The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, is causing apprehension as it reverses the NALSA judgment's principle of self-identified gender. The amendment proposes a medical board assessment and District Magistrate certification to 'prove' gender identity, replacing self-identification. This process, lacking medical biomarkers for gender identity, is seen as arbitrary, invasive, and a violation of dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy. The author, a psychiatrist, argues it will deter individuals from seeking welfare, reintroduce fear, and create a public mental health emergency, especially given the community's high vulnerability to social rejection and violence. It also criminalizes "undue influence" in helping someone identify as transgender, posing ethical risks for practitioners.
- The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, proposes replacing self-identification of gender with a medical board assessment and District Magistrate certification.
- This amendment is viewed as a reversal of the NALSA vs Union of India judgment (2014), which affirmed self-identified gender as a fundamental principle.
- Critics argue the proposed process is arbitrary, invasive, violates dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy, and lacks scientific basis as there are no medical biomarkers for gender identity.
Illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary, straddling Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, is devastating the ecosystem and threatening critically endangered species like gharials. Driven by demand from North India's construction boom and exacerbated by livelihood issues in the Chambal ravines, the sand mafia operates with impunity, often outgunning local authorities and using villagers to track patrols. State governments' attempts to legalize mining were stalled by the NGT and Court. The Supreme Court has called the mafia "modern dacoits" and taken suo motu cognisance, reminding states of acts like the National Security Act. The article argues that lasting change requires restoring lawful livelihoods and credible enforcement, rather than just force.
- Illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary threatens critically endangered species and the river's ecosystem.
- The sand mafia, termed "modern dacoits" by the Supreme Court, exploits jurisdictional gaps between Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh.
- Livelihood challenges in the Chambal ravines drive young men to join the sand mining mafia.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the environmental clearance for a twin-tube tunnel corridor project connecting Kozhikode and Wayanad districts in Kerala. The project, deemed of "national importance" by the Court, aims to alleviate congestion in the land-starved state. A petitioner-NGO challenged the Kerala High Court's decision, arguing the project was in an ecologically fragile, landslide-prone Western Ghats zone and required Category 'A' environmental clearance at the Central level. The SC noted that the Central Expert Appraisal Committee (CEAC) had approved the project with safety and structural conditions, and petitioners could approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT) if conditions were violated.
- The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the environmental clearance for the Kozhikode-Wayanad tunnel project in Kerala.
- The project is a twin-tube tunnel corridor intended to connect Kozhikode and Wayanad districts, aiming to ease congestion.
- The Supreme Court considered the project to be of "national importance" for the land-starved state.
Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla rejected a notice submitted by 193 Opposition MPs seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. No specific reasons were cited for the rejection by the Chairs, though Secretaries-General cited "due consideration" and "careful and objective assessment." The 10-page document from MPs accused the CEC of being "subservient" to the executive and alleged "deliberate abuse of power." The Chairs cited Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which empowers them to admit or refuse such a motion. Opposition leaders expressed dismay over the lack of definitive reasons.
- The notice for the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar was submitted by 193 Opposition MPs across both Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha.
- The Chairs of both Houses, C.P. Radhakrishnan (Rajya Sabha) and Om Birla (Lok Sabha), rejected the notice without citing specific reasons.
- The Secretaries-General of both Houses issued bulletins stating the notice was not admitted after "due consideration" and "careful and objective assessment."
The article examines the absence of term limits for the Prime Minister in India, contrasting it with presidential term limits in other democracies and the established convention for the Indian President. It highlights Prime Minister Narendra Modi's extended tenure, combining his time as Chief Minister and Prime Minister, and questions the constitutional implications. While the Constituent Assembly envisioned parliamentary accountability through mechanisms like no-confidence motions, the author argues that the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) has structurally impaired this accountability. The piece suggests reforms such as exempting confidence motions from the Tenth Schedule or introducing constitutional amendments for term limits for both Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers.
- The Indian Constitution does not impose term limits on the Prime Minister, unlike many other democracies and the convention for the Indian President.
- The Constituent Assembly relied on parliamentary accountability mechanisms like no-confidence motions to check executive power.
- The Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) has weakened parliamentary accountability by binding legislators to party loyalty.
The Central government proposed the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, to amend the FCRA, 2010, which regulates foreign funds to NGOs. Key changes include appointing a 'designated authority' to manage assets of NGOs whose FCRA registration is suspended or cancelled, broadening the definition of 'key functionary', and requiring prior Central government approval for investigations. The Bill, deferred after Opposition uproar, is opposed for amounting to "executive overreach" and "undue interference" in minority institutions and civil society. Critics fear it grants sweeping powers to the government, potentially leading to asset seizure and denial of licenses, impacting the autonomy of NGOs.
- The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, aims to amend the FCRA, 2010, regulating foreign funds for NGOs.
