The article highlights the growing threat of online censorship in India, with the government allegedly misusing IT Rules, 2021, and Sections 69A and 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, to take down content and accounts. This practice, often under the guise of fighting AI-generated content, is seen as silencing independent voices and distorting public discourse to benefit the ruling party. The author criticizes the lack of transparency in takedown data and the pressure on social media platforms to comply automatically. The piece also mentions the Sahyog portal, which police officials use for takedown requests, and the disregard for Supreme Court precedents like Shreya Singhal vs Union of India.
- The Union government is accused of misusing IT Rules, 2021, and specific sections of the IT Act, 2000, for online censorship.
- Censorship practices are seen as a threat to free expression, silencing independent voices, and distorting public discourse.
- The Sahyog portal is criticized for supercharging takedown requests from police officials, bypassing proper legal scrutiny.
The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a plea challenging the apnoea test, a crucial component for declaring brain death, citing concerns about its potential to cause further brain damage and its applicability across diverse patient populations. The petition argues that the existing guidelines for brain death declaration, which include the apnoea test, are outdated and may not align with international best practices. The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive review by a committee of experts, considering the ethical, medical, and legal implications of organ donation and the definition of death.
- The Supreme Court will examine a plea challenging the apnoea test for brain death declaration.
- Concerns include potential for further brain damage and varied applicability across patients.
- The petition argues existing guidelines for brain death declaration are outdated.
Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma resigned following an inquiry into unaccounted cash found at his Delhi residence in 2025. The Supreme Court Collegium repatriated him, and an in-house committee found 'covert or active control' over the cash, recommending impeachment. The Law Ministry reported 8,630 complaints against judges between 2016-2025, but details on actions taken are scarce, leading to calls for greater transparency. Activists argue that judicial corruption is difficult to address due to opacity and lack of effective mechanisms, with even impeachment requiring political will. The article also touches upon a related controversy where an NCERT textbook referencing 'corruption in the judiciary' was withdrawn.
- Justice Yashwant Varma resigned following an inquiry into unaccounted cash found at his residence.
- The Supreme Court Collegium initiated an in-house inquiry, which recommended impeachment.
- Concerns about opacity in handling complaints against judges and lack of effective accountability mechanisms were raised.
The National Green Tribunal's Southern Zone Bench has directed all five southern States and Puducherry to ensure strict and time-bound implementation of their State Action Plans (SAPs) under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP). The NGT flagged persistent particulate pollution across the region and warned that continued under-utilisation of clean air funds could attract environmental compensation. This directive highlights air pollution governance in the southern States, an issue often overshadowed by concerns in northern regions like Delhi-NCR. Karnataka, for instance, utilized only 13% of its allocated funds by October 2024, though a later affidavit reported 76% utilization by September 2025.
- NGT's Southern Zone Bench directed southern States and Puducherry to implement State Action Plans under NCAP.
- The tribunal highlighted persistent particulate pollution in the region.
- Under-utilisation of clean air funds could attract environmental compensation.
The Union Home Ministry has notified changes to the Citizenship Rules, 2009, introducing a digital shift for Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholders and citizenship applications. The amendments, known as the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2026, include a specific proviso for citizenship applicants: a minor child cannot hold a passport of any other country while also holding an Indian passport. The changes also introduce online initiatives for OCI cardholders, such as a digital application and renunciation process through an official portal, https://ociservices.gov.in.
- The Union Home Ministry notified changes to the Citizenship Rules, 2009, introducing digital processes for OCI and citizenship applications.
- A key proviso states that a minor child cannot hold a foreign passport while also holding an Indian passport.
- The amendments are officially known as the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2026.
