The Supreme Court, during a hearing on the Sabarimala shrine case, stated that courts cannot hollow out religion in the name of reform and that logic may not be the right tool to examine faith and belief systems. A nine-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, observed that a religion cannot lose its identity through social reform. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that reform must originate from within the religion and that judicial review should not be based on rationality or science for religious matters. Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned whether a non-devotee could challenge religious practices in court. The court also discussed that the term 'essential religious practices' was a judicial creation, not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court emphasized that logic might not be suitable for examining religious belief systems.
- Courts should not undermine religion under the guise of reform, as reform should ideally come from within the religion.
- The concept of 'essential religious practices' is a judicial creation, not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Amidst the West Asia crisis, the importance of mediation in conflict resolution is gaining prominence. Historically, mediation has proven effective, with theories like Bercovitch's Contingency Model and Zartman's 'Ripeness' theory explaining its success. International frameworks, including the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter (Article 33), legitimize and support mediation. Notable examples include Kofi Annan in Kenya, the Oslo Accords, and the Camp David Accords. The article discusses China's potential role as a mediator in the Iran conflict, given its economic leverage and consistent anti-war stance, highlighting that successful mediation requires strategic calculation and willingness from conflicting parties.
- Mediation remains a crucial tool for conflict resolution, with a long history and established international frameworks.
- Theories like 'Mutually Hurting Stalemate' and the Contingency Model explain the conditions and factors for successful mediation.
- International legal instruments, including the UN Charter, provide principles and guidance for mediation efforts.
Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla rejected notices from Opposition MPs seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The presiding officers concluded that the allegations, including a "tainted" appointment, "deep executive embeddedness," applying different standards to government/opposition, and obstructing electoral fraud investigations, lacked proof or did not meet the "high constitutional bar" for removal proceedings. The order stated that the pendency of a constitutional challenge to his appointment law did not amount to misbehaviour, and the EC's plenary powers under Article 324 were affirmed by the Supreme Court.
- Notices for the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, moved by Opposition MPs, were rejected by the presiding officers of Parliament.
- The charges, including allegations of a "tainted" appointment and bias, were deemed to lack sufficient proof or meet the constitutional bar for removal.
- The order clarified that a pending constitutional challenge to the appointment law does not equate to misbehaviour.
The interim stay on the UGC Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulation, 2026, highlights the debate on caste-based discrimination. The regulation defines "caste-based discrimination" specifically for SC, ST, and OBCs, which is criticized for not being 'caste-neutral'. The article argues that formal neutrality misunderstands caste as a structural hierarchy, not isolated incidents. Constitutional Articles 14 and 15 support differential treatment for substantive equality, not abstract sameness. Effective enforcement mechanisms, independent complaint systems, and accountability are crucial for the UGC framework to fulfill its constitutional promise of equality.
- The UGC regulations define caste-based discrimination specifically for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.
- A 'caste-neutral' definition risks collapsing structural inequality into a universal grievance framework, diluting the law's effectiveness.
- Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution mandate substantive equality, allowing for differential treatment to remedy historical disadvantage.
The conviction of nine policemen in the Sattankulam custodial death case, involving trader Jayaraj and his son Benicks, highlights the critical role of an engaged judiciary, courageous witnesses, and determined investigation in delivering justice. The trial court's reliance on CBI scientific evidence, despite attempts to destroy it, led to the convictions. This verdict sends a strong message against the misuse of force by law enforcement, emphasizing that custodial deaths will not go unpunished and underscoring the need for systemic reckoning to sensitize the police force against excessive force.
- Nine policemen were convicted in the Sattankulam custodial death case of Jayaraj and Benicks.
- The verdict underscores the importance of judicial activism, witness courage, and scientific investigation.
- The case involved torture and trumped-up charges, leading to the deaths of the victims in judicial custody.
The Supreme Court's nine-judge Constitution Bench has begun reviewing its 2018 judgment that upheld the right of women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala shrine. Justice B.V. Nagarathna stated that courts can intervene if social evils are given a religious color. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued against judicial overreach into religious practices, questioning courts' expertise in determining "essential religious practices" and interpreting religious texts. The review aims to establish a 'judicial policy' for constitutional courts regarding religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26.
- The Supreme Court is reviewing its 2018 judgment on women's entry to the Sabarimala temple.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted the judiciary's role in distinguishing social evils from religious practices.
- Arguments focused on the extent of judicial review over "essential religious practices" and the interpretation of religious texts.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, is causing apprehension as it reverses the NALSA judgment's principle of self-identified gender. The amendment proposes a medical board assessment and District Magistrate certification to 'prove' gender identity, replacing self-identification. This process, lacking medical biomarkers for gender identity, is seen as arbitrary, invasive, and a violation of dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy. The author, a psychiatrist, argues it will deter individuals from seeking welfare, reintroduce fear, and create a public mental health emergency, especially given the community's high vulnerability to social rejection and violence. It also criminalizes "undue influence" in helping someone identify as transgender, posing ethical risks for practitioners.
