Indian courts are confronting a widening gap between procedural law and substantive justice, with three recent high-profile cases illustrating systemic tensions over state accountability, evidence preservation, and the proper scope of government power.
The Supreme Court has scheduled hearings on a pair of public interest litigations seeking court-monitored investigations into alleged state misconduct, while a high court penalty signals judicial frustration with avoidable government litigation. Together, these developments underscore a recurring theme: when administrative and police powers operate without adequate oversight, courts must intervene to protect constitutional guarantees and prevent irreversible harm.
A Demand for Judicial Scrutiny of Encounter Killings
The Supreme Court is set to hear a public interest petition challenging a fatal police encounter in Bihar’s Bhojpur district that has sparked village protests and raised fundamental questions about the use of lethal force. The case centers on Bharat Bhushan Tiwari, a 28-year-old killed by police on June 17 hours after he broadcast a Facebook Live message expressing willingness to surrender under certain conditions.
The petition, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, arrays the Union of India, the State of Bihar, the Director General of Police, and the Central Bureau of Investigation as respondents. It seeks a full FIR, a judicial inquiry headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, and a CBI investigation into whether the encounter constituted an extrajudicial killing.
According to the plea, Tiwari’s father claims his son had no criminal record and had laid down his weapon before being shot. The petition argues that police routinely justify encounters with a formulaic narrative: the suspect attempted to snatch a weapon and open fire while fleeing, forcing retaliatory action. This pattern, the petition contends, represents a systemic threat to constitutional protections and the rule of law itself.
The framing matters because it shifts the analysis from a single incident to institutional practice. The petition argues that extrajudicial killings amount to violations of the fundamental right to life and liberty, and that police cannot become “a mode of delivering final justice.” That power, the petition insists, vests only in the judiciary.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu will take up the case following an earlier denial of urgent hearing by another bench, which directed the petitioner to work through normal registry channels. The deferral signals the court’s desire to address the matter on the merits while avoiding the appearance of responding to individual urgency pleas.
Temple Donations and the Preservation of Evidence
The Supreme Court declined an urgent hearing on a separate public interest petition seeking a court-monitored probe into donations at the Ram Janmabhoomi temple, but assured the petitioner that the registry would list the matter on a normal timeline. The case reflects analogous concerns: whether institutional custodians of sacred or public property are operating with adequate transparency and accountability.
Advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, appearing as petitioner-in-person, sought immediate directions to preserve CCTV footage, digital payment logs, transaction records, and other evidence relating to donations and offerings at the temple in Ayodhya. The petition frames temple donations as “sacred trust property” vesting in the deity as a juristic person, creating fiduciary duties of transparency and accountability on those handling the funds.
The cause of action arose after public reports and the Uttar Pradesh government’s constitution of a three-member special investigation team over allegations of irregularities and misappropriation. The petitioner sought a forensic audit of all donations and offerings since the trust’s inception, as well as minimum constitutional safeguards for transparent handling of donations at temples of national importance. The court’s measured response-declining urgency but confirming listing-indicates willingness to address the underlying merits without rushing.
When Governments Litigate Without Legal Foundation
A Mumbai High Court decision penalizing the Maharashtra government for “avoidable litigation” illuminates a third dimension of accountability: procedural discipline. Justice Kamal Khata imposed a cost of 5 lakh rupees on the state for dragging infrastructure company IVRCL Limited through a decade-long dispute over excavated earth at the IIT Bombay campus, holding that the revenue authorities had invoked a non-existent Legal basis for the penalty.
The dispute originated in 2010 when IVRCL completed a contract to dump surplus excavated material within the IIT campus for leveling low-lying areas. A sub-divisional officer issued a show-cause notice alleging unauthorized mineral excavation and imposed a penalty of 54.08 lakh rupees under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The district collector and additional commissioner upheld the penalty in 2011, and the government issued a demand notice.
The High Court rejected the state’s entire theory. It held that the show-cause notice and subsequent orders were “wholly unsustainable and reflects a complete non-application of mind.” The court found that invoking the Land Revenue Code for material transferred within the same campus was “wholly misconceived.” The bench also directed the state government to frame guidelines requiring officials to obtain Legal advice whenever a genuine doubt arises concerning statutory interpretation or application.
This last directive carries institutional weight. The court recognized that systematic ignorance of applicable law wastes litigant resources, clogs court dockets, and undermines respect for legal process. By coupling a monetary penalty with an affirmative obligation to improve internal legal discipline, the court signaled that government agencies must do more than defend their actions in court; they must ensure decisions rest on sound legal footing before litigation begins.
A Pattern of Institutional Accountability
The three cases represent distinct legal domains-criminal procedure, trust administration, and administrative law-yet they converge on a shared judicial posture. Courts are requiring states to justify their exercise of power, to preserve evidence that might reveal misconduct, and to observe procedural discipline even when litigation could be avoided.
The Supreme Court’s willingness to hear both the encounter killing and temple donations petitions, despite declining urgent listing, signals that institutional accountability remains a core judicial function. And the High Court’s cost order demonstrates that judges will hold governments responsible for deploying law enforcement and litigation machinery without adequate legal grounding.
Whether these interventions prove durable depends on executive compliance and legislative fortification. The encounter case will test whether courts can meaningfully scrutinize police use of lethal force without deferring to operational necessity claims. The temple case will measure judicial appetite for investigating institutional financial administration. And the IIT case has already shown courts willing to penalize government litigation premised on faulty legal theory. Together, they reflect a judiciary aware that procedural rigor and evidence preservation are not luxuries but prerequisites for constitutional governance.
