Chief Justice of India Surya Kant announced the launch of two major digital initiatives by the Supreme Court: "One Case One Data" and 'Su Sahay' chatbot. The "One Case One Data" initiative aims to integrate judicial administration across all levels, from taluk courts to the top court, into a unified and comprehensive digital database. This mechanism is designed to create a more interconnected system for judicial data. Additionally, 'Su Sahay', an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered assistance chatbot, has been launched. Integrated with the Supreme Court website, it aims to provide litigants with easier access to justice and court-related services, modernizing and streamlining the judicial system in India.
- The Supreme Court has launched "One Case One Data" to create a unified digital database for judicial administration across all court levels.
- This initiative aims to integrate judicial data from taluk courts to the Supreme Court, enhancing interconnectivity within the system.
- An AI-powered assistance chatbot named 'Su Sahay' has also been launched, integrated with the Supreme Court website.
The Supreme Court has referred to the Union government the question of whether schools imparting religious instruction should be classified under constitutional provisions for charitable or religious establishments, rather than as 'secular or professional' educational institutions. A petition by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay sought a declaration that institutions promoting any religion fall under Article 26(a) (freedom of religion rights) and not Article 19(1)(g) (right to profession) or Article 30(1) (minority educational institutions). The petition argues that religious instruction schools should be subject to public order, health, and morality restrictions, raising concerns about potential brainwashing of children in unregistered institutions, emphasizing national security and child safety.
- The Supreme Court has asked the government to consider classifying schools imparting religious instruction under 'freedom of religion' rights.
- The petition seeks to categorize these schools under Article 26(a) rather than Article 19(1)(g) or Article 30(1).
- The petitioner argues that religious instruction schools should be subject to restrictions based on public order, health, and morality.
Despite the 2016 demonetisation, fake Indian currency notes (FICN) continue to be a significant problem, with their prevalence increasing in certain denominations like ₹500 and ₹2000. Data from the RBI and NCRB indicate that while overall detection initially decreased, it has risen again, particularly in the banking system. The article highlights the ongoing efforts of law enforcement agencies and the challenges in combating the circulation of counterfeit notes, with Maharashtra consistently reporting the highest seizures, underscoring the persistent threat to the economy.
- Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) continue to circulate despite the 2016 demonetisation, posing an ongoing challenge.
- Detection of counterfeit ₹500 and ₹2000 notes has increased significantly in recent years.
- The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) collect and report data on FICN seizures.
This explainer details the constitutional provisions and conventions governing the Governor's role in government formation, particularly in hung assemblies. It discusses the discretionary powers, the recommendations of various commissions (Sarkaria, Venkatachaliah, Punchhi), and concerns regarding the conduct of Governors. The article emphasizes the need to uphold constitutional propriety and democratic norms, especially regarding the invitation of the single largest party or pre-poll alliances and the floor test for proving majority, which is considered the ultimate test for a government's confidence.
- Article 164(1) states the Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor, and other ministers are appointed on the CM's advice.
- The Governor's discretionary powers are limited, primarily for identifying the person most likely to command the House's confidence.
- Commissions like Sarkaria, Venkatachaliah, and Punchhi recommend prioritizing pre-poll alliances and then the single largest party for government formation.
The article discusses the Governor's critical role when no single party secures a clear majority in state elections, leading to a hung assembly. The Governor, as the constitutional head, invites the largest party or pre-poll alliance to form the government, but discretion is involved. Precedents and Supreme Court judgments emphasize that the Governor must act judiciously, ensuring stability and adhering to constitutional propriety. Key issues include the timing of inviting parties, the floor test, and the formation of post-poll alliances. The Sarkaria Commission and the Punchhi Commission have provided recommendations to guide the Governor's actions in such scenarios, stressing the need for transparency and fairness.
- In a hung assembly, the Governor's role is crucial in inviting parties to form a government.
- The Governor's discretion must be exercised judiciously, guided by constitutional provisions and precedents.
- The largest single party or pre-poll alliance is usually invited first, but post-poll alliances can also be considered.
The Calcutta High Court has overruled the Union government's preliminary objections to petitions challenging the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project. The petitions allege violations of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) in obtaining consent for the project. The court dismissed the Centre's argument that petitioner Meena Gupta lacked locus standi, affirming her sufficient interest in espousing the cause of the vulnerable tribal community. Issues raised include the validity of Gram Sabha resolutions, the constitution of a sub-divisional committee, and notifications reducing buffer zones for Campbell Bay and Galathea Bay National Parks. The Centre had argued the project's national importance should shield it from Public Interest Litigations.
- The Calcutta High Court dismissed the Union government's objections to petitions challenging the Great Nicobar Island project.
- The petitions allege violations of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) in the process of obtaining consent for the mega-infrastructure project.