- The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, proposes replacing self-identification of gender with a medical board assessment and District Magistrate certification.
- This amendment is viewed as a reversal of the NALSA vs Union of India judgment (2014), which affirmed self-identified gender as a fundamental principle.
- Critics argue the proposed process is arbitrary, invasive, violates dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy, and lacks scientific basis as there are no medical biomarkers for gender identity.
Illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary, straddling Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, is devastating the ecosystem and threatening critically endangered species like gharials. Driven by demand from North India's construction boom and exacerbated by livelihood issues in the Chambal ravines, the sand mafia operates with impunity, often outgunning local authorities and using villagers to track patrols. State governments' attempts to legalize mining were stalled by the NGT and Court. The Supreme Court has called the mafia "modern dacoits" and taken suo motu cognisance, reminding states of acts like the National Security Act. The article argues that lasting change requires restoring lawful livelihoods and credible enforcement, rather than just force.
- Illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary threatens critically endangered species and the river's ecosystem.
- The sand mafia, termed "modern dacoits" by the Supreme Court, exploits jurisdictional gaps between Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh.
- Livelihood challenges in the Chambal ravines drive young men to join the sand mining mafia.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the environmental clearance for a twin-tube tunnel corridor project connecting Kozhikode and Wayanad districts in Kerala. The project, deemed of "national importance" by the Court, aims to alleviate congestion in the land-starved state. A petitioner-NGO challenged the Kerala High Court's decision, arguing the project was in an ecologically fragile, landslide-prone Western Ghats zone and required Category 'A' environmental clearance at the Central level. The SC noted that the Central Expert Appraisal Committee (CEAC) had approved the project with safety and structural conditions, and petitioners could approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT) if conditions were violated.
- The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the environmental clearance for the Kozhikode-Wayanad tunnel project in Kerala.
- The project is a twin-tube tunnel corridor intended to connect Kozhikode and Wayanad districts, aiming to ease congestion.
- The Supreme Court considered the project to be of "national importance" for the land-starved state.
Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla rejected a notice submitted by 193 Opposition MPs seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. No specific reasons were cited for the rejection by the Chairs, though Secretaries-General cited "due consideration" and "careful and objective assessment." The 10-page document from MPs accused the CEC of being "subservient" to the executive and alleged "deliberate abuse of power." The Chairs cited Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which empowers them to admit or refuse such a motion. Opposition leaders expressed dismay over the lack of definitive reasons.
- The notice for the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar was submitted by 193 Opposition MPs across both Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha.
- The Chairs of both Houses, C.P. Radhakrishnan (Rajya Sabha) and Om Birla (Lok Sabha), rejected the notice without citing specific reasons.
- The Secretaries-General of both Houses issued bulletins stating the notice was not admitted after "due consideration" and "careful and objective assessment."
The article examines the absence of term limits for the Prime Minister in India, contrasting it with presidential term limits in other democracies and the established convention for the Indian President. It highlights Prime Minister Narendra Modi's extended tenure, combining his time as Chief Minister and Prime Minister, and questions the constitutional implications. While the Constituent Assembly envisioned parliamentary accountability through mechanisms like no-confidence motions, the author argues that the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) has structurally impaired this accountability. The piece suggests reforms such as exempting confidence motions from the Tenth Schedule or introducing constitutional amendments for term limits for both Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers.
- The Indian Constitution does not impose term limits on the Prime Minister, unlike many other democracies and the convention for the Indian President.
- The Constituent Assembly relied on parliamentary accountability mechanisms like no-confidence motions to check executive power.
- The Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) has weakened parliamentary accountability by binding legislators to party loyalty.
The Central government proposed the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, to amend the FCRA, 2010, which regulates foreign funds to NGOs. Key changes include appointing a 'designated authority' to manage assets of NGOs whose FCRA registration is suspended or cancelled, broadening the definition of 'key functionary', and requiring prior Central government approval for investigations. The Bill, deferred after Opposition uproar, is opposed for amounting to "executive overreach" and "undue interference" in minority institutions and civil society. Critics fear it grants sweeping powers to the government, potentially leading to asset seizure and denial of licenses, impacting the autonomy of NGOs.
- The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, aims to amend the FCRA, 2010, regulating foreign funds for NGOs.
- Proposed changes include a 'designated authority' for asset management of non-compliant NGOs and a broader definition of 'key functionary'.
- The Bill also seeks to require prior Central government approval for investigations into FCRA-related complaints.
