This order frames a question for consideration; it does not answer it. It makes no finding that any detained person is or is not provided any particular amenity, and it does not reproduce issues (i) to (v), so this article does not state the wording of issue (iv). The order itself is dated 14 October 2026 and was uploaded to the Court's latest-orders page on 29 October 2026.
- Case
- Jaffar Ullah v. Union of India
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Surya Kant (Chief Justice of India); Joymalya Bagchi
- Case numbers
- W.P.(C) No. 859/2013
- Outcome
- Order dated 14 October 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 859/2013 and tagged matters: an additional question (vi) is added to the issues for consideration; a connected criminal writ petition is put to notice; all matters are listed on 16 December 2026. No question is answered on the merits.
The new question the Court framed
On 14 October 2026, a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant modified paragraph 3 of its order dated 31 July 2025 in the detention-centres batch headed by Jaffar Ullah v. Union of India, so that an additional question would also arise for consideration.
The additional question, to be read as part of the issues to be dealt with in these petitions, is: whether the 'Rohingyas', who are detained in detention centers/holding centers, are entitled to be and are provided the basic amenities referred to in issue (iv). The application seeking that modification, I.A. No. 238412 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No. 495 of 2024, stands disposed of accordingly.
The order was uploaded to the Supreme Court's latest-orders page on 29 October 2026, which is when this development became available on the Court's public listing. The order answers no question on the merits: framing question (vi) puts the amenities issue before the Court for future consideration.
The batch and what the record does not say
The order was passed in W.P.(C) No. 859 of 2013 together with a long list of tagged writ petitions, including petitions from 2017, 2018, 2021, 2023 and 2024. The record does not reproduce the issues framed on 31 July 2025, so the exact content of issue (iv), to which the new question refers, cannot be stated from this record alone.
The tagged batch, listed as Item No. 18 in Court No. 1 under Section PIL-W, includes W.P.(C) Nos. 793, 870, 886, 919, 916, 924, 955 and 1111 of 2017, 262 and 442 of 2018, 660 of 2021, 1060 of 2023 and 495 of 2024, among others.
That gap is material and this article preserves it. Question (vi) has two limbs — entitlement to the amenities and actual provision of them — but what counts as the relevant basic amenities depends on issue (iv), whose wording lies outside this record of proceedings.
Readers should therefore treat this order as a framing step in ongoing litigation, not as a finding about conditions in any particular centre.
How the new question entered the case
The vehicle for the change was an interlocutory application, I.A. No. 238412 of 2025, filed in W.P.(C) No. 495 of 2024, one of the tagged petitions. The Court treated the application as seeking modification of paragraph 3 of the 31 July 2025 order, which had framed the issues for the batch.
By allowing that modification, the Court read the additional question into the issues for all the petitions in the batch, not merely for the petition in which the application was filed. That is why the order says the question shall be read as part of the issues to be dealt with in these petitions, in the plural.
The application itself then stands disposed of. No further order on that application remains pending, and the batch proceeds to the December listing with its issues as expanded.
Notice, compilations and listing
In the same order, the Court issued notice in W.P.(Crl.) No. 204 of 2025, with advocate-on-record Madhulika Upadhyay accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, and directed that any counter affidavit be filed.
For all matters together, the Court recorded that the petitioners have filed their convenience compilation and directed the Union of India and its authorities to do the needful within two weeks. All matters are listed on 16 December 2026, with counter affidavits, if any, to be filed in the meantime.
These directions are procedural: they organise the next stage of the batch, in which question (vi) will be addressed alongside the other framed issues.
What happens on 16 December 2026
When the batch is listed on 16 December 2026, the Court will have before it the parties' compilations and any counter affidavits filed in the meantime, and the issues as expanded by question (vi). Whether detained Rohingyas are entitled to and are provided the amenities in issue (iv) will be considered then, on that record.
Until then, no party can cite this order as deciding the amenities question either way. Its significance is that the question is now formally part of the case, rather than an argument to be raised afresh.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
Note the technique: a short interlocutory order can reshape a whole batch by adding one framed issue. In public-interest batches that run for years, the issues list is the map of the case, and an addition like question (vi) tells you what the next hearing will actually be about.
Note also the discipline this order imposes on reporting it. Because issues (i) to (v) are not reproduced, a summary that invents issue (iv)'s contents would mislead. The honest summary quotes question (vi) exactly, flags the missing context, and waits for the December hearing.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- What does the newly added question (vi) ask, and what two elements does it combine?
- Why does this article not state the contents of issue (iv)?
- What procedural steps accompany the framing of the new question in the same order?
