The Supreme Court is considering a plea challenging provisions of the Shariat Application Act, 1937, which allegedly discriminates against Muslim women in inheritance by giving them a smaller share than men. While acknowledging the discrimination, the bench orally suggested deferring to Parliament's wisdom to enact a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) rather than judicially striking down the Act, fearing it could create a legal vacuum. The court referenced the Mary Roy vs State of Kerala judgment, which secured equal inheritance rights for Syrian Christian women. The Chief Justice questioned whether striking down the Act would lead to re-legislation by the court, emphasizing the complexities of judicial intervention versus legislative action on personal laws.
- The Supreme Court is hearing a plea challenging the Shariat Application Act, 1937, for alleged discrimination against Muslim women in inheritance.
- The court expressed concern that striking down the Act could create a legal vacuum in Muslim inheritance law.
- The bench suggested that enacting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) through Parliament would be a more appropriate solution, aligning with Article 44 of the DPSP.
The recent no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has reignited debate on the constitutional role and accountability of the Speaker's office. The article emphasizes the Speaker's critical role as an impartial arbiter, safeguarding members' rights and maintaining parliamentary order. It details the stringent removal procedure under Article 94(c), requiring a majority of all Lok Sabha members, reflecting the intent to ensure stability. Challenges include growing politicization, frequent confrontations, and weakening parliamentary conventions. Reforms such as reinforcing institutional norms, enhancing transparency, and codifying best practices for discretionary powers are suggested to preserve credibility and strengthen democracy.
- The Speaker's office is a critical pillar of India's parliamentary democracy, expected to be an impartial arbiter.
- The removal procedure for the Speaker is stringent, requiring a resolution passed by a majority of all Lok Sabha members under Article 94(c).
- Historically, no-confidence motions against the Speaker have been rare and unsuccessful, demonstrating the difficulty of removal.
The article highlights the severe issue of milk adulteration, particularly with ethylene glycol, leading to fatalities in states like Andhra Pradesh. It discusses the challenges in prosecuting offenders due to weak laws and the unorganized nature of the dairy sector. The government's efforts to ensure food safety, including the FSSAI's role in establishing safety protocols, are mentioned. The piece emphasizes the need for stricter penalties and a robust enforcement mechanism to protect consumers, especially vulnerable groups like children and the elderly, from the health risks posed by contaminated milk.
- Milk adulteration, particularly with ethylene glycol, poses a significant public health threat, leading to fatalities.
- The unorganized nature of the dairy sector and weak legal frameworks make it challenging to prosecute offenders effectively.
- The government, through bodies like FSSAI, is working to establish food safety protocols and ensure compliance.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected former President Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, ruling he overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court emphasized that while the President has broad powers to regulate trade during emergencies, these powers are not unlimited and require specific congressional authorization for tariffs. The ruling highlighted that the President cannot impose tariffs based on "objective parameters" without clear legislative backing. This decision underscores the importance of checks and balances, clarifying the limits of presidential power in trade policy and potentially impacting future trade disputes.
- The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, citing a lack of presidential authority under the IEEPA.
- The Court clarified that presidential powers to regulate trade, even during emergencies, are not absolute and require specific congressional authorization.
- The ruling emphasizes the constitutional principle of checks and balances, limiting executive overreach in trade policy.
The article critically examines the "One Nation, One Election" (ONOE) proposal, arguing it could undermine federalism and democratic principles. It highlights that simultaneous elections, while potentially reducing expenditure and promoting stability, may lead to reduced accountability, limit regional parties' influence, and increase central interference. The article discusses various constitutional amendments required, such as for Articles 83, 172, 356, and 324, and the need for a consensus among states. It also points out that the proposal could lead to frequent no-confidence motions and President's Rule, potentially destabilizing state governments.
- The "One Nation, One Election" (ONOE) proposal aims for simultaneous elections but faces criticism for potentially undermining federalism.
- Implementing ONOE would require significant constitutional amendments, including to Articles 83, 172, 356, and 324.
- Concerns include reduced accountability of elected representatives, increased central interference, and potential destabilization of state governments through frequent no-confidence motions.
The article discusses the recent transfer of Governors in several states, particularly focusing on R.N. Ravi's tenure in Tamil Nadu and C.V. Ananda Bose's in West Bengal. It highlights how Governors have often been perceived as political pinpricks to elected governments, creating constitutional misadventures. R.N. Ravi's actions in Tamil Nadu, such as walking out of the Assembly, delaying Bills, and arguing that a withheld Bill is "dead" (a position rejected by the Supreme Court), are cited as examples of undermining popular will. The author suggests that such gubernatorial actions contribute to a perception of central interference in state affairs.
