In the wake of a fatal building collapse in South Delhi, the Supreme Court indicated it may expand its oversight to enforce strict safety and zoning regulations for student hostels and paying guest (PG) facilities nationwide. Prompted by an amicus curiae report highlighting widespread building bylaw violations and dangerous structures near educational hubs, the Bench emphasized the need for comprehensive safety audits. The Court is reviewing whether to take up the matter on a pan-India basis to prevent recurrence of tragic accidents and ensure student safety.
- The Supreme Court is considering expanding its jurisdiction to mandate pan-India safety regulations for student hostels and PG accommodations.
- The intervention follows a fatal building collapse in Delhi that killed seven people and highlighted widespread illegal construction.
- An amicus curiae report raised serious concerns about lax inspection mechanisms by civic bodies and unauthorized land-use conversions.
Serious allegations of corruption, favouritism, misuse of administrative powers, and intimidation against Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma of the Rajasthan High Court have surfaced following letters written by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta to the Chief Justice of India. The letters highlight concerns regarding shifting of cases, nepotism, and threats to colleagues, prompting calls for immediate transfer and structural reforms. This development underscores critical challenges to judicial independence, internal oversight, and transparency within the higher judiciary to maintain institutional credibility and public confidence.
- Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote letters to the Chief Justice of India detailing serious allegations against Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
- Allegations include favouritism, misuse of administrative powers, shifting of cases, and intimidation of colleagues.
- Experts emphasize the urgent need for internal accountability mechanisms, transparency in case allocation, and judicial appointments.
The Supreme Court sought the Central Government and Election Commission's response on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) advocating for the introduction of 'totalisers' in electronic voting machines (EVMs). Totalisers aggregate votes cast across multiple polling booths to prevent booth-wise voting pattern identification and voter intimidation. While the petitioners argue that totalisers ensure electoral secrecy, the Centre and Election Commission have historically opposed them due to administrative, logistical, and legal challenges in counting processes.
- The Supreme Court asked the Centre and EC to respond to a plea for introducing totalisers for EVM vote counting.
- Totalisers combine votes from multiple polling booths to prevent booth-wise voter identification and intimidation.
- The Election Commission and Centre have previously opposed totalisers citing logistical and legal hurdles.
The Supreme Court disposed of a batch of appeals filed by SEBI against the National Stock Exchange (NSE) regarding co-location and dark fibre cases, following a settlement of nearly ₹1,500 crore between the regulator and the exchange. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran set aside dissenting directions issued by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT). The settlement comes just ahead of the NSE's anticipated stock market debut, effectively resolving a decade-old regulatory dispute concerning allegations of preferential access given to certain brokers.
- The Supreme Court disposed of SEBI's appeals against NSE after a ₹1,500 crore settlement involving co-location and dark fibre cases.
- The settlement comprises ₹1,224 crore for the co-location case and ₹268 crore for the dark fibre case.
- The resolution clears a nearly decade-old regulatory dispute, allowing NSE to move forward with its much-anticipated stock market debut.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils lack jurisdiction to discipline or penalize law students exercising their constitutional right to protest. Hearing a petition by NALSAR graduates against BCI's punitive actions, the bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that the Advocates Act, 1961, limits the BCI's disciplinary powers exclusively to registered advocates. The apex court emphasized that only universities or competent authorities possess the authority to discipline students, safeguarding academic autonomy and freedom of speech in educational institutions.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Bar Council of India has no statutory power under the Advocates Act, 1961, to take disciplinary action against law students.
- The court protected students' constitutional right to peaceful protest and free speech in academic spaces against regulatory overreach.
- Disciplinary powers of the BCI are strictly confined to registered advocates, leaving student discipline solely to parent universities.
The Supreme Court disposed of a batch of appeals filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) against the National Stock Exchange (NSE) regarding co-location and dark fibre cases, following a nearly ₹1,500 crore settlement between the market regulator and the exchange. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran set aside Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) directions against SEBI. The resolution comes ahead of NSE's highly anticipated stock market debut, successfully resolving a decade-old regulatory dispute and reinforcing transparency in financial markets.
- The Supreme Court disposed of SEBI appeals against NSE regarding co-location and dark fibre cases following a settlement.
- Total settlement amount between SEBI and NSE stands at nearly ₹1,500 crore.
- The settlement includes ₹1,224 crore for the co-location case and ₹268 crore for the dark fibre case.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) lacks jurisdiction to discipline or penalize law students, noting that the Advocates Act, 1961 only confers powers over registered advocates. The ruling came on a petition by NALSAR graduates challenging BCI's punitive actions and letters against students who protested against former Chief Justice Surya Kant's remarks. The apex court reaffirmed that only universities can discipline students, protecting student rights to free speech, dissent, and academic autonomy against regulatory overreach by professional bodies.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Bar Council of India has no statutory power under the Advocates Act, 1961 to discipline law students.