Karnataka has operationalized India's first specialized digital grievance redressal mechanism for platform-based gig workers. Developed by the Karnataka Platform-based Gig Workers' Board in collaboration with the Department of e-Governance, this portal allows gig workers to lodge grievances regarding pay, working conditions, and platform-specific disputes through the Integrated Public Grievance Redressal System (IPGRS) portal. This initiative aims to create a formal and transparent bridge between gig workers and aggregators, ensuring legal recourse and timely resolution. Labour Minister Santosh Lad highlighted that this system structures the gig economy, ensuring every worker's voice is heard.
- Karnataka launched India's first digital grievance redressal mechanism for gig workers.
- The portal, part of the Integrated Public Grievance Redressal System (IPGRS), allows workers to lodge complaints.
- Grievances cover issues like pay, working conditions, and platform-specific disputes.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) emerged in the 1970s to widen access to justice for marginalized groups by relaxing locus standi rules. However, concerns about its misuse and judicial overreach have led to calls for reconsideration, particularly from the Union government. Anuj Bhuwania argues for PILs to be invoked by directly affected parties or those with clear interest, while Talha Abdul Rahman advocates retaining relaxed locus standi due to persistent structural barriers to justice. Both acknowledge the challenges of complex, polycentric disputes and the risk of judicial overreach. The discussion also covers "ambush PILs" and the need for clearer guidelines on the role of amicus curiae and reforms to strengthen PIL jurisdiction by focusing on challenging laws or executive actions rather than policy choices.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL) originated in the 1970s to enhance justice access for the marginalized by relaxing traditional locus standi rules.
- Concerns regarding PIL misuse, judicial overreach, and "agenda-driven litigation" have prompted calls for its reconsideration.
- Experts debate whether PILs should be restricted to directly affected parties or continue with relaxed standing rules given ongoing barriers to justice.
This May Day analysis highlights the precarious state of Indian labour, citing two recent events: a protest by garment workers in Noida demanding higher minimum wages and a fatal boiler explosion at a Vedanta plant in Chhattisgarh. These incidents underscore the impact of India's new labour regime, which consolidated 29 central labour laws into four codes in November 2025. Critics argue these reforms, including increased thresholds for layoffs and diluted inspection mechanisms, favour employers and reduce worker protections. The article contends that the reforms have not rationalized protection but rather removed it, leading to wage stagnation and unsafe working conditions, as exemplified by the Noida strike and the Singhitarai accident.
- May Day serves as a diagnostic for the state of Indian labour, marked by recent worker protests and industrial accidents.
- India's new labour regime, enacted in November 2025, consolidated 29 central labour laws into four codes.
- The reforms are criticized for raising thresholds for layoffs and diluting safety oversight, potentially favouring employers over workers.
Fresh petitions before the Supreme Court seek to extend the "creamy layer" principle to SC/ST reservations, based on a misreading of the 2024 Davinder Singh judgment. The article, by Prannv Dhawan and Vignesh Karthik K.R., argues that this revives the debate on whether income can serve as a proxy for caste-based disadvantage. The creamy layer principle, introduced in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) for OBCs, initially focused on status, not income. Extending it to SC/STs, as Ambedkar warned, is problematic because economic progress does not erase social burdens. The Davinder Singh judgment authorized sub-classification within SC lists to direct benefits to the most marginalized, which is distinct from creamy layer exclusion.
- New petitions seek to apply the "creamy layer" principle to SC/ST reservations, citing the 2024 Davinder Singh judgment.
- The article argues that using income as a proxy for caste-based disadvantage for SC/STs is constitutionally and sociologically indefensible.
- B.R. Ambedkar had warned against excluding wealthy or educated untouchables, stating that economic progress does not remove social discrimination.
The Delhi High Court's observations on "digital vigilantism" highlight the growing use of social media to amplify harassment claims due to a lack of faith in formal justice systems. Authored by Prachi Dutta, the article argues that social media acts as a "crowd source" for retributive action when institutional inaction prevails. It critiques the term "digital vigilantism," stating that social media posts in such contexts don't fit the definition of vigilantism, which implies an established order under threat and assurance of security. Instead, it's a consequence of systemic apathy and delayed justice, where victims resort to social media to bridge the gap between harassment and redress mechanisms.
