In a brief but significant hearing on Wednesday, the Supreme Court pressed all parties to refine their positions on the National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) new advisory concerning people affected by leprosy. The matter, which has been pending for over a decade, again drew an unusually crowded courtroom with lawyers from several states and ministries present. The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made it clear that the time had come for “specific, workable suggestions” rather than broad statements.
Background
The petitions-one dating back to 2010-were filed by the Federation of Lepy. Organ. (FOLO) and another petitioner, highlighting discrimination, lack of rehabilitation, and the need for stronger policy mechanisms for persons affected by leprosy. Over the years, the Court has passed multiple directions, but with implementation uneven across states, the bench has repeatedly nudged the authorities to adopt uniform protocols.
Read also: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Agra Man After Nearly Three Years in Jail, Flags Long Delay in Hearing
Earlier this year, on 30 July 2025, the Court had asked the NHRC to prepare a consolidated report after examining the national situation. That report, running into hundreds of pages, was finally placed before the bench this week. It includes advisories on identification, treatment, rehabilitation, and eliminating stigma-issues that activists say have been ignored for decades.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the bench acknowledged the NHRC’s “very comprehensive report” and commended the effort, but noted that its recommendations must now translate into real administrative steps.
The bench observed, ‘The report is extensive, but we need clarity from all sides on which areas may still need judicial intervention.’
Read also: Urgent Mentions Only Through Written Slips Except in 'Extraordinary' Cases, CJI Surya Kant Clarifies
Justice Kant remarked informally at one point that while the advisory is well-intentioned, without clear commitments from the Centre and states, “it may remain another stack of documents.” The observation triggered some murmurs among the lawyers, many of whom seemed aware that states have major variations in how leprosy-related welfare schemes are implemented.
The Court also took note of the presence of counsel from more than two dozen states and Union Territories, and gently reminded them that the real work now lies in coordination. As the order notes, state counsel were specifically asked to provide their “brief action taken reports” in soft-copy format so they can be collated centrally.
Interestingly, the bench placed the responsibility of collating these reports on Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, counsel for the petitioners in the connected PIL, who agreed to assist. This slightly unusual step signals the Court’s impatience with procedural delays and its attempt to keep the matter moving efficiently.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Uttar Pradesh’s MV Act Amendment, Seeks Detailed
Decision
In its operative directions, the Court ordered that a copy of the NHRC report be circulated to all counsel so they may “identify the areas requiring judicial intervention” and submit suggestions after mutual exchange of notes. Further, every state and UT counsel must submit action-taken reports directly to Ms. Nandakumar via email for compilation. The bench then listed the matter for further consideration on 17 December 2025, indicating that it expects concrete progress by then.
Case Title: Federation of Lepy. Organ. (FOLO) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 83/2010
Connected Case: W.P.(C) No. 1151/2017
Case Type: Public Interest Litigation (PIL – Writ Petition Civil)
Decision / Order Date: 12 November 2025
