Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2018 INSC 14Decided 9 Jan 2018
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 855 of 2016
Chief Justice Dipak Misra · Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Background

The petitioner, describing himself as a public-spirited citizen, asked the Supreme Court to direct the government to lay down clear rules on showing respect to the National Anthem and to curb its commercial misuse. In an interim order in November 2016, the Court had made it mandatory for all cinema halls in India to play the National Anthem before every feature film, with doors closed and the audience required to stand, later carving out exemptions for various categories of disabled persons. The Central Government subsequently set up an Inter-Ministerial Committee to study the issue and, through the Attorney General, asked the Court to make the cinema-hall requirement optional rather than compulsory pending that Committee's recommendations.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that while every citizen is bound to show respect whenever the National Anthem is played, the specific question of where and how that respect must be shown (such as in a cinema hall) is a matter for the executive to regulate by law, not something the Court should permanently mandate through litigation. It therefore modified its earlier interim order so that playing the National Anthem before feature films in cinemas became optional/directory rather than mandatory, leaving the Inter-Ministerial Committee and the Central Government free to decide the issue uninfluenced by the Court's earlier directions. It disposed of the writ petition, while clarifying that citizens remain bound to show respect under the existing 1971 Act and executive orders whenever the Anthem is actually played, and that the disability exemptions already granted would continue until the government's final decision.

Lesson Learnt

Interim directions issued by courts to fill a policy gap are not meant to become permanent law, once the government takes up the issue through a proper committee and rule-making process, the Supreme Court will generally step back and hand the specific regulatory choices (like whether standing for the anthem in cinemas is compulsory) to the executive and legislature.

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