Archbishop Raphael Cheenath S.V.D. v. State of Orissa

Writ Petition (Civil) · Neutral citation not assigned (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 404 of 2008)Decided 2 Aug 2016
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 404 of 2008
Chief Justice T.S. Thakur · Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

Background

Following the August 2008 assassination of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati in Kandhamal district, Orissa, communal violence broke out between Hindu and Christian communities, resulting in dozens of deaths, thousands of displaced persons, and damage to hundreds of houses and over 200 churches/prayer houses. The Archbishop of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar filed this public interest petition (with three connected petitions) seeking adequate police deployment, proper relief-camp facilities, compensation for victims, an independent inquiry commission, CBI investigation into the violence, and special courts to try the offenders. The Supreme Court monitored the situation through a series of interim orders from September 2008 through subsequent years as the State of Orissa reported on relief and investigation measures.

Decision Breakdown

By the time of final disposal, the State had registered 827 cases of communal violence, of which 512 resulted in chargesheets and 315 in final reports (no offence made out or offenders not traced); of 362 completed trials, only 78 resulted in conviction (493 persons convicted, more remaining in appeal). The Court noted this high proportion of final reports and acquittals was "quite disturbing" and directed the State to review the 315 closed cases and the unjustified acquittals to ensure offenders are brought to book, and to examine root causes of the unrest to prevent recurrence. It declined, at this late stage with investigations already finalised, to hand over the probe to the CBI, noting the State had already set up two Special Courts (satisfying that prayer). The Court closed with a reminder, quoting the St. Xavier's College case, that minorities are "as much children of the soil as the majority" and deserve a sense of security and equality, and disposed of all the connected petitions with the directions given, without ordering a CBI transfer or separate commission of inquiry.

Lesson Learnt

Courts can keep ongoing supervisory oversight over a state's response to communal violence for years through a single writ petition, but once investigations and trials are substantially complete, they will generally decline to transfer probes to central agencies like the CBI, instead directing the state itself to revisit any troublingly high rate of closed cases or acquittals.

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case