Ramasrey @ Fakkad v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 764Decided 29 Jul 2026
Writ Petition (Crl.) No(s). 553 of 2023 (with connected Writ Petitions (Crl.) 42/2024, 69/2025 and 198/2025)
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

Four death-row convicts (including Ramasrey @ Fakkad, convicted for kidnapping and murder) had their death sentences commuted, either by courts or through presidential/gubernatorial mercy powers, to "imprisonment for the remainder of natural life," a sentence that denies the ordinary right to seek remission after 14 years. All four filed writ petitions directly under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the Indian Penal Code recognises only two punishments for murder (death or ordinary life imprisonment) and that a sentence without any possibility of remission is unconstitutional and defeats their statutory right to seek remission under Section 432 CrPC.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court dismissed all four writ petitions. It held that a five-judge Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) had already settled that courts may impose a special category of sentence (life imprisonment or a term beyond 14 years, placed beyond the scope of ordinary remission) in place of the death penalty, and that this is constitutionally valid. The Court found it impermissible for a two-judge bench to revisit that settled position. On the clemency questions, it reiterated that judicial review of Presidential/Gubernatorial power under Articles 72/161 is confined to narrow grounds (non-application of mind, mala fides, reliance on irrelevant material, arbitrariness) and that none of the petitioners had shown any such defect; the Court cannot sit in appeal over the exercise of that executive power. It also noted the petitioners had not even exhausted available remission remedies before approaching the Court directly.

Lesson Learnt

A "sentence for the remainder of natural life without remission" is a valid, constitutionally sound alternative to the death penalty in India, and the Supreme Court will not entertain a writ petition asking it to second-guess a Presidential or Gubernatorial clemency decision unless there is concrete proof of bad faith, arbitrariness, or a total failure to apply mind.

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