LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2021 INSC 758Decided 18 Nov 2021
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 229 of 2014
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Background

A registered trade union of officers of central public sector enterprises, along with a former Hindustan Zinc Limited (HZL) employee, challenged the Union Government's plan to sell its remaining 29.54% shareholding in HZL. HZL had originally been nationalised in 1966 and was progressively privatised through disinvestments starting in the 1990s and a major 2002 sale that handed majority control to a private group (Sterlite/Vedanta entities). The petitioners argued the further sale of the residual stake violated the Supreme Court's own 2003 ruling in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, which restricts disinvestment of genuine government companies without parliamentary sanction, and also alleged irregularities in the original 2002 disinvestment.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held the petition was not barred by res judicata merely because an earlier, similar writ petition had been summarily dismissed without a decision on merits. It ruled that the 2003 Centre for Public Interest Litigation precedent did not apply here because HZL had already ceased to be a "government company" by the time of this residual-stake sale: the Union held only a minority stake by then. The planned sale of the residual 29.54% was therefore not barred, especially since the government undertook to sell it transparently through the market under SEBI regulations to get the best price. However, the Court found sufficient material to warrant a fresh criminal investigation into the original 2002 disinvestment of HZL's 26% stake and directed the CBI to register a regular case and report back to the Court every quarter.

Lesson Learnt

Once a public sector company has genuinely and lawfully passed into private majority control, courts will not block further sale of the government's remaining minority stake on the same grounds used to block the original privatisation, but courts can still order a fresh criminal probe into a years-old disinvestment decision if the material on record raises a prima facie case of irregularity.

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