The Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between 'irrational freebies' used by political parties to lure voters and legitimate 'welfare schemes' aimed at marginalized sections. The Court observed that while state largesse to individuals can be problematic, investing in health and education is a constitutional obligation under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). The Bench expressed concern over the lack of dedicated revenue surplus for developmental purposes and rising national debt. It is considering whether such freebies constitute a 'corrupt practice' under the Representation of the People Act.
- The Court emphasized that launching welfare schemes is an obligation under the Directive Principles of State Policy.
- There is a legal debate on whether freebies should be classified as 'expenditure defrayable by the Union or State' under Article 282.
- The Court is shifting away from its 2013 judgment in the S. Subramaniam Balaji case regarding election manifesto promises.
The Supreme Court clarified that while the Election Commission (EC) possesses wide discretion under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, its powers are not 'untrammelled.' During a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the EC must adhere to principles of natural justice and prescribed procedures under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Court emphasized that any deviations from standard procedure must respect constitutional guarantees like equality before the law (Article 14) and ensure transparency to protect the civil rights of voters, as revisions can significantly impact voter eligibility.
- The EC's power to direct special revisions must be exercised within the framework of existing statutory rules and natural justice.
- Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act provides residuary power but does not allow the EC to bypass the procedural 'shackles' of Rule 25.
- Any deviation from prescribed norms during electoral roll revisions must be backed by fair, just, and recorded reasons.
Retired Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) officers have filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court against the Union Home Secretary. The petition alleges non-implementation of a 2025 court ruling that directed a progressive reduction in the deputation of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers in CAPFs up to the rank of Inspector-General (IG). The court had previously ruled that Group A Executive Cadre officers of CAPFs are 'Organised Group A Services' (OGAS), which entitles them to specific promotional benefits and limits lateral entry from other services like the IPS.
- CAPF officers have long sought 'Organised Group A Service' status to ensure better career progression and promotional parity.
- The Supreme Court in 2025 ordered a two-year cut in IPS deputation and a comprehensive review of cadre and service rules.
- The Union Home Ministry's alleged failure to implement these changes has led to the current contempt plea.
The Congress party has urged the Union government to fully implement Article 15(5) of the Constitution, which empowers the state to provide reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in private educational institutions. This demand coincides with the 20th anniversary of the 93rd Constitutional Amendment. While the amendment enabled 27% reservation for OBCs in centrally funded higher education institutions (HEIs), the party argues that its application to private institutions remains incomplete. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of this provision in the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India judgment (2014).
- Article 15(5) was added via the 93rd Constitutional Amendment to enable reservations in both public and private educational institutions.
- The provision excludes minority educational institutions referred to in Article 30(1).
- The Congress suggests that any new regulator for higher education must oversee the implementation of these reservations.
The Supreme Court is examining petitions from Tamil Nadu and Kerala questioning whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a 'juristic person' with the right to approach High Courts under Article 226. The states argue that the ED is a statutory creation, not a 'person' or 'body corporate,' and thus lacks the legal standing to sue or be sued like a natural person. This legal challenge follows the ED's attempts to block state-led investigations into its officials. The Supreme Court's decision will clarify the legal status and litigation powers of central investigative agencies.
- A 'juristic person' is a legal fiction recognized as having rights and duties, similar to a corporation.
- Kerala and Tamil Nadu contend that the ED, being a statutory agency, cannot exercise powers not specifically conferred by its governing statute.
- The case arose after the ED challenged a Kerala government notification setting up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations against ED officials.
The Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process is under fire for allegedly deleting genuine voters while attempting to 'clean' electoral rolls. In Bihar, the process showed an egregious anomaly with the deletion of significantly more women electors than men. In Tamil Nadu, deletion rates in some booths reportedly exceeded the number of voters in the 2024 elections. Furthermore, a mismatch exists between State Election Commission counts for rural polls and ECI counts in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court has intervened, directing the ECI to ease the verification process for millions of electors facing notices.
- The ECI's 'mapping' and software glitches have led to the wrongful removal of genuine electors across 12 states.
- There is a significant discrepancy between ECI data and State Election Commission data in states like Uttar Pradesh.
- The insistence on re-registering as 'fresh electors' using Form 6 prevents an audit of why voters were removed initially.
