Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Indian Medical Association vs Union Of India on 11 August, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.645/2022
INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 400/2025
O R D E R
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.645/2022
We have heard Sri. Shadan Farasat, learned Amicus Curiae, who
has been appointed by this Court and learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Solicitor General, learned Additional
Solicitor General, learned senior counsel and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. The prayers sought for by the petitioners in this writ
petition read as under –
“(i) Pass an order directing the Respondent Nos. 1
to 4 to immediately take strict and prompt action,
in accordance with law, for the violation of the
provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies
(Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, the Drugs
& Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 by the repeated acts of omission and
commission of Respondent No.5 – Patanjali Ayurved
Signature Not Verified Ltd. including by publishing advertisements all
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.08.28
over the country making illegal and prohibited
17:26:24 IST
Reason: claims, and to file an action taken report before
this Hon’ble Court.
1
(ii) Pass an order directing the Respondent No.4 –
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to
take action including by filing a complaint against
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. u/s 92 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, for publishing the false and
misleading advertisements including / such as the
advertisement dt. 10.07.2022.
(iii) Pass an order directing the Respondent No.4 –
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to
frame guidelines in exercise of powers u/s 18 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for prohibiting
false and misleading advertisements in relation to
Allopathy and Modern Medicine.
(iv) Pass an order prohibiting the Respondent No.5
– Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. from issuing any such
advertisement to the effect of making impermissible
/ illegal / defamatory statements against the
members of the Petitioner No.1 Association and / or
from issuing advertisements in future such as the
advertisement dt. 10.07.2022 – incorporating
therein claims of cures, which are prohibited by
various provisions of law as set out in the present
Writ Petition;
(v) Pass such other or further orders as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and in the
interest of justice.”
3. It is not in dispute that the object and purpose as well as
the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in this writ petition
have been substantially achieved by various orders passed by this
Court.
4. However, subsequently, the writ petition has been considered
on various dates and several orders have been passed. The
significant orders passed in this Writ Petition read as under:
Order Dated: 27-02-2024:
“1. On the last date of hearing, i.e. on 21st
November, 2023, after some arguments were advanced
by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the2
petitioners, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the respondents no. 1 & 2 and learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.5-
Patanjali Ayurved Limited, Mr. K.M. Nataraj,
learned Additional Solicitor General has stated
that he may be permitted to obtain instructions
regarding the alleged incorrect
assertions/misrepresentations in respect of various
products of the respondent no.5 in the market with
regard to the medicinal efficacy of the said
products, as also with regard to the measures to be
put in place for curbing misstatements in the media
(both electronic and print).
2. At that stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondent no.5- Patanjali Ayurved Limited
had assured the Court that henceforth, there shall
not be any violation of any of the laws, especially
relating to advertisement and branding of products
manufactured and marketed by the respondent no.5-
Patanjali Ayurved Limited. Further, no casual
statements of claiming medicinal efficacy of any
system of medicine will be released to the media in
any form. This Court had bound down the respondent
no.5-Patanjali Ayurved Limited to such assurances.
It was also made clear that any suit pending inter
se between the petitioner(s) and any person and the
respondent no.5-Patanjali Ayurved Limited shall not
be stayed and shall continue before the concerned
Courts.
xxx xxx xxx
5. We may note that Section 3(d) of the 1954 Act
prohibits advertisement of certain products for
treatment of certain diseases and disorders,
including thereof diabetes (Sr. No.9), Heart
Diseases (Sr. No.26), High or Low Blood Pressure
(Sr. No. 27) and Obesity (Sr. No. 38) and Asthma
(Appended to the 1955 Rules at Sr. No.1).
xxx xxx xxx
14. Till further orders, the respondent no.5-
Patanjali Ayurved Limited is restrained from
advertising or branding of products manufactured
and marketed by it which are meant to cure the
diseases/disorders/conditions specified in the 1954
Act and 1955 Rules. Respondent no.5 and its
officers are also cautioned to refrain from making
any statements against any system of medicine in
the media (both electronic and print) in any form,
as undertaken on 21st November, 2023.”
