The Supreme Court of India is examining whether messaging platforms like WhatsApp can share and commercially exploit user data. A three-judge Bench led by the Chief Justice compared the unauthorized sharing of private data to a 'decent way of committing theft.' The court is scrutinizing the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023, noting that it primarily addresses privacy but may lack sufficient provisions regarding the 'rent-sharing' or monetary value of user data. The Bench emphasized that once data is shared, its value remains, and users should have a say in its commercial use.
- The SC is hearing petitions against a ₹213.14-crore penalty imposed on Meta by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
- The court highlighted that the DPDP Act 2023 focuses on privacy but not necessarily on the commercial value of data.
- Concerns were raised about whether rural or poor users can navigate complex privacy consent language.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has encapsulated the right to menstrual health and hygiene within the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that autonomy for girl children requires access to functional toilets, menstrual products, and hygienic disposal mechanisms. Terming the lack of access as 'menstrual poverty,' the Bench directed States and Union Territories to ensure gender-segregated toilets in all schools. This ruling aims to address the gendered lack of equity and high dropout rates among adolescent girls in government and private schools.
- Menstrual hygiene is now legally recognized as part of the Right to Life under Article 21.
- The Court mandated that every school must have functional, gender-segregated toilets and adequate menstrual products.
- NFHS-5 data shows that while hygienic methods usage rose to 77.3%, a quarter of eligible women still lack support.
The Supreme Court of India has directed the Central government to constitute a tribunal within one month to adjudicate the long-standing water-sharing dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over the Pennaiyar River. The Bench, led by Justice Vikram Nath, invoked Section 5 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956. Tamil Nadu had approached the court in 2018, challenging Karnataka's construction of dams and diversion structures, arguing that inter-state river water is a national asset and no single state can claim exclusive ownership. The court emphasized the need for a formal adjudicatory body.
- The Centre must issue a notification for the tribunal's constitution within 30 days.
- The dispute centers on Tamil Nadu's objection to Karnataka's unilateral utilization of Pennaiyar river waters through new structures.
- The court's direction is based on the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
The Supreme Court has stayed the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. These regulations were intended to replace the 2012 version to address caste discrimination on campuses. However, they faced backlash for being 'vague' and potentially 'biased.' Critics argued that the 2026 rules diluted the 2012 protections by removing specific instances of discrimination and failing to define 'caste-based discrimination' clearly. The court will now hear petitions filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who allege that the 2012 rules were never properly implemented.
- The 2026 UGC regulations were criticized for lacking a clear definition of 'caste-based discrimination.'
- Protesters argued the new rules dropped provisions regarding 'false complaints,' which could lead to misuse.
- The 2012 regulations had identified 25 specific types of discrimination, which were absent in the 2026 version.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that access to menstrual health and hygiene management (MHM) in educational institutions is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21. The court emphasized that the lack of these facilities subjects girls to stigma and humiliation, hindering their education. It directed States and Union Territories to ensure access to free sanitary napkins, functional gender-segregated toilets, and proper disposal mechanisms in all schools. The judgment also highlighted the need to sensitize male teachers and students to prevent harassment and invasive questioning.
- The Supreme Court linked menstrual hygiene to the right to privacy and bodily autonomy of students.
- States must provide free sanitary napkins and 'MHM corners' in both government and private schools.
- Non-compliance with MHM standards can lead to de-recognition of private schools under the Right to Education (RTE) Act.
A legal case involving actor Salman Khan has brought 'personality rights' into focus, particularly against AI-driven platforms. The Delhi High Court issued a notice to a China-based AI voice generation platform for unauthorized use of the actor's persona. Personality rights recognize the economic value of an individual's identity, distinct from intellectual property. While the Supreme Court's K.S. Puttaswamy judgment recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, personality rights also intersect with Article 19(1)(g) regarding the right to conduct business. The case highlights gaps in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, regarding the AI sector and unauthorized commercial exploitation.
- Personality rights protect against unauthorized commercial exploitation of an individual's identity.
- The K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment linked identity protection to the right to privacy under Article 21.
- AI-driven platforms pose new challenges for protecting the 'persona' of public figures.