- The court affirmed the petitioner's locus standi, recognizing her interest in advocating for the vulnerable tribal community.
The Supreme Court questioned whether a "proper debate" was held in Parliament before enacting the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. This law replaced a selection committee that included the Chief Justice of India with one comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition. The court's query arose during a hearing on petitions challenging the new law, which critics argue undermines the independence of the Election Commission by giving the executive greater control over appointments. The court emphasized the importance of parliamentary deliberation for laws impacting constitutional bodies.
- The Supreme Court questioned the adequacy of parliamentary debate on the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) appointment law.
- The 2023 Act replaced a selection committee that included the Chief Justice of India with one dominated by the executive.
- Petitions challenge the new law, arguing it compromises the Election Commission's independence.
This article delves into the concept of "legal fiction" as applied to party mergers, particularly in the context of anti-defection law. It explains that legal fiction treats something as true even if it's not, for specific legal purposes, like deeming a merged party as the original party. The Supreme Court's interpretation in cases like the Goa Assembly merger has highlighted how this fiction can impact the disqualification of legislators. The article discusses the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which allows mergers if two-thirds of legislators agree, and how the legal fiction aims to prevent defection while ensuring political stability, though it raises questions about its scope and potential for misuse.
- Legal fiction in party mergers treats a merged entity as the original party for specific legal purposes.
- The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution allows for party mergers if two-thirds of legislators agree, providing an exception to anti-defection rules.
- The Supreme Court has interpreted the scope of legal fiction, particularly in cases involving the disqualification of legislators post-merger.
This Parley discusses the need to amend India's abortion laws, particularly regarding time limits for minor rape victims and improving access to safe terminations. Dipika Jain and Alka Barua highlight that current laws, while seemingly liberal, face challenges in interpretation and implementation, leading to delays and unsafe practices. They argue for removing rigid gestational limits, especially for survivors of sexual assault and minors, who often present late due to trauma and lack of awareness. The discussion emphasizes shifting towards a rights-based reproductive justice framework, ensuring decisional autonomy for pregnant persons, and addressing the chilling effect on healthcare providers due to criminalization fears.
- India's abortion laws, despite appearing liberal, face implementation challenges leading to delays and unsafe practices.
- Rigid gestational limits disproportionately affect minor rape victims and sexual assault survivors who often seek terminations late.
- There is a strong argument for removing strict time limits, allowing clinical judgment to determine safety, especially in cases of trauma.
The Supreme Court observed that entertaining petitions on religious practices could lead to a deluge of similar cases, potentially disrupting India's unique civilisational fabric where religion is deeply intertwined with society. During the Sabarimala review case hearing, Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted India's identity as a "civilisation" with a constant link between people and religion, questioning the courts' role in intervening in such matters. Justice M.M. Sundresh echoed concerns about opening floodgates if fundamental rights challenges are allowed against religious beliefs, suggesting it could break down every religion and constitutional court.
- The Supreme Court cautioned against judicial intervention in religious practices, fearing a flood of similar petitions.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna emphasized India's unique civilisational identity, where religion and society are intimately connected.
- The court questioned whether judicial forums are appropriate for examining and intervening in matters of faith.
Karnataka has operationalized India's first specialized grievance redressal mechanism for platform-based gig workers through the Integrated Public Grievance Redressal System (IPGRS). This system allows gig workers to file complaints regarding issues like suspension, termination, unfair penalties, and discrimination, aiming to provide structure and legal recourse. The Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2023, underpins this initiative, providing social security and welfare benefits funded by a 1% cess on platform transactions. Complaints filed via IPGRS are automatically routed to the platform's Internal Dispute Resolution Committee (IDRC) for resolution within 15 working days.
- Karnataka has launched India's first specialized grievance redressal mechanism for platform-based gig workers via the Integrated Public Grievance Redressal System (IPGRS).
- The IPGRS enables gig workers to file complaints concerning issues such as suspension, termination, unfair penalties, and discrimination.
- This system aims to provide structure, transparency, and legal recourse for gig workers who often lack formal employment benefits.
The article examines constitutional provisions and legal precedents regarding a Chief Minister's (CM) tenure, specifically when they cease to hold office due to losing the Legislative Assembly's confidence. While Article 164 states a CM holds office "during the pleasure of the Governor," this is not absolute, being contingent on maintaining Assembly confidence. The Governor can remove a CM who has lost confidence, but the CM must be allowed to prove their majority via a floor test. The article emphasizes that the ultimate test of confidence lies on the floor of the House, not the Governor's subjective assessment, and discusses the Governor's role in summoning the Assembly.
- A Chief Minister holds office "during the pleasure of the Governor," but this is conditional on retaining the confidence of the Legislative Assembly.