Order Dated: 23-04-2024
“xxx xxx xxx
3
5. We are of the opinion that the issue relating to
implementation of the relevant provisions of the
Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable
Advertisements) Act, 1954 and the Rules, Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules and the Consumers
Protection Act, 1986 and the Rules, need a closer
examination in the light of the grievances raised
by the petitioner-Association, not just limited to
the respondents before this Court, but to all
similarly placed FMCGs/Pharmaceutical Companies who
have been issuing misleading advertisements
relating to the products manufactured and marketed
by them and taking the public at large for a ride,
in particular, adversely affecting the health and
well-being of babies, young children, women
(including actating and pregnant women), senior
citizens and the sick and infirm, who have been
consuming the products on the basis of the said
misrepresentations.
6. Further, Union of India is called upon to
explain the letter dated 29th August, 2023 issued
by the Under Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH,
Government of India addressed to all States/UT
Licensing Authorities and Drug Controllers of AYUSH
informing them that the Ayurvedic Siddha and Unani
Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB) in its
meeting held on 25th May, 2023, has recommended to
proceed with the final Notification omitting Rule
170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and its
related provisions and in the meantime, all
authorities have been directed not to initiate/take
any action under Rule 170. Notably, in all this
duration, the said Rule has not been deleted and at
the same time, it is not being enforced on the
strength of the aforesaid letter.
7. Having regard to the number of misleading
advertisements being published/displayed with
little/nil accountability on the part of the
manufacturers, promoters as also the
press/electronic media, besides the Ministry of
AYUSH, it is considered necessary to implead the
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Food and
Public Distribution, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology to examine the steps taken
by each of the aforesaid Ministries to prevent the
abuse of the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable
Advertisements) Act, 1954 and the Rules, the Drug
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986. All the State Governments/UT Licensing
Authorities being necessary and proper parties
4
shall also be impleaded as corespondents in the
present petition.
8. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor
General who is appearing virtually, states that his
briefing counsel is accepting notice on behalf of
all the Ministries referred to hereinabove. The
said Ministries shall file their respective
affidavits explaining the action taken by them to
prevent misuse/abuse of the aforesaid statutes
along with the relevant data from the year 2018
onwards and the action taken on receiving such
complaints either on the Grievances Against
Misleading Advertisements portal (GAMA) or from any
other source.
xxx xxx xxx”
5. During the pendency of this writ petition, the
respondent/Ministry of Ayush by way of Notification dated
01.07.2024 issued under the Drugs (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2024
had omitted Rule 170 of the 1945 Rules.
For immediate purpose, Rule 170 is extracted as under-
“170.Prohibition of advertisements of Ayurvedic,
Sddha or Unani drugs. – (1) The manufacturer or his
agent, of Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs, shall
not participate in the publication of any
advertisement relating to any drug for the use of
diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or
prevention of any disease, disorder, syndrome or
condition.
(2) The Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug shall be
advertised for he purpose other than specified n
sub-rule (1) after the allotment of the Unique
Identification Number.
(3) The manufacturer of he Ayurvedic, Siddha or
Unani durg shall apply for the Unique
Identification Number for the advertisement issued
or aired before this notification, within he period
of three months from the date of the publication of
this notification.
(4) The application for advertisement shall be
rejected if,
(i) it is incomplete; or
(ii) the intended advertisement does not contain
the contact details of he manufacturer; or
5
(iii) the contents of the advertisement directly or
indirectly tantamount to vulgarity or obscenity; or
(iv) it refers to any Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani
drug in terms which suggest or calculated to lead
to the use of that drug or medicine for the
enhancement of height and dimensions or capacity or
performance of male or female sexual organs; or
(v) it depicts photographs or testimonials of
celebrities or government officials; or
(vi) it refers to any Government or Autonomous
organization of the Government; or
(vii) it gives a false impression about the true
character of Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug; or
(viii) it makes a misleading or exaggerated claim
about the effectiveness of the said drug.
(5) The application for allotment of the Unique
Identification Number for an advertisement shall be
submitted in Form 26 E-4 to the State Licensing
Authority or Drug Controller specifying therein the
claims such as textual references, rationale from
the authoritative books, indication(s) or use(s),
evidence regarding safety, effectiveness and
quality of the drug.
(6) The application fee of rupees one thousand
per advertisement shall be deposited along with
Form 26E-4 and other supporting documents.
(7) The application for the advertisement shall be
submitted to the Licensing Authority of the State
where the corporate office of the manufacturer is
located, in case of Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani
drug is licensed for manufacturing in more than one
State.
(8) The State Licensing Authority shall process the
application (if required, in consultation with the
concerned technical experts) for disposal within
thirty days from the date of receipt of application
along with complete information and shall allot
Unique Identification Number for the advertisement.
