LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Pankaj Sinha v. Union of India and Others

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2018 INSC 819Decided 14 Sept 2018
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 767 of 2014
Chief Justice Dipak Misra · Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Background

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions to the Union and State governments to conduct periodic surveys on leprosy, publicize a 2010-11 National Sample Survey on the disease, run sustained public-awareness campaigns to dispel stigma, ensure free availability of Multi-Drug Therapy (MDT) and other medicines at government health centres, stop discrimination against leprosy-affected women and children in hospitals and schools, and provide welfare measures such as free footwear and clearer disability-assessment rules. The case had been pending since 2014, with the Court repeatedly directing the government to collect data and respond, while also drawing on a related Article 32 petition that had surfaced a Law Commission report recommending repeal of outdated, stigmatizing leprosy laws.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court noted that leprosy is now a scientifically curable, non-hereditary disease, yet continues to carry severe social stigma due to a widespread lack of awareness, resulting in discrimination in healthcare, education, and daily life for affected persons and their families. Finding this to amount to a violation of the fundamental rights to equality and dignity, the Court issued a comprehensive set of fifteen directions to the Union and State governments, including conducting and publishing periodic leprosy surveys, running year-round and Leprosy Day awareness campaigns using positive imagery, ensuring free MDT drug availability without stock-outs, prohibiting discrimination against leprosy patients (especially women) in hospitals and schools, providing free footwear, reconstructive surgery access, BPL card eligibility for food-scheme benefits, a rehabilitation assistance scheme, and consideration of separate disability-assessment rules for leprosy under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with these binding directions.

Lesson Learnt

Even where a disease is medically curable, the law recognizes that unaddressed social stigma and institutional apathy can themselves violate constitutional rights to dignity and equality: courts can direct concrete, system-wide government action (awareness campaigns, free treatment, anti-discrimination measures, welfare schemes) to remedy that stigma, not just individual grievances.

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