Child trafficking remains a critical issue in India, with over 53,000 children rescued between 2024 and 2025. The Supreme Court, in the K. P. Kiran Kumar case, issued strict guidelines to prevent trafficking, linking it to the fundamental right to life under the Constitution. The article examines the legal framework, including the Palermo Protocol and Section 143 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, which provides a broad definition of exploitation. Despite these laws, the conviction rate remains low at 4.8%. The author emphasizes the need for socio-economic interventions for marginalized communities and enhanced Union-State cooperation, as law and order are state subjects while trafficking is often a cross-border crime.
- The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, Section 143, defines trafficking to include recruitment, transportation, and receipt of persons for exploitation.
- Articles 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution provide fundamental protections against human trafficking and hazardous child labor.
- The conviction rate for trafficking offenses in India was only 4.8% between 2018 and 2022, highlighting a major gap in law enforcement.
The Supreme Court of India, using its plenary powers under Article 142, issued nine directions to address the 'epidemic' of student suicides in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The court highlighted that the rapid 'massification' and 'privatisation' of education have occurred without a corresponding boost in quality, leading to severe student distress. A major concern is the high vacancy rate in faculty positions, with some universities reporting up to 50% vacancies. The Court ordered that all vacant faculty, Registrar, and Vice-Chancellor positions in both public and private HEIs be filled within four months. This move aims to ensure institutional support and fulfill the National Education Policy 2020's goal of 50% Gross Enrolment Ratio by 2035.
- The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to issue binding directions for student well-being and institutional reforms.
- Seven of the nine directions focus on tracking student suicides and providing mental health support within HEIs.
- The Court mandated a strict four-month deadline for filling all vacant faculty and administrative positions in universities.
A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988. This section mandates prior government sanction before initiating an inquiry or investigation against a public servant for decisions made in their official capacity. Justice B.V. Nagarathna struck down the section, arguing it violates Article 14 by creating a protected class and hindering the fight against corruption. Conversely, Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the provision, suggesting that an independent body like the Lokpal, rather than the government, should grant such sanctions to maintain neutrality. The case has been referred to a larger Bench to resolve the core disagreement.
- Section 17A of the PC Act requires prior approval from the government before investigating public servants for official acts.
- Justice Nagarathna argued that the provision creates an impermissible barrier to investigation and fosters a 'policy bias' within institutions.
- Justice Viswanathan suggested that the Lokpal could act as an independent authority to grant sanctions, balancing accountability with protection from frivolous litigation.
Nearly six years after the 2019 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Union government is yet to constitute the Arbitration Council of India (ACI). The ACI was envisioned as a regulatory body to promote institutional arbitration and grade arbitral institutions. However, concerns regarding its independence persist, as the council would comprise members nominated by the executive. The draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, seeks to address these issues by introducing structural reforms, redefining 'arbitral institutions,' and recalibrating the role of courts in granting interim relief to reduce judicial intervention and curb delays in the arbitration process.
- The ACI was proposed by the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee to make India a hub for international arbitration.
- Critics argue that government dominance in the ACI's composition could compromise its institutional impartiality.
- The 2024 draft Bill aims to limit court intervention by requiring arbitration to commence within 90 days of interim relief.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to constitute an inquiry committee for his removal. The court emphasized that constitutional safeguards for judges should not paralyze the removal process. Justice Varma argued that since removal notices were submitted in both Houses on the same day, a joint committee was required under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act. However, the Bench ruled that because the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman rejected the notice while the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted it, the Speaker acted within his legal autonomy to proceed independently.
- The Supreme Court clarified that the rejection of a removal motion in one House does not render the other House incompetent to proceed.
- Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act regarding joint committees applies only if notices are admitted in both Houses.
- The judiciary must balance the protection of judges with the effective functioning of constitutional removal mechanisms.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This section mandates prior government sanction before investigating a public servant for decisions made in their official capacity. Justice B.V. Nagarathna declared the provision unconstitutional, while Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld it, arguing it protects honest officers from frivolous complaints and 'policy paralysis.' The case will now be referred to a larger three-judge bench for a final decision on balancing public probity with officer protection.
- Section 17A was introduced to provide a filter against malicious prosecution of public servants for official decisions.
- Justice Nagarathna argued that the provision is unconstitutional as it creates an arbitrary distinction between classes of public servants.
- Justice Viswanathan suggested that independent bodies like Lokpal should handle the grant of sanction to ensure impartiality.
