Supreme Court's Docket: Contempt in Bhopal Tragedy, CCI Powers Upheld, and Exam Transparency Debated

New Delhi – In a series of significant proceedings on September 26, the Supreme Court of India addressed critical issues spanning from decades-old institutional failures to contemporary debates on regulatory power and examination transparency. The day’s hearings saw the Court issue a stern notice in a contempt petition concerning the Bhopal Gas Tragedy victims, reinstate a Competition Commission of India (CCI) penalty against a film federation, and wade into the contentious issue of transparency in medical entrance exams.

---

Decades of Delay: SC Issues Contempt Notice Over Unfulfilled Promises to Bhopal Victims

In a stark reminder of a lingering national tragedy, the Supreme Court has intervened in the protracted struggle for justice for the victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas leak. A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar issued a notice in a contempt petition against top officials for the "almost total non-compliance" with the Court's own directions from August 9, 2012.

The 2012 orders, issued in the case of Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v Union of India , mandated the computerisation of medical records and the provision of adequate medical care for the tragedy's survivors. The apex court had transferred the matter to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for administrative supervision to ensure the orders were executed.

Twelve years later, the petitioners allege a systemic failure by both state and central authorities. The contempt petition, filed by the victims' organization, targets the Secretary of the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, the Director General of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), and key secretaries of the Madhya Pradesh government.

A Pattern of Non-Compliance

The petition paints a grim picture of bureaucratic apathy. It highlights that a Monitoring Committee, reconstituted by the High Court in 2013 and chaired by a retired judge, has submitted 21 reports detailing necessary actions. Yet, these recommendations have been largely ignored.

Key failures cited in the petition include: * Medical Staff Shortages: The Bhopal Medical Hospital and Research Centre continues to face a critical shortage of faculty and doctors, with authorities failing to fill vacancies despite the Monitoring Committee's alerts. * Unsatisfactory Computerisation: While authorities claim the computerisation of medical records is complete, the Monitoring Committee has deemed the system unsatisfactory and "not patient-centric," arguing it fails to provide a useful case history for patient treatment. * Ignored Warnings: The petition states that numerous warnings and observations of potential coercive action by the High Court since 2013 have had "no impact" on the respondent authorities. The High Court itself, in a January 2025 order, reportedly criticised the "callous stance of the State."

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, argue that after ten years of the High Court restraining itself from punitive action, it is time for the Supreme Court to enforce its original mandate. The matter is scheduled for hearing on November 14, placing the conduct of four government departments directly under the Supreme Court's scrutiny.

---

Upholding Regulatory Teeth: SC Restores CCI Penalty, Prioritizes Substantive Justice

In a significant judgment for competition law jurisprudence, the Supreme Court restored a 2015 order by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that imposed "behavioural remedies" on office bearers of the Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation (KFEF) for anti-competitive conduct.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed the CCI's appeal, setting aside an order by the now-defunct Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT). The COMPAT had invalidated the penalty against two KFEF office bearers—P.V. Basheer Ahmed and M.C. Bobby—on the procedural ground that they were not issued a separate show-cause notice before being debarred from associating with the KFEF for two years.

The Core of the Dispute

The case stemmed from complaints that the KFEF and its office bearers were indulging in anti-competitive practices by preventing the screening of certain films in rival theatres. The CCI, in two separate cases, found them guilty of violating Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. After a monetary penalty in the first case failed to deter their conduct, the CCI imposed the two-year debarment in the second case.

Writing the judgment, Justice Viswanathan held that the initial notice sent by the CCI, which included the detailed report of the Director General implicating the office bearers, was sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice under the law as it stood. The Court noted:

"The notice of 10.6.2015 is categorical in pointing out that there are contraventions alleged in the DG report and it was clear in fixing the individuals who were the key persons... A clear opportunity was given to file objections."

The judgment emphasized that the office bearers complained of no prejudice at the time and that statutory liability under Section 48 of the Act is fixed on those in charge of the company's affairs.

Critically, the Court endorsed the CCI's use of non-monetary, "behavioural remedies" when financial penalties prove insufficient. Observing that the respondents were repeat offenders, the bench stated:

"It is very clear that the monetary penalty did not act as a deterrent... Behavioural remedies like the one ordered in the present case would alone protect the interests of the consumers and uphold the majesty of law."

This ruling reinforces the CCI's authority to impose stringent, tailored penalties to curb recidivism in anti-competitive behaviour, favouring substantive deterrence over procedural hyper-technicalities.

---

NEET-PG: SC Questions Litigation Culture Amidst Pleas for Transparency

The Supreme Court also took up a batch of petitions demanding greater transparency in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) medical courses. A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan issued notice on three new petitions seeking the publication of question papers and answer keys.

While issuing notice, the bench expressed skepticism about the nature of the litigation. Observing that over 2 lakh students took the exam, Justice Pardiwala orally remarked on why only a handful had approached the Court.

"When do you study? You should get out of all this litigation. Concentrate on your studies... Stand on your own merit."

Counsel for the petitioners argued that their pleas were not intended to disrupt the ongoing counselling process but to address a systemic issue of transparency that affects a large number of students. One advocate mentioned that a Google form created by the petitioners had garnered signatures from around 2,000 students, suggesting wider concern.

The case, which will be heard in four weeks, adds to a series of legal challenges against the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBE). The Court has previously passed orders in related matters, directing the publication of raw scores and pushing for a single-shift examination to ensure fairness. The current petitions keep the spotlight on the NBE's examination processes and the judiciary's role in balancing student grievances with the integrity of national-level competitive exams.

---

Other Briefs: Preserving Evidence in Alleged Fake Encounter

In a separate matter, a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih directed Chhattisgarh authorities to preserve the body of Katha Ramchandra Reddy, an alleged Maoist commander killed in a police encounter on September 22. The plea was brought by his son, who alleges it was a fake encounter and sought preservation for an independent post-mortem. The Court requested the Chhattisgarh High Court to hear the son's writ petition on priority after its vacation, ensuring evidence is not lost pending judicial review.