- Recent transfers of Governors, including R.N. Ravi from Tamil Nadu, highlight ongoing tensions in Centre-State relations.
- Governors have been accused of creating legislative paralysis by delaying decisions on Bills and abusing powers under Article 200 of the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court rejected the stance that a Governor withholding assent makes a Bill "dead," as seen in the Punjab case (2023).
Reported cases of denial of access to public spaces to Scheduled Caste (SC) communities have been rising across India since 2017, with Uttar Pradesh accounting for the majority. In 2023, out of 180 reported cases nationwide, 173 were from U.P., and in 2022, 300 out of 305 cases were from U.P. This crime category, "Prevent or deny or obstruct usage of public place/passage," was introduced by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in 2017 as part of reforms to better classify crimes under the SC/ST Act.
- Cases of denial of access to public spaces for Scheduled Caste communities are increasing across India.
- Uttar Pradesh consistently reports the overwhelming majority of these cases, indicating significant social discrimination issues.
- The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) introduced a specific crime category in 2017 to track such offenses under the SC/ST Act.
The discussion around AI innovation must prioritize women's digital safety, especially with rising online harassment and the proliferation of deepfakes. The anonymity of the digital world makes protection difficult, as evidenced by the use of deepfake technologies and AI chatbots like Grok AI to create non-consensual images. A significant concern is the lack of women's representation in AI development, leading to biased tools. To address this, stronger laws are needed, such as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology's directive for online intermediaries to remove deepfakes within three hours. Additionally, educating children about digital safety from a young age is crucial.
- The increasing integration of AI necessitates a focus on ethical AI and women's digital safety.
- Online harassment and the rise of deepfakes, often used to create non-consensual sexualized images, pose significant threats to women.
- The lack of women's representation in AI development teams contributes to biased tools and fewer diverse viewpoints.
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh are moving to ban or restrict social media use for children to combat the adverse effects of mobile phone usage. Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah proposed a ban for children under 16, while Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu plans restrictions for those under 13, with a roadmap expected within 90 days. Experts are divided on the feasibility and impact of such a blanket ban. A similar law was enacted in Australia in December 2025, imposing high penalties for violations by social media platforms.
- Karnataka proposes a social media ban for children under 16, while Andhra Pradesh targets those under 13.
- The initiatives aim to prevent the adverse effects of increasing mobile phone use on children.
- Andhra Pradesh plans to finalize a roadmap for implementation within 90 days.
The article critically examines the legality of recent U.S. and Israel strikes on Iran, particularly focusing on a missile strike that reportedly hit a girls' primary school in Minab. Under the UN Charter, the use of force is generally prohibited, with self-defense (Article 51) allowed only against an actual armed attack, not a "pre-emptive" or "anticipatory" strike as claimed. The strike on the school raises concerns about violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. IHL protects civilians and civilian objects like schools, and any incidental harm must be proportionate to military advantage, with all feasible precautions taken.
- U.S. and Israel strikes on Iran are legally questionable under the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force except in self-defense against an actual armed attack.
- The claim of "pre-emptive" or "anticipatory" self-defense is not widely recognized in international law for justifying military action without an ongoing armed attack.
- The reported missile strike on a girls' primary school in Minab raises serious concerns about violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to issue a notification to include an additional 55 sq. km of the Kappatagudda reserve forest into the Kappatagudda Wildlife Sanctuary in Gadag district. This directive aligns with a unanimous resolution passed by the Karnataka State Wildlife Board (KSWB) in January 2019, which had resolved to declare the entire 300 sq. km of the reserve forest as a sanctuary. The court noted that only 244.15 sq. km was declared in the May 2019 notification, making the reduction arbitrary and contrary to the Board's decision.
- The Karnataka High Court ordered the State government to expand the Kappatagudda Wildlife Sanctuary.
- An additional 55 sq. km of the Kappatagudda reserve forest in Gadag district must be included.
- This directive upholds a 2019 resolution by the Karnataka State Wildlife Board to declare the entire 300 sq. km as a sanctuary.
Climate change's severe impacts are pushing for a renegotiation of fundamental international law principles, including permanent sovereignty over natural resources (PSNR), statehood, and maritime zones. The urgency to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C demands phasing out fossil fuels, requiring developed nations to provide finance and technology to developing countries. Sea-level rise threatens the statehood of small island nations and unsettles maritime baselines, necessitating new legal frameworks for climate refugees and a reinterpretation of UNCLOS rules. States must prioritize these renegotiations to address climate-induced risks effectively.
- Climate change is compelling a re-evaluation of core international law principles like permanent sovereignty over natural resources and the criteria for statehood.
- The global imperative to restrict temperature rise necessitates a phase-out of fossil fuels, with developed countries expected to support developing nations with finance and technology.
