Sanjay Gupta & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2022 INSC 421Decided 12 Apr 2022
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 338 of 2006
Hemant Gupta · V. Ramasubramanian

Background

On 10 April 2006, a devastating fire broke out at the "India Brand Consumer Show," an exhibition organized at Victoria Park, Meerut, killing 65 people and injuring over 161 others. The victims/families filed this writ petition seeking compensation from the State and the private event organizers. An earlier State-appointed inquiry commission's report was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2015 for procedural unfairness, and the Court instead appointed retired Justice S.B. Sinha as a one-man Court Commission to determine the cause of the fire and apportion liability between the organizers, the contractor, and State authorities.

Decision Breakdown

The Court Commissioner found that the organizers had deliberately suppressed facts to obtain permissions, failed to comply with mandatory safety and electricity regulations (including provisions on generator installation), and misrepresented their fire-safety preparedness, while State officials, including the District Magistrate and police/fire authorities, were also negligent in inspecting the site and enforcing the law. The Commissioner apportioned liability 60% to the organizers and 40% to the State, applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur (the accident "speaks for itself" as evidence of negligence, given that a fire of this scale should not occur if reasonable safety care is taken). The Supreme Court accepted the Commission's report and this liability split, rejected challenges to the Commission's authority and findings, and directed that compensation for each victim/family be computed on the same basis as motor accident compensation claims, by a specially nominated judicial officer in Meerut, with existing ex-gratia and interim payments to be adjusted against the final amount.

Lesson Learnt

Event organizers who take on the responsibility of hosting large public gatherings owe a non-delegable duty of care to visitors regarding fire safety and statutory compliance, and cannot escape liability by blaming contractors; and government authorities that fail to enforce basic safety laws (fire, electricity, crowd control) share real legal responsibility for resulting tragedies.

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