Drop shipping is an e-commerce business model where an online individual or agent sells products without holding any inventory, passing customer orders to a maker/seller who then directly ships the product. This model, popularized by platforms like Amazon and Shopify, allows anyone with internet access to sell products, often leveraging AI for customer services and insights. While generally legal if transparent and compliant with tax laws, drop shipping poses several risks for shoppers. These include scams, inflated prices, defective or pirated products, long delivery times, lack of safety standards, and data privacy concerns due to multiple parties handling information. Shoppers are advised to research sellers to mitigate these risks.
- Drop shipping is a business model where sellers act as middlemen, taking orders without holding inventory and passing them to third-party suppliers for direct shipment.
- Platforms like Amazon and Shopify facilitate drop shipping, and AI tools are increasingly used for customer service and business insights.
- The practice is generally legal if transparency is maintained and tax laws are followed.
India faces a challenge in protecting its 23,000 seafarers in the Gulf region following U.S. missile attacks on merchant vessels, which killed three Indian mariners aboard MT Settebello. The U.S. claims these foreign-flagged vessels violated blockades and transported Iranian oil, a claim disputed by ship operators. While India has protested these attacks, its options are limited as the vessels were foreign-flagged, even if they had deep Indian links. International maritime law, governed by bodies like the IMO and UNCLOS, often falls short in enforcement, with national governments frequently taking unilateral action, leaving seafarers vulnerable in geopolitical conflicts.
- Three Indian seafarers were killed in U.S. missile attacks on the MT Settebello in the Gulf.
- The U.S. justified attacks by claiming vessels violated blockades and transported Iranian oil, which ship operators deny.
- India has protested the U.S. actions but faces limited options due to the foreign-flag status of the vessels, despite their Indian links.
India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2026 Amendment introduces the Creditor-Initiated Insolvency Resolution Process (CIIRP), a hybrid model aiming for time-bound resolutions while allowing existing management control under supervision. This addresses protracted litigation and procedural delays seen in the previous IBC. However, the amendment's restrictive framework, limiting CIIRP initiation rights to "notified financial institutions," creates an arbitrary hierarchy among financial creditors. This exclusion disenfranchises operational and smaller financial creditors, compelling them towards more disruptive Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (CIRP) and compromising the equity of the insolvency ecosystem. A "universal CIIRP" model based on financial exposure, rather than institutional identity, is proposed for a fairer and more efficient system.
- The IBC 2026 Amendment introduces the Creditor-Initiated Insolvency Resolution Process (CIIRP) to improve resolution efficiency.
- CIIRP is a hybrid model allowing current management to retain control under a resolution specialist, reducing judicial intervention.
- The amendment restricts CIIRP initiation rights to "notified financial institutions," creating an arbitrary hierarchy among creditors.
Child sexual abuse in India remains severely underreported, with over 90% of cases involving perpetrators from trusted family circles, contrasting with public perception of predatory strangers. Systemic inefficiencies, such as the 89% pendency rate in POCSO courts and low conviction rates (3-30%), erode public trust in the police and judiciary. This distrust discourages reporting, leading families to search for missing children themselves, potentially allowing perpetrators to evade justice. Despite improved data collection, qualitative analyses of acquittals rarely inform policy changes, and survivors face secondary victimization, perpetuating a cycle of unreported and unpunished violence.
- Child sexual abuse is significantly underreported in India, with most cases involving perpetrators known to the child.
- High pendency rates (89%) and low conviction rates (3-30%) in POCSO courts undermine public confidence in the justice system.
- Public distrust leads to underreporting and families searching for missing children independently, hindering justice.
The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and the United Democratic Front (UDF) are in a precarious position regarding the nomination of non-Muslim members to the State Waqf Board in Kerala. Section 14(1)(f) of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 mandates two non-Muslim members, but the previous LDF government left these slots vacant to avoid communal sentiments. BJP leader Shone George has challenged this non-inclusion in the Kerala High Court, arguing it violates statutory provisions and renders the board's decisions null and void. The onus is now on IUML and UDF to take a stand on this communally sensitive issue.
- IUML and UDF are under pressure regarding the nomination of non-Muslims to the Kerala State Waqf Board.
- The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, Section 14(1)(f), requires two non-Muslim members on the board.
- The previous LDF government appointed only Muslim members, leaving non-Muslim slots vacant.
The Supreme Court quantified the labour of homemakers for motor accident compensation, challenging the traditional perception that their work is not economically valuable. In a 2021 judgment, the Court ruled that homemakers' services are invaluable and must be recognized for their economic contribution. It established a formula for calculating compensation based on factors like age, qualification, and number of dependents, ensuring fair compensation for families who lose a homemaker. This ruling aims to address gender discrimination and provide justice to victims' families, emphasizing that the economic value of homemakers' work is crucial for household welfare and national GDP.