- Sea-level rise poses an existential threat to small island states' statehood and complicates the definition of maritime zones, requiring new legal interpretations.
India's religious geography often overlaps with ecologically sensitive areas, creating conflict between faith and conservation. Rising visitor numbers and commercialisation of pilgrimage routes are intensely pressuring forest ecosystems. A recent case involving a religious establishment expansion in a Gujarat sanctuary highlighted this tension. The article advocates for a 'green pilgrimage model' with a clear no-expansion principle for new constructions in core forest areas. It emphasizes recognizing long-standing sites subject to strict, impact-based regulation, including caps on pilgrim numbers and robust controls on waste and water use. Multi-stakeholder governance and mandatory settlement of forest rights are crucial for sustainable management.
- Religious sites and pilgrimage routes in India frequently coincide with ecologically sensitive protected areas, leading to environmental pressure from mass tourism.
- The Forest (Conservation) Act and Wildlife (Protection) Act generally treat new constructions on forest land as encroachment, highlighting the legal conflict.
- A 'green pilgrimage model' is proposed, advocating a strict no-expansion principle for new structures in core forest areas.
The Supreme Court has decided to examine whether blood banks should be mandated to conduct the Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) for identifying diseases like HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C. Currently, the less sensitive Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) test is more common. The petition, filed by an NGO, argues that safe blood transfusion is a fundamental part of the Right to Life under Article 21. The move follows reports of children contracting HIV through contaminated blood transfusions during treatment for Thalassemia. The Court has asked for data on the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of implementing NAT in state-run hospitals.
- NAT is a highly sensitive molecular technique that detects the genetic material of viruses, reducing the 'window period' for detection.
- The petition highlights that Thalassemia patients are particularly vulnerable due to frequent blood transfusions and contaminated blood risks.
- Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life) is being invoked to demand safer medical procedures across all state hospitals.
In the case of Vishwaprasad Alva vs Union of India (2026), the Supreme Court is addressing the legality of extending tax searches to digital devices under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. Historically limited to physical premises, searches now encompass smartphones, cloud accounts, and communication archives. The petitioner argues that unrestricted access to digital ecosystems violates the right to privacy established in the Puttaswamy judgment and Articles 14 and 21. The Union defends these powers as necessary to prevent tax evasion, while the Court seeks a balance between revenue enforcement and digital personhood.
- Section 132 of the Income Tax Act allows for the seizure of undisclosed assets and now extends to 'computer systems.'
- The petitioner claims digital searches are disproportionate and lack the safeguards required for informational privacy.
- The Puttaswamy judgment (2017) recognized privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21.
The prospects of an interim trade agreement between India and the U.S. have become uncertain after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The court ruled that the President requires congressional approval for such levies. This decision complicates the removal of 'reciprocal tariffs' that were part of the proposed deal. While Indian officials were prepared to finalize the agreement in Washington, the visit has been postponed to evaluate the legal implications. The U.S. administration maintains that it expects partners to stand by signed deals despite the judicial setback.
- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the President cannot unilaterally levy certain tariffs without congressional approval, affecting the 'reciprocal tariffs' strategy.
- The proposed interim deal aimed to reduce reciprocal tariffs on various goods, including aluminium and steel, which currently face a 50% tariff.
- India has postponed the visit of its chief negotiator to Washington to assess the impact of the court's ruling on the legality of the proposed agreement.
The Supreme Court is hearing a petition challenging the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act of 2025. The petition argues that the Act allows private and foreign companies to operate nuclear plants while capping their liability at an 'absurdly low' level of ₹3,000 crore and exempting suppliers from accountability. Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that while nuclear power is essential for India's energy security, a balance must be struck between national interest and the potential for catastrophic loss, similar to the Chernobyl or Fukushima accidents.
- The SHANTI Act 2025 facilitates private and foreign sector participation in India's nuclear energy production.
- Critics argue the ₹3,000 crore liability cap for operators is insufficient compared to the potential damage of nuclear accidents.
- The Act's exemption of suppliers from liability is challenged on the grounds that it may lead to compromised safety standards.
Amidst global conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war, Prabhash Ranjan argues that international law remains a vital normative framework. While Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force, is frequently breached, states still feel compelled to justify their actions within legal frameworks. Beyond high-profile conflicts, international law 'works silently' to facilitate global trade, civil aviation, and climate action. Recent milestones like the High Seas Treaty and the Pandemic Agreement, along with the continued functioning of international courts, demonstrate that the judicialization of international relations is flourishing rather than dying.
- Article 2(4) of the UN Charter remains the primary normative framework for prohibiting the threat or use of force.
