Continuing Mandamus in India: An Innovative Approach to Address the Executive Inertia and Ensure Justice in Practice

Paper Code: AIJACLAV11RP2026

Category: Research Paper

Date of Publication: Sep 10, 2026

Citation: Advocate Fairy, “Continuing Mandamus in India: An Innovative Approach to Address the Executive Inertia and Ensure Justice in Practice", 6, AIJACLA, 83-93 (2026), <https://www.aequivic.in/post/continuing-mandamus-in-india-an-innovative-approach-to-address-the-executive-inertia-and-ensure-jus>

Author Details: Advocate Fairy, Advocate

Download PDF

Abstract

The ‘Continuous Mandamus’ is a novel and in vogue judicial remedy by which a matter is kept open and pending. In other words, the Honourable Court keeps the matter sub judice, and as per the needs of the time and according to the applications filed under the same open matter, the Court keeps on passing ongoing orders and directions and supervises their enforcement and compliance over time. It has been widely issued in the public interest matters, especially when a Public Interest Litigation is filed, for instance, from the locus classicus case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1985) on Delhi’s air pollution to the very recent case of Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India (2026), recognising a fundamental right to menstrual health. This article aims to discuss the genesis and operation of continuous mandamus. It illustratively refers to some notable continuing mandamus matters. Further, it discusses the importance of this judicial tool in ensuring justice in practice by keeping a vigil on the implementation of the directions and orders so passed. Lastly, the article addresses the question of whether the use of continuing mandamus is an act of judicial overreach or a need of the hour to resolve the recalcitrant approach of the executive in the implementation of the orders.

Keywords: Continuous Mandamus, Public Interest Litigation, Supreme Court, Justice, Remedy.

Paper Code: AIJACLAV11RP2026

Introduction

The term ‘justice’ has a very wide connotation. It means different things to different individuals. It has different meanings in different societies and at different times. The idea of justice embraces the ideals of fairness and equality.[1] It can be defined as ‘the right to get one’s due.’[2] It is commonly said that the law is the means to achieve the ends of justice, and to achieve justice, there must be a legal system, and everyone should have access to it. Access to justice is what brings the law to life and gives it real meaning.[3] Access to justice comprises two things: firstly, an effective legal system in which rights are enumerated and supported by the substantive legislation, and secondly, a judicial system easily accessible to the public.[4] Thus, the judiciary has a significant role in guaranteeing access to justice.

In India, the Preamble to the Constitution of India inter alia aims to secure justice: social, economic, and political, to all citizens. It guarantees fundamental rights in Part III to every individual. For the enforcement of the fundamental rights, the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts in India are empowered under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, respectively, to issue various writs. The writs are the remedial rights provided under the Constitution of India.

 Sometimes, a matter comes before the Court wherein the available writs seem inadequate to provide proper relief. For instance, the executive shows a recalcitrant approach in implementing the orders and directions of the Court; or a greater public interest is involved; or there is a continuous violation of the fundamental rights; or the executive is failing to perform its duty effectively; or there is a gap in legislation, and the matter at hand demands some immediate step. Thus, to meet the ends of justice, the Supreme Court of India has crafted out various remedies and has read them into the already existing provisions of the Constitution. For example, the concept of Public Interest Litigation, by which the strict rules of locus standi are relaxed. The advent of PIL has led to various other innovations in the remedial jurisprudence. One of the innovations, among such innovations, is the remedy of ‘continuing mandamus’ by which the matter is kept pending to enable the Court to monitor the compliance of its order. All these innovations are the result of judicial activism.

The remedy of ‘continuing mandamus’ is an innovative procedural remedy often used by the Court to keep an oversight on the acts of the executive and to ensure the implementation of the orders and directions. This article is going to explore the contours of ‘continuing mandamus’ with the help of some case laws. This remedy also has a close nexus with PIL.

