LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Gopala Krishna Kosaraju vs. Union of India & Anr.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026:DHC:7462-DBDecided 2 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
W.P.(C) 12692/2026CNR: DLHC010410682026
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya · Justice Tejas Karia

Background

A Public Interest Litigation was filed challenging the complete closure of scheduled commercial flights at Visakhapatnam Airport from August 2026 and the shifting of all such operations to a new Greenfield Airport at Bhogapuram, roughly 50 km from the city. The petitioner argued this was arbitrary, would inconvenience Visakhapatnam residents (including in medical emergencies), and that dual-airport arrangements already exist elsewhere in India (Goa, Delhi, Mumbai). The Union Government objected that an identical PIL was already pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and that Delhi was not the appropriate forum since the real impact was felt in and around Visakhapatnam.

Decision Breakdown

The Delhi High Court held that even though it technically had jurisdiction because the central government respondents are based in Delhi, the "dominant cause of action", the actual impact on affected residents and commuters, arose in and around Visakhapatnam, in Andhra Pradesh. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Kusum Ingots & Alloys v. Union of India, the Court applied the doctrine of "forum conveniens," under which a court may decline to hear a case on merits even if some part of the cause of action falls within its jurisdiction, if another court is clearly the more appropriate and connected forum. Since an identical PIL was already pending before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, entertaining this one in Delhi risked conflicting outcomes and duplicate litigation. The petition was dismissed on this jurisdictional ground alone, without any ruling on whether the airport closure itself was justified, leaving the petitioner free to pursue the matter in Andhra Pradesh.

Lesson Learnt

Even though multiple High Courts might technically have jurisdiction over a dispute involving the central government, courts will often send a case to whichever High Court is most closely connected to where the real-world harm is being felt, especially when a similar case is already pending there, filing in a "convenient" but less-connected court does not guarantee the case will be heard there.

Search on eCourtsView 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