LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Madras Bar Association v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2020 INSC 666Decided 27 Nov 2020
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 804 of 2020
Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice Hemant Gupta · Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

Background

This was the latest round in a long-running dispute over how members of India's specialised tribunals (such as tribunals dealing with tax, company law, securities and competition matters) are selected and how long they serve. The Madras Bar Association challenged the "Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2020," arguing these rules, framed by the government after the Supreme Court had already struck down an earlier, similar set of rules in 2019 (the Rojer Mathew case), again failed to protect the independence of tribunals from executive control. Multiple connected petitions, transfer petitions and appeals on the same subject were clubbed together and decided in this single judgment.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that while the government has the power to frame these rules, several provisions of the 2020 Rules undermined judicial independence and needed modification. It directed that a National Tribunals Commission be set up to independently oversee tribunal appointments and discipline; restructured the Search-cum-Selection Committees to give the Chief Justice of India's nominee a stronger, casting-vote role; fixed a uniform five-year tenure for tribunal members with eligibility for reappointment, raised the retirement age to 67, and ordered the government to pay house-rent allowance if it could not provide housing. The Court also ruled that the 2020 Rules could only apply prospectively (from 12 February 2020) and not retrospectively, and it closed with a pointed "Epilogue" criticising the government for repeatedly re-issuing rules that ignored the Court's prior directions, warning this must stop.

Lesson Learnt

Even when the executive has the statutory power to frame rules for quasi-judicial bodies, those rules must still respect constitutional guarantees of judicial independence: the Supreme Court will keep striking down and rewriting rules that effectively let the government control who judges disputes against it, and how long they keep their jobs.

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