- The Supreme Court quantified homemakers' labour for motor accident compensation.
- This ruling challenges the traditional view that homemakers' work lacks economic value.
- A formula was established to calculate compensation based on various factors.
A 39-year-old Adivasi woman from West Bengal, Bhadu Mandi, was rescued from bonded labour conditions in Gurugram after working for over two years in a home in DLF Garden City. She was brought to Delhi for domestic work with an advance payment of ₹40,000. Her sister, Lakshmi Tudu, reported that Ms. Mandi was restricted by smart locking systems, worked over 16 hours daily, and suffered physical abuse. The case came to light in March, an FIR was registered on June 4, and a joint operation by Haryana and West Bengal police, district administration, and civil society members led to her rescue.
- A tribal woman from West Bengal was rescued from bonded labour in Gurugram.
- She was subjected to restricted movement, long working hours, and physical abuse for over two years.
- The rescue was a result of a joint operation involving police, district administration, and an NGO.
The Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) marked 29 years since the 1997 Uphaar cinema hall fire, expressing dismay that fire safety lessons remain unlearnt in Delhi. AVUT president Neelam Krishnamoorthy highlighted recurring fire incidents as evidence of overlooked safety violations and poorly scrutinised No Objection Certificates. The association called for stricter accountability for negligence causing deaths and advocated for a law governing safety violations, emphasizing that public safety suffers when compliance is bought and accountability evaded.
- AVUT observed 29 years since the Uphaar cinema tragedy, criticizing the lack of fire safety improvements.
- Recurring fire incidents in Delhi indicate persistent safety violations and inadequate scrutiny of NOCs.
- The association demands stricter accountability for negligence leading to deaths.
The Justice K.G. Balakrishnan (retd) Commission, tasked with examining the issue of Scheduled Caste (SC) status for Dalit converts, has completed its report after nearly four years and multiple extensions. The three-member Commission was constituted in October 2022 to study the demand for SC status for Dalit Muslims and Christians, the opposition to this demand, and the impact on existing SC communities. Currently, only Dalits of Hindu, Buddhist, and Sikh faiths are entitled to SC classification. The Union Social Justice Ministry has consistently argued against granting SC status to converts to Islam and Christianity.
- The Justice K.G. Balakrishnan Commission has completed its report on granting Scheduled Caste status to Dalit converts.
- The Commission was formed in October 2022 to examine the demand for SC status for Dalit Muslims and Christians.
- Currently, SC status is limited to Dalits of Hindu, Buddhist, and Sikh faiths.
The rejection of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's nomination for the Rajya Sabha election from Madhya Pradesh has sparked questions about institutional integrity and procedural fairness. Her nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for allegedly failing to disclose a pending criminal case, which was a private complaint, not a conventional police case, and not directly against her. Critics argue the RO's decision is arbitrary and a misinterpretation of Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, which requires disclosure only for cases with potential punishment of two years or more where charges have been framed. This incident is seen as damaging democracy and election integrity.
- The nomination of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan for Rajya Sabha was rejected on grounds of non-disclosure of a pending criminal case.
- The criminal case was a private complaint, not a police FIR, and not directly against Ms. Natarajan.
- Critics argue the rejection is arbitrary and misinterprets Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act.
The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment (FCRA) Bill, 2026, introduced in Lok Sabha, is seen as a significant expansion of state control over NGOs, charitable trusts, and educational/religious institutions. Critics argue it goes beyond transparency to enable executive confiscation of assets, particularly through Section 16A, which allows "provisional vesting" of assets in a government-designated authority upon cancellation or cessation of FCRA registration, without prior judicial review. This threatens the survival of organizations, especially those serving vulnerable communities and minorities, and raises concerns about undermining constitutional rights like freedom of association and property rights.
- The FCRA Bill, 2026, significantly increases executive power over civil society organizations.
- Section 16A allows for the provisional vesting of an organization's assets in a government-designated authority if its FCRA registration is cancelled or ceases.
- The Bill is criticized for potentially leading to asset confiscation without judicial review and for impacting organizations serving vulnerable communities and minorities.
The Supreme Court utilized its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to overturn a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. This decision was made in a case where the victim, who was a minor at the time of the incident, later married the accused as an adult. The court emphasized that Article 142 allows it to ensure "complete justice" when existing laws are insufficient, enabling the couple to live peacefully as spouses.
- The Supreme Court used Article 142 to quash a POCSO conviction.
- The decision was based on the fact that the victim and accused later married as adults.
- Article 142 grants the Supreme Court power to deliver "complete justice" where laws fall short.