Continuing Mandamus: Background, Genesis and Conceptual Explanation

Article 32 of the Constitution has been given a very expansive interpretation. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India & Others,[5] the Supreme Court expanded the horizons of Article 32 of the Constitution. It said that the framers of the Constitution clearly intended that the Supreme Court should possess the broadest possible powers to issue any direction, order, or writ that may be necessary or appropriate in a particular case for the enforcement of a fundamental right. This is the reason why the Constitution is silent on the procedure to be followed by the Supreme Court while exercising its power under Article 32. They did this deliberately because they never wanted to restrict or limit the discretion of the Supreme Court to develop and adopt whatever procedure is suitable in the facts and circumstances of each case, so that it can effectively enforce fundamental rights.[6] Further, the Court said, “…if we want the fundamental rights to become a living reality and the Supreme Court to become a real sentinel on the quivive, we must free ourselves from the shackles of outdated and outmoded assumptions and bring to bear on the subject fresh outlook and original unconventional thinking…”[7]

In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87: AIR 1982 SC 149, Justice PN Bhagwati, the pioneer of the concept of PIL, said, “…procedure is but a handmaiden of justice and the cause of justice can never be allowed to be thwarted by any procedural technicalities.”[8]

Likewise, in the case of M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors,[9] the Supreme Court observed It is now well settled that Article 32 does not merely give the Supreme Court the power to issue directions, orders or writs for enforcing fundamental rights. It also imposes a constitutional duty on the Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people. For this purpose, the Court has all incidental and ancillary powers, including the power to create new remedies and devise new strategies to enforce these rights. It is in fulfilment of this constitutional obligation that the Supreme Court has, in the past, developed innovative methods and strategies — especially to protect the basic human rights of the poor and disadvantaged sections of society, for whom freedom and liberty would otherwise remain meaningless.[10]

From the above, it is quite clear that the Courts have always welcomed innovation through new interpretations. This exercise of novel interpretations by the Court to safeguard and uphold the rights of individuals is termed ‘judicial activism.’ Judicial activism refers to the judiciary’s departure from its traditional role as a mere adjudicator of disputes, wherein it assumes a more dynamic role by laying down principles and guidelines that the Executive is obligated to carry out.[11]This has led to ‘judicial creativism’ by which the concepts such as PIL, epistolary jurisdiction and continuing mandamus have emerged.

Continuing Mandamus:

Continuing Mandamus is a procedural remedy that enables the Court to keep the matter pending in order to monitor compliance with the direction issued by it. This is issued in matters requiring remedy over a long period. By issuing a continuing mandamus, the Court keeps the matter sub-judice and does not deliver a final, decisive judgment. Rather, the Court gives the directions and guidelines and monitors their implementation by the executive over time, and in this way, as per the needs of the time and according to the applications filed under the same open matter, the Court keeps on passing the directions and supervises their enforcement. This trend has been seen in the public interest matters, especially when a Public Interest Litigation.[12] Continuing mandamus is also known as a structural injunction through which a series of interim orders are issued over time to bring institutional reform. This concept originated from the public interest litigation. Now, it has been called ‘default remedy’ in the PIL matters.[13]

In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal[14], (2010) 3 SCC 402: AIR 2010 SC 2550 the Supreme Court discussed the three phases of PIL -  the first phase deals with the cases wherein the Court was concerned with the matters about the fundamental rights violations of the marginalized groups who, due to poverty, illiteracy or ignorance, were unable approach the Court; the second phase dealt with environment protection matters; and the third phase deals with the cases wherein the Court passed number of directions and orders to “maintain probity and morality in the governance of the State.” In the third phase, the Court began to pass continuing mandamus orders.[15]

This new remedy or writ of ‘continuing mandamus’ was first coined in the case of Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.[16] In this case, the Honourable Supreme Court applied the continuing mandamus to oversee the investigation by the CBI and CVV. It was held that judicial review is an effective way to activate the investigative process, which is under the control of the executive. The Court said that the conjoint reading of Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution confers ample powers to the Court to make orders which have the effect of law by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. Further, Article 144 of the Constitution provides a mandate to all the authorities to act in aid of the order of the Supreme Court. The court also pointed out that this approach had been followed earlier also to fill the vacuum till the time the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role. Thus, this kind of exercise by the Court is well-settled and has firm roots in the constitutional jurisprudence. It is significant to fill the void in the absence of suitable legislation to cover the field.[17] The Court further emphasised that it is the duty of the executive to formulate the orders, directions and guidelines because this exercise is coterminous with that of the legislature. However, the judiciary has to step in when even the executive fails to act. Thus, the Court made directions till the time the legislature enacts proper legislation. The Court said, “These directions made under Article 32 read with Article 142 to implement the rule of law wherein the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 is embedded, have the force of law under Article 141 and, by virtue of Article 144, it is the duty of all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India to act in aid of this Court.”[18]

It is pertinent to note that even before the case of Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.^[19] the practice of passing directions and keeping the matter open was in operation. Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar,[20] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India,[21] Vishakha and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others,[22] Supreme Court Advocates-on- Record Associations and Others vs. Union of India,[23] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[24], etc. Thus, Vineet Narain’s case had only given a name to this already applied tool.

