COMMON Cause Case Updates

COMMON Cause Case Updates

Public Interest Litigations

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 (SC) 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 SC gave a slew of directions to ensure there were no distortions in such appointments. It laid down that the States shall send their proposals to 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 reiterated its previous order and directed that the States to comply with their previous directions.

On March 12, 2026, the Court disposed of civil contempt petition regarding the State of Tamil Nadu as infructuous and directed the UPSC to ensure the meeting regarding appointment of DGP be held on March 20, 2026, and recommendations be implemented without delay. Contempt petitions for the States of Bihar, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh were also disposed of 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 and 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 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.

The appointment of Odisha’s next DGP centered on the State Government’s decision to widen the pool of officers who could be considered for the post by trying to include a relatively junior officer in the selection process in a manner that went against the SC’s directions. Alleging that the DGP selection process was not in accordance with the Court’s earlier directions, senior advocate Mr Chidambaram sought an urgent hearing before the SC. On August 13, 2026, the SC issued notice with directions for reply, if any, to be filed before the next date of hearing. The counsel for UPSC stated and assured the Court that in the intervening period no meeting of the empanelment committee would be convened.

This matter was listed several times during August and September 2026. During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the need for creating an ex-cadre post and adding more names when the UPSC had already recommended three eligible cadre officers under the Prakash Singh guidelines.

The State Government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Odisha Advocate General Pitambar Acharya, defended the decision, arguing that expanding the pool would provide a wider choice of suitable officers and that the process complied with the relevant Ministry of Home Affairs parameters and Supreme Court guidelines.

The hearing also examined the exclusion of senior IPS officer Sushant Kumar Nath from the selection process. His integrity certificate had been withdrawn by the State, a move that became one of the issues under scrutiny. The case also involved questions regarding the role of the UPSC, the eligibility of officers and the manner in which the panel should be prepared.

The bench, headed by the CJI took note of the detailed report submitted by Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran, which highlighted key operational discrepancies:

• The exclusion of senior IPS officer Sushant Kumar Nath from the initial eligibility pool;
• Questions regarding issuance of integrity certificates for candidate consideration; and,
• The procedural validity of adding officers promoted to the DG rank after the initial list had been submitted to the UPSC.

The arguments were concluded and on September 29, 2026, and the SC reserved its judgment in the matter. On October 8, 2026, the Centre challenged the appointment of Jharkhand DGP contending that the appointment violated the SC directions in the Prakash Singh case. The SC requested Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran to scrutinise nationwide breaches in the matter with the help of UPSC. The matter is likely to be listed on November 3, 2026.

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 Interlocutory Application (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 SC granted Common Cause, the petitioner, the liberty to file an independent writ petition for the same relief, which had been sought in the IA. It also granted the request that the State be called upon to file a status report on 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 was 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 MA and the connected matters be relisted in April second week.

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. On hearing the counsels, it directed the registry to re-list the matter in the week commencing July 20, 2026.

On July 20, 2026, the amicus curiae submitted two separate notes. The first note related to the status of all the MAs pending before the SC and the second note related to the aspect of recovery of monies in connection with the writ petitions pending before the Odisha HC at Cuttack. Time was given to the State till July 24, 2026, to present the facts in relation to the notes. On October 8, 2026, the Court issued a fresh directive regarding the ongoing miscellaneous applications filed by [Common Cause] and Prafulla Samantra. The Court officially instructed the CEC to step in and investigate the unresolved environmental degradation, non-compliance, and ongoing extraction violations in the critical mining belts of Keonjhar, Sundargarh, and Mayurbhanj districts. The matter is likely to be listed on December 8, 2026.