- The Delhi High Court has made observations regarding "digital vigilantism" in the context of public shaming via social media.
- Social media is increasingly used by victims to amplify harassment claims due to the perceived failure of formal justice systems.
- The article argues that "digital vigilantism" is a misnomer, as these actions arise from a collective failure of processes rather than a threat to an established order.
WhatsApp informed the Supreme Court that it banned up to 9,400 accounts linked to "digital arrests" and "law enforcement impersonations" scams, primarily active in Cambodia. The platform's probe, initiated by government inputs, aimed to dismantle the entire scam network. Measures discussed with the Home Ministry and telecom providers include SIM binding to detect swapping/cloning, using AI/ML to detect impersonation and synthetic content, and blocking device IDs. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant flagged digital arrest scams as "most disturbing" due to financial losses and "blistering sense of violation," with the Home Ministry reporting over 2.41 lakh complaints and ₹30,000 crore losses.
- WhatsApp has banned 9,400 accounts involved in "digital arrests" and "law enforcement impersonations" scams, mainly originating from Cambodia.
- The platform's investigation was prompted by inputs from government sources and aimed at disrupting the entire criminal network.
- Collaborative efforts with the Home Ministry and telecom service providers include implementing SIM binding, AI/ML-based detection, and blocking device IDs.
Draft amendments to India's Information Technology Rules, released in March 2026, are raising concerns about increased executive control over online speech. Rule 3(4) would require platforms to comply with informal government directives, risking broad over-censorship. Amendments to Rule 8 extend state oversight to ordinary users posting news, a move previously challenged in courts. Expanded data retention obligations also raise privacy concerns. Critics argue these changes dilute constitutional safeguards, bypass legislative scrutiny, and could narrow India's digital public sphere, shifting the balance from regulation to overreach.
- Draft amendments to India's Information Technology Rules (March 2026) are criticized for expanding executive power over online speech.
- Rule 3(4) would mandate platforms to comply with informal government directives, potentially leading to broad over-censorship.
- Amendments to Rule 8 extend state oversight to ordinary users who post news and current affairs content, a provision previously challenged in High Courts.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) is under scrutiny for removing lakhs of voters from electoral rolls using the term 'logical discrepancy' during its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, particularly in West Bengal and Bihar. Critics argue the ECI is exceeding its constitutional powers by demanding specific documents for citizenship proof, a responsibility of the Union Home Ministry. The article also highlights that conducting intensive revisions close to elections deviates from legal provisions, which mandate summary revisions during such periods, raising concerns about the fairness of elections.
- The Election Commission of India (ECI) has been criticized for removing lakhs of voters from electoral rolls using 'logical discrepancy' during its Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
- The ECI is accused of exceeding its jurisdiction by determining citizenship proof, a power vested in the Union Home Ministry.
- The SIR process, particularly its timing close to elections, deviates from legal provisions that mandate summary revisions during election periods.
Seven Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha members announced their merger with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a move accepted by the Rajya Sabha Chairman. This increases the BJP's strength to 113, giving the National Democratic Alliance a majority. The incident highlights the 'institutionalised defanging' of the anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule), as the merger exception requires two-thirds of the legislative party's concurrence, not just members crossing over. AAP has challenged this in court, arguing a violation of the anti-defection law.
- Seven Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha members merged with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), increasing BJP's strength in the Upper House.
- The Rajya Sabha Chairman accepted the merger, leading to the National Democratic Alliance gaining a majority.
- The incident raises concerns about the 'institutionalised defanging' of the anti-defection law, enshrined in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has petitioned Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan to disqualify seven MPs who quit AAP and merged with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). AAP leader Sanjay Singh stated that the move by the Raghav Chadha-led group violates the anti-defection law (10th Schedule). The party argues that the law requires the 'original party' to merge, which AAP has not done, making a case for disqualification. Six of the seven defecting MPs were from Punjab, and Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann has also sought their removal through the 'Right to Recall'.