Recent incidents in Tamil Nadu and Kerala have highlighted growing tensions between State Governments and Governors regarding the 'customary address' under Article 176. In Tamil Nadu, Governor R.N. Ravi declined to read the prepared speech, citing 'misleading statements,' leading the DMK to propose a constitutional amendment to abolish the practice. Simultaneously, Kerala's Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar reportedly altered the Cabinet-approved text, omitting criticisms of the Union government. These actions raise significant questions about the Governor's discretionary powers versus their constitutional obligation to act as the mouthpiece of the State Cabinet, potentially undermining federal principles and legislative precedents.
- Article 176 mandates the Governor to address the Legislative Assembly at the commencement of the first session each year.
- The address is traditionally prepared by the State Cabinet and represents the government's policy and program for the year.
- Governors in TN and Kerala have recently deviated from or refused to read the approved text, leading to procedural standoffs.
The Himachal Pradesh Cabinet has approved an ordinance to levy a dedicated 'orphan and widow cess' on the sale of petrol and high-speed diesel within the state. The revenue generated from this cess will be used to fund welfare schemes for orphans and widows. The government stated that the cess would be 'non-burdensome' to consumers while ensuring adequate financial resources for social welfare. Additionally, the Cabinet approved a national policy on geothermal energy and designated the Directorate of Energy as the nodal agency for its implementation in the state.
- The cess is aimed at creating a dedicated fund for the effective implementation of welfare schemes for vulnerable groups.
- The Cabinet also focused on energy diversification by adopting a policy for geothermal energy exploration.
- Four new laboratories will be established for nutritional profiling to strengthen the food testing ecosystem in the state.
The article discusses the polarizing nature of illegal immigration in Indian politics, particularly following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. It argues that while the Opposition often dismisses concerns about undocumented immigrants as xenophobic, national security concerns are legitimate and should not be ignored. The author suggests a 'centrist' approach that acknowledges the complexity of the issue, focusing on legal work authorizations and tech-driven regulation. Drawing parallels with global trends in Europe and the U.S., the piece notes that ignoring public anxiety over immigration can lead to the rise of populist, anti-immigration parties.
- The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) omitted nearly 6.5 crore electors from draft rolls across nine States and three Union Territories.
- The Immigration and Foreigners Bill, passed in June 2025, aims to regulate entry and stay using a tech-driven, time-bound approach.
- Centrist politics must reconcile emotive issues like national identity with humanitarian concerns to prevent political polarization.
This article critiques the functioning of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the role of 'media trials' in high-profile cases. It highlights instances where the judiciary has called out the ED for exceeding its mandate and violating legal principles, such as conducting searches without credible information or a predicate offence. The article argues that the ED's sweeping powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), including the difficulty of obtaining bail, are increasingly being used as tools of political intimidation. It calls for urgent constitutional guardrails to prevent investigative authorities from becoming instruments of arbitrary state power.
- The PMLA requires a 'predicate offence' (scheduled offence) that generates proceeds of crime before money laundering charges can be applied.
- Section 50 of the PMLA allows the ED to summon individuals and record statements under oath, which can be used as evidence.
- The 'reverse burden of proof' under PMLA makes it exceptionally difficult for accused individuals to secure bail compared to regular criminal law.
Child trafficking remains a critical issue in India, with over 53,000 children rescued between 2024 and 2025. The Supreme Court, in the K. P. Kiran Kumar case, issued strict guidelines to prevent trafficking, linking it to the fundamental right to life under the Constitution. The article examines the legal framework, including the Palermo Protocol and Section 143 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, which provides a broad definition of exploitation. Despite these laws, the conviction rate remains low at 4.8%. The author emphasizes the need for socio-economic interventions for marginalized communities and enhanced Union-State cooperation, as law and order are state subjects while trafficking is often a cross-border crime.
- The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, Section 143, defines trafficking to include recruitment, transportation, and receipt of persons for exploitation.
- Articles 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution provide fundamental protections against human trafficking and hazardous child labor.
- The conviction rate for trafficking offenses in India was only 4.8% between 2018 and 2022, highlighting a major gap in law enforcement.
A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988. This section mandates prior government sanction before initiating an inquiry or investigation against a public servant for decisions made in their official capacity. Justice B.V. Nagarathna struck down the section, arguing it violates Article 14 by creating a protected class and hindering the fight against corruption. Conversely, Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the provision, suggesting that an independent body like the Lokpal, rather than the government, should grant such sanctions to maintain neutrality. The case has been referred to a larger Bench to resolve the core disagreement.
- Section 17A of the PC Act requires prior approval from the government before investigating public servants for official acts.
- Justice Nagarathna argued that the provision creates an impermissible barrier to investigation and fosters a 'policy bias' within institutions.