- The BCI's disciplinary powers are strictly limited to registered advocates, not students.
- The court protected university autonomy and students' constitutional rights to free speech and dissent in academic spaces.
The FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026 proposes a 'Designated Authority' to oversee the management and disposal of foreign contributions and assets when an organization's FCRA certificate is cancelled or ceases to exist. While aimed at ensuring financial compliance and national security, critics argue it grants excessive executive control over civil society institutions. The Bill raises concerns about proportionality, potential executive overreach, and interference with the autonomous management of foreign-funded assets. Balancing national security with fundamental freedoms remains a critical constitutional challenge.
- The FCRA Amendment Bill 2026 empowers a 'Designated Authority' to manage foreign contributions upon certificate cancellation.
- Concerns have been raised regarding executive overreach and infringement on civil society autonomy.
- The principle of proportionality must be tested against state regulations and fundamental rights.
The provision allowing 'distinguished jurists' to be appointed as Supreme Court judges under Article 124(3) has remained unused for over 76 years. Despite intentions to bring professional diversity and eminent legal scholars into the judiciary, Supreme Court appointments have overwhelmingly favored High Court judges and Bar elevations. Critics point to practical challenges, including lack of courtroom experience among academics, procedural hurdles in the Collegium system, and the absence of clear definitions for a 'distinguished jurist'. Reviving this pathway could enhance the intellectual depth of the judiciary.
- Article 124(3) of the Constitution permits the appointment of a 'distinguished jurist' as an SC judge.
- The provision has never been invoked since the Constitution was adopted in 1950.
- Challenges include lack of courtroom experience, procedural hurdles, and reluctance of the Collegium.
The Supreme Court has ordered judicial oversight of decisions made by the Bar Council of India, following petitions raising allegations against chairman Manan Kumar Mishra. Key concerns raised in the petition include the extension of tenure for the BCI chairperson and vice-chairperson, the formation of the BCI Pearl First Trust, land acquisition disputes with the Goa government, and extravagant expenditures on felicitations. The Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, emphasized that while the court will not interfere in day-to-day functions, institutional integrity must be maintained. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are to be consulted on policy issues until elections are held.
- The Supreme Court questioned the BCI regarding tenure extensions and administrative decisions.
- Allegations included formation of trusts and land allotments involving BCI office-bearers.
- The court emphasized maintaining institutional integrity without disrupting day-to-day BCI functions.
The article examines the legal interpretation of untouchability following a "purification" ritual after a Dalit leader's rally. Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes untouchability in all forms, a principle reinforced by the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The Supreme Court, in Sukanya Shantha v Union of India (2024), clarified that untouchability is deeply connected to caste-based notions of "purity and pollution," which Article 17 rejects. The Court emphasized that Article 17's scope is not limited to physical exclusion but encompasses any discriminatory treatment based on a person's touch or presence, citing a Rajasthan High Court ruling against caste-specific purification rituals for temple entry.
- Article 17 of the Indian Constitution unequivocally abolishes untouchability in all its forms.
- The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, provides legal penalties for practicing or promoting untouchability.
- The Supreme Court links untouchability to caste-based notions of "purity and pollution," which are constitutionally rejected.
The Supreme Court will review the Centre's application seeking clarification on its March 11 judgment concerning the income test for OBC creamy layer exclusion. The Centre argues that retrospective implementation is "extremely difficult," potentially causing a "cascading effect" on settled services since 2012, impacting all categories. The SC had previously found the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) incorrectly applied the income test, leading to the exclusion of OBC candidates and directing the creation of supernumerary posts. The Union government now seeks to continue current service allotments for CSE 2025 candidates based on the old income test reading, pending clarification.
- The Supreme Court will address the Centre's request for clarification on its March 11 judgment regarding the OBC creamy layer income test.
- The Centre claims retrospective application of the judgment is administratively challenging and could disrupt services settled since 2012.
- The SC had previously ruled that the DoPT's income test application was incorrect, leading to "hostile discrimination" against OBC candidates.
The Supreme Court's March 11 judgment in the Rohith Nathan case found the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) incorrectly applied the income test for OBC creamy layer exclusion. The Centre is now seeking clarification on retrospective implementation, citing potential "cascading effects" on settled services since 2012 and difficulties in identifying non-creamy layer status for past years. The DoPT also requested to continue applying the old income test rules for CSE 2025 candidates. This situation highlights the complex balance between ensuring substantive justice for candidates and maintaining administrative practicality and stability in reservation policy.