- AAP has petitioned the Rajya Sabha Chairman for the disqualification of seven MPs who defected to BJP.
- The party argues that the defection violates the anti-defection law (10th Schedule).
- The defecting group claims to have the required two-thirds strength to avoid disqualification.
Seven Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha MPs joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), raising questions about disqualification under the anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule). The law disqualifies legislators who voluntarily relinquish party membership or defy party directions. While the 'split' exception was removed in 2003, the 'merger' exception (Paragraph 4) remains. A valid merger requires the original political party to merge with another, and the decision must be backed by at least two-thirds of the legislature party. The Supreme Court endorsed a conjunctive reading for the 'split' exception, but the Bombay High Court adopted a disjunctive reading for 'merger,' allowing a 'deemed' merger if two-thirds of the legislature party agrees, even without national party approval.
- Seven AAP Rajya Sabha MPs joining BJP brings the anti-defection law into focus regarding potential disqualification.
- The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution aims to curb floor-crossing by elected representatives.
- The 'split' exception (Paragraph 3) was removed by the 91st Constitutional Amendment in 2003.
This article analyzes the legal aspects of the U.S.-Iran conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, focusing on international waters, blockades, and interceptions. It explains that the seas are a shared global commons, with freedom of navigation upheld by UNCLOS. While the U.S. imposes sanctions as economic warfare, these are based on U.S. law, not international law, and are not authorized by the UN. Iran's actions, like detaining ships, are in retaliation to the U.S. blockade. The Strait of Hormuz is an international passage where 'transit' rights apply, allowing unhindered passage but with some restrictions on ship conduct. The IMO is working to resolve the issue, condemning Iran's attacks but not U.S. actions.
- The Strait of Hormuz conflict involves U.S. sanctions and Iranian retaliatory actions, raising questions about international maritime law.
- The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes the seas as shared global commons, upholding freedom of navigation for merchant ships.
- U.S. sanctions, while a form of economic warfare, are based on U.S. domestic law and lack international authorization.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) cancelled the banking licence of Paytm Payments Bank Limited (PPBL), effective from the close of business on April 24, 2026, due to the bank's failure to comply with licence conditions. This action prohibits PPBL from conducting any banking business. The RBI stated it would apply to the High Court for winding up the bank, assuring sufficient liquidity to repay deposits. Paytm's parent company, One 97 Communications Ltd., has distanced itself from PPBL, clarifying it has no material business arrangements and that other Paytm services like the app, UPI, and QR will continue to operate uninterrupted.
- The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) cancelled the banking licence of Paytm Payments Bank Limited (PPBL).
- The cancellation is effective from April 24, 2026, prohibiting PPBL from conducting banking business due to non-compliance with licence conditions.
- RBI will apply to the High Court for winding up the bank, assuring that PPBL has enough liquidity to repay deposits.
Recent powerful explosions at fireworks units in Mundathikode, Kerala, and Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu, have underscored critical safety failures and regulatory lapses in India's pyrotechnic industry. Despite stringent measures recommended by a Judicial Commission after the 2016 Puttingal temple accident, compliance remains woefully inadequate. Factors like unsafe storage, excess flash powder, untrained workers, and the use of banned chemicals contribute to disasters. The article emphasizes that political entanglement in religious festivals often dissuades authorities from enforcing safety norms, urging for the adoption of safer alternatives like cold spark technology to prevent human cost.
- Recent fireworks explosions in Kerala and Tamil Nadu have exposed significant safety and regulatory gaps in India's pyrotechnic industry.
- Despite a Judicial Commission's stringent recommendations post-2016 Puttingal accident, safety norms are frequently sidelined.
- Inadequate compliance includes unsafe storage, excessive quantities of flash powder, lack of safety gear, untrained workers, and potential use of banned chemicals.