(9) The manufacturer of Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani
drug may appeal to the State AYUSH or Health
Secretary for the direction in case the
application for allotment of Unique Identification
Number under sub-rule (8) is not disposed off
within the period of 30 days.
(10) The applicant shall furnish the required
information to the Licensing Authority or Drugs
Controller as and when called for, failing which
6
the application shall be rejected and the
application fee shall stand forfeited.
(11) The State Licensing Authority or Drugs
Controller on being satisfied with the application
or otherwise, shall record and convey in Form 26 E-
5 the recorded contents of advertisement, reasons
for rejection of application or any clarification
required from the applicant.
(12) The advertisement recorded by the Licensing
Authority or Drugs Controller in Form 26 E-5 shall
be valid till the date of validity of license o
manufacture for sale of hat drug and can be renewed
thereafter.
(13) An appeal may be fled before the Central
Government against he decision of the State
Licensing Authority under sub-rule (11) and the
order of Central Government shall be final and
binding on the appellant and the State Licensing
Authority.
(14) The State Government may notify in the
official Gazette the officers of Ayurvedic, Siddha
or Unani System to undertake the monitoring of the
advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs
in the print, electronic, internet and audio-visual
media and maintain printed register as well as
online register of the advertisements with
appropriate entries including those found
inappropriate or invalid and action taken against
such faulty advertisements and the State Government
shall provide information of the advertisements to
the Central Government on quarterly basis and also
as and when sought by the Central Government.
(15) The State Licensing Authority may suspend or
cancel the license of the manufacture of the
Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug as per the
provisions of Rule 159, in case the directions
given by the said authority is not complied.
(16) The Central Government shall, in he public
interest, prohibit any advertisement of the
Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs, by notification
in the Official Gazette.”
6. However, subsequently, this Court by its order dated
27.08.2024 had stayed the said Notification dated 01.07.2024. The
orders in that regard read as under:
7
Order Dated: 27-08-2024:
“13. Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor
General submits that this aspect may be permitted
to be explained by the Ministry on an affidavit.
Till further orders, the effect of the Notification
dated 01st July, 2024, omitting Rule 170 shall stand
stayed. In other words, till further orders are
passed, Rule 170 shall remain on the statute book
and in force.”Order Dated: 30-07-2024:
“xxx xxx xxx
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent No. 5 that vide order dated 17th May,
2024, the State Government had put on hold the
order of suspension passed on 15th April, 2024 and
thereafter constituted a Committee to examine the
matter. The Committee submitted its report to the
State Government on 29th June, 2024. Based on the
recommendations of the Committee, the State
Government cancelled the suspension order on 01st
July, 2024 and issued a fresh notice to show cause
to the respondent No.5 on 08th July, 2024.
3. We are informed by learned counsel for the State
of Uttarakhand that the respondent No.5 has
responded to the aforesaid show cause notice on
19th July, 2024. She seeks a reasonable time to
take a decision in the matter.
4. The State Government is directed to pass an
order pursuant to its show cause notice before the
next date of hearing and communicate the same to
the respondent No.5.
xxx xxx xxx
11. Learned Amicus Curiae has filed a Note for
Hearing wherein he has summarized the comments and
made some suggestions. One of the suggestions made
by him relates to the substantive changes made in
the prevailing mechanism of Ayush Drugs
particularly in the context of Rule 158B II. (A) of
the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which sets out
a table and specifies at Serial No.3 as follows:
“II.(A) For issue of license to the
medicine with respect to Ayurveda, Siddha
and Unani, the conditions relating to
safety study and the experience or evidence
of effectiveness shall be such as specified
in columns (5) and (6) of The Table given
below:-
8
Serial Category Ingredient(s) Indication(s) Safety Experience/ Evidence of
Number study Effectiveness
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Published Proof of
Literature Effectiveness
1. (A) Ayurveda, As per text As per text Not Required Not Required
Siddha and Required
Unani drugs,
given in 158B
as referred
in 3(a)
2. (B) Any As per text As per text Not Required Not Required
change in Required
dosage form
of Ayurveda,
Siddha and
Unani drugs
as described
in Section
3(a) of the
Drugs and
Cosmetics
Act, 1940
3. (C) Ayurveda, As per text New Not If Required Required
Siddha and Required
Unani drugs
referred in
3(a) to be
used for new
indication
12. Learned Amicus Curiae hands over a copy of the
Notification dated 04th July, 2018, issued by the
Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani,
Siddha and Homeopathy (Ayush), Government of India,
which watered down the aforesaid Rule and dispensed
with clinical trials with new indications and on
the aspect of effectiveness and suggested that
proof of effectiveness in the form of a Pilot Study
may be required for the drugs in question.