The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission (EC) regarding the authority of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to strike individuals off electoral rolls based on citizenship inquiries. During a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, nearly 6.5 crore names were deleted. The Court raised concerns whether an ERO's finding could trigger a central government investigation into an individual's right to remain in India. The EC argued that citizenship is a cornerstone of the electoral process and that excluded individuals have a right to appeal, maintaining that verifying citizenship is essential for maintaining valid electoral rolls.
- The Supreme Court is examining if EROs can effectively strip the 'colour of citizenship' before a final central government decision.
- Article 326 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 are central to the EC's claim of authority for these deletions.
- Nearly 6.5 crore names were deleted in the second phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process across several states.
The Supreme Court highlighted that the Right to Education (RTE) Act is a vital tool for transforming India's social structure by ensuring children from diverse backgrounds study together. Justice P.S. Narasimha stated that the obligation of neighborhood schools to admit children from weaker and disadvantaged sections is 'normatively ambitious.' The court emphasized that equality must start in the classroom, where children of multi-millionaires and street vendors sit side-by-side. The judgment reinforces the constitutional mandate of Article 21A to provide free and compulsory education, describing its implementation as a national mission for both government and local authorities.
- The RTE Act envisages elementary education in a shared institutional space to break class and caste barriers.
- Neighborhood schools have a statutory mandate to ensure inclusive admissions for disadvantaged sections.
- The court views the implementation of Article 21A as a 'national mission' for the government.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This provision requires prior government approval before investigating public servants for official decisions. Justice B.V. Nagarathna declared the provision unconstitutional, viewing it as a barrier to transparency. Conversely, Justice K.V. Viswanathan argued it is necessary to protect honest officers from frivolous complaints and 'policy paralysis.' He suggested that an independent authority like the Lokpal should handle the grant of sanction. The case has been referred to a larger three-judge bench for final determination.
- Section 17A was introduced to prevent the harassment of public servants for bona fide official decisions.
- Justice Nagarathna argued that the provision violates the principle of equality before the law.
- Justice Viswanathan emphasized that the Lokpal has the authority to inquire into allegations even against the Prime Minister.
The Supreme Court is examining whether Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) can strike individuals off electoral rolls based on citizenship inquiries before a final decision by the Central government. The bench, including Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, questioned if an ERO's finding could trigger investigations into an individual's right to remain in India. The Election Commission argues that Article 326, the Representation of the People Act, and the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 empower them to conduct such inquiries to ensure only citizens are on the rolls. The court is concerned about the potential for these findings to lead to deportation without due process.
- EROs are conducting inquisitorial enquiries into citizenship during Special Intensive Revisions (SIR).
- The Supreme Court is concerned that removing a voter's name based on citizenship doubts might strip them of rights before a final government decision.
- The Election Commission maintains that citizenship is a cornerstone of the electoral process and non-citizens are not entitled to vote.
Recent US military action in Venezuela, aimed at capturing President Nicolas Maduro on 'narco-terrorism' charges and seizing oil assets, is criticized as a flagrant violation of international law. The article argues that this action violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The breakdown of the balance-of-power concept, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, has led to unchecked exercise of power by the US. The author suggests that India needs a strategic military-industrial complex to counter such insensitive geopolitical shifts.
- The US action in Venezuela is seen as a violation of the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force against sovereign states.
- The declaration to use Venezuela's oil wealth to compensate US companies is viewed as a breach of international norms.
- The article highlights the shift from a bipolar world to a unipolar one where the US exercises 'unchecked power' in pre-emptive strikes.
There is a growing legal and social debate regarding the age of consent in India, currently set at 18 years under the POCSO Act (2012). Critics argue that the rigid age limit criminalizes consensual adolescent relationships, often weaponized by families to punish young couples. While the Law Commission (2023) advised against lowering the age to 16, it recommended 'guided judicial discretion' for sentencing in cases involving minors aged 16-18. Recent High Court and Supreme Court judgments have highlighted the need to distinguish between predatory abuse and 'young love' to protect adolescent autonomy.
- The POCSO Act applies strict liability, making a minor's consent legally irrelevant if they are under 18.
- The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, raised the age of consent from 16 to 18 to align with POCSO.
- The Law Commission's 283rd Report (2023) opposed lowering the age but suggested judicial discretion in sentencing.
