Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri & Ors. v. Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 626Decided 4 Jun 2026
Crl. A. No.-003058-003058 - 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 17479/2025)
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

The appellants' father had filed a criminal complaint back in 2007 alleging that certain relatives forged his signature and a partition/sale deed to grab his self-acquired property while he was away on Haj pilgrimage. Despite repeated police reports, an FSL report confirming forgery, and multiple orders from the Magistrate and the Gujarat High Court directing further investigation, the investigation dragged on for nearly two decades without a chargesheet ever being filed: partly because case records were lost in transit. The High Court had dismissed a fresh plea by the complainant's successors seeking a direction to finally file the chargesheet, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts cannot remain mute spectators when an investigation is allowed to drag on indefinitely without justification, and that the High Court ought to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene. The Court found no valid reason on record for the investigation and complaint remaining pending for nearly two decades, and treated the loss of original case papers during an active investigation as a matter of serious concern striking at the core of the criminal justice system. It directed the State of Gujarat and the concerned police station to conclude the investigation within six weeks and file a report before the Magistrate, along with an affidavit explaining the action taken against the officer responsible for losing the records and why the Magistrate was not informed sooner. The Court also laid down that where investigation continues for an unduly long period without adequate justification, either the accused or the complainant may approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC for an update or appropriate relief, delay being one relevant ground among others.

Lesson Learnt

Investigations cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely without justification, both complainants and accused persons have the right to approach the High Court seeking an update, or appropriate relief, when a police investigation is inordinately delayed.

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