- Justice Viswanathan suggested that the Lokpal could act as an independent authority to grant sanctions, balancing accountability with protection from frivolous litigation.
Nearly six years after the 2019 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Union government is yet to constitute the Arbitration Council of India (ACI). The ACI was envisioned as a regulatory body to promote institutional arbitration and grade arbitral institutions. However, concerns regarding its independence persist, as the council would comprise members nominated by the executive. The draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, seeks to address these issues by introducing structural reforms, redefining 'arbitral institutions,' and recalibrating the role of courts in granting interim relief to reduce judicial intervention and curb delays in the arbitration process.
- The ACI was proposed by the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee to make India a hub for international arbitration.
- Critics argue that government dominance in the ACI's composition could compromise its institutional impartiality.
- The 2024 draft Bill aims to limit court intervention by requiring arbitration to commence within 90 days of interim relief.
Telangana Assembly Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar has dismissed disqualification petitions against seven out of ten Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) legislators. These MLAs were accused by the BRS of switching allegiance to the ruling Congress party following the 2023 Assembly elections. The Speaker's decision comes after the Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to him in November 2025 for failing to comply with directives to decide on the disqualification pleas expeditiously. The BRS has criticized the move, alleging it makes a mockery of the Tenth Schedule and the constitutional principles intended to prevent political defection.
- The Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution (Anti-Defection Law) gives the Speaker the power to disqualify members for defection.
- The Supreme Court has previously emphasized that Speakers must decide on disqualification petitions within a reasonable timeframe.
- Disqualification can occur if a member voluntarily gives up party membership or votes against party directions.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to constitute an inquiry committee for his removal. The court emphasized that constitutional safeguards for judges should not paralyze the removal process. Justice Varma argued that since removal notices were submitted in both Houses on the same day, a joint committee was required under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act. However, the Bench ruled that because the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman rejected the notice while the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted it, the Speaker acted within his legal autonomy to proceed independently.
- The Supreme Court clarified that the rejection of a removal motion in one House does not render the other House incompetent to proceed.
- Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act regarding joint committees applies only if notices are admitted in both Houses.
- The judiciary must balance the protection of judges with the effective functioning of constitutional removal mechanisms.
The Kuki-Zo Council (KZC) has reiterated its demand for a separate Union Territory with a legislature for the Kuki-Zo tribes in Manipur. In a memorandum to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, the council alleged that the state government was complicit in atrocities against their community during the ongoing ethnic conflict. The KZC also warned against the resettlement of Meitei internally displaced persons (IDPs) in 'buffer zones' separating the two communities, calling it a provocative attempt that could reignite violence. They seek urgent constitutional and political intervention by the Centre for lasting peace.
- The ethnic conflict in Manipur has resulted in over 250 deaths and the displacement of 40,000 people since May 2023.
- Buffer zones are narrow strips of land separating Meitei-dominated valleys from Kuki-Zo inhabited hills.
- The KZC claims that Kuki-Zo people have been unable to access the Imphal Valley for nearly three years, leading to hardships.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This section mandates prior government sanction before investigating a public servant for decisions made in their official capacity. Justice B.V. Nagarathna declared the provision unconstitutional, while Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld it, arguing it protects honest officers from frivolous complaints and 'policy paralysis.' The case will now be referred to a larger three-judge bench for a final decision on balancing public probity with officer protection.
- Section 17A was introduced to provide a filter against malicious prosecution of public servants for official decisions.
- Justice Nagarathna argued that the provision is unconstitutional as it creates an arbitrary distinction between classes of public servants.
- Justice Viswanathan suggested that independent bodies like Lokpal should handle the grant of sanction to ensure impartiality.
The Kerala Assembly passed the Malayalam Language Bill, 2025, aiming to make Malayalam the official language for all administrative, judicial, and educational purposes in the state. The Bill proposes Malayalam as the first language in schools and its use in sectors from IT to the judiciary. However, the Karnataka government opposes the Bill, claiming it violates the rights of linguistic minorities, specifically Tamil and Kannada speakers in border districts like Kasaragod. Kerala maintains the Bill includes protections for these minorities, allowing correspondence in their mother tongues in notified areas and exempting certain students from examinations.
- The Bill mandates Malayalam as the first language in all government and aided schools up to Class 10.
- It seeks to replace the existing Official Languages Act of 1963 to advance the enrichment of the language.
- Karnataka argues the Bill is unconstitutional and violates the rights of Kannada-speaking linguistic minorities.