Not only is the Supreme Court empowered to issue the writ of continuing mandamus, but even the High Courts are also empowered to issue it vide Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Courts are also applying this innovative remedy.[25] For instance, in the case of K.A.Ravindran vs The District Collector, [26] the Madras High Court directed the authorities to re-mutate the patta in the petitioner’s name by 2^nd February 2021. It also awarded Rs. 50,000 compensation for the decade-long bureaucratic apathy and violation of the petitioner’s property rights. The judgement vehemently criticised executive inaction and said “Whither go administration, and quo vadis justice?” The High Court showed concern about the executive inertia. It said that the executive understands the judiciary repeatedly strikes down instances of administrative malfeasance, yet it has failed to take meaningful steps to prevent such recurrence. It continues to generate avoidable litigations that could be easily prevented if only it showed greater sensitivity and institutional pride. A bureaucracy with even a modicum of institutional pride would introspect, reform its processes, improve internal coordination, and take corrective measures to avoid being repeatedly pulled up by the courts.[27]

Procedural Aspect:

The next thing that needs to be understood is how the remedy of continuing mandamus works. What are the procedural nitty-gritties of it? As discussed above, a continuing mandamus matter is kept open and is not disposed of by passing a final judgment. Now, since the matter is open or sub-judice, the Court considers all the other similar matters relating to the original matter under the same case name. So, in practice, instead of filing the petition again and again for the related and similar matters, the interlocutory applications are filed under the same case. The original petition, along with the interlocutory applications, also bears the same petition number. Sub-Clause (xii) of clause 3 of Supreme Court of India – Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure (2017) defines ‘interlocutory petition’ as “an application filed in a pending main case praying for relief, interim or otherwise, from the Court.”[28] Further, if any other matter arises having the same issues, then the Court has the discretion to tag it to the original matter pending in the Court.

 For example, the matter of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[29] was kept open for 40 years, and all the directions and orders, such as shifting Delhi’s public transport to CNG, restricting entry of heavy vehicles, banning fire crackers, supervising construction of projects, etc., were passed under this matter.[30] Recently, in March, this matter was given a closure. All the interlocutory applications filed under it were unrelated to the original matter and, therefore, ordered to be filed as separate writ petitions.[31] Likewise, the landmark forest conservation case, i.e., T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India.[32] It is long pending continuous mandamus matter under which the Supreme Court has passed numerous orders, such as expanding the definition of forests, the mechanism of net present value, etc.

Further, when the Court issues a continuing mandamus to monitor the implementation of its orders, it may appoint an independent committee or commission (independent of the executive) as a monitoring agency; take the assistance of an amicus curiae; or call for periodic reports and compliance affidavits from the authorities responsible for implementation.[33]

Judicial Application of Continuing Mandamus

The writ of continuing mandamus is being used in a plethora of cases. It is widely used in public interest matters. A handful of cases have been discussed below:

To monitor the investigation:

Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.[34] – (Jain Hawala Diaries Case)

A writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution in public interest alleging that the CBI and revenue authorities failed to properly investigate the “Jain Diaries” seized during raids. The diaries revealed large illicit hawala payments to high-ranking politicians, bureaucrats, and others, exposing a nexus between politicians, bureaucrats, and criminals, including funding of terrorists through illegal means. The issue arose as to whether judicial review under Article 32 can effectively activate the investigative process controlled by the executive. The Supreme Court held that judicial review is a valid and effective instrument to ensure performance of statutory duties by investigative agencies. It coined and applied the doctrine of “continuing mandamus”, keeping the petition pending for ongoing judicial oversight instead of disposing of it finally. The Court emphasised that the Rule of Law demands impartial investigation and prosecution irrespective of the status or position of the accused. It quoted: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.” The Court expressed the need to insulate the executive from the extraneous influences, even of the controlling executive. Further, the Court issues various directions, such as that the Prosecution must follow where a prima facie case exists; closure reports, if any, must be submitted to the Supreme Court for its satisfaction; no offence can be compounded without prior permission of the Court.[35]

This mechanism ensured continuing judicial oversight over the investigative process to prevent shielding of influential persons and to uphold public trust. The Court also issued structural directions to insulate agencies like CBI, ED, and CVC from political interference until proper legislation is enacted.

Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India[36] (2G Spectrum case)

This case pertains to the allocation of licenses to 2G telecommunications spectrum. In 2007, the applications for licenses were invited. The government arbitrarily changed the cut-off date to one week before the original date. Further, the licenses were issued on a ‘first come first serve’ basis, not based on a competitive bid, i.e., through auction. The allegations of corruption were levelled against the officials. PIL was filed requesting the Court to monitor the investigation. The Delhi High Court refused to meddle in the investigation. However, the Supreme Court allowed the PIL and a writ of ‘continuing mandamus’ was issued to keep an oversight on the investigation. It had various issues in directions to CBI, such as: it should conduct a thorough investigation into irregularities, it should not be influenced by the rank, position or status of the person to be investigated, etc.[37] The Court even directed CBI to investigate specific people.[38] CBI was ordered to produce a chargesheet against the Minister for Telecommunications before it was even filed.[39] The Court was not convinced by the investigation conducted by the CBI in which the minister was cleared of the charges, and therefore, it ordered the production of documents upon which the decision of the CBI was based.[40]

Later, the President of India invoked Article 143 of the Constitution and sought the advisory opinion after the above decision, wherein 122 telecom licences were quashed, and an auction was declared a valid mode of allotment of natural resources. The Supreme Court held that the 2G Spectrum ruling mandated an auction only for spectrum. This ruling does not invalidate other methods of disposing of natural resources if Articles 14 and 39(b) are satisfied, that is, the process of allocation must be fair & transparent and for the promotion of the common good.[41]

Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary[42] - (Coalgate scam case)

This case begins from the findings of the CAG that coal blocks were allocated to some private companies. The government was empowered to allocate coal blocks through auction; however, instead, it allotted them on an ad hoc basis. The allegations of fraud, criminal conspiracy, and corruption were made against the government officials associated with the allotment. PIL was filed on the grounds of violation of the right to equality.

In this case, the Court also passed a series of orders to monitor the investigation. The CBI was prohibited from changing the composition of the investigation team without the permission of the Court.[43] The Court, in various hearings, showed its frustration towards the way CBI was conducting the investigation. During one of the hearings in April 2013, it emerged that the CBI’s status report – which was supposed to be submitted to the Court in a sealed envelope – had been shared with government officials. The Court described the incident as “very disturbing” and viewed the CBI’s attempt to suppress this information as particularly serious. The Court felt the need to insulate and liberate the CBI officials from political interference.^[44] Soon after, the Court was apprised that the draft affidavit to be filed by the CBI Director had been shared with the Law Minister, along with government counsel and other officials. The Court reacted sharply to this, and one of the judges described the CBI as a “caged parrot” that speaks only in “its master’s voice.”^[45] This remark, delivered in a packed New Delhi courtroom amid complete silence, quickly became legendary. It served as a powerful rallying cry for anti-corruption activists, journalists, and opposition leaders demanding independent investigations.^[46] The Court even pointed out the slow pace of investigation by the CBI.[47]

The Supreme Court held that the entire allocation of Coal Blocks made between 1993 and 2011, except those which were made through competitive bidding, were invalid, unfair, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence, quashed.[48]

Environmental cases:

Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court of India has closed the long-pending continuing mandamus matter of Delhi’s air pollution. It was a landmark case titled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[49] WP(C) 13029/1985. This single case triggered a series of landmark reforms and environmental policies that continue to shape air pollution management in Delhi and across India. The Supreme Court directed 13 highly polluted cities (besides Delhi) to prepare and implement Clean Air Action Plans. It banned firecrackers across the National Capital Region and closely supervised the construction of the Western and Peripheral Expressways to divert heavy vehicular traffic away from Delhi. The 2001 orders also imposed ongoing restrictions on the entry of heavy vehicles into the city. The most significant intervention came through repeated directions to the Sheila Dikshit-led Delhi Government to convert the entire public transport fleet to CNG.[50]