- International law provides a necessary framework for powerless states to demand accountability from global powers.
- The 'silent' operation of international law governs critical areas like maritime resources, outer space, and human rights.
The Allahabad High Court recently examined the legality of 'bulldozer justice'—the practice of demolishing properties of individuals accused of crimes without proper notice or hearing. The court reaffirmed that punishment lies exclusively with the judiciary and that administrative authorities cannot assume criminal culpability. Such actions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and the right to life and liberty. The court emphasized that demolition should be a regulatory measure of last resort for unauthorized construction, not a tool for extrajudicial punishment, as it undermines the separation of powers and erodes constitutional rights.
- The Allahabad High Court ruled that punitive demolitions without due process are a 'colourable exercise of power' that erodes the separation of powers.
- Administrative actions taken immediately after FIRs violate the principle of 'presumption of innocence' and judicial oversight.
- The Supreme Court in 2024 established that property cannot be demolished solely because an owner is an accused or convicted of an offence.
A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court is reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, which allowed women of all ages to enter the temple. The legal debate focuses on the 'essential religious practices' doctrine versus the 'anti-exclusion test' proposed by Justice Chandrachud. While the former allows courts to define religious tenets, the latter prioritizes whether a practice leads to systematic exclusion or impairs individual dignity. The court seeks to harmonize individual rights under Article 25 with the rights of religious denominations under Article 26, ensuring that religious autonomy does not violate the overarching values of a liberal constitution.
- The 2018 judgment ruled that excluding women aged 10-50 violated the right to freedom of religion and equality.
- The 'anti-exclusion test' examines if a religious practice is compatible with constitutional guarantees of equal treatment.
- Article 25 protects individual freedom of conscience, while Article 26 protects the rights of religious denominations to manage their affairs.
Petitions in the Supreme Court challenge the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, arguing it dilutes the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to provide a blanket exemption for 'personal information', removing the previous proviso that allowed disclosure if it served a larger public interest. Critics argue this prevents scrutiny of public servants' assets and corruption. The matter has been referred to a Constitution Bench to balance the fundamental right to privacy (Puttaswamy judgment) against the right to information (Article 19).
- The DPDP Act 2023 removes the 'public interest' override for disclosing personal information under RTI.
- Previously, RTI was used to probe corruption by accessing assets and liabilities of public servants.
- The Supreme Court must now reconcile the right to privacy with the need for transparency in governance.
An editorial criticizes the Supreme Court's perceived retreat from its 2018 guidelines intended to curb mob violence and cow vigilantism. Chief Justice Surya Kant recently observed that the 2018 'general directions' were 'unmanageable', suggesting petitioners approach High Courts instead. The article argues that since 2018, vigilantism has grown, often with state encouragement or legal sanctity. The 2018 judgment (Dipak Misra bench) had emphasized the state's 'sacrosanct duty' to protect citizens from lynching. The current judicial diffidence is seen as a blow to the rule of law and the protection of individual rights against majoritarian violence.
- The 2018 Supreme Court judgment provided specific preventive, punitive, and remedial measures against mob lynching.
- Current judicial observations suggest a shift toward handling cases on individual merits rather than systemic monitoring.
- Vigilante groups are allegedly being accorded quasi-policing powers in violation of court guidelines.
The Supreme Court observed that addressing human-wildlife conflict in southern India requires a humanitarian approach and direct engagement with local communities. Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that the situation in parts of Kerala and other southern states is 'alarming'. The court emphasized that mere judicial orders are insufficient; instead, authorities must reach out to local people in their own language and understand their socio-economic conditions. The bench criticized the use of cruel methods like spikes or fireballs to drive away elephants and highlighted that commercial interests often exploit these conflict situations.
- Judicial orders alone cannot solve complex human-wildlife conflicts without ground-level community engagement.
- A humanitarian approach is necessary to understand the economic interests and sensitivities of local populations.
- The court flagged the systematic evasion of laws and the use of cruel deterrence methods against wildlife.
The independence of the Election Commission (EC) is a bedrock of Indian democracy, protected by Article 324 of the Constitution. Recent controversies have emerged regarding the 2023 Act governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other ECs. Critics argue that the new selection committee, comprising the PM, a Union Minister, and the Leader of Opposition, undermines the SC's Anoop Baranwal judgment. The article discusses the constitutional mandate for a permanent EC and the rigorous removal process for the CEC, which is similar to that of a Supreme Court judge, ensuring protection from arbitrary executive action.
- Article 324 provides for a permanent Election Commission with powers of superintendence, direction, and control of elections.
- The CEC can only be removed from office in a manner similar to a Supreme Court judge (impeachment).
- The 2023 Act changed the selection process for ECs, which is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court.