The Supreme Court has stayed the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the regulations, which focus exclusively on caste-based discrimination against SC, ST, and OBC communities, might be 'regressive' and divide society. The court expressed concern that the rules fail to protect upper-caste or general-category students, particularly in cases of ragging where they might lack remedy. Until further examination, the 2012 regulations will remain in force. The bench emphasized the need for all-inclusive discrimination policies rather than an exclusive focus on specific castes to maintain unity in educational institutions.
- SC stayed the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, calling them 'too sweeping'.
- The court questioned if the policy is regressive after 75 years of forging a casteless society.
- Concerns were raised about the lack of remedy for general category students in ragging cases involving SC/ST seniors.
The Supreme Court is examining whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can file writ petitions in High Courts. The issue arose from a Kerala High Court ruling that upheld the ED's right to do so. The Kerala government argues that the ED is merely a department of the Union government, not a 'juridical person' with independent legal rights to maintain a writ petition. Conversely, the ED maintains it has statutory powers under the PMLA. The case involves the balance of power between Central agencies and State authorities, particularly regarding investigations into state-level officials.
- The core issue is whether the ED, as a government department, has the 'locus standi' to file writ petitions under Article 226.
- Article 32 allows citizens to move the Supreme Court for fundamental rights, while Article 226 gives High Courts broader powers.
- The Kerala government contends that the ED does not have independent legal rights vis-à-vis State governments.
As humanity moves toward permanent lunar bases and Mars missions, the territorial nature of patent law faces significant challenges. Currently, patent rights are granted within specific jurisdictions (territoriality). In space, the 'jurisdiction-by-registration' approach (Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty) applies the law of the state where the space object is registered. However, this creates issues for multinational collaborations like the International Space Station (ISS). The article discusses the 'non-appropriation principle' and the need for specialized space-related IP rules to prevent 'de facto exclusion' in space resources and ensure freedom of exploration.
- Patent law is traditionally based on the principle of territoriality, which conflicts with the boundaryless nature of outer space.
- The Outer Space Treaty (Article VIII) links jurisdiction to the state of registration of the space object.
- Article 5 of the Paris Convention provides some protection for patented equipment in transit across borders.
The Supreme Court rejected arguments that Aadhaar should be dropped from voter identity verification due to forgery risks. The Court noted that even passports, which are issued through private agencies, can be forged. Justice Bagchi clarified that while Aadhaar is a document of identity for 'good governance' and targeted delivery of subsidies under the 2016 Act, it is not proof of citizenship. The Court referred to Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which allows citizens to furnish Aadhaar numbers for establishing identity in electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
- Forgery risks are not sufficient grounds to exclude Aadhaar from the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
- Aadhaar is established as a document of identity, not a proof of citizenship or domicile.
- Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, permits the use of Aadhaar for identity establishment.
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2026. The petitioner argues that Regulation 3(c) is discriminatory because it limits the benefit of reservation and protection against discrimination solely to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). The plea contends that this excludes members of the general or upper castes from legal protection against caste-based hostility, thereby violating the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition seeks a more inclusive definition of caste-based discrimination.
- The 2026 UGC Regulations superseded the 2012 version with the goal of fostering equity in higher education.
- The petitioner argues that the current definition of discrimination creates a 'hierarchy of victimhood'.
- The plea claims that the regulations assume caste-based discrimination only operates in one direction.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) informed the Supreme Court that maintaining a place in the electoral roll is a 'qualified right' rather than an absolute one. During a hearing on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar, the EC argued that voters must continuously fulfill essential conditions, such as Indian citizenship and age requirements, as laid out in Article 326 of the Constitution. The SIR is a verification exercise to ensure the integrity of the roll by weeding out duplicates and deceased voters, rather than a process to determine citizenship.
- Article 326 of the Constitution provides for adult suffrage but requires voters to be 18 years old and Indian citizens.
- The EC maintains that the fulfillment of these conditions is a continuous requirement to remain on the electoral roll.
- The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is defended as a verification exercise to improve voter turnout and roll accuracy.