- The Supreme Court's March 11 judgment in the Rohith Nathan case ruled against DoPT's incorrect application of the income test for OBC creamy layer exclusion.
- The Centre seeks clarification on retrospective implementation, citing potential "cascading effects" on settled services since 2012.
- Difficulties include identifying non-creamy layer status for past years and potential disruption to existing services.
Prime Minister Modi's Independence Day address introduced the term 'dimaag'i Naxals' (brainy Naxals), accusing them of steering the nation's youth astray, marking a significant escalation in labelling dissent. The author argues this criminalizes critical thinking itself, moving beyond 'urban Naxal' which implied connection to armed groups. This approach raises concerns about academic freedom, student movements, and civil society, potentially fostering a culture of surveillance and conformity. The article draws parallels to historical ideological militias and the suppression of dissent, highlighting the dangers of misusing national security narratives to stifle democratic discourse and critical inquiry.
- PM Modi's 'dimaag'i Naxal' remark in his Independence Day address is seen as an escalation in labelling dissent and critical thinking as anti-national.
- The term 'dimaag'i Naxal' criminalizes thought itself, distinct from 'urban Naxal' which implied connection to armed groups.
- This approach poses a threat to academic freedom, student movements, and civil society, potentially leading to a culture of surveillance.
The Supreme Court's March 11 ruling on the OBC 'creamy layer' exclusion criteria, particularly the income test, has prompted the Centre to seek clarification. The Court found that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) incorrectly included salaries of PSUs/private sector employees in the income calculation, leading to 'hostile discrimination' compared to government employees. The Centre argues that retrospective implementation of this ruling, which mandates creating supernumerary posts, is 'extremely difficult' and could have a 'cascading effect' on settled services since 2012, affecting all categories, including the unreserved. The Supreme Court will now set up a Bench to hear the Centre's plea.
- The Supreme Court ruled that salary income should not be used to exclude OBC candidates whose parents work in PSUs or the private sector without established equivalence to government service.
- The DoPT's 2004 letter, interpreting the 1993 OM, led to 'hostile discrimination' by including salaries for PSUs/private sector employees in the income test.
- The Centre finds retrospective implementation 'extremely difficult' due to potential cascading effects on settled services and fresh claims.
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has expressed 'grave concern' over India's widespread discrimination against minority ethnic and ethno-religious groups, Dalits, and non-citizens. The report highlights issues such as law enforcement violence, manual scavenging, hate speech, mass refoulement of Rohingya Muslims, and deprivation of citizenship via the National Register of Citizens. CERD also noted India's use of laws like FCRA and UAPA to target civil society and its failure to provide updated information on violence allegations, criticizing India's stance that caste bias is outside the convention's scope.
- CERD has noted 'grave concern' regarding reports of law enforcement violence against minorities, Dalits, and non-citizens in India.
- India has not provided detailed information on inquiries and sanctions related to allegations of such violence.
- CERD allows all forms of discrimination based on inherited status, contradicting India's claim that caste bias falls outside Article 1 of the convention.
Former Orissa High Court Chief Justice S. Muralidhar stated that the irreverence of Gen Z is a 'sure sign of democratic progress,' assuring that democracy in India will be safeguarded. Speaking at a memorial lecture, he advocated for a future where honest criticism of the government is not criminalized, and peaceful protests are not labeled as conspiracies. Justice Muralidhar also called for judicial swiftness in addressing state excesses and criticized the Collegium system for judicial appointments, citing unexplained executive interference and a lack of transparency in the past 12 years. He also advocated for a reformed, democratic, and independent BCI.
- Gen Z's irreverence and willingness to protest are seen as positive indicators for the future of democracy in India.
- Justice Muralidhar emphasized the importance of not criminalizing honest criticism of the government or peaceful dissent.
- He called for a judiciary that acts swiftly on complaints of state excesses and ensures constitutional validity.
Meta reached a landmark $17.1-billion settlement with 47 U.S. States, resolving a lawsuit alleging the company designed addictive platforms, harmed children, and violated privacy laws. Internal documents revealed during the trial indicated Meta's awareness of issues like social comparison and exposure to harmful content. While Meta denied wrongdoing, it agreed to implement safety features for teens, including a default two-hour daily limit, 'school' and 'night' modes, and options to curate feeds. Critics, however, argue that these features are rudimentary and may not lead to fundamental change without altering Meta's revenue model.
- Meta settled a major lawsuit concerning allegations of designing addictive platforms and causing harm to children, including mental health issues.
- Internal company documents and witness testimonies revealed Meta's awareness of the negative impacts of its platforms on young users.
- The settlement mandates Meta to introduce several new safety features for teens on Instagram and Facebook, such as daily time limits and notification controls.
