LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2022 INSC 212Decided 21 Feb 2022
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1052 of 2021
K.M. Joseph · Hrishikesh Roy

Background

Four petitioners were prosecuted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after being accused by members of the "Lohar" caste who claimed Scheduled Tribe status based on a 2016 Bihar Government notification. That notification purported to extend Scheduled Tribe certificates to the "Lohara (Lohar)" community, relying on a 2006 constitutional amendment that had itself since been repealed by Parliament in 2016. Two of the petitioners were denied anticipatory bail and had to undergo custody as a result of prosecutions enabled by this notification, even though the Supreme Court had already held on three prior occasions that "Lohars" (distinct from "Lohara") are not a Scheduled Tribe but an Other Backward Class. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, bypassing the High Court, given the scale of the problem (thousands of FIRs reportedly filed across Bihar relying on the same notification).

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that the Bihar Government's 2016 notification was issued in flagrant disregard of settled Supreme Court precedent clearly establishing that "Lohar" and "Lohara" are distinct communities, with only "Lohara" recognized as a Scheduled Tribe. The notification wrongly conflated the two, was passed with total non-application of mind, and was therefore arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court emphasized that once the highest court has authoritatively settled a legal question, it is the executive's duty to respect and apply that ruling, disregarding it undermines the rule of law and has serious real-world consequences, including enabling misuse of the stringent bail provisions under the 1989 Act against innocent persons. The Court quashed the notification (clarifying that genuine "Lohara" community members remain unaffected) and, exercising its power to award compensation for violation of fundamental rights, directed the State of Bihar to pay Rs. 5,00,000 in costs to the petitioners within a specified time.

Lesson Learnt

Government authorities are bound to follow declared law of the Supreme Court, and issuing notifications that ignore or contradict settled precedent can be struck down as arbitrary and unconstitutional; citizens who suffer real harm (including wrongful incarceration) from such unlawful executive action can be awarded monetary compensation directly by the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

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