The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu v. S. Raja

Contempt Petition · 2026 INSC 407Decided 22 Apr 2026
SLP(C) No.-024430-024431 - 2019 (with SLP(C) No. 26314/2019, SLP(C) Diary No. 2594/2021 and Contempt Petition Diary No. 5891/2026)
Justice Sanjay Kumar · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Background

A public interest litigation was filed in the Madras High Court alleging illegal sale of government-allotted land (originally assigned to freedom fighters) in Thazhambur Village, Tamil Nadu, including land later acquired by a builder, Casagrand Builder Private Limited, for residential construction. The Madras High Court disposed of the PIL after the State government ordered an inquiry, but vacated an interim "status quo" order in doing so; the Tamil Nadu government then appealed to the Supreme Court solely to preserve status quo, and the Supreme Court granted a status quo order in 2019 that remained in force for years while the government's inquiry dragged on. Multiple related matters were tagged together, including the builder's own challenge to the inquiry, a third party's delayed petition, and a contempt petition filed by flat owners alleging violations of the status quo order.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the State government could not keep exploiting the 2019 status quo order indefinitely while delaying its own inquiry, noting that three inquiry reports had already been produced over the years and that hundreds of flats had been built and sold to innocent third-party buyers who were even being denied basic amenities like water and sewerage. It disposed of the main appeals, vacating the status quo order and giving the authorities a further six months (four for a retired judge's review, two more for government action) to conclude the matter, while directing the government to be mindful of the third-party rights created over the decades. The builder's separate challenge to the government's inquiry order was dismissed since the inquiry had already proceeded and reports were tabled, and a third party's delayed SLP was dismissed for an unexplained 403-day delay. The contempt petition was also dismissed as filed well beyond the one-year limitation period for contempt proceedings under the Supreme Court's ruling in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian.

Lesson Learnt

A government cannot indefinitely stall behind an interim court order while sitting on its own inquiry. Courts will step in to protect the settled expectations of ordinary citizens (like flat buyers) who purchased property in good faith decades after the original transaction, even where the underlying land dispute remains unresolved; contempt petitions must also be filed within the one-year limitation period or they will be dismissed regardless of merit.

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