The Supreme Court questioned the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on whether it was arguing for a "breakdown of constitutional machinery" in West Bengal, momentarily pausing the agency's rejoinder against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and State police officers. The ED had alleged violations of the rule of law during a raid related to a coal smuggling case, citing a "well-established pattern" of violations by the Chief Minister and the ruling Trinamool Congress. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta clarified that the ED was not arguing for Article 356 (President's Rule) but rather asserting the fundamental rights of its officials to equality before the law.
- The Supreme Court questioned the ED's argument regarding a "breakdown of constitutional machinery" in West Bengal.
- The ED's submissions highlighted a "well-established pattern" of rule of law violations by the Chief Minister and State police.
- Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta clarified that the ED was asserting fundamental rights of its officials, not seeking President's Rule.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has notified new rules making registration mandatory for e-sport games and their operating firms, effective May 1. These rules serve as subordinate legislation for the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which previously prohibited real money gaming. The Online Gaming Authority of India (OGAI) has been established as a digital organization within MeitY, including representatives from Home Affairs and Law Ministries. While e-sports registration is mandatory, registration for 'online social games' will only be required upon specific notification by the Centre. The rules also include provisions for future age classification and a 'code of practice' for video games to address addiction.
- The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has mandated registration for e-sport games and their operating firms.
- These rules, effective May 1, are subordinate legislation for the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which banned real money gaming.
- The Online Gaming Authority of India (OGAI) has been established as a digital organization within MeitY to oversee these regulations.
The resignation of Justice Yashwant Varma has reignited the debate on whether a statutory inquiry against a judge should cease upon their resignation. Drawing on past cases like Justices P.D. Dinakaran and Soumitra Sen, the article argues that such inquiries, being statutory procedures for establishing facts and guilt, should continue irrespective of the judge's tenure. It asserts that allowing inquiries to terminate with resignation undermines accountability, enables judges to unilaterally abort proceedings, and prevents formal findings, contrary to constitutional provisions and Supreme Court observations on the investigative stage being judicial in character.
- The resignation of Justice Yashwant Varma raises questions about the continuation of statutory inquiries against judges.
- Past precedents regarding judicial resignations during inquiries have been inconsistent and lack clear resolution.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Supreme Court rulings suggest that the investigative stage of an inquiry is statutory and should not collapse with resignation.
The Supreme Court has directed a high-powered committee, chaired by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (retd), to expand its mandate and formulate a comprehensive plan for making prisons disabled-friendly across the country. This plan must ensure the provision of appropriate assistive devices, mobility aids, and necessary support equipment for prisoners with disabilities, upholding their fundamental rights to equal treatment and dignified life. The directive follows a petition highlighting inhumane prison conditions, citing the cases of activists G. Saibaba and Stan Swamy, and reinforces the penalization of authorities who abuse disabled prisoners under the RPwD Act.
- The Supreme Court has mandated a high-powered committee to develop a comprehensive plan for disabled-friendly prisons.
- The plan must ensure the provision of appropriate assistive devices and support equipment for prisoners with disabilities.
- The directive emphasizes upholding the fundamental rights of prisoners with disabilities, including the right to equal treatment and dignified life.
The article criticizes the U.S.'s approach to lunar governance, particularly the Artemis Accords, viewing them as a unilateral mechanism to control lunar resources and potentially create exclusion zones. It contrasts this with recent U.S. actions on human rights and international law, which undermine confidence in its global leadership. The author advocates for a multilateral framework, such as the 1979 Moon Agreement, to ensure equitable access and prevent confrontation in space. The piece argues against allowing any single power to unilaterally set rules for a domain that belongs to all humankind.
- The U.S.'s Artemis Accords are viewed critically as a mechanism for unilateral control over lunar resources, potentially creating exclusion zones.
- Recent U.S. actions regarding human rights and international law are cited as undermining confidence in its space governance framework.
- A multilateral approach, exemplified by the 1979 Moon Agreement, is advocated for equitable exploitation of lunar resources.