LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India (with Foundation for Restoration of National Values v. Union of India)

Writ Petition (Civil) · Neutral citation not assigned (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 444 of 2013)Decided 8 May 2017
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 444 of 2013
Justice Madan B. Lokur · Justice Deepak Gupta

Background

These two writ petitions were filed under Article 32 after the devastating 2013 Uttarakhand flood and landslide disaster, alleging that the damage could have been reduced had the Disaster Management Act, 2005 been properly implemented, and seeking Court directions to ensure States and the Union actually complied with the Act's requirements (national/state/district disaster plans, relief standards, advisory committees, etc.). Over several years of hearings, the Court monitored compliance as States were initially slow to respond and the Union government and National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) gradually pushed implementation forward.

Decision Breakdown

By 2017, the Court found that a National Advisory Committee and National Executive Committee had been constituted, a National Plan and minimum relief guidelines had been published, State Disaster Management Authorities and Executive Committees existed in nearly all States/UTs, State Disaster Management Plans were in place in all States except two, and District Disaster Management Plans existed in 615 of 684 districts with the rest in process. On the petitioner's specific request for a direction to constitute advisory committees under Section 17 of the Act, the Court held the provision was discretionary ("may"), not mandatory, so no direction could be issued. Finding substantial compliance overall, the Court declined to issue further specific directions but urged NDMA to stay vigilant, publish regular Annual Reports, update plans, and make its website multilingual, and disposed of both writ petitions while commending the petitioners for highlighting the issue.

Lesson Learnt

Public interest litigation can be an effective, sustained tool to compel government compliance with a statute's institutional requirements over years of court monitoring, but courts will not convert a permissive statutory provision ("may") into a mandatory judicial direction, however well-intentioned the request.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

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