctly provided their qualifications.

If candidates who were not eligible for the additional marks were allowed to retain them, it could adversely affect the ranking of candidates who had followed the rules while submitting their applications.

The court consequently declined to grant relief that would allow disputed bonus marks to remain part of the selection process.

Recruitment Process to Be Reworked

With the appeals dismissed, the recruitment authorities will now proceed with the next stage of verification and merit revision.

The broad process will involve checking RCI qualification documents, identifying candidates who do not meet the eligibility requirements, removing the disputed bonus benefit and preparing a revised merit list. Further appointments will then be processed according to the revised ranking and applicable recruitment rules.

The High Court's decision brings the immediate legal challenge to the disputed bonus-mark provision to an end, while leaving the selection authority with the task of completing the verification and fresh merit exercise.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has disposed of two petitions pending since 2018 that sought restrictions on tree felling in the state, directing the petitioners to first plant 25 fruit-bearing saplings each and submit a report to the court.

The order was passed on Thursday by a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal.

The court also asked the petitioners to undertake a factual assessment of trees cut during road construction and other development projects in Madhya Pradesh, along with the number of replacement saplings planted. The bench said that if the study establishes a need for further judicial intervention, the petitioners may approach the court again with a fresh petition supported by concrete data.

Petitions Filed in 2018

Jabalpur resident Vivek Kumar Sharma and Neemuch resident Anand Manawat had filed separate petitions in 2018 seeking restrictions on tree felling across Madhya Pradesh.

The petitions alleged that large numbers of trees were being cut for road and infrastructure projects without adequate compensatory plantation.

During the proceedings, the petitioners also referred to an earlier decision of a three-judge full bench of the High Court. On March 1, 2025, the full bench had struck down a September 24, 2015 notification that permitted the felling of trees belonging to 53 specified species.

Court Seeks Actual Numbers

During Thursday's hearing, the bench observed that nearly nine years had passed since the petitions were filed. Several highways and roads have been constructed in the state during this period, but the petitions did not contain precise figures showing how many trees had been removed and how many replacement saplings had subsequently been planted.

The court observed that simply alleging that trees are being felled without adequate plantation was not sufficient to establish the current situation.

According to the bench, a proper assessment based on verifiable data is necessary to determine the scale of tree loss and compensatory plantation across the state.

Indore Plantation Cited

The court also noted that it would not be appropriate to assume that only tree felling is taking place in Madhya Pradesh and that no plantation work is being carried out.

The bench referred to Indore's plantation drive involving around 12 lakh saplings as an example of large-scale plantation activity. The court noted that the anniversary of the plantation initiative had also been observed recently.

The bench further noted that the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation has set a target of planting 11 lakh saplings this year.

Petitioners Asked to Conduct Study

As part of the directions, both petitioners have been asked to plant 25 fruit-bearing saplings each and submit reports regarding the plantation.

They have also been asked to collect information on trees felled for roads and other projects and compare those figures with the number of saplings planted in their place.

The High Court said the petitioners can return to court with a fresh petition if their study, backed by concrete figures, demonstrates that further intervention is warranted.

The order effectively brings the long-pending petitions to an end while leaving open the possibility of future proceedings based on documented evidence.

The Jabalpur High Court has imposed an interim stay on the Madhya Pradesh government’s proposed purchase of school uniforms worth around ₹350 crore for students of government schools.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal has sought a response from the state government within a week. The uniform procurement process had been initiated through an open tender issued by the Madhya Pradesh Textbook Corporation.

Three Organisations Challenge Tender

The case was brought before the High Court by three organisations, including the Minority Backward Class Powerloom Weavers’ Association.

The petitioners argued that the procurement process initiated by the Textbook Corporation was in violation of the Madhya Pradesh Store Purchase Rules, 2023.

According to the petitioners, the tender process could adversely affect the livelihood of around 2 lakh families associated with the state’s powerloom and spinning mill sector.

Rules Provide for Direct Procurement

The petitioners have referred to provisions under the Madhya Pradesh Store Purchase Rules, 2023, which provide for direct procurement from eligible state undertakings and local producer groups in specified categories.

The rules also provide for procurement of cloth and related products from handloom weavers, cooperative societies, women’s self-help groups and local cooperative institutions.

The organisations have argued that these provisions should be followed while purchasing uniforms for government school students.

₹350 Crore Procurement on Hold

The proposed uniform procurement, estimated at ₹350 crore, has now been put on hold temporarily following the High Court’s interim order.

The court has asked the state government to submit its response within one week. Further proceedings will determine whether the procurement process can continue in its existing form or whether changes will be required.

Livelihood Concern for Weaver Families

The dispute has brought the livelihood of thousands of workers in Madhya Pradesh’s textile and weaving sector into focus.

The organisations challenging the tender have claimed that procurement from local weavers, cooperatives and other eligible groups is important for sustaining employment in the sector.

They have also argued that government procurement can provide a stable market for locally produced textiles and support families dependent on traditional and powerloom-based work.

Court’s Interim Order

For now, the ₹350-crore uniform procurement process remains under an interim stay.

The state government’s response is expected to clarify its position on the tender and the applicability of the 2023 Store Purchase Rules.

