Common Cause Case Updates

Supreme Court Cases

Petition Challenging the Electoral Irregularities and to Ensure Free and Fair Elections and the Rule of Law (W.P. (C) 1382/2019)

Common Cause, along with ADR filed a writ petition in 2019 to safeguard the democratic process from electoral irregularities, uphold free and fair elections, maintain the rule of law, and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioners sought a direction from the Hon’ble Court to the ECI to not announce any provisional and estimated election results prior to the actual and accurate reconciliation of data. A direction to the ECI was sought by the petitioners to evolve an efficient, transparent, rational and robust procedure/mechanism by creating a separate department/grievance cell.

Thus far, Common Cause has sought the Supreme Court to direct the ECI to publish on their website the voter turnout numbers and percentages from each polling station for the 18th Lok Sabha elections. In a subsequent hearing, IA no. 115592 was heard by Justice Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma and the court was not inclined to interfere, owing to the similarity of prayers in the main writ petition and the application under hearing.

On March 18, 2025, the counsel for ECI suggested that the petitioners may file representation(s) and approach the ECI with their grievances and suggestion(s) and the ECI would inform them about the date of hearing so as to try to resolve the issues and contentions raised. Such representation(s) was required to be made within a period of ten days from March 18, 2025 and the ECI would hear the petitioner(s) and proceed to decide such representation(s). The registry was directed to relist the matter in week commencing July 28, 2025.

Petition Seeking Directions to Implement the Recommendations of the National Electric Mobility Mission Plan, 2020 (W.P. (C) 228/2019)

Common Cause partnered with CPIL and Jindal Naturecure Institute to seek directions for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Electric Mobility Mission Plan, 2020, promulgated in 2012 by the Ministry of Heavy Industries (nodal agency for the automobile sector), and the recommendations of Zero Emission Vehicles: Towards a Policy Framework, promulgated in September of 2019 by the Niti Aayog to curb the problems of Climate Change, Air pollution, and cost of importing fossil fuels to India.

Upon hearing the petition, the Court ordered the government to apprise it of the status of the implementation of the FAME India scheme. Subsequently, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways of India, through its secretary, was impleaded as a respondent in the petition. In a later hearing, the Court taking cognisance of the multiple connected issues pending before it, sought the assistance of decisionmaking authorities concerned with electric, hydrogen, or any other alternate powered vehicles. In the hearings that followed, the Court granted respondents time to file counter-affidavits and place before it all the policy decisions that were taken by UOI to promote electric vehicles. The court also directed the respondent to inform the learned Attorney General for India to assist the court in the next hearing.

The matter was listed on April 22, 2025 when the government sought time to place on record the policy decision taken by it from time to time for promoting the electric vehicles and also for setting-up of the requisite infrastructure to facilitate the consumers of electric vehicles. The Court granted four weeks’ time and directed the registry to post the matter on May 14, 2025.

Contempt Petition against Lawyers Strike (Conmt.Pet.(C) 550/2015 in W.P.(C) 821/1990)

The contempt petition filed by Common Cause against the strike of lawyers in Delhi High Court and all district courts of Delhi on the issue of conflict over pecuniary jurisdiction has led to the submission of draft rules by the Bar Council of India (BCI).

On January 24, 2024, the BCI counsel had stated that the rules may be examined by the Court and the suggestion of the court, if any, shall be accepted by the BCI without any condition.

On February 6, 2024, arguments by the counsels were heard by the court. On February 9, 2024, the court appointed Justice Muralidhar, as Amicus Curiae, to examine the rules in the context of the existing judgments and objections and to submit his report.

Subsequently, Dr S Muralidhar submitted that he held a hybrid meeting with BCI and was given suggestions. The BCI requested that the Amicus Curiae forward his formal report to them, and the court granted the request. On December 10, 2024, on hearing the counsels and perusing the report on Rules made by the BCI, the court requested the BCI counsels and Chairman to convene and submit some suggestions on the rules, and present ‘Draft Rules’ within a period of four weeks.

On February 4, 2025, Chairman BCI and the Amicus Curiae assured the Court that they will have a meeting and the outcome of the meeting shall be apprised to the Court on the next date of hearing. On February 11, 2025 Chairman BCI and Amicus Curiae, assured the Court that the Rules would be finalised definitely within a period of four weeks. On April 2, 2025 three weeks’ time was sought by Mr. Manan Mishra, when he apprised the Court that a committee has been formed and the committee is likely to give its result and opinion within that period. On April 30, 2025, the court directed that the matter be listed on May 7, 2025.

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 26 years. The Supreme Court in 2006, gave a historic judgement in the petition filed by Prakash Singh, Common Cause, and NK Singh. 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 prior to 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 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 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. Registry was directed by the bench to examine and list these applications on the next date and listed all pleas for hearing in the week commencing May 5, 2025.