Shelly Oberoi & Anr. vs Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 132Decided 17 Feb 2023
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 152 of 2023
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · J.B. Pardiwala

Background

Elections to the 250-member Municipal Corporation of Delhi were held on 4 December 2022, but more than two months later the Mayor had still not been elected. Shelly Oberoi, a prospective candidate for Mayor, approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32. The dispute had narrowed to two questions: whether the ten "aldermen" nominated by the Administrator (Lieutenant Governor) for their special knowledge of municipal administration could vote at the first meeting where the Mayor is elected, and whether the Mayor must be elected first before the Deputy Mayor and Standing Committee members, or whether all elections could happen simultaneously. The Lt Governor and the Corporation argued that the voting bar on nominated members applied only to regular business meetings, not to the first post-election meeting.

Decision Breakdown

The Court allowed the petition and rejected the Lt Governor's and Corporation's arguments. Article 243R(2) of the Constitution, introduced by the 74th Amendment, expressly says that persons brought into a municipality for their special knowledge "shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Municipality", and Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the DMC Act repeats that restriction. The Court held that "meetings" means all meetings, including the very first meeting after a general election at which Section 35 requires the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to be elected. On the second question, Regulations 7 and 8 of the 1958 Procedure Regulations make it clear that once the Mayor is elected he or she presides over the rest of the meeting, including the Deputy Mayor's election, so the Mayor must be elected first, consistent with the three-judge decision in Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singh. The Court directed that notice for the first meeting be issued within 24 hours, that the Mayor be elected first without nominated members voting, and that the elected Mayor then preside over the Deputy Mayor and Standing Committee elections with the same voting bar continuing.

Lesson Learnt

Nominated, unelected members of a municipal body cannot vote in any of its meetings, including the crucial first meeting that chooses the Mayor, because the Constitution itself reserves that power for directly elected representatives. A clear constitutional text cannot be narrowed by reading in exceptions that are not there.

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