Recent data reveals a significant milestone in 2025 where fast-track special courts cleared more child sexual offence cases than registered, achieving a 109% disposal rate. However, this surge in disposals has not led to higher conviction rates; instead, convictions fell from 35% in 2019 to 29% in 2023. The analysis suggests that rapid case processing might lead to weaker investigations and incomplete forensic reports. The article emphasizes that children in POCSO cases require comprehensive support systems, including trained professionals and sensitive legal procedures, rather than just speedy trials.
- Fast-track special courts achieved a record 109% disposal rate in 2025, clearing 87,754 cases.
- Despite faster disposals, the national average conviction rate dropped to 29% by 2023.
- The POCSO Act (2012) was designed to provide child-friendly procedures and time-bound trials.
The Supreme Court recently denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, citing the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court established a 'hierarchy of roles,' distinguishing 'ideological drivers' from 'local-level facilitators.' Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, bail is significantly harder to obtain compared to ordinary criminal law, as the court must be satisfied that the accusations are prima facie true. The judgment also expanded the reading of 'terrorist acts' under Section 15 to include road blockades (chakka jams) intended to disrupt essential services or threaten national security.
- Section 43D(5) of the UAPA creates a high threshold for bail, departing from the general principle of 'bail, not jail' found in ordinary criminal law.
- The court distinguished between 'ideological drivers' who devised strategies and 'derivative' participants who provided logistical support for protests.
- Section 15 of the UAPA defines 'terrorist acts' broadly, including actions intended to threaten the unity, integrity, or security of India.
Attorney-General R. Venkataramani has stated that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, does not 'dilute' the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. While civil society groups argue that amendments to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act create a total exemption for personal information, the A-G points to Section 8(2) of the RTI Act. This section mandates the disclosure of exempted information if the public interest outweighs the harm. The DPDP Act aims to provide a legal framework to balance privacy and transparency, as mandated by the Supreme Court's Puttaswamy judgment, ensuring accountability is maintained.
- Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was amended by the DPDP Act to exempt 'personal information' from disclosure.
- Section 8(2) of the RTI Act remains a 'super-clause' that allows disclosure if public interest is paramount.
- The DPDP Act was notified in August 2023 with a 12-18 month implementation timeline for various provisions.
The Phaltan case, involving the suicide of a lady doctor in Maharashtra, highlights the critical need for protecting victim dignity in the criminal justice system. Indian jurisprudence, through the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023 and Section 53A of the Evidence Act, prohibits using a victim's 'general immoral character' or previous sexual experience as a defense. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a victim's testimony should not be viewed with suspicion based on perceived 'loose morals.' The article emphasizes that legislative changes alone are insufficient without a shift in societal mindset and better training for police and the judiciary to prevent 'secondary victimisation' through character assassination.
- The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, replaces the Indian Evidence Act and maintains prohibitions on character assassination of victims.
- Section 72 of the BNS (formerly Section 228A IPC) mandates the non-disclosure of the identity of sexual assault victims to prevent public shaming.
- The Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors. (1996) ruled that a victim's testimony should not be viewed with suspicion based on character.
The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge by sitting Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma regarding the "unilateral" establishment of an inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker. The case centers on whether a notice of motion for removal must be admitted by both the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Lok Sabha Speaker simultaneously if given on the same day. The Court is examining Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which mandates joint action. The Solicitor-General argued that the ultimate test of removal lies with the Houses of Parliament, while the petitioner claims procedural prejudice.
- The case involves the interpretation of Article 32 of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
- Under the Act, if motions are given in both Houses on the same day, the Chairman and Speaker must act jointly to form a committee.
- The petitioner argues that the rejection of the motion by the RS Chairman while the LS Speaker admitted it caused legal prejudice.
Over the last decade, the Supreme Court of India has shifted from reviewing administrative legality to issuing forward-looking regulatory directions in environmental matters. While intended to protect the environment, this "managerial role" has sometimes created uncertainty for regulated actors. Key instances include the 2022 mandate for Eco-sensitive Zones (ESZ) of at least one kilometer around protected areas, which was later modified due to practical difficulties. The Court's tendency to substitute for the regulator, rather than correcting the regulatory process, has led to a "push-pull" relationship with the executive, often resulting in policy U-turns.
- The Court has moved into a "continuing mandamus" role, issuing serial directions in cases like the Aravalli hills mining.
- Frequent modifications of orders can smother meaningful judicial review in other forums.