The Supreme Court's May 27, 2026 judgment on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has sparked significant debate regarding the Election Commission of India's (ECI) powers and conduct. The Court upheld all ECI arguments, despite petitioners' concerns about the SIR's implementation in Bihar, just months before the 2025 Assembly election. Critics argue the SIR was conducted under a wrong provision of law (Section 21(3) instead of 21(2) of RP Act, 1950), leading to the deletion of millions of voters without proper redress. The judgment also grants the ECI broad authority to determine citizenship documents, a role typically belonging to the Home Ministry, raising questions about its constitutional mandate.
- The Supreme Court's judgment on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has raised questions about the ECI's powers and adherence to statutory provisions.
- Critics argue that the SIR was implemented under an incorrect legal provision, Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950, which is meant for special revision in a constituency, not an intensive revision across a whole state.
- The judgment's allowance for the ECI to determine citizenship documents for electoral roll purposes is seen as an overreach into the Home Ministry's domain.
The Supreme Court's acceptance of a Presidential Ordinance to increase the sanctioned strength of judges from 34 to 38, leading to the appointment of five new judges (three to newly created posts), raises significant questions about judicial independence and security of tenure. The article draws parallels to historical instances, like President Roosevelt's court-packing plan, which were rejected to preserve an independent judiciary. It highlights that an Ordinance's temporary nature and the possibility of its lapse or disapproval by Parliament could make the tenure of judges appointed under it precarious, potentially creating an obligation to the executive. The Supreme Court itself has previously ruled against governance by repromulgated ordinances, calling it a "fraud on the Constitution."
- The Supreme Court accepted a Presidential Ordinance to increase its sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges, leading to appointments to newly created posts.
- This move raises concerns about judicial independence and the security of tenure for judges appointed via a temporary Ordinance.
- Historically, attempts to alter court composition for political reasons, like Roosevelt's court-packing plan, have been resisted to protect judicial autonomy.
The Supreme Court recently delivered two significant rulings impacting India's real-money online gaming industry. It upheld the constitutional validity of State laws prohibiting real-money gaming platforms, asserting that betting and gambling are 'res extra commercium' and fall under State legislative competence (Entry 34, List II). The Court also affirmed the Centre's retrospective 28% GST levy on online gaming companies, clarifying that GST applies to the full value of stakes, irrespective of whether games are skill-based or chance-based. The rulings emphasize that once money is staked on an uncertain outcome, the distinction between skill and chance becomes irrelevant for GST purposes. These judgments have severe implications for the industry, with many companies facing insolvency and potential shifts in operations.
- The Supreme Court upheld State laws prohibiting real-money online gaming, classifying betting and gambling as 'res extra commercium'.
- The Court affirmed that State governments have legislative competence to regulate such activities under Entry 34 of List II.
- The Centre's retrospective 28% GST levy on online gaming was upheld, applicable to the full value of stakes.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently invoked 'national interest' regarding the closure of the Sterlite Copper plant in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, suggesting a conspiracy behind its shutdown. The plant, closed for eight years after police firing on protesters in 2018 and environmental violations, had a capacity of 4 lakh tonnes of refined copper annually, meeting 40% of India's demand and contributing to exports. Its closure turned India into a net importer of copper, costing $3.5 billion in foreign exchange. Vedanta, the company, proposed a 'green copper' project with cleaner technology, but its application was rejected by the TNPCB. The Madras High Court has directed the State government to form an expert committee to study the new proposal, amidst ongoing legal and environmental debates.
- PM Modi highlighted the closure of the Sterlite Copper plant in Thoothukudi as a matter of national interest, implying a conspiracy.
- The plant's closure transformed India from a copper exporter to a net importer, impacting the economy.
- Vedanta proposed a 'green copper' project with advanced, cleaner technology, but its application was rejected by the TNPCB.
The Supreme Court recently upheld the use of DNA tests in a paternity dispute, navigating the complex question of balancing a child's right to know parentage with an individual's right to privacy. While previous judgments cautioned against routine DNA tests, this ruling emphasized the child's desire for closure. The court referenced the 2017 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, which established privacy as a fundamental right. It also cited the 2014 Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik case, affirming that scientific advancements should prevail over conclusive legal proof when in conflict, as exemplified by the N.D. Tiwari paternity case.
- The Supreme Court ruled on balancing a child's right to know paternity against an individual's right to privacy.
- The court upheld the use of DNA tests in a specific paternity dispute, moving beyond previous cautions against routine testing.
- The ruling acknowledges the fundamental right to privacy established in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case (2017).
The Supreme Court AI committee has proposed draft regulations prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for determining judicial outcomes, sentencing, or profiling individuals. The rules mandate that AI systems must operate solely in an assistive capacity, under strict human judgment, and must not perpetuate biases based on various grounds like race or gender. While AI is permitted for administrative tasks such as case management and scheduling, its use for "risk scoring" or assessing witness credibility is barred. An "apex body" is proposed to oversee AI adoption in the judiciary, ensuring accessibility and preventing digital divides.