The mechanism of continuing mandamus had helped to achieve the results. However, it works only when the respondent is identifiable, e.g. in the original petition, the bus fleet controlled by the state. In the present situation, many other diverse factors have emerged, such as a surge in private vehicles, construction activities, stubble burning, etc., which are also contributing to the air pollution in Delhi. 85 interlocutory applications have been pending in the then open matter of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India WP(C) 13029/1985, which had no nexus with the original petition of 1985 and therefore, a new suo motu proceeding titled In Re: Issues of Air Pollution in the National Capital Region has been initiated and the pending interlocutory applications were re-registered as independent writ petitions. Continuing mandamus is also applicable to this new proceeding.[51]

Another locus classicus case on continuing mandamus is T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India.[52] A writ petition was filed against the felling of thousands of trees in 1995. The Supreme Court, consequently, expanded the definition of ‘forest’ to include within its ambit not only the officially recorded forest land, but also an area called as forest as per the dictionary meaning of the word ‘forest.’ As per the dictionary meaning, a forest is a large area covered with trees and undergrowth, and such an area would be called ‘deemed forest.’   The Court said that the scope of this Act is wide enough to include all kinds of forests without any regard as to who is the owner of the area or under which classification area falls.[53] The Bench also directed the states to form a committee to identify and declare deemed forests within their jurisdictions. However, only a few states have complied with the above direction.[54] 

In 2005, while maintaining a balance between environment and development, the court made it mandatory for the user agencies to pay compensation for causing the diversion of forest land. This is done by paying the Net Present Value (NPV) of Forest Diversion so that afforestation in other areas can be done as compensation for the forested land so diverted. (Compensatory Afforestation) This case has provided a standard framework for calculating NVP in every case of forest diversion for development purposes.[55]

In 2023, Parliament amended the Forest Conservation Act to exclude large forest areas in borderlands and Left-wing extremism-affected regions from protection, easing infrastructure development for business, military, and tourism. It also reclassified zoos, safaris, and eco-tourism as “non-forest” activities, bypassing environmental approvals for clearing forest land. The Supreme Court had stayed this amendment.[56]

In 2025, the Supreme Court of India defined the Aravalli hills as hills which are 100 meters high or above. The purpose was to give a uniform definition of the Aravali Hills so as to know whether mining activities fall within the hills' range or not. This order caused uproar in environment enthusiasts in India, as most of the Aravali hills are less than 100 meters in height. Now the matter is under review before the Supreme Court. The court ordered that till new order, no new mining lease be granted in the region.[57]

Under this umbrella petition, around 7000 applications have been filed to date, and thousands of orders have been passed.

Other public interest matters:

In Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers[58] 

This case concerns the plight of migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 30^th 2020, PILs were filed before the SC to ensure basic amenities to the migrant workers. The Union government was asked to inform of the steps taken to assist the migrant workers. The Court directed the Government to provide official developments and updates regarding COVID-19 through the media. This direction was issued in the wake of panic caused by the fake news. Meanwhile, the stranded workers started walking to reach their homes in distant places. A train accident caused 16 fatalities. As a result, a letter was written to the Supreme Court by some Senior Advocates asserting that the migrant workers crisis is a human rights issue, not a mere policy issue, and the Court’s non-interference violated the fundamental rights of migrant workers. The very next day, on 26^th May 2020, the Supreme Court took the suo motu cognisance. The Union and State Governments were directed to give details of the measures taken, and various other directions were issued. The states of Maharashtra and Delhi were reprimanded for failing to comply with the direction to file affidavits. The Court emphasised the need for the registration of migrant workers and the need for a national database. On 29^th June 2021, the judgment was delivered. The Court observed that intervention in arranging transportation for migrants in the second wave was not required, and it shifted focus to worker welfare during the second wave, prioritising food security, registration, and direct bank transfers.[59]

Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India[60]

In this case, a PIL was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions to the Union, States and UTs to provide free sanitary pads to girls in classes 6–12 and separate female toilets in all government-aided and residential schools, along with maintenance and awareness measures. The Supreme recognised the right to menstrual health and hygiene as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court issued a continuing mandamus whereby the Union Government was directed to ensure the compliance of the directions and guidelines in all States. It was further ordered that the directions are to be strictly complied with within a period of 3 months from the date of pronouncement of the judgment.[61]