The Supreme Court intervened to ensure journalist Abhishek Upadhyay received a copy of his FIR, highlighting the accused's right to access it. While the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), stipulates FIR access at later stages, judicial precedents (Delhi HC, Himachal Pradesh HC, SC) have established the right to obtain it sooner. The Supreme Court directed that FIRs be uploaded on police websites within 24-72 hours, with an exception for 'sensitive offences' like sexual or terror crimes, which require a reasoned decision by a DCP-rank officer and a three-member committee for grievances. Timely access is crucial for pre-trial remedies and a fair trial.
- The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed an accused person's right to obtain a copy of the FIR soon after its registration, not just at later stages.
- Police are mandated to upload FIRs on their official websites within 24-72 hours of registration to ensure transparency and access.
- An exception exists for 'sensitive offences' (e.g., sexual, terror crimes), where FIRs can be withheld, but this requires a reasoned decision by a senior police officer.
Supreme Court Justice B.V. Nagarathna stated that a Bar Council losing its members' respect is detrimental to the legal profession. Speaking at National Law University Delhi, she urged Bar Councils to introspect on their role in upholding ethics and competence. Her remarks gained resonance following the BCI's aborted attempt to restrict professional enrolment for NALSAR University students, which the CJI called 'unwarranted interference.' Justice Nagarathna stressed the importance of legal professionals safeguarding their autonomy and adapting to changing realities.
- Bar Councils must uphold professional ethics, morality, and competence to earn and maintain the respect of their members.
- The NALSAR University of Law controversy highlighted concerns about the Bar Council of India's (BCI) overreach and interference.
- The legal profession is a liberal pursuit where disagreements should lead to civilised implications.
The issue concerning the OBC creamy layer exclusion, specifically the income/wealth test and equivalence of posts, remains unresolved, stuck between the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DoPT) and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. A Supreme Court judgment had directed the government to exclude salaries from the income test for certain OBC candidates and create supernumerary posts. However, implementation has been difficult, with the government arguing against retrospective application. The House panel chief, Ganesh Singh, criticized the inter-ministerial blame game and lack of policy formulation by the Social Justice Ministry.
- The OBC creamy layer income test and equivalence of posts issue is stalled between two key ministries.
- A Supreme Court judgment directed the exclusion of salaries from the income test for certain OBC candidates.
- The government has faced difficulties in implementing the court's directions, particularly regarding retrospective application.
The Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process has resulted in significant voter deletions, with nearly 22% in Telangana and 19.5% in Karnataka. These 'unkind cuts' are particularly steep in capital cities, raising concerns about disenfranchisement. The article criticizes the ECI's opacity, noting its failure to publish elector-to-population ratios and gender-wise breakdowns of deletions, making verification arduous. It highlights that the process, which places the onus on electors, leads to such large-scale cuts, questioning the ECI's role as a guardian of universal adult franchise.
- The ECI's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has led to substantial voter deletions in Telangana (22%) and Karnataka (19.5%).
- Concerns are raised about disenfranchisement, especially with over half of electors deleted in some Bengaluru constituencies.
- The ECI is criticized for its opacity, failing to publish mandatory elector-to-population ratios and gender-wise deletion breakdowns.
The Meghalaya Assembly adopted a resolution opposing uranium mining and the establishment of any uranium ore-processing facility in the State. Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma stated the government is aligned with communities protesting for decades in areas like Domiasiat and Wahkaji. The resolution references a 2019 Supreme Court order recognizing private and community landowners' rights over land and minerals, reinforcing the Sixth Schedule's protection of community ownership. This legislative shield supports a long-standing public movement against radioactive mineral exploration, with the decision to be communicated to the Centre.
- The Meghalaya Assembly passed a resolution against uranium mining and processing facilities in the state.
- The resolution upholds community and private landowners' rights over land and minerals, referencing a 2019 Supreme Court order and the Sixth Schedule.
- Local communities in areas like Domiasiat and Wahkaji have been protesting against uranium exploration since the 1990s.
Meta has agreed to a $17 billion settlement with 47 U.S. states to end a landmark trial over teen social media addiction, also pledging to add child-safety measures to its Facebook and Instagram platforms. The lawsuit accused Meta of contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing addicting features and collecting data on children under 13 without parental consent. While Meta stated it is "building on our longstanding efforts to empower parents and support teens," critics argue its safety features are merely "window dressing."
- Meta settled with 47 U.S. states for $17 billion over a trial concerning teen social media addiction.
- The settlement includes adding child-safety measures to Facebook and Instagram.
- Meta was accused of contributing to youth mental health crises through addicting features and collecting data on minors without consent.