- Proposed changes include a 'designated authority' for asset management of non-compliant NGOs and a broader definition of 'key functionary'.
- The Bill also seeks to require prior Central government approval for investigations into FCRA-related complaints.
Transgender activists have moved the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's new Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. Petitioners, including Laxminarayan Tripathi and Zainab Javid Patel, argue the Act disregards self-determined gender identity, replacing it with a state-defined classification. They contend that the 2026 Act repeals the statutory right to self-identification, a fundamental right under Article 21, and imposes "medical gatekeeping" by requiring medical certification and a government-appointed board's recommendation for legal gender recognition, violating the NALSA judgment of 2014 and infringing on individual autonomy.
- Transgender activists have challenged the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, in the Supreme Court.
- The petitioners argue the Act disregards self-determined gender identity, replacing it with state-defined classifications.
- They claim the new law repeals the statutory right to self-identification, which was held as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Recent amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), though temporarily stalled, are criticized for empowering the Centre to arbitrarily seize assets of organizations losing their FCRA license. The proposed Bill, introduced in March 2026, aims to establish a "designated authority" to manage such assets without judicial oversight, raising concerns about natural justice. Critics argue the move is selective and opaque, particularly affecting Christian groups, and contrasts with the state's policy of seeking foreign funds in other sectors. The FCRA has been progressively tightened since its enactment in 1976 and amendments in 2010 and 2020.
- Proposed FCRA amendments allow the Centre to arbitrarily seize assets of organizations whose FCRA licenses are revoked.
- The amendments establish a "designated authority" to manage seized assets without judicial determination, violating natural justice principles.
- Critics argue the move is selective, opaque, and disproportionately affects certain groups like Christian organizations.
A Full Bench of the Madras High Court ruled that the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising powers under Article 161 of the Constitution regarding remission and premature release of convicts. The Bench, comprising Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, and Sunder Mohan, stated that the Governor has no discretion to take a different view. This decision resolved conflicting judgments by other Division Benches, affirming that the issue was settled by a 1980 Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Maru Ramu's case, which was also followed in the A.G. Perarivalan case.
- The Madras High Court's Full Bench affirmed that the Governor must act on the Council of Ministers' advice for remission powers under Article 161.
- The ruling clarifies that the Governor has no discretionary power to deviate from the Cabinet's advice in such matters.
- This decision resolved conflicting interpretations from other Division Benches of the High Court.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) recently transferred senior officers in election-bound states, including West Bengal, leading to controversy and claims of administrative paralysis. The ECI justified these actions under Article 324 of the Constitution, citing its plenary powers for free and fair elections. However, the article highlights that the Supreme Court, in cases like Mohinder Singh Gill, clarified that ECI's powers are not unfettered and must conform to existing laws. The Court emphasized that ECI cannot bypass parliamentary laws regarding transfers of All India Service officers, and its actions must be bona fide and subject to natural justice.
- The ECI's recent transfers of senior state officials in election-bound states sparked controversy and questions about its powers.
- The ECI justifies its actions under Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants it superintendence, direction, and control of elections.
- The Supreme Court, in Mohinder Singh Gill case, clarified that ECI's plenary powers are not unfettered and must operate within existing laws.
The Rajya Sabha passed the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill on Thursday, clearing the way for Amaravati to be incorporated as the capital of Andhra Pradesh in the original Act, effective from June 2, 2024. Most political parties supported the Bill, except for YSR Congress Party MPs who argued it ignored farmers' demands. Senior Congress MP Renuka Chowdhury criticized the 12-year delay in materializing the commitment, calling it a "statement of national shame." Telugu Desam Party leader K. Rammohan Naidu described it as an emotional moment.
- The Rajya Sabha passed the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill to designate Amaravati as the capital.
- The Bill incorporates Amaravati as the capital in the original Act, effective June 2, 2024.
- Most political parties supported the Bill, with the YSR Congress Party being the sole exception.
The Lok Sabha has passed the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, by voice vote. The Bill aims to decriminalize minor offences across various laws, thereby promoting ease of doing business and living. It proposes to amend 784 provisions across 79 Central Acts administered by 23 Ministries, specifically seeking to decriminalize 717 provisions and amend 67 others to facilitate ease of living. Additionally, the Bill rationalizes over 1,000 offences by removing outdated and redundant provisions, improving the overall regulatory environment. Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal stated it would benefit people and MSMEs.
- The Lok Sabha passed the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, by voice vote.
- The Bill's primary objective is to decriminalize minor offences and promote ease of doing business and living.
- It proposes amendments to 784 provisions across 79 Central Acts administered by 23 Ministries.
