There was a sense of unfinished business in Court No. 8 of the Supreme Court of India on Monday afternoon. A packed cause list, dozens of lawyers waiting their turn, and finally, a brief order that pushed a long-running matter to another date. The bench dealing with Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others versus Union of India & Others chose not to proceed substantively, citing a practical hurdle.
Background
The case, filed as a writ petition back in 2016, has since grown into a cluster of connected petitions, intervention applications, and even contempt matters. At its heart lies a challenge connected to recruitment processes being followed by various states. Over the years, multiple applicants have approached the court either supporting or opposing different aspects of the recruitment framework, making the case both bulky and sensitive.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects State's Land Acquisition Appeal, Upholds Enhanced
To assist the court in navigating these issues, senior advocate Rishi Malhotra had earlier been appointed as amicus curiae, or friend of the court. His role has been crucial in presenting a neutral overview, especially given the number of states and stakeholders involved.
Court’s Observations
When the matter was called out on December 16, the bench noted straightaway that the amicus was not available. Without him present, the judges were reluctant to take up arguments that could have wider implications.
“The bench observed that since the learned amicus curiae is not available today, it would be appropriate to re-list the matters,” the order records in plain terms. The atmosphere in court reflected agreement rather than surprise; several counsel were seen nodding quietly.
Importantly, the judges also addressed a concern many states had raised earlier - whether ongoing recruitment exercises would have to be frozen because of the pending litigation.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Declines Arbitration Route in New India Assurance–HDFC Bank Lease Dispute
Decision
The court decided to adjourn the entire batch of matters to January 13, 2026 at 3:00 pm. However, it made one thing clear before rising for the day. All states, the bench directed, may continue with their recruitment processes in the meantime, provided they act “in accordance with law.”
With that short but significant clarification, the bench closed the proceedings, leaving the larger questions to be taken up after the new year
Case Title: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2016
Case Type: Writ Petition (Civil)
Decision Date: 16 December 2025