Critical Analysis of Continuing Mandamus

The innovation of ‘continuing mandamus’ has assisted a lot in developing the remedial jurisprudence in India. The writ of mandamus pushes the erring authority once, whereas the writ of continuing mandamus keeps a continuous check on the executive authorities until the compliance with the order is made. The continuing mandamus enables a follow-up on the directions and orders issued by the court. This writ bridges the gap between remedy and enforcement. It overcomes the executive inertia by keeping a continuous oversight on the executive. It ensures that justice happens on the ground, not just on paper. In cases where implementation of the orders is required in a larger area, this tool is a successful option. Further, this ensures that “justice percolates to the grassroots, where implementation ought to happen.”[62]

Recently, the Union Law Minister of India Arjun Ram Meghwal had informed the Lok Sabha that a total of 3,525 public interest litigations are pending in the Supreme Court and out of these, 698 have been pending for over 10 years. The oldest one dates to 1984. Further, it was informed that there is no certain disposal time for PILs. One of the key reasons behind pending PILs is ‘continuing mandamus.’ ‘Continuing Mandamus’ is an innovation of PIL only. Ordinarily, the Court adjudicates the matter and closes it by delivering a final decision. Per contra, the continuing mandamus permits the court to keep the matter open indefinitely, and thereby the court can monitor the compliance of its orders and give new directions as needed. Thus, the case remains alive as long as supervision is required. Continuing mandamus has no certain time for when the matter will be disposed of. How long the supervision would continue depends entirely on the Court's discretion.[63]

The ‘continuing mandamus’ remedy is successful only when the executive coordinates and takes steps to implement the orders. There are also certain instances when the executive fails to coordinate. For instance, in the case of D.K. Joshi v. Chief Secretary, State of U.P.,[64] a PIL was filed to prevent water pollution and to ensure drinking water in the town of Agra. The Court passed several orders, and yet the concerned authorities were very casual and apathetic in enforcing the orders. The Court said that a special monitoring body should be set up.[65] In another case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation,[66] the Supreme Court issued a direction to the State government to resettle the slum dwellers before evicting them. However, the reality showed that evacuation was done without resettling and rehabilitating the workers. Thus, justice remained on paper.[67] In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, [68] the Bench directed the states to form a committee to identify and declare deemed forests within their jurisdictions. However, only a few states have complied with the above direction.^[69] Further, in various investigation oversight matters, it is seen that investigating authorities have to be guided and directed repeatedly to carry out fair and proper investigations, especially in matters involving influential persons. Similarly, in the environmental cases, there is poor enforcement of the rules and regulations of the environmental and the executive has to be directed again and again. This shows that the organ of the government entrusted with the implementation of the laws is lagging somewhere.

However, the application of continuing mandamus is often criticised by calling it an act of judicial overreach and a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.[70] It is a widely accepted view that there are no watertight compartments dividing the three organs of the government. There is overlapping with each other. There is a distinction between ‘essential’ powers and ‘incidental’ powers, and one organ of the government cannot encroach upon the essential functions belonging to another organ; however, it may exercise some incidental functions of the latter.[71] The modern welfare state involves many complex socio-politico-economic problems of a country, and therefore, the rigid application of the doctrine of separation of powers would bring inefficiency in the government.[72] Moreover, the Constitution of India does not express the absolute application of this doctrine. Article 50 merely states that the judiciary should be separated from the executive.

Thus, the new remedy of continuing mandamus is not an act of judicial overreach or a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Rather, it has an important role in keeping a system of checks and balances. It ensures that the executive organ of the government carries out its functions properly and implements the orders of the Court as directed. Because an order or direction passed by the Court is a mere piece of paper if not brought to fruition. Justice would only be ensured when the orders of the Court are abided. By proper implementation of the orders, access to justice can be ensured. Though it must be ensured that while issuing the directions, the Court does not venture into the arena of the executive.