Transgender activists have moved the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's new Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. Petitioners, including Laxminarayan Tripathi and Zainab Javid Patel, argue the Act disregards self-determined gender identity, replacing it with a state-defined classification. They contend that the 2026 Act repeals the statutory right to self-identification, a fundamental right under Article 21, and imposes "medical gatekeeping" by requiring medical certification and a government-appointed board's recommendation for legal gender recognition, violating the NALSA judgment of 2014 and infringing on individual autonomy.
- Transgender activists have challenged the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, in the Supreme Court.
- The petitioners argue the Act disregards self-determined gender identity, replacing it with state-defined classifications.
- They claim the new law repeals the statutory right to self-identification, which was held as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Recent amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), though temporarily stalled, are criticized for empowering the Centre to arbitrarily seize assets of organizations losing their FCRA license. The proposed Bill, introduced in March 2026, aims to establish a "designated authority" to manage such assets without judicial oversight, raising concerns about natural justice. Critics argue the move is selective and opaque, particularly affecting Christian groups, and contrasts with the state's policy of seeking foreign funds in other sectors. The FCRA has been progressively tightened since its enactment in 1976 and amendments in 2010 and 2020.
- Proposed FCRA amendments allow the Centre to arbitrarily seize assets of organizations whose FCRA licenses are revoked.
- The amendments establish a "designated authority" to manage seized assets without judicial determination, violating natural justice principles.
- Critics argue the move is selective, opaque, and disproportionately affects certain groups like Christian organizations.
A Full Bench of the Madras High Court ruled that the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising powers under Article 161 of the Constitution regarding remission and premature release of convicts. The Bench, comprising Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, and Sunder Mohan, stated that the Governor has no discretion to take a different view. This decision resolved conflicting judgments by other Division Benches, affirming that the issue was settled by a 1980 Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Maru Ramu's case, which was also followed in the A.G. Perarivalan case.
- The Madras High Court's Full Bench affirmed that the Governor must act on the Council of Ministers' advice for remission powers under Article 161.
- The ruling clarifies that the Governor has no discretionary power to deviate from the Cabinet's advice in such matters.
- This decision resolved conflicting interpretations from other Division Benches of the High Court.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) recently transferred senior officers in election-bound states, including West Bengal, leading to controversy and claims of administrative paralysis. The ECI justified these actions under Article 324 of the Constitution, citing its plenary powers for free and fair elections. However, the article highlights that the Supreme Court, in cases like Mohinder Singh Gill, clarified that ECI's powers are not unfettered and must conform to existing laws. The Court emphasized that ECI cannot bypass parliamentary laws regarding transfers of All India Service officers, and its actions must be bona fide and subject to natural justice.
- The ECI's recent transfers of senior state officials in election-bound states sparked controversy and questions about its powers.
- The ECI justifies its actions under Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants it superintendence, direction, and control of elections.
- The Supreme Court, in Mohinder Singh Gill case, clarified that ECI's plenary powers are not unfettered and must operate within existing laws.
The Rajya Sabha passed the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill on Thursday, clearing the way for Amaravati to be incorporated as the capital of Andhra Pradesh in the original Act, effective from June 2, 2024. Most political parties supported the Bill, except for YSR Congress Party MPs who argued it ignored farmers' demands. Senior Congress MP Renuka Chowdhury criticized the 12-year delay in materializing the commitment, calling it a "statement of national shame." Telugu Desam Party leader K. Rammohan Naidu described it as an emotional moment.
- The Rajya Sabha passed the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill to designate Amaravati as the capital.
- The Bill incorporates Amaravati as the capital in the original Act, effective June 2, 2024.
- Most political parties supported the Bill, with the YSR Congress Party being the sole exception.
The Lok Sabha has passed the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, by voice vote. The Bill aims to decriminalize minor offences across various laws, thereby promoting ease of doing business and living. It proposes to amend 784 provisions across 79 Central Acts administered by 23 Ministries, specifically seeking to decriminalize 717 provisions and amend 67 others to facilitate ease of living. Additionally, the Bill rationalizes over 1,000 offences by removing outdated and redundant provisions, improving the overall regulatory environment. Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal stated it would benefit people and MSMEs.
- The Lok Sabha passed the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, by voice vote.
- The Bill's primary objective is to decriminalize minor offences and promote ease of doing business and living.
- It proposes amendments to 784 provisions across 79 Central Acts administered by 23 Ministries.
The article discusses the Supreme Court's reaction to a Class eight textbook's portrayal of the judiciary, leading to its shelving and a new committee formation. It delves into the concept of criminal contempt, emphasizing it should not be invoked for individual ego but to protect the court's authority from hostile criticism that shakes public confidence. The author highlights that the judiciary's real power stems from public faith, earned through upholding law and justice. While acknowledging the need for a line to be drawn against reckless or ill-motivated criticism, the piece strongly advocates for academic freedom and free speech, citing historical judicial pronouncements that welcome fair criticism as a means of vindication and improvement.
