LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Union of India and Ors. v. Junu Gayary

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 818Decided 26 Jul 2019
Civil Appeal Nos. 3669-3670 of 2015
Justice M.R. Shah · Justice A.S. Bopanna

Background

The respondent's husband went missing after he was allegedly picked up by army personnel from a relative's house in Assam in the night of 26 August 2003, and was later reported to have died in an "encounter" with the army. His widow filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court seeking a judicial inquiry and compensation. A District & Sessions Judge, directed by the High Court to inquire into the matter, found after examining witnesses and evidence that the deceased had in fact been in army custody from the time he was picked up until his body was handed to the police, and that the "encounter" narrative appeared to be staged. The High Court accordingly directed registration of a criminal case under Section 302 IPC (murder) and a CBI investigation, and awarded Rs. 3 lakh compensation to the widow; the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court against this.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings in full, agreeing that the District & Sessions Judge's detailed inquiry, based on examined witnesses and an opportunity given to the army to respond, properly established that the deceased died in army custody and that the encounter story was not genuine, justifying the Section 302 IPC case and CBI probe. On compensation, the Court held the High Court's Rs. 3 lakh award was too low given the clear violation of the deceased's right to life under Article 21 and that he was the sole breadwinner for a young widow and three minor children; using its special constitutional powers under Article 142, it enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5 lakh, to be deposited within four weeks. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, with directions for the CBI to complete its investigation promptly and for the army/government to follow a specific timeline for deciding whether the accused would be tried by criminal court or court martial.

Lesson Learnt

Courts can and will look behind an official "encounter" narrative when independent judicial inquiry evidence contradicts it, and can use their constitutional powers to enhance inadequate compensation for a custodial-death violation of the right to life, even years after the High Court's original award.

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