- The Governor can remove a CM who has lost confidence, but the CM must be given an opportunity to prove their majority through a floor test.
- The Governor's power to summon the Assembly for a floor test is crucial in determining the CM's majority.
The Supreme Court clarified that the Chief Justice of India's (CJI) involvement in appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) was a temporary measure, pending a new law from Parliament. This statement came during challenges to the 2023 Act, which replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister on the selection panel. Petitioners argue the new law grants the executive dominant control, overriding a March 2023 Constitution Bench judgment (Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India) that mandated a committee including the PM, LoP, and CJI to ensure the Election Commission's "fierce independence."
- The Supreme Court stated that the CJI's role in the CEC and EC appointment committee was a temporary arrangement until Parliament enacted a new law.
- Petitions challenge the 2023 Act, which replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister on the selection panel, arguing it gives the executive excessive control.
- The 2023 Act effectively countermands the March 2023 Constitution Bench judgment in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India.
The Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration approved the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project, despite failing to meet the mandated 50% quorum at gram sabha meetings. Attendance ranged from 2% to 15%, which the administration defended as "proper quorum" in the Calcutta High Court. Petitions allege violations of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), which requires 50% adult population attendance (one-third women) for a quorum. The administration claimed due process and tribal representation via the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC). However, petitioners argue Nicobarese and Shompen tribes are covered by Tribal Councils, not gram sabhas, and highlighted repeated names in attendance lists.
- The A&NI administration approved the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project despite failing to meet the mandated 50% quorum for gram sabha meetings.
- The administration argued in court that low attendance (2-15%) still constituted a "proper quorum" and that tribal representation was ensured via the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC).
- Petitioners allege violations of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and contend that Nicobarese and Shompen tribal communities should be consulted through Tribal Councils, not gram sabhas.
Five major publishers (Hachette, Macmillan, McGraw Hill, Elsevier, Cengage) and bestselling novelist Scott Turow have filed a class-action lawsuit against Meta and Mark Zuckerberg. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that Meta illegally used millions of copyrighted works, including pirated books and journal articles from sites like Anna's Archive, to train its AI program Llama. The plaintiffs claim this infringes copyright, removes copyright notices, and threatens the livelihoods of writers by enabling AI-generated copycat books and summaries that displace human-authored works.
- Five major publishers and author Scott Turow sued Meta and Mark Zuckerberg for copyright infringement.
- The lawsuit alleges Meta illegally used millions of copyrighted works to train its AI program Llama.
- Meta is accused of sourcing pirated books and articles from websites like Anna's Archive for training data.
The term 'ecocide' refers to widespread, severe environmental damage, often caused by human actions during conflict, as seen in recent accusations against Israel regarding West Asia. Environmental groups advocate for its inclusion as an international crime under the Rome Statute, which currently classifies serious environmental damage as a 'war crime' only during war. Unlike existing anthropocentric laws, 'ecocide' would focus on harm to the environment as a separate entity. Challenges for its inclusion include achieving a 2/3rds majority vote from State Parties to the Rome Statute and issues of jurisdiction, as many nations, including Iran and Lebanon, are not ICC State Parties.
- 'Ecocide' denotes widespread and severe environmental damage, often linked to conflict.
- The term was coined in 1970 and first codified in Vietnam's domestic law in 1990.
- Current international laws, like the Rome Statute and Geneva Conventions, address environmental damage but are anthropocentric, focusing on harm to humans.
The Supreme Court dropped contempt proceedings against AIIMS Delhi after the hospital complied with an order to medically terminate a 30-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old girl. AIIMS reported that the procedure resulted in the live birth of a baby boy with certain disabilities, who has an 80% survival rate and is in NICU. Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan acknowledged the difficulty of the situation, emphasizing the minor's fundamental right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21. The court also highlighted the societal trend of unwanted pregnancies among minors and the legal and medical crises it creates.
- The Supreme Court dropped contempt proceedings against AIIMS Delhi after the termination of a minor's 30-week pregnancy.
- The procedure resulted in the live birth of a baby boy with disabilities, having an 80% survival rate.
- AIIMS had initially hesitated, seeking review and filing a curative petition, citing high risks for a live birth with congenital disabilities.
The Union Cabinet approved the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, to increase the strength of Supreme Court judges from the current 34 (including the CJI) to 38. This move, recommended by CJI Surya Kant, aims to enhance the court's efficiency, ensure speedy justice, and facilitate the establishment of a permanent constitution bench. The expenditure for the additional judges and staff will be met from the Consolidated Fund of India. The last increase in strength was in 2019, raising it from 30 to 33 judges.
- The Union Cabinet approved a Bill to increase the Supreme Court's judicial strength.
