Common Cause Case Updates
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.
Despite clear directions, implementation across states on this issue remained inconsistent, resulting in recurring contempt and compliance proceedings before the Court.
On July 28, 2025, the court issued notice, and 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. This matter was listed several times from October 2025 till February 12, 2026. Two contempt petitions filed against the states of Telangana and Tamil Nadu were considered by the Court. The Court once again reiterated its previous order and directed that the states comply with their previous directions.
On March 12, 2026, the court disposed civil contempt petition regarding the State of Tamil Nadu as infructuous and directed the UPSC to ensure that the meeting regarding appointment of DGP be held on March 20, 2026, and recommendations made be implemented without any delay. In the same order, contempt petitions for the state of Bihar, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh were disposed for the reasons mainly associated with the UPSC recommendations.
It was brought to the notice of the Court that the state of Chhattisgarh had not appointed a regular DGP from the panel of recommended names by UPSC, and an acting DGP had been working since February 4, 2025. Since the UPSC had sought an explanation from the State Government on March 3, 2026, the court, prior to taking any coercive action against the State authorities, issued notice to show cause as to why the UPSC recommendations of May 13, 2025, had not been implemented so far and as to why the acting DGP should not be restrained from performing the duty. Counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh sought and was granted six weeks’ time to have instructions.
The states of Punjab, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa and Mizoram were directed to show cause that, in the absence of any valid law having been enacted by them in terms of liberty granted by Prakash Singh (Supra), why appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken for withholding recommendations for appointment of their respective DGPs out of the panel to be prepared by the UPSC. The counsel for Himachal Pradesh was granted six weeks’ time to get instructions. The states of Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh were directed to show cause as to why the proposal for the appointment of DGP as per Prakash Singh judgment had not been forwarded to UPSC. The counsels representing the State Governments/Union Territories were directed to submit a copy of their reply affidavit to Mr. Raju Ramchandran, learned Amicus Curiae, as well as to the counsel for the UPSC.
On May 19, 2026, the court was apprised that a compliance affidavit had been filed by the States of Arunachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. As per the status report filed by the UPSC, acting DGPs were working in Manipur and Jharkhand, and no proposal for appointment of regular DGPs had ever been On May 19, 2026, the court was apprised that a compliance affidavit had been filed by the States of Arunachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. As per the status report filed by the UPSC, acting DGPs were working in Manipur and Jharkhand, and no proposal for appointment of regular DGPs had ever been received by the UPSC from them. As per the affidavit filed by the States of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and West Bengal, proposals had been received in March April and May 2026 respectively. The UPSC pointed out that no proposal had been received regarding Himachal Pradesh and the AGMUT cadre, pertaining to Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, and Mizoram. All the States, which, according to the UPSC, had not complied with the directions of this Court, were directed to file a compliance affidavit. The court directed that the be listed for August 18, 2026.
On May 27, 2026, the application filed by the State of Manipur requesting appointment of DGP from outside Manipur cadre once the tenure of the acting DGP came to an end on May 31, allowed by the court. The said application had been filed narrating the unprecedented ethnic and civil unrest that had taken place in the State.
On May 29, 2026, the counsel for Karnataka brought to the notice of the court that inadvertently in the order of March 12, 2026, it could not be mentioned that the State had also complied with the direction of appointment of a regular DGP, on recommendations of the UPSC. The same was taken on record by the court.
M.A. in Writ Petition on 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 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, a 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. On December 10, 2025, the Court observed “We are informed that several writ petitions are pending before the High Court, wherein orders passed in recovery proceedings have been challenged and stay obtained. The Court directed that status report be filed on or before April 2, 2026. And Miscellaneous Application and the connected matters be relisted in the second week of April 2026.
This matter was taken up on March 24, 2026, when due to demise of the previous amicus curiae, Mr. Rao, new amicus Mr. Gautam Narayan was appointed by the court, and the parties were directed to provide all documents to Mr. Narayan. The State of Orissa was directed to file affidavit in compliance with the order dated December 10, 2025. On April 21, 2026, and May 12, 2026 the matter was listed before the Court for hearing. On hearing the counsels, the Court directed the registry to r-list the matter in the week commencing 20th July 2026.
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.
On October14, 2025 Common Cause submitted that despite multiple opportunities granted to the respondent, State of Odisha, neither counter affidavit has been filed nor has the status report with regard to recovery process been placed before the Court. The Court granted one last opportunity to the State to file counter affidavit and the status report by October 27, 2025. On October 29,2025, expressing its displeasure that the State had not been diligent enough to recover the dues running into crores of rupees, the Court observed “We record our serious displeasure at the mode and manner in which the State of Odisha has been proceeding for recovery of the dues from the defaulting lessees. The chart which has been pointed out to us by Mr. Bhushan suffers from lack of essential data.” Time was granted to the State of Odisha to file a better counter by December 1, 2025.
The counter filed by Ministry of Environment of Forest and Climate Change was taken on record. The Ministry of Mines was directed to file its counter, and the petitioners were directed to file respective rejoinders. On February 10, 2026, the Court directed that the petition be de-tagged from the batch of matters. The matter was taken up on April 10, 2026, when the court directed that the writ petition be relisted on July 22, 2026. And interim orders, if any, would continue till the next date of hearing.