- The Supreme Court reacted to a Class eight textbook's content regarding the judiciary, leading to its withdrawal and a new committee.
- Criminal contempt is defined as obstructing justice or scandalizing the court, not merely offending a judge's ego.
- The judiciary's true power relies on public faith and trust, garnered through its actions in upholding law and justice.
The Supreme Court, in the Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026) case, reaffirmed the right to die with dignity under Article 21, allowing withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) for the first time. This builds on previous rulings like Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) and Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), which recognized passive euthanasia and advance medical directives. The court streamlined the process by removing the requirement for multiple medical boards and mandatory immediate judicial oversight, emphasizing patient autonomy. While promoting dignity and relief from suffering, the decision raises concerns about potential misuse, ethical conflicts, and social inequality, particularly for vulnerable populations who might face coercion due to financial or social pressures.
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- For the first time, the court allowed the withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) in the Harish Rana case.
- The revised guidelines streamline passive euthanasia by removing multiple medical boards and mandatory judicial oversight, emphasizing patient autonomy.
The Union government is planning to amend the IT Rules, 2021, to empower the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) to issue takedown notices directly to individual social media users for their posts. Currently, such notices can only be issued to online news platforms. These proposed amendments, described as "clarificatory and procedural" by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, aim to strengthen oversight of intermediary-hosted content. However, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) criticizes this as a "massive expansion of unconstitutional censorship," arguing it sidesteps High Court orders and reconstructs oversight mechanisms deemed constitutionally suspect. The changes also affect social media platforms' "safe harbour" protection if they fail to comply with takedown notices.
- The Union government plans to amend IT Rules, 2021, to allow the I&B Ministry to issue takedown notices directly to individual social media users.
- Currently, takedown notices under IT Rules, 2021, are limited to online news platforms.
- The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology claims these amendments are clarificatory and procedural, aiming to strengthen oversight.
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, passed by the State Legislature, aims to prohibit unlawful religious conversions through fraudulent means. It mandates a 60-day prior notice for conversion and a post-conversion declaration, with severe punishments including imprisonment up to 10 years and hefty fines for violations. The Bill allows relatives to file complaints and declares marriages solemnized solely for unlawful conversion as null and void. Civil society organizations and opposition leaders criticize the Bill as 'regressive,' infringing on personal liberty, enabling State interference in faith and marriage, and potentially targeting interfaith relationships, while the government defends it as necessary to address forcible conversions and maintain public order.
- The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, seeks to prevent unlawful religious conversions through fraudulent means.
- Key provisions include a mandatory 60-day prior notice for conversion, post-conversion declaration, and severe penalties for violations, including imprisonment and fines.
- The Bill allows relatives to file complaints and declares marriages for unlawful conversion null and void, with provisions for child custody and maintenance.
The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, introduced on March 25, 2026, seeks to regulate the deputation of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to CAPFs. It mandates that 50% of Inspector General posts, 67% of Additional Director General posts, and all Special Director General and Director General posts in CAPFs be filled by IPS officers. This Bill aims to institutionalize IPS representation and counter a Supreme Court ruling (May 2025) that directed a progressive reduction of deputation posts up to Inspector General rank. The author, R.K. Vij, argues that IPS officers serve as a vital unifying link between the Union and States.
- The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, mandates specific percentages of senior posts in CAPFs to be filled by IPS officers on deputation.
- The Bill aims to institutionalize the historical role of IPS officers in CAPFs, countering a Supreme Court ruling that sought to reduce deputation posts.
- IPS officers are considered crucial for coordination with State governments and police forces, acting as a unifying link between the Union and States.
The article, an analysis by Jean Drèze, argues that the new Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Act, 2025, fails to correct serious anomalies in MGNREGA wage rate determination. It highlights how MGNREGA wages have lagged behind minimum and market wages due to a real-wage freeze imposed by the central government since 2009. This has led to a "discouragement effect" and increased corruption. The new Act perpetuates this crisis by retaining central government power to set wages (Section 10) and dropping the provision for State-specific minimum wages (Section 6(2)), despite wage costs now being shared 60:40 with States.
- The VB-G RAM G Act, 2025, is criticized for not addressing the long-standing issue of MGNREGA wage rates lagging behind minimum and market wages.
- A central government real-wage freeze since 2009, based on the Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labourers, has led to MGNREGA wages being lower than State minimum wages.
- The new Act retains the central government's power to determine wage rates (Section 10) and removes the provision for State-specific minimum wages (Section 6(2)), despite shared wage costs.