The article discusses the Supreme Court's reaction to a Class eight textbook's portrayal of the judiciary, leading to its shelving and a new committee formation. It delves into the concept of criminal contempt, emphasizing it should not be invoked for individual ego but to protect the court's authority from hostile criticism that shakes public confidence. The author highlights that the judiciary's real power stems from public faith, earned through upholding law and justice. While acknowledging the need for a line to be drawn against reckless or ill-motivated criticism, the piece strongly advocates for academic freedom and free speech, citing historical judicial pronouncements that welcome fair criticism as a means of vindication and improvement.
- The Supreme Court reacted to a Class eight textbook's content regarding the judiciary, leading to its withdrawal and a new committee.
- Criminal contempt is defined as obstructing justice or scandalizing the court, not merely offending a judge's ego.
- The judiciary's true power relies on public faith and trust, garnered through its actions in upholding law and justice.
The Supreme Court, in the Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026) case, reaffirmed the right to die with dignity under Article 21, allowing withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) for the first time. This builds on previous rulings like Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) and Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), which recognized passive euthanasia and advance medical directives. The court streamlined the process by removing the requirement for multiple medical boards and mandatory immediate judicial oversight, emphasizing patient autonomy. While promoting dignity and relief from suffering, the decision raises concerns about potential misuse, ethical conflicts, and social inequality, particularly for vulnerable populations who might face coercion due to financial or social pressures.
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- For the first time, the court allowed the withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) in the Harish Rana case.
- The revised guidelines streamline passive euthanasia by removing multiple medical boards and mandatory judicial oversight, emphasizing patient autonomy.
The Union government is planning to amend the IT Rules, 2021, to empower the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) to issue takedown notices directly to individual social media users for their posts. Currently, such notices can only be issued to online news platforms. These proposed amendments, described as "clarificatory and procedural" by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, aim to strengthen oversight of intermediary-hosted content. However, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) criticizes this as a "massive expansion of unconstitutional censorship," arguing it sidesteps High Court orders and reconstructs oversight mechanisms deemed constitutionally suspect. The changes also affect social media platforms' "safe harbour" protection if they fail to comply with takedown notices.
- The Union government plans to amend IT Rules, 2021, to allow the I&B Ministry to issue takedown notices directly to individual social media users.
- Currently, takedown notices under IT Rules, 2021, are limited to online news platforms.
- The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology claims these amendments are clarificatory and procedural, aiming to strengthen oversight.
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, passed by the State Legislature, aims to prohibit unlawful religious conversions through fraudulent means. It mandates a 60-day prior notice for conversion and a post-conversion declaration, with severe punishments including imprisonment up to 10 years and hefty fines for violations. The Bill allows relatives to file complaints and declares marriages solemnized solely for unlawful conversion as null and void. Civil society organizations and opposition leaders criticize the Bill as 'regressive,' infringing on personal liberty, enabling State interference in faith and marriage, and potentially targeting interfaith relationships, while the government defends it as necessary to address forcible conversions and maintain public order.
- The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, seeks to prevent unlawful religious conversions through fraudulent means.
- Key provisions include a mandatory 60-day prior notice for conversion, post-conversion declaration, and severe penalties for violations, including imprisonment and fines.
- The Bill allows relatives to file complaints and declares marriages for unlawful conversion null and void, with provisions for child custody and maintenance.
The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, introduced on March 25, 2026, seeks to regulate the deputation of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to CAPFs. It mandates that 50% of Inspector General posts, 67% of Additional Director General posts, and all Special Director General and Director General posts in CAPFs be filled by IPS officers. This Bill aims to institutionalize IPS representation and counter a Supreme Court ruling (May 2025) that directed a progressive reduction of deputation posts up to Inspector General rank. The author, R.K. Vij, argues that IPS officers serve as a vital unifying link between the Union and States.
- The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, mandates specific percentages of senior posts in CAPFs to be filled by IPS officers on deputation.
- The Bill aims to institutionalize the historical role of IPS officers in CAPFs, countering a Supreme Court ruling that sought to reduce deputation posts.
- IPS officers are considered crucial for coordination with State governments and police forces, acting as a unifying link between the Union and States.
The article, an analysis by Jean Drèze, argues that the new Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Act, 2025, fails to correct serious anomalies in MGNREGA wage rate determination. It highlights how MGNREGA wages have lagged behind minimum and market wages due to a real-wage freeze imposed by the central government since 2009. This has led to a "discouragement effect" and increased corruption. The new Act perpetuates this crisis by retaining central government power to set wages (Section 10) and dropping the provision for State-specific minimum wages (Section 6(2)), despite wage costs now being shared 60:40 with States.
- The VB-G RAM G Act, 2025, is criticized for not addressing the long-standing issue of MGNREGA wage rates lagging behind minimum and market wages.
- A central government real-wage freeze since 2009, based on the Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labourers, has led to MGNREGA wages being lower than State minimum wages.
- The new Act retains the central government's power to determine wage rates (Section 10) and removes the provision for State-specific minimum wages (Section 6(2)), despite shared wage costs.