13. It is submitted that the aforesaid Notification
has diluted the Rules without any amendment
thereto, which is impermissible in law. The
Notification dated 04th July, 2018 is taken on
record and the UOI is directed to respond to the
above.
14. Coming to the effective use of the existing
penalty mechanism under law, learned Amicus Curiae
refers to his note at page 74 and submits that he
has drawn out a chart to indicate the limited
extent of penal action taken by States and Union
Territories under the DMR Act, 1954, The DC Act,
1940 and the CPA Act, 2019. In fact, he states that
the affidavits filed by the concerned State
Governments shows that in most cases, the penalties
imposed are NIL and similarly, the action taken is9
very poor. Despite the statutes being in place, the
State Governments and Union Territories have been
taking these provisions quite lightly.
15. All the State Governments/Union Territories are
directed to explain their inaction/indolence in
imposing penalties and deterrents for compliances
of the statutes, wherever required.
16. Further, except for the States of Jharkhand,
Goa, NCT of Delhi, Odisha and West Bengal, none of
the other States are following the practice of
granting prior approval of the advertisements
before issuance of licence so as to ensure that
there is proper labeling and no mismatch. All the
State Governments/Union Territories, except those
mentioned above, shall respond to the aforesaid
aspect highlighted by the learned Amicus Curiae
within two weeks.
17. Learned Amicus Curiae points out that there is
a strong need for centralized lifting of
complaints. Earlier, the Ministry of Consumer
Affairs, UOI had entered into an MOU with
Advertising Standard Council of India (ASCI) to
monitor misleading advertisements through the
misleading advertisements portal (GAMMA), but the
said MOU came to an end in April, 2020. During the
years 2018 to 2022, 2573 complaints related to the
health sector were registered, out of which 2505
were resolved. The partnership between the Ministry
of Consumer Affairs and ASCI helped in increasing
the number of complaints in view of the positive
response received from the Department.
18. We have been informed that now the Ministry of
Consumer Affairs has set up a National Consumer
Helpline Portal and the GAMMA Portal has been
integrated with the aforesaid Portal. The affidavit
filed by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs reflects
that in a period of two years, from April, 2022 to
May, 2024, only 132 complaints in the health sector
were received, out of which 116 complaints have
been disposed. The number of complaints received
itself is abysmally low, what to speak of the
disposal. Fact of the matter is that the complaints
which were over 2500 between April, 2018 and 2022,
have dwindled to 132. This itself speaks volumes
about the manner in which the Ministry has been
operating the website bringing the aforesaid
website to the notice of the public at large for
them to utilize the services offered.
10
19. It is stated by learned Amicus Curiae that
unlike ASCI that used to voluntarily undertake due
diligence and take action on noticing any
noncompliance, the website of the Ministry only
focusses on the complaints received and does not
take any initiative on its own to identify the
problems faced by the consumers and tackle the
misleading advertisements, issued by various
parties, which is why the number of complaints
received are so very poor.
20. The aforesaid aspect needs to be seriously
examined by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. A
specific response shall be furnished within two
weeks.
21. As for the need for effective inter-state
coordination, highlighted by the learned Amicus
Curiae, we find that there is merit in the
aforesaid submission particularly, in the light of
the data furnished by such of the States
Governments/Union Territories, who have filed their
affidavits. It appears from the said data collated
by learned Amicus Curiae that in some states, i.e.,
in the case of State of Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, NCT
of Delhi and West Bengal, a large number of
complaints were forwarded to other States for the
reason that the manufacturing units in respect of
which complaints were received, were operating
within the concerned State/Union Territories. But
no data has been furnished by the receiving States
of the complaints as to the action taken on the
complaints received. This leaves the consumer
feeling helpless and completely in the dark
regarding the action taken on the reports in
response to the complaints forwarded to the
receiving States.