- The Supreme Court's draft regulations prohibit AI from making judicial decisions or profiling individuals.
- AI systems are to be used only as assistive tools, always under human oversight and judgment.
- The rules explicitly forbid AI from perpetuating biases based on protected characteristics.
This article analyzes "Operation Langda," a policing method in Uttar Pradesh involving shooting suspects in the leg to disable them, rather than kill. These "half-encounters" have become routine since 2017, characterized by targeted leg injury, standardized reporting, and official endorsement. While presented as a pragmatic crime-control model and legally defensible due to suspects surviving, it raises concerns about due process and the rule of law. The system is self-sustaining, driven by political endorsement, professional incentives like promotions, and uncritical media. Despite Supreme Court guidelines (People's Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, 2014) for independent inquiries, these are not systematically applied, making fundamental reform challenging without dismantling the interlocking incentives.
- "Operation Langda" is a routine policing practice in Uttar Pradesh involving shooting suspects in the leg to disable them.
- This "half-encounter" method is considered legally defensible as suspects survive, allowing for arrest.
- The practice is sustained by political endorsement, professional incentives, and uncritical media reporting.
The article explores the conflict between the 'right to be forgotten' (informational privacy) and open justice, particularly concerning digital court records. While the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), a Delhi High Court order highlighted the persistence of digital information. The core issue isn't discoverability but incompleteness, as records often fail to reflect subsequent decisions like acquittal. The article argues that judicial records, as official state acts, must be wholly public, accurately updated to reflect all major actions, and presented with proper context by platforms. This approach protects fundamental rights, ensures digital accuracy, and addresses the root cause of the problem.
- The article addresses the tension between the 'right to be forgotten' and the principle of open justice regarding digital court records.
- The Supreme Court recognized the right to informational privacy in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) case.
- The primary problem is the incompleteness of digital records, which often don't reflect subsequent judicial decisions like acquittals.
The Supreme Court welcomed five new judges, increasing its working strength to 37, leaving only one position vacant. These appointments follow the Centre's decision to raise the court's sanctioned strength from 33 to 37 judges (excluding the Chief Justice of India) through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026. CJI Surya Kant administered the oath of office to the new appointees, who include former Chief Justices of various High Courts and a senior advocate. This move aims to address the workload and ensure timely justice delivery in the apex court.
- The Supreme Court's working strength has increased to 37 judges with the appointment of five new judges.
- This expansion follows the Centre's decision to raise the sanctioned strength from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India.
- The increase was facilitated by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026.
The Centre has approved the appointment of five new judges to the Supreme Court, increasing its working strength to 37, just shy of the revised sanctioned strength of 38. These appointments follow the Collegium's recommendation on May 27, 2026. The new judges include Chief Justices from various High Courts and a senior advocate. This development comes after the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court was increased from 34 to 38 judges through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, earlier in May. Currently, Justice B.V. Nagarathna is the only woman judge in the Supreme Court.
- The Centre approved the appointment of five new Supreme Court judges, bringing the working strength to 37.
- The appointments were made under Article 124(2) of the Constitution, following the Collegium's recommendation.
- The sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court was recently increased from 34 to 38 judges via an Amendment Ordinance in May 2026.
The Supreme Court has established a close link between human trafficking and broader migration flows, describing trafficking as a severe form of exploitation arising from systemic inequalities that transform survival strategies into pathways of exploitation. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan noted that while not all migration is trafficking, the latter rarely occurs without it. The court also addressed the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA), highlighting its failure to accord rights and protections to voluntary adult sex workers, which leads to social stigma and isolation. It called for the government to recognize the rights of voluntary adult sex workers and re-examine the conflation of sex trafficking and sex work in legislative frameworks.
- The Supreme Court linked human trafficking to broader migration flows, stemming from systemic inequalities.
- Trafficking is seen as an extreme form of exploitation, often emerging from survival strategies.
- The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA) is criticized for failing to protect voluntary adult sex workers.
The article critiques the Supreme Court's increasing reliance on suo motu cognisance in individual criminal cases, likening it to a bureaucracy ringing its own chain. It argues that such interventions, often triggered by media reports, are "heroic" but fail to promote institutional shake-up in lower judiciary. The author points out that while the apex court takes cognisance, the actual work of conviction or investigation is done by trial courts. The trend of rising suo motu cases since 2020, contrasted with earlier periods, suggests a shift from a "rare" to a "recurring" instrument, raising questions about the effective use of scarce judicial attention, especially when dowry deaths and other serious crimes have low conviction rates.
- The Supreme Court's frequent use of suo motu cognisance in individual criminal cases is criticized as a form of judicial overreach.
- Such interventions, often media-driven, are seen as superficial rather than leading to systemic reforms in the lower judiciary.
- The article highlights that despite apex court cognisance, the investigative and conviction work primarily rests with trial courts.