Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 915Decided 9 Oct 2023
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 360 of 2021
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · J.B. Pardiwala · Manoj Misra

Background

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions for the better functioning of State Information Commissions (SICs) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He pointed out that most SICs are located only in state capitals and conduct hearings physically, forcing applicants and appellants from remote areas to travel long distances and bear heavy costs to pursue RTI complaints and appeals. He sought directions for SICs to offer virtual hearings, adopt user-friendly digital portals for filing and tracking cases, dispose of complaints within a fixed time frame, and ensure timely publication of annual reports and imposition of penalties on erring officials.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that access to Information Commissions is integral to the right to information, which flows from the right to equality (Article 14), free speech (Article 19(1)(a)), and the right to life (Article 21), and that access to justice itself is a constitutional right recognised under these provisions. Tracing the evolution of virtual hearings as a tool to overcome geographic and cost barriers, the Court directed that all SICs across the country must offer litigants the option of a hybrid (virtual or physical) mode of hearing, with the option link published in daily cause lists, to be implemented by 31 December 2023. It also directed that SICs must provide streamlined e-filing facilities and electronic service of process on Public Information Officers by the same deadline, that Central and State Ministries compile PIOs' email addresses within a month, and that the Department of Personnel and Training convene a coordination meeting of all Information Commissioners to implement these directions, with State Governments to provide necessary funding.

Lesson Learnt

The right to information is not just a statutory entitlement but is rooted in constitutional guarantees, and the courts can direct administrative bodies like Information Commissions to modernise their processes (virtual hearings, e-filing) so that citizens, especially those in remote areas, are not effectively denied access to justice by logistical or infrastructural barriers.

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