Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 1086Decided 23 Nov 2023
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 443 of 2017

Background

Two writ petitions under Article 32 sought proportional representation for Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assemblies of West Bengal and Sikkim, and specifically for the Limboo-Tamang community in Sikkim. In 2003, Parliament had added the Limboo and Tamang communities to the list of Scheduled Tribes in West Bengal and Sikkim, but the Delimitation Commission's 2006 Notification (which formed the basis of the Election Commission's 2008 Order fixing reserved seats) was finalised without accounting for this addition, since it relied on the 2001 census. The petitioners wanted the 2006 Notification and 2008 Order corrected, and challenged a provision of the Representation of the People Act as unconstitutional to the extent it excluded this correction.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that the 2006 Delimitation Notification, once published under Section 10 of the Delimitation Act, has the force of law and cannot be reopened or challenged in any court: this finality is essential so that delimitation disputes don't hold up elections indefinitely. It found that neither the Delimitation Commission nor the Election Commission has the power to unilaterally amend the published Notification/Order to add reservations for a tribe recognised only after the delimitation exercise was completed; any such correction would require a legislative amendment to the Representation of the People Act's schedules, which is Parliament's domain, not something a court can direct. The Election Commission itself acknowledged that, applying updated population figures, West Bengal would need one additional Scheduled Tribes seat. The Court therefore did not strike down any provision or issue a mandamus, but directed the Union Government to take up the issue of updating delimitation figures (over 50 tribal communities have been added since 2001) with reasonable dispatch, while clarifying that this judgment would not disturb any ongoing or upcoming election schedule.

Lesson Learnt

Courts cannot rewrite a published delimitation order or force the Election Commission/Delimitation Commission to add reserved seats outside the statutory process. Once finalised, such orders have the force of law, and correcting outdated population-based reservations for STs/SCs requires Parliament to legislate, not judicial directions.

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