Sukhendu Bhattacharjee vs State of Assam

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 569

VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Goswami, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Shukla, Adv. Mr. Brahmjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR Mr. Somiran Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kabir Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Patel, Adv. Mr. Nihal Singh Shekhawat, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. B K Sharma, Sr. Adv. Ms. Neha Tandon, Adv. Mr. Gautam Talukdar, AOR Mr. Siddhartha Jha, AOR Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Sadhana Madhavan, Adv. Ms. Kavana Rao, Adv. Mr. D. P. Singh, Adv. Ms. Anchal Kanthed, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastva, Adv. Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv. Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv. Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Mrs. Rishi Agarwal, Adv. Mrs. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Mrs. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Ankit Roy, AOR Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv. Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv. Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Mrinalini Ramesh, Adv. Mr. Bharadwaj S., AOR Mr. Vignesh Adithiya, Adv. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR Mr. B.k Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR Mr. Jyotirmoy Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Aaheli Roy, Adv. Mr. Nilim Sarma, Adv. Mr. Manish Raghav, AOR Mr. Yalint Stefen, Adv. Mr. Collvin Seuzul, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anupam Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Satvik Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yallana Honis, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025; Civil Appeal No. 4516 of 2025; Civil Appeal No. 4515 of 2025; Civil Appeal No. 4517 of 2025 and Civil Appeal No. 4518 of 2025

1. Delay condoned in filing application for setting aside of abatement. Abatement is set aside. Delay condoned in filing application(s) for substitution. Application(s) for substitution is/are allowed. Applications for impleadment are dismissed.

2. In matters concerning long-standing administrative arrangements, particularly where the State and its instrumentalities, over time, continue to utilize the services of certain categories of workers in the discharge of its functions, Courts are often required to examine whether executive action conforms to constitutional standards of fairness and consistency. The exercise of public power cannot be divorced from practical realities created by sustained governmental reliance on such workers. Where governmental authorities derive the benefit of prolonged service and thereafter adopt positions that appear inconsistent with earlier policies or representations, the scrutiny of the Court is directed not merely at the outcome, but at the manner in which discretion h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 569

VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTASukhendu Bhattacharjee – AppellantVersusState of Assam – Respondent

Cases Referred (10)

VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent