LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Lok Prahari (through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla, IAS Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2021 INSC 261Decided 20 Apr 2021
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1236 of 2019
Chief Justice S.A. Bobde · Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul · Justice Surya Kant

Background

This PIL was filed seeking directions to deal with the massive and growing backlog of cases in India's High Courts: then over 57 lakh cases pending, with roughly 40% of High Court judge posts vacant. The petitioner urged the Court to activate Article 224A of the Constitution, a long-dormant provision that lets a High Court's Chief Justice, with the President's prior consent, call back retired High Court judges to sit as "ad hoc judges." The Union of India and several High Courts filed affidavits responding to the Court's queries on how such a mechanism could practically work.

Decision Breakdown

The Court traced the history of Article 224A from the Constituent Assembly debates through its removal in 1956 and reintroduction in 1963, and held that there is nothing to stop its use today even if its original purpose was somewhat different, since "change is the only constant." It ruled that recourse to Article 224A should not be used as a substitute for making regular judicial appointments, and laid down a detailed set of guidelines: trigger points for invoking it (e.g., vacancies over 20% of sanctioned strength, large backlogs of cases older than five years); an "embargo" that bars its use if more than 20% of regular vacancies remain unfilled through pending recommendations; a vetting process for selecting retired judges; a roughly three-month timeline for completing appointments; a tenure of two to three years; two to five ad hoc judges per High Court; assignment mainly of cases over five years old; and emoluments at par with a sitting judge (minus pension), with no other legal work permitted for such judges. Rather than closing the case, the Court kept it pending under the doctrine of "continuing mandamus," directing the Ministry of Justice to report back on progress after four months.

Lesson Learnt

The Supreme Court can use a continuing mandamus to compel ongoing institutional reform rather than issuing a one-time order, and citizens can use PILs to prod the state into using existing-but-unused constitutional tools (here, retired judges filling in) to tackle systemic problems like judicial backlogs, rather than waiting indefinitely for new appointments.

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