The Supreme Court, in Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh, ruled that a person converting to Christianity cannot claim Scheduled Caste (SC) status, upholding the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which bars SC status for those professing a religion different from Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism. The Court stated that conversion to a non-listed religion results in immediate and complete loss of SC status, regardless of birth. It also laid down a three-condition threshold for "reconversion" to Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism, requiring proof of original SC group belonging, credible evidence of bona fide reconversion, and acceptance by the original caste/community. For Scheduled Tribes (STs), however, no religion-based exclusion applies, with status depending on the retention of tribal identity and community recognition.
- The Supreme Court ruled that conversion to Christianity leads to an immediate loss of Scheduled Caste (SC) status, as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
- The Order specifies that SC status is limited to those professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism.
- For "reconversion" to a listed religion, the Court established a three-part test: proof of original SC belonging, credible evidence of bona fide reconversion, and acceptance by the original community.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed amidst public outcry and protests from LGBTQIA+ communities, raising concerns about the democratic process. Critics argue the Bill applies a heteronormative lens, failing to address complex gender identity issues comprehensively. It shifts focus to mandatory biological markers instead of self-identification, potentially limiting existing protections and conflating sex and gender. Stakeholders suggest the government should adopt a collaborative, rights-based approach with transparent consultation to ensure equality and dignity for all, rather than creating new problems.
- The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed despite significant protests and concerns from LGBTQIA+ communities.
- Critics argue the Bill uses a heteronormative lens and fails to adequately address the complexities of gender identity and human dignity.
- The Bill shifts the focus from self-identification to mandatory biological markers, potentially limiting rights established by previous judicial precedents like NALSA vs Union of India.
The National Medical Commission (NMC) has issued an advisory declaring stem cell therapy for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) as illegal. This move, in compliance with a Supreme Court order, aims to curb illegal practices by private clinics in metropolitan and tier-2 cities that falsely claim to treat autism and cerebral palsy using stem cell therapy. According to the advisory, based on ICMR recommendations, stem cell therapy is now approved only for 32 specific diseases.
- The National Medical Commission has declared stem cell therapy for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) illegal.
- This decision aligns with a Supreme Court order and aims to prevent unproven treatments offered by private clinics.
- Stem cell therapy is now approved for only 32 specific diseases, based on ICMR recommendations.
The article emphasizes the critical need for a "living will" (advance directive) to ensure dignified end-of-life care, preventing prolonged suffering for patients and their families. A living will is a legal document outlining an individual's treatment preferences for terminal or irreversible conditions, thereby relieving relatives and doctors from difficult decisions. Without one, patients may endure unwanted treatments, and families face emotional conflict. The Supreme Court legally recognized advance directives in the Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018) case. It clarifies that a living will applies only to irreversible conditions, not routine illnesses, and helps reduce unnecessary medical interventions and expenses, benefiting young adults as well.
- A living will is crucial for ensuring dignified end-of-life care and preventing prolonged suffering for patients with terminal or irreversible conditions.
- It is a legal document that specifies treatment preferences, such as withholding ventilators or feeding tubes, relieving family and doctors of difficult decisions.
- The Supreme Court legally recognized "advance directives" in the Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018) case.
Around 140 lawyers and women's rights activists have urged President Droupadi Murmu not to grant assent to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, citing "constitutional violations" and "procedural infirmities." The letter, from groups like ALIFA and NAJAR, criticized the undue haste in passing the Bill and the lack of public consultation. They argue that the Bill violates the Supreme Court's NALSA judgment (2014) by removing the right to self-perceived gender identity and introducing medical board scrutiny, which infringes on bodily integrity and privacy. Members of the National Council for Transgender Persons also resigned in protest.
- Lawyers and activists have urged the President not to assent to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, citing constitutional and procedural flaws.
- The Bill is criticized for being passed with undue haste and without adequate public and stakeholder consultation.
- Activists argue the Bill violates the Supreme Court's NALSA judgment (2014) by undermining the right to self-perceived gender identity.
The Union Home Ministry, through the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), issued an average of 290 takedown notices daily for suspicious online content, totaling 1,11,185 blocks under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act from March 2024 to March 2025. Social media platforms are mandated to remove unlawful content within three hours of receiving an order. Separately, the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) reported a sharp increase in cybersecurity incidents, reaching 29.44 lakh in 2025, up from 20.41 lakh in 2024.
- The Home Ministry's I4C issued an average of 290 takedown notices daily, blocking 1,11,185 pieces of suspicious online content under IT Act Section 79(3)(b) from March 2024 to March 2025.
- Social media intermediaries are required to remove unlawful content within three hours of receiving a competent order.
- Cybersecurity incidents reported to CERT-In significantly increased, from 20.41 lakh in 2024 to 29.44 lakh in 2025.