- Experts suggest the Court should focus on disciplining the state back into regulation rather than acting as an approving authority.
The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) has released guidelines to operationalize legal changes aimed at compounding minor drug violations. This follows the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, which seeks to "decriminalize and rationalize offences" to improve the ease of doing business. Instead of criminal prosecution, firms can now settle certain technical non-compliances under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, by paying fines. However, experts warn against the guidelines becoming a "pay and pass" scheme, emphasizing the need for transparency and public disclosure of compounding orders to maintain safety standards.
- The guidelines allow for the compounding of offences like stocking or selling drugs in breach of specific sections of the 1940 Act.
- Compounding provides immunity from prosecution for that specific case upon payment of a fine.
- Critics argue that the lack of public reporting on repeat offenders could undermine consumer safety.
The National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) is scrutinized as a potential tool for "digital authoritarianism." Initially conceived after the 26/11 attacks to link intelligence databases, its scope has expanded to include the National Population Register (NPR) and facial recognition. Critics argue that NATGRID operates without a robust statutory framework or independent oversight, potentially violating the privacy doctrine established in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case. The integration of various datasets allows for "entity resolution," which can profile individuals based on patterns rather than specific evidence, raising concerns about mass surveillance and the lack of judicial or parliamentary scrutiny.
- NATGRID was established to provide a centralized platform for 11 security agencies to access 21 categories of data from various providers.
- The project lacks a specific Act of Parliament and was created via executive order by the Cabinet Committee on Security.
- The integration with the NPR and the use of AI-driven 'entity resolution' raise significant concerns about mass surveillance and profiling.
The Supreme Court expressed prima facie disagreement with Justice Yashwant Varma's claim that Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla overstepped his authority by unilaterally constituting an inquiry committee. The case involves allegations against Justice Varma regarding "half-burnt currency" found at his residence. The legal debate centers on Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which mandates joint constitution of a committee if motions are admitted in both Houses. However, the Court questioned if a Speaker is barred from acting if the Rajya Sabha Chairman rejects a similar motion, especially when the Chairman's office was vacant or the motion was not formally admitted.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, governs the procedure for the investigation and removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges.
- A removal motion requires the support of at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members to be initiated.
- If motions are admitted in both Houses, the Speaker and Chairman must jointly constitute a three-member inquiry committee.
This analysis examines the U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, arguing it violates international law. Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the use of force is prohibited except for self-defense or UN Security Council authorization. The article contends that law enforcement is not a valid justification for cross-border military force. Furthermore, it discusses 'immunity ratione personae,' which grants heads of state absolute immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign courts. The U.S. actions are described as a dangerous precedent that undermines the international rule of law and sovereign equality.
- Article 2(4) of the UN Charter strictly prohibits the use of force in international relations with very narrow exceptions.
- Heads of state enjoy personal immunity (immunity ratione personae) from foreign criminal jurisdiction under international law.
- The U.S. justification of 'law enforcement' for military intervention is not recognized as a valid exception for using force.
The Election Commission of India (EC) defended its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls before the Supreme Court, dismissing claims that it is a 'parallel NRC.' The EC argued it has a constitutional duty under Article 324 to ensure only citizens are on the rolls. It clarified that while the NRC includes all residents, the electoral roll only includes citizens aged 18 and above. The EC also noted that the Central government has exclusive jurisdiction over the termination of citizenship under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, while the EC manages voter eligibility.
- The EC maintains that verifying citizenship for electoral rolls is a mandatory constitutional duty under Article 324.
- The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is distinct from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) as it only counts legal adults who are citizens.
- Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, empowers the Centre to maintain the NRC, while the EC focuses on the purity of the electoral roll.
The Supreme Court, while hearing bail pleas in the 2020 Delhi riots case, ruled that a 'terrorist act' under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) includes the build-up and conspiracy, not just the final act of violence. A bench led by Justice Arvind Kumar emphasized that Section 15(1)(a) covers 'other means' like disrupting essential services or causing economic insecurity. The court introduced a 'hierarchy of participation' to grant bail to five accused while denying it to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, noting that UAPA bail conditions under Section 43D(5) are more stringent than ordinary laws.
- The Supreme Court ruled that conspiracy to commit a terrorist act is as punishable as the act itself under UAPA.
- Section 15 of UAPA is interpreted broadly to include economic destabilization and disruption of essential supplies.
- The 'hierarchy of participation' was used to distinguish between those who planned and those who merely participated in riots.