LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation vs. Union of India

Not available · 2025 INSC 1101Decided 12 Sept 2025
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

This long-running combined matter has two strands: a 1998 writ petition by the Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation seeking full implementation of disability-rights legislation (reservation of posts for persons with disabilities), and a separate case concerning shocking conditions (overcrowding, poor medical care, and abuse) at Asha Kiran Home, a Delhi government institution for persons with cognitive disabilities. Despite Supreme Court orders since 2014-2016 directing all States/UTs to comply with disability laws and reform such institutions, compliance remained patchy, prompting the Court to examine a detailed Expert Panel report on the state of such care homes nationwide.

Decision Breakdown

The Court reviewed international law (UNCRPD, UDHR, ICCPR) and Indian law (the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016) on disability rights, dignity, and community living, and endorsed the Expert Panel's recommendations for reforming institutional care, including individualized resident profiling, better healthcare and therapy access, education and vocational training, accessible infrastructure, grievance mechanisms, and phasing out large institutions in favour of community-based living. It launched a structured nationwide monitoring exercise named "Project Ability Empowerment," assigning eight National Law Universities to audit State-run care institutions for persons with cognitive disabilities across different regions of India. The Court also flagged a specific inequity: unlike general reservation categories, meritorious disabled candidates who score above the general cut-off are not given "upward movement" to the unreserved category, effectively shrinking opportunities for other disabled candidates, and directed the Union of India to explain what steps are being taken to fix this by 14 October 2025. The matter was posted for further hearing in March 2026.

Lesson Learnt

Disability rights in India are constitutionally grounded in equality and dignity (Articles 14, 19, 21), requiring not just paper compliance but active, monitored institutional reform; and reservation policies for persons with disabilities must genuinely benefit those most in need, including through mechanisms like upward mobility for meritorious candidates.

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