Conclusion

The changing society demands a change in the way of functioning. It demands innovation for the common good of society. Judicial activism has caused many innovations in practice for the protection of the rights of individuals and for imparting justice. One of the innovations in the judicial practices is ‘continuing mandamus.’ Continuing mandamus is an often-applied tool. The Supreme Court and the High Courts often issue it in the exercise of their respective writ jurisdiction. It enables the Court to monitor the implementation of its directions and to ensure that the rule of law prevails in society. It is often invoked in public interest matters, especially in PILs. Rather, this remedy emerged from the PILs only. Vineet Narain's case only gave expression to this remedy, for it had already been prevalent in the remedial jurisprudence. The Courts have time and again issued in environmental matters, public health matters, improper investigation matters, etc. It coexists with PIL. It is a boon as it ensures justice on the ground, not just on paper. However, it is often called an act of judicial overreach. But it is not. The Supreme Court has the power to give any order or direction to do complete justice. Justice cannot happen unless the orders are implemented on the ground. This is where the writ of continuing mandamus assists by keeping oversight on the executive. Thus, it is an effective tool in breaking the executive inertia and ensuring justice on the ground.

[1] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 11 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Edition 1997).

[2] Access to Justice and Rule of Law, available at: https://nja.gov.in/Concluded_Programmes/2018-19/P-1110_PPTs/4.Access%20to%20Justice.pdf (last visited on April 7, 2026).

[3] Ms. Komal Audichya & Ms. Nikita Audichya, “Expanding Access to Justice to Reach the Poor and the Marginalized Communities” Bharati Law Review 206 (2016).

[4] Hon’ble Mr. Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, Rule of Law & Access to Justice, NJA South Zone Regional Judicial Conference on “Role of Courts in upholding Rule of Law,” Held at Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy from 31.01.2014 to 02.02.2014, available at http://164.100.232.82/Article/RULE%20OF%20LAW%20-%20FMIKJ-FINAL.pdf (last visited on April 8, 2026).

[5] 1984 AIR 802.

[6] Id., at 40.

[7] Id., at 42.

[8] S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 December, 1981, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112850760/ (last visited on April 8, 2026).

[9] 1987 AIR 1086.

[10] M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 December, 1986, available at:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1486949/ (last visited on April 8, 2026).

[11] Mr. Justice A.M. Ahmadi (Rtd.), Dimensions of “Judicial Activism,” JT 2003 Journal,1-2.

[12] Continuing Mandamus, available at: https://www.scobserver.in/about/supreme-court-of-india/procedure/ (last visited on April 7, 2026).

[13] Dr. Chintan Chandrachud, “Anticorruption by Fiat: Structural Injunctions and Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India” 14(2) Socio-Legal Review 170, 172 (2018).

[14] (2010) 3 SCC 402: AIR 2010 SC 2550.

[15] Supra note 13 at 175.

[16] MANU/SC/0827/1998, decided on 18.12.1997.

[17] Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., decided on 18.12.1997, MANU/SC/0827/1998, available at: https://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/manu-sc-0827-1998 (last visited on April 7, 2026).

[18] Vineet Narain & Others vs Union Of India & Another on 18 December, 1997, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1203995/ (last visited on April 4, 2026).

[19] MANU/SC/0827/1998, decided on 18.12.1997.

[20] 1979 AIR 1360.

[21] 1984 AIR 802.

[22] 1997 (6) SCC 241.

[23] 1993 (4) SCC 441 (Second Judge case).

[24] 1987 AIR 1086        .

[25] Shailaja v. The State of Karnataka, WPHC 100016/2016, Karnataka HC; K.A.Ravindran vs The District Collector, W.P.No.19428 of 2020, Madras HC; etc.

[26] W.P.No.19428 of 2020, Madras HC.

[27] Id., para 7.

[28] Supreme Court of India – Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, available at: https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/documents/misc/practice.pdf_0.pdf (last visited on April 7, 2026).

[29] Writ Petition 13029/1985 Supreme Court.

[30]  Apurva Vishwanath, Vineet Bhalla, “Writ Petition No.13029: How a 40-year legal battle forced Delhi’s buses to go green,” The Indian Express, March 21, 2026, available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/long-reads/mc-mehta-delhi-air-pollution-case-closed-supreme-court-history-cng-10593317/ (last visited on April 1, 2026).

[31] 3,525 PILs, no stopwatch: Parliament’s data, M.C. Mehta, and the continuing mandamus question, available at: https://www.scobserver.in/journal/3525-pils-no-stopwatch-parliaments-data-m-c-mehta-and-the-continuing-mandamus-question/ (last visited on April 6, 2026).

