Quarterly Case Updates
Supreme Court Cases
Writ for Supreme Court Directions on Police Reforms (W.P. (C) 310/1996)
The battle for police reforms has been going on for the last 29 years. The Supreme Court took 10 years to give a historic judgment in 2006, in the petition filed by Prakash Singh, Common Cause and NK Singh IN 1996. Since then, it has been a struggle to get the Court’s directions implemented. On July 3, 2018, responding to an interlocutory application filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the appointment of acting Director General of Police (DGP) in the states, the Supreme Court gave a slew of directions to ensure that there were no distortions in such appointments. It laid down that the states shall send their proposals to the UPSC three months before the retirement of the incumbent DGP. The UPSC shall then prepare a panel of three officers so that the state can appoint one of them as DGP. In October 2022 and December 2022, the Court entertained applications filed by the State of Nagaland and the UPSC to finalise the names of the DGP for the state.
In January 2023, the matter was listed twice, when the Court decided on the IA filed by the State of Nagaland on the appointment of DGP. This matter was listed several times. On March 25, 2025, after hearing the counsels for the petitioners, the bench directed that an advance copy of the contempt petitions be served on the nominated/standing counsel for the State of Jharkhand. Mr Prashant Bhushan stated that he filed I.A. Nos. 150155/2023 and 67359/2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310/1996 on behalf of the petitioner, Prakash Singh, seeking appropriate orders/ directions as to compliance and for modification of the order(s) of this Court, which have been registered, but were not listed. The registry was directed by the bench to examine and list these applications on the next date and list all pleas for hearing in the week commencing May 5, 2025. Despite clear directions, implementation across states has remained inconsistent, resulting in recurring contempt and compliance proceedings before the Court.
On July 28, 2025, the court issued notice in IA No.150155/2023 & 67359/2023 in W.P. (C) No. 310/1996. On August 18, 2025, the Court declined to entertain one of the contempt petitions, observing that the dispute appeared to arise from inter-personal rivalry between officers rather than a matter of public interest.
M.A. in Writ against Illegal Mining in Odisha (M.A. 18/2025)
In January 2025, Common Cause filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) in the writ petition on Illegal Mining in Odisha. The MA prayed for directions to the State of Odisha to expedite the recovery/attachment proceedings on an urgent basis by complying with directions contained in previous orders passed by the Supreme Court and to take immediate action to pursue all available remedies before the appropriate forum (Division bench of High Court or SLP before this Hon’ble Court) to have unfavourable orders reversed or altered. The MA was listed several times in January, February, March, April and May 2025.
The IA filed by Common Cause on February 23, 2023, focused on getting directives issued for the Union of India and the State of Odisha to impose limits on the extraction of minerals and on constituting a committee of two or three independent experts to suggest and recommend such limits and submit its report in a time-bound manner. The matter was disposed of by the Supreme Court on May 7, 2025.
The IA also sought an updated status report on the amount of penalty deposited by the lessees, including the amount to be recovered, lease-wise details of the ore reserve, extraction permitted, the current status of the mining lease, total iron ore reserves and total permitted extraction in the State as directed in the judgment dated August 2, 2017. Significantly, the Supreme Court granted Common Cause, the petitioner, the liberty to file an independent writ petition for the same relief, which had been sought in the IA. The Court also granted our request that the State of Odisha be called upon to file a status report regarding the points referred to in paragraphs 3 and 6 of the SC’s order dated March 5, 2025, which is the prayer in the MA as well. The matter is directed to be listed in July 2025.
On July 28, 2025, Notice was issued, and Common Cause was granted liberty to serve the same through the Standing Counsel for the State. The MA was tagged with the Writ against the State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No. 675/2025) filed by Common Cause. Subsequent hearings on September 2 and September 17, 2025, addressed compliance issues, including extension of mining leases and joint inspection of mines.
Writ against State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No. 675/2025)
On May 7, 2025, the Supreme Court, in M.A. No. 18 of 2025, the Supreme Court disposed of an earlier interlocutory application, granting liberty to Common Cause to file an independent writ petition for similar reliefs. Pursuant to this liberty, Common Cause filed the writ petition on July 8, 2025, seeking the following directions: (a) Constitution of a committee of independent experts to recommend a limit to be imposed on the extraction of iron and manganese ore in the State of Odisha to ensure environmental sustainability and Inter-generational equity, and submit its report in a time-bound manner; and (b) Direction to the Respondents to impose a limit on the extraction of iron and manganese ore in Odisha based on the aforesaid expert committee report.
On July 8, 2025, Common Cause filed this writ seeking directions for the constitution of a committee of independent experts to recommend a limit on the extraction of iron and manganese ore in the State of Odisha, to ensure environmental sustainability and inter-generational equity, and for the imposition of such limits by the Respondents based on the recommendations of the said expert committee. Notice was issued on July 28, 2025, and Common Cause was granted liberty to serve the same through the Standing Counsel for the State. The matter was tagged with the previous miscellaneous application (M.A. 18/2025) filed by Common Cause. On July 29, 2025, during the hearing, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the State of Odisha’s failure to file a counter-affidavit.
On September 17, 2025, the Supreme Court considered an interim application filed by a lessee, wherein the State’s counter affidavit disclosed that the validity of the mining lease in question had been extended up to April 16, 2036, subject to general conditions and statutory clearances. The Court allowed the lessee to restart mining only after verification of all clearances by the competent officer. Additionally, a joint inspection involving the State’s Mining Department was ordered to determine the quantity and quality of iron ore. Following the inspection, the lessee was granted four months to sell the ore under the supervision of State officers, with proceeds adjusted against penalties from prior proceedings and deposited with the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV). The State was further directed to initiate auction proceedings in accordance with the law.
During the proceedings, Common Cause highlighted a lapse by the State in calculating the four-month period for ore sale from the first of three joint inspection dates, which the Court observed as noncompliance with its February 27, 2023, order. The Advocate General requested three weeks to provide improved instructions, which was granted. The Court also directed the State to submit a status report on the recovery process initiated, along with the outcomes of the proceedings, on the next hearing date.