The United Nations recently adopted the 'Convention against Cybercrime,' the first multilateral criminal justice instrument for cyberspace in two decades. While supported by 72 countries, major players like India, the US, Japan, and Canada did not sign it. India’s reluctance stems from concerns over the lack of institutional control over its citizens' data and the erosion of gains made in earlier climate-style conventions. The convention exposes a gap between international legal principles and on-ground realities, with critics fearing its broad definitions could be used to prosecute journalists or political opponents.
- The 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime was seen as non-inclusive by many developing nations, leading to the new UN initiative.
- India seeks greater sovereignty over data and was disappointed that its proposals for institutional control were not retained.
- The US and EU are concerned that the convention's broad scope could infringe on human rights and lack procedural safeguards.
The Supreme Court recently clarified the limits of High Court interference in ongoing police investigations. In the 'Neeharika Infrastructure' case, the Court emphasized that police have a statutory right to investigate cognizable offenses. High Courts should only intervene in exceptional cases where no offense is disclosed. The phrase 'no coercive steps' often used in interim orders is criticized for being vague. The Court ruled that High Courts must provide specific reasons when staying an investigation or granting protection from arrest, ensuring that judicial oversight does not thwart the legitimate investigative process or result in a miscarriage of justice.
- Police have the statutory right and duty under the CrPC to investigate cognizable offenses.
- High Courts should exercise the power of quashing an FIR sparingly and with circumspection.
- The Supreme Court ruled that 'no coercive steps' orders must be specific and backed by reasoned application of mind.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has issued a blocking order for a viral video depicting the killing of a 29-year-old man in Manipur's Churachandpur. The order was issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, following a request from the Union Home Ministry. The Manipur administration argued before the High Court that the video's circulation was likely to disturb public order in the sensitive region. Social media intermediaries like YouTube, Meta, and Google were directed to remove the content. The court has issued notices to the Union government regarding the progress of the blocking order.
- The blocking order was issued under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, to prevent the disturbance of public order.
- The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 were invoked.
- The Manipur High Court is monitoring the implementation of the order and has scheduled a hearing for February 18.
Recent instances of Governors walking out of State Legislative Assembly sessions in opposition-ruled states have sparked a debate on constitutional propriety. Article 176(1) mandates that the Governor address the Assembly at the commencement of the first session each year. Legal experts and court rulings, including the Nabam Rebia case (2016) and Shamsher Singh case (1974), emphasize that the Governor must act on the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers. The Governor's address is a statement of government policy, and selective reading or walkouts may overstep constitutional boundaries.
- Article 176(1) makes it mandatory for the Governor to address the first session of the year.
- The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Governor's discretionary powers are limited and clearly stated in the Constitution.
- The Governor's address is prepared by the State Cabinet and reflects the government's policy.
This article advocates for the rights of ASHA and Anganwadi workers, who are central to India's social welfare schemes but lack permanent employee status. Despite recommendations for job regularization and minimum wages at the 45th Labour Conference, successive governments have failed to implement them. The article argues that the Centre must legally reclassify these 'volunteers' as statutory employees under the Code on Social Security. Ensuring equitable pay and social security is essential to grant these workers their rightful dignity and recognize their critical contribution to public health and child development.
- ASHA and Anganwadi workers are currently classified as 'volunteers' or 'scheme workers,' denying them labor law protections.
- The 45th Labour Conference recommended minimum wages, pension, and gratuity for these workers.
- The State of Karnataka vs Ameerbi (1996) case initially excluded them from the category of government employees.
A Supreme Court Bench recently delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988. Section 17A requires prior approval from the government before initiating an investigation into a public servant for acts related to their official duties. Proponents argue it protects honest officers from malicious prosecution, while critics claim it creates an unnecessary shield for the corrupt and violates Article 14 (equality before the law). The matter has been referred to a larger Bench for a final decision on whether such protections are constitutional.
- Section 17A was inserted into the PCA in 2018 to ensure officers can make bold decisions without fear of wrongful prosecution.
- The Santhanam Committee (1962) was instrumental in the original formulation of anti-corruption laws in India.
- The Vineet Narain case (1998) previously struck down similar 'Single Directive' requirements for high-ranking officers.
