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

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 77Decided 24 Jan 2023
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2005
K.M. Joseph · Ajay Rastogi · Aniruddha Bose · Hrishikesh Roy · C.T. Ravikumar

Background

In 2018, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court recognised the right of a terminally ill person to refuse life-prolonging treatment and laid down detailed safeguards for making and acting on an "Advance Directive" (a living will). Those safeguards required, among other things, that the document be countersigned by a Judicial Magistrate, that the Magistrate keep copies and inform the family, that a hospital Medical Board of senior specialists with 20 years' standing certify the withdrawal of treatment, and that the District Collector then form a second board to confirm it. The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine applied to the Court saying that, in practice, these steps had proved so cumbersome that almost no one had been able to use the procedure, and that the very object of the 2018 judgment was being defeated.

Decision Breakdown

The Court noted that ordinarily it would not entertain an application to "clarify" a final judgment, but the Union of India had itself held discussions with medical experts on possible changes, and the practical obstacles reported by doctors made a revisit necessary. It therefore modified the 2018 guidelines to make them workable: the living will now needs attestation before a notary or Gazetted Officer instead of a Judicial Magistrate; the Magistrate's role in preserving copies and informing the family is deleted, and the person may instead give copies to their named nominees, family doctor and local-body custodian, or attach it to their digital health records. The hospital's Primary Medical Board is now the treating physician plus at least two specialists with five years' experience (not 20), which should decide preferably within 48 hours; the Secondary Medical Board is formed by the hospital itself with one doctor nominated by the District Chief Medical Officer and two further specialists, again within 48 hours, replacing the earlier Collector-constituted board. A person may name more than one guardian or relative to give consent on their behalf. The application was disposed of with these modifications and the order was circulated to all High Courts and State health secretaries.

Lesson Learnt

Any adult of sound mind can now make a living will stating when life support should be withdrawn, by signing it before two witnesses and a notary or Gazetted Officer: no court visit is needed. When a right exists on paper but the procedure makes it unusable, the Court can revise its own safeguards so the right becomes real.

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Sultan Singh (Dead) Thru. LRs v. The Financial Commissioner Govt. of NCT of Delhi

The Supreme Court held that whether a deceased female Bhumidhar's land passes to her own direct heirs or reverts to her late husband's male relatives depends on what her personal law said about her property rights on the date she died, not on the date she first acquired the land. Since the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force before Khajano's death in 1973, Section 14(1) of that Act had already converted her earlier limited life-interest into full, absolute ownership. Because she held the land absolutely at death, succession was governed by Section 53 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (which favours her own direct descendants), not Section 50 (which would have sent it back to her first husband's male lineage). The Court dismissed the appeal by the Reversioners and upheld the High Court's ruling in favour of Khajano's sons.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Raghunath (Now Deceased, through LR) & Anr. vs. Bharat Bhushan (Deceased, through LRs) & Ors.

The High Court held that the Will's operative words "my above said property" clearly referred to the whole property, not just the shop, since the testator would have used a narrower phrase like "the said shop" if that was intended. The exclusionary phrase "to the exclusion of all other legal heirs" reinforced this reading, and the separate, differently-worded bequest of another flat (split by percentage shares) showed the testator knew how to limit a bequest when he wanted to. The appeal was dismissed and the trial court's decree upheld.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

JK Paper Ltd. v. Bipinchandra Natwarlal Shah & Ors.

This is not a final decision on the main case. The Supreme Court disposed of the cross-appeals while leaving valuation and disputed possession facts for the High Court to decide. It continued the stay for two months and required JK Paper to deposit an additional ₹15 crore with the High Court's Registrar General within that period, without prejudicing either side's arguments. A timely deposit would keep the stay in force until further High Court orders; failure would revoke it and allow the landowners to pursue enforcement. The Court rejected the company's argument that a known gorge and waterlogging reduced the usable area, and barred it from raising that issue before the High Court. It requested expedited disposal of the pending compensation appeals, taking account of delivery of the remaining land in November 2025.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Vijay Pal vs. Bharat Singh (Since Deceased, through LRs) & Ors.

The High Court held that even where no formal title document exists for land in an old village Abadi area, a claimant must still affirmatively prove continuous possession through credible evidence: mere oral assertions are not enough, especially when a court-appointed Local Commissioner's report found the land lying vacant with waste dumped on it. Since this was a concurrent factual finding by two lower courts with no substantial question of law in the appellant's favour, the Second Appeal was dismissed.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Smt. Swaraj Chopra vs. Smt. Shanti Devi (since deceased, through LRs) & Ors.

The Court held that even though the agreement fixed no exact deadline for performance, the law still expects enforcement within a "reasonable" period, and under Article 54 of the Limitation Act a suit must be filed within three years of being refused performance or gaining notice of an adverse claim. Since both the demand and the lawsuit came far beyond any reasonable or statutory limitation period, the suit, and this second appeal, were rightly dismissed as time-barred.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Ashok Kumar (since deceased, through LRs Pushpa & Ors.) vs. Nirmala Devi & Anr.

The appellants argued that the property had been divided through a family partition and that the concurrent findings on tenancy were wrong. The Court found that the partition defence was unsupported by documentary evidence and was inconsistent with the testimony of the defence witness. It held that Ashok Kumar was estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from denying the landlord's title, and that the decree for possession rested on a proven tenancy and a valid sale deed. Since no substantial question of law arose, the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case