The High Court’s next proceedings will be closely watched by both the government and the organisations representing weavers and local producers, particularly because of the potential impact of the procurement decision on the state’s textile sector.

In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for cybercrime investigations and banking practices, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that law enforcement agencies should not freeze an entire bank account over a minor disputed transaction when less restrictive measures are available. The court directed that, wherever possible, only the amount linked to the alleged cyber fraud should be blocked rather than imposing restrictions on the entire account.

The judgment came while hearing a petition filed by Archana Shivhare, a Bhopal-based businesswoman, whose current account containing more than ₹2.51 crore was frozen following a suspected cyber transaction of just ₹980.

Justice Himanshu Joshi, presiding over the single bench, observed that freezing an entire bank account should remain an exceptional measure and must not become the standard response in cybercrime investigations.

Dispute Over ₹980 Transaction

According to the petition, Shivhare operates seven composite liquor outlets in Narsinghpur district, with all business transactions routed through a single current account.

In April 2026, the State Bank of India branch in Itarsi froze the account without prior notice. The action was reportedly taken following a cybercrime complaint registered under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that the alleged suspicious transaction involved only ₹980, while the account held more than ₹2,51,72,192.57. The petitioner requested that only the disputed amount be blocked if required for investigation, allowing access to the remaining legitimate funds.

Court Calls for Proportionate Action

Accepting the argument, the High Court observed that investigating agencies must distinguish between the amount allegedly connected to an offence and the lawful funds lying in the account.

The bench said that freezing an entire account despite the disputed amount being minimal was not a proportionate response. Instead, agencies should impose a lien or debit freeze only on the amount necessary for investigation wherever feasible.

The court clarified that complete freezing of an account should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances supported by written reasons.

Banks Also Have Responsibility

The High Court also underlined the role of banks in protecting customers' rights during such proceedings.

It observed that banks cannot simply act as passive executors of police instructions and direct customers to approach investigating agencies or courts. Instead, banks must immediately inform account holders about the reason for freezing, the details of the investigating authority and the available grievance redressal mechanism.

The court described banks as the first point of contact for customers affected by such actions and said they must actively facilitate the resolution process.

Statewide Guidelines Issued

To ensure uniform implementation across Madhya Pradesh, the High Court issued a detailed set of directions for banks, police authorities and investigating agencies.

Under the guidelines:

• Only the disputed amount should be frozen through a lien or debit restriction wherever possible.

• Entire bank accounts should be frozen only in exceptional cases supported by written reasons.

• Investigating officers must promptly inform the jurisdictional magistrate after ordering a bank account freeze.

• Banks must notify account holders about the freezing action, the reasons behind it and the grievance redressal process.

• Complaints received by banks must be uploaded to the designated portal within seven days.

• Investigating officers must pass a reasoned order within 15 days of receiving a complaint.

• If the complaint is accepted, banks must de-freeze the account within 48 hours.

• Where no valid order exists to continue the freeze beyond 90 days, restrictions may be lifted following the prescribed procedure.

• If investigators seek to continue freezing the entire account, they must issue a detailed and reasoned written order.

Court Directs Fresh Decision

The High Court directed the investigating officer to reconsider Shivhare's application in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure issued on April 10, 2026, along with the principles laid down in the judgment.

The court observed that if securing ₹980 is sufficient for the investigation, the remaining balance should be released immediately. However, if authorities believe freezing the entire account is necessary, they must provide detailed reasons supported by law.

The High Court further instructed the Madhya Pradesh government to circulate the judgment among all banks, police stations, cybercrime units and investigating agencies to ensure a uniform and legally compliant procedure for freezing bank accounts in cybercrime cases across the state.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued a notice to Kartikeya Singh Chouhan, son of former Chief Minister and Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, directing him to file his response within two weeks. The order was passed during the hearing of a petition related to a defamation case involving Congress MP Rahul Gandhi. The matter was heard by a single bench of Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal.

During the proceedings, the High Court also directed that all records related to the case pending before the MP-MLA Court in Bhopal be submitted for review. The court stated that it would examine the current status and previous orders before deciding the further course of action. The next hearing in the case has been scheduled for May 4, 2026.

The dispute dates back to the 2018 Madhya Pradesh Assembly elections. During a campaign rally in Jhabua, Rahul Gandhi allegedly linked Shivraj Singh Chouhan and his son Kartikeya to the Panama Papers controversy. While Gandhi later clarified his remarks regarding Shivraj Singh Chouhan, no explicit clarification was issued concerning Kartikeya Chouhan.

Based on this, Kartikeya Singh Chouhan filed a defamation complaint against Rahul Gandhi in the MP-MLA Court in Bhopal on October 30, 2018. He alleged that the statement had damaged his personal and public image. Subsequently, on February 27, 2025, the court took cognizance of the matter and issued a summons directing Rahul Gandhi to appear on May 9, 2025.

However, Gandhi did not appear before the court on the scheduled date. Following this, on May 10, 2025, the court issued a second summons asking him to appear on August 28, 2025. Later, on April 3, 2026, Rahul Gandhi challenged the summons by filing a petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

With the High Court now issuing a notice to Kartikeya Chouhan and seeking his response, the case has once again drawn attention to the legal implications of political statements. Legal experts believe the upcoming hearing will be crucial in determining the validity of the summons and the future course of the proceedings