A new Private Member's Bill proposes lowering the age threshold for treating children as adults in cases of 'heinous' crimes from 16 to 14 years. This follows the 2015 amendment to the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, which introduced a 'transfer system' for 16-18 year olds. Critics argue this move is a 'step back,' as it ignores developmental science and structural vulnerabilities. Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) suggests that adolescents aged 14-16 are not the primary drivers of serious crime, contradicting the bill's premise and raising concerns about punitive rather than rehabilitative justice.
- The 2015 JJ Act allows 16-18 year olds to be tried as adults for heinous crimes after a preliminary assessment by the JJ Board.
- Lowering the age to 14 would expose younger children to adult prisons and criminal processes, potentially causing long-term harm.
- NCRB data shows that Children in Conflict with the Law (CiCL) constitute only 0.5% of total registered crimes in 2023.
The process for removing a Supreme Court or High Court judge, often referred to as 'impeachment,' is governed by Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. A judge can only be removed on grounds of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity.' However, a significant loophole exists: the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has the statutory power to admit or refuse a removal motion even if signed by the required number of MPs. This discretion can potentially thwart the constitutional process, especially if the government of the day opposes the motion.
- The Constitution uses the term 'removal' for judges; 'impeachment' is technically reserved for the President under Article 61.
- A removal motion requires signatures from 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members to be initiated.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, outlines the procedure for investigation by a high-level committee after a motion is admitted.
The Supreme Court has constituted a multi-disciplinary committee of experts, including environmentalists and scientists, to provide a scientific definition of the Aravalli Range. This move follows public concern over a previous definition that considered only elevations of 100 meters or above as 'Aravalli,' which would have left thousands of hills unprotected from unregulated mining. The court has stayed its earlier judgment to prevent irreversible ecological damage. The expert panel will also create a roadmap for permissible activities and regulated mining within this sensitive and ancient mountain ecosystem.
- A previous definition based on a 100-meter threshold would have excluded over 11,000 hills in Rajasthan from environmental protection.
- The new committee will work under the Supreme Court's supervision to ensure ecological safety and define permissible mining.
- Senior advocates argued that mountains are complex tectonic structures that cannot be defined by simple elevation metrics alone.
The Supreme Court clarified that while the Election Commission (EC) possesses wide discretion under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, its powers are not 'untrammelled.' During a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the EC must adhere to principles of natural justice and prescribed procedures under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Court emphasized that any deviations from standard procedure must respect constitutional guarantees like equality before the law (Article 14) and ensure transparency to protect the civil rights of voters, as revisions can significantly impact voter eligibility.
- The EC's power to direct special revisions must be exercised within the framework of existing statutory rules and natural justice.
- Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act provides residuary power but does not allow the EC to bypass the procedural 'shackles' of Rule 25.
- Any deviation from prescribed norms during electoral roll revisions must be backed by fair, just, and recorded reasons.
The Supreme Court is examining petitions from Tamil Nadu and Kerala questioning whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a 'juristic person' with the right to approach High Courts under Article 226. The states argue that the ED is a statutory creation, not a 'person' or 'body corporate,' and thus lacks the legal standing to sue or be sued like a natural person. This legal challenge follows the ED's attempts to block state-led investigations into its officials. The Supreme Court's decision will clarify the legal status and litigation powers of central investigative agencies.
- A 'juristic person' is a legal fiction recognized as having rights and duties, similar to a corporation.
- Kerala and Tamil Nadu contend that the ED, being a statutory agency, cannot exercise powers not specifically conferred by its governing statute.
- The case arose after the ED challenged a Kerala government notification setting up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations against ED officials.
This article critiques the functioning of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the role of 'media trials' in high-profile cases. It highlights instances where the judiciary has called out the ED for exceeding its mandate and violating legal principles, such as conducting searches without credible information or a predicate offence. The article argues that the ED's sweeping powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), including the difficulty of obtaining bail, are increasingly being used as tools of political intimidation. It calls for urgent constitutional guardrails to prevent investigative authorities from becoming instruments of arbitrary state power.
- The PMLA requires a 'predicate offence' (scheduled offence) that generates proceeds of crime before money laundering charges can be applied.
- Section 50 of the PMLA allows the ED to summon individuals and record statements under oath, which can be used as evidence.
- The 'reverse burden of proof' under PMLA makes it exceptionally difficult for accused individuals to secure bail compared to regular criminal law.