[32] Writ Petition (Civil) 202/1995.

[33] Supra note 12.

[34]  AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 889.

[35] Vineet Narain & Others vs Union Of India & Another, available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad17e4b0149711410838 (last visited on April 6, 2026).

[36] (2012) 3 SCC 1.

[37] Supra note 13 at 176.

[38] Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010, order dated 25-11-2010 (SC); Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC 18

[39] Centre for Public Interest Litigation v . Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC 18

[40] Centre for Public Interest Litigation v . Union of India, (2015) 17 SCC 249, 276 (1)

[41] In re Special Reference No 1 of 2012.

[42] (2014) 9 SCC 516

[43] Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 703.

[44] Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 706; Express News Service, “Coalgate: You don’t need to take instructions from political masters, SC to CBI,” The Indian Express, April 30, 2013, available at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/latest-news/coalgate-you-dont-need-to-take-instructions-from-political-masterssc-to-cbi/ (last visited on April 8, 2026).

[45] R. Colvin & S. Bhattacharjya, “A “caged parrot” – Supreme Court describes CBI,” Reuters, May 10, 2013, available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/a-caged-parrot-supreme-court-describes-cbi-idUSDEE94901X/ (last visited on April 9, 2026).

[46] Supra note 13 at 186.

[47] Press Trust of India, “Supreme Court pulls up CBI, Government over slow probe in Coalgate case,” The Indian Express, April 8, 2014, available at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/supreme-court-pulls-up-cbi-government-over-slow-probe-in-coalgate-case/ (last visited on April 8, 2026).

[48] Scope of the Court to enquire in decision of an Executive: Whether Court is concerned with decision-making process or ultimate decision? Supreme Court throws light, available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/09/22/scope-of-the-court-to-enquire-in-decision-of-an-executive/ (last visited on April 7, 2026).

[49] WP(C) 13029/1985.

[50] Supra note 30.

[51] Supra note 31.

[52] (1997) 2 SCC 267.

[53] (1997) 2 SCC 267; AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1228.

[54] Giving the green signal: The Supreme Court and the environment, available at: https://www.scobserver.in/75-years-of-sc/giving-the-green-signal-the-supreme-court-and-the-environment-eco/ (last visited on April 5, 2026).

[55] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 4256.

[56] Ashok Kumar Sharma, Indian Forest Service (Retd.) Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1164/2023.

[57] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, I.A. NO.105701 OF 2024, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2512, decided on 20- 11-2025.

[58] SMWP (C) 6/2020.

[59] COVID Coverage: Migrant Labourers, available at: https://www.scobserver.in/journal/covid-coverage-migrant-labourers/ (last visited on April 6, 2026).

[60] 2026 INSC 97.

[61] Id., para 178, 179.

[62] MIGRANT CRISIS: IS CONTINUING MANDAMUS THE ULTIMATE GLIMMER OF HOPE TO FIX THE PROBLEM?, available at: https://wbnujscls.wordpress.com/2020/07/24/migrant-crisis-is-continuing-mandamus-the-ultimate-glimmer-of-hope-to-fix-the-problem/ (last visited on April 6, 2026)

[63] Supra note 31.

[64] (1999) 9 SCC 578.

[65] Shreemanshu Kumar Dash, “Writ of Continuing Mandamus in matters of PILs: A Step towards Development of Environmental Jurisprudence” 22(3) IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science 32 (2019).

[66] [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621.

[67] Olga Tellis, “Thirty Years after a landmark Supreme Court verdict, slum dwellers rights’ are still ignored,” The Scroll, December 21, 2015, available at: https://scroll.in/article/776655/thirty-years-after-a-landmark-supreme-court-verdict-slum-dwellers-rights-are-still-ignored (Last visited on July 6, 2020).

[68] (1997) 2 SCC 267.

[69] Supra note 54.

[70] Continuing Mandamus – A Boon or Bane, by Vani Kaushik, available at: https://seclpp.wordpress.com/2019/03/29/continuing-mandamus-a-boon-or-bane/ (last visited on April 6, 2026).

[71] DD Basu, Administrative Law, 24 (Kamal Law House, Kolkata, 1986).

[72] Principles of Australian Administrative Law, 36 (1962); Dr. J.J.R. Upadhyaya Administrative Law 47 (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 11^th Edition, 2019)..