22. We are of the opinion that the Ministry of
Ayush, UOI must set up a dashboard for all the
States to furnish details of the complaints
received by them and referred to another State
Licensing Authority for appropriate action and the
action taken by the concerned State Licensing
Authority so that the data comes in public domain
and can be accessed by the consumers. The aforesaid
dashboard would also help in dealing with
prosecutions under the DC Act in as much as lack of
information on the action taken is a big deterrent
for prosecution purposes and needs to be addressed
on priority. Creation of a dashboard would help in
addressing the aforesaid aspect as well.
11
23. The aforesaid issue shall be addressed by all
the concerned State Governments/Union Territories
and the Central Government and fresh affidavits
shall be filed within two weeks.
24. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Learned Additional Solicitor
General submits that several applications for
intervention have been filed in the present case.
Having perused the same, it is his submission that
IA Nos. 110768/2024 and 110769/2024 are extraneous
to the issues raised before this Court and may not
be entertained.
25. As none is present on behalf of the applicants
in the aforesaid applications, appropriate orders
shall be passed on the next date.
26. As for the remaining applications, learned
counsel for the petitioner has furnished a
consolidated list of the applications along with
the prayers made. The same are taken on record.
Orders on these applications are deferred for the
Central Government to file an affidavit placing on
record the recommendations made pursuant to the
joint meeting conducted with various stakeholders.
xx xxx xxx”
7. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that as a result, the said
Rule is still in force and various compliances have been made
pursuant to the said Rule by the respective States/Union
Territories. In the circumstances, the writ petition may be
continued to serve the subsequent expanded purposes, even though
the original purpose for which the writ petition was filed may have
been served.
8. We have extracted the prayers made in the writ petition above.
By various orders passed by this Court on different dates, the
prayers sought for by the petitioners in this writ petition have
been achieved inasmuch as the reliefs have been granted by this
Court or they do not survive for further consideration. In the
12
circumstances, we find that no object and purpose would be served
in considering the writ petition any further. Hence, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
9. However, liberty is reserved to the parties/intervention
applicants to seek relief in accordance with law if they have any
grievance with regard to the omission of Rule 170. Consequently,
interim order dated 27.08.2024 stands vacated.
10. All contentions on both sides are left open to be advanced in
appropriate proceeding that may be taken up by any of the parties
herein, if so advised.
11. Pending application(s) including the application(s) for
intervention/impleadment shall also stand disposed of.
12. We place on record our sincere appreciation of the services
rendered by Shri Shadan Farasat, learned Amicus Curiae, to this
Court.
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 400/2025
13. The facts in brief are that the Petitioners, who represent
various stakeholders in the Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani Drugs
industry, have filed the instant writ petition being aggrieved by
the insertion of Rule 170 to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 by
way of the Drugs and Cosmetics (11 th Amendment) Rules, 2018.
According to them the said Rule prohibits manufacturers of
Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs from publishing any advertisement
referring to any drug in terms that suggest that the drug may
13
diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat or prevent any disease. The
Petitioners claim the impugned Rule 170 violates their fundamental
rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution of
India.
14. They have sought the following reliefs:
“A. Declare that the Impugned Rules i.e. Drugs and
Cosmetics (11th Amendment) Rules, 2018, are
unconstitutional and void ab-initio being ultra
vires the Constitution of India, violative of
Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution
of India and also ultra vires the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1945;
B. Issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
directions under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India striking down the Impugned Rules Drugs and
Cosmetics (11th Amendment) Rules, 2018 as being
ultra vires the Constitution of India, violative of
Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution
of India and also ultra vires the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1945; andC. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present
petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the
effect, operating and implementation of the
Impugned Rules i.e. Drugs and Cosmetics (11th
Amendment) Rules, 2018;
D. Pass such further or other order as to this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the
instant case.”
15. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners herein or any other
parties similarly situated to seek the aforesaid reliefs or any
other related reliefs before the appropriate Forum, in accordance
with law.
14
16. In view of the order passed in Writ Petition (C) No.
645/2022, we dispose of this writ petition reserving liberty to the
petitioners herein to seek remedies, if any, in accordance with
law, if so advised.
Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
……………………………………………………………J.
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 11, 2025.
15
ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.5 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 645/2022
INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
[FOR REPORTING COMPLIANCE]……..
1. MR. SHADAN FARASAT, LEARNED ADVOCATE WILL ASSIST THE COURT AS AN
AMICUS CURIAE
2. MR. MURSALIN ASIJIT SHAIKH, APPLICANT-IN-PERSON WILL APPEAR IN
I.A. D.NO. 95540 OF 2024 (APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION) 3.
