Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2018 INSC 223Decided 9 Mar 2018
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2005
Chief Justice Dipak Misra · Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Justice A.K. Sikri · Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice Ashok Bhushan

Background

Common Cause, a registered society, had filed this public-interest writ petition back in 2005 asking the Court to recognise a "right to die with dignity" as part of the right to life under Article 21, and to direct the government to put in place a legal framework for "living wills" / advance medical directives: documents by which a person can state in advance that they do not want to be kept alive by artificial life support if they later become terminally ill or permanently unconscious. A three-judge Bench referred the matter to this larger five-judge Constitution Bench in 2014 because of doubts about an earlier ruling (Aruna Shanbaug) that had allowed passive euthanasia only in narrow circumstances and without a clear framework for advance directives.

Decision Breakdown

The Constitution Bench unanimously held that the right to die with dignity is part of the right to live with dignity under Article 21, and that an adult of sound mind has the right to refuse medical treatment, including withdrawal of life support, as an exercise of bodily autonomy and self-determination. It held that passive euthanasia (withdrawing or withholding treatment that is merely prolonging the dying process) is legal, and, going further than Aruna Shanbaug, ruled that a mentally competent adult can execute an "advance medical directive" (living will) specifying in advance that no artificial life support should be given if they become terminally ill or are in a permanent vegetative state. Because Parliament had not yet legislated on the subject, the Court itself laid down a detailed procedural framework and safeguards (covering how a living will is to be executed, certified, and later acted upon by medical boards) to govern advance directives until a proper law is enacted, and expressed hope that the legislature would step in soon.

Lesson Learnt

Every adult in India now has a recognised legal right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, including life support, and can put this in writing in advance through a living will/advance medical directive: this is one of the most significant Indian judgments on personal autonomy and dignity in dying, giving ordinary citizens a concrete legal tool to control end-of-life medical care.

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