- The number of judges will rise from 34 (including CJI) to 38 (including CJI).
- The Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recommended this increase to improve efficiency and facilitate a permanent constitution bench.
During a hearing on review petitions concerning the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, a nine-judge Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, severely questioned the locus standi and intent of the original petitioner, Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA). CJI Kant remarked that the PIL should have been 'thrown outright in the dustbin,' while Justice M.M. Sundresh called it 'a clear abuse of the process of law.' The bench also questioned the practice of barring Parsi women from fire temples if they marry outside the religion, linking it to freedom of conscience under Article 25(1).
- The Supreme Court bench questioned the locus standi and intent of the original petitioner in the Sabarimala case.
- CJI Surya Kant stated that the original PIL should have been 'thrown outright in the dustbin.'
- Justice M.M. Sundresh described the filing of the petition as 'a clear abuse of the process of law.'
The Allahabad High Court ruled that provisions in a later law override inconsistent earlier court orders, reaffirming the supremacy of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006. This decision struck down the District Level Committee's (DLC) rejection of forest rights claims by the Tharus of Palia Kalan Tehsil, which was based on a 2000 Supreme Court interim order. The ruling highlights the repeated disregard for the FRA, including eviction orders and denial of grazing rights, despite the Act's clear provisions. The FRA disallows eviction until verification is complete and recognizes grazing rights in all forests, overriding State laws like the Tamil Nadu Forest Act (TNFA) 1882.
- The Allahabad High Court reinforced the legal principle that later laws override inconsistent earlier court orders, upholding the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006.
- The ruling overturned the DLC's rejection of forest rights claims by the Tharus tribal community, which was based on an outdated Supreme Court order.
- The FRA prohibits eviction of forest dwellers until their claims are verified and recognizes grazing rights in all forest areas.
The article discusses whether the Prime Minister's April 18 broadcast, aired live on Doordarshan, Sansad TV, and All India Radio, violated the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) during the election period. The MCC prohibits the party in power from using public resources and government machinery for campaigning. The broadcast raised questions under both the MCC and Sections 123(3) and 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, regarding corrupt practices and assistance from government servants. While Section 123(3) focuses on appeals based on religion, race, caste, community, or language, Section 123(7) addresses the procurement of government servants' assistance. The Election Commission's inaction on the complaints has been highlighted.
- The Prime Minister's broadcast on public media during elections raised questions about MCC violation.
- The MCC prohibits the misuse of public resources and government machinery for partisan campaigning.
- Relevant legal provisions include Sections 123(3) and 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Supreme Court has expanded the definition of "acid attack victims" under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to include individuals who were forcibly administered acid. Previously, the Act only recognized acid-throwing victims. This decision, made by a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, ensures that survivors of forcible acid ingestion can retrospectively claim disability benefits from the Act's inception. The court utilized its plenary powers under Article 142 for this. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta mentioned a proposed amendment to the Act's Schedule. The court also recommended a comprehensive policy framework for the survivors' extensive medical treatment.
- The Supreme Court has broadened the definition of "acid attack victims" in the RPWD Act, 2016, to include those forcibly administered acid.
- This ruling ensures retrospective disability benefits for these survivors, many of whom are women.
- The court exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 to issue this order.
The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the potential misuse of welfare benefits by individuals falsely claiming transgender identity. This arose during hearings on petitions challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The Act requires a government-appointed medical Board's recommendation for certification, which petitioners argue removes the right to self-identification and violates their rights. Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned the danger of such masquerading for reservations or privileges, while a senior advocate stated the risk of faking identity was minimal. The court issued notice to the Centre and States, noting the Act is not yet notified.
- The Supreme Court is examining the potential for misuse of welfare benefits by individuals falsely identifying as transgender.
- Petitions challenge the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, for removing self-identification and requiring medical board certification.
- Petitioners argue the Act disregards authentic human identity and violates rights.
The article discusses the Supreme Court's stance on reproductive autonomy and abortion, particularly concerning minor rape victims. While acknowledging a woman's right to reproductive autonomy, the Court has also highlighted the essential role of clinical review, especially for advanced pregnancies. It noted that terminating a pregnancy at an advanced stage (e.g., 30 weeks) could be detrimental to the health of the teenage mother. Indian law currently permits termination up to 24 weeks of gestation. The piece emphasizes that decisions on abortion, particularly regarding gestational age, must be guided by sound medical advice to assess risks and ensure the woman's health and life are not compromised.
- The Supreme Court acknowledges a woman's right to reproductive autonomy but stresses the importance of medical advice for abortion decisions.
- The Court has asked the Union government to amend abortion law to remove time limits for medical termination in cases of minor rape victims.
- Terminating pregnancies at advanced stages, such as 30 weeks, is considered inimical to the health of the mother.