IA No. 110039/2024 – APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 110769/2024 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 133550/2024 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 140252/2024 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 110011/2024 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 132998/2024 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 139081/2024 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 130554/2022 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 137201/2024 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 143229/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 234824/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 142959/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 187046/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 171013/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 159883/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 117836/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 155193/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 133899/2024 – INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 110768/2024 – INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 95540/2024 – INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 139085/2024 – INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 13659/2023 – INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 133673/2024 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 133537/2024 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 133534/2024 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 139082/2024 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 166475/2024 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 132997/2024 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 188151/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 139206/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION
IA No. 166477/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 400/2025 (X)
16
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 102215/2025 – EX-PARTE STAY
Date : 11-08-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHANMr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae)
Mr. Abhishek Babbar, Adv.
Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Adv.
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv.
Mr. Amarjeet Singh, AOR
Mr. Priyanshu Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Pakhiddey, Adv.
Mr. Manav Gill, Adv.
Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, AOR
Mr. Vaibhav Rajsingh Rathore, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G.
Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR
Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv.
Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Jain, Adv.
Ms. Avni Singh, Adv.
Mr. Jitin Chaturvedi, AOR
Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Talukdar, AOR
Ms. Apurbaa Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv.
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR
Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR
Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv.
Mr. Paranjay Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Raj, Adv.
17
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR
Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Disha Singh, AOR
Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv.
Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G.
Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR
Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv.
Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv.
Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Anshul Narayan, Addl. Standing Counsel, Adv.
Mrs. Vineeta Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Prem Prakash, AORMs. Ankita Sharma, AOR
Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ishika Neagi, Adv.
Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv.
Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR
Mr. Sarthak Mehrotra,, Adv.
Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv.
Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Ms. Abhipsa Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR
Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.
Ms. Aakanksha, Adv.
Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Ishika Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, DAG
Ms. Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Girish Ringe, AORMs. Pallavi Langar, AOR
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Adv.
18
Mr. Honey Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv.
Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR
Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
Ms. Anu K Joy, Adv.
Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.
Mr. Santhosh K, Adv.
Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv.
Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, D.A.G.
Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR
Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chhavi Khandelwal, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv.
Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv.
Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR
Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv.
Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv.
Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv.
Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv.
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.
Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Srisatya Mohanty , AOR
Mr. Abhijit Pattanaik, Adv.
Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR
Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G.
Ms. Abhinandini Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Saubhagya Sundriyal, Adv.
19
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR
Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR
Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Rastogi, Adv.
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari AAG, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR
Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv.
Mr. Amulya Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Kashyap, Adv.
Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv.
Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR
Ms. M. Harshini, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Nikhil, Adv.
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.
Mrs. Garima Prasad, Sr. A.A.G.
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AORMr. Kunal Mimani, AOR
Mr. Prashant Alai, Adv.
Mr. G.M.Kawoosa, Adv.
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
Ms. Jyoti P, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Mehta Ld, Solicitor General
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave Ld, A.S.G.
Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv.
Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv.
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mrs. Indira Bhakar, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv.
Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv.
Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv.
Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Vineet Singh, Adv.
20
Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv.
Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Jain, Adv.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R Jawaharlal, Adv.
Ms. Meghna Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sayyam Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Cecil C George, Adv.
Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR
Mrs. Anumita Verma, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR
Mr. Vivek Reddy, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Basa Mithun Shashank, Adv.
Ms. Anjali, Adv.
Pival K Peddireddi, Adv.
M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR
Mr. Ankur Sangal, Adv.
Mrs. Sucheta Roy, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Arvind, Adv.
Ms. Amrit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Karun Mehta, Adv.
Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shreyas Edupuganti, Adv.
Mr. Karan Bhootra, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Anand Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Aashish Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Deepti Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Shweta Singh Parihar, AORMr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR
Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Akshi Rastogi, Adv.
Ms. Vedika Rathore, Adv.
Ms. Rithika Mathur, Adv.
Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR
Ms. Mrinmoi Chatterjee , AORM/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
Mr. Debmalya Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv.
21
Ms. Liza Vohra, Adv.
Ms. Ayshwarya Chandar, AOR
Mr. Mayank Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv.
Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR
Ms. Kajal Giri, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of thesigned order.
All pending application(s) including the application(s)
for intervention/impleadment shall also stand disposed of.
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)(Signed order is placed on the file)
22
[ad_1]
Source link