M/S K.C.P. Ltd. v. Government of A.P. & Ors.

Civil Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Civil Appeal No. 5020 of 2005)Decided 12 Aug 2015
Civil Appeal No. 5020 of 2005
Justice Vikramajit Sen · Justice Shiva Kirti Singh

Background

The appellant operated distilleries producing industrial alcohol (rectified spirit/ethanol) from molasses. Andhra Pradesh's Rectified Spirits Rules, 1971 required a licence, payment of an administrative/excise fee, and an export permit fee before rectified spirit could be moved or exported out of the State. The appellant challenged the Rules as unconstitutional, arguing the State lacked legislative competence to impose these charges on industrial (non-potable) alcohol, which falls largely under Union control, and that in any case the fees did not satisfy the "quid pro quo" test required for a valid regulatory fee (as opposed to an impermissible tax). The High Court of Andhra Pradesh had upheld the Rules in full and dismissed the appellant's writ petitions.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that while States cannot tax industrial alcohol, they can validly charge a fee for services rendered in supervising production and preventing diversion of industrial alcohol into the potable (drinkable) liquor market, and such a fee need not strictly match cost-for-cost, only avoid being excessive. On this basis, the Court upheld the bulk of the 1971 Rules, including the administrative/licensing fee framework, as within the State's constitutional competence. However, it struck down Rule 15 (which imposed an "export permit fee" and restrictions on exporting rectified spirit outside the State) specifically, finding that this provision was not tied to any genuine supervisory service rendered by the State and instead functioned as a disguised tax intended to discourage export, something only the Union Government could validly impose. The Court noted it had addressed the underlying legal principles in a companion judgment of the same date, State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. South Indian Sugar Mills Assn., and did not repeat that reasoning in full here.

Lesson Learnt

A government cannot dress up what is really a tax as a "regulatory fee" to get around constitutional limits on its taxing power: a charge only qualifies as a legitimate fee if it is genuinely tied to a specific service or supervisory function the government actually performs, not merely to discourage or control an activity.

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