The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission (EC) regarding the authority of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to strike individuals off electoral rolls based on citizenship inquiries. During a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, nearly 6.5 crore names were deleted. The Court raised concerns whether an ERO's finding could trigger a central government investigation into an individual's right to remain in India. The EC argued that citizenship is a cornerstone of the electoral process and that excluded individuals have a right to appeal, maintaining that verifying citizenship is essential for maintaining valid electoral rolls.
- The Supreme Court is examining if EROs can effectively strip the 'colour of citizenship' before a final central government decision.
- Article 326 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 are central to the EC's claim of authority for these deletions.
- Nearly 6.5 crore names were deleted in the second phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process across several states.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This provision requires prior government approval before investigating public servants for official decisions. Justice B.V. Nagarathna declared the provision unconstitutional, viewing it as a barrier to transparency. Conversely, Justice K.V. Viswanathan argued it is necessary to protect honest officers from frivolous complaints and 'policy paralysis.' He suggested that an independent authority like the Lokpal should handle the grant of sanction. The case has been referred to a larger three-judge bench for final determination.
- Section 17A was introduced to prevent the harassment of public servants for bona fide official decisions.
- Justice Nagarathna argued that the provision violates the principle of equality before the law.
- Justice Viswanathan emphasized that the Lokpal has the authority to inquire into allegations even against the Prime Minister.
The Supreme Court is examining whether Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) can strike individuals off electoral rolls based on citizenship inquiries before a final decision by the Central government. The bench, including Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, questioned if an ERO's finding could trigger investigations into an individual's right to remain in India. The Election Commission argues that Article 326, the Representation of the People Act, and the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 empower them to conduct such inquiries to ensure only citizens are on the rolls. The court is concerned about the potential for these findings to lead to deportation without due process.
- EROs are conducting inquisitorial enquiries into citizenship during Special Intensive Revisions (SIR).
- The Supreme Court is concerned that removing a voter's name based on citizenship doubts might strip them of rights before a final government decision.
- The Election Commission maintains that citizenship is a cornerstone of the electoral process and non-citizens are not entitled to vote.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, introduced in the Lok Sabha, aims to transform India's higher education by replacing fragmented oversight with a coordinated, transparent system. Aligned with NEP 2020, the Bill proposes a 'light but tight' framework, granting autonomy to well-performing institutions while maintaining high standards. It creates an apex body with three separate councils for regulation, accreditation, and standards to reduce conflicts of interest. By repealing the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE Acts, the Bill seeks to unify the regulatory architecture, promote international credibility, and foster a culture of public accountability through technology-enabled disclosures.
- The Bill aims to replace the University Grants Commission (UGC), AICTE, and NCTE with a single regulatory framework.
- It establishes the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan as an apex body with distinct councils for regulation, accreditation, and standards.
- The 'light but tight' approach focuses on transparency and standards while minimizing procedural burdens on institutions.
There is a growing legal and social debate regarding the age of consent in India, currently set at 18 years under the POCSO Act (2012). Critics argue that the rigid age limit criminalizes consensual adolescent relationships, often weaponized by families to punish young couples. While the Law Commission (2023) advised against lowering the age to 16, it recommended 'guided judicial discretion' for sentencing in cases involving minors aged 16-18. Recent High Court and Supreme Court judgments have highlighted the need to distinguish between predatory abuse and 'young love' to protect adolescent autonomy.
- The POCSO Act applies strict liability, making a minor's consent legally irrelevant if they are under 18.
- The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, raised the age of consent from 16 to 18 to align with POCSO.
- The Law Commission's 283rd Report (2023) opposed lowering the age but suggested judicial discretion in sentencing.
The upcoming delimitation exercise, expected after the 2028 Census, poses a significant challenge to India's federal balance. Southern states, which successfully implemented population control and health reforms, fear a reduction in their Lok Sabha seat share compared to northern states with higher population growth. The 84th Constitutional Amendment (2001) froze seat numbers until 2026. Proposed solutions include increasing the total number of Lok Sabha seats to approximately 866 or adopting a 'Digressive Proportionality' principle, similar to the European Parliament, to ensure fair representation without penalizing states for demographic progress.
- Delimitation based strictly on population could reduce the relative political and fiscal power of southern states.
- The 84th Constitutional Amendment Act (2001) extended the freeze on Lok Sabha seats until the first census after 2026.
- The Finance Commission currently uses population size as a 15% weight for tax revenue redistribution.